Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1990 > Committee of Public Accounts > Final Report - Appropriation Accounts 1988

AN COISTE UM CHUNTAIS POIBLÍ

(Committee of Public Accounts)

Déardaoin, 4 Deireadh Fomhair, 1990

Thursday, 4 October, 1990

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

Members Present:

DEPUTY G. MITCHELL in the chair

Mr. P. L. McDonnell (An tArd Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) called and examined.

VOTE 3 — DEPARTMENT OF THE TAOISEACH.

Mr. P. Ó hUiginn called and examined.

Chairman.—The Committee of Public Accounts is this morning examining the Vote of the Department of the Taoiseach on the audited accounts of the Comptroller and Auditor General for 1988. The Accounting Officer for that Department is the Secretary, Mr. Pádraig Ó hUiginn.

Paragraph 11 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

National Museum of Ireland

The National Museum of Ireland was established by the Dublin Science and Art Museum Act, 1877. The main purposes of the Museum are to accumulate, preserve, study and display objects connected with Irish civilisation, the natural history of Ireland and the relations of Ireland with other countries. The Museum is divided into four administrative divisions—the Irish Antiquities Division, the Art and Industrial Division, the Natural History Division and the Folklife Division. A Board of Visitors comprising members appointed by the Taoiseach, the Royal Irish Academy and the Royal Dublin Society reports annually to the Taoiseach on the condition, management and requirements of the Museum. These reports are laid before the Oireachtas.

Prior to 1988 the main source of funding of the Museum’s expenditure, other than on salaries, was by way of a grant-in-aid from voted moneys but in 1988 a grant of £516,000 was instead provided from the National Lottery Fund for this purpose. In addition, under revised arrangements which came into operation in 1987, the Museum retains income from sponsorship, admission charges and sales of books, photographs, etc. Accounts showing the results of these revised funding arrangements are appended to the Appropriation Account.

Salaries and wages of permanent staff, maintenance charges and postal and telecommunications charges relating to the Museum are met from the Vote for the Department of the Taoiseach. In 1988 these costs amounted to £1,116,000:

A grant of £178,933 was also issued from the National Lottery Fund in 1988 to the Office of Public Works to meet the costs of renovation at the National Museum and a further £99,000 was expended by the Office of Public Works for minor new works and building maintenance.

Mr. McDonnell.—This paragraph is for the information of the Committee outlining the way in which the financing of the National Museum was revised in 1987 and 1988. As you will see, first, the museum was allowed to use revenue generated from its own activities to fund some of its current expenditure. Secondly, national lottery moneys were used instead of voted moneys mostly for the purchase of specimens. The Vote continued to meet the salaries of the permanent staff and some other expenses which are listed at the end. The arrangements which are stated there were revised somewhat further in 1990 just to bring them strictly into line with the normal accounting procedures. The paragraph is essentially for the information of the Committee.

Chairman.—What is the average admission charge to the museum?

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—There is no basic admission charge to the museum. The only charge made was when we established the Treasury Room as a special exhibition area — on which a great deal of money was spent, approximately £300,000 — it was decided at that stage to introduce a charge of £1. This is an area which is visited very much by tourists. The view of the Director and the Department at the time was that, in view of the heavy expenditure, it was a desirable movement in line with what is the common practice throughout the world, that there should be some minimum charges for admission. We also, with the co-operation of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Department of Finance, succeeded in making a major change in the situation in that these funds did not revert to the Exchequer but in fact are now the property of the institutions. That is a position which differs from that in the United Kingdom: all the museums inherited the same ethos of not making charges. They introduced them in the United Kingdom but the Exchequer took all the money. We changed it so that where the charges are made — and they are not general charges — the money is now kept by the institutions.

Chairman.—Are there any major excavations going on at present under the guidance of the museum?

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—Not at present. They are still carrying out the collation and publishing of the research work arising from the Dublin Wood Quay excavations. What is tending to happen there now is a development which falls outside this, which is that the Office of Public Works through the National Monuments Advisory Council have introduced a very vigilant system over areas that are being build upon and the National Heritage Council have now stepped in with substantial grants to assist such research. A very important development, however, is that builders and developers now, as a price of their planning permission, are very properly being asked to carry out excavations before they build. There are very big excavations now going on in Limerick and Waterford at the cost of the developers supplemented by grants from the National Heritage Council towards the research findings that will emerge, and the National Museum is, of course, available as an advisory body relative to all these excavations.

Chairman.—What about national treasures? The Derrynaflan chalice gave rise to a particularly controversial situation. What is the current situation on finders of treasure?

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—Legislation is pending following the Supreme Court decision which basically was to establish the rights of the State without question over findings of hoards of this kind. They found that the Derrynaflan find was the property of the State but to put the matter beyond doubt the principle which the Supreme Court laid down will be incorporated in new legislation which is at present being drafted. It will also extend the definition of what is a treasure trove. To date it has to have silver or gold in it, i.e. it has to be a precious metal. The legislation, following the recommendation of the Supreme Court, will widen that to non-precious metals.

It will also establish a clear system whereby people who find objects and hand them in will get rewards. They always have got rewards but there will now be laid down in legislation, in accordance with principles which the Supreme Court enunciated, a formal system of assessing people for rewards based on criteria which the Supreme Court laid down. All that will be in legislation which it is hoped to have before the Dáil in the next session.

Chairman.—Would that apply to simply finding treasure in open spaces? Suppose somebody was digging the back garden and came across something important, would that still not be their property.

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—No. You are getting me into a very precise legal issue. I see a Deputy from Wexford here, and there was a very big find in Wexford in recent weeks. It was found in a garden; top soil was removed from one area to another. The museum went down and traced all that top soil on to a large number of sites and found all the treasure trove which is now on display in the museum. The people concerned co-operated fully and there will now be some negotiation on rewarding these people. The principle has to be that if people find such things and behave in a correct and responsible manner they should be rewarded. The Supreme Court laid down that principle.

Chairman.—Presumably the reward will be attractive so that people would not go and put the find on the mantlepiece and say nothing about it.

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—I have negotiated with some people on these matters and I find that, in practice, they discount what might be their expectations in recognition of what they are doing, and what they really want to do is to leave such items to the nation.

Deputy Connor.—I suppose this question comes up every year in this examination in relation to the quantity of artifacts that are stored. Reference is made in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report to damage by damp, dust etc.——

Chairman.—We are on paragraph 11. We have not come to that paragraph yet. I will come to you when we reach that stage.

Deputy Cullimore.—Mr. Ó hUiginn, referred to the find in Wexford recently and I too would like to compliment the people on the manner in which they presented the find. How will compensation be determined? Is there a set formula for determining compensation? There was a suggestion that gold was involved in the contents of the find. Would that mean that maybe gold mining took place in Wexford years ago? If so, would it be advisable for either the Heritage Council or the Government to set up some sort of feasibility study to look into the possibility of local gold mining in the area?

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—I do not know. The provenance of the gold, I should imagine, would not be very easy to determine. Certainly there has been, as we know, a history of gold mining in Wicklow which would not be very far away. There was also an international trade at that time in gold. These objects are entirely of gold. It is extraordinary to see them come out of the clay just as bright and shiny as they were when they were put there. As regards the rewards, these are matters for negotiation. As I have said, most people approach these in a very non-acquisitive attitude, feeling that they would like some reward but they are not there to make money, so to speak, out of it. They recognise there is a national dimension. The principles would be the importance of the find and the Supreme Court laid down one of the principles would be the co-operation of the people. In other words, the reward you might get would be diminished in the view of the Supreme Court by the reluctance that you might show to ever having presented it to the State. These kinds of principles come in. Usually they are resolved in a satisfactory manner.

Deputy Cullimore.—Would it be your Department who would conduct the feasibility study regarding the possibility of gold mining having taken place in Wexford or Wicklow?

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—Wide as the responsibilities of our Department are, I think that would hardly fall within them, and that the Department of Energy would be the Department precisely concerned with that subject.

Chairman.—Paragraph 12 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

Expenditure on the acquisition of objects for the National Museum amounted to some £850,000 since 1983 including £387,000 in 1988. Objects are also acquired by the Museum by way of gifts or through excavation of archaeological sites.

It was noted during a local audit carried out by my staff in April 1989 at the Irish Antiquities Division and the Art and Industrial Division of the Museum that, while stocktaking commenced in early 1988 in the Irish Antiquities Division, only a small proportion of the objects had been verified against the records at the time of audit and that no other overall stocktaking on a regular or systematic basis had been carried out in either division prior to that.

It was also noted that the latest available Report of the Board of Visitors of the National Museum (1987) stated that parts of the National Collection of the Museum had been damaged due to lack of proper conservation and storage conditions, that inadequate storage space had meant that many areas were dangerously crammed and that many objects had been left in the open unprotected from damp and dust.

The Accounting Officer informed me that two Temporary Professional Assistants had been mainly engaged for close on the past two years in physical stockchecking of archaeological collections in the Irish Antiquities Division and had checked 60,000 of the 4.5 million items. In addition, some collections had been checked, conserved or indexed earlier in the 1980’s. Checks had also been carried out in the Art and Industrial Division in recent years but it was estimated that it would take the present staff 10 years to do a thorough stockcheck of objects in this Division. He stated that the problems in stocktaking were due mainly to the extent and nature of the collections. Related factors included the cramped storage conditions, the varied systems of cataloguing, limited staff resources and the absence of computer facilities until 1987. He recognised that conditions in many areas in which collections were stored were unsatisfactory but since the transfer in 1984 of administrative responsibility for the Museum to the Taoiseach’s Department, substantial additional storage and display space had been acquired and the quality of existing storage space had been improved. In addition, plans for a purpose built conservation laboratory were being drawn up and costed. He was of the opinion that the Museum required additional staff in a number of areas and ways of addressing the problem were being considered against the background of public expenditure policy. Computer equipment had been acquired but a significant amount of additional equipment was still needed. He stated that, subject to the exigencies of the public finances, it was hoped to provide staff and equipment on a phased basis in conjunction with the development of the Museum at the Custom House Docks and the acquisition and renovation of storage space. He assured me that no museum objects were now out in the open.

The Accounting Officer also stated that the security of the collections was achieved mainly through the use of security hardware and by invigilation staff. In addition parts of the collections were regularly sought by researchers and this gave rise to random physical inspection by staff.

Mr. McDonnell.—We are going on to discuss another aspect of the museum here. I am drawing attention to the problem of stocktaking and the verification that all items held by the museum are accounted for. I am also referring to some related matters such as the storage conditions which Deputy Connor has just mentioned and security. The Accounting Officer gave me a very comprehensive reply to my inquiries which are set out in the paragraph. He outlined the various causes of the problems and what was being done to try to cope with them.

It is clear to me that the problem in the museum, and that in the National Library, which is coming up in the next paragraph, are special problems. I mentioned stocktaking but I do not think this is the kind of situation which the committee have discussed on a number of occasions in relation to stocktaking and stores control by other departments; this is a special problem. We must ask if these problems can be realistically coped with and, if they cannot, what is the alternative.

I am not suggesting solutions, Chairman. I am in a happy position of only having to draw attention to the situation. The committee will have to make up their minds whether to some extent one has to live with these problems or, if something should be done, what.

Chairman.—Mr. Ó hUiginn, according to the report, in response to the Comptroller and Auditor General you stated that two temporary professional assistants had been engaged for the past two years in physical stock checking of archaeological collections in the antiquities division and had checked 60,000 of the 4.5 million items in that division alone, and that, using the present staff, it would take about ten years to carry out a thorough stock check of objects in that division. Despite what the Comptroller and Auditor General has said, how do we know that the 4.5 million items are there? How do we know they have not wandered or somehow disappeared over the years?

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—First, I have given a very full and honest answer, I think, to what the Comptroller and Auditor General drew attention to. The fact is that there are, in all, probably six million items in the museum which have been collected over 150 years. The decision of the Government around 1984 to bring all these institutions under the care of the Department of the Taoiseach and the then newly appointed Minister for Arts and Culture, was the beginning of recognition by the State of the fact that we needed to do something more in regard to these institutions which would deal with problems of storage, stocktaking, collection, exhibition, and their premises. There is a reference there to two temporary assistants engaged on stocktaking and cataloguing — in fact since then we have six — I will come back to that in a moment. As well as that, the existing staff since that period have been instructed to devote more of their time to stocktaking and cataloguing. The problem of storage has also been dealt with by the provision of 24,000 square feet at Beggar’s Bush for the Storage of the geological and the insect collection. We also provided 8,000 square feet at Dangan and 6,000 square feet at Inchicore. As well as that we are providing, over the next two or three years, a new museum of 100,000 square feet at the Custom House Docks.

The 100,000 square feet can be put in context by realising that the present museum premises in Kildare Street have only 66,000 square feet. What you are witnessing since 1984 is increasing efforts by successive Governments to improve conditions in the museum. In fact, the expenditure to date on the museum is £2 million in improving, repairing, redecorating, rewiring and security. As a result progress is being made. The director has certified to me that he is satisfied — we have a new director, which is also a factor that has changed the situation — that progress is now being made.

To put it in the perspective of how long these things have been there, we are now carrying out the first comprehensive survey of Irish antiquities in the museum in over 100 years. When this museum came to our Department, we inherited 100 years work. It is not the case that every item is not catalogued and indexed. It must be understood that as it comes in every item is catalogued, itemised and card indexed. One of the problems the director has now is collating different systems of records of objects over a period of 150 years. It is an enormous task. That would be a difficult task at any time but it also coincided with a period of limitations on public finances and of staff embargoes which has not made it easy to attend to all the priorities, not only in this field but in every other field. In spite of that we have succeeded, for example, in appointing six professional assistants to work on the stocktaking. We have spent £2 million on new improved storage and will be spending anything up to £20 million on a new museum at the Custom House Docks, which will add 100,000 square feet. We have everything catalogued and indexed.

As to the question whether we are certain that everything is there, when there are six million objects you cannot be certain at any time that somebody has not stolen something. There is no perfect system in any museum in the world. Criminals can steal things from art galleries and so on. Pistols are missing. That is the one item that has come to light. These were properly catalouged and indexed but somebody got access and stole them. You cannot check every day that every one of the six million objects is in place, but to be fair to the staff, there is continual access to these materials, so there is a continual ongoing check. Researchers are in there checking. There is a system, and what is required is the aid of computers. We have now introduced computerisation in order to speed up the listing and cataloguing. Everything is listed and catalogued. What is required is to take all these different systems stretching back 150 years and put them now in a new coherent system. Allied to that is the question of storage. For example, the entire genealogical ethnographic collection has been checked, reboxed and rehoused in the last year. There is, therefore an ongoing system.

Chairman.—Given the number of people you now have involved in stocktaking — the original two people involved would take ten years to carry out stocktaking — how long do you estimate it would now take to complete?

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—I am not sure I could put a figure on it. I could ask the Director for his estimate of the time scale. We are continually looking, with the Department of Finance, at the possibility, within staffing limitations, of whether we can add people. We have, in fact, made 16 new appointments since 1988. You will be familiar from other areas how embargoes have left gaps in staffing. We have succeeded, because of the importance given by successive Taoisigh to that work in maintaining the staff there. We lost 16 and we gained 16, so we have been trying. I will speak to the director and ask him what his estimates now are because these estimates came from him.

Chairman.—Perhaps Mr. Ó hUiginn, you would send us a note on that point. Even when they are all catalogued and checked once, how do you know they remain there. The guns disappeared and they had been catalogued. What security do you have to ensure that these items are not taken out without some sort of control or record?

Mr.ÓhUiginn.—There is close control. I cannot go into all the security arrangements we have made but we have spent £160,000, based on recommendations by the Garda, on the security arrangements which are possible and feasible. We have installed cameras. We have panic buttons, which the attendants carry. Everybody has been instructed by the director in the context of the recommendations by the Garda and in the context of all these new security arrangements which are now in place.

Chairman.—Can I come to one other question before I call Deputy Connor. You have six million items there. The 100,000 square feet you are getting in the Custom House Dock site will be in addition to what you have here, but presumably a substantial number of those items will continue to remain stored in boxes underground somewhere. What is the point in having them if they are stored in boxes for saecula saeculorum?

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—They are available to researchers. Items are catalogued. Every museum does not put everything on display-it is a catalogue and a repository of material. If you are a researcher, you can come in and see the choice items on display. In the background in strongrooms you can see particular items of an historical period of interest to you.

Chairman.—Do you replace items on a rota basis and bring in new items so that people regularly visiting the museums see different displays?

Mr. ÓhUiginn.—That is what we hope to do by increasing the space we have. In recent years we created a new music room where we took out of storage a number of musical instruments including two of Dublin pianos made by Robert Southwell of Dublin who was one of the great piano builders of the 18th century. These items were all taken out and put on display. There is an attempt continually to change and for the new museum in the Custom House the intention is to have a very live, changing museum and a different approach from putting things in glasscases and leaving them there static for generations. That is not the approach of the new director nor of the Department, which is to create something which will attract people, to see a changing series based on themes, such as how people dressed in the 18th century, what utensils they used—this kind of approach where there is a changing, live thing where people will not say I have been to the museum and I have seen it all. What we will be trying to do is to create a situation where there would be changing exhibitions and advertising. You will notice that the museum has not advertised. The fact that we now have this arrangement with the accounting system of their keeping all the money, we hope to bring about a situation where they will be more active in that respect. The recent Work of Angels Exhibition attracted 80,000 people because we advertised it. This is our approach for the future. We are now opening a shop premises. We are recruiting three shop assistants who will now run a shop in the foyer, and a special shop area has been prepared. We expect that to bring in substantial income. That income will be retained and will go back to the museum for improvement of storage, cataloging and for whatever else has to be done.

Chairman.—Have there been any major discoveries of items which have been ruined by dampness or leaking roofs?

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to the point the Deputy was about to raise earlier. As part of the national collections at the Museum we have established that there are some six million——

Chairman.—Perhaps I should allow Deputy Connor to ask the question because he wanted to raise it.

Deputy Connor.—On that question of the amount of artifacts of historical archaeological items that have been damaged by dampness or dust or by being placed in crammed conditions which was reported by visitors in 1987 perhaps you would make a comment on the general conditions of these artifacts which we never see.

Mr. ÓhUiginn.—The position is that I made inquiries at the time into what the items were. I discovered that out of the six million objects the visitors were able to point to three items which were damaged. One was a Japanese screen which had been stored and something fell against it for no particular reason and knocked a small chip off it; another was an organ taken from St. Bride’s Church which was damaged slightly in transit from one place to another. It was not a question of storage but one of those things that can happen if you are moving goods. There was a slight accident with it. The other was a middle eastern sarcophagus. A small piece was knocked off it. I would like to take the opportunity to say on behalf of the staff of the museum and the Department that the only items which we ever identified as having been damaged in this way were three items.

Deputy Connor.—Many of these items deteriorate over time if they are not kept in proper conditions. A lot of these are made of materials which are perishable which destruct easily. I am thinking of items of paper, wood and so on, but I suppose it would take a scientific investigation to prove it. What investigations have taken place to determine the extent of damage to items which have been kept in damp, dusty and cramped conditions. We can see easily the damage to the organ and to the middle eastern sarcophagus but there are certain things we cannot see.

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—The steps that have been taken in respect of that are to improve the storage conditions. I have outlined that we have provided 50,000 square feet extra storage space in the last few years in order to meet that problem of having more room in which to store things. The museum in the Custom House Docks will add to that in due course. We also discovered when we made an audit of the place when we took it over that there was damp in the basement. That has been rectified at very heavy cost. Damp has been excluded. Items have been reboxed and put in dust-free conditions. Additional storage has been obtained and there is a general move ment by the staff, who would not tolerate leaving things in a situation where they would deteriorate by reason of atmosphere or physical conditions. These are being improved.

Deputy Connor.—There is one other question which relates to museum policy. I do not know if it is relevant. The criticism has been made to me and I have had some experience by making a request recently for a museum artifact to be moved to another location in the country where it would be appropriate to display it in time. Would you say that the policy of the museum is restrictive in that area?

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—No. It may have been in the past but the present policy of the Department and the museum is that items would be provided locally or regionally. We have had a lot of requests about the Folk Life collection, which comes from all parts of the country. It is one of the best collections probably in the world of the history of folk life over a long period. The director has decided that he will try to establish the Folk Life Museum on a regional basis. It requires certain conditions. The basic principle is that artefacts can be put on display either permanently or temporarily in other locations. Therefore, it is necessary to have the right conditions and the committee are properly concerned with the conditions in which items are kept, stored and exhibited, security and so on. Obviously, these conditions will have to be provided at regional centres. Discussions are ongoing in regard to Cork, Limerick and Wexford. Those locations spring to mind and there may be others. Some Deputies are probably aware of other areas but discussions have been held with the city authorities in Cork and Limerick. I am not sure if the discussions were held with the city authorities in Wexford but in any event they were held with the local authorities with a view to seeing whether we can decentralise the collections. I may also say that the National Heritage Council are considering whether instead of having only a national museum — obviously, every country has a national museum — we should have a regional system of museums. The National Heritage Council are about to report and make recommendations on that subject. The basic policy now is that we should decentralise the collections but this will be subject to there being adequate, secure and permanent or temporary physical arrangements so that these artefacts can be properly, safely and securely displayed.

Deputy Allen.—Mr. Ó hUiginn almost answered my question in the last part of his reply. When I was going through the report last night I thought it tragic that the highest aspiration the National Museum seem to have is to catalogue, box and store items, acquire storage space in Dublin and set up a further centre in Dublin. At a time when we are marketing Ireland as a heritage centre, it seems appropriate that instead of just having a policy of cataloguing and storage we should have an active policy of decentralisation. There are many wonderful locations around Ireland that are crying out for display items such as those now stored away in boxes. I would like to know the cost of acquiring storage space in Dublin and of setting up the second centre at the Custom House Docks site. It is grand to have aspirations but the only ones the National Museum seem to have are to box the items and set up a second centre in the capital. Because it is a National Museum I thought their first priority would be to set up a second centre outside the capital. I would like to know the cost of setting up a second centre and of acquiring the storage space. We should then examine whether it would have been better to consider decentralisation in the real sense and not just as an aspiration.

Chairman.—To Athlone or such a town?

Deputy Allen.—To apppropriate locations; I will not be parochial. I know many locations in the provinces and would readily accept such items. They are anxious to develop centres of heritage and culture but cannot do so because of a lack of finance. Surely the moneys now being spent on storage could be better used in opening up regional sections of the National Museum? That is my first question.

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—To repeat, it is now the policy to decentralise but this is subject to the conditions I have outlined. As regards the cost of storage, we were satisfied that the storage was not adequate or sufficient — and I am now going back over the period 1984 to the present day since the museum came within the aegis of the Department of the Taoiseach — the immediate thing to do — an gad is giorra don scórnach, was to get storage. The Office of Public Works had premises at Beggars Bush, where we now have the geological and insect sections, and they cost £60,000. I do not have the cost of renting the 8,000 square feet at Daingean or the 6,000 square feet at Inichore but I would say we probably spent up to £50,000. I am not talking about the new museum; I am talking about the existing storage. The provision for the new museum at the Custom House Docks development is provided for in the development plan for the Custom House Docks area and the developer is to provide the building for that at a cost of approximately £12 million. This will be provided by the developer as part of his contribution to the development of the site. The State will then have to expend moneys on fitting-out and staffing the museum. There is a concurrent development which touches on funding in terms of its regional dimension. Under EC Structural Funds, the tourism operational programme, substantial sums are now being given for local museums, heritage museums and the like. For example, Strokestown House is expected to house a Famine museum. We have a developing situation, therefore, where people are working locally to provide museum facilities. When the National Heritage Council, who have been considering this issue for some time, make their report I believe they will recommend a policy which will, of course, touch on the issue raised by the Deputy, which is that any further money to be spent should be spent not in Dublin but in the decentralisation of these items. The money which has been spent to date was basically to put things into proper storage which would be dust free, damp free and so on.

Deputy Allen.—Arising from Mr. Ó hUiginn’s reply, I accept that the cost of storage at an estimated £60,000 is small when compared to what would be required in other regions. However, I am frightened at the figure of £12 million. It is not good enough to say that that will be paid by the developer because, at the end of the day, the State will have to pick up the tab somewhere along the line in the overall development. It is not right that £12 million should be put into a second centre in Dublin at a time when centres throughout the country are failing. In regard to Structural Funds I have evidence which shows that the level of such funding is inadequate to successfully provide many of the cultural centres that are planned.

I will give two examples of this. The project at the women’s prison in Cork is on the point of failure because of the inadequate level of funding through the Structural Funds from Bord Fáilte. Second, the Firkin Crane building in the historical part of Cork is in trouble because of the inadequate level of funding it receives from the Structural Funds. I am frightened to think that even though we may be talking about the concept of decentralisation as an aspiration that when, in practical terms, it comes down to spending money it will go back Dublin. I understand that £12 million will be spent on a second centre in the capital but that will only be the first part of the cost and I would like to know the back-up cost of fitting it out and equipping it. That is scandalous. At a time when we are marketing our country, and not just Dublin, abroad as a place of culture and heritage we should be setting up small museums that are relevant to different areas. I am sure that the stock that would be required for those museums is available and is presently being stored in boxes. This is a short-sighted policy. We are using a lot of money for big splashes, but that is not the best possible practical application of our resources. I want to know the tie up between a cultural centre in the Custom House Docks area and the £12 million, because, at the end of the day, the State has to pay it.

Chairman.—It is not the function of the Committee to question policy but perhaps Mr. Ó hUiginn could deal briefly with the relevant points raised by the Deputy.

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—The estimated contribution the developer has made under the arrangement in which the entire development of that site was undertaken, provides that in modern terms he will have to provide physical facilities on current costs of approximately £12 million. That was part of an effort to make this development at the Custom House Docks, not just another inner city office development, but a balanced neighbourhood development in which there would be not just offices but an hotel, a museum, a retail provision and a housing development. It was part of a package which was negotiated in the best interests of urban renewal of the area and in the best interests of the economy. I appreciate that it does not necessarily alter the fact that the developer will have to provide the basic facilities. That was a very worthy objective negotiated at that time as part of that development. It gave a balanced urban renewal development rather than just an office development. It should not be seen as an antithesis to the fact that there is now full acceptance of the principle of decentralisation and regionalisation. The National Heritage Council have been charged with preparing a policy on that and it will have to have a financial and costing provision in it. We are talking about six million items, and there is ample scope to create a network of regional museums and heritage centres, which are beginning to spring up, however inadequately. It is the first time that any of us have seen this new development which is important from a tourism point of view and for the pride of people in their own areas. It is important for regional development that this should be done. It should be accepted as a positive measure. I urge the Committee not to regard something of the size that is envisaged in Dublin, which is a big and important offshoot from that development.

In relation to the Regional Funds, it was important that we succeeded in the negotiations, in getting the European Community to provide funds for these developments and to accept that they should be matched not just by public funds, but by local matching from private funds. They did make a substantial contribution to the Firkin Crane. My recollection is that we got £500,000 for the Firkin Crane from the Structural Funds and that was a very big proportion of the cost of that development. My recollection is that, at the time it was presented the cost was estimated at £1 million, and £500,000 represented 50 per cent of the cost. The bigger problem that has arisen with the Firkin Crane is that of the Ballet company and so on but that is a different issue; it has nothing to do with the building itself.

Chairman.—That was an extensive reply.

Deputy Allen.—The other question related to the estimated follow-up costs of fitting out, the State involvement in the fitting out, and preparation of the Custom House Docks building before it opens.

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—I am not in a position at this stage to estimate the cost. The question is, what form the museum will take. There are negotiations at present with the developers as to whether it should be a new building, or whether some of the existing buildings should be adapted for that purpose. Much of the cost will depend on that. I do not have an idea of the cost at the moment but it will certainly be several million pounds. One would not fit out and equip a large building for less than several million pounds. It will be a substantial sum.

Chairman.—I thought the figure mentioned at the beginning was £20 million in total?

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—It could cost up to that. I could check the figure for you.

Chairman.—That is the figure I noted at the time.

Mr. ÓhUiginn.—It could cost that, depending on the ultimate shape of the building and on whether it is a new building, or an existing building.

Chairman.—Does the £20 million include fitting it out?

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—That was a figure I plucked out of the sky, that it could cost that much. I was playing safe. I hope, in saying that it will not cost more than that. I was referring to the total cost.

Deputy Allen.—It has now been established that the provision of the building will cost £12 million and a conservative estimate is that it will cost a further £8 million to fit it out and prepare it. Who makes these decisions and what consultation takes place with groups throughout the country before enormous decisions like this are made, decisions which will obviously starve other areas of any development in the years ahead because of the limited budget?

Chairman.—We must not get into policy here. Government decisions are taken and approved by the Dáil at Estimates time. It is right for the Committee to compare what is happening now with what needs to be done, but if we go too far into the future, we are going a bit beyond our remit.

Deputy Allen.—Obviously, commitments of finance have been made. I would like to know what evaluation has been done and what consultation has taken place with groups involved before hard and fast decisions were made, because it will starve other projects of money for many years ahead. I have reservations about the Custom House Docks development but that is another matter. The whole complex will be buried away down there and the money could be utilised far more appropriately in areas that are more exposed to tourists and the population at large. I would like to know the whole process of the spending of public moneys in this regard before we see further wastage.

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—Final decisions have not yet been made. I indicated that it was uncertain whether it would be a new building or an adaptation of existing buildings. There has been no final decision as to which it will be. There is, therefore, no final decision yet by the Government in relation to how much they will spend on the fitting out, when they will do it and over what time. The general matters raised are matters of Government policy which are dealt with in the ordinary way by Government. If they decide to spend it, it will be a Government decision which will eventually have to go to the Dáil in Estimates. No decision has yet been made and that is why I am in difficulty about trying to put any costs on it. We have not yet reached that stage.

Deputy Allen.—Obviously, commitments have been made between the Government and the developer. If a building is to be provided, it is obvious that it has to be fitted out and, therefore, an indirect financial commitment has been made by the Government to the project. That is obvious to everybody.

Chairman.—That is a matter of Government policy.

Deputy Cullimore.—I very much welcome Mr. ÓhUiginn’s statement on the decentralisation of historical items. In Wexford this has proved very successful in the establishment of the Wexford Heritage Park which is being funded by National Lottery and European money. If the Government are contemplating setting up museums outside Dublin the heritage park in Wexford would be an ideal location. The park attracted more than 200,000 visitors last year and has proved an outstanding success.

Chairman.—Totally impartial advice.

Mr. ÓhUiginn.—I will pass it on.

Chairman.—We will note that paragraph for now. Paragraph 13 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

National Library of Ireland

The National Library of Ireland was also established by the Dublin Science and Art Museum Act, 1877. The function of the Library is to acquire and maintain bibliographical material of Irish origin or interest and to make the material available to the public. Material for the Library is acquired by purchase or by gift or is deposited in accordance with the Copyright Act, 1963.

Prior to 1988 funding for the purchase of books, etc. was provided by way of a grant-in-aid. In 1988 funding was provided from the national lottery. Since 1983 expenditure by the Library on the purchase of books, etc, amounted to some £720,000 including expenditure of £146,000 in 1988.

In the course of an audit at the National Library by my staff in April 1989 it was noted that routine cataloguing of books, periodicals and manuscripts was at least two years in arrears and that special collections in the possession of the Library for a considerable length of time had also not been catalogued. It was also noted that, apart from the stocktaking of a small number of items in 1987, no other stocktaking on a regular systematic basis had been carried out in the National Library since 1974, when a number of items were discovered to be missing. The Accounting Officer informed me that the National Library of Ireland has operated under the aegis of the Department of the Taoiseach only since 1986. He explained that the high number of uncatalogued manuscript collections in the National Library reflect the acquisition — almost invariably at very short notice — of large collections and that cataloguing of manuscripts is a painstaking, skilled and time consuming task for which staff have not been available in recent years because of restrictions in the level of public expenditure.

However, a number of major improvements in security and accommodation had been implemented since the transfer of responsibility for the National Library to the Department of the Taoiseach and the Director appointed in 1989, had been asked to draw up a comprehensive development plan. Furthermore, discussions were taking place regarding the provision of additional staff to the Library which would enable longer opening hours to be introduced and greater attention given to cataloguing. It was proposed to reallocate resources to deal with the backlog of cataloguing work on hands and it was envisaged that the use of personal computers would greatly speed up the entire cataloguing process in the Library. The Accounting Officer stated that, in the meantime, the manuscripts were being securely stored in new, clean and environmentally suitable conditions.

He also stated that, in future, the Library would close to the public at regular intervals as required to enable a stocktaking to be carried out.

Mr. McDonnell.—I do not wish to say anything about this because it is a mirror image of the situation which exists in the National Museum. In the paragraph I have set out what the Accounting Officer said is being done about it, and the root cause of the problems. I do not want to add anything.

Chairman.—This is a similar sort of problem, Mr. Ó hUiginn. Can you update the Committee on the arrears of cataloguing? What is the current situation and what items were missing in 1987?

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—You are correct in saying that the situation generally from 1984 onwards was found to be the same as in regard to the National Museum. The same approach has been taken in terms of first of all, improving the staffing, in so far as we can or could, within staffing restrictions with which you are familiar generally in your deliberations. We have increased the staff there by six in recent years which, in the context of staff embargoes is a very important development. We have introduced a very strong security system and a lot of people have objected to it. You cannot now, as in the old days, go into the National Library without producing an identity card with a photograph. Formerly, you could bring your brief case into your working desk in the National Library, but unfortunately you can no longer do that. These are the restrictions now imposed. Security cameras and cloakrooms with lockers where briefcases must be deposited and so on. Many people object to this but we felt that it was necessary. We have spent £160,000 in the last two years on security. We now have camera systems installed for surveillance and so on. We have also enormously increased the physical facilities. We have provided in 2-4 Kildare Street — which is Nos. 2,3 and 4 Kildare Street — the whole Genealogical Office. We have provided storage and offices and these buildings cost the State a considerable sum of money to acquire and to refurbish. I do not have the figures for the internal work. They are in the Office of Public Works Vote. We spent nearly £300,000 on fitting out the premises in 2-4 Kildare Street.

Chairman.—What about the stocktaking items in 1987 which are on the list of articles missing? What sort of items are they and what is their value?

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—In these cases it is not always possible to put a value on the items which are missing and I will have to get details of them. I had them in regard to the museum. I do not have details — unless they are on my file — in regard to what items were missing. My recollection is that there was a map which turned up being sold in London and we recovered that through police activity.

A postcard by William Yeats was also missing. The attitude of the Director on any issue which arose there is that until you do a full stocktaking you cannot be satisfied as to whether these are just misplaced. This will probably be unpopular with the public but it is now the policy to close the Library once a year for a month for stocktaking. We have established that this is the practice in all similar national libraries. It will close in November and all the staff will spend their time stocktaking. All manuscripts, for example, have now been boxed and are in strongrooms. Computerisation is in progress, we already have three and we are spending £30,000 at the moment which is available this year for additional computers. We are getting a grant of £100,000 from the EC towards computerisation. Again, the picture is that a substantial sum of money — practically £1 million — has been spent. I should have said that in addition to 2-4 Kildare Street we have also No. 5 Kildare Street. This building was the subject of other discussions in this Committee.

Chairman.—What about the value of stocks in the Library, Mr. Ó hUiginn; would you have any idea in that regard?

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—I do not think it is possible to value them but, obviously, they are valuable.

Chairman.—Do you have the value on the stock in the Museum by any chance?

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—These are priceless.

Chairman.—Do you think it is practical to close the Library for a month? Is it not possible, for instance, through careful cataloguing, to do spot stock checks instead of having to do the whole thing at once? You close for two or three weeks between December and January. Is it practical to close the Library for the whole month of November? Is that the only way it can be done?

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—As I said, this is what other similar libraries do. A library is subject to large demands of people in and out every day looking for books to study, to read and so on and looking for material. As a result the staff cannot devote their time to cataloguing and related work. This is the dilemma which led to the situation in the past. Either we accept the situation or we take radical steps to alter it and the radical step which the Director has advised is that she, in common with other directors — and she has consulted around the world as to what the situation is — sees no other solution other than to close it for one month annually to do stocktaking. As I said, all these measures are unpopular. There have been objections by people who have had free access for years to the National Library and who now have to have identity cards, photographs and so on. The impediment to somebody doing research, that they cannot bring their briefcases into the reading room, is greatly resented but that is the reality and the Library had been heavily criticised because you could bring your briefcase in.

Chairman.—Has the comprehensive development plan which the new Director was asked to draw up been completed?

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—We received it in the last couple of weeks and we are now studying it in consultation with the Director.

Chairman.—Does it include provision for stock control, security and stocktaking?

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—It provides for a similar arrangement such as now have in the Museum. We referred earlier to the fact that we now have six professional assistants exclusively dealing with stocktaking and cataloguing. It provides for a similar provision for the National Library which we are now looking at.

Chairman.—How many books are in the National Library, Mr. Ó hUiginn?

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—I do not know.

Chairman.—Give or take a quiz book or two?

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—Is there an answer to this?

Chairman.—Would it run into millions?

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—I will again stick at six million. I really do not know. I could be mistaken. I can ask and let you know.

Deputy Connor.—A similar kind of question, Mr. Ó hUiginn. A couple of years ago I spoke in the Seanad on the national archive Bill and one of the things that came up at the time was the destruction of documents, papers and so on in the National Library arising from the fact that so many papers relating to the 19th century are perishable or continue to perish. I understand there are now means of scientific arrests of that kind of deterioration. Could you let us know if the Library is scientifically engaged in arresting the obvious deterioration of many of the manuscripts, books, papers, etc. that are in the collection in the Museum?

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—This is done on an ongoing basis. We made a specific provision last year to pay £25,000 a year to Marsh’s Library, where there is a conservation and bindery facility, for material we sent to them for conservation. There is a programme for that and we hope, ultimately, to reach a decision as to the provision of a conservation laboratory in conjunction with some of the other libraries in the Dublin area, at Trinity College, UCD and so on. We are having discussions at the moment and are negotiating with Trinity College about this. We made a new provision of £25,000 a year to enable the Library to have conservation carried out at Archibishop Marsh’s Library.

Deputy Connor.—Is that enough?

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—No amount is ever enough, but at least it is an improvement. The case I am making to the Committee is that when these institutions were taken over in 1984, it was accepted that they were taken over for the purpose of trying to improve the conditions which existed. The then Minister with responsibility for arts and culture laid down the policy, which has been followed ever since, of steadily improving the conditions. What I have tried to convey here this morning is that by contrast with the previous 150 years there has been, since 1984, a steady improvement in conditions. We will never have enough and nothing is ever likely to end all problems but substantial sums of money have been spent both in the Library and in the Museum. Both Directors are now certifying to us that they are satisfied that progress is being made.

Deputy Connor.—On the policy of acquisition and decentralisation, I remember one time going to the Director of the National Library to talk to him about the condition of a priceless collection of manuscripts which exist in the part of the world that I come from and he said it should be taken into the National Library. I felt if that was done it would be in as bad a condition there and he agreed with that. Is there any policy developing along the lines of the National Archives where such collections could be held and protected? Is there any targeting of resources towards their preservation or protection or, indeed, better display?

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—In the ordinary course of events the National Archives and the Library keep in touch with all collections throughout the country. I am not aware that we have had similar proposals in this regard as we had in regard to the museums and heritage centres. We have developed a very active policy there. I would be glad to discuss the suggestion with the Director of the National Archives and the Director of the National Library to see that policy exists and in what way that policy could be improved on the same lines as the National Museum policy.

Chairman.—Would the Committee see any advantage in visiting the Museum and the Library?

Deputy Connor.—I propose that we do so. It would be a very good idea. We would like to see the area for storage of artifacts, papers and manuscripts, which the public never seem to see.

Chairman.—Perhaps we could visit the ones near Leinster House.

Deputy Allen.—I would like to see what the position is at the Custom House Docks site also.

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—As regards visiting the Museum, the storage area and so on, obviously there is no problem with that and we would very much welcome the Committee. Perhaps, that sounds a little patronising but I do not mean it in that sense. Certainly, we will provide all facilities for you to visit. With regard to the museum at the Custom House Docks, that does not exist yet but we can show you the plans.

Chairman.—Perhaps we could visit the Museum and the Library on the same morning or afternoon. We will note Paragraph 13. Paragraph 14 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

Subhead I. — Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust

The Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust was established by section 3 of the Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Act, 1922 to provide houses for Irish ex-servicemen from the First World War. On its establishment the Trust received a grant from the British Government and, under the Land Trust Powers Act, 1923 which enabled the Trust to acquire and hold land or other property in the Irish Free State, the land, property and rights acquired by the Local Government Board under section 4 of the Irish Land (Provisions for Sailors and Soldiers) Act, 1919 were transferred to the Trust free of charge. Similar legislation was passed in Northern Ireland.

The number of beneficiaries both in the State and in Northern Ireland declined progressively with the result that the Trust accumulated surplus funds from the sale of vacant houses. Arising from proposals made by the Trustees, the British and Irish Governments agreed in 1986 to the payment of this surplus to the British Government and Irish Government in the ratio of 68:32. The Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Act, 1988 provides for the acceptance by the Minister for Finance on behalf of the Government and the payment into the Exchequer of any moneys received from the Trust. The Act also provides for the disposal of any such moneys for the purposes of projects and undertakings (including the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI)) involving co-operation between the State and Northern Ireland or the State and Britain or relating to the island of Ireland as a whole, as the Taoiseach may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, determine.

Amounts toalling £2,354,196 were received from the Trust in 1988 and transferred to the Exchequer. In December 1988 the Taoiseach, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, approved a grant of £1.1 million from the proceeds of the Trust to the RNLI for the purchase of an Irish Relief Arun Lifeboat for use around the entire coast and for the further development of search and rescue services. In December 1988 a payment of £605,448 of the approved grant was made from the Vote to the Department of the Marine for transfer to the RNLI.

Mr. McDonnell.—This paragraph is for the information of the Committee and I included it because it was a unique transaction. It sets out the arrangements made between the British and Irish Governments for the disposal of the surplus of this trust. You will see at the beginning of the paragraph how the trust came into being. You will see that the State received just under £2.4 million as its share, of which £600,000-odd was spent by way of grant to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. There was a further £480,000 spent in 1989, and again, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution got virtually all of that. You may recall this being mentioned when the Committee were examining the Accounting Officer for the Department of Foreign Affairs. He explained that a provision of £750,000, which was on his Vote, was not needed because responsibility for this area was transferred to the Department of the Taoiseach on the enactment of the 1988 Act. The amount was provided in the Taoiseach’s Vote by way of a Supplementary Estimate. I just wanted to remind the Committee of that.

Chairman.—The Royal National Lifeboat Institute is a voluntary trust?

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—North-South.

Chairman.—Was the remainder of the grant of £494,000 paid?

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—Yes. The Taoiseach allocated £1.1 million to the Royal National Lifeboat Institute and the bulk of that has been spent on a relief lifeboat which moves around the entire country, Donaghadea, Cork, the west coast or wherever a lifeboat needs repairs or refurbishing. This boat is now used as the back-up boat, and it is one of the great outcomes of the trust that it was possible to devote this sum to such a North-South endeavour.

Chairman.—Do they receive money from the Exchequer through other accounts?

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—I do not think so.

Chairman.—We can note this paragraph and move on to the Vote. Are there any questions on subheads A1 to J?

Deputy Allen.—Under subhead B. 1. — Travelling and Incidental Expenses — there was an increase from £225,000 to £395,000, an over-expenditure of £170,000.

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—This is a very difficult item to estimate because sometimes visits are arranged at short notice. In that year there were substantial costs involved in the visit by the Taoiseach to Australia and New Zealand. As well as that — I think the Committee of Public Accounts commented on this recently — these bills are paid abroad in the first instance by the Department of Foreign Affairs and they eventually come back to the parent Department who is responsible. The bills do not always flow in a way that you can anticipate. It was simply a combination of visits abroad and bills coming in which were not foreseen. I think the following year the postition was reversed and we saved money.

Chairman.—What is the position with regard to reports of the Law Reform Commission? Does that come under your Department?

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—These reports come in, are submitted to Government and are published.

Chairman.—What happens to them after that?

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—It is a matter then for whichever Minister whose area of responsibility is targeted in a particular report. It could be any Minister, dependent on what area they are reporting.

Chairman.—Is the question of State papers a matter for your Department?

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—We are responsible for what is now the National Archives. We always were responsible for the State paper office and the public records office.

Chairman.—What is the current situation with regard to State papers, say, Cabinet documents and papers of that kind? What is the publication time? Where and how are they held?

Mr. Ó hUiginn.—Under the National Archives Act there is a 30 year rule. All papers older than 30 years must be deposited. Up to then it had been 50 years. The Act, when it was introduced, gave Government Departments a period of two or three years to comply with that injunction. I think time may well be running out. In fact January 1991 is the deadline by which time all Government held papers, older than 30 years, must be deposited in the National Archives. They are at various stages of completion. Our own Department deposited, I think, everything last year.

Chairman.—We will note the Vote.

VOTE 5 — AN CHOMHAIRLE EALAÍON.

Chairman.—As there are no questions on Vote 5, the Arts Council, An Chomhairle Ealaíon, we will note the Vote. That concludes the public session. Thank you, Mr. Ó hUiginn.

The Committee adjourned at 12.25 p.m.