Official Report: Minutes of Evidence
Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure, meeting on Tuesday, 2 June 2015
Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr N McCausland (Chairperson)
Mr Gordon Dunne (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr D Bradley
Mr L Cree
Mr David Hilditch
Ms R McCorley
Mr B McCrea
Mrs K McKevitt
Mr C Ó hOisín
Witnesses:
Mr David Carson, Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure
Mr Michael O'Dowd, Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure
June 2015 Monitoring Round: Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I welcome to the Committee David Carson, the director of finance and corporate services in the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure; and Michael O’Dowd, its head of finance. If Committee members or the witnesses have any relevant financial or other interests in today's business, I ask them to declare them.
I invite you to make an opening statement. Given the nature of the paper, we will probably want to go through it line by line.
Mr David Carson (Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure): Thanks, Chairman, and thanks for agreeing to put back the deadline for the briefing paper for the meeting. I will make a few introductory remarks.
I begin by reminding the Committee of our opening position for the current financial year. We have opened the year with cuts of over 11% in most areas of our resource budget, compared with the previous year. Although we have protected the library sector to some extent to prevent library closures, the consequences of the cuts have been extremely significant. Staff hours have been reduced, vacancies have not been filled and further exits are required, with the largest number of those being required in the Department, museums and libraries. Services right across the DCAL family are being affected. We are seeing reductions in opening times, in the number of exhibitions and events and in the quality and quantity of book stocks. Grant programmes across the arts, culture and sports sectors have also suffered cuts. On the capital side, we started the year without anything for stadiums.
Our intention is to use the June monitoring round to redress some of the impacts on the services that we provide, to pursue further the promoting equality and tackling poverty and social exclusion (PETPSE) agenda and, of course, to make up the shortfall in the stadiums allocation. Consequently, we have put forward bids to cover inescapable pressures, comprising contractual and ministerial commitments, statutory obligations and essential health and safety requirements of £1·2 million of resource, and £13·3 million to reinstate the budget for the stadiums programme.
We are also bidding to address high-priority pressures, mainly around Delivering Social Change (DSC), the PETPSE agenda and, in capital, a bid for health and safety for invest-to-save schemes. In addition, we will also be bidding for earmarked funds under the Stormont House Agreement, specifically some £500,000 for the oral history archive and £550,000 under Together: Building a United Community. Finally, we will bid for increased pension costs of about another half a million pounds.
We are happy to go through the bids in more detail, but, before we do, it may be prudent to take account of the wider budgetary context when assessing the likelihood of success. There are a number of complicating factors as far as the resource budget is concerned. First, it is extremely unlikely that there will be any budget surrenders. The extent of cuts to Departments' opening budgets means that easements are very unlikely in this monitoring round, especially for resource. Therefore, the pool of unrequired budget that is open to Departments to bid for is likely to be minimal, if not non-existent.
A more pressing issue, however, is the uncertainty around agreement of the Budget. It is difficult to quantify the possible impacts, but we have received correspondence from the Department of Finance and Personnel that points towards cuts of up to 6%. In DCAL's case, that would mean having to find more than a further £5 million.
At this point, it is therefore likely that, as far as resource is concerned, we will be looking at further in-year cuts rather than additional funding. That is the basis on which we are currently preparing some contingency plans. We are looking at a range of possible scenarios involving budget cuts in-year and at how we might achieve savings of up to 6%. That work is not complete, so I do not want to go into too much detail. However, it may be helpful to make some general observations that the Committee might find useful.
Given the cuts that have already been made to the opening position, further savings will have an immediate and profound impact on services. There are no easy wins left. Implementing cuts in-year is always very difficult, and there is often a tension between practical achievability and the consequences for services on the ground. For example, cost structures across the DCAL family are such that, as we proceed through the year, there are fewer and fewer areas in which cuts are deliverable. Often, grant programmes are the only areas in which spend is not committed, contractually or otherwise, so they may become a focus for savings. At the same time, I have to stress that the consequences of going to those areas for those savings may be completely unpalatable, and we will face that sort of dilemma if further savings are confirmed. At some point, a required level of savings may simply be undeliverable in-year. In those circumstances, there is a risk that the Department would breach its budget ceiling.
The capital position may not be as constrained as the resource position. We have highlighted the shortfall in the stadiums budget on a number of occasions, and we will be looking to the commitment from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that any in-year capital bids for the stadium programme will be looked at favourably.
That is really all that I want to say by way of opening remarks. I am happy to take questions.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): We will take a look at table 1 on resource in appendix 1 of the briefing paper and at what are described as "inescapable pressures". Table 2 deals with high-priority pressures on resource. I suggest that we go through this line by line so that it is not a question of everybody's coming in with questions and then having to divide them up. We will just go through the paper, and people can come in on each point as they wish.
In table 1, there is a sum of £150,000 for temporary works at the Metropolitan Arts Centre (MAC) to deal with the issue of the facade falling away from the building. There is a further £1 million of capital for construction work at the MAC in table 1 on capital. It states that that is:
"subject to change and could be reclaimed in future years if recovered from builder or insurer".
Can you explain where that stands? When did that happen?
Mr Carson: It is a very recent development. Work had to be carried out to ensure that health and safety risks were removed. That is why the netting was put up in front of the building.
Mr Carson: Some work has been done and been paid for.
Mr Carson: It does not have a budget for that, obviously, so we will offset the costs. We will meet those costs.
Mr Carson: Yes. There will be a claim for the fact that that has been incurred against the —
Mr Carson: Who paid the contractor?
Mr Carson: The Arts Council will have given the money to the MAC to make those payments.
Mr Carson: Clearly, the fact that it is a new building would lead one to believe that there was an issue with the workmanship or the delivery of the facility. Those issues will be investigated, clarified and resolved. At this stage, we will certainly be looking to reclaim any costs for such work and any further work that is required to make the building safe.
Mr Carson: Yes. That is our best-guess estimate at this time. As I said, Chair, it is a relatively recent development. We are still investigating the extent of the damage and what work needs to be done.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): At a time when there is pressure on the arts budget, we see another £1 million there potentially, and we do not know at this stage whether it will be recovered from the builder or insurer. It could be reclaimed in future years, but, in the short term, we are seeing £1 million taken out of the budget and £150,000 for the other work. Why is that inescapable, in so far as the MAC is an independent organisation?
Mr Carson: It is funded by the Arts Council.
Mr Carson: Yes, but the facility has just been put in place. The benefits that it generates and so on would be negated if the funding disappeared, so it is incumbent on us to —
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): The funding does not disappear. The building will not be able to be used if the front is falling off it. Surely that is a matter that the MAC itself should deal with.
Mr Carson: The MAC does not have the money to deal with it. It does not have the capital budget to do that.
Mr Dunne: How old is the building now? Remind us.
Mr Carson: It is only a few years old.
Mr Carson: Yes, that sort of —
Mr Michael O'Dowd (Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure): Part of the rationale is that the Department has made a significant investment in the MAC in the past few years, and it does not seem sensible not to step in now if the consequence is that we simply close the building until the legal process is finished and the money is recovered or not. In a sense, we are protecting an existing investment in the MAC.
Mr M O'Dowd: Even if others are not. Obviously, there is a legal process to be gone through, and we expect any money that we spend now to come back one way or another, but that may take years to resolve. In the meantime, we have to make a decision: do we let the MAC simply cease functioning or do we step in?
Mr Dunne: It is extremely disappointing that a relatively new building is literally falling apart and costing the public even more money. Can you give us an assurance that everything is being done to recover that money through the legal processes?
Mr Carson: Absolutely. Part of the money is to make sure that that happens.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Apparently it was opened in April 2012, which is three years ago. We do not know whether the insurance still applies. It may not after three years.
Mr Dunne: What is the life expectancy of a museum?
Mr Carson: I cannot tell you the exact date, but it is a relatively recent issue.
Mr Dunne: Have the contractor and consultants gone some way towards rectifying the problem, or are they stepping back from it at this stage?
Mr Carson: The liability issues have still to be clarified at this stage. That is a matter to be resolved.
Mr Dunne: The Department has had to step in and take the necessary action.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): There have been issues with a number of projects. There was an issue with the outside of the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI) building as well.
The Committee Clerk: The insurance for the glass that was used in that building expired within a couple of years. Members may recall that we looked at that issue before. It was a very short-term liability, and the Department ended up having to pay for that as well.
Mr Carson: Are you familiar with that issue, Michael?
Mr M O'Dowd: I am not familiar with the details, but I remember the event itself. I am afraid that I cannot comment on that matter.
The Committee Clerk: The insurance covered only a short period for which the contractor and the glass manufacturer were liable. There were some issues around that.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Would it be possible to find out a bit more about that? Can we also get some information on what the original proposed cost for the MAC when the project started was and what the final cost was? There was some disparity between the original budget and the final budget, and the MAC had to come back to get more money.
Mr D Bradley: What happens if the bid for the repair of the MAC is not met?
Mr Carson: If the issues are not sorted, there will need to be an assessment done of what the consequences might be. That could lead to the closure of the building.
Mr D Bradley: Do you not know at this stage whether that will be the case?
Mr Carson: Those are estimates of what would be needed to put the building back in the position that it was in. If that money is not available, could it still operate in its current condition? That is the issue. There would need to be a full evaluation undertaken of what risks might be involved if we were to go down that road.
Mr Carson: Yes. We have an assurance that it is safe to operate.
Mr Ó hOisín: Given the fairly forensic investigations looking into the various stadia issues, is there work here for the Committee at some point? I was on the Committee when we visited the MAC when it was being built. We were told that a revolutionary new pouring method for concrete was being used and all the rest of it and that it was the only one of its kind. There are big capital project issues: the Lyric, the Opera House, the MAC and other places. Is there something that we could look at? We are not sure, as things stand, who is responsible. Is there some sort of contractual obligation or whatever for contractors for x number of years? Can we find that out? It is central to all of this.
Mr Carson: I am not sure. We can get you those details.
Mr Cree: My question is in the same area. Has any action been taken against the contractor and its public liability insurance?
Mr Carson: It is early days. That could be an outcome.
Mr Cree: It has not been done at this point.
Mr Carson: At this point, no action has been taken forward, but the expenditure will allow issues around that to be clarified. If such a course of action is to be taken, that will be done.
Mr Cree: I would have thought that you had to put the contractor on notice at the outset. Could that not have been done?
Mr M O'Dowd: It is not a straightforward contractor problem. It could be a design problem. The people who designed the facility could be at fault for some of their work. It may not be the contractor's problem.
Mr Carson: Various letters have been issued.
Mr Carson: We are not the experts in the area, unfortunately. You are going into a level of detail that we are perhaps not best equipped to give you the answers on.
Mr M O'Dowd: It is not straightforwardly a contractor problem. We do not know —
Mr Cree: It can be only the contractor or —
Mr M O'Dowd: Or the design people.
Mr Cree: — the designer or architect. I would have them all severally and jointly liable. It is important that that is done.
Mr M O'Dowd: Yes. We can come back to you on the state of the legal process with that.
Mr Carson: As I understand it, the MAC is involved in that correspondence, but, obviously, the Arts Council, as the direct funder, and the Department play a role as well.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Cathal raised a point about the way in which difficulties are seeming to arise around a number of contracts, if I am picking it up right. It would be useful to get more information about how those are —
Mr Ó hOisín: Chair, there have been a number of major capital investments that seem to be coming back on us. What is the level of liability or indemnity for the Department? Yes, a snag list is done within a 12-month period or whatever, but when does the responsibility end? Is it after three years? Is it after five years?
I take on board the design aspect as well. It was a new technology that was used at the MAC. At the time, I remember that it was quite pleased with it.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I will ask the Committee Clerk to take a look at that and come back with information.
The next one in table 1 on resource is "AOP", which I presume stands for "Armagh Observatory and Armagh Planetarium". Are there any issues with that? No?
Under the next one, "Personnel", there is funding required for legal fees.
The Committee Clerk: Chair, Departments generally make a contribution. That cuts across Departments.
Mr M O'Dowd: We understand that there was an option for Departments. They could either be hard-charged for each individual piece of work from the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) or there could be a blanket charge applied to Departments for work. I think that the Permanent Secretaries Group agreed that it was simply more efficient for Departments to be charged in a lump rather than by time. The result is that single pressure on the budget. The pressure would otherwise have been for single charges throughout the year as they arose.
Mr M O'Dowd: We may not have a budget for that sort of work ordinarily, unless we were bringing in legislation. It will vary. One year, there will be a requirement for that sort of service, and, another year, there might not be.
Mr M O'Dowd: No. This is a general charge across all Departments for any legislation work that might be required.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I would have thought that you would have known that legislation was being worked on in the Assembly and that there would be a charge at some point and, therefore, have put that into the baseline at the start of the year.
Mr M O'Dowd: We have not got a baseline. Historically, we would pay for this only if we brought legislation through.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): However, we knew that legislation was going through the Assembly. We knew that six months ago and 12 months ago, and we knew it before 1 April. We knew it last year.
Mr M O'Dowd: We did not know, however, that we, as a Department —
Mr M O'Dowd: Yes. This method of charging is a new thing.
Mr M O'Dowd: Previously, we would have been charged for single legislative work by the OLC. It has now been agreed simply to charge a block to each Department.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): It is a change of system.
On Inland Waterways, how are the Lough Neagh Partnership and the development of the PETPSE project and stories around Lough Neagh inescapable?
Mr Carson: We also include ministerial commitments under inescapable pressures.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Yes, but we are never going to make the budget. We are never going to get the amount of money that is being looked for. Why put in things that are the Minister's wish list rather than things that are genuinely inescapable? If you are going to do that, change the heading to "Inescapable pressures and the Minister's wish list".
Mr Carson: You could take various views about what is included under inescapable. The view that we take is that it is contractual commitments, statutory obligations and ministerial commitments.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): It would be nice to be able to do those things if we had the money, but the Department does not have the money. How does that get prioritised as a PETPSE project over lots of other PETPSE projects that appear further down the list? Are those in prioritised order?
Mr M O'Dowd: Not within the bid itself.
Mr M O'Dowd: The basic rationale for the project is the involvement of more women in fishing and angling. Apparently, very few women participate in angling.
Mr Cree: That has been the case for many, many years.
Mr M O'Dowd: Part of the rationale for that is simply to encourage women to get involved.
Mr Carson: We may have lost something in the way that that is described, Chair.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): It is a fishy story, all right. Will you come back on that? I just find that bizarre at a time of austerity.
The next inescapable is the Gaeltacht quarter and to progress the project — actually, I do not know what that is.
Mr M O'Dowd: It is Raidió Fáilte.
Mr M O'Dowd: No. The majority of the build in that project is scheduled for 2016-17. There is a small amount in capital for preparatory development and legal costs.
Mr Carson: The overall budget plans were subject to an equality consultation, particularly on the savings delivery aspect, so, to that extent, equality issues have been considered.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Obviously, the project has been promoted by the Department for some time. You are now at the stage at which you are going out to procure architects. The project has been around for some time. I know the project at that site in Albert Street or whatever it is called. Has there been a similar proposal to seek funding for support for fUSe FM, the Ulster-Scots radio station?
Mr Carson: I do not believe so, Chair. The issue is that the premises that the organisation were in were no longer fit for purpose.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): The other one is run by volunteers from, basically, borrowed space. It is a similar situation — in fact, it may be even worse. In view of the interest in rurality, it is based in Ballymoney.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): It seems to be the case that people tend to wait until they see a funding round. It is the ad hocery in the Department, when things appear out of the blue if they are on the Minister's wish list, that seems to be the problem.
I will go back to the fUSe FM situation. One of the North Antrim MLAs from another party — not mine — asked questions about it. In fact, two parties have asked questions about fUSe FM. It seems that austerity hits only one community and not another. We will move on to the next inescapable item, but we will come back to that one.
There is job evaluation in the museums and libraries branch, which is fair enough, and £22,000 for a strategic learning coordinator. There are health and safety requirements for Armagh Observatory and Armagh Planetarium. There is the management of hazardous materials at NMNI. There is also a finance and accounts assistant for the observatory; perhaps that is what Mark Bailey was talking about when he mentioned financial pressures and the attempts being made to meet those pressures.
Mr Cree: Chair, before you leave those issues, I thought that there was a moratorium on recruitment. Does that not affect that?
Mr Carson: There is a moratorium, but essential posts that are business-critical can be taken forward.
Mr Cree: So those are new posts that are business-critical.
Mr Carson: The finance and accounts assistant is not a new post. It is to address issues that were raised that are specific to the business. There are personnel issues at the planetarium in particular, which that post is required to address, so it is a very specific issue.
Mr Cree: It is a specific issue, but is it not still a recruitment exercise?
Mr Carson: It will be an additional time-limited requirement until the personnel issues are resolved.
Mr Cree: As you can see, there are two or three posts there.
Mr Carson: That continues on from the governing bodies receiving £4·5 million up to 2014-15 to help to take forward a number of PETPSE community-based projects. That funding has now ceased. It is to allow some of that work to continue, albeit at a much reduced level.
The Committee Clerk: I will provide a bit of background. There was £1·5 million for each of the big three sports over three years. The Committee had the sports bodies in to hear an assessment of that, which was very positive. The Committee corresponded with the Department to see whether any further funding could be found for the projects. They dealt with a range of groups. There was work with hard-to-reach communities, disabled people and with women, where women's participation was low. There was no new fund, so the way forward was through monitoring rounds. That was what the Committee was told previously.
Mr B McCrea: In essence, you are saying that you are keeping three posts in place. It is £50,000 multiplied by three, I presume — one for each governing body — but with no budget.
Mr Carson: I am not sure that that relates to posts. It may not be posts.
Mr Carson: I do not have the detail. It could be for a range of things.
Mr B McCrea: Presumably, you are here to explain the detail to us. If you put £150,000 down — as the Clerk said, it was against a budget of £1·5 million per annum — you cannot do much with £50,000 per annum to run any programmes. I expect to see the detail, and I had hoped that that was why you were here.
Mr M O'Dowd: This is not money for the Department; the money will go out to the governing bodies.
Mr B McCrea: I am happy with that. I would like to know what it is for.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Normally, we would be looking at a Thursday deadline. I am not sure what will happen this week with finances, but a lot of questions are being asked, and it would have been helpful to have a half-page summary or explanation and some background information so that we did not have to ask all these questions. It is very difficult to interrogate or scrutinise something in the way that we are supposed to if we have only four words. There is a problem there. In future, it would help if it could be done on that basis. We need more information. If you could provide that over the next number of days, we can have a look at it.
Mr Ó hOisín: Chair, was that PETPSE project — I think that I was at the launch — not about participation among women and the disabled in all sports? It is not all that long ago, and I am nearly sure that that is exactly what it referred to. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong.
Mr B McCrea: It sounds reasonable, but we need to get it clarified.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): It could have been a different thing altogether. We will find out.
The "north-west creative communities" are mentioned. Presumably, that is the year of culture legacy. It mentions creative industries development and says — this is class — that the north-west is now extended to include Belfast. That is great.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): As long as there is money, Cathal, it is all right.
It states that there is funding for the evaluation of the creative industries innovation fund/Generator NI funding in 2015-16. There is £31,000 for creative skill sets, £31,000 for creative and cultural skills and £9,000 for Belfast media festivals. What is that?
Mr Carson: It should read "north-west and creative communities".
Mr Carson: We have had to reduce costs in the Department, so those teams have been brought together. It covers not only the north-west but other areas. Essentially, it is supporting the creative industries and supporting continuing investment.
Mr Carson: It is something that supports the creative industry agenda. We can get you more information on that aspect.
Mr B McCrea: May I ask a technical question? Why are we transferring £150,000 from DCAL to DETI for Generator NI and, at the same time, putting in a budget for £31,000?
Mr Carson: The amounts transferred between DCAL and DETI were subject to an agreement that we had made with DETI as to how Generator NI would be funded. Those commitments were made, but that would not preclude us from seeking additional funding for Generator NI.
Mr B McCrea: I always get very worried about cocktail funding, particularly when it is to do with the north-west. Your submission states:
"The most notable of these is a transfer of budget of £150k to DCAL from DETI".
Apart from the fact that we have an arrangement, why are we transferring that money to DETI?
Mr Carson: It is to redress particular issues. An agreement was made that each Department would fund a certain proportion of Generator NI, and it may be that, in one period, one Department exceeded the amount stipulated in the agreement, and this redresses that. It is a technical transfer.
Mr B McCrea: I will not go on. However, this worries me. We do technical interdepartmental transfers, outwith the monitoring round activity, which means that it is impossible to keep track of what is being spent. You transfer £150,000 out, but you also ask for £31,000 extra for a programme that does I know not what. I do not know what Generator NI does specifically. I make the point that, when officials come here, we should have more explanation of the actual funding of the project and what it is for. If we could find a way to do that, that would be fine. Presumably, we will now talk about the rest of the NWCC team.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I understand that Generator NI was the replacement for the Northern Ireland Music Industry Commission (NIMIC). I understand the role of DCAL in part funding that, but we have no sense of the overall package —
Mr Carson: We will come back to you with all that information. That might be helpful.
Ms McCorley: I have a wee point of clarification. On page 8, it says £150,000 to DCAL from DETI. That is the opposite of what it says elsewhere in the submission. Which is it?
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): That is right — well spotted. Please come back with more information so that we can find out exactly which it is. It is contradictory.
Mr Carson: We will clarify that for you, and I apologise for any confusion.
Mr B McCrea: Before you move off on that clarification, Chair, I asked officials previously about the transfer of funds in 2014-15 backwards and forwards between DCAL and the Department of Education. That was done outwith. If you are clarifying how you do these conglomerate things, you might clarify that one as well.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Will you find out for us what Belfast media festivals are?
Let us move on to the NWCC PETPSE projects, bearing in mind the flexible interpretation of the word "inescapable". "Inescapable" is a great word to use in regard to prisoners.
"Funding to engage in a pilot project, Inside/Outside, using the creative industries to engage with prisoners / offenders prior to their release".
Who delivers that? It is not really projects; it is only a single project because it is a pilot.
Mr Carson: I think that it is an example of the sort of scheme that would be supported if the money were received.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I want to find out how many projects there are and who is delivering them, rather than being told that they are PETPSE projects. If it is funding to the x, y, z theatre company to do some project or other, for whomever, it would be better to put down who it is going to so that we know.
Mr Ó hOisín: I think that one of the PETPSE projects is to do with Magilligan prison and a book launch, which was not that long ago. That is how I understand it, but I stand to be corrected.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): So it has been suggested that it is to do with Magilligan prison, but we do not know for sure. Other prisons are not included; it is just one prison. Obviously, the north-west has now retreated. We need to have the information. This is too vague and lacking in detail. I would appreciate if you would come back in the next day or so with that information as well.
There is £150,000 for community cultural strategies, which are continuing the legacy projects. Not only is the word "inescapable" flexible in its meaning but "year of culture" has become extremely flexible because it is not 12 months any more. How long are the legacy projects going to last? How many years? Will there still be a legacy in 3013?
Mr Carson: It is about ensuring that the legacy is sustained from the City of Culture.
Mr Carson: It may take some time. There is no fixed deadline for that. It will depend on the continuation of the need.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I think that somebody on the Committee at one point used the phrase "ripping the back out of things". That is how it is seen from other parts of the Province. What does "community cultural strategies" mean? What projects are they continuing? It does not tell us. It just states that there is £150,000 for them. In the scheme of things, £150,000 is a substantial but modest amount of money. However, we see other projects. The Minister had to cut £100,000, as it was, last year, and it should have been £200,000 from the year before. She also had to cut £200,000 from the musical instruments for bands fund because she had no money, but suddenly there is £150,000 for something that is very localised. These things are very localised; the others are across the Province. Come back and tell us what these things are.
Mr Carson: I think that they build on projects that would have been delivered during the City of Culture year.
Mr Carson: They will be continuing to work with the recipients.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Tell us who they are rather than hiding behind strategies, as the Department — not you — is.
The next item, the north-west grant programme, is the same.
Mr Cree: Sorry, Chair, before you go to that one, I want to ask a question. These are complementary. At this time, what moneys are in the core budget for the legacy of the City of Culture?
Mr Carson: Nothing has been allocated to that legacy. This is all additional.
Mr M O'Dowd: We have relied on in-year funding for the City of Culture legacy.
Mr Cree: So there is nothing in the core budget.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): The same will apply to the north-west grant programme. That is another £100,000. There is a perception from the rest of Northern Ireland that, so long as you live in the north-west, the year of culture will be the year that keeps on giving. We need to know what it is being given to or what is being asked for.
Then there is our old friend the Líofa programme. There are amounts of £54,000, £25,000 and £65,000 there, and £12,000 for an Irish language strategy for translations and consultations. That is easily over £150,000.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Thank you. There is £156,000 for Irish language projects. This is a time of austerity. Maybe there is no Irish word for austerity; there certainly does not seem to be. It does not affect them, and they do not need one. There is £156,000. I assume that that is a ministerial priority rather than an inescapable priority. There are no contractual commitments there.
Mr Carson: No, that is a ministerial priority.
Mr Dunne: Just for clarity, they were not bid for in the original round.
Mr Dunne: These are extras; they are additional. How are they inescapable?
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): They are not. We have now been told that "inescapable" does not mean inescapable in the dictionary sense. It is Lewis Carroll stuff: words mean what I want them to mean. It now includes ministerial preferences, but the preferences seem to be somewhat partisan. That was £156,000, and there was £29,000 for the Irish language radio mentioned earlier. Between them, that is £185,000 for additional Irish language projects. Why can those not be funded by Foras na Gaeilge?
Mr Carson: Foras na Gaeilge is unable to undertake the Líofa programme.
Mr Carson: I assume that they do not have the money.
Mr Carson: These amounts, as I say, reflect the Minister's priorities. They are also —
Ms McCorley: We all know that the Líofa project has been very successful and productive through what it has done for enthusiasts of the Irish language. It has been a very important means for people to develop their skills in Irish. It definitely has added value. You were looking for the cultural equivalent, but I have not seen evidence of that many Ulster-Scots speakers. If there were, I would be saying yes.
Mr M O'Dowd: Our information is that around 11,000 people have begun teaching through Líofa. Some of this investment is to protect that interest and previous investments. It is a matter of timing: Ulster Scots is a little bit behind in developing the language and an interest in language. This is defensible in that sense. We are talking about 11,000 people who are very —
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): This is at a time of austerity, when we cannot even fill jobs in crucial positions. The other day, we heard that Armagh Observatory, which is very special — the only one in Northern Ireland — is under real, severe financial pressure, even though it has a significant role in encouraging interest in the STEM subjects, because of the story that it tells. It just seems remarkable when everybody else gets cut to the bone. This is not inescapable; this is meeting what, quite frankly, will be regarded by many people as party or personal preferences.
Mr D Bradley: The Irish language is very special too and has been around a lot longer than Armagh Observatory, but I do not think we should put one item of cultural significance up against another. They are all of great value.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): The issue of the never-ending tap of money for Líofa is one that certainly causes concern. There has been no overall business case, yet there is bit-by-bit, drip-feed money, whenever you want it. We will move on, because we are not going to get anywhere.
Mr D Bradley: As Róis said, it has been very successful, and there has been great uptake, and when things are successful we should support and develop them, not rob them of funding.
Mr B McCrea: Could someone explain to me what this actually means in English?
"non-grant funding pressures for translations and consultations for the Irish Language Strategy Act and SLPG 12 easement declared in admin".
Mr M O'Dowd: I apologise for that. In the circumstances, these papers were produced slightly more quickly than we would have wished. "Non-grant funding" can be ignored. SLPG stands for sign language.
Mr B McCrea: So sign language "12 easement declared in admin" means what?
Mr M O'Dowd: That is a mistransposition as well. They also require funding from this.
Mr B McCrea: Is the £65,000 for "Líofa Advertising and promotional event" for a single event?
Mr M O'Dowd: No. It is a multimedia campaign.
Mr B McCrea: Well, it says "Líofa Advertising and promotional event". What is the promotional event?
Mr Carson: I believe that is just one specific event that is envisaged.
Mr Carson: The advertising will be a multimedia campaign and the promotional event to support that will be one particular event.
Mr B McCrea: Could we perhaps have that broken out into a bit more detail?
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Thank you. The ministerial advisory group on the Ulster-Scots Academy (MAGUS) issues are for another day. There is a broader issue about MAGUS. Moving on to the Arts Council depreciation shortfall. Presumably there is some —
Mr B McCrea: Chair, I have to go to Question Time shortly, but I will come back. I happened to do a wee bit of work on that. Has the £600,000 depreciation been recurrent for a number of years?
Mr M O'Dowd: We had a problem, through the last CSR, with the depreciation allocation, which was allocated in 2011, so there have been depreciation pressures over the last number of years.
Mr D Bradley: Why have they not been dealt with on an annual basis?
Mr M O'Dowd: That is what we have had to do. We have had to deal with them through in-year monitoring.
Mr Carson: Because there has not been a budget exercise —
Mr D Bradley: Every Department has to deal with depreciation every year and very few of them leave it to the vagaries of monitoring rounds; they are in their main budget.
Mr M O'Dowd: If you recall, through the last CSR period, those allocations were set in 2011 for the four years of the CSR period. We did not have an opportunity to change things.
It is also an item of non-cash budget and we have traditionally not had a problem receiving the funding. We are not actually asking for cash in this case. It is a non-cash item, and those tend not to have the same sort of importance or priority as cash items.
Mr M O'Dowd: It is more technical. Obviously, this is depreciation on buildings that were bought and paid for years ago, and we are charging a bit of that cost each year over its useful life. If that costs us something now, it does not have any effect on cash.
Mr Cree: I understand that but it is a balance-sheet item, in oldspeak. Does that come out of accruals?
Mr M O'Dowd: No. It does not come out of a bank account, if you like.
Mr B McCrea: I want to ask one question because I have to go. There is £360,000 for Waterways Ireland. We have been to see them and they have depreciation issues, in that a lot of their infrastructure is failing and needs to be replaced, but they have no capital. So they are getting a charge, but we are not getting any benefit.
Mr M O'Dowd: There are two separate issues. They have an extensive asset base, hence the high operation charge.
Mr M O'Dowd: The fact that that needs replaced is a separate issue and there is no effect on the depreciation charge. That is a historical thing. They have inherited a huge base and there is a depreciation charge every year that they cannot escape. Whether they need to modernise or reshape that asset base is a separate question, but it does not affect the depreciation charge.
Mr B McCrea: Yes, but they told us that they only just kept their head above water, if you will pardon the pun —
Mr B McCrea: So long as it is not inescapable, we are all right. [Laughter.]
Mr B McCrea: You set aside depreciation because you know that you will need to replace assets; the assets in Waterways Ireland are failing; they need to be replaced; we know they need to be replaced. Somewhere in the accounting world, we need to be able to find them some money.
Mr Carson: All depreciation does is create a charge over the life of the asset. It does not put any money by for replacing that asset.
Mr B McCrea: I know what it is. Unfortunately, I have to go to Question Time.
Mr B McCrea: I will be back. Gordon, I will leave you in charge.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): We will miss you, Basil. We will move on to high-priority pressures. As with things that are inescapable, the Minister's high priorities are different from high priorities.
Mr Carson: High-priority pressures are other pressures that rank beneath the inescapable pressures.
Mr Carson: Yes, in order of priority. They are things that we want to do. As I said, we put a bid together under the broad theme of Delivering Social Change.
Mr Carson: It is a ministerial priority —
Mr Carson: We have had to differentiate between the priority of the two bids. To some extent, you can argue for both cases but, in this case, it went into the high-priority pressures list.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I am just stating the fact that, obviously, the Minister's prioritisation of this is below other things. It is not one of her priorities, because if it was, it would be inescapable.
Anyway, we will just note that the Commonwealth Youth Games team does not really count as significantly —
Mr Carson: Well, I think that that would be wrong. That is the issue: it is a second-tier priority pressure.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Second tier. OK. It is only a Northern Ireland team going to the games.
Number two, then, is "Disability Sport NI (DSNI) 5 Star Challenge in schools", which is building on the Paralympics. So, disability sport in Northern Ireland rates further down the list of the Minister's priorities than all of those other things that were further up. It is just helpful to understand her priorities. It states what the Minister's priorities are very clearly in black and white. Also, women in sport. There is another one: the Active Women programme for deprived areas of north and west Belfast.
"Community Relations and Cultural Awareness Week 2015 [to fund an event to showcase an innovative approach to good relations and building a united and shared society] and to support a Famine Commemoration in Newry".
Is that the famine commemoration that was promoted by Newry and whatever-it-is council now?
Mr Carson: The Department is making a contribution. The council may also make a contribution.
Mr Carson: No, I do not believe so, but we can get you additional information on that.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Right. That brings us, then, to £150,000 for "Remembering 1916". That is obviously a reference, then, to the Somme and the Easter Rising in Dublin. That is for a one-off event with National Museums. There is then maintenance work to facilitate increased participation at the planetarium of socially excluded groups; including fixed wire testing, cleaning and treating the dome roof. I would have thought that everybody, whether they were socially excluded or socially included, benefits from there being a roof on the building. Is it because the departmental priority is PETPSE that you have to dress everything up as that to get the money? Do other people not deserve a roof?
Mr Cree: It would be nice to hear an answer, though, Chair.
Mr Carson: We are keen to get this issue addressed. As I said, we are putting this number of bids together under the theme of Delivering Social Change. Obviously, it will have an impact there, and we are seeking to focus on that aspect.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): To be honest, if the wording "inescapable" meant anything that you want it to mean, that is nearly worse. Everybody goes in under the same roof. It does not matter whether you are socially included, excluded, black, white, coloured, green or orange. No matter what you are, everybody has the same roof.
Mr Dunne: I think that it is not meant to be there, Chair.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I move on to the employability coordinator service. It is something to do with the stadium. An employability coordinator service covered the social clause targets for Department projects. It was a bit late for Ravenhill. Then the arts branch —
The Committee Clerk: In the contracts for each of the stadium projects, there are social clauses that have to be delivered.
The Committee Clerk: There is a capital bid, Chair.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): We move on to 'Popping Candy', a drama on mephedrone and legal high use. Who is doing that? It says, "funded this organisation". What organisation?
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): That is the name of the play, presumably. Could you find out the name of the theatre company that is getting the money? Then, there is the arts branch 2015 cultural programme, which will deliver a cultural festival and activities for both local people and visitors to Northern Ireland. Who pulls the programme together?
Mr Carson: That is done through the Arts Council. It is really to showcase the arts. I think that this is the third year we are seeking to run the programme.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Could we get a copy of last year's programme, so that we know the sort of thing — we have that. OK. We could email that around.
Mr Dunne: Sorry, Chair, just on that point, surely visitors would tie in with Tourism Northern Ireland for that programme. Is there any crossover?
Mr Carson: Certainly, tourists are a key target audience for the programme, and there has been a lot of success in showcasing the arts to the tourist community. There will have been contacts with the Tourist Board in the delivery of those programmes through the festivals.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Staff engagement forum, £1,000; Arts Council of Northern Ireland — Oh, that is to manage the relocation from their building. I just figured out what that meant. OK, £10,000 for that, and then another £1,000 for a five-week course teaching Irish to primary school pupils. Who is delivering that? Does all language stuff come under museums and libraries branch?
Mr Carson: No, not museums and libraries branch.
Mr Carson: It may be delivered through libraries.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): So, the libraries' commitment to cultural equality does not include anything to address the cultural — There has been no contact —
Mr Carson: I would not conclude that, Chair. That is just one particular pressure we have included there.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I spoke yesterday to someone at the heart of the Ulster-Scots Agency, and they knew nothing about any approach for an equivalent. It seems that, for some people, there is only one cultural tradition.
Mr Dunne: Is that more Irish language funding? It is more.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): We will come back to that. There are a lot of questions here. That brings us to capital. There is £13 million for the stadium team, £11 million for Windsor Park and £2 million to continue work on the Casement Park stadium project.
Presumably, since there is no building work going on, that £2 million is for consultancies and all that sort of thing.
Mr Carson: Yes. They are hoping to put planning in for Casement in the autumn. Providing that that goes ahead, we will be able to start the construction work early in the next calendar year. That £2 million is partly to allow that to happen.
Mr Carson: It would be the construction.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): That will be dependent on a planning application going in in the autumn and getting planning approval before the end of the financial year.
Mr Cree: It is just project costs, then.
Mr Carson: Yes. There will be costs in relation to the design work that needs to be done in the lead-up to that. Some costs will be incurred during this calendar year.
Mr Dunne: Is that included in the £60 million?
Mr Dunne: It is part of it; it is not additional.
Mr Carson: The Department has received £8 million, a large part of which has to be allocated to the stadiums project. It did not receive any money for the stadiums specifically. If it receives that — if the monitoring round provides that funding — it will allow the Department to address the other inescapable pressures, which are listed. The first one is the MAC problem.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): So, it is possible that, in the current financial position, you will face another £5 million of cuts — although that is resource. Capital is going to be tight as well.
Mr M O'Dowd: The picture is not clear on capital. We were led to believe earlier in the year that it would be less constrained and that, for that reason, we would have less trouble with the stadiums allocation. More recently, there has been talk, although we have no detail on this, that the capital position may also be much more restricted than we believed. Again, we have had no detail on that, so we are somewhat in the dark.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Obviously, in this case, there is no prioritisation amongst all those things, so, if money became available beyond the stadium money in terms of capital, there would be a choice between fixing up the MAC or dealing with the observatory, the libraries or whatever.
"Projects to be covered if stadium funds are secured".
You said that, if you get the stadium funds, you also get £8 million. Is that right?
Mr Carson: We have £8 million.
Mr Carson: It was given for a range of schemes.
Mr Carson: Some of them are listed.
Mr Carson: It was the Department's capital allocation that was made at the start of the year. It was part of this budget. Generally speaking, from year to year, that level of funding is consistent with what we —
Mr D Bradley: Do you still have the £8 million capital that you received at the start of the year?
Mr Carson: Some of it, obviously, will have been spent by now. We had to spend some of it on stadia. Some of it will have been used to address the tails of expenditure on existing projects that straddled the end of the year. A large part of that will have been expended.
Mr D Bradley: I thought that, when you were not spending capital moneys, you had to hand them back to the centre.
Mr Carson: You do, but we have been spending it.
Mr Carson: Of that original £8 million?
Mr Carson: I would need to check. A lot of it has had to be spent. We have been continuing with the Windsor stadium project.
Mr Carson: It is all capital.
Mr D Bradley: Right, so you were permitted to spend it on capital even though it was not for the originally intended —
Mr Carson: We have had to do that to honour our contractual commitments.
Mr Carson: I do not know the exact figure that is left, but we anticipate having no capital left by August, according to our latest profiles.
Mr D Bradley: Can we get details on how you spent that; the amount spent to date; how much you have left; and how you intend to spend the remainder?
Mr Carson: Yes. We can give you a profile.
Mr Cree: Is all of this capital conventional capital?
Mr Cree: What about financial transactions capital (FTC)? It is going to be 11% of the total capital. Why are we not using it?
Mr M O'Dowd: Like most Departments, you have trouble finding a home for financial transactions capital. If you look at the examples where it has been used so far, you see that DARD is lending money to farmers to improve their plant so that they will be able to service local supermarkets more efficiently. That is basically a business-to-business loan. The health service is lending money to doctors and dentists to invest in equipment so that they can perform more services locally.
Mr Cree: The Ulster University was one too. Is the MAC not an obvious one?
Mr M O'Dowd: In those situations, you are investing money in assets to produce revenue to pay back the loan. Most of the bodies that we fund have not a hope of doing that sort of work. Apart from a few large bodies, we mostly fund the voluntary and community sector. Those bodies do not have any revenue-earning capacity.
Mr Cree: What about the MAC — £1 million there?
Mr M O'Dowd: We encourage all of those larger bodies, and many of them do generate their own revenue, but there is a limit to the revenue that they can generate. For instance, museums use the shops to generate revenue, and they charge for admission at various sites. We encourage them to look at revenue-earning opportunities to reduce the amount lost from grants, but those are very limited, and they are only applicable to the larger bodies. In most cases, the bodies that we fund can never hope to raise revenue through that and repay loans.
Mr Cree: Do we not need an innovative approach for the use of this capital?
Mr M O'Dowd: We are open to suggestions from bodies, and we have asked the Sports Council and the Arts Council to look into that. We are open to suggestions, but like every other Department, we are having trouble with this new element of capital. It is slightly worrying that the total capital envelope will increasingly be made up of FTC capital, because it is extremely difficult to use. Essentially, you have to pay it back. You cannot give people a capital grant. You give them a loan, and you expect it to be repaid. That is basically a business-to-business relationship. We do not deal with businesses, by and large.
Mr Cree: You could argue that it is all a business.
Mr M O'Dowd: In the sense of an ability to generate revenue from investment.
Mr Cree: The point is that this is a problem with all Departments. They have to get their head around it, and they really have to work on it, because it is going to be a necessity.
Mr D Bradley: According to the Department of Finance, it is all allocated.
Mr Cree: We hear that. Let us see the year-end return.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I can see certain things that are cultural that could become successful businesses and where that would be a potential. However, as Michael said, unless you have an income coming back to pay it back, no transaction is taking place. You are just taking a grant.
Mr D Bradley: Basically, it is a loan, which you have to pay back at a rate higher than the bank rate; because of EU rules, they cannot charge a rate lower than the bank rate. So it is a loan.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Yes, whatever you call it.
Moving on, we have dealt with the MAC and the £1 million, and we will find out a bit more in due course about that. We are into statutory obligations. Obviously, if they are statutory obligations, they will have to be met, so they are above everything else. They would take priority over the MAC even. Am I right in that?
Mr Carson: Yes. There are legislative consequences if the obligations are not met.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): You have to do them. Essential maintenance is health and safety. That would be ahead, because that is internal. Well, the Armagh Observatory and Planetarium (AOP) is not actually internal. CCTV for the observatory. National Museums: statutory obligations; installation of a lift to comply with equal access regulations. There are statutory obligations for Libraries Northern Ireland; to improve public safety at the libraries. That is statutory, and you have to pay that money back for the Lisburn library. Statutory obligations for sport. Statutory obligations for Waterways Ireland.
If you take everything in the table below the MAC, barring the AOP because that is an external body, there is a few million there for health and safety or some other compelling reason why it has to be done. That brings us over the page. There is £30,000 for the Gaeltacht Quarter; Radio Failte; ICT costs, development and legal costs of consultants' team to end 2015-16; and the majority of build in 2016-17. We have talked about that already.
That brings us on to statutory obligations for PRONI: refreshing IT at PRONI. What is IFG?
Mr M O'Dowd: Inland fisheries.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Thank you. Inland fisheries something or other; security cameras at Portadown boathouse; ITC NI Direct e-licensing — that is where you get your fishing licence on the computer; management of body-worn video.
Mr M O'Dowd: Sorry, it is body-warm. It is to do with river ecosystems. It has nothing to do with —
A Member: I thought that it was a video camera that you wore on your head or something.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): That is what I thought. I thought it was one of those things that policemen have. Dungiven community sports facility £2 million — that is a ministerial commitment, so —
Mr M O'Dowd: My understanding is that it is the local council.
Mr Carson: Yes, it is being put forward by the local council.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Does that mean that, for example, in the case of Belfast City Council, in its review of leisure where it is looking to replace a number of leisure centres, it would be able to come and —
Mr Carson: This related to the investment in the north-west as part of the City of Culture. There was an investment in the north-west sports village in Coleraine. It was looked at in the round, and this investment was to be undertaken in Dungiven. We received a business case for the sports facility, and there have been some amendments. We are still talking to the council about the business case, but I understand that it is almost at a stage where it will be approved, and we are anticipating some expenditure in this current financial year, with the balance to fall next year.
Mr Carson: It is in a number of cultural hubs.
Mr M O'Dowd: Five or six, we think.
Mr Carson: Again, it is in the wider north-west area.
Mr Carson: It would be for things like recording equipment. It would be trying to facilitate younger people in particular to acquire skills, training and so on. So, it would be the like of that sort of thing that you would be talking about.
Mr Dunne: Chair, can I just ask a question on the Dungiven community sports facility? How was that bid for? Was it an open competitive system?
Mr Carson: I do not have the history of how that project came forward.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): The next items on the list are essential heating for National Museums; essential maintenance, including at the Ulster American Folk Park; hazardous materials; governing body; Falls Partnership, PETPSE funding, with £315,000 already spent on that project. What exactly is that?
Mr Carson: I do not have the detail on that particular scheme, but, again, we can provide that for you.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): If that is to do with the stadiums and to do with Casement, was there a similar spend in regard to Ravenhill, or is there a similar partnership project or whatever it is in regard to the other two?
Mr Carson: Certainly, a similar approach has been taken with all the stadia, so I imagine so.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): If you could find out how much was spent on the other two, it would be useful. That is all inescapable, with the new definition of the word "inescapable".
Mr Cree: I have just one point. Is the £6·4 million, approximately, which is referred to here as already covered in the £8 million, the figure that you were asked about earlier? Is that the balance?
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): That brings us on to high priority, which does not include ministerial priorities. "Arts Infrastructure - Instruments for Bands" is obviously so far down the list that it is almost falling off the end. There is not much chance for that, is there? The Minister, though, was giving us warm words yesterday in the Assembly.
Mr Carson: These are high-priority pressures, Chair.
Mr Carson: The issue with the instruments for the bands is that we did not have any money at the start of the year to allow us to allocate money to band instruments. We are unlikely to get an outcome from the June monitoring round until towards the end of the month. It will be well-nigh impossible to provide any instruments in time for this year's marching season. So, really, the issue arises in relation to next year.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Can I just make a couple of observations on that? First, bands play instruments 52 weeks of the year, not just for eight weeks in the summer. They practise throughout the winter, maybe several nights a week. There are indoor events during the winter months, so it is just as relevant then. It is not a case of, "If you miss this summer, you have to wait for the next summer". Secondly, by the time the fund is put out and people have the opportunity to apply and, if you get a grant, by the time you acquire the instruments and get them ordered in through shops, a long time has gone by. One of the difficulties last year, or the year before, was that it was done over the summer period when people were away on holiday or were taken up with other things. It is not a good time. It is about getting the right time of year and the right lead-in period to enable people to apply and to not protract it. Anyway, we just note that it is not a priority in the sense of being a ministerial priority.
Next on the list is Coleraine library. The total value of that is £100,000 for professional services. Then there is £160,000 for equipment for third-party bodies in the arts sector. Is that the small equipment grant?
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Now, bear in mind that, if you do not have the instruments for bands, you could not have the small grants without allowing the band people to apply for it, because the instrument fund was carved out to stop them applying for that.
Mr Carson: I am sorry; I did not catch the first part of that.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Initially, the instrument money came out of small grants, but because there are so many bands and so many applications were coming in, they were cornering a large amount of the money. So they were hived off and given a little pot of their own to free it up for others. There is a connection between those two, and it would be the case that, if you did not provide money for the instruments but you provided the third-party money, you would end up with the third-party money going to the bands. The £160,000 would soon be gone.
There is £60,000 for National Museums "Connecting Collections to Communities", to increase and extend access. There is the £980,000 to build this Seamus Heaney Interpretive Centre. Then there is the refurbishment of the McCracken Cultural Society; so, again, that is the north Belfast Irish language organisation. That is another Carál win.
Moving on. The observatory gets £100,000; and £952,000 goes to National Museums for boiler replacement, as well as money for heating and all the things that really need done. Those are health and safety issues.
There are bids for capital minor works and replacement vehicles for Libraries Northern Ireland; for safety bales for motorsport; and for hatchery ponds at Movanagher.
Mr Ó hOisín: The issue of safety bales for motorsport has been brought up here previously. Is that a central purchase that might include the North West 200?
The Committee Clerk: They would be used for all the events. The Committee has corresponded with the CAL and ETI Ministers on this. It was agreed that further bids might be made.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): We have requested a large amount of information and, hopefully, we will get that back in the next number of days so that we can take a look at it again. Do members have any other questions?
Mr B McCrea: I am sorry that I missed out on going through the figures. However, it seems to me to be a rather strange way of doing things to stick in £1 million in the last few bids for boiler replacement under health and safety. I am at a loss. If it is under health and safety, is it essential health and safety?
Mr M O'Dowd: We are saying that it is under health and safety/invest-to-save. Many of those projects will be to do with replacing old plant with new plant in order to save on running costs in future, but they will not necessarily have a direct health and safety aspect.
Mr B McCrea: I would prefer that it was properly tabulated, because I think that there is a difference between health and safety and invest-to-save. If it was an invest-to-save project, it would help me to see the return on capital employed, because you could make a case for it then.
I am only going to make one brief statement. We have lots of things in here that are valued at £20,000 to £30,000, which we worry about, and then £3·5 million is lobbed in. This is not really helpful. There needs to be a better way of bringing information to us so that we can make a decision.
I have one final question on another point, Chair. One of the things that I am concerned about, which is not included in the in-year monitoring bids and which, I think, is a cultural and arts essential, is the decision by Belfast Metropolitan College (BMC) to close its performing arts courses at its Tower Street campus.
Mr B McCrea: But it is partly due to the fact that DCAL would not come up with match funding.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): It is not that I am rushing to defend the Department, but look at all the other subjects; if they teach bricklaying in BMC, they do not ask McLaughlin and Harvey to put money in. The Department for Social Development, which is responsible for social housing, does not put money in for the bricklayers to be trained. That seems to me to be a cop-out by DEL.
Mr B McCrea: We have heard about a number of joint initiatives. DSD co-funds legacy projects in Londonderry, and DETI co-funds other issues. Dan Gordon and others, who are renowned playwrights, are telling us that they have a serious problem with the inability to bring people into their industry. It is not something that apparently comes under the agenda of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. Looking at some of the things that are on this list of ministerial priorities, there are other things that are more closely aligned to culture, arts and leisure that we might look at. I am looking at how this Department should be tackling performing arts issues. If anything is central to what we do, it is the performing arts.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): There is a whole ecology there that we need to have right, where we have all the different elements — training people and job opportunities that follow later and so on — to encourage people to go into the industry in the first place. People will probably not go into the industry unless they can see a career path there. I am sure that individual members will wonder about the rationale behind BMC's decision. For other reasons, I will be looking for a meeting with Marie-Thérèse McGivern to ask some questions about that and other decisions that BMC has made.
Mr B McCrea: I am happy with whatever way you want to do it, but I think that — Dan Gordon, Marie-Thérèse or whoever — we ought to be dealing with it, because it is central —
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): We need to get the facts first from her regarding why the organisation that she is the chief executive of made the decision that it did to get out of it and to pass it over to Bangor. No disrespect to Gordon. There is no one else here from Bangor. Oh sorry, Leslie.
Mr Cree: Gordon is Holywood, Chair. I am Bangor.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): You are the posh end. No, he is the posh end; he is Holywood.
It is about accessibility. If somebody lives on the northern end of Belfast, it is easy to get into the centre of Belfast, but you then have to go from the centre of Belfast to Bangor and back. Accessibility raises questions, and I think that there should be something for the subject within the greater Belfast area.
Mr B McCrea: It might have been before your time, Chair, but the Committee visited the Barbican and the Arts Educational Schools in London and learned that everything comes from having a cluster. If you have your theatres in a certain area, you need your workforce in a certain area. That is what all the advice tells us.
We were completely blindsided as to why they built that thing in Bangor in the first place. There is an issue here. It is about regional facilities, at least some of which should be in the regional capital.
Mr Cree: Some of them are in the capital; other bits are in the important regions.
Mr Ó hOisín: Does that access issue extend to the north-west, Chair?
The Committee Clerk: Chair, what action does the Committee want to take? Am I right in thinking that it wants to write to the chief executive of the Belfast Met, Marie-Thérèse McGivern, or —
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I think that there is a point in writing to her to ask for the rationale and explanation and so on. If people want to have meetings with her and talk to her directly that is fine, but we should certainly write to her as a Committee. Are members agreeable to that?
Mr B McCrea: We could also write to our Minister asking her if she is concerned about the issue.
The Committee Clerk: That is another letter to the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to ask her about her input to this and whether she has met the Minister for Employment and Learning.
The Committee Clerk: So, a letter to the Minister for Employment and Learning asking for the rationale.
The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Asking what consideration he has given to this, if any. He will presumably refer it back to Belfast Metropolitan College, but at least he will be aware that people are taking an interest in it.
Do they have training in the theatre in Londonderry or the north-west?
The Committee Clerk: Magee is the performing arts —
Mr D Bradley: The North West Regional College has a performing arts course.
Mr Carson: Thank you, Chair.
Mr Carson: On future occasions, it might be useful if we bring along some of the other directors with responsibility in those areas. That approach was taken in the past. I do not pretend to know all the detail about the various bids.
Mr B McCrea: Before you go: as a Committee, we asked you considerable questions about the City of Culture legacy funding. We wanted to know the detail. We asked whether it affects Limavady; whether it affects the sports ground outside Coleraine; whether it deals with Magherafelt; and we even got down to Dungannon. I do not know what you expected to answer when you came here, but that is what we really need to know. One line on a spreadsheet does not help us.
Mr Carson: No. I have taken that from the meeting.