Skip to main content
Normal View

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate -
Thursday, 29 Mar 2018

Vote 33 - Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs

Ms Katherine Licken (Secretary General, Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht) called and examined.

We are here today to deal with chapter 15 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report 2016, which deals with the grant funding of Galway's art house cinema. Although approval for this facility with financial assistance of €8.4 million was obtained in 2007, the cinema opened only in February of last year. We will also be examining the Appropriation Account 2016, Vote 33: Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs.

We are joined today by officials from the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, specifically Ms Katherine Licken, Secretary General; Mr. Feargal O’Coigligh, assistant secretary; Mr. Aodhán Mac Cormaic, director of Irish; Mr. Joe Healy, principal officer; Mr. Terry Allen, principal officer; Mr. Brian Lucas, principal officer; Ms Sharon Barry, assistant principal officer; Mr. John Knightly, assistant principal officer; and Ms Áine Keane, accountant. I welcome all the witnesses. I believe this is Ms Licken's first appearance before the Committee of Public Accounts, and I wish her good luck with that.

We are also joined by officials from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. I welcome Mr. Brian O'Malley, principal officer, and Ms Patricia Balantine, assistant principal.

I remind members, witnesses and those in the Gallery that all mobile telephones must be switched off or placed in aeroplane mode as they can interfere with the recording of proceedings.

I advise witnesses that by virtue of section 17(2)(I) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter to only a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Members are reminded of the provisions within Standing Order 186 that the committee shall also refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or a Minister of the Government or the merits of the objectives of such policies.

I call on the Comptroller and Auditor General to make an opening statement.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Go raibh maith agat a Chathaoirleach. Ar dtús ba mhaith liom a chur in iúl don choiste go bhfuil leagan Gaeilge den cúntas leithreasú, agus den chaibidil le fáil, má tá suim ag éinne iontu.

The Appropriation Account for Vote 33 - Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, reported gross expenditure of €368 million in 2016. This was distributed across five expenditure programmes, as indicated in the figure on screen. The largest programme was in relation to arts, culture and film, accounting for expenditure of just under €174 million or 47% of the total for the year. This included grants of €60 million to the Arts Council and €15.6 million to the Irish Film Board. Funding of almost €42 million was provided towards the general expenses of State museums and art galleries, with €21 million spent on cultural activities, including funding of €5.5 million provided to Culture Ireland. A total of €28.4 million was spent in 2016 on the programme for the Decade of Centenaries 1912 – 1922.

Chaith an Roinn €53.3 milliún ar a clár ar son na Gaeilge, na Gaeltachta agus na nOileán. Bhí san áireamh sa mhéid sin nach mór €21 milliún de mhaoiniú d’Údarás na Gaeltachta agus €13.3 milliún a caitheadh ar sheirbhísí do phobail oileáin. Caitheadh €13.5 milliún ar scéimeanna tacaíochta don Ghaeltacht agus don Ghaeilge, lena n-áirítear €639,000 d’Oifig an Choimisinéara Teanga. Caitheadh €1.9 milliún ar fhorbairt Theach an Phiarsaigh, rud a rinneadh mar chuid den tionscadal ‘deich mbliana na gcuimhneachán’.

Expenditure of €48 million under the Heritage programme included €17 million in support for natural heritage through the National Parks and Wildlife Service, grants to the Heritage Council of €5.2 million and support for built heritage totalling €4.5 million.

Under the Vote's North-South co-operation programme, the Department supports two cross-Border implementation bodies established under the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Waterways Ireland received €26.6 million from Vote 33, while the Language Body received €13.2 million. I audit these and five other cross-Border bodies jointly with my counterpart in Northern Ireland.

The final programme funded under Vote 33 in 2016 related to regional development and rural affairs. Responsibility for the programme transferred into Vote 33 as part of the restructuring of portfolios following Government formation in June 2016. Under a further reconfiguration in July 2017, responsibility for regional development and rural affairs transferred again to the newly formed Department of Rural and Community Affairs. Vote 33 was then renamed "culture, heritage and the Gaeltacht".

While responsibility for the programme was transferred into the Vote only at mid-year, the account presents the full-year Estimate and outturn for the programme in line with transfer of responsibility rules. As shown in the account, expenditure under the rural development programme in 2016 amounted to €51.7 million. The largest elements of expenditure were just under €25 million spent on national rural development schemes, €10 million spent on the Leader rural economy programme and €9.9 million spent on town and village regeneration. For comparison purposes, note 6.7 showing the change from year to year has been provided. It is not on the face of the appropriation accounts. I have also provided a diagram for members, which aims to summarise the public bodies within the Department's aegis. Members should note that the Western Development Commission has been under the aegis of the Department of Rural and Community Development since 2017.

I have given a clear audit opinion on the appropriation account. However, I draw attention in the audit report to non-compliant procurement disclosed by the Accounting Officer in the statement on internal financial control and to chapters 7 and 15 of my report on the accounts of the public services for 2016. Chapter 7 refers to the dormant account fund which was examined by the committee on 8 February. As noted then, oversight of that fund is now the responsibility of the Department of Rural and Community Development.

Turning now to the chapter, the report before the committee this morning concerns the administration and management of the provision of €8.4 million in public funds over many years to assist in the development of an art house cinema in Galway city. The largest funding contributions came from the Department, with a final contribution of €3.5 million, while Galway City Council contributed €2.4 million and the Irish Film Board contributed €1.1 million.

In 2006, the Department launched the second arts and culture capital enhancement support scheme, which is generally referred to as ACCESS II. The aim of the scheme was to provide cultural and arts organisations with funding to build new cultural infrastructure and develop existing facilities. A private company called Solas/Galway Picture Palace Teoranta applied for funding in 2006 under the ACCESS II scheme to establish a specialist art house cinema in Galway city. By May 2007, the total committed or projected public investment for the project amounted to €6.3 million, including a €2 million ACCESS ll grant. In 2008, Galway City Council purchased a site for just under €2 million and made it available to Solas under a 99 year lease. Solas applied for and received planning permission for a 360 seat cinema complex, which represented a 30% increase in capacity relative to the original proposal.

In July 2009, following a tender competition, Solas awarded a contract for the construction of the cinema and the project commenced in the months that followed. The project experienced significant difficulties and by June 2010, it became evident that an adjoining property was physically at risk and the work was stopped. Following negotiations, Solas agreed to demolish and rebuild the adjoining property in October 2010. In March 2011, the Department received notification from Solas that the building contractor was terminating the contract, citing poor ground conditions and design inadequacies.

A second construction contract was awarded by Solas in March 2012 for the remaining works. The Department stated this was done without its knowledge or consent. The first phase of the works covered by the second contract finished in early 2014. No further construction or fit-out followed until, in July 2016, agreement was reached for a private investor to be granted a 30 year lease to manage and operate the cinema in return for a contribution of funds. In July 2017, Solas entered liquidation. I understand the cinema has been recently completed and has now commenced operations, albeit some nine years later than originally planned.

While the project was developed by a private entity with grant and other funding assistance from public funds, in practice, the State bore the project and financial risks. There was no overall oversight arrangement in place for this project at the outset, despite the planned involvement of a variety of public agencies in funding it. When Solas ran into difficulties, Galway City Council stepped in to take over responsibility for the project and charges on the property were registered to safeguard the State's interests. I thank the Acting Chairman.

We should give the Comptroller and Auditor General a gold star for his use of Connemara Irish. Well done on that. I invite Ms Licken to make her opening statement.

Ms Katherine Licken

Go raibh míle maith agat. Déanfaidh mé mo dhícheall le mo chuid Gaeilge Chonamara freisin. Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil libh as an deis a thabhairt dom an ráiteas seo a dhéanamh inniu. Gabhaim buíochas freisin le hOifig an Ard-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste as an mbealach proifisiúnta a rinne a cuid oifigeach an obair a bhí riachtanach i ndáil leis an gcuntas sin. I am very pleased to have this opportunity to address the committee at what I believe is a very significant period in time for the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

The recently announced Project Ireland 2040 sets out a roadmap for delivering on key strategic outcomes for the country, including strengthening rural economies and communities, and enhancing amenity and heritage in both urban and rural settings. The Department will play a critical role in delivering on these strategic outcomes.

As part of Project Ireland 2040, the National Development Plan provides for significant and much-needed investment in our cultural infrastructure throughout the country making sure that opportunities to participate in arts and culture are available wherever one lives, not just in the cities. It is also clear on our responsibility to protect our built and natural heritage and to enhance our visitor facilities so that more people from Ireland and abroad can experience our unique heritage tourism assets.

The sectors the Department represents are diverse and far reaching, and it is vital that we ensure the investment will be spread across all three of the Department’s divisions - culture, heritage and Gaeltacht - so that all of the Department’s stakeholders will see investment in their area over the lifetime of the plan.

The significant scale of the investment proposed over the ten years – approximately €1.2 billion – means that it is critical that the Department develop the required capacity to deliver on the full extent of the proposed investment in the most efficient and cost-effective manner, delivering for our stakeholders across society while at the same time ensuring value for money for the Irish taxpayer. All of the proposed investment will be underpinned by robust evaluation and appraisal methodologies, complying with the public spending code and ensuring that all investments deliver demonstrable benefits to citizens, communities and businesses across Ireland.

As Accounting Officer for the Department, I am determined to learn from any issues that have arisen in the past with a view to ensuring this programme of investment and existing programmes of investment provide the optimum value for money to the benefit of all taxpayers and communities we serve. The Comptroller and Auditor General and this committee have an important role to play in identifying issues and in challenging and supporting the Department in addressing issues as they arise. This is in addition to the controls and processes that are already in place within the Department. We have worked very constructively in recent years with the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, seeking its advice and input where issues arise, and taking on board its recommendations for improvements in how we govern expenditure and the management of risk within the Department.

With regard to my appearance here today, the briefing note provided to the committee outlines: the key achievements of the Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs in 2016 by programme area; and the programme priorities of the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht for 2017-18 and the future. The briefing note also provides some detail on the Galway art house cinema project which is the subject of Chapter 15 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General for 2016 and which opened to the public last week.

The committee will be aware that in June 2016, as part of the restructuring of Departments announced by the Taoiseach, a new Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs was established. It essentially brought together all of the functions from the then Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, together with regional development and rural related functions from the then Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, and the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.

Responsibility for the regional and rural affairs functions, along with certain community functions that were previously dealt with by the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government, formally transferred to the new Department of Rural and Community Development with effect from 27 July 2017. The Department was renamed the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht with effect from 1 August 2017.

The year 2016 was a very significant one for the Department as we celebrated the centenary of the Easter Rising of 1916. The Ireland 2016 Centenary Programme was a whole-of-Government initiative, led by the then Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs to provide the nation with the opportunity to remember and reflect on this pivotal event in our history.

There was an extensive and diverse programme of State ceremonial and public events. An array of community-led projects was delivered throughout the country in conjunction with local authorities. An extensive education programme was delivered across all levels, and a number of significant capital projects were completed under the permanent reminders component of the programme, including the GPO Witness History Centre, Richmond Barracks, the Kevin Barry rooms at the National Concert Hall and Ionad Cultúrtha an Phiarsaigh in Rosmuc.

As the Irish language was central to the 1916 ideal of an independent sovereign Ireland, the language was interwoven throughout the programme of events, while a distinctive range of events and activities through Irish was delivered as part of An Teanga Bheo – the living language strand of the programme. The entire programme was underpinned by five intersecting and overlapping themes: remembering, reconciling, presenting, imagining and celebrating.

The response to the programme was a year of extraordinary participation, by all walks of life, across all of the components, ranging from concerts and exhibitions at our national cultural institutions, to schools’ activities, flag-raising ceremonies, events to remember the role of women in 1916 and, indeed, to remember the children who lost their lives during the Rising and a whole range of other shared community, historical and cultural events. This remarkable level of participation was in many ways epitomised by the crowds of more than one million people on the streets of Dublin on Easter weekend 2016.

In December 2016 Creative Ireland was launched as the Government’s legacy programme from the Ireland 2016 initiative and as the main implementation vehicle for the ambition set out in Culture 2025 - Éire Ildánach, Ireland’s first national cultural policy developed on foot of an extensive consultation process with stakeholders throughout the country.

The Department’s proposed programme of investment under Project Ireland 2040 prioritises strategic and sustainable projects that demonstrate clear public benefits as committed to under the Clár Éire Ildánach, the Creative Ireland programme, and goes beyond this to deliver much-needed investment in our national parks, monuments, built and natural heritage, language and islands.

Ensuring that we take the lessons from the past as we move towards a 10 year investment programme in culture and heritage is critically important and I therefore welcome the findings of the Comptroller and Auditor General as outlined in Chapter 15 of the 2016 report. That chapter examined the administration and management of the Galway art house cinema project, including funding and payments made by the Department and other public bodies related to the new cinema. There were two recommendations made by the Comptroller and Auditor General on foot of this detailed examination, both of which I have accepted in full in my capacity as Accounting Officer for the Department.

The first recommendation was that the Department should review its approach to the projects that are being grant aided, in particular where the key project risks are carried by the State. Where projects do not progress as expected or serious shortcomings are identified with the project sponsor, early action needs to be taken, including formal reviews of the project viability, in line with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform’s public spending code requirements.

I can assure the committee that the Department is fully committed to ensuring that all projects are effectively managed in accordance with the public spending code and relevant grant circulars. Measures are in place to ensure that staff are appropriately trained and supported in the appraisal and oversight of grant-aided projects as part of the Department’s annual quality assurance process, and the Department held a number of training sessions around the appraisal and management of capital projects in 2016 and, as promised to the Comptroller and Auditor General, in 2017, and as recently as March 2018.

The second recommendation of the Comptroller and Auditor General was that particular care should be exercised by lead funders to ensure adequate formal oversight mechanisms are in place and operated where a variety of funding agencies are involved.

Once again, I reiterate my commitment as Accounting Officer to ensure that all projects are managed in accordance with the provisions of the public spending code and relevant circulars. The training provided to staff in the past two years has emphasised the importance of the early establishment of performance metrics to be used as a signal for action during the implementation phase, the need for regular management reports to be provided and reviewed, and how best to deal with project challenges.

In addition, I wish to advise the committee that the Department is participating in an organisational capability review, to be conducted by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform later this year. The purpose of these reviews, which are being rolled out across all Departments under the Civil Service renewal programme, are to embed a culture of regular and objective assessments of the capacity and capability of the Department to achieve its objectives. While only a small number of Departments or agencies have been reviewed to date, I had actively sought to have an early review of this Department, and I believe this will prepare us well to deal with the challenges that lie ahead as we move towards implementation of a ten-year capital investment programme.

I am establishing an advisory group within the Department to contribute to both the preparatory work and the delivery phases of the review, which is due to commence in the second half of 2018, and will ensure that the findings of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Committee of Public Accounts will be taken into account in the review process. I am confident that this review will facilitate the Department in building the required capacity for the effective evaluation, appraisal and management of capital projects. It will identify the skills, structures, processes and personnel needed on top of what we already have, and determine whether such structures need to be put in place to deliver effectively for all our stakeholders, which include the taxpayer. I am happy to expand on any of these areas, or explore any other areas as the committee wishes.

I thank the witness for that comprehensive opening statement. I remind witnesses that they could be asked to remain here until the afternoon, but we hope to complete the hearing before lunch if we can. There will be votes in the Dáil at about 12.50 p.m. Several speakers have already indicated, so I want to be fair to everybody and give them the time they are due. The list of speakers I have includes Deputy Connolly, who will have 20 minutes, Deputy MacSharry, who will have 15 minutes, and Deputies Jonathan O'Brien, Catherine Murphy and Aylward, who will have ten minutes each.

Cuirim fáilte roimh na finnéithe, go háirithe Katherine Licken Uasal. Go n-éirí léi ina post nua. Ní post nua atá ann anois, tá sí ann le cúpla mí anois.

Ms Katherine Licken

Táim sa phost le bliain anuas.

Gabhaim míle buíochas as ucht na gcáipéisí uilig a bheith ar fáil i nGaeilge. Is é an chéad uair a bhfuair mé cáipéisí i nGaeilge d'aon choiste. Tá siad léite agam. Gabhaim míle buíochas leis na finnéithe as sin. Tá a fhios agam go raibh an t-uafás oibre i gceist chun an méid sin a chur os ár gcomhair. Sin deireadh le na niceties. Tá cúpla ceist crua le cur agam. Bhí mé tógtha leis an méid imeachtaí atá faoin Roinn. Tá réimse leathan de thograí íontacha ann. Téann siad ó Údarás na Gaeltachta go dtí cúrsaí cultúir. Ba mhaith liom obair as lámh a chéile ach, ag an bpointe seo, tá ceisteanna le cur. Tosóidh mé le Solas - tógra gan solas maidir leis an gcúlra faraor géar. Is as Gaillimh mé féin agus táim taobh thiar de fhoirgnimh phoiblí, ach ní foirgneamh poiblí é seo anois. Is foirgneamh príobháideach é. Sin an fhadhb. Ní féidir smaoineamh ar aon ainm atá chomh mí-fheiliúnach ná Solas i gcomhthéacs an méid atá tarlaithe. I cannot think of a more inappropriate name in light of the history of this. I have to declare that I was on the council for a period of time and this is a difficult topic. Despite the word "Solas", there was an absence of light in the way this was handled. I will ask a few quick questions on it. As a councillor, I, along with a number of other councillors, struggled to ask questions about this. I will be coming back to this later in regard to Foras na Gaeilge and other projects. This is a small country, with small cities. Very often asking questions is not rewarded, which is what we have seen here at the Committee of Public Accounts. However, it is extremely important to ask questions.

In regard to art, which I will come back to, there is a perception that one is a philistine if one questions it. As somebody who has promoted the arts at all levels in my different roles, let me get that perception out of the way. The auditor of Solas finally gave up the ghost in 2016 or 2017, did he not?

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes.

Let me be clear. According to a note from the Comptroller and Auditor General, the auditor of Solas resigned in October 2016 due to concerns regarding corporate governance, and in the following year, 2017, Solas went into liquidation, although I was gone at that point. Does Ms Licken know now why the auditor left?

Ms Katherine Licken

No. At that point, we no longer had a relationship with Solas. Our relationship was with Element Pictures at that point.

We will stick with this for a minute. The witness will excuse me if I am a bit direct. I am impressed by Ms Licken's statement and her open declaration that the Department will learn from mistakes. I realise the witness has inherited this issue, and she has taken the two very serious recommendations on board. What has the Department learned from the auditor leaving? Has anybody followed up on that?

Ms Katherine Licken

I suppose there are learnings from the whole project.

No. The auditor finally left. Has anybody in Ms Licken's Department followed up on that in order to learn from it, or to find out about the nature of his concerns?

Ms Katherine Licken

We have not, but I understand that the Charities Regulator is carrying out an investigation of Solas. We have not-----

Can witness clarify the investigation by the Charities Regulator?

Ms Katherine Licken

The Charities Regulator launched an investigation into the operation of Solas in 2017. Its final report has not been concluded, as far as we are aware.

When will the Charities Regulator conclude that? Has the Department been in contact with it?

Ms Katherine Licken

We have, and we have co-operated fully with it. Absolutely.

When will that report be ready?

Ms Katherine Licken

I do not know but I assume it was mid-2017-----

Does the witness know what started the Charities Regulator's investigation?

Ms Katherine Licken

I assume it was prompted by the fact that Solas went into liquidation, its auditor had resigned and it was a public project.

I think one of the reasons for the investigation was that this was supposed to be a public project, but what it became was very much a private project. The Department has not carried out any investigation into why the auditor left, is that correct? It is relying on the Charities Regulator?

Ms Katherine Licken

We will await the outcome of the Charity Regulator's report and see where to take it from there.

Let us go back over this and the overview from the Department. Councillors meet every two weeks. These are not quick meetings as there are lots of items on the agenda. They repeatedly asked for presentations from Solas. The report before us lays the responsibility, in so far as it comes under the Comptroller and Auditor General's determination, on Ms Licken's Department. I believe there are also questions in regard to management but for today the questions are for Ms Licken's Department. There was absolutely no supervision of this project.

Ms Katherine Licken

I think there was supervision-----

Was the Department aware of the trading losses that Solas had between 2011 and 2014? This project was approved back in 2006 or 2007 by an independent assessment, was it not? There was a former county manager on the assessment board, as well as a former architect and somebody from the Arts Council. They assessed this project and gave it the thumbs up. Councillors and local management had nothing to do with that. It was going to be funded under ACCESS II. Three experienced people gave this project the thumbs up, and it commenced. It was supposed to be completed in two years, was it not? Looking back, site investigations took place that do not appear to have been comprehensive. Is that right?

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes.

The Department does not seem to have been aware of the site investigations either.

Ms Katherine Licken

We were aware.

Of which ones was the Department aware?

Ms Katherine Licken

I think we were aware of all of them. The two surveys carried out were an engineering site investigation and an architect's survey.

What was carried out?

Ms Katherine Licken

There was an engineering survey and an archaeological survey. Moreover, the Department had an architect to provide consultation.

When did that happen?

Ms Katherine Licken

It happened in the very early stages of the project. Our own architect reviewed those surveys and considered that they were appropriate.

What did the Department's survey find?

Ms Katherine Licken

We did not carry out the survey. The survey was carried out by Solas. Our architect then considered the report of that survey and found that it was adequate.

I remind Ms Licken that she can allow any of her colleagues to respond. If they have more detail, they are free to respond themselves.

Ms Katherine Licken

I thank the Acting Chairman.

Is Solas a private company or a semi-State company?

Is it totally private?

Could Mr McCarthy clarify that?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It is a registered private company, not a State agency.

Any of the witnesses are free to speak if they have more detail. They are free to answer any question.

Solas has gone into liquidation, and Element Pictures, which is a private entity, has taken over. Element Pictures runs the Lighthouse Cinema in Dublin. It has a lease on it for 30 years, at which point it should revert to the city council.

The city council has a charge on the property.

Ms Katherine Licken

The Department has a charge on the property too.

If we go back to the original business case, have the witnesses read the Comptroller and Auditor General's chapter?

Ms Katherine Licken

We have, many times.

He has raised many questions about that, going back to the very basic business case of how many would attend, the sensitivities around that and doing a sensitivity analysis about how many would actually attend. It was supposed to be making money after a few years. Have the witnesses looked at all that?

Ms Katherine Licken

Absolutely.

Will the witnesses talk me through what they have learned from it and how it happened?

Ms Katherine Licken

In terms of the attendance numbers-----

No, in terms of what happened. This went on from 2006 to 2018. The site is still not fully open in 2018. Serious questions have been raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General. He makes two recommendations and he highlights a number of "inadequacies", let us put it like that, in moderate language. Terms like "Rocky Horror Picture Show" were used in my time on the council. Will the witnesses address it with regard to the inadequacies raised by him relating to absence of supervision over a long time? For example, when this went out for second tender, the Department was unaware of it.

Ms Katherine Licken

That is true. I would not say there was a total absence of supervision. It was a very difficult project for all concerned. The Department, with Galway City Council, intervened at critical moments in the project. When Solas went out to contract without consulting with the Department, we refused to make any more payments to it until it came back with the business plan that involved bringing in private sector funding, which it subsequently did. Our own architect identified that project management was an issue with Solas. The Irish Film Board offered a project manager to Solas but it did not take up that offer. At various checkpoints, there were detailed submissions in the Department. We considered everything including stopping the project. We liaise very closely with Galway City Council and I acknowledge the work of the council. It works very closely with us. We agreed that Galway City Council would take over the project management.

It took quite some time for the council to take it over and it emerged during "Prime Time" programme that the council could not even go into the building, which I was unaware of, after it said it would take it over. In the majority of councillors said "okay", except one courageous person, and it was not me, because there was a hole in the ground and the manager said he would take a hands-on approach. It emerged during the "Prime Time" programme that the manager could not even enter the building a year after he had told the council that. Is that right?

Ms Katherine Licken

I am not aware of that. Will Mr. Ó Coigligh confirm it?

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

Galway City Council put a project manager in place, which was the basis on which the Minister then agreed to provide funding, but it is safe to say that the relationship with Solas and the operation of that project manager with Solas was not effective and did not resolve the problems.

I might leave it to my colleagues to ask more questions on this. For me, it is an example of utter failure of management. What started out as a wonderful idea led to €4 million becoming €6 million, or €6 million becoming €8 million. I cannot actually remember.

Ms Katherine Licken

It depends if one takes in the cost of the building or not.

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

And the site.

Ms Katherine Licken

The site, yes.

We have a site in Galway that remains underwater. A site investigation was carried out twice that seemed not to recognise that it was granite and that there was flood potential that endangered the house beside it, which had to be knocked down and rebuilt. A road was taken out of action for a very long time. I cannot think of anything more extraordinary than what has happened. What have the witnesses learned? They say they will take on board the two recommendations, that where problems emerge, they will be in like a shot to do a risk analysis, and they will monitor matters much more clearly.

Let me move forward and I will look at Foras na Gaeilge. Let me put my hands up. I am absolutely tiománta don Ghaeilge, do Raidío na Life, do Foras na Gaeilge agus na rudaí atá ar siúl acu, ach tá ceisteanna agam le cur maidir le cúrsaí cíosa, agus an foirgneamh nua. Foras na Gaeilge has moved and as chair of the Irish committee, I had concerns at the time, as I do generally, about renting buildings rather than owning them. I think it is a very bad policy that we are renting and I hope we come back to that. With regard to Foras na Gaeilge, will the witnesses give me an outline of what it was paying in the two buildings where it was and what it is paying now? More importantly, what oversight do the witnesses have of that project? Where in the accounts is the rent paid by Foras na Gaeilge and what is the difference?

Ms Katherine Licken

The background to the Foras na Gaeilge move-----

No, where do I find the rent in the Appropriation Accounts for 2016?

Ms Katherine Licken

The overall-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It will not be there as a separate item. There is block funding, as I understand it, provided to Foras na Gaeilge and out of that, it makes its own decisions. Its accounts are audited by me in conjunction with my Northern colleague and they are available to be scrutinised by the committee too.

Very good. Does Mr. McCarthy audit that separately?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It is audited separately, yes.

With regard to that, Foras na Gaeilge was, unfortunately, a name that came up this morning as a body that had not replied following the letters that went out in December. The Chair of this committee wrote to all public bodies in December. Some 75% of the bodies wrote back and acknowledged the letter. I am afraid Foras na Gaeilge was one that jumped out in that it had not acknowledged the letter. We are simply looking for an acknowledgement. We were writing out with regard to delayed accounts. It was not just Foras na Gaeilge. Some 25%, including Foras na Gaeilge, did not even respond and still have not responded three months later. I do not see the rent that it was paying.

Ms Katherine Licken

I am happy to follow up on that point with Foras na Gaeilge. The rent that it was paying was €472,500 per annum. The new rent is €593,000 per annum but within that €593,000 is a period of 15 years where we are rolling in some of the fit-out cost into the annual rent as opposed to paying it upfront. The old lease came to an end in 2017. There were two properties, one on Merrion Square and one on Frederick Street, both coming up for renewal at the same time. In view of the pressing accommodation requirements, Foras na Gaeilge submitted a comprehensive business case to the two sponsor Departments in August 2016 with regard to a proposal to move to the new headquarters on Amiens Street.

What was the overall cost at that point?

Ms Katherine Licken

Some €500,000.

What was that €500,000 for?

Ms Katherine Licken

It was back in 2016. Mr. Mac Cormaic might address it.

Mr. Aodhán Mac Cormaic

The overall cost of-----

The overall cost of two things. What was the proposed rent and what was the overall cost of moving from the premises?

Mr. Aodhán Mac Cormaic

The relocation costs, first of all, caithfimid a rá nach raibh aon rogha ag an bhForas ach imeacht a Theachta.

Níl mé ag iarraidh am a chur amú. Gabh mo leithscéal, níl an locht ar an bhForas, ach tá mise faoi bhrú ama, agus an t-aon rud atá ag teastáil uaimse ná freagraí maidir le ceisteanna díreacha. Tá an cúlra agam. Cad iad na costais atá i gceist ó thaobh an bogadh de agus ó thaobh na cíosa de?

Mr. Aodhán Mac Cormaic

An costas atá ag an cíos faoi láthair ná €593,000 in aghaidh na bliana.

Tá sé sin ráite, is ea.

Mr. Aodhán Mac Cormaic

Tá cuid de sin, an bunchíos atá ann ná €530,000, ach tá airgead breis istigh ansin. Os cionn €60,000 le haghaidh oibreacha a d'iarr an Foras ar an tiarna talún a dhéanamh. Tá cuid de sin scartha thar an céad cúig bliana déag den léas.

Mr. Aodhán Mac Cormaic

Le haghaidh athbhreithniú ar an gcíos, úsáidtear an figiúir níos lú de €530,000.

To go back to my question, gabh mo leithscéal faoi a bheith ag dul ar ais arís. Tá na figiúirí sin uilig agam. Tá sé ráite ag Iníon Ní Licken anseo, €593,000, tá sé agam. Nuair a tháinig an plean gnó isteach, cad iad na costais a bhí i gceist, ó thaobh na cíosa de agus ó thaobh costas an athlonnaithe ag an bpointe sin i 2016?

Ms Katherine Licken

Níl na figiúirí agam anseo.

Mr. Aodhán Mac Cormaic

Níl siad againn anseo.

Ms Katherine Licken

I do not have the business case in front of me right now. Apologies.

I appreciate that. I am talking about 2017.

Ms Katherine Licken

Does the Deputy want the relocation costs?

Ms Katherine Licken

The final cost of the relocation was €412,365, comprising three separate corporate moves into the new building.

Furniture cost €173,220.

I have all that. When the business case for the move was made a figure was given. In response to a question I asked in September the total relocation costs were put at €412,365. Is é €412,365 an costas iomlán a eascraíonn as athlonnú Fhoras na Gaeilge go dtí ceanncheathrú nua ar Sráid Amiens. Níl mé ag iarraidh. I am not trying to catch anyone out. I am trying to highlight openness and accountability. Foras na Gaeilge made a business case to the Department in 2016. I asked a question in September last year and was told that the total cost of moving was €412,365. Foras na Gaeilge moved from Frederick Street and Merrion Square to Amiens Street, and there was an enormous jump in rent.

Ms Katherine Licken

There was.

There were also huge moving costs. The building Foras na Gaeilge moved into, costing enormous rent - some €593,000 - had cost the previous tenant just over €100,000 a year in rent. Is that correct?

Ms Katherine Licken

I believe so.

Mr. Aodhán Mac Cormaic

I do not believe the Deputy is comparing like with like. That needs an explanation. Considerable works were carried out.

I agree with the witness and I will let him give all those explanations, subject to the Acting Chairman. I want to establish facts here. Foras na Gaeilge moved from two buildings into a premises on Amiens Street. In addition Áisíneacht Dáileacháin Leabhar, ÁIS, moved to Dunshaughlin. Those movements involved cost. It moved into a premises where the previous tenant was paying just over €100,000, and it is paying €593,000. I want to establish the facts. There was a cost involved for ÁIS and Raidió Na Life moving. Was the Department aware of all this? The Department was monitoring this. Was it aware that the rent was €593,000? Did it give permission before any lease was signed? Was it aware that there were two agreements involved, one for rent and one which tied the refurbishment costs into the rent, which seems very unusual? The figure of €593,000 was to be paid for the first 15 years and for the next 15 years €63,000 a year would be taken off that for refurbishment costs at four quarterly repayments. It seems an extraordinary way to do business.

I mention learnings from Solas, and we will come to what the Department's monitoring is in regard to the Irish Film Board and so on, but what is its monitoring structure? Who is in charge, who has monitored this move and who has looked at value for money?

I want to give the Deputy as much time as she needs, but in relation to the figures given to us by the Department, for clarity for myself and members of the committee, the cost of moving was just over €412,000 but the lease had a rolling fit-out cost as well. Is that separate from the €412,000?

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes.

We are dealing with two separate figures. The witnesses should take as much time as they need to answer. It will not come from the Deputy's time. If context is required, the witnesses should feel free to give it.

Ms Katherine Licken

The building which housed the previous tenant and which now houses Foras na Gaeilge is a building I have passed every day going into work for the past 20 years. It was a 1980s vintage building and was considerably dilapidated in my view. We benchmark against what the rents on the market are now and not what the previous rents under an old lease arrangement were. If one looks at the current market rates per square foot, Foras na Gaeilge is paying €593,000 per annum, but Merrion Square now could expect to achieve a rent of around €800,000 per annum. A grade A city centre building could expect to achieve €1.3 million per annum. We are at the mercy of the market when we are looking for accommodation, so we cannot look at historical rent rolls.

I want explanations for this. I came from this as a person ar an gcoiste, a bhí buartha faoi costais maidir le cíos. An smaoineamh agus an coincheap atá agamsa ná go mbeadh sé i bhfad níos éifeachtaí morgáiste a bheith ag an bhForas. I believe Foras na Gaeilge should have a mortgage on the building, which is what lead me to look at this in the first place. I am asking very specific questions. What monitoring was in place? What was the business case put forward? When did the Department become aware that there were two agreements? When did it become aware that in addition to the moving costs there were other costs for the refurbishment of the building tied into the rent? Can the witness comment on that for me? I will not interrupt.

Mr. Aodhán Mac Cormaic

The purchasing or leasing of a building is not within the Department's gift. The Office of Public Works, OPW, manages that on behalf of the State.

Did the Department approach the OPW to buy a building?

Mr. Aodhán Mac Cormaic

The OPW was approached by Foras na Gaeilge to see whether it could get alternative accommodation given that the lease on the building in Merrion Square was due to expire. The building in Merrion Square was not fit for the needs of a modern enterprise.

Gabh mo leithscéal now. Ba mhaith liom freagraí a fháil maidir le na ceisteanna. Ní chuirfidh mé isteach ar an bhfinné. Tá an cúlra agam maidir leis an droch-fhoirgneamh, nach raibh sé feiliúnach, ach na ceisteanna atá curtha agam

Mr. Aodhán Mac Cormaic

An céad rud, ná an comparáid atá an Teachta Connolly ag déanamh idir an €100,000 a bhí mar cíos ar an bhfoirgneamh roimhe sin-----

Dúirt Iníon Ní Licken é sin liom.

Mr. Aodhán Mac Cormaic

-----rinneadh go leor oibreacha air. Déantar go leor oibreacha sular moveálann aon duine isteach i bhfoirgneamh nua mar seo. Déanann an tiarna talún oibreacha. Déanann sé core works, mar a thugtar orthu. Is sin a bhaineann leis na ballaí taobh istigh den bhfoirgneamh, le rudaí ar nós síleáilacha agus rudaí mar sin. Íocann an tiarna talún as na hoibreacha sin. Ansin déantar oibreacha eile. Athchóiriú a dhéanann an tiarna talún ar úrláir agus sileáil. Ta cúpla catagóir ansin de oibreacha a dhéanann an tiarna talún as a stuaim féin agus íocann sé as na costasaí. Cuireann sé sin le costas cíosa. An difríocht idir an €100,000 atá an Teachta Connolly ag caint faoi, agus an figiúir a thagann siad ar ag an deireadh.

Tuigim é sin, an ceist ná, what monitoring was in place? What was the oversight process the Department had in place in terms of this building? When did the Department become aware there were two agreements? When did it become aware that one agreement was for rent and one tied the refurbishment costs into the rent? I heard the Department say that it wants to learn. Creidim go láidir i gcúrsaí Gaeilge agus í a chur chun cinn.

Was the Department aware from day one that this was happening or when did it become aware? Does it represent value for money? Was a tender process instigated? Is part of the building still empty? Where is the business case? Where is the review

Mr. Aodhán Mac Cormaic

Ghlan an dá Roinn. Baineann sé seo leis an dá dlínse, an dlínse ó Thuaidh agus an dlínse ó Dheas

Mr. Aodhán Mac Cormaic

So cuireadh business case, cás gnó, os comhair an dá Roinn agus ghlan an dá Roinn an cás gnó ag an am.

Agus cad iad na costais a bhí istigh sa plean gnó sin?

Mr. Aodhán Mac Cormaic

Bheadh orm dul siar, níl an plean gnó agam os mo comhair, so bheadh orm na costais sin a fháil don Teachta Connolly.

An bhfuil an Foras sásta go bhfuil siad ar an eolas maidir le gach uile rud? An bhfuil an Foras sásta go bhfuil luach airgid i gceist? An raibh an Foras ar an eolas ón dtús? Was the Department there from the beginning? Was it aware of the process from the very beginning, having learned from what happened in Galway and in other situations? This issue will arise with the Irish Film Board and the other excellent bodies that we give money to. I am sure my colleagues will return to the issue of monitoring in a moment. In fact, the Irish Film Board gave money to Solas.

Mr. Aodhán Mac Cormaic

Tá córas monatóireacht againne. Casann an dá Roinn leis an bhForas agus leis an Ulster Scots Agency ceithre uair sa bhliain le dul tríd gach rud a bhíonn ar bun ann. Bímid ar an eolas faoi gach rud a bhíonn ar bun.

An raibh an Foras ar an eolas go raibh dhá agreements?

Mr. Aodhán Mac Cormaic

Caithfimid breathnú siar ar céard a bhí sa chás gnó. Táimid ag dul siar dhá bhliain. Céard a bhí sa chás gnó-----

Níl mé ag dul siar dhá bhliain------

Mr. Aodhán Mac Cormaic

Sorry bliain, os cionn bliain anois so-----

Is rud nua é seo.

Ms Katherine Licken

Rachaimid siar air.

Were the witnesses alerted to any alarm bells? If the witnesses have learned from the Solas Picture Palace, and I appreciate they are training staff and are moving forward, alarm bells should start to ring for everything then. Where is this money being used, how is it being used and how are we monitoring it?

Ms Katherine Licken

I do not have the business case in front of me, but certainly it would have come to us. We would have been looking at it in comparison with market rates and at whether it represented value for money in comparison to the market rates that were available in the city at the time? That was the judgment. I can come back to the Deputy on whether we actually had the detail of the two separate arrangements. I do not have it in front of me, unfortunately.

I really would appreciate it if the witnesses would come back to us, so that we can all learn. I would also like the Comptroller and Auditor General to look at this project to see if it is value for money in terms of rent. It is something the committee should be looking at, so we can learn from it. There is a huge danger that this is being repeated in many other areas that come under the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht's remit, and every other Department's remit. Tiocfaidh mé ar ais agus go raibh míle maith ag na finnéithe.

I welcome Ms Licken. I seem to remember her from another Department.

Ms Katherine Licken

That is right. It was long ago.

I would like to say well done and congratulations to her. I do not have the benefit of wonderful Irish, so I will have to converse in English. I have a number of questions. I am aware that some of these issues are inherited ones, as opposed to issues that have arisen on Ms Licken's watch. It is nothing personal.

I refer to assets that are State assets in museums. Is that the responsibility of the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht?

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes.

Do we value those? Do we have an indicative value of things that are in museums, or things that are not on display or are in storage? Do we have valuations on these things?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I could comment on that. There is a particular accounting treatment on heritage assets. The practice varies between the national cultural institutions, but generally values are not placed on the catalogue or the inventory of the museum, or of a gallery.

What percentage of the assets are in storage as opposed to on display in museums? Is there much stuff in storage?

Ms Katherine Licken

I certainly could not give the Deputy a percentage. The question would have to be put to the institutions themselves. The National Museum has a large store in Swords, where a huge amount of its collections are stored. For example, there are thousands of axeheads, so not all of them would be on display. They are there for storage and for research purposes and they are available to the National Museum. I can come back to the Deputy with the percentages.

I am just interested to know. The reason I am asking is that on page 28 it says-----

Ms Katherine Licken

I might add that the collections are rotated as well. They are not just stored there, away from the public eye forever.

I am on the wrong page. On page 25, there is mention an investigation by An Garda Síochána into the loss of a number of items held in private storage on behalf of the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes, Deputy, that is still the subject of an ongoing investigation by An Garda Síochána.

What is missing?

Ms Katherine Licken

Paintings from Killarney House. It is still under investigation.

How much are they worth?

Ms Katherine Licken

I do not have a valuation for them.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I refer to the control and management of movable heritage assets in the 2014 report. The contents of Killarney House were taken out of Killarney House while restoration was going on and they were put into storage. A number of the items went missing. The total value of the 39 items was €552,000 at the time.

Is that an indicative book value? Did we get Christie's or somebody to-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It was probably an older valuation.

So it is probably more.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

In current market terms, it would probably be a higher value.

Is it six years ago since this investigation-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The investigation commenced in 2012. It was discovered in 2012, but the losses may have occurred earlier than that.

There is an investigation ongoing since 2012, which is six years ago. We can reasonably assume that that is a conservative valuation because these things appreciate as opposed to depreciate. Maybe we could ask for an update from An Garda Síochána on that. Where is it at? Is the Garda at a dead end?

Ms Katherine Licken

It has recovered some of the paintings. They are not all still lost.

Were they stolen or misplaced?

Ms Katherine Licken

Stolen.

Were there prosecutions? Have the others been found or how many are still missing? What is going on there? It would be a matter of concern, particularly when the practice is that we possibly do not keep valuations of what we have in stock. It is something that jumped out at me.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

On the Deputy's question on what percentage of an inventory would be on display, it obviously varies but my recollection from looking at issues like this previously would be that about 10% to 15% would be on display, and that a very significant amount of the inventory is not on active display at any point in time.

That is arguably a poor use of our assets. In any event, I think there should be valuations of these things because they are taxpayers' property. Certainly if something has been stolen and the investigation has been going on for six years, then that is an issue.

Page 28 refers to State owned lands and buildings controlled or managed by the Department which do not have valuations. What is being referred to there?

Ms Katherine Licken

Ballycroy National Park, the Burren National Park, Connemara National Park, Glenveagh National Park in Donegal, Killarney National Park and the Wicklow Mountains.

Is it just those or are there buildings, museums and so on for which we would not have valuations? Is it just the parks?

Ms Katherine Licken

There would be buildings in the parks. The Department's property portfolio mainly comprises the national parks and buildings within those parks.

Again, I would suggest that there should be valuations. How is the State on the title to those parks?

Ms Katherine Licken

The Department has a property unit, which we established a number of years ago. We are currently strengthening that unit in order to look at title across all our lands because we have considerable land holdings.

There could be issues with squatter's rights if, over a period of time, a farmer moves the fence a little bit, or puts a few cattle in.

Ms Katherine Licken

Anyone who has property anywhere in Ireland would know that can be an issue. We have set up a property unit specifically dedicated to consolidating all our land holdings legally and having them properly marked and valued.

It would be helpful if the committee could get a note on that to say that this unit has been set up and that as things stand, there are or there are not concerns about title and there are or there are not concerns about squatter's rights. It may well be that if there is a substantial issue, more resources might be needed to deal with it. The Department's Vote is relatively small.

Ms Katherine Licken

That would be part of the capability review that the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform will be undertaking with us this year. We are hoping to identify where there are issues like that, that need resources put to them, or need structures changed so that we can address them. We are hoping that kind of structured review will throw that up, not that there are things we know already that we are addressing.

We would like a note on that because maybe this committee can help the Department to get more resources, if that is what it needs. Certainly, there would be a concern on the squatter's rights.

I refer to the Solas Picture Palace cinema. I know this was not on Ms Licken's watch. Who dreamed this up? Was it Department, Minister or Galway County Council driven?

Ms Katherine Licken

It was a scheme that we launched in 2006, called the ACCESS II scheme.

At that time, over a year we grant-aided 42 different projects, including the Solas Picture Palace. It was only one of 42 with a value of €90 million in total.

That is €90 million.

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes. All the other projects bar two were successfully delivered and came in within budget.

Okay, that is great. Well done.

Ms Katherine Licken

They include projects in Sligo.

We will be getting to Sligo in a moment. Was it Galway City Council that said a cinema should be built?

Ms Katherine Licken

This proposal came under the scheme. There was a report done by the Irish Film Board, the Arts Council and the Northern Ireland enterprise board in 2001 that recommended that Galway have an art house cinema. Notwithstanding all the difficulties that arose with this project and from which we are all bruised, nobody would doubt that it is a good project for Galway, especially with Galway 2020 coming up. The recommendation went back as far as 2001 that Galway was particularly suitable for an art house cinema, given the way Galway has evolved and its cultural reputation.

Sure. It is a UNESCO City of Film. There is no issue.

Ms Katherine Licken

It also has a university. This even predates its designation as a UNESCO City of Film.

I know it goes back to 2004.

Ms Katherine Licken

As it has a university, it was regarded as the prime spot for an art house cinema. Irish people go to the cinema more often than most Europeans.

What is the difference between an art house cinema and a regular cinema?

Ms Katherine Licken

An art house cinema probably shows films one would not necessarily get in a cinema in the suburbs, which would have mainstream films. The films are not always Hollywood blockbusters but art house fare.

That was the vision.

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes.

Is that vision playing out?

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes. The first three films are-----

I just had a quick look. They seem like blockbusters to me.

Ms Katherine Licken

In fairness, it does have some blockbusters.

It is showing "Mary Magdalene". I am sure the other cinemas in the town are delighted with that.

Ms Katherine Licken

Element Pictures runs the Lighthouse Cinema in Dublin and it has a range of films. From time to time, it shows mainstream films as well. It has made a huge success of the Lighthouse Cinema in Dublin. In 2010, when it took over the cinema, the Lighthouse Cinema had 100,000 visitors per annum and it now has 200,000 visitors per annum. Part of that offering amounts to some Hollywood movies but there is very much an emphasis on art house movies as well.

Is there a service level agreement with Element Pictures to insist on that?

Ms Katherine Licken

There is an agreement that it must operate as an art house cinema or else it reverts to the city council.

I will get back to the initial question. Who was the driver? Was it the council, the Irish Film Board, the Arts Council and the Northern Ireland enterprise board?

Ms Katherine Licken

Solas was the driver.

Solas is a private company.

Ms Katherine Licken

Solas is private and not for profit.

Okay. Are any of the people involved with Solas involved now?

Ms Katherine Licken

No.

Has there been a report from the investigation?

Ms Katherine Licken

No, not yet.

I am sure we will look at that when it comes along. Element Pictures is a for-profit company.

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes.

Okay. I presume it will focus its business on the bottom line as opposed to art house operations.

Ms Katherine Licken

It is a requirement that this operates as an art house cinema.

Is that defined? Does it say X number of certain types of film will be shown per year?

Ms Katherine Licken

It is defined but I do not know if X number of films is specified.

Is there a definition of what is termed "art house" and not with respect to film ratings, etc.?

Ms Katherine Licken

The matter is set out in the lease. I do not have that in front of me so we might come back to the Deputy.

I am glad the lease has been brought up.

Ms Katherine Licken

I do not think anybody would argue that it operates an art house cinema as a commercially successfully project in Smithfield in Dublin. We expect the same from the company in Galway.

Ms Katherine Licken

If we do not get the same type of art house cinema, there are measures in the lease-----

Ms Katherine Licken

-----to address it.

I am glad the lease was mentioned. This property is rent-free for 25 years.

Ms Katherine Licken

It is low rent. It is €1 per year for 25 years. When it was Solas as a not-for-profit organisation promoting and delivering this project, it had a 99-year lease. As part of the agreement to hand over the project to Element Pictures, it was reduced to a 30-year lease and after 25 years, it will revert to a commercial lease for the last five years. Again, we have a lien on the property and the ability to take over the project if it is not run as an art house cinema. The company has invested at least €1 million to date in getting the doors to open on the cinema.

Have we seen a breakdown of the €1 million that it spent?

Ms Katherine Licken

We have it but it is not the final figure yet.

The witnesses should send us that if possible just to show that it has spent €1 million. The company will also repay the Western Development Commission loan of €650,000.

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes.

That is grand. The contribution is €1 million plus the €650,000, along with €25 of rent over the next 25 years. If we break that down it is €66,000 per year. How much public money went into this project?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It is €8.4 million.

That is €8.4 million in public investment for a commercial entity to show a portion, at least, of art house movies with a nominal rent, if we use my figures, of €66,000 per year. The valuation for the lien that the Department and the council has, from my own knowledge of valuations and based on a rental income of €66,000, is €660,000. Who did the valuation?

Ms Katherine Licken

An auctioneering company did the valuation.

Yes. Is there a name?

Ms Katherine Licken

It was Rooney.

If it was for sale, it would not get anywhere near the valuation. That is if we look at it based on a rental income of €66,000. It would be ten times the rent; it is as simple as that. I cannot believe we put €8.4 million into a commercial entity with preferential rents and terms for 25 years. The witness mentioned Sligo. What projects got €8.4 million there?

Ms Katherine Licken

I can provide the list of Sligo projects if the Deputy so wishes.

I am pretty confident none got €8.4 million. I could ask why we did not pump 10% of €8.4 million, or €840,000, into an interpretive centre for the Spanish Armada at Grange, County Sligo, or a new Garter Lane theatre in Waterford, or whatever else in Kildare or Cork? I know this was not on Ms Licken's watch and I have nothing against Galway. It is fantastic and I cannot wait until it is the cultural capital; in many ways it is the cultural capital any day of any year because of everything that goes on there. In my short time on this committee, this nevertheless seems to be the most appalling waste, and poor use, of €8.4 million of public funds. It is great to have an art house cinema but we have built a bar, restaurant and cinema for a commercial entity on which it can make a profit. Notionally, we are adding an art house cinema to what is already a wonderful portfolio of cultural places and amenities in Galway. Where is the application form for €8.4 million for Sligo, Leitrim or Donegal, as we are all looking for one?

Ms Katherine Licken

With our new investment programme under the national development programme there will be money for facilities right across the country for capital investment. We are very focused on regional development. The Minister will launch the full programme in the next couple of weeks. The Model in Sligo got €3.5 million.

Nobody claims what happened here is an ideal outcome but on the other hand, we have still delivered what we set out to deliver, albeit at a higher cost and a private sector company is managing it. The outcome in terms of what is provided in the cinema is the same as what it would have been if it were managed by Solas. It set out to have an art house offering in Galway.

Ireland has been behind in art house cinema provision in comparison to our EU counterparts. Dublin was the only place that had art house cinema but we have achieved that. Would we have liked it to have been achieved by a not-for-profit organisation? Yes, we would. Would we have liked it to have been achieved within the valuation that was set out on the first day? Yes, we would. Did we have critical points in the project where we had to decide whether to continue with this or abandon it? Yes, we did, and we decided to continue with it. Did we have to consider what is the best way for this project to happen? We came to a conclusion that the only way this project was going to be delivered was with Element Pictures taking over. They were the difficult decisions that, unfortunately, we had to make.

Did private investors have any stake in it? Was private money put into it?

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes, Element Pictures. That is private money.

No, it is the company that is involved now and it is putting in €1 million. During the process did private entities give some money for it?

Ms Katherine Licken

Solas would have raised funds but that would have been philanthropy.

Right, so nobody was getting-----

Ms Katherine Licken

No.

Okay. I thank the Acting Chairman.

I call Teachta O'Brien, who he has ten minutes.

I will be brief as I want to move on to the Cork event centre. On this particular issue, chapter 15 gives a figure of what the private investor has committed and it also states that details are not available on the amounts paid by the private investor. Does the Department have those details?

Ms Katherine Licken

We do not but I expect we will have them in the coming weeks. The investor was focused in the last number of months on finalising the fit-out and opening of the cinema. That has now been done and it is going to come back to us with the final costs. Certainly, we know it had committed in the region of €850,000. We know from speaking to it that it have spent at least about €1 million to date, but obviously we have to get that-----

Is that outside of the €650,000 liability for the loan which the investor took over?

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes.

Therefore, it is €1.65 million.

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes.

Regarding how the project proceeded, it is my understanding that two site surveys were carried out on behalf of Solas in advance of the first tender. Did the Department get to see those?

Ms Katherine Licken

It did. We had an architect retained and he saw those surveys.

He found no issues with those site surveys.

Ms Katherine Licken

He did not, no. They were standard surveys. He did not find an issue with them.

A third site survey was carried out after signing of the tender. That was done in October 2009.

Ms Katherine Licken

That was when it hit a difficulty with the site. It did a third survey.

No, that is not my reading of it. If that is the case, Ms Licken can correct me on this but my reading of it is that construction started in 2009 and a site survey was carried out just prior to construction starting following the signing of the tender. My understanding is that three site surveys were carried out prior to any construction starting.

Ms Katherine Licken

My understanding is that there were two but I would need to check that and that there was a third when it ran into difficulty in 2009.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

What I reported was: "we are aware that construction work, including a site survey ..". Therefore, at the commencement of construction when a contract was in place with the contractor, a site survey was undertaken. Subsequently, a second more detailed one was undertaken, when the site conditions proved to be different from what the first site survey undertaken by the contractor had suggested, which found greater difficulty with the ground conditions. The Department told us it understood two further site surveys - that is four in total - had been carried out on behalf of Solas in advance of the first tender competition.

Four site surveys were carried out prior to any-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

There were two before the contract was placed.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

There was a site survey when the contract commenced.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

When the ground conditions were found to be more adverse as construction, excavation and so on were going on-----

There was a fourth more detailed one.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

There a fourth more detailed one which discovered further complexity in the construction.

Would it be unusual for three site surveys not to identify any of the issues which subsequently became apparent once a fourth site survey was carried out, given the fact that the Department's architect also looked over it?

Ms Katherine Licken

The committee might need to understand what we mean by a site survey because there were engineering surveys and archeological surveys.

Ms Katherine Licken

I think our records show three surveys. We might need to come back on that. Certainly we would have hoped that if a site survey was done that the difficulties that subsequently emerged would have been identified at that stage, but they were not. This was a mediaeval site.

We had an examination by the Comptroller and Auditor General's office which found there were four site surveys.

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes.

There cannot be a mix up about that. He has done his job and reported there were four surveys. Therefore, four surveys were reported. Unless Ms Lichen has information to the contrary, we have to take it that what is in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, is what is the case.

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes.

The fourth survey identified that the structural instability to the adjacent property was an issue and that the ground conditions were more problematic than had been found in the three previous surveys. Why did it take 17 months before those issues were resolved? It is stated that over the next 17 months these issues arose.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

There were many complications with this project. This is a very condensed version of it. There is an awful lot of detail around what was happening here.

The Accounting Officer might be able to tell me at what stage was the fourth survey carried out.

Ms Katherine Licken

It was after the difficulties emerged on the site.

Does Ms Licken have an approximate date for that?

Ms Katherine Licken

That was in June 2010 when it became evident-----

That is when the work ceased.

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes.

There was the period from October 2009 up to June 2010 and then all those issues started to become apparent, work ceased, a fourth survey was carried out which identified the instability to the adjoining property and a decision was taken in October 2010 to knock that building and to rebuild it. Then a second contract was signed in March 2012.

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes.

No work was carried out between June 2010 and March 2012.

Ms Katherine Licken

No.

When was the last payment by the Department on this project?

Ms Katherine Licken

Is that for the entire project or at this point in the project?

At this point in the project.

Ms Katherine Licken

In March 2011, Solas informed the Department it had received a letter from its contractors terminating the contract. It was citing ground conditions, design inadequacies and delay in the suspension of works because of the difficulty with the building next door. The Department had paid Solas €900,000 at that point. In addition, the Western Development Commission, the Irish Film Board, and the cultural consortium had paid €1.27 million among them at that point. In total, €2.17 mullion of the €4.3 million that was originally committed had been paid out at that point, which was March 2011. A receiver was subsequently appointed to the construction company that had been employed. There were several complicating factors at play at the same time.

When was the next payment?

Ms Katherine Licken

The next payment was in 2010, on 22 December 2010 of €36,838. That was the last payment under that first contract. It was €36,000.

The rest of the payments were under the second contract-----

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes.

-----of which the Department was not even aware.

Ms Katherine Licken

Correct.

What was the total we paid on the second contract?

Ms Katherine Licken

I want to clarify that Solas entered into the second contract without the knowledge of the Department even though that was specifically a requirement of our contract with Solas, that we would have to sign off on the contract. When we became aware of it, we indicated that we would not pay any more money on the contract because we knew the contract it had entered into exceeded the amount that was available for the project.

We told Solas that it would need to find additional sources of funding if the project was to proceed and we were to make more payments. It was at this point Element Pictures became a partner in the project. Following agreement on a revised funding model, the second contract proceeded and the next payment was made on 3 May 2013.

How much was paid following the signing of the second contract, in total?

Ms Katherine Licken

Approximately €2.5 million.

That was agreed even though the contract had been signed with the second-----

Ms Katherine Licken

To be clear, even though the contract had been signed and we had not had knowledge of it, we did not just say it was fine to proceed and we would keep paying. Rather, we said that we would not pay more until Solas could show that the deficit of funding for the project could be addressed. Solas then identified further funding sources, including from Element Pictures, and it was on that basis that we recommenced payments.

Moving on then to 2013, it was at this point that Solas looked at potential private funding options. In 2014, phase 1 was more or less complete. An issue then arose around completing the second phase. The note we have states that due to insufficient funding the second phase of the project did not proceed. This was in 2014. In 2015, Galway City Council wrote to the Department confirming that it was prepared to take over the project management and to make a further investment. However, this was subject to additional financial support from the Department. Was it at this stage that a commitment was given by the Department to provide additional funding?

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes.

This was all post-signing of the second contract.

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes. This was conditional on the arrangement with Galway City Council taking over the project management.

Was that additional to the €2.5 million mentioned earlier?

Ms Katherine Licken

No, the €2.5 million was a balance of payments to date after the first contract.

Following the signing of the second contract a funding model was put in place. How much was the Department committing at that stage and was it the Department's understanding that that amount was only for phase 1?

Ms Katherine Licken

No, it was to complete the project. We signed a heads of agreement on 23 November 2013. Under that agreement, Solas received further allocations of €400,000 from the Irish Film Board, €200,000 from Galway City Council and agreement that it would enter into a long-term arrangement with the cinema operator, Element Pictures, which would pay €750,000, which is the cost envisaged to finish the cinema. Solas also undertook at that point to privately raise a further €500,000. The total further funding anticipated at that point was €1.85 million, which was close to the overall shortfall.

Was that outside of the Department's funding?

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes.

How much did the Department commit at that stage in 2013?

Ms Katherine Licken

No extra funding was committed to by the Department at that point.

All that was committed to at that point was the original figure for the first contract.

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes, at that point.

The business model presented in 2013 was for the completion of the whole project.

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes.

When did the Department become aware that it related only to the first phase of the project rather than the completed project?

Ms Katherine Licken

In May 2014 it became evident that there were further cost overruns driven by many variations in the contract.

Does Ms Licken know what they were?

Ms Katherine Licken

I do not have the detail in that regard. The negotiations between Solas and the contractor to resolve the issues had broken down and construction was stalled. It was an issue between the contractor and Solas. In July 2014, Solas-----

Why do we not know what they were? There was a funding model put in place to complete the project, which it later transpired covered only half the cost of the project.

Ms Katherine Licken

Our architect identified poor project management as being at the heart of the disagreement between the contractor and the developer.

That was in regard to the first contract.

Ms Katherine Licken

It continued through to the second contract.

There were project management issues with the second contract.

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes. That is why we ended up in the scenario whereby we agreed with Galway City Council that it would take over the project and why, in the end, we came to an arrangement whereby Element Pictures took over the project and, in fairness to it, delivered it eventually.

How much in additional funding did the Department commit to in 2015 in order for the project to be completed?

Ms Katherine Licken

In September 2015, the Minister agreed to grant an additional €735,000 to the project, on condition that Galway City Council assumed responsibility for it. At that time, Galway City Council committed to an additional €232,000 of its own resources and contribution-in-kind by way of project management.

I have one final question on this issue but I would like to come in again later to speak about the Cork event centre. At this stage, a private funder came on board, and as pointed out by Deputy MacSharry, a decision was taken that the cinema would be provided on a 30-year lease and that for the first 25 years we would be paid €1. When was that decision taken?

Ms Katherine Licken

In July 2016.

At that stage, we had committed the original tranche of money, an additional tranche of money and there were issues with two contractors in terms of site management, we knew how much the private investor had committed to paying but not the amount paid at that point yet we agreed to a lease in respect of which he would pay €1 for 25 years. Is that correct?

Ms Katherine Licken

There was a commitment to pay €750,000. We do know that he has paid in the region of €1 million to date.

We have figures for this.

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes, he has paid all of the money he committed to paying. The original commitment was for €750,000. To date, he has paid in the region of €1 million.

In the note I referenced earlier it states that details are not available for the amounts paid by the private investor.

Ms Katherine Licken

We do not have them finalised, which is the reason I said he has paid in the region of €1 million.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Perhaps I can clarify the matter. When I was doing the report, I did not have the final figures.

Following on from the report, do we have confirmation of the amounts paid?

Ms Katherine Licken

We do not have the final accounts for the full project. We are awaiting that information. The cinema only opened in the last month so we are awaiting the final figures.

Does Ms Licken think it was acceptable at that stage to sign a lease for €1 for 25 years given all the issues with this project, including the additional funding which the Department had to provide? Was there no other option available to get this cinema opened?

Ms Katherine Licken

We had tried over numerous years to deliver the project with the existing promoter, Solas, but we had not succeeded in doing so. This was the option that was presented to us. We asked Solas to seek a private investor on the market-----

Am I correct that for an additional €1 million this could have been retained in public ownership?

Ms Katherine Licken

The building is in public ownership.

I am talking about the entire project. Is it fair to say that there would be no private commercial aspect to this if the State had provided an additional €1 million?

Ms Katherine Licken

The way we saw it at the time was that we did not have any other option. We are not in the business of running cinemas as public sector organisations. Element Pictures had a proven track record in this area. It has doubled the numbers of cinema goers in its art house cinema, the Lighthouse in Dublin. It had the track record and it was prepared to put up the money. The building will remain in the ownership of Galway City Council. The lease was reduced from 99 years when it was a not-for-profit company to 30 years for a private company.

There is a commercial rent after year 25. The Department and the Western Development Commission, WDC, have a lien on the building and if it does not do what was set out from day one, which is to deliver an art house cinema, we can revoke the lease.

Do we know what the Charities Regulator is investigating?

Ms Katherine Licken

The regulator is investigating compliance with the charities regulation in general.

I will deal with the move by Foras na Gaeilge. Ms Licken stated the Department conducted comparisons on market rents at the time. Did the Department compare the cost of a mortgage to buy the property with the cost of renting the property and was there a financial analysis of the various options? I do not speak Irish, for which I apologise, so will the officials reply in English?

Mr. Aodhán Mac Cormaic

To my knowledge, the option of purchasing a building was not considered. In the business part of the business case, different options, such as leasing office accommodation in the centre of the city or in the outskirts around the M50 was set out.

Was there an impediment to considering the option of purchasing a building?

Mr. Aodhán Mac Cormaic

The OPW was not in a position at that time to handle this on behalf of Foras na Gaeilge, so it gave the go ahead for Foras na Gaeilge to handle the move itself.

Was Foras na Gaeilge told that the option to take out a mortgage to purchase a property was not possible because of the general Government deficit? Was there such an impediment?

Mr. Aodhán Mac Cormaic

Not that I am aware of, but issues such as that are addressed in the financial direction given by the Departments, both in the North and in the South. I would have to check out the matter further. I am aware of issues, such as the cost of leases that Foras na Gaeilge can enter into it. Should the lease be €37,000 a year, Foras na Gaeilge must set out the business case to each Department. Let me check out the thresholds for the purchase of property.

Ms Katherine Licken

I might add, Deputy, that in the general run of things, the Office of Public Works, OPW, manages the State's property portfolio and all the offices we inhabit right across the board. On this occasion, the OPW was not in a position to provide the service and find the accommodation for Foras na Gaeilge. If there was a question of purchasing a building, that would fall to the OPW.

What strikes me is that even if one looked at the cost of renting a property for ten years, which would work out at €60 million, one would get a sizeable decent building for that money, which would probably meet the needs without a residual cost after the loan had been paid off.

As Ms Licken said, the OPW was not in a position to deal with the provision of a building for Fora na Gaeilge, so it was allowed to find a building for itself. Surely it would have looked at best value for money. Would the Comptroller and Auditor General comment on it?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It is as the Accounting Officer said. The standard way of providing offices for public bodies is through the OPW. The OPW owns some buildings and it leases buildings. In general the OPW does not charge rent for accommodation for a Government Department, but it may recoup a rent from a State body. It is probably a matter that would be worth taking up with the OPW. We are looking at some of the lease take on and disposal by the OPW and I would expect a report on that, but it will not be for some time.

Deputies will recall the issue that arose in respect of Caranua. Rents are quite substantial in Dublin, if one does the long division one is looking at €380 per square metre. In Dublin the current rate per square metre is €500 rising to €600, particularly in this vicinity. There are value issues that must be considered.

One can often buy a property and make mortgage repayments that are lower than the rent.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

That is absolutely true.

We are looking for value for money.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The OPW would be better placed to address that question.

It just seems-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It is a very pertinent question. Comparisons are often complicated by the condition in which the property is presented and leased by the tenant. One can lease a property in shell condition, and then one makes leasehold improvements, alternatively one can ask the landlord to do a certain amount of the improvements and that gets factored into the rent level. That complicates rent comparisons.

Perhaps we should take that up as a separate issue in our work programme. I will move on and put questions on the items that went missing and are subject to a Garda investigation. When the stock that is stored is then put on display in different facilities, is there an issue with the insurance of the exhibits during transport and while on display? Do each of the individual museums or repositories look after the insurance of the works on display themselves? Was there insurance to cover the cost of what went missing?

Ms Katherine Licken

The policy is that the State carries its own insurance rather than having individual insurance policies. There would not be individual insurance policies.

Is it the case there would be no individual insurance policies as long as the items are displayed in public facilities?

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes.

Does the Department allow any of the material to be displayed in private facilities or is it confined always to public facilities?

Ms Katherine Licken

On occasions, we do.

Is there an insurance condition that the private body provides insurance. Is that how it works?

Ms Katherine Licken

It may be part of an arrangement. The individual institution, be it the National Gallery of Ireland or the National Museum of Ireland, would have to be satisfied that the venue in which the material is being display has adequate security, the correct environmental conditions and insurance, if appropriate.

How routine is the stock-keeping process? What action has the Department taken following the discovery of what went missing? How does one catalogue exhibits and ensure there is no repeat of what happened?

Ms Katherine Licken

The Department has an asset register which is updated annually. We have people assigned as deputy asset registrars, that is people in the organisation who are responsible for the asset register and they check it regularly. They do a physical count.

Was this the only incidence since 2012 of artefacts going missing?

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes, it is the only incident I am aware of.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I think there was a loss of items from the National Library as well.

Ms Katherine Licken

I apologise, Deputy. There was a loss of books from the National Library, which resulted in a prosecution.

Was there a value on them?

Ms Katherine Licken

I think the books were recovered.

We spend a very small amount of money relative to the national spend on our cultural institutions. I know that money was provided to improve the storage facilities at the National Library.

That was announced in 2015. In terms of how that is drawn down, is the work under way at this stage? It may not be the case that things are stolen but we could have lost our entire collection by virtue of the way we stored what is an incredibly important asset.

Ms Katherine Licken

I could not agree more with Deputy Murphy. I am pleased to say that the project has commenced. Mr. Ó Coigligh and I visited the library not so long ago. They showed us where the books are being moved. They also showed us where the books and newspapers had been stored - in conditions that could only be described as sub-optimal. I am really glad to say that project has commenced. All the materials are being moved. The tender will go out in the coming months for the works that are required.

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

This year.

Ms Katherine Licken

That is a €10 million project.

The Department has a wide remit. What has been the take-up on the turf compensation scheme to date?

Ms Katherine Licken

We are making good progress. That has been a really difficult issue. We have 13,508 annual payments to turf cutters and 994 deliveries of turf have been made in respect of applications received under the cessation of turf cutting compensation scheme in the raised bog areas of special conservation and 771 annual payments and the delivery of turf have been made to applicants from raised bog natural heritage areas under the scheme. In addition, 1,824 once-off incentive payments of €500 have been made, of which 42 relate to natural heritage areas.

Ms Licken might just give us a note.

Ms Katherine Licken

Absolutely, yes.

There were some commitments concerning the decade of centenaries, which go as far as 2022 and possibly 2023. In addition, there are grants concerning access to cultural development. Could Ms Licken describe the remaining commitments?

Ms Katherine Licken

In terms of the remaining commitments in the account, there were seven projects, including the National Concert Hall. Of the remaining ones, the Glasnevin project is not now going ahead. The Deputy might be aware of that. There was also a commitment on the National Archives and the third commitment related to the remaining works on Richmond Barracks.

Is the work on the National Archives proceeding?

Ms Katherine Licken

Absolutely, it is proceeding.

Is the work under way on it?

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

Not quite.

Ms Katherine Licken

We hope to start this year.

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

It has been quite a convoluted process in terms of there having been a significant redesign. I think we are about to recommence with a tender this year.

Is that tender expected to come in? Has it been tested?

Ms Katherine Licken

We did a cost-benefit analysis on the likely costs.

Are there modifications to the work that was originally intended?

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

When we started looking at the project a couple of years ago when finances were a bit tighter it was decided to upgrade the National Archives buildings in Bishop Street on a three-phase basis. As the OPW brought in design teams to look at it, it began to make sense to do the whole building in one phase. That will lead to a better result and it will also have the potential to add capacity in future years. We are just finalising that process now to enable us to go out with a tender.

Are there potential savings in terms of the retrieval of material from the archives? At the moment there are several different storage locations and people have to go between them, which means there are associated staff costs. Is that factored into the project?

Ms Katherine Licken

One of the parts of the project that we are looking at now, as a result of our work with the OPW, is strengthening the foundations of the building so that in future we can add further floors. That would make retrieval easier.

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

The idea is to centralise everything back into Bishop Street so that will give rise to cost savings.

I wish to start with a comment about the cinema in Galway given that everyone has spoken about it. To me it looks like a calamity of errors from 2006 to 2018. I will not go over it all again because the witnesses have answered enough questions on it. I cannot understand how that could have happened given that professional people were brought in and four site investigations were carried out with architects and engineers. Ground conditions seem to have been the problem. There was water logging. Ground works were carried out and then a neighbouring property was damaged and that had to be rebuilt. To me, that is laughable. Professional people were involved who were supposed to have degrees and accreditation to carry out site visits and yet we see what happened. That does not make sense. It does not add up. It is poor project management. Who is paying for it? The taxpayer. A total of €8.4 million was spent. I will not say it has gone down the Swanee because at least we have a cinema there. It took a private operator to come in and finish the project. Questions must be asked all around. I thank the Comptroller and Auditor General for his analysis today and what was presented. It shows that there was something seriously wrong. Why are there not better systems in place to stop that happening? It took 12 years for the project to come to a conclusion. That is just an overview.

Ms Katherine Licken

In defence of the Department, as I said earlier, there were 42 projects signed off on in 2006 and 40 of those were delivered on time and within budget.

That does not make this one right.

Ms Katherine Licken

Deputy Aylward is absolutely correct, that does not make this one right, but I am just putting some context on it. We also delivered the Wexford Opera House, which is a magnificent facility, around that time and, again, it was on time and under budget. It is not all bad news. However, I share the Deputy's concerns about this project. I cannot answer for the professional bodies that do surveys and why such surveys do not throw up things. I would say, however, that when one is building on a brownfield site in a medieval quarter of Galway there is always a risk and perhaps we should have asked those questions about the area. The site had not been purchased when we agreed the grant but when one is building on those kind of sites where there is archaeological remains, where one is beside the river and where there are floods and older buildings next door, there is always a risk and with the best will in the world I am not sure that-----

Is that not what the professional people are brought in for, namely, to counteract what might arise?

Ms Katherine Licken

Absolutely.

That is what I am trying to explain.

Ms Katherine Licken

Exactly.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The recession was a factor as well.

Ms Katherine Licken

The recession played a major part as well.

It was my fault. I spent too. We all partied.

We did not all party.

Some people did. I did not party much. We are moving away from the matter at hand. A not-for-profit company was involved. Were they business people? Did a few people come together to start a project? Were there professionals involved or were they Joe Soaps?

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

A well-known figure in Irish film was involved. She was a great enthusiast and she promoted the project. I think it is probably safe to say that it would not be there without her. A board was put in place to govern it and it comprises people with the relevant skills, but it is clear that it was not sufficient to deliver a project of that complexity. That is the lesson that the Department has learned.

The company went into liquidation then. Are there debts left behind for someone else to carry? There is usually a reason for a company to go into liquidation, for example, if the money is gone and one owes money. Are there other hangovers left from the company?

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

We are not privy to the position of the company. There may be outstanding action. I think there was an issue around a bond and a court action in connection with it.

Ms Katherine Licken

It is 12 years since 2006, when this project was first mooted. A lot has happened since in terms of the public spending code, and a lot has changed in terms of the conditions we have for projects. Projects now applying for capital grants are expected to be at a much more advanced stage with well-developed business cases and budget plans but, most crucially, they are expected to have their funding in place before an offer is made, and that was the case in this project. As we saw, when we asked it to raise the funds they did not appear.

I will move on to more good news. Did Ms Licken say, with regard to the national development plan and the spend on heritage and culture in this country for the next ten years, that it is approximately €1 billion? How will that be assessed? I am speaking about the constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny. I am from Kilkenny, which is a city of culture and heritage. What way will the spend be assessed? Will money be spent on a regional basis? Will it be divided regionally or will it be whichever projects come up front? Will it be spent on a county basis or even a city or town basis? What way will the spend be distributed? This type of spending on our heritage is very welcome, but I wonder how the projects will come on stream.

Ms Katherine Licken

The Minister will launch our element of the national development plan in the coming weeks, when we will have more details. Certainly we will have schemes. We opened up the arts capital scheme in 2016, which was about funding capital development for arts facilities regionally. It has proved highly successful and we will build on it, which will be of interest from the Deputy's perspective. It is building on the experience of 2016 with regard to the level of participation and how culture is a safe space for people to engage. Recognising all this, putting money into regional cultural facilities will be a key element of the programme.

That is what I am trying to ask. Will it be balanced between regions and counties so everyone has a share or will some counties or some projects be ahead of others? Is it looked at on regional basis so it is spread throughout the Twenty-six Counties?

Ms Katherine Licken

We have to develop out the schemes and we have not done so as yet. Certainly, the normal way we launch a scheme is to work through the local authorities, and that has been most successful. We ask the local authorities to come up with projects. The regional authorities will also have a role. I cannot say just yet exactly how the schemes will operate, but suffice it to say there will be funding for regional development.

It is all welcome news.

Ms Katherine Licken

We have Visual Arts Carlow, and the Butler Gallery in Kilkenny is still on our list.

They are good projects.

With regard to North-South co-operation, €41.6 million has been spent. What is the Department's supervisory role with regard to the bodies involved? How is the money spent? It is a lot of money. Where is the money coming from and how is it being spent? North-South co-operation sounds good. Who supervises it and what bodies are supervised?

Ms Katherine Licken

There is An Foras Teanga, which comprises Foras na Gaeilge and the Ulster-Scots Agency. We fund it with our counterparts in Northern Ireland. For Foras na Gaeilge we do 75% of the funding and Northern Ireland does 25%, and for the Ulster-Scots Agency it is the other way around, whereby we do 25% and it does 75%.

What type of projects are we speaking about for that kind of money? There must be a lot of projects with that type of money being spent.

Ms Katherine Licken

An Foras Teanga is doing very valuable work in terms of promoting the Irish language throughout the country. We also have Waterways Ireland, which is developing the canals across the Border and in Dublin. I will give a list of the type of thing Foras na Gaeilge is doing. It is developing bilingual information packs for community centres and public services, signage packs for service providers in language planning areas and in Gaeltacht service towns and Irish language networks. It is transcribing additional spoken material and creating dictionaries, awareness packs, a communications campaign to increase public awareness with regard to the role, vision and work of the agency and signage for Irish language and Gaeltacht areas. It is also overseeing Bliain na Gaeilge this year and we have provided it with €450,000 for this.

Is the money co-funded? Is the British Government co-funding it?

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes, in the North.

So there is double the amount of money available to what we have here, because the British Government is matching it.

Ms Katherine Licken

No, this is the entire fund.

This is the entire fund.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It represents in the case of Foras na Gaeilge 75% of its spend, and for the Ulster-Scots Agency 25%, so there is further matching funding. Not as much is spent in the North because the Ulster-Scots Agency is a smaller agency than Foras na Gaeilge.

As it is cross-Border, is it difficult to supervise to ensure there is value for money and oversight?

Ms Katherine Licken

No, we manage it. We have a structure with the North, but we manage it in the same way we manage all the other agencies. We have performance agreements and quarterly monitoring meetings. We look at the annual reports and accounts. This year, we are doing an exercise to monitor compliance by all the bodies in the Department with the code of practice for the governance of State bodies of 2016.

I will move on to raised bogs.

This is the Deputy's last question.

The Acting Chairman is being tight with me. With regard to raised bogs and turf cutting, is the compensation under the rules brought in by the EU for people who cannot cut turf?

Ms Katherine Licken

It is.

They are getting compensation instead.

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes.

How long will that last?

Ms Katherine Licken

There are 15 year annual compensation schemes or one-off payments.

How is an agreed amount reached? Say my grandfather or my father is cutting turf, how is the price put on the compensation?

Ms Katherine Licken

It is a standard rate, so it offers €1,500 per annum index linked over 15 years, together with a once-off incentive payment of €500.

I know some turf cutters will not co-operate and they want to do the traditional thing of cutting turf. Are they breaking the law?

Ms Katherine Licken

We have come a long way on this. It is a very difficult, sensitive and complex issue. I mentioned the figures earlier, and an enormous number of turf cutters have come on board. We are still dealing with others. We are almost there on the raised bogs.

With regard to the Cork event centre, I was reading that there seem to be question marks over moneys that were supposed to be given which have not been drawn down. What is the situation with the Cork event centre? What is it about? I do not understand fully why it is at a standstill and why no moneys have been drawn down. What is the Cork event centre anyway? Will Ms Licken explain it to me?

Ms Katherine Licken

Cork City Council is the project promoter, and the proposal is to build a big event centre in the city centre, which would be a huge addition to Cork city. It is included in the national development plan as a commitment. The Department had a commitment for €12 million. Cork City Council is the lead developer in the project. We had given a commitment to fund it to the tune of €12 million. A tender process was undertaken-----

What is the overall cost?

Ms Katherine Licken

It is approximately €80 million.

So the Department is providing 10%.

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes. Cork City Council then came back with an additional funding request of a further €10 million from the Department. It did a cost-benefit analysis, which went to our colleagues at the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. There were some queries over it and it came back. The local authority has now come back with a revised cost-benefit analysis and we are looking at it now.

Are there are problems here also? Will it be like the Galway cinema?

Ms Katherine Licken

We very much hope not, which is why we have gone back to the local authority to say we need more work on the cost-benefit analysis.

That is why the funding is being withheld.

Ms Katherine Licken

It is not a hold back. This is the norm in projects. There is always a toing and froing to make sure we comply with the public sector code.

We are speaking about 2015 and this is 2018. That is three years and there must be a reason for this.

Ms Katherine Licken

The reason is the developer came back to Cork City Council, which in turn came back to the Department, stating it would cost more than anticipated and it needed more funding. We are liaising with Cork City Council to see whether we can provide that funding and whether it is in order to do so.

I will allow the Deputy one more question.

Will I be able to come back in again if we get an opportunity?

We will get to that in a second.

Ms Katherine Licken

It is all about complying with the code and making sure we do not repeat the Galway experience.

I am in the hands of the committee. There may not be any votes in the Dáil but we do not know.

There are three votes.

There may not be any. I was working on the basis we could continue, if the witnesses are okay, until 1.30 p.m.

We will try to finish by 1.30 p.m. We have a couple of speakers who want to come back in. Teachta Connolly, Teachta Jonathan O'Brien and Teachta Catherine Murphy want to come in again. Teachta Aylward may come in again if he wants to. I have a few questions to put. Can we agree that we will try to get it done by 1.30 p.m.?

Unless the witnesses want a break. It is up to them.

Do the witnesses want a break or are they happy enough to continue?

Mr. Aodhán Mac Cormaic

We want to get out.

Not yet. I will put some questions. I will not be too long. I will follow up on some of the questions that were asked on the Galway art house cinema. Ms Licken talked about an examination the Charities Regulator is carrying out. As Accounting Officer for the Department, I assume Ms Licken accepts mistakes were made in the project.

Ms Katherine Licken

Absolutely. We accept fully the recommendations of the Comptroller and Auditor General in that regard.

Does Ms Licken accept mistakes were made by her Department?

Ms Katherine Licken

What the Comptroller and Auditor General pointed out was that better project management from day one and better co-ordination between the different agencies that were funding the project would have been optimal. I accept we certainly should have done that.

The question was not put to the Comptroller and Auditor General. I am asking Ms Licken, as the Accounting Officer, if she believes there were mistakes made by the Department.

Ms Katherine Licken

I believe the Department could have approached the project in a different way. I also believe the Department was faced with very difficult decisions at points in the project and acted appropriately at those points.

I imagine Ms Licken would also accept that when mistakes are made we try to learn from them. That is the reason we do examinations and have reports. We have a report and a chapter from the Comptroller and Auditor General which allowed us to put some questions to the Department today. We will have a report from the Charities Regulator whenever it arrives. Is there any report from the Department?

Ms Katherine Licken

We are considering whether-----

I am not asking if the Department is considering; I am asking if there is any report. Was any report published or done for the Department in preparation for appearing before the committee that looked at failures within the Department? Was there an internal departmental review?

Ms Katherine Licken

No.

Ms Katherine Licken

Our focus has been on the Comptroller and Auditor General's report which has highlighted deficiencies. We are looking at doing a post-project evaluation of the project. We did one for Limerick City of Culture. It is not something that is done straight away. We wait for the passage of time when the project has been delivered to see how it plays out. It is certainly something we are looking at.

How can the Department determine if mistakes were made in the Department? Ms Licken accepts some mistakes were made. Is that solely on the basis of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report or on her own observations? I am struggling to understand how, given the scale of the public money that was invested in the project, Ms Licken's Department, which was responsible for line management of this issue, has not carried out its own examination.

Ms Katherine Licken

As I said, the Comptroller and Auditor General has carried out an examination. Our focus was on co-operating with the Comptroller and Auditor General on that examination and seeing what it threw up. We will see what the Charities Regulator throws us and then we will do our own post-project evaluation at that point. Just because it is not written in a report right now does not mean we are not critically aware of what we could have done differently and what learning-----

Something written down is very important for this committee because it is what allows us to determine whether or not the Department is taking it seriously and whether or not the Department in accepting mistakes were made. Somebody's opinion when he or she comes into the Committee of Public Accounts is all well and grand but a report is something much more substantial. I suggest if there is a post-project review to be carried out, it should happen. Ms Licken remarked earlier about the Charities Regulator report. What exactly is it working on and what are the terms of reference? Are there terms of reference for its work?

Ms Katherine Licken

That is a matter for the Charities Regulator.

Ms Licken talked about it earlier.

Ms Katherine Licken

I have talked about the fact it exists but it is not our report.

Given the Department does not have its own report-----

Ms Katherine Licken

I would be-----

The Department does not have its own report and Ms Licken cited the Charities Regulator report. When she was asked earlier, she said the Charities Regulator is examining this which is the reason the Department has not done any work.

Ms Katherine Licken

It is not the reason we have not done any-----

It is one of the reasons Ms Licken offered up.

Ms Katherine Licken

I was just saying that-----

Ms Licken must be aware, or at least she should be, of what exactly the Charities Regulator is examining.

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes. The Charities Regulator wrote to us on 16 March notifying us of its intention to investigate the affairs of Solas-Galway Picture Palace Company, limited by guarantee and a registered charity, and to prepare a report to the authority on whether any of the matters referred to in section 74(1) of the Charities Act 2009 have arisen with regard to Solas.

Will the Charities Regulator examination look at potential failures within the Department?

Ms Katherine Licken

I do not know.

If Ms Licken does not know, then potentially we have another examination-----

Ms Katherine Licken

What it is looking at-----

Just one second. I am trying to be fair to Ms Licken as an Accounting Officer. Whatever examination the regulator does, as Ms Licken said, is a matter for the regulator. Ms Licken has made my point for me. It is doing its work to look at compliance in different areas. What I am trying to establish is what examination will be done to look at potential failures in the Department. What we do in this committee is a look-back on the spending of money and if mistakes were made we hope people and organisations learn from them. There is very little sanction when there is any wrongdoing other than appearances by Accounting Officers, like Ms Licken, before the committee. It is an obvious question to ask. Is the regulator going to examine potential failures within the Department? If it will not examine potential failures in the Department, I suggest the Department does that exercise.

Ms Katherine Licken

We absolutely will be doing that exercise as we did with Limerick City of Culture. We will do a post-project evaluation. We will take into account the findings of the Comptroller and Auditor General as well as whatever findings may be relevant to the Department arising out of the Charities Regulator review.

When will the post-project review be carried out?

Ms Katherine Licken

There needs to be a little bit of a time lag after the completion of the project to see how it plays out. We could possibly commence it towards the end of this year. I have to take advice on the appropriate time to start a review like that to get the best value out of the review.

What will that review specifically look at?

Ms Katherine Licken

It will look at-----

I am still not clear about what the regulator will look at, by the way. What will the Department-----

Ms Katherine Licken

The regulator is looking at it under section 74(1) of the Charities Act which says, "Where the High Court is satisfied, upon the application of the Authority, that" an offence under the Act has been committed. The Charities Regulator is looking at Solas and how it conducted its operations. That is the remit of the Charities-----

That was my point. It is not necessarily looking at the Department.

Ms Katherine Licken

Exactly.

Ms Katherine Licken

That is not to say that in examining Solas there would not be things that come out of the report that would have implications for us or that there would not be lessons learned for us. For example, if a charity was found to have behaved in some way that was inappropriate, there might be things that we might need to put in place-----

Perhaps is not good enough for me.

Ms Katherine Licken

-----such as safeguards.

What I am saying is I have no difficulty with the regulator looking at whatever it looks at. Ms Licken is the Accounting Officer for the Department. With regard to what a private organisation may or may not have done and what mistakes it made, we should let the regulator do that job. In terms of public accountability, Ms Licken is the Accounting Officer for the Department. She said her Department will carry out a review. I accept what Ms Licken said, that there needs to be a time lapse between when the project is finished and when the Department carries this out. When she gets around to that, what specifically will it look at?

Ms Katherine Licken

It will look at the entire project from inception right through to completion, the results, where the project is at now and what lessons have been learned. It will take into account the Comptroller and Auditor General's findings as well as anything that comes out of the Charities Regulator review. It will be a root and branch look at the entire project.

Ms Licken said in response to Teachta O'Brien when he asked questions about the absence of supervision that there was not a total absence of supervision but there were failures. What was the Comptroller and Auditor General's observations or findings on the lack of supervision?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The key issue was around co-ordination and somebody taking a lead and owning the project. That was where my recommendation was focused.

Would Mr. McCarthy accept there was some supervision but it was not adequate?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Clearly the Department was involved. It made decisions at various points in time. It reviewed the options that were available and so on. There is merit in a fairly detailed look-back at how the Department dealt with this project going back right to the assessment of the business case at the beginning. The thing that strikes me, and I am not sure it is clear, is that until very recently there was no money other than public money involved in this as far as I could see.

The idea of then trying to run a project where there is no other investment - nobody else has skin in the game - takes away a fundamental control that one might expect to be there. A private sector developer, or even a voluntary body which has done fundraising of its own to put towards the project, will know what money is worth and would be much more careful about the spending of it.

That seems to be a solid foundation for a review. I note Ms Licken is not disagreeing.

Ms Katherine Licken

I am not disagreeing.

I would imagine that would be the type to review that we would hope to see.

In response to Deputy Jonathan O'Brien, Ms Licken said that at various points all options were considered and at one point stopping the project altogether was considered. Will she explain what options were considered? When was the option to stop the project considered? Why was that not actioned?

Ms Katherine Licken

It was 2016 when we considered whether we would stop the project, as is required of us under the public spending code. For example, when we agreed with Galway City Council that it would take over project management, one of the options was to keep going as we were, which clearly was not working-----

Just for the purposes of clarity, will Ms Licken explain who we are? Was it a working group in the Department?

Ms Katherine Licken

It was the unit which deals with grants under the scheme.

How many people were involved? Was it two, three, five or six in this group?

Ms Katherine Licken

It was probably three key officials from the Department.

They would meet and consider several options, one of which was to cease. However, they chose not to take that option.

Ms Katherine Licken

Recommendations would have gone to the Minister in 2015 and 2016, outlining where the project was at.

Was it a departmental official or the Minister who made the decision to continue?

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes, it was on foot of a full submission to the Minister. In 2015, we stated to the Minister in the context of whether additional Exchequer support should be provided that there were a number of issues which should be considered. There was the issue of trust on project delivery, the issue of the principle as to whether the Department should breach its promised allocation, the balance of issues in terms of obtaining value for taxpayers and the availability of additional capital funds, regardless of the assessment of the other issues. We went through all those issues.

Is it possible for the committee to get a copy of whatever submission was given to the Minister?

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes.

Would that have had a menu of recommendations or was it one recommendation to continue with the project?

Ms Katherine Licken

We would always do an assessment of the options and at the end have a proposal and recommendation for the Minister.

Were all options given to the Minister or was it just the one option to continue?

Ms Katherine Licken

The risk assessment would have been set out to the Minister, giving the background to the project and the costs to completion. We have a duty to make a recommendation to the Minister.

I welcome the announcement that there will be a post-project review. It is absolutely essential. I thank the Acting Chairman for highlighting that. I do not know why the Department has to wait until the end of the year. I suggest it could start sooner. It is now complete but the site is not fully sorted out yet.

Ms Katherine Licken

There is also the whole issue of the accounts which are not finalised yet. We have not got the final accounts from Element Pictures on the final cost.

There are serious questions around the adequacy of funding from the very beginning. There are also serious questions about local authority management in this matter. There were three managers in my time during that process and there are serious issues. Notwithstanding that we were told there was a hands-on approach by the manager, he did not seem to have the right to go into the building. That emerged from the "Prime Time" exposé which worried me. I was gone from the local authority at that point. If one is taking a hands-on approach, one should have right of entry into a project that was a hole in the ground. I hope these matters are addressed.

In relation to the Irish language, bhí rún os comhair an tSeanaid inné maidir leis an ngéarchéim ó thaobh na Gaeilge de. Níl a fhios agam ar ghlacadh leis an rún sin. Tá cupla ceist agam. Cá bhfuil an plean gníomhaíochta? Tá súil agam go bhfuil an tuarascáil maidir leis an straitéis 20 bliain agus an plean gníomhaíochta, a fhoilsíodh do TG4, léite ag na hoifigigh. Tar éis dom na laigí agus na rudaí nach bhfuil curtha i bhfeidhm a ardú, ba mhaith liom díriú ar na fadhbanna atá ar Oileán Thoraí. We already had these difficulties with the Aran Islands. Now we have an island split which seems an appalling result. I do not believe anybody can stand over that, least of all the Department. The ferry being proposed for Tory Island, Queen of Aran, is 40 years old.

In any event, this latest debacle highlights the lack of a policy for the islands, whether that is the Department’s responsibility or the Government’s. I have been through this in Galway, as have all local politicians, with the ferry service for the Aran Islands. It has happened again with Tory Island. It is unacceptable that this debacle has happened. We should have learned from the Aran Islands.

Will the Department give more details on the Gaeltacht housing grants? On Foras na Gaeilge, I understood that the Office of Public Works, OPW, was willing to facilitate and advice on the lease of the new offices. Will Ms Licken clarify that? Will the Department set out for the committee when it became aware of the whole situation? Will the Comptroller and Auditor General look at Foras na Gaeilge separately?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

When I audit it.

When will that come before us?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I do not have the details.

He can come back to us on that.

Ms Katherine Licken

The Gaeltacht housing loans refers to a scheme which goes back to 1929 and ran up to 1979 under the Housing (Gaeltacht) Act 1929. There are 30 remaining individual loans outstanding, none of which exceeds €6,600 in value. Up to 12,500 loans were paid out from 1930 to 2000. The value of the loans varied from €12.70, or £10, in the early 1930s to €5,100 in 2000. The value of the loan could not exceed the value of the grant. The maximum value of loans available to householders in Gaeltacht islands was €7,600. The repayment period varied from five to 30 years.

Will Ms Licken send me a note on that?

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes, I will.

Of the outstanding €183,000, how many loans does that represent?

Ms Katherine Licken

It represents 30, none of which exceeds €6,600 in value. We have received payments of €2,151 so far this year. Last year, we received €1,761.

Ms Licken can send me a note on that.

Ms Katherine Licken

On the question about the OPW, it is the case the Department moved part of its heritage division to a site in North King Street, Smithfield, Dublin. The OPW managed all of that process on our behalf. It would identify the building, fit it out and negotiate the lease. We then would physically move to it.

Obviously, there is more to it than that. In this case, however, the OPW was not in a position to identify and provide a building for us, either a building owned by the State or a building that it would lease on our behalf. It certainly offered advice, however. We consulted it and it said that Foras na Gaeilge secured a site itself and that it would provide advice and input as required.

Mr. Aodhán Mac Cormaic

My recollection is that it said Foras na Gaeilge was getting value for money on what it was proposing.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

My recollection is that OPW's priority is Government Departments. Since Foras na Gaeilge is a stand-alone agency, it would be of lower priority. The first call goes to Departments and offices.

Ms Katherine Licken

On the matter of Oileán Thoraí, we had a public tendering process. Mr. Mac Cormaic might wish to refer to this also. The outcome of the process did not go down well. We have spent an enormous amount of time trying to reach a resolution in respect of the island. A number of very practical and positive points have been put to the islanders. We never want to be in a scenario where we have strife or division on an island. Does Mr. Mac Cormaic want to say more about it?

Mr. Aodhán Mac Cormaic

We have to realise there are public tendering processes with which we and the committee must comply. We have had to comply with them and that creates its own difficulties in dealing with what is an extremely small market when one goes to tender for these ferry services. In some cases, islands have only one potential tenders, or possibly two. If there are two, the tender competitions potentially put one out of business for five years during the term of the contract. Therefore, anything to do with island transport services is extremely emotive and gets island communities extremely exercised. That does not detract from the fact that there are no exemptions for us from using public tendering procedures. That can create a difficulty. The other difficulty is that when one is dealing with a very small market, one has to leave the tender conditions and the conditions to be complied with as open as possible in order to encourage competition. If we were to have specified that a vessel could not be older than ten years, for example, the likelihood is that we would have got no tenders for that service. Where would we have been left then given our obligation to provide what is a lifeline service to the islands? We have to take these points into account. There is nobody questioning that we went through a valid tendering process.

I will have to stop the discussion there.

Cad faoin teanga? Is féidir teacht ar ais.

Mr. Aodhán Mac Cormaic

Maidir leis an bplean cúig bliana, tá an fhaisnéis uilig a bhí muid ag cuardach faighte. Obviously, táimid ag comhordú gach rud ó na Ranna Stáit agus na heagrais Stáit. Táimid ag díriú isteach anois ar an eolas sin a chur le chéile agus a fhoilsiú taobh istigh de roinnt seachtainí. Go dtí seo, bhí muid ag fanacht ar cúpla Roinn le teacht ar ais chugainn. Caithfidh mé é a chur ar an taifead go raibh go leor míchruinneas sa tuairisc a bhí ar TG4. Dúirt siad nach raibh aon fhoireann bhreise ar leith ag obair ar an straitéis. Bhí go leor scéimeanna eile á reáchtáil agus á riaradh ag an Roinn ag an am, ag dul siar roimh aimsir na straitéise 20 bliain. Tá an fhoireann uilig a bhí ag obair ar scéimeanna a bhain le céibheanna agus bóithre straitéiseacha, srl., ag obair ar chur i bhfeidhm na straitéise anois. Tá an t-aonad straitéise sna Forbacha dírithe ar an straitéis 20 bliain a chur i bhfeidhm. Tá mé ag ceapadh go raibh cuid den eolas a bhí sa tuarascáil sin, a d'fhoilsíodh agus a cuireadh ar fáil trí TG4, míchruinn. Bhí muid cineál díomách faoin gcaoi inar dearnadh é sin. Fuair an tAire an ceart freagra a chur isteach ag an nóiméad deireanach, díreach sula ndeachaigh an clár ar an aer.

I am at the mercy of the two members who are left. I ask them to be as quick as they can. I do not want to cut anybody short. We will begin with Teachta Jonathan O'Brien and conclude with Teachta Catherine Murphy.

May I refer again to the event centre in Cork and the amount of money the Department has committed? What is the total figure?

Ms Katherine Licken

Some €12 million has been committed by the Department to date, and €1 million was paid.

So there is €11 million committed still. There was also €5 million set aside for potential redesign costs.

Ms Katherine Licken

I am not aware of that. Perhaps it was by Cork City Council, but not by the Department.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It is the explanation for the non-spending of the €5 million. I refer to page 16 of the account.

Ms Katherine Licken

That is part of the €11 million.

Is a further €10 million being sought?

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes.

Has the Department given that commitment yet?

Ms Katherine Licken

We are in dialogue with Cork City Council. It is the project promoter. At present, it has resubmitted a cost-benefit analysis because we need to ensure that the cost-benefit analysis complies with the public spending code. We came back with observations. On the first iteration of the cost-benefit analysis, it came back to us only as recently as February with the latest version. We are going back to it again today with more queries.

The only reason I ask is because a Minister recently announced that the €10 million had been committed.

Ms Katherine Licken

It is committed in the sense that we have put money aside. It is in the national development plan. We are committed to the project. Obviously, in line with any commitments we make on any project, however, there is still a need to comply with the public spending code. There is an onus on me as Accounting Officer, and on all of us as public servants, to ensure all the boxes are ticked although a signal is given to commit to a project.

Ms Licken can probably understand there is great frustration in the city because this project has not proceeded. The sod was turned two years ago, to much fanfare, yet we have no indication whether we will even get the event centre. I will leave it at that.

I have one final point, on Galway. Could the witnesses provide the committee with the documentary proof, which was submitted prior to the contract being signed, of the full project costs and the availability of funds to meet those costs?

Ms Katherine Licken

We can come back to the committee on all the costs, once all the costs are finalised.

One of the conditions was that it would be provided to the Department. I am just wondering whether it could be forwarded to the committee. I refer to the original costs.

I want to return to the subject of the decade of centenaries. Some €28.4 million was spent on the permanent monuments. Is there additional funding? Have the works come in on budget and on time? Is there additional expenditure? What is the current position on Moore Street? There have been several court cases. Do the legal costs come within the remit of the Department? If so, what is the cost to date?

Ms Katherine Licken

With the exception of the Tenement Museum Dublin, in respect of which we gave the city council €500,000 extra, all the other projects have come in within budget. There was a point when it looked like the National Concert Hall project would go over budget so we re-evaluated and changed it to ensure it would come in within budget. There were seven projects, which included Moore Street; Richmond Barracks; the Tenement Museum Dublin; the Kevin Barry rooms in the National Concert Hall; and the development of the National Archives, which I hope will go ahead later this year.

Was that accounted for in the €28.4 million? I refer to the National Archives.

Ms Katherine Licken

Yes, except we did not spend it. Obviously, we have not spent it.

With regard to Moore Street, I might go through the history if the members would like me to do that, although it might take too long. The buildings, Nos. 14 to 17, are owned by the Department. They have been declared as a national monument. We are still technically within the period of appeal in the Court of Appeal so, in fairness, I cannot really comment on costs at this point but I know that Hammerson, which is the developer for the rest of the site that comprises Moore Street to O'Connell Street, is meeting today the advisory committee the Minister established to go through its plans for the entire area. Once we are out of the appeal period in the court case, we then have to look at our plans for the buildings, Nos. 14 to 17.

On behalf of the Committee of Public Accounts, I thank all our witnesses from the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform for participating in the meeting and for the material they have supplied. I hope Ms Licken's first appearance was not too painful.

We are unable to dispose of chapter 15 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report or Vote 33 until we have considered and discussed this matter further. We publish periodic reports, so testimony given today will form part of that report. In terms of the material we have asked would be sent to the committee, the quicker that information is given to us and the more comprehensive it is, the easier it will be for us to compile our reports. The witnesses might send the committee a detailed note on the post-project review process and what that will entail. That would be helpful. There were detailed notes on costs and I ask that any other information sought be sent to the committee.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I will make one point before the Acting Chairman wraps up the meeting. The post-project review will come within the remit of the circular the committee received from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform so publication of it would be required, which I believe is a welcome development.

I thank the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff, and wish everybody a happy Easter.

The committee will adjourn until our next public meeting on Thursday, 19 April at 9 a.m. when we will consider the following chapters from the Comptroller and Auditor General's report: chapter 1, Exchequer Financial Outturn for 2016; chapter 2, Government Debt; chapter 24, Irish Fiscal Advisory Council; and the Appropriation Accounts 2016, Vote 7 - the Department of Finance.

The witnesses withdrew.
The committee adjourned at 1.33 p.m. until 9 a.m. on Thursday, 19 April 2018.
Top
Share