Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1997 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report No. 03 - Value for money examinations

AN COISTE UM CHUNTAIS PHOIBLÍ

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Déardaoin, 20 Márta 1997.

Thursday, 20 March 1997.

The Committee met at 11.00 a.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT

DEPUTY DENIS FOLEY IN THE CHAIR

Mr. John Purcell (Comptroller and Auditor General) called and examined.

Mr Tadhg O hÉalaithe (Secretary, Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltach) called and examined.

Mr. Brian Murphy (Chairman, Office of Public Works) called and examined.

Dr. Pat Wallace (Director, National Museum of Ireland) called and examined.

Ms. Brigid McManus (Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht) called and examined.

Mr. Noel Kerins (Principal Officer, Department of Finance) called and examined.

Mr. Michael O’Donoghue (Assistant Secretary, Department of Defence) in attendance.

Mr. Michael Grant (Assistant Secretary, Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht) in attendance.

Mr. Stephen O’Neill (Principal Officer, Department of Finance) in attendance.

Mr. Frank Griffin (Assistant Principal, Department of Finance) in attendance.

Mr. Liam O’Connell (Finance Officer, Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht) in attendance.

Mr. Joe Timbs (Principal Officer, Department of Tourism and Trade) in attendance.

Public Session

Chairman: Are there any matters arising under correspondence?

Deputy Ellis: We have received the prison menus and list of compensation payments made by the Department of Justice. I asked the Accounting Officer what was the cost of supplying Garda escorts for transporting cash. He stated it was £700,000. My information is that the cost of providing Army escorts is £3 million. Why is there such a discrepancy? Is there a different rate of charge? My information is that £700,000 is only a fraction of the actual cost. Perhaps we could get a breakdown from each Garda division on the cost to them of providing such escorts. It costs the State £4 million per annum for cash escorts according to those figures. The banks are trying to justify the fact that they make a big contribution; they pay around £500,000 per annum.

Chairman: We will take the matter up with Mr. Dalton and ask him to clarify that point.

Deputy Byrne: On Vote 21 - Prisons - there are interesting statistics. We know the average cost of keeping a prisoner is reputed to be in excess of £46,000 per annum. We visited Shelton Abbey, an open prison, and learned that it only costs £34,000 or £35,000 to keep a prisoner there. Would the logic of the argument be that what we need is more open prisons and less expensive secure prisons? That is something that could be taken up by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Mr. Purcell: As I understand it, there are security reasons for the high cost of keeping an offender in Portlaoise - £88,000 per annum. There are special considerations at that prison. The prisoners there are of a different category and demand different types of custodial conditions. Certain areas may be kept vacant because of the separation of prisoners and so on which would not apply in prisons such as Shelton Abbey. While we might aspire to the lower cost base, the reality is somewhat different. The average cost of keeping an offender in most other institutions is more or less in line with Shelton Abbey: Shanganagh, £38,000; Cork, £36,000; Loughan House, £38,000; Arbour Hill, £36,000, Wheatfield, £38,000, Fort Mitchell, £43,000 and Mountjoy £44,000. There are particular conditions which apply to Portlaoise.

Deputy Byrne: This is the third consecutive week we have discussed value for money reports. I do not know whether the Comptroller and Auditor General has ever done a value for money report on the cost of keeping a prisoner in jail. It seems outrageous that the recidivism rate in Mountjoy is between 60 and 70 per cent. The perception which I had, as a working class lad in Dublin city, was that when one was sent to jail one did something productive such as making mail bags and there was a rehabilitative process in place. I understand that is not the case in most of Mountjoy prison.

There is a high rate of recidivism among paedophiles and sex offenders but they are not receiving the necessary treatment to ensure they do not pose a risk to society. Vast sums of money are spent keeping prisoners incarcerated but the prison system has failed to reform prisoners and there is an acknowledged degree of recidivism. We now need a detailed value for money report on the prison services.

Deputy Finucane: I am interested in the details of compensation paid to prisoners during 1995, including legal costs. For example, an offender severed a small finger on his left hand while doing woodwork in Fort Mitchell. On the advice of the Attorney General this case was settled for £7,500 plus legal costs of £3,037.26. In another case which occurred in Limerick prison the legal costs involved were £24,000. Are most cases referred to the Attorney General for advice on legal costs, etc.? On what basis would a case be referred to the Attorney General? Who determines the amount of compensation? Are there different costs for certain legal practices or is it the usual legal costs that are involved?

Mr. Purcell: I am not sure. I have seen some of these files over the years and as our society has becomes more litigious these cases have become more numerous. Usually the legal representative of the State is the Attorney General and, in this case, the office of the Chief State Solicitor. Figures would be quoted and some settlement would be put forward by the claimant’s legal representative. A decision is then taken on the basis of cost effectiveness, risk, etc. I do not know whether there is a formula to be followed in the assessment of risk. It is a judgment call based on the experience of the professional legal people in the Chief State Solicitor’s office.

Deputy Finucane: I accept that but, as Deputy Byrne has already said, there is a 70 per cent recidivism rate. Has the compensation culture spread to prisons? In one case where an offender claims to have slipped on wet stairs and fractured his ankle, he was awarded £12,100. In another case an offender caught his hand on a nail in a wardrobe and received a large compensation award. Is anyone monitoring these compensation claims?

Deputy Byrne: While Deputy Finucane is concerned there may be frivolous claims by prisoners it would be useful to know the number of claims being made by the staff and the Garda Síochána who are engaged in the prison service. When we see those statistics it will put offenders’ compensation claims into context. Some of these claims could not be frivolous. For example, a prisoner in Limerick prison claimed to have sustained injuries to his shins and back when a floor gave way under him. He received an award of £31,000. That incident probably reflects the quality of the building. We cannot be totally dismissive of prisoners’ rights.

Deputy Finucane: An offender claims to have injured his ankle when he tripped over a step while playing handball in Mountjoy prison. Legal costs of £2,371 were paid to him during the year. Many of the compensation cases appear to be frivolous.

Mr. Purcell: This information is provided in the Appropriation Account on the Prisons Vote. There is an opportunity for the Committee or any individual, whether a public representative or a member of the public, to see what is being paid out and whether there is a rising trend in compensation claims etc. If there are serious financial implications for the State or the prison system then it would be time to take a careful look at it.

In 1995, 14 prison officers and two trades officers who work within prisons received compensation for injuries sustained during the course of duty. Twenty four prisoners and two members of the Defence Forces also received compensation.

Deputy Byrne: Can we have the figures relating to those cases?

Mr. Purcell: The payments to the 14 prison officers and two trades officers amounted to £244,000. The amount paid to 24 prisoners was £168,000. There were also amounts paid to four civilians and two members of the Defence Forces working in the prison service.

I am not sure whether the system is achieving its objectives when we consider the rates of recidivism. There are multiple objectives in having prisons and custodial facilities. The first is to protect society from the offending individuals and that is being met in so far as there is no revolving door system. Rehabilitation is another objective.

Deputy Byrne: I am not sure how value for money reports are considered. The prison service involves huge public expenditure. If my belief that the prison system is failing society can be verified by a value for money report then we must consider some other way to rehabilitate offenders. It cannot be a healthy system when a person enters prison without a drugs problem and leave it with one. Is it within the Comptroller’s remit to carry out a report on the effectiveness of the prison system?

Mr. Purcell: Technically I can report on the systems in operation in the Department for measuring the effectiveness of their actions.

Deputy O’Malley: As regards the case where an offender was compensated for injuring his back while playing football, I hurt my back while playing golf. Am I entitled to claim compensation from the golf club?

The public should also be aware of the menu provided in prisons. I am delighted to know that the mayonnaise is low calorie, the toast will be made from brown rather than white bread, the stroganoff will be based on natural yoghurt rather than on cream and the coleslaw will be homemade. Is it any wonder the costs are at their present level? Members of the public would be shocked to read this.

Deputy Finucane: Especially the menus.

Deputy Byrne: There is a missing link in what Deputy O’Malley says when he talks about the costs. Will the Comptroller and Auditor General tell us how much it costs to produce a meal for a prisoner in Mountjoy? My understanding is it is extremely low.

Mr. Purcell: I do not have that information. The Committee could ask the Accounting Officer for those figures.

Deputy Byrne: I have tremendous respect for the Governor, Mr. Lonergan, who has a very Christian outlook on life. He says his kitchen staff are so well trained and efficient in the production of food that a prisoner can be fed for £3.10 per day. Is anybody suggesting that is an overcharge on the Exchequer?

Chairman: The Accounting Officer can clarify that.

Deputy O’Malley: The menu and notes provided do not suggest meals are produced at a cost of £3 per day.

Deputy Byrne: Perhaps the Comptroller and Auditor General might tell us whether grand castles such as Shanganagh Castle are appropriate buildings for the Minister for Justice to purchase? They seem grandiose. Might the tourism industry be better served by them?

Chairman: That does not apply.

Deputy B. O’Keeffe: The compensation cases were all based on claims or allegations. Local authorities have a number of habitual claimants and take direct action against them. There seems to be a laissez faire attitude on the part of the Attorney General to settle these cases rather than take them to their ultimate conclusion. I am seriously concerned. There appears to be an incentive for people, irrespective of what activity they are involved in, to claim compensation if they suffer any injury to claim compensation. Is the Comptroller and Auditor General concerned at the possible increase in the number of claims arising from the publication of this report and how easy it is for people to obtain money from the State while serving prison sentences when they erred against the public in the first instance?

Mr. Purcell: The danger is that the publication of this kind of information might encourage others. It is a case where public accountability might ultimately have a public cost. While the numbers of cases has been increasing 24 is not a huge number of claims in the context of the number of prisoners that go through our system in any one year. Perhaps it is 24 too many, I do not know.

Mr. B. O’Keeffe: How many cases were taken where settlements were not made?

Deputy O’Malley: In some cases the costs are given but not the damages. For example, in No. 9 a man claims he fell off scaffolding and he was awarded legal costs of £10,628 but it does not give the amount of damages paid. Why not?

Chairman: We will seek clarification on those points.

REPORT ON VALUE FOR MONEY EXAMINATION NATIONAL MUSEUM AT COLLINS BARRACKS

Mr. Tadhg Ó hÉalaithe (Secretary, Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht)

called and examined.

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: I am accompanied by Mr. Michael Grant, Assistant Secretary at the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht dealing with broadcasting and arts and culture matters with general responsibility for the National Museum and the cultural institutions; Ms. Brigid McManus, Principal Officer dealing with cultural institutions including the National Museum; Mr. Barry Murphy, Chairman, Office of Public Works; Mr. Stephen O’Neill, Principal Officer, Department of Finance; Mr. Frank Griffin, Assistant Principal, Department of Finance; Mr. Noel Kerins, Principal Officer, Department of Finance, staffing side; Mr. Michael O’Donoghue, Assistant Secretary, Department of Defence; Mr. Joe Timbs, Principal Officer, Department of Tourism and Trade; Mr. Liam O’Connell our Finance Officer and Dr. Patrick Wallace, Director of the National Museum.

Chairman: We are dealing today with a value for money report on the National Museum and Collins Barracks.

Mr. Purcell: The Collins Barracks project is one of the most important developments for the major cultural institutions of this country. It will transform the National Museum, which has laboured for many years to display and conserve important national collections under less than ideal conditions. As well as meeting many of the museum’s accommodation needs, the project also solved the problem of finding an appropriate use for an important complex of 18th and 19th century buildings which were in need of repair and refurbishment.

The new museum is being developed in two phases, the first of which is nearing completion. The final cost of the total development is likely to be over £30 million.

The report before the Committee examined how the project was managed up to mid-1996. The physical conversion of the existing buildings to the purpose intended has been singularly successful and what I am about to say should be viewed in that context.

One of the principal requirements when contemplating the provision of a major capital facility is to consider the total cost of the development. It is particularly important to factor the estimated ongoing running costs into the equation to establish what you are getting into in money terms. This approach is set out in Department of Finance guidelines but these were not applied, presumably on the basis that there was a budgetary policy decision to commit £10 million in 1994 to the building and renovation work. In fact, the absence of an overall plan for the development was reported by the interim board as far back as May 1994. Uncertainty as to the level of funding may have been a factor.

There seemed to be an inordinate delay in developing the exhibition design. The process started in August 1994 but no agreement was reached by September 1995 and a firm of specialist design consultants was then engaged to move matter along. It now looks as if it will be later this year before the inaugural exhibition will open.

The timeframe for the overall project is also extending. OPW has stated that phase 2 design and building work will take up to five years to complete from instruction to proceed. Thereafter, further time will be required to complete the installation of an exhibition. I do not know if this timeframe will have any effect on the availability of EU funds under the Operational Programme for Tourism 1994-99.

There is also the matter of the adequacy of the costings of some elements of the project. For example, spending strategies, and I talk about spending strategies rather than budgets or fixed estimates, envisaged £1.5 million being earmarked for the external treatment of approximately 15,000 square metres of buildings but since £2.1 million has already been spent on treating 6,900 square metres, the final figure looks as if it will be a multiple of that estimate. Landscaping, site works and exhibition fit-out may well end up costing more than was originally envisaged.

I reiterate that this is a very worthwhile project. Much good work has been done, and is still being done, to provide the people with something of real value. I am merely pointing out some of the danger signals so there can be some tightening up to ensure that the overall project will be delivered in a timely and economical way.

Chairman: Has the museum a complete index of the location of its holdings or artefacts?

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Members will be aware this matter was raised and referred to in the 1988 report of the Committee of Public Accounts. The move to Collins Barracks allowed the museum to make a listing of its stock. While all the work is not fully complete we are on the road to doing so. A great deal of staff time is involved in that.

A Chathaoirligh agus a chomhaltaí, tá áthas orm a bheith libh chun plé a dhéanamh ar an tuarascáil a réitigh an tArdreachtaire Cuntas agus Coiste faoin bhforbairt atá ar siúl d’Ardmhúsaem na hÉireann ag Beairic Uí Choileáin.

There was a clear need for extra accommodation in the National Museum, as has been referred to by the Comptroller and Auditor General, so it could adequately fulfil its responsibilities, conserve and make available to the Irish public the important part of its heritage for which the museum stands guardian. The report recognises that need and that the conversion work carried out to date was successful. I thank all those involved, particularly my colleagues in the Office of Public Works, and the relevant museum staff. Those who visited the site, including the Chairman and Deputy Doherty, will agree it represents a marvellous development opportunity.

Apart from the cultural heritage need and benefit, the project will also have significant economic benefits. The cost benefit analysis carried out by external consultants for submission together with the application for Structural Fund assistance to the European Commission, concluded that the project should achieve an economic rate of return in tourism terms of between 12 and 16 per cent depending on the tourist number assumptions made. No project runs completely smoothly and while I do not fully agree with all the findings or emphasis of the report, a number of aspects must be addressed if the development at Collins Barracks is to proceed as effectively and efficiently as we would all wish. Such aspects are in the process of being addressed.

Detailed planning is under way for phase II of the development. External consultants are currently working with museum staff to draw up a detailed specific functional brief for all aspects of this phase which will reflect the construction budget available - the key issue - and to develop an exhibition strategy for the exhibitions in phase II. This work will then from the basis of the detailed design work and will allow the various other costs, such as exhibition fit-out, etc. to be implemented. It is a necessary step in preparing a detailed long-term strategic plan. The need to strengthen the museum’s staffing resources both in the context of the Collins Barracks’ project and more generally is being addressed to some extent. Six new key posts are being created and these were advertised last month. One of the functions of the most senior of these posts at Principal Officer level, Head of Services, will be to co-ordinate all museum aspects of the Collins Barracks’ project. There new clerical support staff are in place and arrangements are being made to recruit 23 attendance staff who will deal with the public visiting the new facility.

Contractors are on site to carry out the necessary exhibition fit-out and site works for the opening of phase I of the development which will be ready to open to the public around mid-September of this year. I am confident its impact will justify the investment made.

Chairman: I, Deputy Doherty and the officials who had occasion to visit Collins Barracks two weeks ago were most impressed with the work carried out. I thank Mr. Ó hEalaithe and his officials for the courtesy shown to us on that occasion.

Why was it decided to locate the folklife collection facility outside Dublin when the interim report recommended it be located at Collins Barracks?

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: That question could be tabled to the Minister. He made that decision based, on his policy regarding location. There has been criticism that many of the national cultural institutions are based in Dublin. While I understand the reasons and deep held belief of the Minister, his decision created problems in that the report presented to him stated the collection should be located in Dublin. It was a brave decision and he was within his rights to make it.

Deputy Byrne: The Accounting Officer said it was a brave move.

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: It may well be.

Deputy Byrne: It might well be a very costly move. On the issue of costs the Comptroller and Auditor General said there is no clear view of the ultimate overall costs of the project, how much it will be and how it will be funded. Will the Accounting Officer remind me about the folklife collection? Its location appears to have been debated for many years, as far back as September 1993. Is there political conflict because the Minister wanted to locate the collection outside Dublin?

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: The Deputy will note the collection is not going to Galway but to Castlebar, County Mayo. There is bound to be controversy. In 1991 and 1992 various ideas were thrashed out as to where the collection would be located. The former Our Lady’s Hospital, in Cork, was considered, as was County Wexford. Bunratty was considered for some time. The proposal to establish the collection in Turlough House came from Mayo County Council. The entire folk life collection has not been on display for years. It was kept in storage in Daingean, the former reformatory school in County Offaly. It was inaccessible there. It is ridiculous this has been the case for much of the museum’s collection which has not been displayed. The decision to place the collection in Turlough House, which is three or four miles to the east of Castlebar, was taken by the Minister.

Deputy Byrne: This Committee examines the expenditure of public money. There is no clear view of the ultimate overall cost. I note the Minister said that £5 million of the operational funds will be used to locate the national museum folklife facility outside Dublin. He seems to have been pushing this line since September 1993. He defied the findings of the interim board which recommended that the Collins Barracks’ site was the most appropriate. If we are to castigate the Accounting Officer as a public official for either the waste of public funds or failure to achieve value for money maybe we are kicking the wrong dog. What are the overall financial long-term costs for moving the folklife collection to Castlebar rather than to Collins Barracks as recommended in the report?

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: There was £15 million earmarked for Collins Barracks under the National Plan. One must realise the Office of Public Works costed the construction costs of the project in the region of £65 million. This did not take into account the fitting-out costs which are significant. When the Government decided on the Collins Barracks’ project in 1993 it did so on the basis of an interdepartmental report which identified five or six different uses for Collins Barracks. The barracks failed to sell at public auction. The Government decided the National Museum should use Collins Barracks as a museum. Some £15 million was identified for Collins Barracks in the National Plan together with £8 million for the folklife collection, making a total of £23 million for the musuem. The £15 million was earmarked for the initial building while decisions were being made on the folklife collection. The Minister accepted the Interim Board’s view that some part of the Folklife collection should be exhibited in Collins Barracks and an allocation of £3 million was made for it. The planned figure for the Collins Barracks element under the national plan amounts to £18 million and £5 million is provided for the remainder of the folklife collection in Castlebar.

Deputy Byrne: Will the Accounting Officer reassure this Committee that there is a planned systematic programme of costings involved in the Castlebar folklife museum?

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Mayo County Council bought Turlough House and its grounds in 1991. I can understand why the folklife museum is located in a rural setting.

Deputy Byrne: Why should the folklife museum be in a rural rather than an urban area?

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: If Members visited Dangan they would know the reason for it.

Ms McManus: The folklife exhibition includes furniture and large items of agricultural machinery which are currently on loan to Johnstown Castle. The exhibition consists of a wide range of items. It was never envisaged that all the items would be accommodated in Collins Barracks. The larger items could not have been accommodated. In the first phase of Collins Barracks project there will be a folklife furniture exhibition which will include material from the folklife collection. It is intended to exhibit folklife material in Collins Barracks. The remainder of the folklife collection, will be exhibited in Turlough Park.

A committee consisting of members of the Mayo County Council, the Office of Public Works, the Department and the National Museum has been examining a broad outline design for the type of facility that could be developed in Turlough Park which would cost between £7.5 million and £8 million. Some £5 million has been provided for this project and Mayo County Council will provide the balance through works or capital investment.

As regards running costs, the largest cost implication is staff. It is envisaged that there will be a staff of 20. There are three people working in the folklife division in the museum at present. Some of those staff would have been required if there were exhibitions in Collins Barracks but a number of the 17 new staff arise because of the Turlough Park project. There will be additional running costs but some of these would have been incurred even if the folklife collection was located in Collins Barracks.

Deputy Byrne: Thank you. I find it distasteful that a Minister would decide to reinforce the urban and rural division. Urban dwellers are often accused of not understanding rural people. It is farcical that the Minister has decided to divide Dublin’s cultural history. I condemn whoever - presumably it was the Minister, Deputy Higgins - defied the interim board’s recommendation to base the folklife museum in Collins Barracks. This does nothing for the urban-rural divide.

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: There will be some folklife material in Collins Barracks. If the Deputy visits Daingean he will find about 100 different types of horse carts, etc. As a lay person I think too many of these items have been collected and stored.

Deputy O’Malley: The cost of Collins Barracks seems astronomical. Obviously the costs of adapting and fitting out the building will increase still further. Would it not have been cheaper to build a new building on a green field site rather than adapt a 200 year old building which was built for a different purpose?

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: We could debate that. It was always envisaged that the museum would continue in Kildare Street and Merrion Street. When this matter was being decided upon some politicians may have thought that the museum buildings might be available to Government. Perhaps this Committee could have been based there rather than in Kildare House. Collins Barracks houses the art and industry exhibition and the folklife exhibition is moving to Castlebar. Collins Barracks is a listed building. Members who visited it will agree it is a very good facility and I hope people will visit it. I do not know where we could have found a suitable green field site.

Deputy O’Malley: This is the National Museum of Ireland and, therefore, the property of the Irish people. Unlike Deputy Byrne who objects to a very small part of the museum being located in County Mayo, I have no objection to much of it being located outside Dublin. My objection to Collins Barracks is that the National Museum will probably not provide any other building into the next century and, therefore, apart from the very small folklife exhibition in Castlebar, these artefacts will be made available to the people of Ireland only when they travel to Dublin to see them. Does the Accounting Officer believe that while most of our national historical artefacts emanate from outside Dublin it is a great pity there are not more rural exhibitions? Many people believe the Hunt Museum has fulfilled a very important function that should have been carried out by the National Museum.

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: I agree but resources are always a problem. I favour each county having a vibrant museum. The Hunt Museum is a great success. It has been grant aided by our Department. Some of the artefacts from the National Museum are on loan and some are in the Kerry county museum. The National Museum has strict guidelines and it wants local museum to employ an archaeologist before it entrusts the artefacts to them. It would be much better to have these items on display somewhere rather than left in dungeons where nobody can see them. That is what is happening in Daingean at the moment where the folklife collection is locked up.

Deputy O’Malley: I agree that anywhere would be better than Daingean, but I suggest many places would be better than Collins Barracks.

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: The Government wanted to find a use for Collins Barracks. The project was to have been located at the Custom House Docks site. A certain amount of work was done on that, but whatever the chances of people visiting Collins Barracks there is less chance of them visiting the Custom House Docks.

Deputy O’Malley: I am not asking about competing sites in Dublin but the potential of other sites throughout the country.

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: That was the decision which was made. I cannot deal with the policy end of it.

Deputy O’Malley: The Board of Works were very successfully involved in the refurbishment of the old Custom House in Limerick. The scale of that project is much smaller than the National Museum and Collins Barracks, but the costs were kept under greater control than was the case with Collins Barracks even though the level of finish in the Hunt Museum is extremely high.

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: The cost overrun in the case of the Hunt Museum was of the order of 10 per cent. To date, there is not a major cost overrun in the case of Collins Barracks.

Deputy O’Malley: The figures shown are enormous compared with those for the Hunt Museum. I know the scale is bigger but the individual value of the artefacts in the Hunt Museum is probably far higher than the average value of artefacts in the National Museum.

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Is the Deputy saying that we should have located the Collins Barracks project in Limerick?

Deputy O’Malley: I am not saying that.

Deputy Byrne: Where is the Hunt Museum?

Deputy O’Malley: It is located in the former Custom House in the centre of Limerick. Would it not be preferable to have such an institution in other cities such as Cork, Waterford or Galway?

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Cork was considered as a home for the folk life section of the National Museum but was rejected for various reasons. As somebody who comes from rural Ireland I agree with the Deputy. However, I have not offered myself for election. It is a decision for the Minister. The Hunt Museum is being grant-aided on a yearly basis, small though it may be according to some people. Some of those involved in the museum have said they enjoy paying their taxes now as we are so careful with public expenditure.

Deputy O’Malley: Perhaps the entire population would enjoy paying their taxes if we had a Hunt Museum in every county.

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: We can aspire to that.

Deputy O’Malley: We might draw that to the attention of the tribunal which is about to sit. It might include it as one of its recommendations.

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Perhaps the Chairman of OPW will say something on the question of a green field site versus the refurbishment of Collins Barracks which has been a success.

Mr. Murphy: A green field site would be much cheaper, but in choosing Collins Barracks the Government was dealing with two policies at once - housing the museum and renovating an 18th century building, an expensive project. The costs involved in Collins Barracks are not out of line with the Hunt Museum costs. I was very glad to be associated with the Hunt museum which was well within the budgetary targets initially set for it. The scale of Collins Barracks is enormous and gives rise to the figures the Deputy mentioned. An area of 120,000 square feet has been refurbished. That is an area the size of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry.

There are different levels of expenditure. We have presented menus of various kinds of expenditure. The original one was of the order of £65 million but that involved a fair amount of new building and a very high level of finish on the older buildings. We are now developing the buildings to the standard of the Hunt Museum and that is reasonable to meet the objectives of housing the museum and preserving the old buildings.

Deputy B. O’Keeffe: There seems to be a conflict between what Mr. Ó hÉalaithe’s political masters tell him and what he believes as Accounting Officer would be the correct thing to do. To quote Mr. Ó hÉalaithe, it will be difficult to get people to visit Castlebar.

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: I did not say that. I was talking about Collins Barracks.

Deputy B. O’Keeffe: When it was decided to locate in Castlebar a feasibility study and a cost benefit analysis should have been carried out. The Minister took a decision but very little homework seems to have been done to establish how many visitors were likely to pass through those hallowed halls on an annual basis. I am ad idem with Deputy O’Malley in suggesting many of these artefacts should be housed outside of Dublin. Was the Accounting Officer concerned at the mounting costs involved and control over the project being taken out of his hands? No overall project plan seems to have been adopted or cost benefit analysis undertaken. Why did the Department of Finance not insist on its guidelines being adhered to when it sanctioned expenditure? The ad hoc arrangements entered into mean that the level of control involved in this project was practically nil. For instance, in one year we got £10 million of which £8 million had to be spent in a certain period of time. What did we do? We gave another contract worth £1.9 million to the same builder in order that the money would be spent in the same year. Were prices sought from other developers? Did we get the best value for money?

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: I do not agree with the Deputy. The Government decided in its budget statement to provide £10 million from the benefits of the tax amnesty. The public accounting system in place is such that if we do not spend our allocation in one year it cannot be rolled over to the next. We all recognise that.

Deputy B. O’Keeffe: Does that include spending it badly?

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: The Comptroller and Auditor General has not said it was badly spent.

Deputy B. O’Keeffe: He is quite concerned about the controls.

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Can the Comptroller and Auditor General say the money was badly spent?

Mr. Purcell: No, we have a very good product at the end of the day. My concern was with the overall planning, that the concerns of the Department in relation to staffing and so on were not looked at when money was being allocated. It reminds me of another project we described earlier which was financed in the same way but did not have the same implications for staffing, organisation and running costs. On television some time ago, I saw a programme about a small swimming pool in a residential home in the west of Ireland built with national lottery funds but no funds were provided for the running costs and providing staff to help the patients to avail of the facility. That is the analogy I give rather than say the specific buildings were not value for money. One needs to know what one is getting into or else one must have an open cheque book. That is not good overall control.

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: We have to live with reality. The management services unit of the Department of Finance examined the staffing needs of the museum in Kildare Street, Merrion Street and phase 1 of the Collins Barracks project. They recommended an additional staffing of 97 people - that is in addition to the 74 staff mentioned in the report. All we have been able to get is some additional temporary posts. There are approximately 85 people working there now, some in Kildare Street and some dividing their time between there and Collins Barracks. We have 23 attendant staff and we have recently advertised six posts. In effect, we have been left short of what the Department of Finance identified as being the real requirements of the museum if it were to be fully and properly staffed.

As I said, we have to live with reality and the budgetary position. That has created immense problems for us. The job of the Director of the National Museum has been greatly expanded in dealing with this project. My staff consists of Ms Brigid McManus, Mr. Michael Grant and myself. We are a very small coherent unit and we are very stretched in dealing with this. It would be much easier for me if the Government provided money for Collins Barracks and said it will require a staff of 97 which will be provided as required. That would have made much more sense and would make my job much easier. However, that would conflict with Government policy on staffing. There is no point in putting any other gloss on it. Perhaps my colleagues from the Department of Finance might like to comment on that. I am not trying to get at them; I am simply saying that is the reality.

Mr. Kerins: The Accounting Officer says that his Department were left short of staff. The Management Services examination of this project commenced some time after the decision to reconstitute Collins Barracks as a national museum was taken. To that extent, the Department was not left short. The bill was submitted after the project commenced.

Another point that needs to be made about the Management Services report is that Management Services carry out an examination and present a shopping list of ideal requirements. The fact that the Management Services Unit recommends staffing or anything else does not mean it will be provided. All Management Services’ reports contain a statement to the effect that any recommendations made in the report are subject to additional considerations and those considerations, as everybody knows, would include budgetary constraints, Civil Service staff number constraints and Government policy. The fact that the report exists does not mean it is a cheque for the provision of additional resources. Any additional resources have to be looked at in the context of other considerations.

Management Services, as it operated at the time, always operated as an independent consultancy unit. It has been accepted by Department and others as an honest broker in looking at issues. To that extent the Management Services Unit has never reflected the control and constraints of the Department of Finance in issuing recommendations.

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: We cannot get away from the fact that it was a Minister for Finance who put a Memorandum to Government recommending that Collins Barracks be used as a museum facility. One could build a muesum facility and spend money on it - my Minister was happy to allocate EU Structural Funds to it - but one cannot leave it empty.

Deputy Broughan: Which Minister for Finance?

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: I suppose it was Deputy Bertie Ahern.

Deputy Broughan: Deputy Bertie Ahern was the Minister for Finance.

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Yes and Deputy Michael D. Higgins was Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht. Because of the frustations we have encountered in obtaining staff the Minister has often threatened to put a sign up saying “Opening in 2001”. We have had an uphill battle.

Deputy B. O’Keeffe: He will be in the Áras at that time.

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: He might well be.

Deputy B. O’Keeffe: The Department of Finance officials have told us that your request for staff was submitted after the project commenced. Why was a project manager not appointed to co-ordinate the elements of the project? Does that suggest there is no proper coordination in the overall planning of the project? Did anyone test the market or determine the value of the Collins Barracks site? Did they look at the price we would pay for a purpose-built structure?

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: There was no overall project manager. I do not think the Director of the museum could have taken over that position in addition to the myriad other functions he performs. There were various cost control committees chaired by the Office of Public Works and the Department of Finance. A committee is sitting at present. Many of the problems were as a result of staffing difficulties. In the private sector there would be an overall project manager with a direct line to the managing director, but that would not have worked in this instance.

However, it is something we must look at during the second phase. A post has been advertised recently for a head of services and I would see that person pulling the strings together and trying to co-ordinate the work. There has always been a committee representative, in one shape or another, from the Office of Public Works, the museum, the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht and the Department of Finance. These Department have been the main players. The Department of Defence has been represented on occasions because the Army still occupies part of the building.

Mr. Murphy: I do not have the valuation for the site we had in 1989 when the question of selling the premises was first raised. From memory, I think it was less than £5 million. The main problem at the time was that there were no takers for it. I suspect that might now change because we successfully sold the Beggars Bush Barracks and this was turned into flats and apartments and it was possible to retain the old buildings at the same time.

We did not cost an alternative building. You might recall that as far back as 1984 the Royal Hospital, Kilmainham, was to be used by the National Museum. In the mid-eighties the Custom House Docks were to provide museum accommodation at a cost of approximately £12 million. One or two sites outside Dublin were looked at - I do not a have a list - but there was no specific plan. In 1988 the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General pointed out that the museum accommodation was not up to modern standards and that it was hoped substantial new accommodation would be provided. The only offer received for the Collins Barracks site was £2 million.

Chairman: The report states that the renovation work on the first phase of the project was completed in April 1995. It also states the National Museum took control of the Clarke and Pearse Square buildings in June 1995 and that you hope to open in mid-September 1997. Why the delay in opening?

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: At the beginning, some thought was given to opening a small exhibition. However, it is a new area of the city and it was decided it would be better to have one opening of the entire phase 1. If there was a sort of Mickey Mouse exhibition at the initial stages it may well have put people off. There have been delays and there has been some conflict between the various players in this field but that is more healthy than having a bland exhibition. The project has potential but the question remains as to whether people will visit it; hopefully they will.

Chairman: Is there a danger that we may lose EU funding as a result of the delay in opening?

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: We do not envisage that happening.

Chairman: Doubt was expressed about the success of the folklife collection in Castlebar. Bear in mind that there would be no problem transferring that project to Tralee.

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Tralee is looking for everything. Deputy Byrne mentioned Castlebar. There has been mention of devolving power to local authorities. Mayo County Council is contributing £3 million to this. This is a unique project where central and local government will come together and provide a facility. I have no doubt but that the Minister’s decision will have to be successful. The interim board would prefer if the project were based at Collins Barracks but Deputy O’Malley made a strong case for having a rural location.

Deputy Broughan: As far as using the building nearby is concerned, the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General shows that no cost benefit analysis was carried out. Why was the down side of continuing on in the building that houses the collection at present not looked at and costed and why was that not offset against the difficulties in relocating to Collins Barracks? One of our achievements is that we constantly re-use buildings. We re-used the Dáil as an old exhibition building. This complex used to be the RDS buildings. Why was this not looked at in the broader context of how we cater for the national collection in difficult conditions?

Mr. Purcell: I thought I did. My point was that the big picture was not being looked at and that the building project -----

Deputy Broughan: I accept the Comptroller and Auditor General is putting down a marker for politicians in future budgets who may engage in stroke politics or whatever. Basically he is talking to politicians and not officials. Deputy Ahern rightly decided to grant this amount of money in 1994, and I applaud him for that. But in the context of the museum per se, would it not be better to do a cost benefit analysis of the present location as against moving to a new site?

Mr. Purcell: It is not a case of either or. The Kildare Street and Merrion Street buildings will continue to be used by the museum. This project will give them extra space. I support that because in 1988 my predecessor was very critical of the conditions in which many of the artefacts were being stored, the inability to display many worthwhile artefacts and so on. I said in my opening statement that this is a very worthwhile project and that very good work has been done. This additional accommodation is welcome but it must be seen in the context of the overall requirements of the museum.

There is a danger in allocating money from budgets, whether it be for Mayo or the National Museum, that you will not get value for money, which is what happened in this case. The Department of Finance could not enforce its own guidelines for major capital projects and that is recorded in the report. Either the guidelines are of no use or one does not need them to get value for money.

Deputy Broughan: Dublin has been steadily losing its military installations. If this happened in a rural location there would be a public outcry. The net effect is we are losing a major business in the Collins Barracks area. Has the Comptroller any intention of evaluating the implications of relocating military personnel from barracks all over Dublin? As a Dublin based Deputy I am aware of this major loss to the city. I am concerned about locating military personnel in rural areas and the cost benefit of it.

Mr. Purcell: A representative from the Department of Defence is in attendance and he can comment on the report of the efficiency audit group, which is separate from my office. It has conducted a study on the need for military barracks at various locations throughout the country and made recommendations. I do not know what it has recommended. Perhaps the Deputy could address his queries to the Department of Defence.

Deputy Broughan: Every time a rural town loses a barracks there is a public outcry. The public became hysterical when the Department of Defence review was published. So far there has not been any political uproar in Dublin. We are conscious that we are losing important military personnel. We should have a cost benefit report. Over one-third of the population live in Dublin. Is there sufficient protection for people who live in Dublin? There will be security implications as a result of moving military personnel from Collins Barracks.

Mr. Purcell: The troops who were based in Collins Barracks are being relocated to other barracks throughout Dublin. Capital funding has been provided to relocate personnel to Cathal Brugha Barracks. I am subject to correction on this.

Deputy Broughan: Will the Comptroller look at this matter again when he is conducting a value for money report on the Department of Defence?

Mr. Purcell: Yesterday, I approved a preliminary study to be carried out on the management of the Defence Force’s property. I can try to encompass certain aspects raised by the Deputy if a full study is approved. I will keep the Deputy informed.

Deputy Broughan: I congratulate the Accounting Officer and his staff for implementing a quick decision and carrying it out so successfully. Speaking as a Dublin representative, this will be a wonderful addition to the cultural life of the capital, in particular to the western edge of the city. It will complement the work carried out at the Royal Hospital, the Harp Project, which is the regeneration of the north-west inner city, and other projects. The Collins Barracks project will be a flagship one. The politicians were responsible for giving you a very difficult task by imposing caveats. I congratulate you on carrying the job out so quickly and efficiently.

In relation to the Collins Barracks project local representatives have asked whether there is interaction with the local area. The Accounting Officer is probably aware of a strong campaign to have a theatre or performing arts facility so there would be more than just a museum opened during the daytime in the area. This new venue would attract people from the surrounding area, particularly from the western suburbs such as Palmerstown, Blanchardstown, Ballyfermot and the Harp area of the north-west inner city. What is the situation in relation to that? What other plans do you have to interface the location with the surrounding population?

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: An education and outreach officer will be appointed. The museum already has an education officer. Schools will be a large part of the market. We will try to liaise with the local community as far as possible. A community room has been provided within the complex so groups can meet. There is a small theatre in the building which can seat 100 people. The type of theatre facility mentioned by the Deputy may present difficulties in the next phase. The Deputy was not here when we talked about the cost constraints, staffing difficulties, etc. The Irish Museum of Modern Art, which is located in the Royal Hospital in Kilmainham, integrates very well with local groups. We will bear in mind the Deputy’s comments.

Deputy Byrne: I wish the project well. As the area develops it will be a valuable asset. When will the Army vacate Collins Barracks? We spent some time talking about the folk life but there is another type of lifestyle in that area; involving ladies in night time activities. Benburb Street is not a safe area. Have extra security costs been provided for? Trucks are parked outside Collins Barracks and this takes from the beauty of the site. Has the Accounting Officer been in touch with the local authorities to remove these trucks? Parking for buses and coaches is probably part of your long term development strategy but if it is not brought on stream soon I do not see the museum attracting the number of visitors envisaged. Are there plans to develop secure parking facilities on the football pitch at the front of the building? The Comptroller and Auditor General highlighted in his damning report the scandalous storage facilities and the damage caused to artefacts which were originally housed in Kildare Street. Has that problem been solved? When will Sheela-na-Gigs emerge from the basement? Have you got over the Irish reluctance to display aspects of our cultural, religious and pagan past? Will it be located in Limerick as well?

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Last year the museum published a booklet on Sheela-na-Gigs. As regards the night life activity in the area, we moved our headquarters near to Burlington Road which also has the same problem. It is not a major issue. We will liaise with the Garda Síochána and Dublin Corporation with regard to the matter.

Deputy Byrne: I was not being facetious. In that part of the city, unlike other red light areas, it is a daytime business as well.

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Yes. The day the Committee visited the area it was quite visible.

Deputy Byrne: Many of these women are drug addicts. Tourists and the average Dublin family wanting to walk to the museum people may feel Kildare Street is more environmentally friendly than Benburb Street, with all the problems in that area. The National Museum on Kildare Street is more accessible and the area is safer for visitors and citizens. What are you doing to resolve that serious problem?

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Culture covers a very broad spectrum. Any letter to a Department with the word “culture” mentioned in it could end up on my desk. We can only liaise with the Garda authorities and the Eastern Health Board to see what can be done.

I mentioned earlier in response to Deputy Broughan that we are trying to involve the local community as much as possible. The Comptroller and Auditor General did not mention this in his report.

Mr. Purcell: I did not. Looking at the ultimate outline of the project, the football pitches in front of the barracks will disappear and the esplanade will take on a different character to blend in with the museum. The other developments in the area, including the one mentioned by Deputy Broughan around Smithfield etc., may solve the problem by upgrading the facilities and the tenor of the place.

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Luas will pass close to the front of the museum.

Deputy Byrne: I am inquiring about access for tourists and coach and car parking facilities.

Ms McManus: The National Museum, the Department and the Office of Public Works are concerned to ensure facilities allowing access for tourists are provided. The original building project would have been prior to planning permission requirements but as part of the section 84 consultation temporary coach and car parking in the complex has been approved for the first phase opening. As part of the current planning permission application in relation to works being done on the gates we hope to have a pedestrian access for the September opening. This will involve breaking the wall and requires planning approval. We have also asked for an increase in parking facilities.

As the Comptroller and Auditor General indicated the ultimate plan is to have parking at either end of the esplanade. This is subject to planning approval for the second phase development. In the context of the longterm development of its Harp project which envisages a high degree of pedestrianisation, Dublin Corporation has reservations about substantial car parking in the area. This will require a great deal of consideration in phase two. We have agreement on phase one.

There is also the issue of graves in the Croppies Acre which is at the centre of the esplanade. For that reason parking was envisaged for either end of the esplanade. Dublin Corporation will be concerned with this issue also in terms of planning for the second phase. Any proposals we would have in that area will be considered at the planning approval stage.

Since the museum took over Collins Barracks a security company has been employed pending the opening when there will be permanent museum staff together with the security company. Whatever about the culture in the immediate vicinity, the nature of the complex and the value of the artefacts on site will always require an expensive security operation. The security company costs £200,000 per annum. Even if this type of complex was situated in the most salubrious of surroundings, the scale of the site, the large perimeter and the value of the collections would require very significant security. A very modern security system with a central control room was installed as part of the capital project. The Chairman who visited Collins Barracks will be aware there are various provisions which minimise the risks to security. I am not sure from the point of view of the cost of security that the area in which it is situated as opposed to the type of physical building and the value of the collections has made a significant difference.

Deputy Broughan: Are you liaising with Iarnród Éireann as there are major plans for Heuston station?

Ms. McManus: The Museum of Modern Art is considering locating modern art in the surrounds of Heuston station. We are trying to link tourism facilities on the west side of the city from the Museum of Modern Art, Collins Barracks up to the Phoenix Park. In relation to visitor numbers, the Museum of Modern Art, which might have less appeal than the National Museum, has in excess of 200,000 visitors per year.

Deputy O’Malley: Unfortunately, I was unable to attend when the Committee visited Collins Barracks. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe mentioned staffing difficulties several times. Have you examined the concept of docent as developed in Limerick by Miss Dunleavy. This has been remarkably successful, not just from the point of view of saving money but of providing a much higher standard of commentary on the exhibits and involving people with knowledge and talent in the local community on a voluntary basis.

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: This has not been looked at but Mairéad Dunleavy now has a central role in the National Museum, therefore, the initiative would come from her. I would not object to this. It may cause industrial relations difficulties. The other option would be to have an entry charge but that would not be politically acceptable to any party in the House. That would be another way of generating own resources to provide staff, but it is an issue that has not been seriously considered in the context of Collins Barracks. We are in a transition phase. Most of the items are now in storage at Collins Barracks and the opening will be in mid-September. It has worked extremely well in the case of the Hunt Museum in Limerick although it is a private body.

Deputy O’Malley: It is but I am disappointed that the issue has not been addressed in this context, particularly given the severe staffing difficulties. It is an obvious way of saving money and it has other advantages of involving people in the study of and specialisation in many of the exhibits and involving the local community.

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: We have used it in some of the other institutions. FÁS trainees have worked in the National Gallery, the nearest thing to what the Deputy is talking about.

Deputy O’Malley: It is a long way from what I am talking about. I am talking about people who are highly competent.

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Yes, but all people involved in FÁS are not cutting nettles.

Deputy O’Malley: Dr. Wallace might throw some light on this.

Dr. Wallace: Like Deputy O’Malley, I am a Limerick man living in Dublin. I am an admirer of the Hunt Museum but we should not use it as a parallel for the problems and difficulties in Dublin. In Dublin there is an ingrained largely productive system of curators. We also have a curatorial staff which is heavily and properly unionised. In Limerick it was a non-Civil Service institution and could use a system of docent. It would be tricky for us to use that kind of system. Volunteers have helped with research, for instance, in the preparation of the new silver exhibition in Collins Barracks. Deputy O’Malley said every town in Ireland should have a Hunt Museum.

Deputy O’Malley: I did not quite say that.

Dr. Wallace: Deputy O’Malley seems to regard the resources of the National Museum as a potential quarry from which we can draw to make institutions like the Hunt Museum in different cities throughout the country. That would be impossible. It was implied that some of the items in the Hunt Museum were of extreme monetary value. They are but so, too, are the items in the National Museum. All the items in the Hunt Museum would probably not buy the Ardagh Chalice. We should not denigrate the quality of the national collections just because there is a very successful show, largely eclectic and, hopefully, useful to the city of Limerick, taking place in the Hunt institution.

Deputy O’Malley: Will that institution be designated a national cultural institute under current legislation?

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: That legislation passed all Stages in the Dáil and will go to the Seanad. I do not think the Bill allows for that possibility.

Ms McMahon: The Hunt Museum is included with other cultural institutions for certain purposes such as State indemnities and foreign visiting exhibitions. The Bill will establish the museum and library as autonomous non-commercial State bodies. There is no provision for designating other bodies as national institutions. There are provisions that will allow them to be designated for certain purposes, for example, indemnities. The Hunt Museum is also included in the provisions for a liquor licence but the Bill does not provide for designating bodies as national institutions as such.

Deputy O’Malley: Is that not a pity?

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: That legislation provides for the setting up of the library and museum at arms’ length from the Government. Technically the Director of the museum is an officer of my Department reporting to me as Accounting Officer. It has never been a successful mechanism. There have been various reports and promises in the past, but this is an effort to set up the museum and library as separate bodies. They will then be more effective. Some staff would prefer to stay under the Civil Service umbrella. The bodies have existed since the time the RDS and the Royal Irish Academy were involved in their creation in the last century. It is an effective move because the Office of Public Works will still be responsible for the upkeep of the buildings and the legislation is progressing rapidly.

Deputy O’Malley: Will the National Library be the only one in the world that has a seven day licence?

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: As a teetotaller I will not be frequenting the bar there.

Deputy O’Malley: That is not the question I asked. Will it be the only national library in the world with such a licence?

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: The Deputy will have to refine the question.

Deputy O’Malley: I cannot refine it any better than that. It seems extraordinary that one of the basic requirements we see as necessary for our national cultural institutions is a liquor licence.

Mr. Murphy: As Vice-Chairman of the National Library, I assure the Deputy that all our meetings are conducted in the most sober conceivable manner and will continue to be so.

Deputy Broughan: This development is another millennium project. It is envisaged that the core national collection will be based in Collins Barracks? Are plans for extra accommodation for Oireachtas Members and staff in the National Museum going ahead?

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: As I said earlier the centres will continue. They are purpose built museum institutions and there is a very good job being done at present which is very much overdue. The facade was quite damaged.

Deputy Broughan: But you do not envisage—

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: I do not envisage it but we are the servants, you are the masters.

Deputy Broughan: There was an interesting radio interview recently with Dr. Donlon about the library facilities. There is no intention to have a more appropriate national library. It is interesting that the library in London, which overshot its cost is about to be opened. The French have also done this. I studied there and know we still have much to do given the poor conditions in which much of the memorabilia is kept.

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Major capital works need to be carried out in the library. We are trying to provide additional resources and I and the former director crossed swords on this on a number of occasions regarding this. She was somewhat impatient and rightly so. She felt she could raise the profile of the library and she made an admirable public case. We must live within our constraints. I would like the National Library to be open more often and I would like that facility to improve. I do not know if the Deputy was present when I spoke about the staff situation which is ongoing.

Deputy Broughan: The National Library is unusual in that it is not accessible. One has to have a card and go through procedures.

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Yes. The Deputy mentioned that he was studying there. It is to some extent a library of last resort. I do not ever remember using it but I am aware that some of my colleagues have done so. We have a reasonable public library service. I live on the north side of the city. Fairview has a good library as has Raheny. If one speaks to my colleague, the Accounting Officer at the Department of the Environment, he would tell of his difficulties in beefing up that sector.

Deputy Broughan: If one is studying Irish economic history and so on it is the best place to go. Politicians will have to take decisions. In general terms, you carried out your remit very well.

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: It is easier to get a reader’s card in the National Library now than it was in the past. To some extent, without being too critical, the institutions in the past were very much looked upon as places where items were collected rather than places where the public could view the collections. Looking back through the years the public were very much the poor relation and that attitude must change. Any type of change takes time.

Chairman: The Committee welcomes this very informed value for money report and is pleased to see that Collins Barracks is being put to a use that will be a national heritage for many years to come. However, concern must be expressed about the lack of proper planning and management involved in the initial stages of this project and this Committee would like to see the various Departments involved placing greater emphasis on planning and control for the remainder of this project and indeed any future projects. The Committee would like to thank Mr. Ó hÉalaithe and the Department for their hospitality on the recent visit to Collins Barracks. We would like to be kept informed of progress on a regular basis.

Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: I accept what has been said and we will take it in the spirit in which it was given. We would like to liaise with the Committee at any time. Deputy Broughan asked the Comptroller and Auditor General about alternative sites. Although perhaps late in the day, a cost benefit analysis was carried out which related to an application for European funds and was produced last January. To store the museum’s artefacts in proper leased accommodation would have cost £11.5 million at today’s rates. That figure must be offset against the capital costs of the new development and it puts it in some perspective.

THE WITNESS WITHDREW.

THE COMMITTEE ADJOURNED AT 1.10 P.M.