COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 25 May 2006

Chapter 9.1 — The Irish Genealogical Project.

Mr. P. Furlong (Secretary General, Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism) called and examined.

Chairman

We will now discuss the 2004 annual report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and Appropriation Accounts, specifically Vote 35 — Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism, and the Irish genealogical project.

Witnesses should be aware that they do not enjoy absolute privilege before the committee. Their attention and that of members is drawn to the fact that, as and from 2 August 1998, section 10 of the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act 1997 grants certain rights to persons identified in the course of the committee's proceedings. These rights include the right to give evidence; the right to produce or send documents to the committee; the right to appear before the committee, either in person or through a representative; the right to make a written and oral submission; the right to request the committee to direct the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents and the right to cross-examine witnesses. For the most part, these rights may be exercised only with the consent of the committee. Persons invited to appear before the committee are made aware of these rights and any persons identified in the course of proceedings who are not present may have to be made aware of them and provided with a transcript of the relevant part of the committee's proceedings if the committee considers this appropriate in the interests of justice.

Notwithstanding this provision in legislation, I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members are also reminded of the provisions in Standing Order 156 that the committee shall 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 policy or policies.

The committee has received correspondence relevant to today's proceedings. It may be referred to by members during the meeting. I invite Mr. Furlong to introduce his officials

Mr. Philip Furlong

On my left hand side is Mr. Con Haugh, the assistant secretary, in charge of finance and sport in the Department. On Mr. Haugh's right is Mr. Niall O Donnchú, assistant secretary, in charge of arts and culture. On my right is Mr. Joe Timbs, the finance officer of the Department.

Chairman

Will the FÁS officials please introduce themselves?

Ms Fionnuala Anderson

My name is Fionnuala Anderson. I am the community service manager for policy around the local training initiative area. I am based at our head office.

Mr. Marius Cassidy

I am Marius Cassidy, community service manager for the south east region, covering the south east region counties.

Chairman

Will the Department of Finance officials make themselves known, please?

Mr. Dermot Quigley

I am Dermot Quigley, principal officer, public services division. On my right is my colleague, Ms Joan Daly, who is on our administrative budget side in the organisation, management and training division.

Chairman

Will Mr. Purcell introduce Vote 35 and chapter 9.1?

Chapters 9.1 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

The Irish Genealogical Project

Background

The Irish Genealogical Project (the Project) was established in 1988. Its objective was to facilitate

·The compilation of a comprehensive and accurate computerised database for all the major genealogical records available in Ireland

· The implementation of a system for marketing and delivery of reliable family history research.

In 1996 I carried out a value-for-money examination of the project and reported my findings to Dáil Éireann.

In 1997 the responsibility for steering the Project was assigned to a limited company, Irish Genealogy Limited (IGL), a company-limited by guarantee whose mission is to deliver on the objectives of the project. Up to that point a Committee, serviced by the Department of the Taoiseach, had responsibility for its co-ordination. IGL is currently supervised by the Department of Arts, Sports and Tourism (the Department). From establishment in 1997 to 31 December 2004, IGL received grants totalling €2.5 million from its funding Department.

The Project also benefits from State aid in the form of

·Assistance by way of FÁS trainees and staff in the inputting of records to databases in the genealogy centres around the country. FÁS has estimated that the value of its assistance since 1988 up to 31 December 2004 has been in the order of €32.2 million

·Some assistance from Local Authorities, which varies in form from area to area.

At the commencement of the Project there were 35 genealogy centres throughout the island of Ireland recording and collating records of various types.

IGL has assisted centres from 2001 onwards by providing resources to replace obsolete IT systems with modern server based systems on a common software platform. The upgrade of the IT systems is to be completed in 2005.

Genealogical Records and Research

The original concept of a computerised database called for the recording of an estimated 28 million records drawn from Church and Civil records, the 1901 and 1911 Censuses, Griffith's Valuation and Tithe Applotment Books.

It was planned that a Central Signposting Index (the Index) would be created utilising data fields drawn from the database records. The Index would be the first point of contact for an individual seeking family records through using the Internet. The Index would signal the existence of the records and guide the individual, through a hyperlink, to the genealogy centre with the required detailed records.

While the business plan of IGL for 2005-2007 aims to have 90% of Church records completed by the end of 2007 it is accepted by the main project stakeholders that at the current rate of progress on the inputting of Church records onto the databases in the centres it could take over 20 years to complete the recording.

In some respects the project has been overtaken by events. Non-Church records are now available directly from a variety of sources. IGL considers that the centres should focus on church records only and has opened discussions with FÁS on this matter. Table 21 sets out the position in regard to non-Church records data.

Table 21 Non-Church Records

Record Type	Agent/Owner	Availability
Tithe Applotment Books	Ulster Historical Foundation	The entire record is available to members of the public on compact disks
Griffith Valuation	National Library and an English Private Company	Access is from National Library without charge and from the company via the Internet for a fee
1901 & 1911 Census	National Archives and the National Archives of Canada	Access to the records in the National Archives is without charge. A project to digitise the records is being undertaken and access will be provided on the Internet
Civil Records of births, marriages and deaths	General Register Office	Access to the records in General Register Office. The records have been digitised but are not accessible through the Internet

Project Stakeholders

Irish Genealogy Limited

IGL co-ordinates the project and it has a staff of three — Chief Executive Officer, an IT Manager and a Project Administrator.

The Board consists of 15 Directors as follows

·3 appointees of the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism

·3 appointees of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (Northern Ireland)

·2 appointees of the Association of Professional Genealogists in Ireland

·1 appointee of the Association of Ulster Genealogists and Record Agents

·5 appointees of the Irish Family History Foundation.

·The Chief Executive Officer is an ex-officio member.

The following bodies nominate observers to the Board who attend and contribute to Board meetings

·FÁS, The National Archives Office, Fáilte Ireland, Northern Ireland Tourist Board, National Library, General Register Office (GRO), Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism.

The Department requires IGL to submit periodic business plans.

Irish Family History Foundation (IFHF)

The IFHF represents 28 of the 35 genealogy centres throughout the island of Ireland.

The stated objectives of the IFHF are

·The completion of the computerisation of the Church records by the centres throughout the island.

·The provision of genealogical research services through the centres on a commercial basis.

Association of Professional Genealogists inIreland

The APGI represents individual genealogists who provide family history research services on a commission basis. The APGI functions as a regulatory body to set standards for the conduct of genealogical research by its members and to protect the interest of its clients.

Association of Ulster Genealogists andRecord Agents

AUGRA is a representative association of professional genealogists operating in Northern Ireland.

General Register Office

The GRO has custody of all civil records of births, marriages and deaths, which were registered since registration began in 1845. The GRO facilitates genealogical research, consistent with carrying out its main function of maintaining the public records.

National Archives

The primary function of the National Archives is to preserve public records and make them available to the general public.

Foras Áiseanna Saothair

In the Republic of Ireland FÁS supports the centres through the provision of staff to supervise trainees inputting records and contributes to overhead costs. The centres operating in the Republic of Ireland are dependent on FÁS training programmes for their staff. FÁS have stated that continued support cannot be guaranteed in the long term.

Ownership of Data and Access to Records

The position in regard to the ownership and custody of the records and databases derived from them is understood to be as follows

·The ownership of the Church records vests in their original custodians, the relevant Church authorities. The use of the information drawn from the original records for genealogical research purposes is provided for in a set of agreements between the owners and the centres affiliated to the IFHF and a set of agreements between the owners and those centres in the Republic that are not members of the IFHF

·There is also a set of agreements in place between the owners of the centres and the IFHF whereby the records will be placed in the custody of the IFHF (subject to such legal agreements as may apply to the sources in question) in the event of a centre closing its business.

·IGL maintains the Index. A legal agreement with IFHF covers the arrangements for transfer of data from the centres for inclusion on the Index. The agreement provides that the IFHF, from June 2002, will forward Church records for a period of ten years for inclusion on the Index. It is agreed that while IGL will have exclusive access to the Index the custodian of the records on the Index will be IFHF on behalf of its members.

Current Issues

In the course of my audits of IGL I noted a number of issues of management and co-ordination which impact on the successful completion of the Project and on the capacity of the stakeholders to maximise genealogy tourism.

·There is disagreement between the stakeholders on whether to prioritise the finalisation of the databases of Church records before the creation of the Index and a question of how data input might best be carried out in order to complete the database within a reasonable time.

·Centres closed i.e. Limerick, Carlow, Tipperary North (now reopened) and Kerry (now reopened) when FÁS or local authority support is withdrawn. The critical business continuity risk is the current business model which relies on this type of support to sustain the centres.

Completion of the Databases

Up to the 31 December 2004 no funding was provided by IGL to assist in the completion of the databases or for administration of the centres. Moneys were made available to them, however, for IT systems upgrade, including equipment, staff training and changeover support and marketing supports including product development and sales.

Although 19 of the centres have fully completed the inputting of information from religious records the IFHF has expressed dissatisfaction with the rate of progress on the inputting of Church records, which they put at around 1% per annum. They are also unhappy with the IGL focus on completion of the Index before all data is input on the databases. The IFHF believes that the completion of the databases in the genealogy centres should be the primary focus of IGL.

The IFHF has pointed out in a letter of May 2005 which it sent to IGL that

·The recording of new data had virtually stagnated in the past six years

·The Index appears to be a big database due to the inclusion of records other than those on births, marriages and deaths and remains in a partially completed state and was unlikely ever to be completed.

Currently, IGL is considering assisting in the recording of the religious records through a funded programme and, for the first time in 2005, €75,000 will be made available for commercial inputting of records.

In 2000 it was estimated for IGL that the commercial completion of the inputting of Church records on the databases at that time would have cost approximately €3.43 million.

However, since February 2005 the situation has become further complicated because the IFHF has withdrawn its support of the Project and has advised its members not to forward any further records for inclusion on the Index; as a result the provision of information for the Index ceased from that time.

The IFHF directors resigned from the IGL Board in February2005.

Business Continuity

Currently, two of the 35 genealogical centres are closed — Carlow and Limerick. The feasibility of reopening these centres is being examined.

In February 2005 consultants reporting to IGL on the operating structure and viability of the centres, noted that the challenge for the Project is to move from the production of the databases to product development and marketing. The long-term sustainability of the Project depends on managing this change.

The report also emphasised that on the resource side one of the main sources of funding was from FÁS and that this funding was being used to support the operational viability of the centres. FÁS have indicated that its long-term support cannot be guaranteed and as a result of this there is a threat to the viability of some of the centres.

The review outlined a number of strategic options to make the centres sustainable. These included

·The negotiation of a long term relationship with FÁS

·Failing this, the sourcing of sponsorship from another body

·Delivery of a streamlined genealogy service through different business models.

The advent of the Internet and changes in tourism trends appear to have also impacted on the original objective of promoting roots tourism. A report prepared for IGL indicates a downward trend in overseas participation in genealogy tourism between 1999 and 2003. Table 22 sets out this trend.

Table 22 Trend in Overseas Genealogy Tourism 1999-2003

	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003
Visitors	107,000	118,000	88,000	36,000	53,000
Holidaymakers	47,000	102,000	102,000	81,000	29,000

Views of the Department

In view of the slow progress in completing the project, which commenced some 17 years ago I sought the Accounting Officer's views.

What targets had been established for the completion of the databases and the Index?

He informed me that as regards Church Records, the present policy of IGL is to focus exclusively on the completion of indexing and inputting of Church records of baptisms (births) and marriages prior to 1900. IGL is now of the view that the construction of databases for non-church records is more appropriate to other bodies including the National Archives, National Library of Ireland and General Register Office. The network of 33 genealogy centres some 27 of which are affiliated to the IFHF, is considered by IGL to be an appropriate mechanism for processing and indexing of local church records. The project is by its nature labour-intensive and painstaking. Of the total current estimate of 13.7 million church records, some 10.5 million (76%) have been indexed and inputted to the computerised database. The bulk of the remaining 3.2 million records require to be indexed and inputted. He noted that 19 of the 33 county-based genealogy centres have inputted 100% of their church records. Work in the centres, carried out in the main by FÁS trainees, is well supervised and has been executed to an acceptable standard with an error rate of just 1.8% (against a norm of 3%).

He pointed out that in recent times, inputting of records has slowed, the prime reason for which is a reduction (from 337 to 213) in the number and profile of FÁS trainees available to carry out the inputting task. This has resulted in records being indexed/input at a rate of just 1% per annum. This would require 20-25 years to complete the inputting of the 3.2 million church records outstanding. IGL is now contemplating completing the task mainly on a commercial basis together with some inputting by volunteers. In 2004, IGL estimated that if funding of the order €150,000 per annum were available and augmented by local area funding, some 90% of records could be indexed/input by end 2007. To enable commencement of commercial inputting, IGL has allocated €75,000 for this purpose in 2005.

As regards the Index, the Accounting Officer informed me that currently some 2.8 million church records in 11 counties can be accessed through the Index. The IGL target is to have some 10 million records on the Index by the end of 2007. He stressed that unlike other genealogy websites, the IGL website encourages customers to take the next step and visit the area of their ancestors, thereby generating tourism revenue especially in rural areas.

Since its inception, there have been some 250,000 individual searches of the Index database by customers, resulting in IGL referring 1700 firm marketing leads to the genealogy centres. In addition, it can be surmised that interest in visiting Ireland will have been stimulated.

Whether the project approach continues to be a viable mechanism for achieving those targets and delivering on the original objectives and if so how business continuity risks will be managed?

He informed me that it is the view of the Board of IGL that the county-based genealogy centre delivery system continues to be a workable concept but that a business model for future sustainability needs to be put in place. IGL has commissioned consultants who have proposed a range of business models which are currently under consideration by the Board. These include the negotiation of a long-term linkage with FÁS or with Local Authorities.

He added that long-standing differences of opinion on the delivery of the project between IGL and the IFHF, as major stakeholders, have been a difficulty in pushing for completion. However, he felt that the business risk is minimised to the extent that, of the 3.2 million church records outstanding, some 2 million can be inputted by centres which are not affiliated to IFHF.

The Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism met with the IGL Board in June 2005 and requested them to revert to him as soon as possible with a sustainable business plan for the project and to take steps to have all matters in dispute between IGL and IFHF resolved without delay.

Whether the project structure continues to be suitable to the management of the network of relationships both public and private involved in the delivery of the service?

The Accounting Officer stated that IGL is a conglomerate of public and private stakeholders. While this structure brings a broad range of relevant genealogical experience to the deliberations of IGL, there is an onus on Board Members, as conveyed to them recently by the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, to maintain a coherent focus on the objectives of the project.

At the invitation of the Chair of IGL, a meeting between IFHF and IGL was held on 14 July 2005 at Limerick to discuss existing difficulties with a view to reaching an amicable settlement on all issues currently in dispute. Both accepted the need for working in co-operation and a further meeting to establish a bilateral arrangement is scheduled for September. Following this, IGL will provide a supplementary business plan focused on completion of the project within a specified timeframe.

How the completion of the recording of the Church records and compilation of the Central Signposting Index will be effected from this point onwards and in particular how data input will be organised, controlled and resourced?

IGL has advised that there are three elements to the completion of indexing of the church records. The existing FÁS scheme, though depleted, together with a volunteer input will make some inroads. However, indexing and inputting on a commercial basis will be essential to clear the bulk of the outstanding records. The allocation by IGL of new computer equipment to replace the obsolete equipment at the centres affiliated to IFHF was conditional on those centres facilitating the transfer of computerised records to the Central Signposting Index. In itself, linking the computerised records to the Index is largely a technical operation which can be progressed rapidly on the basis of provision of complete data from the centres, in particular the IFHF-affiliated centres. It is expected that these issues will be addressed in more detail at the forthcoming meeting.

What progress had been achieved in gaining access to non-church records on behalf of the network of Genealogy centres?

The Accounting Officer informed me that IGL has advised that some 7.2 million non-church records have been indexed by the genealogy centres on an ad-hoc basis mainly from local health boards. It is current IGL policy that only church records should be indexed and IGL maintains that indexing/inputting of non-church records is a matter inter alia for the General Register Office, the National Archives and the National Library. Since publication of the Value for Money Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General in 1996, an examination of the project in 1999 was undertaken by the then Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands. That report was positive on the future viability of the project. In the main, IGL has endeavoured to implement the recommendations of the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report.

In addition, IGL itself has commissioned consultancy advice on genealogy tourism and on the business models which might be appropriate to promote a sustainable future for the county-based genealogy centres.

Notwithstanding that IGL is a private company, senior management in the Cultural Institutions Unit of the Department will continue to attend IGL Board meetings.

The Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism has asked the Board of IGL to revert to him with a sustainable business plan for completion of the project. On receipt of this plan, the Minister will then decide on whether or not to commission a separate independent consultancy evaluation of the project.

IGL views on Progression of the Project

The key challenges identified by IGL are the completion of the index/input of church records; the sustainability of the local genealogy centres; the marketing of the genealogy project and the development of genealogy tourism; and to ensure that the cultural and peace and reconciliation dimensions are delivered.

The project of indexing and inputting some 10.5 million church records on a modern database and providing a Central Signposting Index access facility for some 2.8 million church and non-church records has been executed for a relatively modest financial outlay. In the period 1998 to 2004, Departmental grants amounted to €2,104,880 (Excluding FÁS funding of its trainees). In addition, some €400,000 has been provided under the PEACE I and PEACE II programmes. The evaluator on behalf of the EU in relation to the earlier expenditure commented inter alia that “The IGL project has proven to be an ideal project to seize opportunities arising from the peace process as well as integrating steps that can help pave the way for reconciliation . . . there are no concerns in relation to the financial management of the project.”

Having regard to the change in relation to the availability of FÁS trainees, IGL believes that indexing/inputting of data on a commercial basis is necessary to complete the project.

IGL foresees that the completed project with a fully implemented Central Signposting Index will be an excellent tool for assisting development of the fledgling genealogy tourism product.

Other Accounting Officer comments

The Accounting Officer stated that while it is clearly a matter of concern that delivery of the Project is taking far longer than anticipated in 1988, it is reasonable to note that the project has been overtaken by events in some respects. It is also clearly the case that the resource implications of the project were significantly underestimated.

The Accounting Officer concluded by stating that the Board of IGL has now been left in no doubt that if the project is to be funded further, there must be a clear business strategy for completion in accordance with value for money principles.

FÁS comments

I also asked FÁS to comment on the sustainability of the present arrangements taking account of any changes in the structure of the trainee population in recent years and the policy priorities of FÁS.

The Director General informed me that FÁS funds heritage centres on the basis of the quality of the training that they provide for the unemployed person. He pointed out that while much change has taken place in the economy and the jobs market, some communities and individuals have not progressed at the rate of their contemporaries. Therefore, FÁS continues to provide a range of supports to enable unemployed job seekers access and progress within the labour market. The partnership between FÁS, its sponsors and the community results in FÁS — with a modest outlay in training allowances that goes directly to the trainees, a supervisory grant and a small contribution to administration costs — being able to provide good quality training for unemployed persons for whom it would otherwise be very difficult to cater for.

Mr. John Purcell

On Vote 35 first, apart from the expenditure on administration of the Department, the Vote is used as the mechanism for providing grants to the various semi-State bodies involved in arts, tourism and sport. The main ones include Fáilte Ireland, Campus and Stadium Ireland, the Irish Sports Council, the Arts Council of Ireland, the Irish Film Board, Bord na gCon and Horse Racing Ireland. There are also the grants for the sports capital programme, which are administered directly by the Department.

Going on to chapter 9.1, the Irish Genealogical Project commenced in 1988, with the aim of developing a computerised database of information relevant to family history research in Ireland. It was planned that once the database was completed, a comprehensive family research service would be provided based on a countrywide network of centres and independent professional genealogists. All of this was to boost roots tourism.

The main task was to transfer the information on births, marriages and deaths from the church records and whatever was available from sources such as census forms and registers of property holders. All of this information was to be put into the database. This task was undertaken in the local centres, predominantly by FÁS trainees. Even before the advent of the project, FÁS had for some years been involved with the compilation of indices of genealogical records as part of its work experience schemes and training programmes.

Successful implementation of the project was crucially dependent on securing the co-operation of the many agencies and groups that had an interest in the project, or might be affected by it. The Department of the Taoiseach had responsibility for co-ordinating the project up to about 1996 when that function was assigned to a newly formed company called Irish Genealogy Limited. Around that time, over €3 million in public funding had been pumped into the project. That excludes the FÁS element, but would include the contribution from the International Fund for Ireland, because it was an all-Ireland initiative.

I published a report, highlighting management shortcomings and the slow rate of progress. The committee considered that report at its meeting on 20 January 1998. It was clear from my audit of Irish Genealogy Limited that although some progress had been made in the intervening years, the project was still substantially incomplete. During that time a further €2.5 million or so had been given to the company from the Vote.

The current position is not rosy. In round figures, 12 million records have been input, leaving an estimated 4 million more to be inputted, to complete the activity. Many centres have finished the work, but others are only half-way there and the availability of FÁS trainees to enter the data in those centres is drying up. It may have to be done commercially, supplemented perhaps by voluntary effort.

A key part of the project was the development of a central sign-posting index that could serve as the first point of contact for the individual seeking family records. However, the index is incomplete. Its relative priority is the source of one of the points of dispute between the company and the Irish Family History Foundation, which represents 28 of the 35 centres throughout the island of Ireland. This must be seen in the context of the project being overtaken by events, in particular the impact of the Internet. In addition, certain family history records are now available directly from a variety of sources, some of which are free of charge. This may have an adverse effect on potential income streams for the company from product development.

The future of the company is uncertain and the Department is considering how the matter will progress. Mr. Furlong will elaborate on this position in his opening statement, so I will leave it to him.

Mr. Furlong

The Comptroller and Auditor General presented a detailed analysis of the Irish Genealogical Project in his 2004 report. More recently, his office requested and was given an update on issues raised in last year's report. Notwithstanding considerable engagement by the Department of Arts, Sports and Tourism with the parties involved in the months following the publication of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, unresolved differences of opinion remain on how the project should be advanced. I will endeavour in these remarks to deal with the issues raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General, identifying costs incurred to date, addressing value for money issues and outlining departmental thinking on options for the completion of the project.

At this stage, the rationale for the project and the framework envisaged for its delivery have been overtaken by events. Inthe changed landscape for genealogical research, with its emphasis on access to records via the Internet, it is clear that the project faces new challenges which need to be placed in the context of the project's history, background, changed labour market conditions, technology advances and a changed roots tourism environment.

The Irish Genealogical Project commenced in 1988, primarily as a training and job creation tourism project, with the aim of developing a computerised database of information relevant to family history research in Ireland. Prior to that, the indexing of parish records was taking place on a widespread basis throughout the country. The project evolved from the task force on roots, genealogy and tourism in the late 1980s and had the effect of drawing together all those with a legitimate interest in genealogy in Ireland, in particular the work of 35 local centres operating on an all-island basis under the aegis of the Irish Family History Foundation.

The project's aim was the establishment of a comprehensive family history research service based on a countrywide network of centres and independent professional genealogists. Centres relied to a significant extent on FÁS training and work experience schemes to put various records on index cards and subsequently on computer files. It was intended that the data would be stored locally on computer systems linked to a common central signposting system maintained by a central co-ordinating body. Since it began operations in 1996, Irish Genealogy Limited has played a key role in this process of computerising church records and securing them onto modern server-based systems.

During the early years of the project, it operated against a backdrop of very high long-term unemployment. Thus, the significance of the role of FÁS in supporting the Irish Genealogical Project as a vehicle for providing valuable work experience leading to securing sustainable employment cannot be overestimated. The director general of FÁS acknowledged that it supported the genealogical centres because of the quality training opportunities they provided for unemployed persons. Thus, there existed right from the outset a parallel set of objectives for the project. A key objective in the initial years was the provision of quality computing training under the social employment and community employment programmes operated by FÁS which ran in parallel with the creation of a network of county-based genealogical research centres to generate roots tourism.

The very welcome economic growth of the past decade and the massive advances in information processing capability over the same period have combined to undermine the core rationale for the project. People now expect the system to reflect the advances in computer technology by enabling them to source the full data from the Internet. The essence of how the project operates no longer works, that is, a central index directing people irrespective of where they are in the world to the local centre. People may be required to pay for the data but they would expect in return to be able to access it from their computers in their own homes. In other words, the expectation of customers is now that of an end to end on-line product.

Although the huge reduction in unemployment is welcome, a consequence has been that using FÁS trainees to complete the input of records is no longer a viable option. IGL has estimated that at the current rate of progress, it would require 20 to 25 years to complete the computerisation of the outstanding church records using the FÁS trainees.

It would be facile to conclude that there is no longer a basis for continuing to support the genealogy project. While there is a question mark over the future role of IGL, it is necessary to acknowledge that the central signposting index has succeeded in generating a not inconsiderable level of business for the county-based genealogy centres, even if its further development and maintenance have been overtaken by the technological developments to which I have referred. The long-standing differences between IGL and Irish Family Heritage Foundation, to which 28 of the 35 local centres are affiliated, as well as the failure of attempts to resolve these differences, have raised questions as to the ability of IGL to oversee the project through to its completion. These differences relate to the perception of each other's role, functions and operating methods and to the priority attaching to the completion of the computerisation of the records which would link into the central signposting index.

The Minister called on both parties to resolve their difficulties. Unfortunately, efforts made in the bilateral meetings between IGL and IFHF in July, September and November 2005 failed to break the impasse. IFHF has not attended IGL board meetings since February 2005. IGL's capacity to shape the future direction of the project has been further reduced by the resignation earlier this year of its chief executive to take up a post elsewhere in the public sector. We are now at a crossroads for the project. Existing structures are not working and there seems little prospect of achieving a reconciliation between the parties soon. There are some fundamental questions that need to be addressed regarding its continuation.

I wish to deal with the issue of expenditure incurred to date. The financial input of the State to the project comprises two main elements, namely, departmental grants to IGL and the funding by FÁS of its scheme. FÁS has costed its assistance to the project for the period from 1988 to 2004, in terms of its trainees and staff, at €32.2 million. It would be wrong to regard this expenditure as simply another direct project cost because the training was linked to the acquisition by participants of skills in computing which would be of value to them in the marketplace. It is a reasonable assumption that as the knowledge economy expanded, the skills acquired through the IGL project were of significant relevance and highly valued in the marketplace. These broader exogenous impacts and externalities should not be discounted in the context of the overall contribution of the project.

The Comptroller and Auditor General referred in his 2004 report to the remarks of the director general of FÁS that the partnership between FÁS, its sponsors and the community results in FÁS — with a modest outlay in training allowances that goes directly to the trainees, a supervisory grant and a small contribution to administration costs — being able to provide good quality training for unemployed persons for whom it would otherwise be very difficult to cater.

The director general of FÁS has recently informed me that FÁS has worked very successfully with the centres and that the placement rate from such projects is quite high. He indicated that FÁS has concluded that genealogical projects are unlikely to make as significant a contribution to FÁS community-based training in the future as they have in the past. It is clear, therefore, that the engagement of FÁS in the project is dictated by its need to provide quality training and work experience opportunities for participants in its schemes, and that its involvement in the computerisation of the records is incidental to its core objective. This does not diminish the value of the work done in any way and it is reassuring that the quality of work done is of a high order and that many of the participants were subsequently successful in securing sustainable employment.

In the period from 1988 to date, departmental grants amounted to €2.688 million. My Department reduced its grant this year to €150,000, from its 2005 level of €395,000 as a holding measure pending a decision on the future of the project. During this period, Irish Genealogy Limited, IGL, has played a crucial role in the management, co-ordination and administration of the project and has addressed deficiencies which were highlighted in earlier reports by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

The director general of FÁS recently intimated that the IGL co-ordination of the work of the centres contributed significantly to the quality of the products. IGL provided an interface between the centres and customers worldwide through the central signposting index. IGL played an important role in the delivery of customer service. It secured the records from obsolete computer systems onto a modern server-based system in the centres which allowed the data to be hosted on the Internet. It commissioned valuable research. In addition, it assisted in the development of a range of standardised products at standardised prices in liaison with local centre managers, tourist board officers and heritage officers.

Nevertheless, we appear to have arrived at an impasse, hopefully temporary, in terms of advancing the project. Relationships between IGL and the Irish Family History Foundation, IFHF, which appeared to be moving in the right direction during the second half of last year, have deteriorated to the point where each has lost confidence in the other as an effective partner. With the participation of FÁS trainees being scaled back dramatically, inputting of data has slowed down. Most, though not all, the regional genealogical centres are affiliated to IFHF. It states it has concluded agreements with ecclesiastical authorities which give it access to church-owned data. IFHF does not permit these centres to engage directly with IGL or to co-operate with the IGL central index. IFHF has been critical of the quality of information technology support provided to the regional centres by IGL and it wishes to supplant IGL as the channel through which Government funding for the genealogy project is made available. All this has a bearing on prospects for ensuring early and orderly completion of the project.

At this point, I want to refer to one of the more frustrating aspects of the Department's association with the project, namely, the difficulties involved in getting an accurate fix on the quantum of data which has yet to be inputted to the database index. Last year, I gave the Comptroller and Auditor General details of the work done and yet to be done based on a best informed estimate by IGL. As I highlighted at that time, the precise number of records can only be determined when the registers in a particular parish are physically examined in the course of inputting to the database index. The projected totals were initially based on a survey of the starting dates for parish records in each catchment area and the birth rates for the relevant years. As centres complete the databases, these projected totals are replaced with the actual number of records and this figure changes from year to year.

The overall number of records which must be inputted has since been revised upwards. The most recent figures from IGLindicate that the overall number is approximately 16 million, with approximately 75% completed to date. However, a reduction in the number completed may be necessary because research to be submitted to the board of IGL indicates a variation in the amount of data computerised. Any question of computerisation on a commercial basis will require a detailed assessment of the business case. Definitive figures can be achieved only at the end of the computerisation process. This also stems from different cataloguing methods from parish to parish and the storage media of the physical record.

The project has many strengths and weaknesses and some recent changes, especially those relating to technology, present new opportunities. Understandably, the Committee of Public Accounts has been briefed on the weaknesses. However, these must be balanced against the positive features when assessing where to go from here and I will now refer to some of the strengths. They include the amount of work already done. IGL has estimated that approximately 75% of the overall number of records have been computerised. Second, I refer to the quality of the work done. Concerns expressed some time ago by the Comptroller and Auditor General as to the quality of work were discussed by the Committee of Public Accounts when the project came before it. However, a subsequent audit by outside consultants showed an error rate of just 1.8%. I understand this rate is well within acceptable tolerance levels for projects of this kind. The safeguarding of the existing computerised data is another strength. IGL has now moved all the existing data from the old computer equipment to a modern system and has thereby secured the data for future use.

The project also provides an opportunity for North-South co-operation. Northern Ireland centres participate in the project and the board of IGL included three representatives from Northern Ireland. The project benefited from funding from the peace and reconciliation programme.

Fáilte Ireland informed me recently that despite the decline in numbers, genealogy or roots tourism is still an important product. It informed me that 35% of Australians claim Irish heritage and that a renewed interest in heritage is also discernible in the British market. Moreover, Internet access to records has since given rise to huge interest in genealogy, as evidenced by a crash in a UK Internet site because of demand following the making available on-line of the 1901 census. In addition, the popularity of the BBC television programme, "Who Do You Think You Are", is also an indication of people's interest in genealogy.

I refer to stimulating interest in Ireland among the Irish diaspora. Details of where one's ancestors came from is likely to stimulate one's interest in the country and to generate visits at some future stage, possibly combined with some other reasons for such visits. Furthermore, increasing the connectedness of the Irish diaspora with Ireland has general benefits for Ireland over and above roots tourism.

My Department has recognised that genealogical records are an important historical and socio-political resource for the people of Ireland. In addition to the funding it puts into the Irish Genealogical Project, it has also allocated funding for the digitisation of the 1901 and 1911 census. The computerisation of civil records with future on-line access is well advanced by the Department of Health and Children. I understand that the following civil records are now held on electronic format: birth records from 1864 to date, death records from 1924 to date, and marriage records from 1920 to date. I also understand that the remaining civil records data, viz. death records from 1864 to 1923 and marriage records from 1845 to 1919, will eventually be accessible on computer. However, there are many gaps in the early civil records, which is why computerisation of church records has focused on the period up to 1900. If the computerisation of church records is not completed, there will be a major gap in accessible genealogical data, notwithstanding the substantial financial inputs made.

We have been given to understand by Fáilte Ireland that were the Department to withdraw or reduce funding for the project resulting in its abandonment, the product offering would be viewed as patchy and inconclusive and unsuitable for tourism promotion. Even with the growth of the Internet, Ireland still needs a comprehensive set of records on-line which can provide a motivator for potential visitors overseas. Despite its various shortcomings, the best way to achieve this goal is to complete this project as professionally and as quickly as possible. That is the view of Fáilte Ireland.

Commercial computerisation will be necessary if the project is to be completed within an acceptable timescale. The options in this regard are either to have direct State funding or to have a commercial entity do the work on the basis that it gets a return on its outlay through a pay-per-view system. In either case, the question of ownership and any limitations on usage of computerised data, including those pertaining to putting the full records on the Internet, must be clarified. The position of the IFHF in this regard also must be acknowledged. The foundation has recently written to the Department setting out its proposals for the future direction of the genealogy project and departmental colleagues will meet foundation representatives shortly to discuss these proposals. We must also assess the cost effectiveness of proposals which other private sector organisations specialising in genealogy have put to the Department.

As soon as these consultations have been completed, decisions will be made in the next few months on the future direction of State support for the project. Recognising the expertise which exists in the Department and the agencies under its aegis with regard to both genealogy and tourism, I have also appointed a group comprising representatives of the National Archives, the National Library, Fáilte Ireland and the chair of the Irish Genealogical Project to advise the Department and the Minister on the viability of the options for bringing the project to an orderly conclusion. I will keep the committee posted on developments.

I wish to conclude these opening remarks with a brief reference to another issue. The committee wishes to discover where matters now stand in respect of the publication of the report on certain matters affecting Bord na gCon, otherwise known as the Dalton report. I am aware of the committee's wish to examine the annual report and accounts for 2004 of Bord na gCon and the importance it attaches to having the Dalton report available to it as it does so. As is now common knowledge, the Minister received the report and is consulting his Cabinet colleagues on implementation of the recommendations made by Mr. Dalton.

The Minister has been advised by the Attorney General that before the report is formally published, due process requires that he should first afford those directly involved an opportunity to view the report or extracts thereof and to comment as they see fit prior to publication. This process is under way and comments, if any, must be submitted to the Department by the end of this month. As soon as he has considered any submissions or observations received, the Minister will ask the Government to decide on the issues highlighted by Mr. Dalton and it is his intention to publish the report immediately thereafter.

Chairman

May we publish Mr. Furlong's statement?

Mr. Furlong

Yes.

Deputy Curran

I welcome Mr. Furlong to the meeting. My first question concerns the Irish Genealogical Project which has, not for the first time, been the subject of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I will preface my remarks by stating that this project dates back to 1988. To be fair, one would have acknowledged in 1988 that the project was very far-sighted and ambitious and was worth embarking on. However, over the intervening period, it has not delivered results in the manner probably envisaged by all those concerned. I refer specifically to a report produced ten years ago by the Comptroller and Auditor General. This report concluded that the project needed to establish clear targets and periodically assess progress relative to them.

While the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism did not run the project, it was in many ways responsible for funding and overseeing it. What where the targets and how were they overseen by the Department? What did the Department do when it was clear that the targets were not being reached over this period?

Mr. Furlong

The Department was an observer on the board of the Irish Genealogical Project. To that extent, the Department received indications what was taking place. It seems that the problems which have beset the report are on two levels. One relates to the quantum of work. The fact that approximately 12 million out of 16 million records have been computerised and are now safely stored represents progress. I acknowledge that the pace was slow but at least the records are now computerised.

What is disappointing is the extent to which it is possible to make these data available through the central signposting index. As I indicated in my opening statement, it boiled down to relationship issues between the project and the IFHF. The Department attempted at all times to bring people together but it could not force co-operation because the data in 27 of the 35 centres were owned by the IFHF. The Department could have used the nuclear option and scrapped the project if the IFHF and the Irish Genealogical Project were not prepared to co-operate. The Department could have decided that the project was not worth continuing if a commonsense approach to it could not be reached. As I stated in my opening statement, it would have been facile to take this approach.

I admit that the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General published in 2005 was a very important catalyst in energising the Department to re-engage with the parties. Perhaps, the Department should have done more in the years leading up to this report to ensure that there was co-operation. Ultimately, it depended on how the two parties got on and if they were not prepared to co-operate, it made it very difficult for us.

The Department attempted to carry out a number of measures over the past nine months. Initially, the Minister met the Irish Genealogical Project and asked it to produce a business plan and sort out its issues.

Deputy Curran

Has this business plan been delivered?

Mr. Furlong

It has been delivered. In effect, the business plan is suspended until we deal with the disputed issues.

Deputy Curran

In his opening statement, Mr. Furlong stated that if the present rate of implementation continues, it will take 20 to 25 years to complete the project. What is envisaged by the business plan?

Mr. Furlong

Commercial computerisation is at the core of the business plan so we would have to spend money on this. The question is whether we do so by enabling the Irish Genealogical Project to commission it or go to the market and get commercial operators with expertise to do it for us and then possibly charge a fee through the use of the data. I have acknowledged the absolute significance of the role of FÁS. Without that agency, we would not have made the progress we did.

Deputy Curran

FÁS is no longer available.

Mr. Furlong

Subject to what FÁS officials might have to say about it, it might be available but on a considerably reduced scale. This is my understanding of its position.

Deputy Curran

Instead of simply looking backwards, is Mr. Furlong clearly saying that the Department will make a decision to complete this project in a much shorter period than the 20 or 25 years to which he referred?

Mr. Furlong

Yes.

Deputy Curran

It will be completed, one way or another.

Mr. Furlong

Over the next four or five months, we will complete our business assessment of the project. If the business case stacks up, we will then proceed to finish it. It is in the interests of everyone to do so. As I indicated, there is still an interest in genealogical research, albeit in a different form to that envisaged at the time the project was launched, which we wish to facilitate. Fáilte Ireland has been unambiguous in saying to us that this project, if completed properly, will provide a useful boost to tourism.

Deputy Curran

This is despite the fact that the figures indicate a decline in this type of tourism.

Mr. Furlong

Directly, yes, but Fáilte Ireland suggests that using roots tourism can provide a motive for those who might be contemplating visiting Ireland for other reasons. A combination of roots tourism and, for example, golf tourism, could be useful. Fáilte Ireland regards it as a valuable tool which is part of its product development.

Deputy Curran

What type of timeframe for completing the project is regarded as reasonable by Mr. Furlong? I am aware that this question puts him on the spot.

Mr. Furlong

Yes, it does. I give an undertaking that I will keep the committee fully briefed about the business case. I would like to believe that when the business case is produced, it will indicate the costs involved and the timeframe needed to complete the project. I do not see any value in letting a project such as this drag on for another three or four years. There are commercial possibilities available which would allow the inputting of data to acceptable standards to be carried out here or abroad in a matter of months. Our objective is to discover which is the most cost effective of these approaches and to give the go-ahead.

Deputy Curran

Without putting Mr. Furlong on the spot, does he believe the project will be completed in a couple of years?

Mr. Furlong

Yes.

Deputy Curran

So he does not believe it will drag on for many years.

Mr. Furlong

No, it will not drag on for many years. I would not like to be put at the point of a pistol and say that it will be completed in 24 months as against 30 months, but we want to see it completed quickly. We recognise that it has been around for far too long. It was a good idea and still is, albeit in a different mode. The interests of all parties concerned are best served by completing the project as quickly as possible.

Deputy Curran

On the previous occasion when Mr. Furlong appeared before the committee, we spoke about a project close to my area. The project concerns the development of a municipal football stadium for Shamrock Rovers in Tallaght. The previous time Mr. Furlong appeared before the committee, he suggested that if Shamrock Rovers relinquished its lease to the local authority, the project could be advanced in this manner. Will he update the committee on the project's progress?

Mr. Furlong

The development referred to by Deputy Curran has taken place. The leases were surrendered to South Dublin County Council. Departmental officials then met the council and agreed that, in partnership, we would fund the completion of the stadium primarily for the playing of soccer but also as a municipal facility.

Deputy Curran

Does Mr. Furlong have the figures for the cost of completing the project?

Mr. Furlong

The cost will be approximately €7 million but I am subject to correction.

Deputy Curran

From now until completion.

Mr. Furlong

Yes.

Deputy Curran

Will the cost be split 50:50 between the Department and the local authority?

Mr. Furlong

We have not negotiated at that level yet. However, there is a recognition that significant funding must come from the sports capital programme.

Owing to the change in ownership, the permission given by South Dublin County Council lapsed. The council needed to agree a revised permission. Departmental officials reverted to the council, which decided as a result of lobbying by GAA clubs in the area that the property should be used as a multi-sports facility. There are certain limitations in this regard besides the costs and capacity involved. We made it clear to the council that whether the stadium was owned by Shamrock Rovers or was a municipal facility, our commitment had been to complete the project as a soccer stadium.

It was entirely a matter for the council to decide what it would do, but if it wished to develop a multi-sports facility there, the Department would not fund it. The Minister has publicly affirmed to the soccer and GAA parties involved that the Government will only fund the soccer stadium, as decided in 1999. When the council returned to its original decision, a Tallaght GAA club subsequently initiated a judicial review. Last Monday, this matter was heard in court and an adjournment of a week was granted.

We are anxious to complete the facility because this process has been ongoing for a long time. We want to look after the interests of all the parties involved, not just Shamrock Rovers and South Dublin County Council. The GAA in Dublin has projects in the Tallaght area that are worthy of support. While we want to support them in partnership with the Dublin GAA, it will be impossible to do so until the issue of the judicial review has been removed.

Deputy Curran

What is the timeframe for the project's completion after the judicial review?

Mr. Furlong

From our preliminary discussions with South Dublin County Council, it could take approximately six months to complete the stadium. In itself, this creates difficulties. If the judicial review drags out and on the assumption that we will go ahead with the current plans, the stadium may not be ready for the 2007 football season. This is of concern to the Shamrock Rovers club, representatives of which I met this week.

Deputy Curran

Have the council's legal advisers indicated for how long the review could run?

Mr. Furlong

I do not know, as the matter is subjective at this stage. There is a sense that the issue will not reach a substantive hearing until the end of 2006. If the hearing produces an outcome with which parties are not happy, there will presumably be an appeal. The review has the potential to run for some time. In the interim, development everywhere will be stymied.

Deputy Curran

Could Mr. Furlong expand on his last comment? Does he mean projects other than the Tallaght stadium?

Mr. Furlong

We were trying to engineer a solution that would enable work on the stadium to proceed and lands in Rathcoole acquired by the GAA to be developed. We have told the Dublin GAA county board that the Minister is keen to work with it in this regard.

Deputy Curran

What was the response? Am I correct in saying that the judicial review has been requested by a number of GAA clubs rather than the county board?

Mr. Furlong

Yes.

Deputy Curran

What is the view of the county board?

Mr. Furlong

We met members of the board. Understandably, they said that they must reflect the views of their constituents. The Tallaght case was raised at a recent county board meeting. Unsurprisingly, many Dublin clubs indicated their support in principle for another member club.

Department officials met the county board and explained that the Minister did not make his decision to close out the possibility of GAA involvement in the project at the last moment. From the moment the project was conceived, there was never a proposal to make it a GAA or multi-sports facility. It was identified as a priority project by the FAI, which was the basis on which it received funding and support.

Deputy Curran

The Lansdowne Road stadium redevelopment project is at the planning stage. How is it proceeding?

Mr. Furlong

The Lansdowne Road stadium committee submitted its planning application and was given feedback by Dublin City Council, with which it has been in dialogue. The committee expects to return to the council during the week with detailed answers to the questions asked. Planners in Dublin City Council will then make a decision. On the assumption that the responses are broadly satisfactory, it is our understanding that the city council may indicate its position on planning by the end of July.

Deputy Curran

That could be the subject of an appeal to An Bord Pleanála.

Mr. Furlong

On the basis of local interests, it is fairly certain the project will be appealed. It is dangerous to try to anticipate what might happen, but our sense of the reaction to the initial planning application is that no serious unanticipated issues have arisen.

Deputy Curran

Does Mr. Furlong envision the planning process being completed this year?

Mr. Furlong

If not at the end of 2006, then early in 2007. While I do not know how long An Bord Pleanála takes in respect of such issues, I am advised that the project might be given priority owing to its infrastructural significance. In those circumstances, I imagine that An Bord Pleanála could complete its processes by the end of this year. I am not an expert in the area and do not want to prejudge the decision.

Deputy Curran

One way or another, the planning process will take the guts of this year.

Mr. Furlong

Yes. The timeframe for An Bord Pleanála is approximately four months.

Deputy Curran

The Government has committed €190 million to the Lansdowne Road project, the other partners are to provide funding and a company has been set up to run the project. Has Mr. Furlong seen a business plan that assures him the other parties can fund the project in a timely fashion?

Mr. Furlong

I chair a steering group to oversee the project comprising representatives of the soccer and rugby sporting agencies and the Office of Public Works. The Department of Finance is also involved. Reasonably satisfactory bank assurances that the sporting agencies could provide their contributions have been provided. As a further test of the robust nature of the figures an assessment will be carried out by the National Treasury Management Agency.

Deputy Curran

Mr. Furlong makes comments about the figures being reasonably robust and refers to the NTMA. Should that not have been done before this stage? Will it be done before the tender process?

Mr. Furlong

Definitely. We have been given assurances and letters have been provided by banks and examined by lawyers. The Office of Public Works regarded these as satisfactory. This is a double lock mechanism to ensure no one will be given misleading information on this.

Deputy Curran

We appreciate that the various sporting bodies will raise money through corporate boxes and the title of the stadium. I am concerned at the timing of funds to these agencies and that the business plan is solid.

Mr. Furlong

The understanding is that these people would begin the process of forward sales but this cannot be done until one has planning permission and people realise a stadium will be built.

Deputy Curran

Is State money advancing the project at this stage?

Mr. Furlong

Yes. By the end of this year, we will have spent a total of €30 million, €10 million in 2005 and €20 million this year.

Deputy Curran

Have the other sporting bodies contributed to date?

Mr. Furlong

No, but we have been given undertakings that, should the project not proceed, we have a charge to have any moneys advanced repaid. This has been done through the Office of the Chief State Solicitor.

Deputy Boyle

I wish to return to the Irish Genealogical Project. I was intrigued by the reference to the role of the Department as an observer on the board of Irish Genealogy Limited, IGL. As the Department is a primary funder of this, I would have thought the responsibility ran deeper than that. At its inception in 1997 the Department of Arts, Sports and Tourism took responsibility for the Irish Genealogical Project at approximately the same time as the IGL was set up. The Department and the IGL have grown together in the delivery of this service. Given that the value for money report conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General was released in December 1996, some months before the Department took over, to what extent have those recommendations been implemented?

Mr. Furlong

We have ensured the quality of the data processing. There were concerns that what was being produced might not be secure but now everything that has been input to date is on a secure computer system. The Comptroller and Auditor General also referred to the accuracy of input. A separate, independent assessment of the quality showed a 1.8% error rate, well within acceptable levels for this operation. We have ensured the data is available on modern computer systems and is stored accurately. Although the IGL and the Irish Family History Foundation, IFHF, do not have a smooth working relationship, we are trying to address this.

Deputy Boyle

If the Comptroller and Auditor General chose to include a chapter on this in his 2000 report, would it be fair to say that the recommendations of the value for money report in 1996 have, largely, not been implemented?

Mr. Furlong

They certainly have not been met as speedily as might have been expected but we have made reasonable progress. We estimated that the number of entries to be made was considerably fewer than the 16 million entries we now know are necessary. Some 12 million of these have been completed and stored on a secure computer system. This represents progress, although not enough to allow the project to be completed. Having been energised by the recent report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, we are attempting to deal with past failings and to complete the projects as quickly as possible. This can only be done through commercial involvement.

Deputy Boyle

In his opening statement Mr. Furlong seemed to confuse two issues, the current role of the IGL and the broader role for the Irish Genealogical Project. The opening contribution seemed negative and, while a definitive statement on the future of the IGL is not possible, the second part of the statement referred to the acquisition of records that have nothing to do with the company. The policy decision on church records and non-church records has already been made. The current policy position for the Department is to pursue the acquisition of non-church records while the crux of the church genealogy records problem is still being addressed.

Mr. Furlong

One needs a reliable computer system and an arrangement with the ecclesiastical authorities if the church records are to be accessed. The IFHF believes it and local genealogy centres have not been given adequate computer support by the IGL. The IFHF has the completion of records as its priority and claims that the role of the IGL is to advance the creation of a central signposting index. The IGL was, according to the IFHF, prioritising completion of the signposting index over the completion of data input in genealogy centres. Both claims are disputed by the IGL but this gives an indication of the extent to which the relationship has broken down.

The Department has not made a decision on the future of the IGL, which is part of the structure in the Department currently undertaking a stock take on this project. The chief executive officer of the IGL took another post in the public service and, rather than fill his former post, we decided to make a decision on the future of the company first.

Deputy Boyle

Mr. Furlong seems to be operating in a triple vacuum.

Mr. Furlong

It is confusing.

Deputy Boyle

What about the governance of the IGL? How many meetings of the board of the IGL have taken place since February 2005 when the IFHF refused to attend meetings? Have these meetings been quorate?

Mr. Furlong

I do not have that information to hand.

Deputy Boyle

I have one question on the role of FÁS before I move on to the general Vote. In Mr. Furlong's opening statement, he mentioned general satisfaction about the level of placement subsequent to the scheme. Does he have the figure for the number of people who have moved on to other employment? Are those jobs measured in terms of being more long term, secure and better remunerated? Regarding the timescale with IGL, will the delegation comment on the fact that less trainees are being provided and the operating environment means those trainees now available require basic training as well as add-on training and this is more likely to slow down the future computerisation?

Mr. Cassidy

Regarding the question on placement rates, all those who undergo training on the project progress. We estimate that approximately 70% to 80% have gone into employment, which is a high figure. The balance continue with further training or education. The level of trainees on the programmes and subsequent placement prospects are both good.

The need for each programme is considered annually on the basis of the availability of trainees and the project's ability to deliver a training programme to them. In general, we have difficulty in finding trainees in certain locations for all of these local training initiatives. We also find that the trainees who come forward probably require some additional assistance. That is reflected in the type of training programme required.

Deputy Boyle

I have three questions on the Vote to address to Mr. Furlong and his officials. To what extent is the State involved in the Lansdowne Road development on a fixed-sum basis? Is there a possibility of a growing liability in the case of cost overruns? Are controls in place to avoid that possibility? I ask on the basis that Mr. Furlong's statement on enhancing internal controls in the Department's accounts seems markedly different from the standard statement made by other Departments, based on the Mullarkey report which discusses the process of integrating risk management into existing management systems. Does Mr. Furlong have reason to believe potential risks exist, and what are the risks his Department seeks to anticipate in the short term?

Mr. Furlong

We have no particular reason to believe risks of significant cost overruns exist. As I mentioned in reply to Deputy Curran, the Department presides over a steering group which oversees progress on the project. The current estimate is €357 million. We made it clear at each meeting of the committee that the State's commitment to the project is capped at €191 million. We ask for assurances as the work progresses that the stadium company is satisfied it is deliverable within that cost figure. We are told without exception that it is.

Ultimately, it will be tested when it goes to market and tenders are received. However, it has been stated if a further increase of cost occurs, the State will not go above the specific €191 million figure on which the Government decided. Approval given by the Department of Finance for funding is also capped at €191 million in our capital envelope. The Minister and his Department do not have the option of increasing the State contribution without a specific Government commitment to that end. We have no indication at this stage that we must return to Government to get it or that if we did return to Government it would be approved.

Deputy Boyle

The offer of a contract by Campus and Stadium Ireland Development Limited regarding the national aquatic centre became a matter of controversy recently when it was learned that the successful bidder was a consortium which includes a shelf company registered in the British Virgin Islands. I am not sure whether the Department has observer status or active involvement in this body. How long has the Department known about this issue? Was it known at the time or did it emerge during consequent court actions? Is there a possible risk because this information is now public?

Mr. Furlong

That information became known to the Department for the first time during the court proceedings which the Department initiated against Dublin Waterworld Limited for non-delivery of its undertakings at the time the contract was signed. We were not aware of it until then. As far as we are concerned, Dublin Waterworld Limited dealt in bad faith with the Department and with Campus and Stadium Ireland Development Limited in concluding that arrangement. Apparently it was done by Dublin Waterworld Limited with this third party and no communication was made. It is further evidence of bad faith and is one of the reasons we want to have the existing tenancy terminated and responsibility for the facility restored to Campus and Stadium Ireland Development Limited.

Deputy Boyle

I accept that. However, in terms of the provision of future sporting infrastructure or existing contracts which might be in place, what measures has the Department taken to investigate the contracts awarded, the people to whom they have been awarded and the status of those who accepted those contracts?

Mr. Furlong

We have not had any further contracts negotiated around Campus Stadium Ireland. That is the only facility which has been the subject of an agreement. Learning from our experience, although we probably did not need to learn from that particular experience, when we enter into contractual arrangements on the future development of the campus, detailed contracts will be negotiated with clear definitions of responsibilities of the parties to the agreement. We will use whatever legal advice is required to ensure the interests of the State are fully protected and secured.

I cannot account for what happened on the original contract because I simply do not know. Having learned of this for the first time in the context of the court hearings, I am determined we will never permit ourselves to be exposed in this way again.

Deputy Boyle

I am glad to hear that.

I have a question on proportions of spending on the overall Vote. A recent statistic states that 37% of the sports expenditure of the Department is on horse and greyhound racing. What is the policy position of the Department on the allocation of funding? Does the Department have a mission statement which encourages participation in sports and if so why is such a proportion of the fund spent on what are, essentially, passive sports as regard the public?

Mr. Furlong

I will provide some figures which will show we have reacted to that. In 2002, the total spend on horse and greyhound racing was €68 million, which was 33% of the total budget for sport. By 2005, it had grown to 37% of the total budget for sport. In 2006, the total spend on the horse and greyhound racing fund is €70 million, and the total spend on sport is €243 million, which means in 2006 the figure has been reduced to 29%.

The investment in sport in general increased by €59 million between 2005 and 2006. Increased spending on the horse and greyhound fund accounted for only €2 million of that €59 million. The spend on horse and greyhound racing is determined by law under the Horse and Greyhound Racing Act.

Deputy Boyle

Can Mr. Furlong point to any other European country where that proportion would exist, in national sports expenditure, in terms of spending on animals vis-à-vis people?

Mr. Furlong

I cannot but I am pointing to the fact that a very significant reduction in the percentage has taken place, consciously, this year.

Deputy Boyle

Even at 29%, one is probably talking about two or three times the European average.

Mr. Furlong

Achieving a reduction from 37% to 29% in one year is progress.

Deputy Boyle

Is the Department working towards the European average?

Mr. Furlong

I do not know what is the European average, but the priority is to spend more on the aspects of sport which are related to the health of the community. This includes providing secure facilities for people at major sporting events and, at local community level, ensuring that people who are active participants in sport have adequate playing and dressing room facilities. That expenditure is going ahead at a rate of knots. Expenditure on horses and greyhounds is dictated by an Act passed by the Oireachtas.

Deputy Boyle

Perhaps when we have had the opportunity to examine the Dalton report, we can revisit these issues.

Deputy Burton

I wish to return to the issues of Campus Stadium Ireland and the National Aquatic Centre. Mr. Furlong, if I understood him correctly, indicated to Deputy Boyle that the Department, rather than Campus and Stadium Ireland Development Limited, initiated the legal proceedings against Dublin Waterworld, although I presume the latter two were the legal parties in the case.

Mr. Furlong

Forgive me Deputy, if I said that. I was wrong. The proceedings were initiated by Campus and Stadium Ireland Development Limited.

Deputy Burton

Was it guided by the Department in those proceedings? The company is one which is limited by guarantee, whose shareholders are the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, although I am not sure if the new legislation has changed that position.

Mr. Furlong

Clearly, in proceeding with court action, we had to make sure that the Minister was supportive. Therefore, he was consulted and he supported the initiation of the court action.

Deputy Burton

Is the Department indemnifying any legal costs of Campus and Stadium Ireland Development Limited arising from the legal action?

Mr. Furlong

The costs of Campus and Stadium Ireland Development Limited are met by way of an annual grant from the Department. The company receives a grant of approximately €1.5 million. Unfortunately, in recent years, too much of that grant has been spent on legal costs arising from issues such as the operation of the National Aquatic Centre.

Deputy Burton

Could Mr. Furlong give an indication of what the legal cost exposure has been since July 2003?

Mr. Furlong

I do not have that figure at the moment, but I will forward it to the Deputy when it is available. I do not have it right now because we are in the middle of a court action

Deputy Burton

Would Mr. Furlong have an estimate of the cost of the current proceedings?

Mr. Furlong

No, I would not——

Deputy Burton

It would be a couple of million euro, would it not?

Mr. Furlong

Yes. The Department's own costs are significant and we have asked the court to award us our costs in actions taken to date to have Dublin Waterworld removed. Dublin Waterworld is appealing that to the Supreme Court.

Deputy Burton

The judge, according to newspaper reports, commented that on the day that Dublin Waterworld obtained the lease from Campus and Stadium Ireland Development Limited, it breached the terms of the contract by assigning the beneficial ownership to a Mr. Mulcair, whom I understand is a builder or property developer. Was the Department advised of the assignment of the lease or was it only discovered as a consequence of the court case?

Mr. Furlong

As I said to Deputy Boyle, we discovered it as a consequence of the court case.

Deputy Burton

The judge's report suggests that this appeared to be a tax-driven deal, in that, as a consequence of the assignment of the lease, valuable capital allowances were created. The judge mentioned a value for those capital allowances of somewhere in the order of €2.8 million per annum, or a total figure of €34 million. I understand from replies to Dáil questions and previous reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General that the capital spend on the National Aquatic Centre stands at approximately €62 million. Is it correct that the State paid for all of the National Aquatic Centre development?

Mr. Furlong

Yes.

Deputy Burton

The State spent €62 million. Perhaps my next question should be addressed to officials from the Department of Finance. How could the State spend €62 million on the creation of an asset, pay for it in full and when a lease or sub-lease on that property is generated, it gives rise to very valuable capital allowances, worth somewhere in the region of €34 million? If I was a professional accountant serving on the board of any State-owned sports entity, I would say that such a scenario is astonishing.

Mr. Furlong

Before the Department of Finance officials reply, I wish to comment on this matter. The first obvious point to make is that much of this is still sub judice. The second point is that the Revenue Commissioners are now aware of this situation. They are totally independent of my own Department and the Department of Finance, in inquiring into circumstances surrounding tax allowances claimed. I imagine that the Revenue Commissioners are examining the details of this case. What they do is a matter for them and the individual tax payer and neither Department can direct them to follow a certain course of action. Nonetheless, I am sure the circumstances are of interest to the Revenue Commissioners.

Mr. Quigley

I want to confirm what Mr. Furlong has just said. Revenue is independent in this matter and is not in a position, as yet, to comment on the details of the case. That is all I can say at this point because the details of this case are currently being examined by the Revenue Commissioners and until they take a stance on the matter, it would not be appropriate to comment.

Chairman

Has the Department been advised by Revenue on these issues?

Mr. Quigley

I am not fully au fait with the details of the discussions, if there have been any, between Revenue and the Department of Finance. I can obtain that information and supply it to the committee. I suspect that Revenue may not have entered into discussions on the details of the case with the Department, pending the completion of its investigation. Nonetheless, I will arrange for the committee to be informed of the up-to-date position.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Quigley.

Mr. Furlong

Can I comment further on the issue? I understand that capital allowances can be claimed in respect of capital expenditure incurred in the provision of machinery or plant, under section 284 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997. However, these allowances are generally not available where the expenditure has been met directly by the State. Those facts are now in the possession of the Revenue Commissioners.

Deputy Burton

I have also been given that advice. I agree with the judge's findings in this case and if the structure of this tax-driven scheme proves successful the potential cost to the State, in terms of tax foregone on similar schemes, is extraordinary. The potential cost to the Exchequer from the tax foregone on similar schemes is enormous. For example, the State agreed to spend up to €191 million on the Lansdowne Road project. A business is obviously entitled to capital allowances when it spends money on a project but it would stand logic on its head if the State also had to pay capital allowances on its own investments. While I accept that the Minister for Finance rather than the Revenue Commissioners is responsible for making policy in this area, has expert legal or accounting advice been sought in respect of the validity of this deal?

Mr. Furlong

To the best of my knowledge, Campus Stadium Ireland has not sought advice because, as I already pointed out, we believe the matter is one for the Revenue Commissioners and the taxpayer in the context of the Taxes Consolidation Act. I am unsure whether the Department of Arts, Sports and Tourism is responsible for commissioning independent advice on the matter. It may be more appropriate for the Department of Finance or the Revenue Commissioners to commission such advice. Nonetheless, it is an unusual arrangement, to put it mildly.

Deputy Burton

Does Mr. Furlong perceive the appalling vista that could result from this arrangement? Deputy Boyle referred to the State's investment in horse and greyhound racing. If this deal goes through, it will be the greatest bonanza for accountants since the Klondike because anyone who received funding for a sports related development would be able to receive capital allowances by forming a sublease. It is part of the job of accountants to sell such opportunities.

The Department is in the business of providing capital investment for sports programmes throughout the country, so if an unexpected side effect of the extraordinary deal made by Campus Stadium Ireland on the eve of the Olympics will be to open up this area, surely the Department should consult the Department of Finance and the Revenue Commissioners with regard to finding ways to prevent smart business people from walking away with tax breaks worth millions of euro.

Mr. Furlong

I wish to make it clear that the first time the Department and Campus Stadium Ireland learned of this matter was during the course of the court proceedings. If advanced notice had been received, we would not have supported the arrangement. The Minister of Finance has also answered questions on whether the provision represented an appropriate use of the tax code. Revenue polices the operation of allowances and stops any abuses it finds through the Finance Bills and, while I am not an expert on tax law, I understand it is possible under section 317 of the Taxes Consolidation Act to deny allowances in respect of expenditure met in full by the State.

It is not my role to express a view on whether anyone abused the provision because that is a matter for the Revenue Commissioners and the person claiming the allowance. Nonetheless, the facts which emerged in the court case suggest that further inquiries are needed into certain issues.

Deputy Burton

Will the engineer's report on the damage to the stadium's roof ever be published?

Many people from the Indian subcontinent have encountered significant challenges in getting visas to visit family members living in Ireland. An Indian grandparent who wishes to come to Ireland to see his or her Indian-Irish grandchildren can find it difficult to do so. Similar issues will arise for visitors intending to travel to Ireland to watch the Ryder Cup. Given the role of the Department of Arts, Sports and Tourism in supporting tourism, has it given any consideration to the difficulties people encounter in getting visitors' visas?

Mr. Furlong

Due to certain ongoing proceedings, the report on the roof has to be treated as confidential at present. However, these proceedings will soon be completed, at which point the report will be released.

On the Deputy's second question, we have not been made aware of any specific visa issues arising in respect of the Ryder Cup. I will consult Fáilte Ireland, which is the main State agency promoting the event, to ascertain whether it has further information on the matter.

I encountered problems pertaining to visas while trying to attract the involvement of Bollywood in Irish film making, an area for which the Department has responsibility.

Deputy Burton

I thought we were to become the Irish Bollywood.

Mr. Furlong

I met with the Indian ambassador, who indicated that visas were something of a problem. My counterpart in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform indicated that a separate office is being established in Delhi in order to speed up the processing of visas for Indians wishing to visit Ireland. I do not know whether that represents a satisfactory solution but it does at least recognise the need for extra effort to facilitate the entry of Indian people who could be of benefit to Ireland.

Chairman

If Deputy Burton so wishes, she can pursue the visa issue with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform when it attends this committee on 22 June.

Mr. Furlong

I was asked about the number of meetings held by the IGL board in 2005. I am advised that it held five meetings and a separate AGM in 2005 and one meeting thus far in 2006.

Chairman

Turning to the representatives from FÁS, what is the attitude of FÁS to its continued participation in the inputting of data on the genealogical project? If its attitude is positive does it have the resources to do so?

Ms Anderson

We do not have a strong attitude either way. Our LTI programmes across the board are based on need and demand for training in particular areas. Our contracts are with individual heritage centres and are based on responding to the training needs of the participants. Our focus is on training and good quality outcomes for the participants. If there is a demand we can continue to do that. Our contracts are annual because they are based on an annual budget and therefore we can never enter into a long-term commitment. We do not have a problem because if the resources exist we can continue. However, it is subject to looking at each individual area and need and to the availability of trainees.

Chairman

If the task is transferred to a private company Ms Anderson will not be unduly upset.

Ms Anderson

We will be able to divert our budget and use it in other ways.

Chairman

Do the Department of Finance officials have a view?

Mr. Quigley

We do not have a strong view. We are anxious that the project be facilitated in order that it can be completed. We are open to any idea that comes from the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism. If it argues a good case for fast-tracking the project we would look at it sympathetically. While we are conscious that the FÁS expedient was used in the past, circumstances have changed. We would not wish to force FÁS to engage in activity that might not be economically worthwhile. We are prepared to look sympathetically at proposals from the Department with a view to finalising the project.

Chairman

Does the Department of Finance have somebody on the board?

Mr. Quigley

On the board of FÁS?

Chairman

On the board of the IGP.

Mr. Quigley

No.

Chairman

Could Mr. Furlong or Mr. O Donnchú give us a short update on the finances of the Abbey Theatre, their soundness or otherwise and how far the project to relocate the Abbey has proceeded?

Mr. Furlong

The funding of the current activity of the Abbey is managed by the Arts Council. Funding was made available to the Arts Council towards the end of last year to discharge in total the accumulated debt of the Abbey, which went into 2006 debt free. Its allocation from the Arts Council this year is approximately €7 million. In so far as one can be dogmatic about anything, one can assert that the finances of the Abbey are now on a secure footing and are being monitored closely by the Arts Council. There are quarterly reports on delivery of the reform commitments associated with the provision of the additional funding. We have Government approval for the new project at George's Dock and a study on PPP-type procurement for it was recently completed by consultants. We are discussing that with the OPW and expect to be able soon to ask for formal Government sign-off for a particular form of procurement.

Chairman

Is an architectural competition envisaged or is design part of the PPP submission?

Mr. Furlong

Both options are being considered. The Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism has a preference for a separate architectural competition. If that can be accommodated in the PPP model, as I believe it can, I do not see a problem. Another major project, the conference centre, did not have a separate architectural competition and was procured as a PPP project. However the design developed by the PPP company is innovative and eye-catching. That one does an inclusive PPP project does not mean one will not get high-quality architecture. The issue is still in play.

Chairman

In evaluating a PPP what weight will be given to design?

Mr. Furlong

That has yet to be determined. We need a building that will fulfil a number of roles. It will need to be functional, however one of the drivers behind the fact that the Government decided to go ahead with this project was a need at this stage in our history to have one or two landmark projects in the centre of Dublin. In those circumstances I can see design being given a high rating in the overall assessment. Once the procurement mechanism has been decided a project group will be established and one of its responsibilities will be to assign weightings to the various elements.

Chairman

Are there any figures on the percentage of seats in the Abbey being sold?

Mr. Furlong

No, but I can get them.

Chairman

Perhaps Mr. Furlong will write to us.

Mr. Furlong

I will.

Chairman

There have been suggestions and reports of structural faults in the building of Campus Stadium Ireland, including part of the roof being blown off and leaks. Has Campus Stadium Ireland or the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism commissioned an engineering report into the soundness of the structure?

Mr. Furlong

Yes.

Chairman

Does Mr. Furlong have a result?

Mr. Furlong

Those reports have unequivocally indicated that there is no structural damage of any kind and that any issues would have arisen in the normal operation of the facility. That information was put into the public domain but was ignored.

Chairman

Which reports are they and who carried them out?

Mr. Furlong

I will ask Mr. Haugh.

Mr. Con Haugh

Rohcon carried out an inspection of the premises in July 2005 and that was overseen by Kavanagh Mansfield, which was appointed independently by CSID. Rohcon issued a statement that the building was sound and Kavanagh Mansfield supported that view.

Chairman

Rohcon has a position to defend.

Mr. Haugh

Absolutely.

Chairman

I am asking if the Department has carried out or commissioned an independent structural study.

Mr. Haugh

Although no specific structural study has been carried out, as I said, Kavanagh Mansfield, which was independent of Rohcon, was also involved in the Rohcon examination.

Chairman

Was that after the roof blew off or the leak reports?

Mr. Haugh

That was carried out in July 2005. The roof blew off in January 2004.

Chairman

A study was carried out by structural engineers after a portion of the roof blew off.

Mr. Haugh

That is the report mentioned by the Secretary General a few minutes ago in response to a question by Deputy Burton. Kavanagh Mansfield did a report on that.

Chairman

I understand it examined only the portion of the building that was damaged, not the structural integrity of the entire building.

Mr. Haugh

However, subsequently, in response to the other allegations of structural faults and leaks, Rohcon, supported by Kavanagh Mansfield, carried out a further analysis of the building, which indicated that there were no structural faults.

Chairman

When Mr. Furlong previously appeared before us we asked about the wind and he said there was an unusual whirlwind in north Dublin on the day, of which he had personal experience, and part of the roof was blown off. He ascribed the catastrophe to unusual weather conditions. There were subsequent reports that only every second girder supporting the roof had a fastening bolt. Did Mr. Haugh hear about that?

Mr. Haugh

It is fair to say there were deficiencies in the construction. Rocon has amended the roof at no capital cost to the Exchequer. The report giving that information is the report that has not been made available yet because legal and contractual issues surrounded it. Those issues are almost resolved, after which the report can be made available.

Chairman

Information became publicly available to the effect that each of the girders supporting the roof was required by the specifications to be made fast, whereas only every second one was bolted down.

Mr. Haugh

I have seen those reports in the media.

Chairman

Are they correct? Was that information in the engineer's report?

Mr. Haugh

Kavanagh Mansfield confirmed that the girders were structurally defective.

Chairman

Was that the specific structural defect?

Mr. Haugh

I am not an expert but it was partly that. The exact nature of the defect will become clear when the report is available.

Chairman

Mr. Furlong inadvertently misled us. The freak wind did not blow one aeroplane into another at Dublin Airport. The reason the roof blew off was the fact that a girder was not bolted down.

Mr. Furlong

I assure the Chairman it was freak wind. If I said it was responsible for damaging the roof, I was wrong but, as someone who lives close to the centre, I assure him it was a freak wind.

Chairman

Not even a tree falls unless the wind blows. Has the Department established the primary cause of part of the roof blowing off?

Mr. Furlong

That is the subject of the report to which Mr. Haugh just referred.

Chairman

Which cannot be published.

Mr. Furlong

It will be published presently. It was withheld because of commercial issues involving insurance companies and the builders. Mr. Haugh said the damage had been rectified at no cost to the State.

Chairman

There are serious doubts about the structural integrity of the building which have not been allayed by the reports of structural engineers to date. That may be because the reports have not been published.

Mr. Furlong

I cannot argue with the Chairman on that point other than to say the first thing the Department and CSID will want to do on repossession of the building and following the outcome of the court proceedings is carry out a root and branch evaluation of every aspect of the functioning of the building to ensure it is given a clean bill of health under all headings.

Chairman

Will the two engineer's reports we have been discussing, the partial report compiled after the storm and the fuller one after the reports of the leaks, be published?

Mr. Haugh

We can make them available. The report on the cause of the roof blowing off has not been published because of legal, contractual and financial issues. Those issues have almost been resolved and the report will be made available as soon as they are. Equally, we can make available the most recent report by Kavanagh Mansfield in July 2005.

Chairman

Will the Department supply the reports to the committee?

Mr. Furlong

It will.

Deputy Burton

I had an opportunity to visit the swimming pool and see the underground plant. In common with Charlie Bird I found it extraordinary to discover a lot of water on the walls of a structure that had only been built two years before and to find a huge amount of corrosion of metal fittings. I am no builder but if I were having a kitchen extension built and the walls in the basement were seeping and the metal fittings corroded, I would raise it with the builder. It would involve more than a snag list.

I was also told the contract specified that the complex was designed for a specified volume of water. I wonder if this was a subject of the second examination. As the swimming pool requires treated water, it is expensive. The management company, with whom there is a dispute, claims the water usage is something like three times the volume of that specified in the contract. This may account for some of the seepage or leakage and may be affected by the substrata of the soil or the rocks in the area. Did the second report address those valid queries, which were also the subject of reports by Charlie Bird and of a video which is in circulation? Has the Department seen the video to which I refer?

Mr. Furlong

I have not seen it. Perhaps Mr. Haugh has in his capacity as chairman of CSID. One of the difficulties has been in CSID gaining access to the complex to carry out routine inspections. The sooner the obstacles are removed, the quicker we will be able to carry out a root and branch assessment of all aspects so that we can provide assurances on the quality of the operation, which are in short supply at the moment.

As Mr. Haugh said, nothing that has been made available to us in the inspection reports suggests there are serious structural defects in the building, although I accept the Chairman's qualification on the subject of the roof. Charlie Bird's report did not give prominent coverage to the Rohcon report which rebutted many of the things CSID alleged.

Deputy Burton

Kavanagh Mansfield are acclaimed experts in this area That company has a high reputation and its first report found serious defects in this award-winning design. If the Department wished to seek advice internationally, I would have no objection, but we have all heard leaks, if members pardon the pun, to the effect that many bolts have fallen off in the swimming pool area. The bolts are large and are a danger to a small child because they can fall from seven to 15 feet.

Disabled children of the special school, Scoil Mochua, in Clondalkin do not yet have full access to an aquatic centre which was built for the Special Olympics. I have tabled many parliamentary questions and engaged in correspondence with the Department on that subject but have yet to receive an answer.

Mr. Furlong

I have indicated that, in light of today's discussion, any report available on the building will be made available to the committee. As soon as the current court proceedings are brought to a conclusion and CSID resumes management of the facility, we will do a root and branch evaluation of all the issues that have been raised. The track record of the current operator has not been stellar. As the Committee of Public Accounts will be aware, one of the reasons we found it necessary to initiate action was the fact that the operator was not paying rent to us. One is entitled to ask how robust a company that does not pay its rent will be in carrying out routine maintenance. If such maintenance is neglected, it can very quickly become a serious issue that requires attention. For all of these reasons we see it as very important to complete the current court proceedings and resume ownership, carry out the required inspections and provide the assurances that this facility is what it was claimed to be. That is a world-class facility. With regard to the particular issue of disability access, Mr. Haugh may be able to help.

Mr. Haugh

We are aware of the issues brought to our attention by the principal of Scoil Mochua. The National Aquatic Centre was built to the highest specifications with regard to disabled access. The children affected are severely handicapped, and CSID has proposals currently to deal with the issue. We are working on it at the moment, and we have commissioned a review of the operations.

Chairman

I thank the witnesses. As a committee we are putting together our programme for June and July. If we put in a discussion concerning Bord na gCon on 6 July, will the Dalton report be available to us in advance of that date?

Mr. Furlong

As matters stand, it would be. Frankly, up to approximately two weeks ago it could have been available to the committee for today's session.

Chairman

I understand that.

Mr. Furlong

We have been keeping in touch with the secretary for the committee to let relevant people know. As I mentioned in my earlier statement, we had given until 31 May for people to revert to us with any comments. They will do that, and at the following week's government meeting, issues will be dealt with if need be. At that point the report will be published. As matters stand, I foresee the report being published not much later than mid June.

Chairman

We will pencil the matter in for 6 July. Both sides are now aware of the date. I ask Mr. Purcell to conclude.

Mr. Purcell

I have little to say. I have an observation on some of the earlier discussion on the National Aquatic Centre, particularly the tax implications. I am not a tax expert, but my understanding of tax law in this regard would be the same as what was stated. If the Supreme Court upholds the High Court judgment that the operator was in breach of the contract by assigning it to a third party, it was an unlawful assignment of a lease. That may well impact upon the acceptability or otherwise of claims for capital allowances. I will leave the issue to the Revenue Commissioners.

I have a brief comment on the genealogical project. We looked at this almost ten years ago. The management of the project at that stage was characterised by informality and a lack of cohesion. Many of the issues arising from that report were addressed, but the timeframe of getting matters up to date had slipped considerably. The viability of the project was in danger.

I had representations through correspondence from some of the players. In an effort to try to knock heads together and give impetus to the matter I included the chapter in the report. There are not huge amounts of money involved, and there was much good work being done. It was serving two purposes, as FÁS was benefitting from the expenditure as well.

It seemed initially that our renewed interest would have some effect and bring some focus. Unfortunately that appears to have failed. At least there has been a benefit of bringing some attention to the matter. The Department is focusing on how it can be completed. To a certain extent, comments in the current chapter echo some of the earlier report's issues. They show the importance of getting everybody on board, having a strong project management, having realisable targets and monitoring progress against those. There may be a light at the end of the tunnel. The end of the tunnel may be two or three years down the line, but at least it is in focus.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Purcell. Is it agreed to note Vote 35? Agreed. Is it agreed to dispose of chapter 9.1? Agreed. There is no other business. The agenda for Thursday, 1 June 2006 is the 2004 annual report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and Appropriation Accounts, Vote 15 — Evaluation Office; and chapter 4.1, shortcomings in financial controls.

The witnesses withdrew.

The committee adjourned at 1.35 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Thursday, 1 June 2006.