I move:
That Dáil Éireann takes note of the Report of the Committee on Public Expenditure:
Office of Public Works
1. Project Procedures Used in the Acquisition and Fit Out of Premises.
2. Rental and Lease Terms in the Period 1981-1983.
Committee on Public Expenditure: Motion.
Speakers on this motion are confined to 15 minutes with the exception of the Minister of State.
May I draw the attention of the House to the three major elements which we believe are contained in this report? It is perfectly clear that the perception of the Office of Public Works, a subsection of the Department of Finance, which has been abroad for many years may be a little unkind to the Office of Public Works to the extent that our investigations showed clearly that quite often the difficulties and the unarguable waste of moneys which arise are not matters over which the OPW have immediate or total control. I hope the report highlights adequately the degree to which client Departments with which the Office of Public Works deal are responsible on many occasions for problems in respect of which the OPW are asked to accept responsibility and are blamed.
Secondly, it is clear in the report, and we are quite unequivocal as an all-party committee in asserting, that in their operations there are very significant systematic operational defects which give rise to management controls which are unsatisfactory, unacceptable and inevitably waste public money. Thirdly, apart from pinpointing areas of deficiency in the samples of projects which we dealt with, the report also puts forward — and from my point of view this is the main contribution of the report — constructive and detailed proposals for implementation which we believe could make a major contribution to eliminating the problems as we saw them. That constructive approach underlines the spirit in which this report was tabled before the House and which permeated the work of all members of the committee. I hope that will be accepted by all those who have a chance to contribute to this debate and the Departments concerned in the report.
The report systematically examines a relatively small area of the operations of the OPW. That is outlined on page 6 of the document. In regard to the part of the report dealing with project procedures used in the acquisition and fit out of premises, we thoroughly examined 26 projects. At present the Office of Public Works are dealing with approximately 400 to 450 projects, so the sample is relatively small. However, a careful examination was carried out to make sure that the sample was typical. The projects involved the period 1981 to 1983. It should be said that it did not deal with last year or, presumably, with current practice. The 26 projects comprised a total of 349,152 square feet and covered a range of projects varying in cost from £13,000 to £1.2 million and in size from 800 square feet to over 50,000 square feet. Accordingly, we believe that it is reasonable for us to deduce from that typical example that there are lessons to be learned.
The problems which arise have been there for very many years and the essential problems are in relation to the systems — the absence of proper management controls at present and for many years to ensure beyond reasonable doubt that the public are getting value for money. My committee are not satisfied that those controls exist at present. We believe that that case cannot be contradicted or argued against.
In relation to what the Office of Public Works have to endure — and they do so silently and, in my view, wrongly at present—in relation to the demands made upon them by client Departments, by which we mean Departments of Government, it was clear from our report and our work that on occasion client Departments, either asked of the Board of Works specifications or introduced changes in their specifications regularly and in a very cavalier spirit, occasioning large increases in cost, delays in the implementation of the particular works and slowing up of the project beyond acceptance. The Office of Public Works on such occasions should spell out clearly where those cases arise. One of the recommendations contained in our document on page 38 suggests a relatively simple solution for that problem of people going to the Board of Works saying that they would like another 20,000 square feet and a change from the original plan to open plan when the project has been six months down the line, namely, insisting that client Departments pay for the costs of all that they consume in the course of their work. If the Office of Public Works are the repository of excellence in this general respect and if they are to lay down standards of operational control, in handling the taxpayers' money they should tell the Department "We will give you whatever you want but you will pay the bill." That simple recommendation is one that I have reason to believe would commend itself to the Office of Public Works at present. I am convinced that that is the way forward in relation to dealing with the difficulty of clients indulging the luxury of changing their minds months in, month out, and having the taxpayer foot the bill. Ultimately, I do not mind how it is done but we are insistent that it be dealt with. In fairness to the Board of Works, it should be said that the staff involved and successive departmental heads have had to endure this difficulty. This has to be said very clearly.
Secondly, it can also be said — and in our view must be said — that even within the context of the Office of Public Works at present there are operational changes which should be introduced in order to ensure value for money. The office at present deal with a budget of approximately £155 million. Obviously, it is not scientifically possible to extrapolate precisely how much money can be more wisely used or saved on the basis of the sample which we took. However, certainly there are implications if it is reasonable for us to say — and we say so on the basis of scientific advice and expertise available to us from a number of resources which arose in the context of numerous meetings both with the committee and the officials of the Office of Public Works and agents for these bodies, before, during and subsequent to the report being produced — that savings of a certain amount could be made if proper procedures applied in relation to the projects with which we dealt, it is a reasonable assumption that there is at least a projected ongoing saving in the areas with which we have not dealt. However, we cannot be as certain about that as we are about the areas which we examined. We are saying that, in general the manner in which the Office of Public Works at present handle projects leaves a fair bit to be desired. We would like to point specifically in that respect to the findings in our report. We say, for example on page 9, that in 24 of the 26 cases the overall project period was excessive and that the period for rent paid to occupation was grossly in excess of what would be accepted or sustained in the private sector, particularly in the cases of the ten projects where it was over two years and the two projects where it was over three years.
We say further about start date for rent that there were substantial delays which caused loss of money and we spelled this out. Rent paid up to occupation, we say on page 14, was in our opinion excessive in 24 of 26 cases and grossly so in the majority of instances. Rent paid up to completion was in our opinion excessive in 23 of the 26 cases and grossly so in the majority of cases. There were nine projects in which this period was greater than three months and in some cases it exceeded 12 months. We say that the brief from the client Departments — the matter to which I referred previously — was a major contributor to the problem in nine of the 26 projects, a very substantial and significant figure which essentially at the present moment is outside the control of the Office of Public Works as they now operate, even though they are blamed by the public for these problems. Regarding the start date for rent, in our view, in eight of the 26 cases mentioned leases were entered into at too early a stage and on each occasion the client brief had not even been defined prior to a lease being entered upon. That is just not acceptable. In my view, it was almost incredible.
We maintain that approvals caused major delays in 17 of the 26 cases. These are mostly the responsibility of the client Department but in some cases were due to delays in getting landlord approvals, which shows some shortcomings in programming the fitting out project. We say that this was only a major contributor in four cases but although that was so it was, nevertheless, a contributor in 15 of the 26 cases. We suggest that the bid procedure in the Office of Public Works is not particularly complex as at present operated, and as they are the project managers they have responsibility for processing matters through their own system and improvement is called for in that respect.
With regard to the construction periods we say that they were longer than would have been expected for the scale of the project in 12 out of 26 cases. With regard to design layouts in general, these were produced in good time and were not a significant contributor to the problems arising.
The analysis in brief of the 26 projects indicated the absence of the following: (a) A method to highlight the rent paid before occupation; (b) A method to highlight the extra inflation and interest charges occasioned by delays; (c) A system whereby client Departments are directly aware of the extra rent, fees, etc. occasioned by their delays, but absorbed in the Office of Public Works overall vote.
From this, we say it is clear that a review of the existing procedures for the management of overall cost and programme of projects in the Office of Public Works is essential. In essence, a major criticism which must be spelt out here is contained in page 17, paragraph 35 of the report where we were informed by the Office of Public Works, from whom we received nothing but courtesy and co-operation throughout this whole review, and by the Department of Finance that there is no routine procedure for comparing the actual out-turn of individual projects with the initial feasibility study. In other words, people do not evaluate value for money comparing the out-turn with the initial feasibility project.
My colleagues will deal with many of the other issues which arise. The controls operated by the Department of Finance obviously do not operate properly. We found no evidence whatever of the guidelines set out in the circular from the Department of Finance issued in March 1983 about capital projects having been implemented in the projects in the report. The report before the House offers a systematic evaluation in that respect.
Finally in relation to the question of rents, I want to make the point that there is difficulty in being scientifically accurate about assessment of rent but, in general, in our opinion the Office of Public Works had done a much better job in that area and credit to them for that. I would like people to be able to take the report as a balanced one which gave credit where it was due and said honestly and openly what was necessary to be said. The Office of Public Works may be doing themselves an injustice because they do not spell out sufficiently clearly to the public this question of value for money.
I appeal to the Minister to accept the report as a constructive contribution to a debate which it is hoped will assist him in the work he is doing in the Office of Public Works and which will ultimately prove to the public that the House can organise its affairs to ensure in an nonpartisan way that we can evaluate the way we do business and improve on it. I thank all those who participated in the work, both officials and members of the committee, for the honest, forthright and very constructive way in which the work progressed. I submit the report to the House. I know my colleagues will deal with other aspects of it.
I support the adoption of the report by the House as proposed by the chairman of the committee. As the chairman said, the significance of this report is not just the analysis it made of things past, but from the point of view of those who served on the committee, the most significant aspect is the recommendations and conclusions we made in respect of procedures to be adopted for the future. Neither the committee nor the House as such has authority to implement actions. That remains a matter for executive responsibility, the responsibility of Government. I hope as a consequence of this examination, which is very detailed and objective, that the Minister will be able to indicate to us that the Government will take note of the recommendations of the report and are determined to act on them. To the extent that the Minister or the Government take issue with the conclusions we reach, we will accept that if the Minister gives reasons why our recommendations cannot be acted on. Before he indicates whether the Government will act on them, it is important that the report be treated seriously. If the Government do not propose to act on it, then they should tell us. All these matters are matters of executive responsibility.
In this committee we ranged over a wide number of areas. This is a good example of the useful role of an all-party committee. I acknowledge the excellent consultancy advice we had and the excellent, though limited, secretarial advice we had. It was limited because only two people were involved. We could only come to broad conclusions on the basis of the analysis we undertook and on the basis of the advice available to us. That is why I said the Government could not overlook their responsibility. Ideally within Government Departments there should be, as recommended in the Aireacht proposal contained in the Devlin report, that kind of analysis and serious scrutiny that we undertook so that the Minister could ensure that nothing would be spent over and above what is required to be spent and that public money would be accounted for by the only person who is accountable at any time, and that is the Minister.
Hopefully this committee will continue in being under any administration. It is important that whatever Government is in power would not just say that the committee have reported and have said their piece but there is no binding obligation on us to do anything. The response of the Government to this and other reports is vitally important. If it transpires that the Government do not take it seriously or do not implement the conclusions the committee have reached, then the committee will have to take another view of its role. That is not something any of us who served on it would want to do.
The report is sharply critical of some of the procedures or lack of procedures in the Office of Public Works. It is particularly critical as well of the expenditure incurred through, one could say, the irresponsible attitude of client Departments to the Office of Public Works. It is not good enough for Departments, with guaranteed taxpayers' money funding them, to present a brief which is not fully prepared or documented. It is not good enough for them to change it halfway through or before it is concluded and, even if it is concluded, for them to engage in internal discussions before the premises in respect of which they made the original request to the Office of Public Works are occupied. We found delays of up to two years and over between the date of request and the date of occupation in respect of premises which were originally earmarked at the request of a client Department. That is not good enough. We recommend that from now on that should be chargeable to the client Department or should appear on their Estimate as an obligation on them. Someone must be responsible. To the extent that that the Office of Public Works is responsible let that be recorded against them, but it is not so in every case. It is important that that be said.
We were dealing with the market conditions for renting and leasing in Dublin in 1981, 1982 and some of 1983. During those years the Office of Public Works, acting as agents for the State were the dominant force in the market place. In 1981 the Office of Public Works had taken leases on 43 per cent of the total office space in the city. Add to that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, which operated independently and did its own leasing arrangements, and the semi-State bodies which are not included in this, it would be fair to say that on a conservative estimate at least 60 per cent of the total office space in Dublin in that period was leased or rented to the public sector, namely the taxpayer.
That raises a number of questions. That was a period — end 1981 coming into 1982 — when the rental demands on the part of the owner-occupiers from whom the State was leasing or renting were at the highest level. In this report, in the annex to it and the letter from the OPW to the committee, the OPW point out that we were dealing with property in a seller's market. The demand was considerable, therefore the OPW and others had to respond to that demand by the high levels of rents and by paying rents in advance of occupation. The significant thing is that it was the State itself in that period 1981-82, which created and inflated the demand. The State must have been regarded by the property developers and occupiers around this city as being almost Santa Claus or a fairy godmother, and most people who would consult on this would find that the State was regarded as being a very desirable client (a) because what it paid was guaranteed, and (b) because it paid the highest rents. I think the Minister was responsible during most of this period so he may be familiar with the circumstances during 1981-82 and might be able to give us some indication on that.
We also point out in this report that on the 26 projects that we examined, if the recommendations were adopted there would have been a saving of at least £2 million. That is a considerable sum of money, roughly on average £77,000 per project. It is important that we see the significance of that and ensure that henceforth, whether it be the responsibility or the blame of the client Department or within the procedures of the OPW, that kind of money will not be spent unnecessarily.
It is significant that that office operates under the Department of Finance. I want to make a comment in respect of the Department of Finance because that Department and ministry have been lecturing the rest of the country for a considerable time about how we should be disciplined and should not be wasteful of public money. In a constant series of lectures and directives they tell the rest of the country how to behave responsibly. This report says that we were very concerned that no regular and routine management controls are operated by the Department of Finance, the very Department who are setting themselves up to lecture the rest of the public service on how we should have proper control of procedures. I hope the Department of Finance and whoever occupies the role of Minister there at any time will ensure that what they preach, and have been preaching recently in particular, to the rest of the country they will adopt themselves. They might adopt píosa beag Fiannaíochtá, the principle of beart de réir ár mbriathar. Otherwise we shall find a certain degree of cynicism on the part of the public. In the time available to me I cannot go into the detail of the points made in respect of the Department of Finance, but it is vital that paragraphs 44 and 45 be noted.
Much of this has arisen because almost all Government office space is here in the city and we are competing with ourselves. The taxpayer is being made to compete with himself through various agencies, semi-State companies, An Bord Telecom and the OPW, to pay the highest prices in this city. For that reason, during our period in Government when I was Minister for Finance, we came to the conclusion that we should decentralise the offices of Government throughout the country where the rentals that would be charged would be much less, where space is available and where for a variety of good social and economic reasons this would be desirable. I can only say as a personal interpretation, supported nevertheless by the facts, that this report is one of the strongest arguments one can get for decentralisation of Government offices. Perhaps the Minister will take that on board and report back to the Minister for Finance so that the Government can review the decision they took to cancel the decision we took to decentralise Government offices.
I welcome the report. I am proud as a member of the Committee on Public Expenditure to have made some small contribution to its content. I compliment my colleagues on the committee and also the secretariat who worked in conjunction with us in coming to the conclusions before the House. The amount of work that had to be handled by the officials in recent months was very large and the assistants are a credit to the public service.
The Committee on Public Expenditure were set up with other committees because of criticism about the relevance of the Dáil system today. The performance of this committee has justified the decision of this House. I was interested in becoming a member because I felt that the standards being adopted in the public sector in spending taxpayers' money were somewhat different from the standards adopted in the private sector. Unfortunately, to date my experience on this committee has confirmed this view. The whole question of public spending must continue to be scrutinised in depth so that value for money in the public sector programmes is obtained and guaranteed. Overall spending in the public sector is now a terrible burden on the economy. Work being carried out by our committee in recent months has aroused considerable interest in both the public and commercial sectors. Public sector spending is becoming a greater and greater issue by the day because of the high proportion of national resources being devoted to the public expenditure programme. We have managed to identify areas where large spending is taking place and we have set about investigating whether the money being spent in this area is being spent positively and economically, and also whether the organisation and financial management are efficient. In other words, our job is to ensure that the overburdened taxpayer is getting value for money. This is vital because of the critical state of our economy at present.
My opinion after over 12 months on this committee is that the Irish economy and the Irish taxpayer have suffered badly over the years. Members of the Committee on Public Expenditure have still a massive task in coming to grips with gross abuse of public money that has taken place in certain areas. We approached our task conscious that, because of the shortage of public finance and the over-taxation of our people, the money being spent in the public sector must be spent efficiently. We tried to approach the problem constructively at all times, and we have done so ignoring political division. In other words, we have done it in a united way. In the short time the committee have existed we have demonstrated that we are determined to come to grips with the problems in areas of public expenditure. Overall we have received co-operation from officials and public servants, but from time to time I have detected a certain resentment that we should be making these sort of inquiries and investigations.
The House may recall that earlier this year the committee took evidence from officials of the Office of Public Works on procedures operating in the board on the rental of accommodation on behalf of Government Departments and offices. The committee, and indeed the public generally, had been very concerned to learn that a number of office blocks rented and leased by OPW on behalf of the State were, in fact, lying idle and unoccupied. Questions were raised as to how that could come to pass. Given that the economy was operating during a continuing period of severe budgetary constraints, the committee felt that urgent attention should be devoted to inquiring how hard-pressed taxpayers' money was being channelled into office accommodation that was not being put to immediate use.
From statements supplied by the Office of Public Works on 22 projects it was clear that in some instances considerable delays had occurred between the date leases were signed and the dates offices were occupied by the staff concerned. There are a number of outstanding examples: in the case of the new Garda Metropolitan Headquarters at Harcourt Square the lease commencement date was June 1981 and the buildings in question were not occupied until the middle of 1984. That is a scandal. In another case, in Harcourt Street, Dublin, a lease was signed in January 1982 while the staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs did not move into the building until March, 1984.
This; and other disturbing information which emerged during the taking of evidence from OPW officials in January and February, led the committee to the conclusion that something was amiss in the whole area of acquisition of accommodation on behalf of the State. Because there were financial and technical aspects involved in reviewing the board's role in the property market generally consultants were engaged. It is their report that is before us. Because of the committee's reservations about the overall picture presented up to that date, the consultants were also directed to examine in as much detail as possible the project procedures operating within OPW to control the overall cost and programme of office fit-out works and the provision of new office buildings. Part of the consultants' brief was to compare those procedures with the best practices operating within the private sector.
The committee's report before the Dáil summarises what has been the practice in the Office of Public Works in the area of acquisition and fit-out of office accommodation and makes recommendations how these must be improved. I have to say that the committee was very concerned to find that overall project control left a lot to be desired. The main problem areas identified by the Committee were:
(1) An examination of the overall project period in almost all cases showed that the project period had been excessive and the period for rent paid to occupation was grossly in excess of what would have been accepted or sustained in the private sector.
(2) Client Departments were in many cases responsible for long delays in construction and occupation of premises because they either delayed the completion of briefs or changed their minds on layout and so on before or after leases have been signed.
(3) The committee felt that the Office of Public Works, given its important role in the property market generally, should have been able to exercise a much more dominant influence both on client Departments and on property owners.
An example of that is that the OPW never seek to go to arbitration where disputes arise. They are uncompetitive. In fact, there is evidence to show that in regard to an office block in Dublin the OPW have paid a lot more than another State body.
The committee's report is divided into two fairly distinct areas: (1) project control; (2) rental and lease terms. It was because of the importance of these two issues in their own right that we decided that the report should contain separate conclusions and recommendations on project control and rent-lease terms.
As time is limited for the debate on this report and other Members wish to comment on individual sections of it, I shall conclude by pointing out that the committee was concerned with an expensive though relatively small area of the operations of the OPW. Hopefully, when we begin the review of the board generally, we will not uncover a major waste of public expenditure in other areas. While the committee's report has some critical comments on the management of projects and property acquisition, I hope these comments are seen by the Commissioners of Public Works as constructive. I see no reason why tighter management and overall professional control should not be the order of the day in OPW, which is after all an area where there is a lot of professional knowledge and experience. The committee hope that when it looks at the area in about 12 months' time many of the recommendations made will have been acted upon.
There were many areas we did not like to comment on because the OPW were nervous about maintaining confidentiality. For that reason those matters could not be referred to in a public report. I hope steps will be taken to act on some of our recommendations but my instinct is that a lot of them will never be implemented. Not only will public money continue to be wasted in this area — I am not referring to the OPW alone — but I believe it will continue to be wasted in all other Government Departments. In my time as a member of the committee and in my dealings with other State groups I have noted a general lack of accountability with regard to the spending of taxpayers' money. It is my belief that regretfully this will continue unless accountability established. Until such time as people are identified if they make mistakes, this sort of practice will continue. We have had examples recently where bad decisions involving State companies were made and those responsible got away handsomely, they got away financially well out of it. The sufferers in such cases are the employees and taxpayers. That is wrong.
As public representatives we must ensure that those who make bad decisions are brought to heel, disciplined and made pay the price in some way. Until that is done we are all wasting our time. We hear a lot about political interference in semi-State bodies from time to time. Accusations of political interference are made when things are going well, but when things go wrong we hear that political neglect is bringing about the problems. In areas where huge sums of money are being spent we seem to have a new breed of executive who sets himself up as an empire builder and resents any questioning by those who represent the public and are responsible for the spending of public money. That question must be faced up to by us all. My remarks on the report are meant to be constructive and in the interests of the public.
I would like to preface my comments on the Dáil Committee on Public Expenditure's report on property considerations in the Office of Public Works by stating that I have more experience than most of that office, having spent a term as Minister of State with responsibility for its management. During that time, I found the officers of the Office of Public Works hardworking, conscientious, diligent and committed to their duties. A political head of the office I experienced nothing but co-operation and courtesy and I have no reason to believe that my predecessors and successors did not get the same loyalty and commitment. Much was achieved but rarely was adequate credit given by the media and indeed I must say by politicians. Comment was often confined to criticism of isolated occurrences without any great regard to the causes or justifications.
I welcome this report. Any new analysis or examination of existing systems must have positive results. There is a lot of good contained in the document. It acknowledges that despite the constraints imposed on the Office of Public Works, compounded by the attitudes and policies of the present Government, the Office of Public Works have managed to provide a good service and give good value for money. The terms of reference of the committee in the production of the report were the examination of procedures in the acquisition and fitting out of premises used for Government Departments and rental and lease terms in the period 1981-83. Contrary to popular opinion the document reports favourably on the Office of Public Works in these areas. It states that the Office of Public Works gave good value for money in the 26 fit-out projects examined, that the Office Public Works' rents were lower than average and that their rent reviews were less than those in the private sector. Indeed, a national newspaper of no less standing than The Irish Press in its edition of 23 November 1984 quoted actual Office of Public Works' rent figures in comparison with those in the private sector, and those of the Office of Public Works were far lower, which surprised me. This, mind you, was achieved within constraints that are imposed on the Office of Public Works that few are aware of. Another positive aspect of the report is that it acknowledges at least some of these constraints.
When accommodation is required by a Government Department, the Office of Public Works must usually provide a building of high quality in a high rent area, such as St. Stephen's Green of Dublin 2, and when I was in that office all the Departments were looking for office space near Dáil Éireann. They must often provide this accommodation at little or no notice and are dependent on the Government Department for directions and briefs. Often these directions are vague and the briefs provided are furnished late and changed regularly; I have experience of this. To achieve favourable costings in fit-out projects rent and rent reviews within this climate is nothing short of miraculous, but it has been achieved, and was achieved, when I was in the Office of Public Works.
The recommendations of the report in creating systems for creating a more favourable operating scenario for the Office of Public Works to work in is however welcomed. There is no doubt but that given these systems and the resources to implement them they can improve further on their favourable record. The Office of Public Works have, of course, long recognised this fact and have previously on their own initiative made recommendations of this kind. Unfortunately these recommendations were never allowed to be implemented and I personally did not spend long enough in the office to ensure that they would. I now ask the present Minister and, more importantly, the Minister for Finance to ensure that these recommendations be implemented and that the Office of Public Works be given an even break in the property market.
This of course can never happen without resources. Contained in the report is the incredible statement that 19 executive officers, some of them quite young, are responsible for an average of 23 major projects each and that there is only one valuer for transactions in the whole city of Dublin. I repeat, there is only one valuer for transactions in the whole city of Dublin. That is completely inadequate. This is typical of the adverse and damaging effect of the blunt-nosed staff embargo imposed by this Government. Its members sanctimoniously preach about reform, a more efficient public service and savings, yet they allow a most important and potentially costly area of the Civil Service be administered, by and large, by a young staff, a skeleton senior staff and a lone ranger valuer.
What was the situation when Deputy McEllistrim was in that Department?
We had plenty of staff.
No interruptions please. Everybody will have an opportunity to contribute.
The Government's penny wise, pound foolish mentality which has manifested itself in nearly every aspect of our lives was never more apparent than here. How can you have the controls procedures and prescribed reporting without the necessary resources?
In tandem with the production of this report I read in the Evening Press that contrary to providing resources, the Government have in fact allowed the Office of Public Works be denuded of a vitally necessary back-up service, particularly in the property area. The area of property transactions in the Office of Public Works where you have nearly five million square feet in Dublin alone requires a daily, and indeed hourly, legal service. Traditionally this was provided by the State Solicitor's Office which in my time was in the Office of Public Works in 51 St. Stephen's Green.
Just last week the Government allowed these staff be moved lock stock and barrel to Dublin Castle. This now means that each property transaction that requires legal opinion or signature — and what transaction does not — must now be referred to Dublin Castle. This will inevitably compound an already difficult situation for the Office of Public Works and will lead to further delays and, dare I say it, wastage of money. Of course inevitably and eventually the Office of Public Works will carry the can for the Government, but that same Government in the form of persons such as the present Minister for the Public Service and the chairman of this committee will continue to pontificate about reform. Perhaps there is such a thing as reverse reform.
The property situation in Dublin of course nearly changed totally during my term of office in the Office of Public Works. The Fianna Fáil Government at that time then embarked on a policy of decentralisation which would have moved large sections of Government Departments to 13 towns around the country. Sites were purchased, plans were prepared and tenders were invited in a very short time. This illustrated what could be achieved when the Office of Public Works got the necessary Government support. The decentralisation programme would have released nearly a massive 800,000 square feet of office accommodation in Dublin; it would have given a badly needed injection to the building industry; it would have created a new, healthy economic and social climate in the towns in question and it would have allowed civil servants to return to their rural background and would have brought Government to the people. Lastly it would have relieved Dublin's overburdened infrastructures and would have solved State accommodation requirements in the city for generations. Indeed the State would be entering the sellers' market rather than a buyers' market.
At the last minute there was a change of Government and, incomprehensibly and illogically at one unfortunate stroke, the Government abandoned the scheme and, without being in a position to plan, the Office of Public Works' long term property plans were scuttled. The Government by their actions forfeited the considerable fees payable to consultants and incredibly forced the Office of Public Works to sell the sites purchased at what must have been a loss. How the Office of Public Works survive these body blows and accept the criticisms levelled at them continually mystifies me.
Having seen the reports of the press conference given by the Committee on Public Expenditure on 20 November and subsequently having read the report, it strikes me that some members of the committee must have been reading a different document and certainly must have had very little input in its composition. I refer in particular to Deputy Keating who was associated with a figure of £2 million alleged wastage which mysteriously became £30 million. The Office of Public Works have been quoted in the papers as stating that the consultants who prepared the report admitted that this figure was notional and even if it had substance the figures on which it was based were incorrect. This figure plucked out of the air related to 26 fit-out cases, the only ones carried out by the Office of Public Works in the period covered in the report. Whether inadvertently or otherwise Deputy Keating seems to have associated these 26 projects with 400-odd other building projects. These bore no comparison with the projects examined and were outside the terms of reference of the committee. However, I understand from the report that a random sample was examined by the consultant and he found that the Office of Public Works had got good value for money. Associating the 26 offices which were fitted out with the 400-odd building projects, Deputy Keating misled the press into believing that £30 million could have been saved. This is political sabotage of a Government Department and is merely a dishonest exercise for the purpose of making cheap copy. It does nothing for the reputation and credibility of the committee's hardworking members and merely serves to undermine public confidence and public service morale.
The examination of State organisations and productions of reports are good provided they are not abused by a few for minor personal gain and provided they are taken seriously by Government and are not just another exercise in window dressing.
I should like to inquire how Deputy McEllistrim would achieve fairly substantial savings having regard to the programme to which he referred which entailed fairly considerable expenditure. I refer to sites which were bought and subsequently disposed of and I cannot understand how anybody could say that substantial savings could be made by embarking on a programme of expenditure which obviously entailed either the spending of taxpayers' money or the borrowing of money outside the country to finance it.
I should like to mention the general role of the Office of Public Works which has come in for some criticism. Because of the nature of the Department and its wide range of responsibilities, it is probably a target for allegations which may, in many cases be sustained, of misspending or unwise spending. Much of the fitting out of public buildings and their restoration and improvement can be very tedious and requires a great deal of time which would not normally be expected in a job of that nature. I wish to pay tribute to the Office of Public Works for the work they have done in many of those areas. As passers-by on a casual examination of the operation might, unfortunately, condemn them for making errors but they should get credit for the successful operations which they have carried out. I refer particularly to the tremendous work they have done in the restoration of public buildings and in the improvement of buildings of architectural or historical importance. The standard of their workmanship is generally extremely good and to achieve that often requires tedious pursuit of the job, which probably results in extra expenditure.
With regard to leasing of public buildings which was referred to by a number of speakers, in times of financial constraint it is important that greater regard should be taken of the fact that taxpayers' money is being expended. In view of this, great care should now be taken to ensure that buildings which are leased are occupied as soon as possible. Perhaps it is not always feasible to do this because the market moves very quickly, although in the present climate there is not much movement in that area. Nonetheless, there may be occasions when the Office of Public Works have to maintain an option which could cost money. Unfortunately, we have become somewhat blasé as far as public money is concerned.
I do not want to be too critical, but in future we should ensure that we have as few as possible public buildings on our hands which are not fully utilised. In other words, we should cut out the habit of retaining public buildings if they are not fully occupied and utilised. To do otherwise would be unpardonable at the present time where people generally are conscious of where the money is going. I am not making a political point. What I am suggesting should be done regardless of which Government are in power and it should apply always in the future. For far too long we have been lackadaisical about the way we accounted for public funds on the basis that the system was good and strong and that nothing could go wrong. However, the general public will condemn Members of this House and the people responsible in the Departments if the best possible use is not made of the taxpayers' money.
The cost of fitting out public buildings can be arrived at in a number of ways. It can be cost efficient or inefficient depending on the methods used. Usually the criticism one hears in relation to the fitting out of public buildings by the Office of Public Works relates to the time taken. The time factor has become very important, and private enterprise concerns often say they could do the same job in half the time. In other areas, not necessarily connected with the Office of Public Works, I have seen at first hand evidence that suggests that private enterprise could carry out certain public jobs at at least half the cost incurred at present. That may seem an unfair criticism, but it is a fact. Departments such as the Office of Public Works should have careful regard to their costings in future.
It might not be a bad exercise to obtain quotations from private enterprise in relation to some of the works carried out. Again, I do not apply that specifically to the Office of Public Works. It should be applied generally to a number of public works carried out by the State with taxpayers' money. That would make for a better appraisal of what the job would cost if done by private enterprise and, at the same time, it would have the effect of making our public agencies more competitive and more cost-conscious. That is one area that should be looked at in the future.
I congratulate the committee for producing the report and I express the wish that it will make all of us here more aware of the need to spend the taxpayers' money more wisely. I hope it will create an awareness in the minds of all public agencies, including the Office of Public Works, of the need to be able to justify the cost in all cases as against what the cost would be if the work was carried out by private enterprise.
As a member of the Joint Committee on Public Expenditure I am delighted to be associated with the report. The committee went about their work in a constructive way. They examined and investigated as constructively and as positively as possible the reasons or the underlying factors that caused concern and that were expressed by members of the committee and by outside agencies with regard to areas in Departments where there were cost overruns, delays or allegations regarding inefficiency. I am delighted to be associated with the report and I am honoured to have had the opportunity of having some little input in the drafting or formulation of the report.
While differences of opinion were expressed between individuals and parties — and which I have no doubt will continue to be expressed — usually a consensus was arrived at in a fairly harmonious way, and that is very important. I hope that kind of spirit and atmosphere will continue to prevail. It is reasonable to expect that there will be occasional hiccups, but it is good to know that at the end of the day a consensus can emerge that will be helpful and important in formulating recommendations where improvements can be made.
I wish to compliment the staff who have operated on the committee. I realise that members of the public do not have the opportunity to appreciate the enormous task of the staff as a result of the establishment of the joint committees. I have to issue a note of criticism and disappointment in that although a considerable number of committees have been set up the staffing levels have been very inadequate and unsatisfactory. I urge Members opposite to use their influence to rectify that situation in the interests of the staff involved in the work of joint committees. There should be adequate staff levels to ensure that the work of the committees continues to be productive and efficient. I should also like to compliment out consultant, Mr Ballance. He approached the task assigned to him in a very constructive and positive manner and the results of his work reflect a job well done. I have no doubt his input to our committee will be recognised in time to come as significant and worthwhile.
Our committee has a very important task, perhaps more important as financial constraints become greater. In times of scarce resources it is important that the committee should examine ways and means to ensure that existing resources are used most productively and in a way that gives value for money. We must also have the confidence of the public in our institutions. The recommendations we bring forward should not dilute the confidence of the public in the institutions of State or in our public servants. If that should happen I would hate to think of the inevitable outcome.
The report deals with the Office of Public Works, and it deals specifically with two areas. There was the matter of project procedures used in the acquisition and the fitting out of premises. The task was to examine those procedures in relation to control over the overall cost and in relation to the programme of office fitting out works and the provision of new office buildings, and to compare these with the best practices in the private sector. It was also our task to suggest what improvements might be made. The second aspect was to report on the rental and lease terms obtained by the Office of Public Works in the period from 1981 to 1983 and to comment on the value for money obtained.
When we set out to do these tasks I started out against a background of what I saw as public disillusionment with the Office of Public Works and in many cases a cynical attitude by the public towards that office. In many instances the Office of Public Works are seen by the public to be the cinderella of Government and not treated seriously by other Departments. They should be. I hope to make reference to a number of aspects of the report to support me.
The role of the Office of Public Works is varied and very wide. The report states their tasks and functions range from project manager to designer, to client, to agent. That is a wide range of specific roles for any one organisation and I do not think they are fully taken account of by the various Departments. In many respects the Office of Public Works see themselves as being there at the will and wish of the other Departments. They are answerable for the requirements of other Departments however outrageous or illogical or costly the requirements. These requirements of client Departments have to be met by the OPW no matter where the location is or delays in taking up occupation. At the end of the day OPW have to carry the can. We hope that this report will go some way towards redressing the balance.
When we see OPW answerable to other Departments and in liaison with them we can have a more realistic appraisal of their role than the public. They are a Government Department working on public funds. Irrespective of what interrelation exists there is a clear duty on OPW to give value for money at all times. Although I can see blame apportioned in many directions in relation to overall Government expenditure as between Departments and the OPW I am not upset on the basis of the evidence available to us. I believe that OPW have discharged their functions within the criteria set out for them. There are some underlying weaknesses in their modus operandi that make it difficult or impossible for them to function as a good sound organisation in the private sector would do or would be expected to do.
Particularly in regard to their relationship with other Government Departments I have a private view. The Chairman of the committee referred earlier to the public funds the OPW have in their charge, £165 million approximately. For that reason and others, the OPW should be represented directly at Cabinet level. I do not think it is practicable or realistic to expect them to perform the kind of functions expected of them without having direct consultation. That is a personal view. I know there are constitutional restraints on the Government in relation to the number of Ministries, but having the OPW as part of the Department of Finance does not seem to me to be satisfactory because I cannot see the Department of Finance being sufficiently able to represent the OPW at the Cabinet table.
Deputy McEllistrim referred earlier to the rather vague way in which he as Minister responsible for the OPW had to represent that Department. We acknowledge in the report that this aspect is a major contributor to delays and cost overruns. It was the major contributor in nine out of 26 projects. From my experience and from the research available it is fairly clear that Government Departments have issued instructions to the OPW on a certain basis. One way that could be overcome would be by way of better representation for the OPW at Cabinet level. The report states that other delays were mainly the responsibility of the client Departments, further evidence that the client Departments play a very important role.
Paragraphs 27 to 30 refer to capital projects. I regard this as one of the most fundamental aspects of any examination of how a Department function — capital projects and efficiency. The report states that in the circumstances in which the OPW work it is essential to have a projects control system. There should be an original estimate for funds to allow control during the progress of any project.
The difficulty here is that OPW do not think they have the power to function in accordance with present procedures. There was a report from a working party on cost overruns in 1982. It was published and submitted to the Department of Finance. I understand the Department took most of the recommendations on board and in a circular issued in 1983 they outlined guidelines by which the OPW should approach management and control of capital projects and their implementation from the earliest stages. My view is that the OPW, because of their intricate relationship with the other Government Departments, do not see themselves as being responsible or accountable in this respect. One way in which they could be made accountable would be to give them a voice in the Cabinet.
There are several features in the report to which I have not time to refer. There is reference to the seeming inability of the OPW to take on the rent and leasing market. The report in a number of respects and on a number of points refers to the fact that the OPW have a major portion of the lessee market. Yet they are unable to achieve any significant inroads by way of a reduction of rates. I hope the recommendations will be viewed by the OPW as constructive and comprehensive and as being in the best interests of overall efficiency and management.
I wish to be associated with the comments made by the Chairman of the Committee on Public Expenditure, Deputy Keating, on this, the latest report, which is on the Office of Public Works. With regret I have to dissociate myself from some of the remarks made by Deputy McEllistrim. The committee included many senior Members of the Opposition. We have always worked on a non-political basis in an atmosphere of goodwill. We produced our report on that basis. Having attended meetings of this committee and other committees, I hope that the goodwill and the non-political atmosphere at these meetings will find their way into this House.
As mentioned already, earlier this year the committee examined a statement supplied by the Office of Public Works which outlined details on over 20 buildings acquired by the OPW on behalf of various Government Departments and offices. We were quite appalled to find that in several cases the buildings were lying unoccupied for long periods. I found it difficult to comprehend how valuable property which was costing the taxpayers millions of pounds in rent, were not being fitted out and occupied as soon as the builders had moved out.
There is a tendency to compare the public sector with what happens in the private sector from time to time. This is probably one of the best examples I can think of where the procedures used and accepted in the State sector would not have been tolerated by private companies. The reason is obvious. Private companies who decided to lease or invest in a new office block and who allowed changes of plan, delays in briefing, delays in fit-out, and so on, would not continue in business for very long. Time is money but this simple fact does not seem to have sunk into the public sector despite the continuing difficult state of the economy.
If the Committee on Public Expenditure achieve nothing else other than getting such facts across to the public sector, including the very important one of accountability by individuals for public expenditure, we will have achieved a very important goal. While this debate is confined to the report on the OPW, I have to say that in recent months the committee were amazed at the lack of proper management controls in many parts of the public sector, both in Government Departments and in semi-State bodies falling within the Committee's terms of reference.
Getting back to this report, the committee found that the question of empty office blocks was merely a symptom of something seriously wrong in the OPW. Through the good work of our consultant who analysed the data on our behalf, we found that empty office blocks were the result of an overall lack of management and professional control in the OPW. I find it difficult to understand how the Office of Public Works, one of the longest established Government offices, could operate without basic management, monitoring and review procedures. It is an indication of the lack of those controls that the committee had to spell out in their recommendations what needs to be done by OPW in order that basic and proper controls can be exercised.
It became clear to the committee during the hearing of evidence from the OPW officials that the fault as regards delays and so on did not lie entirely with the board. Client Departments are at least as much to blame as the board. One client Department asked for fit-outs to be changed on three different occasions.
That was done at the taxpayers' expense. There is no reason why Departments should not be able to consult with the OPW on their requirements, agree briefs and get the necessary work and fitting-out under way without any wasteful delays. Departments should not be allowed to change their minds on layout and other requirements once the briefs have been agreed.
The committee found that in general Departments were not unduly concerned about the cost involved because they were not being charged for the buildings, fit-outs, and so on. The committee believe this situation should be changed. Departments should be charged and be seen to be charged in their annual estimates for buildings, furniture, and so on. If individual Departments were held accountable for the cost of moving into a new building, we are confident this would reduce significantly the cost to the Exchequer of the acquisition and fit-out of Government offices.
It has been brought to my attention that it could be argued that there are some slight inaccuracies in the chart on page 11. If that is so, it is only a matter of two or three weeks compared with buildings which were unoccupied for over three years. The information in the chart was supplied by OPW. They had this report and they made no comment on that.
It can also be said that the report lacks details and names. In examining officials from the OPW, it was our experience that they were almost neurotic about confidentiality. The committee respected that. The report is complimentary to the Office of Public Works on some of the rent reviews they have achieved. These are related to a large number of small buildings. When it comes to large buildings, unfortunately the OPW do not come out all that well.
I hope the recommendations on project procedures and rental leasing of accommodation will be acted on immediately by the Minister so that the hard-pressed taxpayers can be assured that the major problems identified by the committee in this area will be eliminated as quickly as possible.
One of the problems in regard to wasteful expenditure on the occupation of public buildings — and I want to couch this in the most diplomatic terms — is the laid back political attitude there has been within the Department for some considerable time. Deputy McEllistrim gave a good example of that type of laid back approach in his contribution here this morning. His attack on the committee was an attack on his own colleagues because we are talking about a joint all-party committee. When Parliament is trying to come to terms with wasteful spending in the public sector, it is unbecoming for a Deputy to try to turn that into an attack on the all-party committee.
Nobody in this House is out to gut the OPW. This House has great respect for the good work being carried out by the Office of Public Works but that does not mean that it can tolerate wasteful expenditure by that office or by anybody else. It is our duty and responsibility to call the public service to account, and this area is one which has been the cause of much public comment and scandal in recent times. It is very necessary for the House to examine this matter and nobody should feel resentful or think that anybody is out to do him or her down. We are simply examining the areas of wasteful public expenditure, and this is one which sticks out like a sore thumb.
If there are difficulties within the Office of Public Works with regard to this report or to comments made in this House, I would invite that office to circulate a detailed minute of their comments to Deputies so that we can look at what they have to say in defence of their case. If they have a defence let us hear it and if not, let there be no more nonsense. Nobody wants to be unfair to anybody, but we will not be afraid to do our duty through fear of being accused of being unfair or taking political advantage. We will give due consideration to any defence raised.
I should like some consultation between the staff of the Office of Public Works and the political system, perhaps through the committee. One hears the most dreadful reports about the Office of Public Works which simply could not all be true. As a public representative I know the good work that this office do, but there is a feeling among the public generally about wastefulness and, in particular, idleness within that office.
It might be a very good exercise if we were to have a report from the Office of Public Works outlining their view of the attitude of the public and of public representatives to what is going on in that office. It may be that the attitude is wrong and that there is not the idleness that is felt abroad. However, if that is not the case they should not be so defensive — almost neurotic, as Deputy Joe Doyle has said. We want to know what is going on in that office and a neurotic approach will not do. If they are not prepared to give us an explanation, we must consider that the worst is the case.
There is a fair amount of duplication in the presentation of the report to the House since the matter was raised some months ago by the Committee of Public Accounts. That gives rise to the whole question of the work of these two committees and whether there is, yet again, wasteful public expenditure by the Committee on Public Expenditure in duplicating the work of the Committee of Public Accounts. Perhaps those two committees should be merged so that they could together examine these matters instead of one after the other hounding the Office of Public Works and the press reporting these events twice, three or even four times. It is time we considered whether the Committee on Public Expenditure should be told to involve themselves in works which are not already being carried on by the Committee of Public Accounts.
The way to solve the problem with regard to accommodation is to appoint an officer in the Department of Finance, outside the Office of Public Works, to be specifically responsible for checking out Government contracts in regard to building, hiring and letting of public buildings. It is not just the Office of Public Works who are offending in this matter. An Bord Telecom, when set up as a section within the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, went their own merry way against the advice, I believe, of the Office of Public Works and the Secretary of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs of the day. They hired and rented premises at that stage against everybody's advice and were answerable to nobody.
We now learn that the IDA in these grave recessionary times are going to spend money lavishly on premises. So enormous is the estate of the Government and of public Departments in Dublin that the whole rent situation fluctuates on the basis of whether the Government let or do not let, occupy or do not occupy premises. We need a specific officer who can be accountable to the Committee on Public Expenditure or the Committee of Public Accounts for the whole policy of renting or building, not just in relation to the Office of Public Works but to other semi-State bodies. That is the only way in which we will come to terms with this problem.
The report is welcome is so far as it tries to pursue this problem. It is a pity that it duplicates the work of the Committee of Public Accounts. I hope that the future report of the Committee on Public Expenditure will be less garrulous. There is no disrespect meant to the clerk of the committee. I do not think he has been given a free hand in drawing up this report. If the report were shorter, more specific, with clearer identification of the problems and recommendations, the House would benefit. I hope that future reports will be more specific in that regard.
I would not like the debate to end here with nothing happening afterwards. We must get a progress report, not just in relation to the Office of Public Works but in the whole area of Government renting of office blocks and other accommodation. There was a lot of press coverage at the time of the report of the Committee of Public Accounts about a year ago, but there does not seem to have been any specific Government or parliamentary decision to change the position. I would suggest a progress report from either the Minister or the committee, perhaps shortly after Christmas, on what has been done to improve, control and account for Government policy in relation to the occupation of public buildings.
First, I want to make it clear, as a member of the committee, that we are not here to castigate the Office of Public Works in any way. We are here to reflect our views on how we find the spending of public moneys, as responsible public representatives. Our duty is to see that the maximum value is got for every pound of State money expended on behalf of the Irish taxpayer. We see the Office of Public Works as doing a very good job, taking into account all the constraints and complexities imposed on them. We see, too, a need to make this organisation more efficient and perhaps give them more powers and more professional staff.
I wish to take issue with one remark made by Deputy Mitchell and I am sorry that he has left the House. That is that our secretary has not been given a free hand in compiling this report. There would not be much point in our being members of the committee if we had not an opportunity to make an input into the report and if we were not able to assist in compiling that report. I am very pleased that we have one of the finest public servants in the country operating as secretary of our committee.
I did not catch what Deputy Mitchell said about that matter, but I think that there is a tendency to come in here to discuss the executive of committees and I am trying to discourage that. In the long run it is not to anyone's benefit or advantage.
The Deputy made an inference.
If I had caught the point I would have intervened.
As far as we are concerned we had a job to do. We had a duty to assist the secretary in compiling the report. We had every confidence in the ability of that man to do his job to the highest standard. There would not be any point in having such committees if elected members could not make an important input into the compilation of the report.
The general consensus, as I see it from the report, is that OPW are in a very invidious and precarious position. They are the victims of circumstances. They get vague instructions from Government Departments and agencies vis-à-vis their requirements. When OPW provide facilities for them they may be told the facilities are in the wrong location or that they are not suitable or that they are not required at all.
Recently some office accommodation was required by the Department of Social Welfare for the employment incentive scheme staff. When the accommodation was provided by OPW, the Department informed them they could not accept the location and would have to have it near their computer division in Aras Mhic Dhiarmida. It was incumbent on the Department to give clear instructions at the outset as to exactly where they required the office. It is well known that most office accommodation required by Departments is required in the Dublin 2 area which is the prime office area in the city. Consequently OPW, as the Government agency acquiring and renting office accommodation, set the norm for prices. They are in a very strong position. They do not have sufficient powers to make use of the very important position they have. The report proves that it would be better for them to acquire property, purchase it and make it available to Departments and Government agencies as they require it.
We pay something in the region of £16 million per annum for office space in the city. In view of that it should be within the control of OPW to acquire property and relocate Government Departments or agencies therein at their discretion. Until such time as we give them that kind of power we cannot expect to save the State expenditure that we would hope to save. An opportunity was lost in the recent past when the Royal Hibernian Hotel, a beautiful building, was disposed of. Architecturally it was an ideal building. It blended in and balanced with Leinster House. It was a tragedy that the building was not acquired by OPW. This beautiful building is being demolished and will be replaced by a cold modern office block and shopping centre. It will not blend in with Leinster House nor is it conducive to the area. Architecturally and from the point of view of location a more prime building could not have been made available in the city.
The Deputy will be pleasantly surprised with the finished building.
Perhaps, but we must try to preserve what was good in the past rather than have it destroyed for modern convenience. There was one Member of the House who was very well acquainted with that building. He had an important Government position at one stage. I am surprised he did not make some recommendation in that area.
Comparisons were made with the IDA and other bodies. The IDA are to be complimented. Deputy Mitchell used the word "lavish" with regard to expenditure. As far as I am concerned, the IDA operate on a very efficient basis. They are now bringing all sections of the Authority under one roof so that the staff will operate as one unit and give a proper service to industry. Their chief executive, Mr. Pádraic White and other executives are to be complimented for doing that. They are saving money because they will not now have to pay rent for office space in different parts of the city.
We have discovered that the provision of telephone services for buildings rented or acquired takes so long that money is expended on rent for a long time before the buildings are occupied. We hope under Bord Telecom that will not happen. The Office of Public Works must be given authority to make realistic, sensible demands to ensure that telephone lines are either transferred or put into a building within a month. In such a case the Department or agency could move into the building straight away. There must be some authority or body that will have total control. It is obvious that Departments have for too long procrastinated on decisions vis-à-vis their requirements. The buck must stop somewhere. There must be accountability. OPW expend money in this area and the delays are not caused by them. They have the expertise and information at their disposal. They should be in a powerful negotiating position to do a good deal.
It is important that this report be considered seriously by the Minister for Finance and the Government and that the necessary powers to provide OPW with direct control over all office accommodation for the Government Departments and agencies be vested in them. In that way money could be saved.
When we were in Government we made major plans for decentralisation at 13 locations throughout the country. That would release a great deal of office space in Dublin. That has been postponed. In the past moneys have been expended on professional services and on sites and so on and no other action taken. Some of these sites are now up for sale.
Permanent capital investment is the best possible decision when property is required. Whether it is inside or outside Dublin city, necessary powers must be given to the OPW to acquire property in suitable locations to ensure that Government Departments have the best facilities, are located in the best areas and will be in a position to give maximum service to the people, and save and get the best value for money for the taxpayers. If nothing else, I hope that the report from this committee will help in some way to give these powers to the OPW.
I would like to address a few points on this report, which is very important. Although it may be dealing with only a relatively small area of operation in State capital spending, its findings are symptomatic of problems that may extend far deeper. The main problems are worth re-emphasising. One was that no basic project data documents were prepared. That lack prevents proper management control at any stage down the line. We must set about rectifying that situation if we are to have proper control of what we are spending money on.
We discovered that no regular or routine management controls were in operation by the OPW. Again, that is serious. It means that if you set out your costs over a project period you would include what might be called a critical path where the cost at month one would be so much and so much would have been achieved; at month two it would have been so much and so much would have been achieved, and so on throughout the project, and in any month you would know whether you had completed what you set out to complete, whether your costs were within the costs intended and, if not, you could identify where the difficulties lay, who was responsible and what action could be taken to correct it. The lack of that sort of approach to projects within the OPW is a fatal weakness. We have seen a number of shop window overruns that at the end of the day will trace back to this lack in the procedures being operated.
We found within the OPW that the organisation of staff was not conducive to proper management control. They did not have a project manager who would be responsible from beginning to end for a project. That is entirely necessary. Other speakers have said here today that responsibility is essential. You must be able to identify who is responsible if you are to have a system that will operate itself, otherwise you will have a myriad of rules propounded by various Departments and at the end of the day nobody will be identified with responsibility for getting the job produced on time and done to cost.
Other speakers referred to the working party on cross-over runs whose report back about 1982 led to a directive by the Department of Finance in March 1983 about the way projects should be conducted. We were disturbed to find that there did not seem to be a following of the details outlined in those reports and recommended for project management. It is worrying when you see the problems identified by that working party which are very similar to those we are identifying now. The working party mentioned the fact that current cost is not used. It continues to be the case that when setting out the cost of a project they do not take the trouble to consider what will happen to inflation and interest rates or how the cost will turn out as the project goes forward. That is still a problem. They pointed out that the procedure for control of design cost is not being used, despite a Department of Finance directive in 1971. They found ten or 11 years afterwards that directives issued in 1971 were not being implemented in 1982. We are in the same boat here. We are looking at weaknesses in the operation of the OPW that should, on the basis of Department of Finance directives in 1971, have been rectified. Problems like design change after construction had started and persist, and we found them in our study.
The problems we identify are symptomatic of incomplete attention to the cost of a project. The OPW take far too narrow a view of the cost of a project. They concentrate on strict control of cash that they release for it. It is very desirable that we should know that cash is issued only where appropriate. That is essential, but it is not the sole test of cost. Similarly, they concentrate on competitive tendering, again a very important aspect of cost but not the complete story. The costs they tend to dismiss are costs such as the rental incurred while a project is proceeding and, therefore, if it is delayed, extra rent is incurred. They ignore interest that accrues on money that has been expended already from the Exchequer without completing the project. All the time an interest sum is building up and that is not considered when the OPW talk about the cost of a project.
Associated with delays you get further fee increases, because the most amazing system of paying fees operated within the Government sector, namely that fees were payable as a percentage of final cost of a project, even if the project took six years to complete, and the vast majority of design work etc. had been done perhaps six years ago and, although the consultant had been paid a substantial amount on account at that stage, his final fee related to the inflated cost at the end of the project. Therefore, the delay under our present system of paying fees, which is grossly inadequate for public sector needs, means that fees, interest, and rent all roll up.
At no stage do the OPW say that these are real costs associated with this project that should be applied and the control involves keeping those costs down just as much as keeping the tender price down. We had one example where the rent plus the interest plus the bloated fees through the delay of projects came to more than the total cost of the fit-out. In other words, by ignoring these aspects to which the report draws attention, half of the total cost of a project was ignored. That is a critical problem, and it is urgent that the Minister set about putting proper systems into his Department. Not alone his Department, virtually every Department in the State ignore things like interest incurred on money they have expended. This Minister should not only take note of that but also convey it to his colleagues.
A further dangerous flaw is that the OPW do not allocate their own overhead costs to the various client Departments who are putting projects before them. The OPW are acting as consultants and if there was a private consultancy they would charge fees to the client Departments. This does not occur. The OPW must accept quietly as impositions on their own budget delays that may be caused by the client Department. If a client Department provide inadequate briefing, change their mind or create delay that is incurring real costs for the OPW which do not appear on the client Department's account. The client Department are not asked to account for these and say why they were incurred and pay for them. Rather the OPW must accept them meekly. The OPW are getting abuse or stick from us for something it should quite rightly put back on to the client Departments. I am convinced that in a lot of cases the weaknesses do not lie within the OPW although, obviously, we are not content with the control procedures they operate. The problem may well lie with the client Departments. However, if they put in proper control procedures they would be able to identify the client Department to blame. They would be able to identify that the client Department had provided inadequate briefing or was too slow in coming back with comments or erred in bringing changes of mind to a project that was well under way.
Later we will be reporting to the Dáil on the general management of capital projects. I am convinced that the problems that exist in the case of fit-outs and minor projects of that nature exist in an equal or greater degree in major capital projects. It will be an important aspect of the committee's work that we get into place a system of ensuring that the various directives on ideal cost management from the Department of Finance are not ignored as they were in the past. Earlier I mentioned that the directive in 1971 was found not to have been observed by 1982. It would be a tragedy if the directive of March 1983 ended up in the same position. We have made a recommendation that within the OPW there should be a small working party in operation to ensure that the best practice is applied in the execution of projects. Although I am always loth to suggest new committees or groups, or new anything that involves some extra spending, I believe the lessons of the past where directives were not observed suggest that such a scheme merits implementation. After all we are dealing with multi-million pound projects and we cannot afford to be scrimping on the management side when so much is at stake.
I have been following the workings of the committee since it was established, and while some useful comments have come from it and some worthwhile examinations have been carried out nevertheless from time to time there has been a tendency for some members of the committee to be unduly critical without going into the full facts. It is easy to be critical in hindsight and say that something could have been improved. We all agree that there is a need to examine from time to time the operations of various organisations to see that the best possible value is obtained for the expenditure incurred, but there have been practical difficulties in some cases that have led to the problems. If they were examined more closely it would be seen that there was good and genuine reason for the overruns that occurred. It will be seen that there was good reason why the extra expenditure was not anticipated when the projects started. One such project that got a lot of publicity recently was the development at Howth harbour. That is a magnificent scheme, and I defy anybody to examine that project under any procedure and say that it was money badly spent or wasted. It is well known that because of various difficulties there were overruns which resulted in the estimated cost of £3 to £4 million running to between £9 or £10 million. A figure of up to £12 million has been mentioned. I do not think that anybody, even with the best engineering advice available, could have anticipated when the development was planned the problems that arose in the course of the construction.
On a point of order, I do not wish to interrupt the train of thought of the speaker, but I hasten to add that the report before us does not refer to that project. It is not one of the projects we have examined.
I do not think that the Deputy is necessarily confined to what is in the report.
A certain amount of confusion has been created in the minds of people because of the debates that have taken place and the publicity-seeking antics of some members of the various committees. Suffice to say that the Howth scheme is a magnificent one. The money was well spent and at the commencement of the scheme nobody could have anticipated the problems that arose later.
With regard to office renting and leasing nobody could have anticipated with regard to the BIM move to Dún Laoghaire that problems would arise. There has been some harsh criticism of BIM and Government Ministers by some committee members in regard to the BIM offices in Dún Laoghaire. All Members must be aware that there was a collapse in the market for such property. When BIM experienced difficulty in getting staff to move to Dún Laoghaire a decision was made to lease some office accommodation, and I do not think anybody could have anticipated that there would be difficulty in leasing it. At the time it was felt that it would be wise to lease the premises in Dún Laoghaire. There were reasons why decisions were made which meant in the long run that expenditure was incurred that could have been avoided. That has happened before on numerous occasions. The report of the committee is useful in that it highlights a number of ways difficulties like this can be overcome in the future.
I have been a Member of the House for 11 years and I have heard many Members suggesting how procedures can be tightened up, but even with the best tightening up in the world there will always be a dilemma where decisions will have to be made on whether projects should proceed or should be stopped half way through. One has to measure whether one would be better to incur additional expenditure rather than leaving a project half finished and unusable. The officials of the OPW come up against such problems daily. Officials in other Departments must face them also. They are all left with a limited choice. Judgment must be based on whether in the long term it would be better to move forward and regulate the financial provisions at a later stage. For instance, if a decision was made at the time foundation difficulties were experienced at Howth harbour to stop the project for reassessment by the design engineers and consultants the harbour would not have been completed. We would have a bad problem out there instead of the magnificent development that has taken place. It is easy for Members to be critical because they do not have to make the choice when problems arise. I accept that there is a need to tighten up and improve, but that does not apply to the OPW only. Indeed, it applies to many Government Departments and private companies.
I welcome this report which has some very useful recommendations in it but I am totally dissatisfied with the way this Government have scrapped the decentralisation programme. I would like to see the Government setting up office in rural towns and regional areas. We need to build up the regions by attracting office type employment and the movement of Government offices into major towns like Ennis and Shannon can have a very significant impact on the service office development operations in those areas. This is why I think the decision to decentralise——
Decentralisation has to be related to the debate if it is to be in order.
It is very important in relation to the concentration of office accommodation and leasing problems. There is an over-emphasis on office accommodation in central areas in Dublin city and this is detrimental to the development of rural areas and is very expensive for Government Departments. It would be more attractive and more economic if the Government were to decentralise their Departments and to acquire office accommodation in rural areas. It may be argued that it would be just as expensive to do that now, but in my view that is not correct. It would be far less expensive to acquire office accommodation in the larger towns throughout the country. The scrapping of the decentralisation programme was a retrograde step.
This is a very useful report but there will always be room for improvement. Nobody should be foolish enough to think that they will be able to solve all the problems that will arise in this area because even with the best will in the world problems will occur and all anybody can hope to do is to minimise those problems. This report is useful in that regard.
At the outset let me say that I welcome this report. There is much of value in it and there are suggestions and recommendations in it which will be studied carefully by the Office of Public Works and which should also be considered by all Departments who at any time are involved in obtaining office accommodation. For some time past the Office of Public Works have been the butt of a great deal of criticism which was not merited because they were not guilty of doing anything wrong.
However, I confess to being very disappointed with several aspects of the report and with the manner in which it was presented. It was the Members of this House who established the Committee on Public Expenditure. It would be more appropriate that their report be first and foremost presented to and debated by this House before it was made the subject of a press conference. Furthermore, I can only regard as discourteous the fact that neither I nor the Commissioners of Public Works were allowed to see a copy of the consultants' report on which this report is based. It was said here today that it was the actual consultants' report, but I do not know if that is right because so far I have not seen that report. If nothing else we could have at least corrected some of the inaccuracies in it if we had read that report first and in so doing we might have stopped some of the nonsensical statements made by some members of the committee at press conferences and otherwise.
The indecent haste of the committee to rush to print with an unbalanced document which of its nature is controversial and then to hold an immediate press conference on it seems to me to be motivated by a desire to gain maximum personal publicity for some members of this committee. This point is further illustrated by the fact that at least one national daily newspaper reported the committee's critical interpretation of the report in the context of the Office of Public Works prior to the press conference being held and prior to the report being presented to this House. I am very critical of that. I think that is very bad practice.
Before I take up some specific points contained in the report, I would like to make some general remarks. The report concentrates exclusively on the economic aspects of the Office of Public Works' activities without giving any weight to the political pressures and constraints that constantly apply to an office which has to house all Government Departments, many of which were expanding as a result of policy decisions which could not be predicted in advance. In this situation you go out and get office accommodation wherever it is acceptable and as soon as you can. You are not free to pick and choose your location. You need the accommodation now and in these circumstances your ability to negotiate the best possible terms is also constrained. I would at least have thought that some members of the committee — those who were office holders — would be aware of this and would have seen that this was explicitly referred to in the report.
Throughout the report the committee endeavour to identify those areas in which delays were caused and to pinpoint who is responsible for these delays. I am prepared to agree that some of the points made are justified and the report highlights areas in which improvements can be made. However, are the committee being entirely honest with the Dáil or indeed themselves in this matter? One would gain the impression that all the building projects referred to were carried out in a vacuum without any political dimension.
To be more specific, did the committee consider whether political decisions helped to create the situation in the years in question which is now being criticised by us politicians? Did we as politicians do anything to help to alleviate the problem? I think that all these questions are relevant ones for consideration by the committee if they are to make a serious contribution. On the evidence provided in the report the committee seem to have ignored the questions and taken the soft option of criticising the Office of Public Works and other Government Departments. In doing so, I think they have failed to address the problem in its entirety.
Let me expand a little on this last point. During the press conference Deputy O'Kennedy spoke of the necessity not to undermine the public service. If the Deputy genuinely felt that way, he has a funny way of showing it. Perhaps he might have made the point and, more importantly, acted upon it, before cooperating in this headlong rush to print. For my own part, let me outline briefly my own views on the subject and their relevance to this report. I see the role of the politician and the public servant as being complementary. In essence both are there to serve the people and to tackle their problems together. Let me add that I do not object to criticism of the Office of Public Works or the public service generally. I am all for examination and constructive criticism. However, one-sided and misleading examination, as in the case of this report, which concentrates on one aspect of a two sided coin, is of little use and in the end counterproductive.
I do not propose to deal with all the points that in my view call for comment but I will refer to some of them. Mention is made of the length of time it takes to process tenders by the Office of Public Works. I think all Deputies, and particularly those who have been office holders, should be well aware of the constraints in relation to public tendering under which the Office of Public Works must operate. Nevertheless, this is an area which the Office of Public Works had been concerned about and sometime ago they initiated their own examination of their system — in fairness, I must say entirely independently of the report — with a view to speeding up the process. I have had some discussions with the board and the chairman on this subject many months ago and I am confident that this will result in significant improvements in this area.
The report illustrates the dependence of the Office of Public Works on the cooperation of other Government Departments during the course of works which are intended in the end to facilitate them. It is undeniable that there have been delays in the provision of briefs to the Office of Public Works by other Departments despite the efforts made to reduce this factor. The Office of Public Works are conscious of this fact and will be exerting strong pressure in the future on all Departments to supply such information in the minimum time possible. However, did the committee examine the question of why these delays arose? Have they considered the fact that it might have been as a consequence of insufficient staff in these Departments to handle the problem? I put the question to illustrate the necessity to look behind each of the factors raised by the committee to find the reasons for its existence.
In paragraphs 39 and 40 of the report it is stated that information was sought from the Office of Public Works about a number of fitting out projects. That information, including a specification in each case, was supplied. It is stated in the report that the OPW provided good value for money on these contracts. That does not refer to some of them but to all of them. If controls were in fact so scarce how did the commissioners manage to get such good value for money? Of course there were controls but not of the kind that the consultant or the committee have in mind.
In paragraph 41 it is stated that the OPW do not appear to operate a routine comparison system in the area of inflation costs and they were asked to do a spot check. The report went on to say that "the committee note that on two office projects which were checked the actual price variation amount paid (i.e. inflation cost) was significantly less than that based on the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors' Index". Could that have been possible without controls? I do not think so.
Press reports based on the report implying that there are no regular and routine management controls operated by the Department of Finance on projects are simply inaccurate. Such controls have existed for many years. Procedures have been agreed between the Office of Public Works and the Department of Finance in connection with sanctioning work on projects. The state of play on progress of projects and occupation of newly leased office premises is the subject of regular reports in both the Office of Public Works and the Department of Finance. In agreement with the Office of Public Works, the Department of Finance have instructed Departments quite clearly on their role in ensuring that buildings leased for them are occupied as quickly as possible. In part these procedures and controls are academic at present as budgetary constraints preclude the Office of Public Works from entering into rent commitments except in exceptional circumstances.
I now wish to refer to a very serious matter. In paragraph 5 of the report it is stated that it is estimated that savings of the order of £2 million would have been effected if procedures set out in this report had been adopted in the case of the 26 cases referred to in chart 2. The consultant has since admitted that that figure is purely notional. But what happened? The figure was taken as gospel, which the consultant never intended, and has been used to conjure up a mythical saving of £30 million over a much wider range of projects of a completely different nature. That sort of nonsense is no help to anyone and constitutes gross irresponsibility. I do not blame the newspapers for seizing on the figure but I do blame self seeking politicians who bandy about unfounded statistics for headline seeking purposes.
The Office of Public Works are criticised in this report for entering into leasing agreements too early and four of the instances referred to relate to the leasing of buildings in Harcourt Square for the Garda. What happened there was that the Office of Public Works were instructed by the then Minister for Justice in June 1981 to lease this accommodation as a matter of urgency for a new Garda Headquarters. In fact this had been agreed by the Government. This was the first the Office of Public Works had heard of this proposal and they had, quite literally, to commence the necessary preparations from scratch. In these circumstances they had no option but to take the building at that time. Whether they felt that it was too early to enter into a lease did not enter into consideration. I am not making this point in a political context in spite of the fact that it was a fortnight before a change of Government after a general election. I make it to illustrate that the Office of Public Works are not the master of every situation. Of necessity they must comply with Government directions. The Committee on Public Expenditure seem to have conveniently ignored this fact although some at least of the members should be well aware of these realities.
In paragraph 45 and following paragraphs there is extensive mention of feasibility studies and documents. It should be remembered that for the most part the Office of Public Works are acting on behalf of other Government Departments who require accommodation of one kind or another for staff engaged in tasks not directly relevant to the Office of Public Works functions. It is no part of the responsibility of the Office of Public Works to decide on or question the need for a Garda station, an employment exchange or a customs post, neither is it within the competence or area of responsibility of that office to question a Government decision which requires the provision of a certain type of accommodation for the staff charged with implementing that decision. The feasibility studies must be done elsewhere and the Office of Public Works must provide what is needed. Very often too there is no need to consider whether to build or rent. It is not often that a laboratory and AI station or a prison are available to rent.
The last point I will mention on the projects part of the report relates to staff. It is quite clear from paragraphs 42 and 43 of the report that the staff numbers available to the Office of Public Works for the construction and fitting out projects which they are required to deal with are totally inadequate. This has been the case down through the years. The committee seem to have glossed over this fact. No mention is made of why this situation arose or also of the fact that during the years under examination the Office of Public Works had to deal with an unprecedented demand for office accommodation.
The committee have also considered rental levels, lease terms and rent reviews. They say that because of the complex nature of the issues involved and the impossibility of assessing or recreating elements such as market pressure there is a significant elements of judgment in their comments. I prefer to stick to facts. One definite fact which the report mentioned is that in both 1981 and 1982 the weighted average of rental paid by the Office of Public Works was marginally below the weighted average of the known market rents. When one considers that the Office of Public Works were acting on behalf of clients urgently needing accommodation and very often not only in particular areas but in specific locations, I consider this hard evidence that they were performing at the very least a competent job.
On rent reviews I note that the committee find the Office of Public Works approach professional but defensive. The latter view seems to derive from the committee's feeling that the Office of Public Works should have pushed the review situation to the limit and even gone to arbitration if necessary. The Office of Public Works consider that operating as they were under rent review clauses which inter alia invariably assume that a building is vacant and available for letting at current rental values, the reviews in 1983 were negotiated to fair and reasonable settlements. Passing control of a case to an independent third party at arbitration can be a double edged sword, but let there be no doubt about it: the Office of Public Works will go to arbitration in any case where a satisfactory settlement cannot be reached.
The committee favours selective use of valuation surveyors and property consultants on negotiating rent reviews, new leases and research. This will be borne in mind, though there are disadvantages. The suggestion to increase the staff when possible by recruiting a suitable qualified person is very welcome.
As the committee recognises, it is the Office of Public Works policy to build rather than to lease. A building programme has been in operation since 1976 and has been updated within the past year to take in the period up to 1988. This updating covers development on State-owned sites and disposal of some leased premises and State-owned properties. In the present financial stringency the question of purchase of buildings will hardly arise for some time.
The market situation is kept under constant review and the strengthening of the valuation staff as recommended would be of great assistance in this regard. Also of assistance will be the committee's declaration that Departments for whom the Office of Public Works act must accept that to negotiate effectively the Office of Public Works must be able to walk away if necessary even from a particularly desired building.
The recommendation that any public sector bodies contemplating the leasing of office accommodation or site acquisition be first required to check that the Office of Public Works are not in the market for the same property has been anticipated by a Department of Finance letter to Departments of 15 September 1978 conveying this instruction. I wish to assure the House that the worthwhile recommendations of the report — and there are some — will be put into effect where it is practicable to do so.
I will deal with a few points raised by Deputies. I can assure Deputy Bruton that fees paid by the Office of Public Works are paid in accordance with the scale of minimum fees set out by the professional organisations. This applies to the private sector also. The kind of pressures on the Office of Public Works with regard to rented accommodation have been mentioned. Three examples of cases dealing with rented accommodation were mentioned in the report but there were two recent cases that were not dealt with in the report. One instance concerned a labour exchange. Negotiations were almost complete and the price was good but suddenly the staff threatened to strike because of bad accommodation. The result was that the owner of the premises immediately increased the price. In another case the Department of Social Welfare wanted accommodation for people who were providing a new service. As Deputy Treacy told the House, they wanted the accommodation near the location of their computer but that left only one building available for the Office of Public Works. They were not in a position to go elsewhere even though other accommodation was available at a cheaper price. That is the kind of situation the Office of Public Works are up against.
Deputy Allen said there is evidence to show that the Office of Public Works have paid more in rent than another State body in respect of a recently leased building in Dublin. I do not know what building the Deputy is talking about but I take exception to that kind of remark. The Deputy has the duty to give the details to me or to the Commissioner of Public Works and we will have the matter checked. I do not know if the Deputy is right or wrong but by giving us the details we can carry out the necessary investigations.
I wish to assure Deputy O'Kennedy that the Office of Public Works intend to act on this report. We are not backing away from anything because we have nothing to hide. As Minister I would not tolerate the hiding of any facts. I find the staff in the office most dedicated people and I know they will adopt any useful suggestions that are made. It is not true that landlords like to have the State as tenant because it is thought the State pays the highest rent. The report admits that in some cases it is lower than the normal rent.
The question of complaints was referred to also. Some 26 projects were examined, the total number of fitted-out projects in the office at that time. The projects mentioned in the press conference are entirely different because they are building projects and there could be no comparison made with respect to those projects. The committee spoke about a sum of £2 million but that is a notional figure. I repeat that the projects referred to are totally different projects. I have not a transcript of what took place at the press conference but a report appeared in the press. I am very glad to have this opportunity to scotch some of the nonsensical things that have been said about the Office of Public Works. They operate under certain restrictions with regard to placing tenders. We are not satisfied with the delay between the time we advertise and when we are able to place a tender. The office operate under restrictions that are not imposed on the private sector and everyone knows that. We are dealing with public money and that is why we have these restrictions to ensure that the best value is got.
I was glad to have had an opportunity to speak about this report because it gave me an opportunity to set out the case for the Office of Public Works and the officials. As the person in charge of that office I am a little tired of hearing time and again that we are throwing money around. I know there is the most strict control by our own financial section and the Department of Finance with regard to the spending of money on any project. It is nonsense to say there is no control. Everyone knows that in the period considered by the committee there was a rapid increase in inflation and costs went higher then estimated. We are prepared to admit that but we can give the reasons. I am disappointed that we were not given the chance to reply to the criticisms made. We did not see a copy of the consultant's report and I regret that. The committee concerned should not have made a mad rush to the press first. It must not be forgotten that it is the Members of this House who appoint the committee members. Their first duty should be to report to the House and have the report debated. Then let them have all the press conferences they wish and put their points of view, if necessary.
It is important that we get this message across to the public. In regard to the public service in general there has been a new kind of bashing game. There has been a rift driven between the public service and the public and the politicians. I hope this will be taken into account when other committees are compiling their reports. I wish to say we are prepared to take on board the good parts of this report and if this committee have other things to say to us we will consult with them and listen to them. I should point our that the OPW issue annual reports on the work carried out by them but in order to deal with the criticisms in this report the OPW would need to produce 50 reports annually with too much public money being wasted.
I did not hear all the speech of the Minister of State but I heard his remarks about the OPW and the entire public service becoming whipping boys of the public and the other Departments. Some of the blame should be laid fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Government.
I agree with many of the suggestions in the report, but in fairness to the OPW, with whom I had close contact as Minister of State at the Department of the Public Service when the decentralisation programme was in full swing. I wish to record my appreciation of the dedication and the speedy performances of the OPW. The Minister of State was right when he said that very often they are the whipping boys of every other Department, and without reason.
For instance, we have had experiences in relation to schools. Complete sets of drawings would have to be changed because, according to the Department of Education, the toilets were too big or certain corridors were too narrow. All that should have been checked by the Department of Education with the OPW before contract documents were prepared. If I have any complaint to make against the OPW it is that some direct labour contracts are allowed to drag on. We had the extraordinary delay in relation to the Members' and Visitors' Bars in Leinster House. The work went on for three years whereas a pub in the city which had been burned was back in operation in three months. I suppose in relation to the work here the dribs and drabs manner by which they were paid the money was responsible.
The report refers to Howth harbour. I do not know about Howth but like every other maritime Deputy I know about harbours in the country. I know about the tremendous pressures put on OPW to extend and enlarge projects because at times the OPW do not take into account the views of fishermen and their needs because of weather conditions.
The report refers to the amount of money spent on drawings without buildings being erected. There is no use blaming the OPW for that because it is due to a Government decision taken unwisely. There is still much need for office accommodation and a need to help the economy of many small towns, like my native town. However, the Government decided to stop the decentralisation programme. In that regard I wish to repeat my appreciation of the speed with which the OPW did the work and the standard of their design. It is of significance that when the team from the OPW were engaged on decentralisation projects, some of the best private architects in the country were engaged in larger programmes and the standard of design of the OPW was equal to if not better than the others.
I thank all the Members who participated. The honesty of expression on all sides indicates that the committee have induced a worthwhile dialogue. I wish to make a couple of points on what the Minister said. In a very defensive speech he conveyed the impression that the report was sprung on the OPW. On the morning of 19 November, approximately a week after the report was forwarded to the OPW, I met senior officials of the OPW and after a series of questions and answers and a discussion lasting one and a half hours both of the senior OPW representatives said they considered the report to be fair.
Therefore, I deny that anybody on the committee acted in any way irresponsibly — I submit that the Minister should reconsider the use of that phrase. I regret that he did not extend to the committee the normal courtesy of thanking the members for the work they put into the report. There were numerous meetings, public and private, with the officials. Merely because the report does not suit the officials does not mean it is irresponsible. We endeavoured to have a dialogue and above all to be fair and just. Much of the content of the report praises the OPW.
The Minister referred to a one-sided coin. Yet he drew solace from the fact that the report praised the Office of Public Works in some respects. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot be selective about the report. He made a point about the press conference and that is fair from the vantage point he occupies. Our difficulty is very simple. The report is laid before the Dáil on a certain day. That means it is placed in the Library and becomes publicly available. Past experience has shown that that inevitably gives rise to individual queries to individual members of the committee, which may or may not be answered on behalf of the committee, or perhaps answered in a selective or uninformed way quite without deliberation.
It was the view of the committee that it was better to lay the report before the Dáil and answer collectively any queries which arose. By and large that is a reasonable procedure. We do not decide when the debate comes up here. The Minister made the point about one daily national newspaper dealing with the report the morning before it was laid before the Dáil. I can now tell him — because obviously he is not aware — that The Irish Press reporter in question was able to discuss the broad outline of our report, with quite a degree of satisfactory response, I understand, with somebody in the Minister's Department who answered his queries. That was the basis of the report in The Irish Press. I was at pains to find out how it came to be there, and I spoke to the reporter involved. The Minister will be able to check that out independently for himself.
The Minister also said that we did not give adequate weight to the political pressures and constraints which constantly apply to an office which has to house all Government Departments. I suggest to him that these should be stated clearly. That kind of oblique language is of no satisfaction to the taxpayer. We are not interested, in the context of this debate, with nebulous constraints. If the deficiency in terms of systems control is such that a phone call from a Minister, or a change of direction by somebody, can upturn a major project, that should be clearly stated. It should not be tolerated. That is not the way to plan major projects. The Minister agrees that there are recommendations in the report upon which he believes improvements can be made. I welcome that. I am very pleased that he has seen it.
He asked us did we as politicians do anything to help to alleviate the problem of political decisions helping to create a situation. This report is addressed to the politicians and it is up to the politicians to respond and, in particular, the Minister involved who extraordinarily put forward the problem of a shortage of staff. It is hardly my place to point out that the committee have no control over that he would have an influence there. I have no doubt that he has a major concern in trying to ensure that improvements are made where that is a problem. I do not accept for one moment that it is the problem. A shortage of staff is too easily and too readily advanced whenever there is a problem in the State sector. We are talking about getting value for money and getting better quality for the money we are spending. The basic problem is a lack of system.
The Minister said that on the evidence provided in the report the committee seem to have ignored the questions and taken the soft option of criticising the Office of Public Works and other Government Departments. We did not criticise. We put forward constructive solutions to the problems as we perceived them. We did that with respect, and not from any vantage point of absolute wisdom. Of course we are fallible. On the other hand, our record of fallibility could hardly be compared with the long history of a public perception of inadequacy in the area of the Office of Public Works which gave rise to this report in the first place.
The Minister went on to discuss the constraints he has in relation to public tendering. I know those constraints are there, but essentially they are excuses. If there are specific problems which hamper his Department, the Government should act and, by the way, not just this Government. This has been the system for years and years. We reiterate the fundamental concern. The public believe they are not getting value for money to the degree they should in this area.
I want to draw the Minister's attention to this. Not once did he refer to the fact that there are in the order of two dozen separate recommendations in this report, all of them of a constructive nature. In paragraph 35 we said that we were informed by the Department of Finance that there is no routine procedure for comparing the actual outturn of individual projects with the initial feasibility study. We were informed by the Office of Public Works that, in their case also, there is no routine procedure for comparing the actual outturn of specific projects with the original feasibility data. In layman's language that means nobody can be sure they are getting value for money, neither this House nor the Minister.
I want to assure the Minister of the goodwill of the committee in trying to help him to achieve the objectives he has set, and about which he is obviously concerned. I am very grateful to him for taking what I would call a very energetic and vehement approach to the debate this morning. I have no doubt that good will come from it. I look forward to a continuing dialogue with his officials, from whom we received nothing but the height of courtesy and respect and for whom we have a collective admiration. That is not to say that jointly and working together we cannot make improvements — and that is the main concern — constructive, deliberate improvements. Nothing should impede the way forward in that respect. I thank the House for the debate.
Question put and agreed to.