Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Obviously it is rented somewhere. I genuinely do not want to know because I do not think that would be fair. It is €36,000 per year to pay for rent for the president. To the students and the public that might seem strange, but I think I have set it in the right context.

I wish to make a comment to UCC. We received its letter on the Opera House, and I know the Chairman has a similar opinion to me. The decision to do a deal with the Opera House was part of our findings with regard to the committee's interim report into the issue of non-taxpayer revenue being isolated as if it were a revenue in itself. The Committee of Public Accounts has stated quite clearly we do not buy that line. This is for all colleges, universities and third level institutes.

We have gone back and forward with UCC on number of occasions. The cost of €500,000 was stated as non-taxpayer revenue and this is reaffirmed in the letter, which states an own source of university income is supporting the partnership. It is not. Let us kill this right now for once and for all. It is not a distinguishable income. It all goes into the pot and the taxpayer is proportionately paying for signage over the Opera House. Our question is whether we feel this is a good use of public money. Personally, I do not think so. An alliance with Cork Opera House yes, but not paying for signage over it. Please do not ever write back again and state what was said here and repeat it in the press because we do not accept it. We cannot be any clearer. The college can argue it and that is fine, but with regard to what we have decided here, this is a use of taxpayers' money. If the college did not have the taxpayers' money in the first place it would not be in a position to do it and that is obvious. Let us nail that. That goes for all third level institutions, and UCC is not unique to be fair to it. This is just a comment and I do not want an answer.

I want to get onto the purchase of Grand Parade in Cork by CIT. When we were here before discussing this we were told it paid €1.25 million. On 17 June we were not told how much it would cost to upgrade the building, yet a few weeks later the scaffolding went up. I have pictures of it. Why at that committee meeting did CIT not tell us about the extra costs that would be part of doing up the building and bringing it up to a certain standard? The overall costs for this building are way in excess of what CIT paid and presumably it will come in at €2.5 million rather than €1 million. Why did it not reveal this information to us, considering the many companies that were on site down there in a matter of weeks? The contracts for those companies must have been signed before CIT appeared before the committee. Why was that information not given to us at that meeting?