This morning we will engage with the National Children's Science Centre to examine the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the accounts of public services 2024 - chapter 5, development of a proposed national science centre. On behalf of the committee, I welcome Ms Barbara Galavan, chief executive officer, Professor Luke O'Neill, board director, and Mr. Paschal Naylor, chairperson. We are also joined by officials attending in a representative capacity from the Office of Public Works, OPW, Mr. John Conlon, chairperson, Mr. Conor Sreenan, State principal architect, and Ms Kathryn Whyte, head of organisational capability and corporate services; and from the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation Mr. Fionn Jenkinson, principal officer, and Mr. Andrew Gray, assistant principal officer. We are also joined by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, who is a permanent witness to the committee, and Ms Sinéad Foy, deputy director of audit in his office. They are all very welcome.

Before we begin, I will explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references the witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present, or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts, is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege. This means they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse this privilege and it is my duty as Cathaoirleach to ensure that this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks and it is imperative that they comply with any such direction. Witnesses are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity, by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity.

I now call on the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, to make his opening statement.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach. Chapter 5 of my report on the accounts of the public services for 2024 reviews the development of a proposed national science centre, which has resulted in a contingent liability disclosed in the appropriation account of Vote 13 - Office of Public Works.

The OPW's original concept of the project was a perceived no-direct-cost initiative to develop the science centre as the key cultural component of a proposed major mixed-use development at Heuston Gate in Dublin. The initial 2003 agreement for leasing between the OPW and the centre's promoters was for the provision for 20 years of a building of 4,645 sq. m, with the promoters taking responsibility for the fit-out and exhibits and the recurrent operating costs. The Heuston Gate property development did not proceed and was abandoned following the 2008 property-related crash. In 2013, the OPW and the promoters entered a replacement agreement for the lease, committing the OPW to provide a building of 9,580 sq m. at Earlsfort Terrace, more than double the original size and on a more valuable and sensitive site.

Poor cost estimates of the State's liability in respect of the agreement were provided at different stages in the development. In May 2024, the construction costs to be borne by the State stood at an estimated €70.4 million, with potential for further increases. The examination found that the proposed science centre project has never been evaluated or appraised in accordance with the requirements of the public spending code or other applicable capital expenditure guidelines. Furthermore, we found that, because no public body has emerged to act as the sponsoring agency for the project, key controls designed to safeguard public funds were not applied to the science centre project. With no approved business case for the project objectively setting out and evaluating the costs, operating model and key business risks, the agreements for lease entered into by the OPW represent a premature commitment of significant, unquantified taxpayer resources.

The lessons from the examination focused on the need for robust project governance and safeguards to prevent and manage project scope drift and cost overruns. These learnings were accepted by the Accounting Officer for the OPW. There are also lessons in this case for the broader public sector about the absolute need to avoid granting premature contractual commitments to spending proposals.

I thank Mr. McCarthy. I now ask the chief executive officer, Ms Galavan, and board member Professor Luke O'Neill to make their opening statement on behalf of the National Children's Science Centre. As set out in the letter of invitation, they have five minutes.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members of the committee for the invitation to discuss the development of a proposed national children's science centre. I am the chief executive officer of Irish Children’s Museum Limited, ICML, which trades as the National Children’s Science Centre, NCSC. I am joined today by Mr. Paschal Naylor, chair of the board, and Professor Luke O’Neill, who is a member of the board.

ICML is a not-for-profit company and a registered charity. Our board is voluntary and ICML has two part-time staff, of whom I am one. We welcome the opportunity to come before the public accounts committee to discuss this critically important project for Ireland.

ICML was established in 1998 by a group of people inspired by children’s science museums they had seen outside Ireland. In 2000, at the request of the then Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, a task force reporting to Forfás, the agency tasked with advising the Government on economic policy, recommended the establishment of such a facility. The Government adopted this recommendation, which ultimately led to the 2003 agreement between ICML and the OPW. The scope for the project evolved over the years at the request of the Government in order to align with Government policy and ambition. The delays that have regrettably beset the project in the intervening period are set out in chapter 5 of the C and AG’s report published last November and the result is that Ireland remains the only OECD country without a national science centre for children.

Full planning permission was granted for the design of the science centre at Earlsfort Terrace in Dublin 2 in 2016 and again in 2024. The plans feature 9,580 sq. m of public exhibition, event and programmable spaces. These include three floors of interactive exhibits, a 122-seater planetarium, a theatre and fully equipped science laboratory spaces.

This is the same site on which the National Concert Hall is located. The National Concert Hall also received planning permission in 2024, and phase I of its redevelopment works has already begun.

Locating the National Children's Science Centre at Earlsfort Terrace returns part of the building to its original purpose as an exhibition space. It acknowledges its long history with education, and provides a dedicated visitor attraction for children in the capital. Most important, it provides strong opportunities to embrace the science, technology, engineering, arts and maths, STEAM, framework. By integrating arts into science, it recognises that creativity drives innovation.

ICML has committed to raising €25 million for the fit-out of the science centre, which will be gifted to the State for the benefit of children. This has been made possible due to the ongoing strong philanthropic support for the project from leaders and employers in technology and science. They see the need for the project and are willing to back it financially. A report on the future of STEM in Irish education, produced in 2023 by the joint Oireachtas committee on education and youth, validated that need, stating “The National Children’s Science Centre, in gestation for many years, should be opened as a matter of urgent national priority ” We agree with this conclusion and that of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report that identified the lack of a sponsoring Department as the reason for a lack of progress on the project.

At this point, I would like to hand over to Professor Luke O'Neill.

I am grateful for the invitation. We are very happy to be here. I am chair of biochemistry in Trinity College Dublin. I was asked in 2022 to join the board and I jumped at the chance. I am very keen on this project for many reasons I will explain. It is an essential project for Ireland, its young people and science into the future. I am very happy to describe my enthusiasm for it.

There are three aspects we should emphasise here. The first is education. This is about our young people and educating them to the highest possible level in science and technology. Many studies show that the earlier that kids become involved in STEM, the better for them, their career prospects and their whole lives in many ways, because science is so important. That is our ambition.

Our goal is to inspire young people as to the wonder of science and give them options down the line. Very importantly, and consistent with the Government's goal, it is about girls in science. We will focus on that. We will also focus on non-traditional backgrounds. We want as many people as possible, from all over the country, to have access to the facility. It will be a national centre. This will be a big focus for us as well.

My dream is that a young person will come into the centre and be inspired to become a scientist and find a cure for some illness we cannot yet treat, or maybe help to address climate change and such big issues. That is my second key focus here. As members will all agree, there are many challenges that we now face in Ireland and globally, including in respect of food security, climate change, medicine and, most importantly, artificial intelligence, AI. AI was not around when this project began decades ago. The challenges AI will present for our young people make the project even more important. AI will also be a massive focus for us.

The third reason, which Ms Galavan touched on, is that the tech science sector in Ireland is critical for Ireland's success, as members will all agree. We get so much from it and it gets so much from us. Very importantly, it is very happy to engage with us on this project. One of my jobs will be to help with philanthropy and talk to industry, given my connections with big pharma. The drug companies I have spoken to are very keen to become directly involved. Why would they be involved? It is very simple. First, they see science as a societal good. They see the project as of benefit to society. Second, it is about employment and economic activity. We must educate our young people fully in science and technology because we do not know where the next challenges and jobs will come from. The tech science companies have identified a massive need in Ireland to improve our offer educationally for our children to ensure employment will be secure for them in the future. The educational aspect is extremely important to the companies.

I appeal to all the members to help us. This is a partnership. Together, we must deliver this. We hope the members will join us on this adventure to deliver what we think is the most important project for science in Ireland for the future.

I thank the witnesses. Everyone should note that we will suspend at about 12.15 p.m. for a short break of ten to 15 minutes. I now open the floor to members. The lead speaker today is Deputy Catherine Ardagh, who has 15 minutes. All other members will have ten minutes after she concludes. Thereafter, if time allows, members will be allowed back in for a short round of supplementary questions.

I thank all the witnesses for coming in today and for their opening statement. Obviously, our focus today is primarily on governance, accountability, value for money for the taxpayer, and discovering, for the public, whether this project is realistically deliverable.

In 2003, the State entered into a long-term lease agreement. Concerns have been raised about whether there were a clearly designated sponsoring authority and formal sanction for the project. I have a few questions in this regard. What was the formal designated sponsoring Department in 2003? Was the Minister for Finance's sanction obtained at the time of signing the lease? Was the full cost–benefit and capital appraisal conducted before the commitment to sign the lease was given and before the lease was signed? Does the OPW accept governance arrangements were unclear at the inception of the project in 2003? It is an OPW question but also one for Ms Galavan.

There were a few questions and I will do my best to answer as many as I can. It was ICML's very clear understanding from the very beginning in 2003 that the sponsoring Department was the Department of trade and enterprise. The Minister for trade and enterprise was also the Tánaiste at the time. ICML had very significant dealings with that Department and the Minister of State at the Department of Finance was also very much involved. From ICML's perspective, it was very clear that there was a Department, perhaps. It entered into discussion with the Department in good faith, perhaps. I think it has been identified by the Comptroller and Auditor General that a formal appointment was not made, but that would not have been within the knowledge of ICML. ICML's dealings were very much with the Department, and there were discussions and various meetings during 2003 at which ICML aligned its ambitions with Government ambition. Also, there was a Government appointment to the board requested. This was adhered to.

On the negotiation of the contract, the Chief State Solicitor had a conditional clause in it that recommended that it be linked to the development at Heuston Gate. This clause was taken out of the contract. Was it taken out at ICML's request? Does Ms Galavan know why it was taken out?

I do not. I think that is probably a matter for the OPW. As far as ICML was concerned, it was negotiating in good faith. We would not have been privy to any advice that the OPW would have been getting in that regard.

Ms Galavan was not involved in the negotiation on the lease.

ICML was obviously involved but we would not have been privy to advice that the OPW would have got in relation to the agreement.

Does Ms Galavan know if her organisation instructed its solicitors to remove the clause?

Sorry, but I do not know the answer to that.

With the financial crash, the project did not go ahead. There may be repercussions for the State in relation to that. There were repercussions, obviously. In 2013, ICML issued arbitration proceedings, which were ultimately settled. There was a second set of legal proceedings issued in 2019. Could Ms Galavan tell us the cost of the legal proceedings?

They were not legal proceedings, as such. Arbitration was initiated in 2013.

Those are the same thing.

The C and AG has laid it out in his report. I will stand to be corrected, but I understand the cost is in and around €500,000.

Is that for the first set of proceedings or for both sets?

It is for the first set. For the second set, the cost is similar. I understand the recent costing is about €575,000. There are some costs still to come because there was a further hearing in relation to that arbitration.

After the 2013 settlement, it was decided to move to the Earlsfort Terrace site. Who gave formal approval for that? Was the approval of the Department of public expenditure necessary?

I cannot answer that question. It might be better directed to-----

I remind the Deputy that we have representatives here from both the Department and the OPW.

Sorry, I thought they were coming in on these questions.

The Deputy might want to direct specific questions to those witnesses.

I would like a response from the OPW on the costs issue, whether Ministers at the time were aware of it and in relation to the legal advice on the conditional clause.

Regarding the 2013 agreement and whether the sanction of the Minister for Finance was sought, the report of the C and AG, at paragraph 5.21, sets out that the Chief State Solicitor's office, CSSO, recommended inclusion of a conditional clause that if the Heuston Gate development did not proceed, the agreement to lease would not have effect. Unfortunately, and I say this as Accounting Officer 20 or more years later, that clause was not included. That is something I have some concerns about as the current Accounting Officer. For whatever reason at the time, the clause was not included, notwithstanding the legal advice from the CSSO to the OPW that it should be included. That is all I can say on that from a factual position.

Will Mr. Conlon comment on the costs issue in terms of the 2013 set of proceedings and the 2019 set of proceedings?

The C and AG has set that out in the report in relation to the original proceedings. As Ms Galavan said, the more recent proceedings have recently been settled for-----

Will Mr. Conlon confirm what the amount is for 2025?

It was €576,241.

Is that for both sets of costs or are there two separate sets of costs?

That will cover all costs.

In relation to sanction for the revised agreement, was the Department of public expenditure aware of what was happening at all times?

That is addressed in the C and AG's report. In essence, there is no evidence the Department was asked for approval.

It is quite worrying for anyone listening to this discussion that huge contracts can be signed without proper approval. The OPW should have gone back to the Department for approval of the project. Why was that not done?

From my own review of the files, there were communications at that stage between the then chairperson of the OPW and the Department that would have informed the latter of the ongoing discussions to settle arbitration at the time. There was no formal approval sought, as Mr. Jenkinson said, but the Department was informed of the negotiations that were ongoing at the time.

Was there a fresh appraisal of how much it would cost to complete the project when the OPW was entering into the 2013 settlement?

I think there were discussions at that stage in relation to a possible alternative site and then there were discussions that led to the identification of the site now proposed for the National Children's Science Centre. My review shows there was no in-depth work done on costings in 2013.

We also now have 2024 costings in the region of €70 million. That is the new estimate. How are those costings backed up?

The plans are fully costed having regard to the full scope of the project in 2024 terms. Mr. Sreenan, who is the State architect and is involved in this, might address the question quickly.

The cost estimate of €70 million is a gross estimate covering all the costs involved in the development, including VAT, contingencies and all the levies a contracting authority would be subject to pay. The estimates are developed on a mature set of drawings based on the planning permissions that have been in place. It should be noted that previous cost estimates were not necessarily gross cost estimates. A final point is that in the time before the current 2025 cost estimate, there was a very troubling period of inflation in and around 2021, with inflation reaching in the order of 15%, which is the highest rate on record.

This project has not been plain sailing. There have been two sets of proceedings, an economic crash, issues with the initial agreement and failure to include conditional clauses in contracts. Has the OPW looked at a walk-away situation? A lot of large projects have come before us that have ended in disaster, with nobody seeming to be able to blow the whistle and say, "Let us stop this". Has the OPW looked at this project and considered what the cost would be to walk away from it, what the worst-case scenario would be and what its liability would be? The public wants to know whether that has been considered.

We have not considered that at this stage. I am conscious that this has been the subject of ongoing legal arbitration over quite a number of years. In the views of the Accounting Officer that I set out in the C and AG's report, I acknowledged that legal obligation. At this stage, I cannot make any comment in relation to any future consideration that may be given to any further negotiations. I would require legal advice on that.

Has the OPW ever looked for legal advice on termination of the project?

No, not to date.

Has there been any discussion at senior management level on terminating the project?

No, not to date. As I said in the C and AG report, I acknowledge the obligation to construct this project. I pointed out in the report the funding dilemma. It would be premature for me at this stage to give any indication of any further consideration we may give.

Do the representatives from the OPW and the Department believe this project will be built? If so, do they have a realistic timeframe for when it will be built?

This is the fundamental dilemma I have with this project as Accounting Officer for the OPW. Until a funder is identified, it is not possible for me to answer that question at this stage.

This project never got off the ground. Another science centre was opened in Sandyford that has been quite successful. Without reinventing the wheel, have there ever been discussions about a collaboration with that centre? Do we need two science centres in this country?

The Deputy is referring to Explorium in Sandyford. I am conscious that no representative of that organisation is here and I would like to be as respectful as possible. Since joining the National Children's Science Centre in September 2024, I have not been out to Explorium. The promoters contacted us and I have met them. Primarily, we want to work with the Government to see this project through but I have met Explorium. I understand that, going back quite a while, Explorium has been consistent in approaching ICML with a view to working with it in some way. However, I have also been very clear with Explorium that our commitment and the Government's commitment is to each other. We are not really in a position to be able to have a meaningful conversation with Explorium because our commitment is to the Government.

I think we could have two science centres. Does Ms Galavan agree?

I absolutely agree.

There are many European countries that support multiple science centres. Perhaps Professor O'Neill would like to add to that.

This is a national centre, remember. We are aiming for more than one location. It will be around the country. We hope to have exhibits to go on tour, for instance. In terms of Explorium, absolutely, we will talk to them; you never know, they might be able to provide it with us. That is open to negotiation, obviously. We have got big ambitions here. We think the Earlsfort Terrace site is ideal for this. It is in the city centre. We are going to build a planetarium there, which would be a superb facility. It is beside the National Concert Hall, which we think is extremely important because of STEAM and the arts connection to science. Ireland could have a niche with the arts-science interface. It is a great location, so there are various reasons that would be the hub but there could be spokes around the place. We would love to explore that, in fact, as a possibility.

Go raibh míle maith agaibh. I thank the witnesses for coming in today. We appreciate them giving their time as they are all very busy people. I will start with DPER and Mr. Jenkinson. How did we get to this point? Was the sanctioning done correctly at the start? I presume Mr. Jenkinson was not there at that time.

I certainly was not.

So, he should feel free to comment honestly and openly.

It is set out in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report about how it all came to pass that DPER sanctioned-----

Was the correct process followed?

No, it was not, obviously. DPER approval was not sought. The infrastructure guidelines and the public spending code were not complied with at that time. There was not a sponsoring authority. The appropriate governance and value for money considerations were not in place when the contract was signed.

When representatives from the OPW were in here previously, they said they would be ready and willing to work if there was money assigned. Do you have a vision of what Department would be the lead Department on this?

No. Typically-----

Is that not the nub of the question here?

Normally what happens is that a sponsoring authority will come to DPER with a proposal and a business case, and will demonstrate how it complies with the infrastructure guidelines. Sponsoring authorities identify themselves to DPER and bring the projects. DPER would never previously have had a role whereby it said "here is a project; we think you should do it". I suppose it is an unusual situation.

I am very conscious that DPER was not in existence at the time as a self-identified Department. It would have been the Department of Finance. The OPW is under the Department of Finance. Was it pushed initially by the junior Minister at the time or was it the senior Minister? Was it a pet project for someone or what happened?

Just from reading the chapter, it was through the Department of enterprise that the project was initially brought forward in conjunction with the Minister of State in the Department of Finance, who I assume was over the OPW.

According to the OPW records, what was the process of engagement with it?

From my recollection of the files, the Department of trade and enterprise was the effective promoter of the project at that stage. It would have engaged with the OPW in relation to the possible location of a site for the project. At that stage, a site was identified by the OPW at Heuston Gate. That is set out in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. It is probably worth bearing in mind that at that stage, from an Exchequer perspective, this was seen to be a project that would be funded from the property dividend from that site rather than from Exchequer resources. That changed, obviously, as the financial crash came and as we moved on. At that stage, the Department of enterprise and trade was pushing the project. It asked the OPW to get involved in site identification. That was done but it was seen to be an Exchequer-neutral project at that stage because it was part of a cultural gain from that big development of Heuston Gate.

Okay. If we fast forward 22 years, how much money has been spent to date?

I think figure 5.4 in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report sets out a sum of €4.2 million. If we add the €576,000 I mentioned earlier in terms of legal costs, we are now heading towards €5 million.

Approximately €5 million has been spent on absolutely nothing. We do not even have a plan. All we have is the same objective that we started off with in 2003. Is that correct?

Those are the facts, Deputy. That is all I am going to say.

No, no; those are the facts. I thank Mr. Conlon for being honest and open on it. Obviously, the OPW cannot do anything until it gets the money. It has said that it is ready and willing, if it gets the money. The ICML is here as an independent group. It obviously has an intention to develop. What is the latest business case that has been put forward on it?

If I could just jump back to a comment that the Deputy has just made, we have a designated building and planning permission.

It is a location. A significant amount of work needs to be done on that building to fit it out. It will cost up to €40 million just to make it serviceable. Is that correct? That is my understanding from reading the documents.

We have the north wing of the site at the National Concert Hall, which is about 60% of the overall planned site, and reinvestment in that would be 60% or so of the €70 million.

Yes, so around €40 million of the €70 million would have to be done anyway.

The north wing will require investment at some stage, for whatever purpose. The initial amount would be for the building of a planetarium. The building is there. A site and a building have been located. Investment is required in the existing building and also if we were to proceed with the further development of a planetarium.

Just to clarify, who owns that specific site?

The National Concert Hall is owned by the Commissioners of Public Works.

It is owned by the State.

Yes.

That is fine. Can I get an answer to my question on the business case?

The lack of a business case was not entirely clear to us until much later in the process. I cannot be definitive about that date. Obviously the Comptroller and Auditor General has pointed that out as well. When ICML became aware of it, it conducted an investment appraisal and business case in 2018. That document was circulated to a wide number of Departments because there were more Departments involved in it post 2013 after an interdepartmental-----

Just let me bring it back to the business case. We are talking about a significant investment. What would be the ongoing cost of running this State-run science centre, if it were built?

We tried to help the Departments by producing an investment appraisal and business case in accordance with the public guidelines. It is very hard to answer that question definitively until we get engagement with the Government.

At the same time, we must have some idea even as regards the running costs. I come from a financial background; I am an accountant. I am trying to get an idea of what the costs would be if it was built. Would there be running costs of €10 million, €20 million, or €5 million per year? I just do not have an-----

I am not trying to avoid the question but it is very difficult to answer it when we do not have-----

Yes, we do not have the up-to-date business case. I genuinely have no problem with that but-----

We have a draft business plan, which is obviously different to the business case. We have not really been able to finalise that because we have not had the necessary engagement with the Government. Based on that draft plan and looking at the figures for State support for other cultural institutions, which can vary from €15 million to €20 million, we do not envisage it being at that level at all.

What, potentially, of the €15-----

No, I am sorry. I did not mean to give the impression-----

I will not hold Ms Galavan to-----

It is really difficult to finalise that plan without having that engagement with the Government. Going back to the origins, it was always the understanding of ICML that the State would have a significant role in terms of the ongoing operation of a science centre.

Would ICML see itself managing it or would it be more like a board? Would it be in oversight as opposed-----

Again, that is the discussion that we would love to have with the relevant Department.

As per the level of discussion, it is not clear, as yet. Is that right?

It is not clear, exactly.

That is fine. Just to jump back to DPER, did the OPW have the legal right to sign that at the time?

It should have come to us for approval.

It is not a legal requirement but the public spending code was there. That is not on a statutory basis but it is supposed to be complied with by Departments to ensure value for money. It did not comply with that and it should have at the time.

Who signed the document at the time?

I will have to pass that over to my colleague.

It would have been signed by a senior official in the OPW at that stage. The Deputy asked whether it had a legal entitlement to sign that lease. My understanding is it would have had a legal entitlement to sign it but it should have sought an approval, because of the financial consequences of entering into that, from DPER at that stage. The signature of the lease by the OPW official would have been a two-stage process but in my view, and looking back at it now, there should have been consent or sanction sought from the Minister.

The fact it was not does not negate the fact that-----

It does not negate the legal obligation.

It does not negate the legal obligation. That is the point. I did not think so but I just wanted it clarified.

I thank the Deputy. We will have a second round.

I know Deputy Byrne is in a mad hurry. She was telling me to finish and hurry up. I thank the witnesses for that and I will follow up on some of it.

My first question is for Ms Galavan. Will she explain why she sent a revised opening statement last night and removed only one line of it stating that up until 2022 the Government had a representative on the board?

That was just a misunderstanding on my part. The Government did nominate a representative to the board in 2024.

The statement says, "up until 2022".

I beg your pardon, it was 2004. I do not have the detail in relation to how long that board member served as a representative of Government. Whatever that period was, that person continued to remain on the board in a personal capacity. I was just conscious-----

Could Ms Galavan provide the exact detail of that to the committee afterwards?

Absolutely, yes.

I have to be frank with the witnesses before I start. I am of the firm belief that this is a vanity project and very much an unwelcome remnant of the Celtic tiger era and the "connected few" era. The politicians who originally agreed to this project are the ones who set this State on the road to financial ruin in 2008. This is probably not going to go down well but I believe that, collectively, the science centre and the OPW have used their connections to strong-arm the State and are trying to put the Irish taxpayer on the hook for tens of millions of euro. We have already heard of costs of up to €5 million with no explanation and nothing to show for it. Due process has not been followed from the outset, which was clarified here this morning, and the science centre has benefited from that. As mentioned by the first speaker, we are here to protect the taxpayer and to ensure there is value for money. The questions are hard this morning but they are needed. I really believe that.

I have two questions for the OPW and the Department, for which I would like a "Yes" or "No" from whichever is better placed to answer them. At this moment in time, has a parent Department been identified for this project?

No.

Has an economic assessment been carried out, which is a requirement for public funding?

It would need to be carried out by the sponsoring authority, so the answer is "No". There is no sponsoring authority.

For the board, with no parent Department and no economic assessment, which is required - I understand it has a business case, which I will come to in moment, but there is no economic assessment - can they accept that the State simply cannot fund this project at this moment in time?

What has happened is that the process up until now has been extremely unfortunate, but the purpose behind the science centre from the get-go has only grown. The need for a children's science centre has only grown.

I do not dispute the fact at all that a science centre is needed. I am really supportive of it. Professor O'Neill's contribution at the beginning was very enthusiastic and, I have no doubt, very genuine. I do not dispute the need, but where we are at is there is no economic assessment and there has been no parent Department willing to take this on for over two decades. That suggests there is no faith in this project from this Government or previous Governments, if nobody is willing to step up and take this project on. Costs have been identified, most recently in 2024, of €70 million with the potential for further increases. We are in a time when construction costs and inflation costs are increasing. We already heard examples of how inflation hit high levels in 2021. That could potentially happen again. There is a business case that was updated in 2024 from 2018, but there is no 2026 updated version of the business case at this stage. How can the witnesses realistically sit in front of this committee and in their own words in their opening statement appeal to us today to support the progress of this project? I do not understand that.

I would like to bring Professor O'Neill in because the benefits of a science centre have to be discussed before we can talk about that. We, in good faith, got-----

The benefits are not in question here. I have already stated, and everybody who spoke agrees, there is a need for a science centre. I 100% support it. The benefits are not in question but realistically there is nobody willing to step up and take ownership of this, probably because due process has not been carried out from the outset 20 years ago. That is why nobody wants to put their name to it now. Will this turn out to be another national children's hospital fiasco and a bottomless pit with public money being lost at the core of that? Can the witnesses guarantee that will not happen?

I can try to answer. From my point of view, I joined this knowing about this unfortunate series of events that happened. It is obvious that puts people off getting involved. We need the Government to support us now. That is our ambition here. We can make the case for that. I made a bit of the case earlier and there is an extremely strong case. Most of the science centres in the world are supported with public money, not just private money. There are various reasons for this. One is educational. We will tie into the national curriculum, very importantly. Part of the Government's ambition, of course, is to improve science education in the way I said. That is why we need Government support. Science centres are used as soft-marketing devices to attract FDI or high-tech companies into countries. It can be used as a showcase for Irish research. That is a second function as to why Government sponsors it. Where there are private ones, and they of course exist in the world, they are inclined to be based on entertainment and have a different mission from what we have.

Again, there is a strong case to be made for some public funding but, really importantly, we have philanthropy lined up to donate to this project. We are estimating various amounts of money from who we are talking to now, but they will not participate unless there is Government support as well. Some kind of public-private partnership will be needed to entice our philanthropists, who are mainly science and tech-based companies. I am very confident we can raise substantial funding from them if the Government supports us. The bottom line for me is this is stuck. It is stuck because of the history, which is not great. I looked at the history when I joined the board and asked, "What happened here? This seems ridiculous". One reason was the economic crash but various unfortunate things have happened. We have to move on from that.

We do, but we can never move on unless we know what the true cost of this project will be. That is what I am coming to. There is a business case that was last updated in 2024. It is now 2026. We are talking about figures of €70 million. Does that €70 million contain contingency for increased costs? Does it contain contingency for the heritage aspect of the project and the restorative aspect of the heritage in the project? None of this is abundantly clear to anybody. We are talking about public money. We do not know what funds the centre at the moment. It has two members of staff. What does its nine-to-five look like at the moment and who is paying for those staff? There are so many question marks hanging over this project that I do not think the witnesses are in a place to be able to sit in front of the public accounts committee today and appeal to us, in their words, for support.

On the nine-to-five, as I said, I am part time and there is another part-time member of staff. Since I joined in 2024, I have been very focused on trying to communicate with Government and-----

Who pays for the staff? I am sorry to cut across Ms Galavan, but who is funding that at this moment?

Maybe I will take that.

Please, and I ask Mr. Naylor to be brief.

If I talk about the funding to date to the charity, or to the CLG that the board represents, in the order of €3.5 million has been donated by private companies, private individuals and Government over the period since 2006. There was a period between 2009 and 2016, during the economic crash-----

I do not need all of that. I asked a simple question.

In the 2024 accounts, which are fully available on record, there was €100,000 in the bank and today there is about €300,000 in the bank.

Today, all that money comes from private donations.

Private and corporate donations.

Members of the board itself have donated.

I understand that. I am conscious I am running out of time. Ms Galavan mentioned the Explorium. It is a fantastic facility. I quite enjoyed the time I spent there. Has a partnership with the Explorium been ruled out or is the only viable way forward for this project a significant partnership between both entities?

We have not ruled anything in or anything out. As I said, we are not really in a position to do that.

I take exception to that. That is something that needs to be considered. I am not saying the centre needs to rule it in. This has to be done to deliver the best outcome for the taxpayer at this stage, if Ms Galavan cannot guarantee significant costs sitting where they are at and potentially not increasing any further. I do not think she can guarantee that this will not exceed the projected figure of €70 million. She really needs to give serious consideration - I am not saying she has to rule it in - to a partnership with the Explorium being the best outcome for the taxpayer.

As the OPW has said, 60% of the cost of that €70 million has to be spent on the north wing, regardless of its end use. Breaking that down, it is about €30 million for the provision-----

That may never come to fruition at all. I am out of time but if we are being realistic, that may never come into fruition. Until Ms Galavan is in a position that she can sit with a black-and-white document with an up-to-date business case, with realistic costs and contingency plans for where potential increases will most likely occur-----

That is why we are here today.

But Ms Galavan is not giving those answers.

We need to have those conversations with Government. As the OPW has stated, 60% needs to be spent on that iconic building, regardless of its end use. That means the cost of providing a national children's science centre for Ireland is €30 million. To go back to the origins of the project, it is a true public-private partnership. We are prepared to raise philanthropic donations to the level of €25 million to fit it out.

I thank the witnesses for attending. It is a most unusual situation for us to be in. I do not recall another meeting where we had one party - effectively a private entity - pursuing a legal claim against a Department that is also present. Our job is to protect public money and to ensure good governance around public money and to ensure that when mistakes are made, they are identified. The committees on children, education or higher education are the fora to advocate for many of the things which Professor O'Neill spoke about. We are also precluded from discussing matters of Government policy and so on. This committee has a very specific remit and all of the members have focused on that remit. There is huge merit in the idea of a children's science museum. I know there was great disappointment when the science museum in Trinity College closed, for example. A project can have merit. As public representatives, we come across good ideas every day. The question is how are they pursued.

I want to divide my time between both parties. By virtue of a decision in 2003, ICML effectively got the State over a barrel. Somehow, in 2013 it managed to get the State over two barrels. It has a legal claim and it has pursued this. Why would it not? Its objective is to deliver a science centre and it is pursuing the right it believes it has garnered. As a public affairs strategy, in pursuing that the State has accrued €5 million and ICML will be coming back to the State looking for €30 million or perhaps much more. Is it a good strategy by the board to pursue the current course of pursuing this legal right, which is ratcheting up costs for the State? There is a phrase, "Can youse just get a room?". I do not know why both sides need an arbitrator to be in the room with them. Surely this is a matter where we put people in a room and they come to a decision. Pursuing the legal claim always prevents a solution because it forces all Departments to act cautiously.

It is important to remind the committee of the genesis of the project. It is an unfair representation to say that ICML had the Government over a barrel in 2003. The Government sought proposals for a-----

ICML secured a legal obligation-----

In 2003-----

-----through advocacy. I not suggesting ICML did anything wrong but it secured a legal obligation.

Having the Government over a barrel implies wrongdoing.

I am not suggesting that in any way.

Yes, I am happy just to clarify that. ICML pursued an non-legal strategy for ten years, having secured an agreement at the request of the State, to provide a national children's science centre. It was acknowledged by the State at that stage that it would be a very significant partner, by virtue of the fact that it actually funded ICML from the beginning. For ten years ICML pursued a non-legal strategy. It was only when there was absolutely no other option that it initiated arbitration. This led to a very positive outcome, which is the location of Earlsfort Terrace, a building with a long-----

Does Ms Galavan accept the reality of the current situation where more than €5 million of public money has been spent? She can hear the concern on this side of the table. No parent Department is willing to come forward to put itself on the hook for the remainder of the money. That would seem to be a flawed strategy over 20 years.

As I said, the board was left with absolutely no other option than to go that route. The 2013 agreement was very positive. It led to the identification of a very appropriate building that started its life as an exhibition centre. It is co-located with the National Concert Hall and gives wonderful opportunities in terms of being able to lean into-----

Based on the most recent court proceedings, what is Ms Galavan's expectation now of the OPW?

We have a very good constructive relationship with the OPW. I have been able to communicate-----

I am conscious of my time. What is ICML's expectation following the court case as to what the OPW should do?

What we would like is a Department to talk to that would take this on.

Am I correct that the court proceedings went further than just talking? Is there an expectation that there would be a specific purpose, which is the delivery of the centre?

It was not court proceedings; it was arbitration-----

I am sorry.

-----and the commitment was reinforced during the course of the arbitration.

The arbitration reinforced the commitment the OPW has to ICML. Is that the case?

Yes.

That is based on the 2003 and 2013 agreements. Is that correct?

Exactly.

Is there no deviating from that from ICML's perspective?

I have written a lot of letters to Government looking for meetings. If we could get into a room, as the chair said at the beginning, and communicate with Government about the project, I think we could make progress.

I will turn to Mr. Conlon. Is this not an incredibly messy situation?

It is certainly very unfortunate. This is my third or fourth time before the committee talking about this. As I have outlined in all the evidence I have given to the committee and as outlined in the report of the C and AG, we are a contracting authority, not a sponsoring authority. The way this has developed over time where sponsors have walked away from this project, has left me, as Accounting Officer, in a very invidious position.

Mr. Conlon said that sponsors had walked away from the project. Is he implying that the Department of enterprise was sponsoring the project and it has walked away?

As far as I can read back. The Department effectively sponsored this for quite some time, from 2003 to 2011 or so.

Does Mr. Jenkinson want to respond to that?

I agree with the chairman. At the time that was the impression given.

In 2003, the commitment was entered into on the basis that there would be no direct State funding to ICML. Is that correct? I want to note the difference between direct State funding for its operation versus funding for the capital fit-out. How in 2013 did we seem to double, or certainly increase, the exposure of the State?

I think that was in reaction to the legal proceedings via the arbitration process that was taken at that time. At that stage, according to my review of the files, the OPW reacted to the legal proceedings. Based on the legal advice that it got at the stage, it settled those legal proceedings through the provision of this site. At that stage, there was also an offer of another site that was refused by ICML, and that is set out in the C and AG's report as well.

It appears that ICML - I take it as a contracting party here as opposed to a good or bad idea - had a right to have a space in a building that was never built and somehow that converted into it having a right to be in what is effectively one of the jewels in the OPW's crown in the centre of Dublin city. In terms of a ten-year process to protect the State's exposure, how did we get to a point where that particular site was identified, and the commitments strengthened in 2013, at a time when there was no sponsoring authority?

I think it was because of the reaction to the legal proceedings rather than taking a wider view that included the legal proceedings process plus the funding process. From my perspective looking back at this now, there was very little capital available to the State in 2013. From the OPW's perspective, our capital budget, looking back on it-----

At a time when there was very little capital available, how did the OPW agree to a new commitment that was effectively double the size of the previous one?

The short answer I can give is that it was because of the legal proceedings that were taken and the reaction to it.

Was it a mistake for the OPW to enter into that new agreement in 2013?

I think there should have been a wider focus taken. This is my personal view after looking back on it, and hindsight is a perfect teacher for all of us, but I think at that stage the funding element should been more deeply considered.

Is it possible for the committee to see the details of that arbitration agreement?

I think the final word has been given. I will have to take advice in relation to 2013, but the later arbitration proceedings can be made available. I will see what I can make available.

I am wary of straying into the area of Government policy, but has the Department any current plans to engage with ICML?

Not that I am aware of.

Is it Mr. Jenkinson's view that the Department will engage with ICML at any point in the future?

I cannot say. We have got no indication from a sponsor-----

Given the current priorities of the Department, the national development plan and the voteable budget of the Dáil, is there any scope within all of that for the Department to deal with ICML or is this just not a priority for the Department? If not, is it better if we know that now?

I can say that there was no funding sought for this project as part of the NDP review process that happened last year. There was no indication at that point and that was a big process. It took a lot of time to nail down Government's priorities and set out funding. This was not reflected in any of those discussions.

Is Mr. Jenkinson aware of any other Department examining it?

No.

I want to start with a direct question to the OPW and the representatives from the Department of public expenditure. To make this as simple and clear as possible, I want the witnesses to say whether they agree with my next statement. The OPW - the State - is effectively legally obligated to provide a children's science centre at a cost of at least €70 million, but it has no plan to do so. Is that correct?

The strict interpretation that I would give is that the OPW is legally obliged to provide what can be termed "a shell and core" building for the provision of a science centre. We have no obligation to fit out that and we have no obligation for any recurrent funding for that.

What is the estimated cost of the OPW's obligation?

As we said earlier, it is now in the region of about €70 million.

So, my statement is correct.

Yes, but I just wanted to caveat that.

Mr. Conlon wanted to clarify it, and I appreciate that. Do the officials from the Department of public expenditure agree with my opening statement?

Yes.

I want to go back to the beginning. Was the Department of enterprise the initiator and promoter of this in 2003?

Correct.

Fast forward to 2013 when the OPW entered into a new agreement. Was the Department of enterprise on the scene at that stage?

Not that I can ascertain from my review of the files.

So, it effectively abandoned the project prior to that agreement in 2013.

As the Comptroller and Auditor General pointed out in his report at paragraph 5.36, there are notes and correspondence in the file about how the Department remained committed to the project in 2011.

We will get clarity from the C and AG on this.

This is just an observation around the origin of the project. My understanding of it is that the Department of enterprise was in favour of the development of a children's science centre. At the same time, the OPW was trying to develop a major development at Heuston Gate. It was caught up in the property bubble and the OPW needed to find a cultural component to put into that major project or else planning would have been a difficulty. The OPW had a driver that was going to provide Civil Service or public service accommodation and there was also going to be a huge commercial element to it. The Department of enterprise and ICML, in good faith, were available and willing to be part of that overall development. The problem was that when the development collapsed, the commitment had been given and it was open-ended. We ended up with a project that had been given a life because of the attitude of the OPW. There may be an analogy, and the OPW may be able to give a view, in that the redevelopment of the National Concert Hall site has always been an ambition. It is a site that is owned by the OPW. The OPW needed a solution for there as well, something to fill an empty space and an empty site. There is an element of this being a child of the OPW. I think there is an overemphasis on the role of the Department of enterprise. I am sorry that answer took so long.

No, I thank the C and AG. If we are trying to peel away the layers of responsibility here, that contribution is helpful.

I am going to stay in 2013 because a series of reckless decisions were made by the OPW during that year. Doubling down on its commitment is effectively what happened. The OPW committed to doubling the size of the project and obviously the cost of the project has escalated. These comments are not personally directed at Mr. Conlon because I know he was not there at the time. He is here in his current capacity. We are just trying to understand how those decisions were made back in 2013. There was obviously the backdrop of legal action and so on. Will Mr. Conlon comment briefly on that period and how that decision process came to be?

I thank the Deputy and the Comptroller and Auditor General. It is difficult for me to comment because I was not there at the time, so I speak from reviewing papers. I am still of the view that it was a reaction to the legal proceedings at the time, which were obviously based on the original 2003 decision, which as I stated earlier in evidence-----

How did it effectively double up?

Is the Deputy referring to the size of the budget?

Yes. There was an obligation from 2003, but, in simple terms, the OPW effectively doubled its obligation.

May I ask Mr. Sreenan to bring the Deputy through the development of that? I will come back in then.

I will try to do this as quickly as I can. Back in 2001 and 2003, it was effectively a master planning exercise at Heuston Gate. There very crude allowances and in effect there were no building designs. In old language, the assumption was that 40,000 sq. ft translated to about 3,700 sq. m. As the project developed, the planning application lodged in 2004 amounted to about 5,900 sq. m based on significantly more detail than would have been available at the master planning stage.

If the OPW had a public expenditure commitment in 2003, it seemed to increase that commitment in 2013. That is my point. How did that come to be? If there were legal obligations from 2003, how did the OPW increase its obligations? No one can answer that today.

I understand and acknowledge the question. I am trying to step through the technical-----

I know, and, with respect, I do not have time to go through all of the steps. I appreciate that the people here were not involved in that decision-making process, but that is the nub of the issue. In 2013, the OPW recommitted to a greater extent the State's obligation.

It recommitted based on legal advice at that time, which was based on the original 2003 commitment that was there.

It is set out in the Comptroller and Auditor General report on the development of the scope and the development of the site and a new section 554. We can go into that or provide further detail on it. What happened in 2013 was in reaction to the initiation of the arbitration proceedings by ICML at that stage.

I understand. My point is that we seemed to go further than we had to. That is one important correction.

I will turn to the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation. Ultimately, as the Department of public expenditure it is the guardian of public expenditure. I do not mean this personally but the witnesses from the Department seem to be coming here today as if it is not their problem. No Department has come to them looking to take this on and they are sitting back saying that is fine. How is that fine? There is a mounting cost to the State here. As in the title, it is the Department of public expenditure. How does the Department of public expenditure take that laissez-faire approach to this?

I think the Department has a very important role in terms of protecting public expenditure. We are very clear on how we do that. How we do that is by setting out the guidelines and rules around how these projects should be managed, governed and assessed. That obviously includes the infrastructure guidelines. The Department is involved in setting allocations and then sanctioning spend. It is an unusual situation where it does not pick out or have a project and tell a Department-----

I understand that. We went through our vision of the national development plan recently. All the Departments would have come to the Department of public expenditure looking for capital and expenditure. The Department is aware that there is effectively a hook here for in excess of €70 million that the State is obligated to provide for. It went through that national development plan, the capital programme, without providing for this, even though it knew full well that the cost of this was only going to increase because of ongoing legal challenges and the inflation in construction costs. How does the Department excuse itself in that sense?

For us to be able to engage on it, we need to see a business case. There has never been a business case provided to us. We have very little to go on in terms of assessing-----

Other than the fact that there is a legal obligation to provide for this. That is mounting. Nobody is bitting the bullet, taking responsibility or showing the backbone to make a decision on this. The Department - the guardian of public expenditure - is there in the background allowing this to happen.

We have the guidelines, we have the rules that are in place and we have Accounting Officers who have to deal with that. We have an Accounting Officer here who is trying to do that. We obviously need a sponsoring Department to step up and comply with the guidelines, put in place the appropriate governance and bring that to us. We will engage with it then on that basis.

I will turn to ICML in my final few seconds if I may. Do its representatives believe this centre will ever be built?

We remain very optimistic that it will be built. We believe it is a shame that 20 years later after we got involved in good faith with a plan, which was adopted by the Government at that stage, we still remain the only member of the OECD without a national children's science centre. However, we remain very optimistic.

I acknowledge the good faith of ICML in all of this. Ms Galavan mentioned earlier that she has written numerous letters to the Government. When were the most recent letters sent and who were they sent to, if Ms Galavan would not mind?

The most recent letters were sent in October 2025 to the Minister for public expenditure, infrastructure and reform; the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science; and the Minister of State responsible for the OPW.

Did Ms Galavan get replies?

Other than the standard acknowledgement, no.

Just acknowledgements were received. My final question is on ICML's next steps. Is legal action going to be an ongoing process in this?

We have not discussed legal action at all in ICML. We are here today. As the committee can see, we truly believe in the project and we want to engage with the Government. I am conscious that the Chair of this committee mentioned the last time it was discussed here that there would be a recommendation going to the Government. We are appealing to this committee to-----

To insist.

Yes, so that we can engage. That is what we want to do.

I thank Deputy McGrath. We will now take a short break for approximately 15 minutes.

The witnesses are welcome. I very much share Professor O'Neill's passion for science. I am a trustee of a charity which encourages girls from underserved areas to go into STEM careers. It operates on an absolute shoestring, however. It does not have wealthy benefactors or sponsors. It educates girls in science subjects where they do not have science subjects in their school, as far too many girls' schools still do not. They do not have any science classrooms. It also provides after-school grinds, internships and Easter and summer camps. It supports these girls to enter science projects in international competitions. I am also the TD for the youngest and fastest-growing area in the country. Balbriggan is the youngest large town in the country and the most culturally diverse town in the country. Putting a science centre somewhere like that would be an amazing facility. Is there any leeway or room for negotiation on the site or the costs? If ICML is absolutely going to compel the State to deliver a €70 million at least project on the Earlsfort Terrace site, how can I stand over that to my constituents in Balbriggan, Skerries, Rush and Lusk where schools are falling down, where we cannot get access to childcare and where we do not have enough special classes? Here we have potentially a white elephant project that the witnesses have no business case for. They cannot tell us what the costs are going to be, what the revenues are going to be or how much they are expecting the State to give. I find it really difficult, to be honest. For ICML to compel the State, no matter the merits of the legal argument, and I am a lawyer, I find it really difficult to come in here and find no detailed business case, no understanding of what the actual running costs are going to be, what the expected revenue is going to be, and the witnesses telling us to just do it.

First of all, I cannot answer many of those things. What we are asking to happen here today is that we get support for this from a Government Department so we can move forward. That is the mission, first of all, just to move this thing, because it is stuck. What does it look like once we get going? We have reasonably robust plans to build the hub of the centre in Earlsfort Terrace, as was described already. Those plans are at a certain stage, they are not fully advanced yet but they are pretty well developed as plans. That will be the hub. Then there will be spokes. Have a place in Balbriggan. I was the president of the Irish Science Teachers Association. The science teachers are behind this whenever I talk to them. We would love to link into schools, into all these kinds of programmes all over the country. In other words, it will not just be one location by any means. It is a national resource. Our target audience is the very people the Deputy is mentioning. We want to bring children in from places that would not normally access science. That will be a key part of the project as well. These are obvious things in a sense. Internationally, there is always a central hub of a science centre, backed by public funding, and then it will link into the community in all kinds of ways. That is our ultimate vision with this. We are very conscious of the concerns. The science teachers want it, the Department of education hopefully wants it, as a way to deliver on the education programme for the country overall in science. That is my best way to answer that.

Ms Galavan might please respond.

The point I would make is €70 million has been mentioned a number of times. As the OPW has said, however, about €40 million of that has to spent on that iconic building regardless of its end use. Really what we are talking about is €30 million in terms of construction funds to build the science centre and a very significant public-private partnership where ICML has committed to fitting it out to the tune of €25 million. I just think that is an important context.

At the outset of this, it was supposed to be that the State was going to provide a building. There was supposed to be no direct cost to the State. Decades later, there has been huge direct cost to the State and the exposure for the taxpayer is phenomenal and yet I have school buildings that are literally falling down. The people in Rush, Lusk and Balbriggan want investment in those school buildings and you are in here and you cannot tell me what the projected running costs and projected revenue of this project are going to be and yet you are asking us to fund it.

Just going back to the very beginning, again I think there is a slight bit of confusion. It was always meant to have a cost to the State. The State was always going to be a partner in this. That is borne out by the fact that the State began to fund ICML in the early days. I do not think it is fair to say it was a project that was conceived at no cost to the State. And also-----

Could Mr. Conlon respond to that, please?

Most definitely from an OPW perspective, there is a capital element, which we have mentioned.

Yes, but outside of that.

In terms of the recurring costs, I have no insight into that. I do know at the very initiation of the project, from what I have read, that that really was not explored fully as to who would do the recurring costing going forward. That has never really developed as an issue of examination, from my perspective.

Is ICML wedded to the Earlsfort Terrace site? Are you willing to negotiate on anything with the State? Are you going to try to compel the State?

We believe the Earlsfort Terrace site has huge benefits. Obviously the location-----

Apart from that, are you willing to negotiate on anything?

I am not really at liberty to say what we could negotiate on and I think that is a question for the board of ICML. What we want to have with Government is dialogue. There has been a lot of-----

The dialogue cannot be saying you are going to compel the State to do this, no matter the cost to the State.

That has never been the attitude of ICML.

Certainly that is how it feels sitting on this side of the room.

I can appreciate that because of the legal strategy, as it has been termed, but that is not the case. We want to talk to the Government. I have been pleading for the last 18 months to talk to the Government. I just reiterate our ask today which, going back to the Chair's-----

Okay, I thank Ms Galavan.

Mr. Conlon mentioned that the Department was notified of negotiations. As a lawyer, I know there is a big difference between telling someone there are negotiations going on and approving them. Can Mr. Conlon guarantee that the OPW will never enter into an arrangement like this again, where it does not go to the approving body to get the required approval and binds the State into a ridiculously expensive contractual arrangement?

As the current Accounting Officer, that would be very much my approach.

And there are no other issues similar to this that you are aware of.

Not that I am aware of.

I fully appreciate that Mr. Jenkinson had no involvement in this and he has my sympathies for having to answer the questions here today.

Mr. Jenkinson mentioned earlier that he had never seen the 2018 business assessment. Is that because it was not sent to the Department or that because there is no sponsoring entity, the Department is not looking at it even if it was received?

I am not sure if it was sent to the Department but essentially one needs a sponsoring Department to conduct the business case and the economic analysis. The Department submits it to the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation if appropriate. The fact that this sponsoring agency is not there at the moment is the reason we have not been engaging on a business case.

In terms of state aid and the risk of state aid, has either the Department or the OPW carried out a risk assessment relating to the state aid risk exposure?

My understanding is that when it comes to something like a museum, state aid does not apply.

Versus the private museum.

Yes - versus a private entity.

We know there is a private science museum so if the State was to support a publicly funded science museum, the competition issues would need to be assessed under state aid rules.

Yes, we would need to get legal advice on it.