Paul Murphy questions Earlsford Terrace science centre plans
Paul Murphy questioned representatives about the proposed National Children's Science Centre, asking whether ICML would consider partnership models, including a potential government-facilitated buyout of Explorium, and whether the Earlsford Terrace site must proceed. He said ICML is open to dialogue with government, expressed a current preference for Earlsford Terrace for its city-centre location, and raised concerns about the impact on the ivy gardens and public opposition.
Partnership talks with government
Paul Murphy asked whether ICML would be happy to enter a partnership if the government proposed buying Explorium and facilitating a joint model. He recorded that ICML says it is open to dialogue but finds it difficult to discuss partnerships while its agreement is directly with the state, and stressed the need for government to engage first so options can be properly considered.
Site preference and budget uncertainty
Murphy noted that ICML has a present preference for Earlsford Terrace, citing proximity to the National Council Hall, the need for OPW fit-out and the benefits of a city-centre location. He also reported that budget figures are hard to fix while the scale and ambitions of the project remain unclear, and that ICML envisages exploring private investment and other models to secure value for taxpayers.
Public opposition and ivy gardens
He raised local concerns about the ivy gardens, describing them as a walled, semi-wild oasis and noting a petition reported to have almost 50,000 signatures opposing the proposed works. Murphy said opponents argue the project would remove part of the wall used by bats and alter the character and current use of the gardens, and that there were complaints about a lack of public consultation.
Planning history and next steps
Murphy recounted that the design has passed planning stages, starting with Dublin City Council and being appealed to on board Planola twice, and that the last inspector's report described the project as a positive and sustainable adaptation of historic buildings. He outlined the next steps as engaging the board, bringing government on board, conducting due diligence and discussing multiple options to deliver the best possible outcome.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Yeah, thanks a lot. Maybe just to start off on that. I mean, let's say the government goes to you and says, okay, we want there to be a partnership. We think it doesn't make sense to spend 70 million of public money on this. There's an existing science centre privately owned in the form of Explorium. And we want to facilitate and fund a partnership, perhaps buying Explorium out of private ownership, involving yourselves. Would you be happy with that as a kind of partnership moving forward? I think ICML is open to dialogue, you know, with government. But it's very hard for us to talk about potential partnerships with other entities when our agreement is with the state as such. So, but, you know, I have certainly, since I've come in, and as I've said earlier, I have met with Explorium. You know, we want to talk to everybody in the space. But in terms of what that might look like, it's very hard to have that conversation without having it first with government. But that's kind of what I'm trying to find out, because Professor O'Neill says, we're not going to hold, we're not looking to hold the state over a barrel. What that looks like, I think, is to say, look, we have an existing science centre, it exists. And I'm saying to you, if the government come to you and say, this is what we'd like to move to do going forward, is that something you would be open to? Obviously, the details would have to be worked out. Or are you insisting that this project goes ahead? We'd like the government to tell us anything and engage with us, remember, because there's no engagement with government here, right? If government come to us with their ideas, great, you know, we'd look at them. Our mission should be combined here to deliver a world-class science centre for Ireland, right? There could be all kinds of models, you know, and one issue with the budget, actually, is it's very hard to get a precise budget when we can't see the scale of it at the moment and what our ambitions are, you know? It's almost like, you know, think of a number in a sense. The planetarium is part of our workup. There is a budget here, of course. We have an initial budget. But as I see it, the next step has to be to engage with the board and bring government on board with this project and we'll start discussing any number of options, is my view, to deliver the best possible value for money, of course, to the taxpayers' key feature. Of course it is. Bring in private investment is really important. There's all those things on the table, as far as I'm concerned, anyway. And you're open that one possible solution here may be that the project envisaged at Earlsford Terrace wouldn't go ahead? At the moment, our preference is Earlsford Terrace. Let's put it that way, based on what we've done so far as the site. As I explained earlier, there's a few reasons for this. The OPW, you have to fit it out anyway, and it's beside the National Council Hall, and then secondly, it's in a city centre location. Other science centres are usually in a city centre location. It's our preferred option at the moment. I mean, yeah. I'm just trying to tease out then what does it mean to say you're not going to try and hold the government over a barrel. Well, if you stick to Earlsford Terrace, that's holding the government over a barrel, and it's not clear to me whether you're willing to move from that or not. Deputy, your point is rightly made, but with engagement, I can envisage that a lot of options are on the table. And I think that would be the process and the due diligence that one would have to go through. No question about that. I mean, the mission of this organisation, our mission is very clear. The Children's Science Museum, similar to Deputy Boland, we're here for her constituents, kids, to have a better life and a better place in Ireland. And really, I understand and appreciate the Public Health Committee role here, but we've also got the public wealth. We've got stakeholders. And we've got science here, medtech, we've got technology companies here, and there is now a stakeholder effect here. But what we need to do is feed that industry, feed that world with fantastic kids that will have great ideas. I was talking to Luke earlier about our own kids, who are now on their roles outside of Ireland, but because of being introduced to science very young. I'm convinced about that. Just to move on to something that hasn't been touched on yet, which is the impact of this on ivy gardens. So the ivy gardens are, you know, they're an oasis in the city centre. They were designed to be that. They are a walled garden. I presume you're aware there's a petition started by a local resident, which is almost 50,000 signatures opposed to this, because of the impact on this walled garden. It ends the character of the ivy gardens as a walled garden. It would remove a section of the wall that bats live in, as I understand. And it would remove a part of a, it would go through what's effectively a small, semi-wild forested area of the park at the moment. So there's significant public opposition to this. They're saying that there was never any real process of public consultation on this. How do you respond to this? What impact would it have in terms of the use of the gardens as they're currently used? I suppose what I would say to that, Deputy, is that the design has been through the very vigorous planning stages, starting obviously with Dublin City Council and going on then to be appealed to on board Planola, not once but twice. And the last inspector's report from on board Planola said that the proposed National Children's Science Centre would constitute a positive and sustainable adaptation and reuse of historic buildings that will end their long-established cultural and educational usage into the future. So I wouldn't like to second-guess the planners in that respect. I think that's been... Are you aware whether this wooded area that would effectively be gone as a result, are you aware whether that's used for any activities or...? I don't believe it is, but, you know, that's really outside of our scope. OK, so I'll tell you, it's currently used as a forest school by a local school, and I think it could continue if it becomes an entrance to a second entrance. I mean, one question I have is just, I mean, why do we need a second entrance, even if this project does go ahead? Why isn't the one entrance good enough? I think that's probably a question for more appropriately answered by the OPW, if you may. Thanks, John. Thanks, John. Thanks, Deputy. I might just say that the... Further to the points just made around the planning consent, the planning consent process took on board the views and observations and submissions from many people, including those with concerns around the Ivy Gardens. The consent that was granted re-establishes a historic link between the Oxford Terrace campus and the gardens, and just maybe to add some colour to the point around the impact on the gardens, at the north-western extent of the planned development, there are some works planned in order to provide universal accessibility between the gardens and the campus. Just to move on, earlier was mention of a lot of commitments from private organisations in terms of philanthropy. You're very confident that you'd raise the £25 million for fit-out and so on. I mean, are any of those legally binding commitments? How much money have you actually received or received legally binding commitments where someone actually needs to put up the money? So, it's a good question because it really illustrates the difficulty we have in terms of the chicken and egg situation. So, we have done a lot of work on the philanthropy side of this and are very well prepared to deliver on our commitment. And I could not sit here today and represent the board without being able to say that confidently. There is a good track record on the part of ICML in terms of being able to secure pledges and indeed ongoing funding from corporate entities. So, we have very good progress made, but obviously funders are not going to fund this until they know that it's going to be built. And that comes back to our appeal to government to engage. Because we're ready, they're ready. Sorry, so you're saying there is no legally binding commitments? Not in existence today. I mean, I presume a legal contract could be drawn up to say that someone commits to do it on the condition that the state has provided the money. If that would satisfy government, I'm sure we could talk about that. And how much money has been raised to date? You spoke about the very good record of raising private funds. Well, ICML secured a pledge years ago when this project was first born for £8 million from one of the banks. And, you know, very significant levels of funding. Was that delivered? Well, no, because the project wasn't delivered. So, how much money was ever... You spoke about a very good record, not of pledges. I think you spoke a good record of raising money. How much money has been raised? Oh, I mean, to date, ICML has itself raised, you know, for the ongoing running of the charity, about 1.5. Over 1.5 million. And, okay, so let's say the state spends 70 million euros to do this and then the 25 million isn't forthcoming. Maybe we have a big crash and companies that previously wanted, you know, had a bit of extra money, were willing to do it, aren't willing to do it anymore. What happens then? I mean, is there a potential that we're left with a building empty that the state has paid 70 million euros on and that then doesn't open? Well, our commitment is to deliver on that and I believe the ICML board will deliver on that. I think it's important also to just contextualise. You know, the value of science-based industries and tech in this country is absolutely enormous and I think the Irish Fiscal Council has estimated that in and around 25 billion. So, they, as Luke had said earlier, he knows some of these companies himself, he's speaking to them on a regular basis and we have other board members who are hard at work in that respect. Can I just ask a final question, which is how much office space are you currently occupying in Earls First Terrace and is there any rent associated with that? We currently have use of 65 square metres and no, there's no rent for that. That was part of the 2013 agreement. Thanks a lot.
Thank you for downloading 🙏
If you publish this material on social media, we would be very grateful if you tagged VideoParliament. It helps us reach more people and keep building a transparent archive of Irish politics.
