Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will ask specific questions on money in order that we can finally get our heads around this issue.

The witnesses will understand that we are passionately concerned about people with disabilities, many of whom have been in touch with us. This issue is also about the quality of rural and community life, the choices that are being made and what is at stake. To be clear, we are asking the witnesses for a stay of execution and that request will be formalised in due course. We ask for that because there is an underlying sense of injustice about how the decision to close was reached. I acknowledge everything the witnesses have said about their interactions with the Government. The fact is we are in a different situation now; they are aware of the considerable public disquiet and they now have a public awareness asset.

At this point, the witnesses do not know what we are now capable of doing as a concerned community, particularly in Cuisle's hinterland area. A very important point is that we are facing into a general election. That brings a particular dynamic of its own to the lobbying for and extraction of commitments. The witnesses have been at pains to stress how much they value Cuisle, and we take what they are saying at face value, but it does not lie with that to insist on a sudden death and shuttering of Cuisle. I hear their concerns about safety and while such concerns must always be taken seriously, as things stand the witnesses have not been condemned. They are under no legal obligation to immediately cease activities. They are insured. From everything I hear, they are in a position to show good faith by not taking a sudden decision. They have knowledge of new issues but they had a certain amount of knowledge about the gradual and developing inadequacies of the facility that always were going to need updating. It seems to me that there is a real test of the witnesses' goodwill here, not to take a sudden decision but, when members as a committee communicate formally with them, to do what they said they would do, which is to take a request back to their board. We would, however, like them to give us some indication today as to what their advice would be because in almost every situation, what the CEO, Ms Rosemary Keogh, says will determine what the board decides. Let us not pussyfoot about that. We are asking the witnesses for a stay of execution for good reason because we have not had an opportunity to explore the potential to save Cuisle.

I turn now to the issue of how Cuisle might be saved, and let us hope that in turning to the future we are not wasting our breath and that there is real goodwill on the witnesses' side towards looking at what might come from this committee about that. The witnesses talked about the significant capital costs of bringing Cuisle to a position where the association would be comfortable to continue to operate. The only figure we have heard is €1.15 million, but perhaps allowing for a further 5%. The witnesses then spoke about other unknown knowns and known unknowns. It is legitimate for them to say that they do not know the full cost if they went to address certain issues around heating or even around asbestos but they say that the projected costs they have given include full electrical installation and fire safety upgrades. As I understand it, it is not confined to that. I have two money questions for the association We have to acknowledge at this point the very generous contribution from the Divine Word Missionaries over the years. The sum of €125,000, albeit in punts, for 25 years is less than the salaries of quite a few people in the sector might be on at the highest levels. It is a very modest amount of money. We are talking about €5,000 a year. They are proposing to give all of that back, retrospectively, therefore, the witnesses would be at no rent since the beginning of the operation. Is that not correct? That is the first sum the witnesses have to play with.

Another sum is whatever promised funding is there to be accessed, which the witnesses cannot access under their current decision. Were they to reverse or postpone that decision, however, they then would be able to access certain moneys. They might have outstanding commitments in terms of paying heating or other bills up until the end of the lease anyway. In terms of their estimate, it is legitimate that they would have a conservative estimate and a more costly estimate because they do not know the full situation but it is always possible in these situations to identify a ballpark figure and there is an upper level and a lower level. When we subtract from that figure the moneys the witnesses know are available to them, what is the actual shortfall? I will put the question in theoretical terms. If the secret millionaire was to present himself or herself in the morning and say, "I want Cuisle to continue operating for the next ten years, I want value for money and I do not want to give you more than I have to give you, having regard to the money you are currently able to leverage from other sources, including the Divine Word Missionaries and so on", what is the figure?

In terms of my second question, the witnesses have not mentioned it but is there a current cost of running Cuisle? Leaving aside capital, there is the current cost. Is part of the witnesses' decision-making process that they have been making a loss on Cuisle as they see it and that it is a drain on their current expenses? Is that the undiscussed factor in their decision-making at this meeting? If that is the case, can they give us an idea of what closing Cuisle would release for them moneywise on an annual basis, having regard to the fact that they are committing to fundraising hotel-based holidays and so on?

To summarise the three issues, first, is there genuine goodwill about taking a serious proposal seeking a stay of execution, so to speak, back to the board? Second, what is the capital shortfall that a secret millionaire would have to come up with? Third, what is the ongoing current drain - that is a negative word I would not want to use - coming from the operation of Cuisle and has that been a factor in the decision made?