Vol. 518 No. 4
5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the reason for the changes in his Department's 1999 expenditure and 2000 Estimates as detailed in the 2000 Revised Estimates for Public Services; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8774/00]
The Revised Estimates for Public Services, which were published on 22 March, set out the provisional outturn for 1999 expenditure and the estimate for 2000 expenditure for my Department. The provisional outturn of £19.8 million for 1999 shows that my Department was well within its overall budget for the year, with savings on a number of subheads. In the cases of millennium celebrations and the Moriarty tribunal, some expenditure was deferred to this year.
With regard to the millennium, expenditure in 1999 was lower than was originally anticipated, mainly because there is a significant capital element involved. There is a longer lead time on capital projects and the millennium office ensures that grants are not made until satisfactory progress has been made on such projects. With regard to the Moriarty tribunal, the ongoing work of the tribunal has meant that the bulk of the legal costs, which will arise following completion of that work, have not yet arisen.
The Revised Estimate for 2000 for my Department is £85.294 million. This is an increase of £48.908 million on the Abridged Estimate, which was published last November. The increase arises for the following reasons. The administrative budget has increased to reflect the carry-forward of savings which my Department made in 1999. Subheads which include a pay component have been adjusted to take account of the increases agreed in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. The allocation for grants under the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Act, 1988, has been increased by £150,000, the additional allocation represents expenditure deferred from 1999. The allocation for commemoration initiatives has increased by £70,000 to reflect an additional allocation made by the Minister for Finance in the context of the budget. The allocation for the millennium celebrations has been increased to £23.2 million – this represents the balance of the £30 million allocation made by the Government to cover the years 1999 to 2000. A sum of £300,000 has been allocated to a new subhead which will cover the administration and other costs of the independent commission of inquiry being undertaken by former Chief Justice Hamilton into the bombings in Dublin, Monaghan and Dundalk. A sum of £31 million has been allocated for multi-media developments, including the development of a new research and development institution, MediaLab Europe, and a multi-media village in Dublin and £10 million has been allocated for the initial development costs of Sports Campus Ireland.
How will the £10 million going to Sports Campus Ireland before 31 December be spent?
There will be set-up costs and development on the site in connection with relocation. There is no breakdown of that for which the money will be required. The £10 million is to allow work to get under way.
Is that a contingency estimate?
It is a contingency figure.
Is it intended that all or some of the people who are currently occupying the site will be off the site by 31 December? If not, what will the £10 million be spent on?
The Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and the Office of Public Works are involved in relocating people who are on the site. I am not familiar with their time schedules.
Will the Taoiseach accept that this £10 million is in the Estimates for his Department and that he and not the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development or the Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works is responsible for its expenditure? On what will it be spent?
The £10 million is provided to allow work to commence and to make provision for expenditure which could perhaps happen during the next eight months or so. It could be used for relocation costs or it could involve allocations to the Office of Public Works to allow its work with the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources to be undertaken. The feasibility study was paid for from last year's Estimate but there will be expenditure this year. There will also be staff costs.
I am surprised the Taoiseach is not answering my question. Money being spent by the Office of Public Works would not appear in the Estimate for the Department of the Taoiseach. I am asking about the £10 million in the Taoiseach's Estimate. As the responsible Minister who will propose this Estimate to the Dáil, does the Taoiseach not know what the £10 million will be spent on?
I have said that it is for initial development costs.
What costs?
Costs such as preparatory work on the site.
What preparatory work?
A great deal of preparatory work is being done on the site.
What work?
I am not a surveyor or an architect.
The Taoiseach is the man responsible for the money.
I am responsible for the money but existing staff is to be relocated and contingency funds must be provided. There will be staff costs and if various fees are required they will have to be paid.
That will not be included in the Vote of the Taoiseach's Department.
Some of it may be.
It will not be included. None of the staff is in the Taoiseach's Department. The Taoiseach cannot answer the question. He is not adequately prepared.
By coincidence, the Taoiseach, Deputy Bruton and I are all former Ministers for Finance. Does the Taoiseach agree that there is a well established practice that contingency funds amount to no more than £1,000 in a budget. This is a device to signal in advance that an unquantified amount of money will be expended but until the precise figure is available no figure greater than the nominal one of £1,000 is written into the Estimate. These are the Estimates for the Department of the Taoiseach and not for the Office of Public of Works or the Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation. People in the Taoiseach's Department would have had to present an argument for the figure of £10 million if it were not a contingency sum. The Taoiseach has confirmed that this is a contingency sum. Will the Taoiseach answer the question if he can or come back to the House if he cannot? Of what does the figure of £10 million consist? It would not have gone through the Department of Finance unless the Taoiseach's Department had substantiated it.
It is substantiated because it is initial development work on the planning and construction stages of the projects. What precise contracts will come in under that I do not know.
£10 million?
It is funny money.
It is not funny money.
It is small change.
Under the Taoiseach's own accountancy practices it is funny money.
How is it funny money? It cannot be drawn down until there are contracts.
Why is £10 million in? The Taoiseach cannot answer the question. He does not know. A contingency sum should be £1,000.
This project will not progress without money.
He has not a clue.
To develop a few hundred acres of land gives rise to development costs. The design of the building will have to be completed. Engineers and architects will have to be paid. I do not have the breakdown of all those bills. It is not a question of contingency. The money is to pay for costs which will arise in development and preparation. The Deputies saw the fees which had to be paid last year.
The Taoiseach is out of his depth.
There are clubs which do not even have running water for the want of £5,000 or £10,000. Can the Taoiseach explain how he can put aside £10 million—
Precisely.
—when a planning application has not been lodged, an environmental impact study has not been done and there has not been consultation with residents' groups in the area?
Deputy Allen knows that environmental impact studies, planning applications and designs have to be paid for. That is what this money will be available for.
£10 million?
(Dublin West): Will the £10 million involve expenditure on Departments currently located on the Abbotstown site? The PricewaterhouseCoopers report suggested that the remain ing 185 acres would fetch £85 million. Is it the intention of the Government to sell that land speculatively for housing and industrial use? The land is zoned for agricultural use and is part of a crucial green belt.
That would be the subject of a separate parliamentary question.
(Dublin West): Is it the Government's intention to try to sell off that land and to set the money gained by that land speculation against State funds that will have been spent, including the £10 million from his Department.
I know of no such proposal.
The Taoiseach mentioned earlier that the £10 million was for development work on the site. He now says it is to prepare for the planning process.
All of those things.
Is it true that the cost, originally estimated at £281 million will be nearer to £500 million? Will the Taoiseach impose some control on this cost and do some evaluation of the effectiveness of this spending?
A full cost assessment was done on this project and published last year.
The other large item in the Taoiseach's Department's Estimate is the £31 million for development of a new research and development institute, Media Lab Europe. This is an industrial development project which one would expect to have been provided for in the Estimate of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Why is this included in the Estimate for the Taoiseach's Department?
At this stage the project is included in the Estimate of the Taoiseach's Department. It may move to another Department in due course. Co-ordination across all the Departments involved was undertaken under the chairmanship of the Department of the Taoiseach. The Departments of Education and Science, Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Finance, Public Enterprise and Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands and IDA, Enterprise Ireland, and the Higher Education Authority were involved in the project. Because so many Departments and agencies were involved, the allocation was put into the Department of the Taoiseach Estimate until the process is bedded down.
What will be the total taxpayers' commitment to the project?
I do not have the figure for the total project cost. The full document is being pre pared by the agencies involved. I have seen the figure but I will not try to guess it now.
Why was it not possible to provide this money in the Estimate of another Department?
Because they could not agree.
Has the Taoiseach evaluated the viability and validity of this project and of the contribution it will make to the Irish economy? I understand that this will be partly an educational institution. Will the degrees which will be conferred by this institution in Ireland be recognised by the Massachusetts—
That is a separate question. We are dealing with the Estimates.
There is no other person we can ask.
Ceist 6.
It is also Ceist 5 – £31 milliún.
The Deputy asked if degrees will be recognised. That is clearly a separate matter.
As the person providing the £31 million in the Estimates, has the Taoiseach obtained an assurance from Mr. Negro Ponte that the degrees which will be conferred here will be recognised by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology?
I have ruled that that is a separate question which should be pursued separately.
It is not.
What are the conditions?
I respectfully submit that the money is being provided in the Estimates for the Department of the Taoiseach, that the Taoiseach is the only person who may be asked about the value that will be obtained for that money, that this is the place to ask him and that part of the argued value that will be obtained for that money is the validity and value of degrees which will be conferred. I respectfully suggest that the Taoiseach is the only person who can be asked this question which relates to the additional provision in the Estimates. I respectfully suggest that I should be allowed to ask it as it is directly relevant.
I have ruled on the matter.
Mr. J. Bruton: On a point of order, I ask you to re-examine your ruling because this is germane to whether value for money will be obtained for the additional £31 million in the Estimates for the Department of the Taoiseach.
The Chair has ruled on the matter.
I know that the Chair has ruled on the matter but the Chair is a rational being the same as everyone else and will listen to a rational argument, even from me.
The Deputy should not challenge the rulings of the Chair.
I am not, I am merely making an argument to the Chair which I hope the Chair will take into account rather than recite that he has already made a ruling.
The Chair has allowed the Deputy much latitude on these questions. The Chair reserves the right to limit the number of supplementary questions—
That is different from ruling me out of order.
The Chair has allowed unlimited supplementary questions, once they are in order.
I am quite happy—
The Chair does not have to allow unlimited supplementary questions.
I do not want an argument with you, a Cheann Comhairle. I merely wish to pursue the question of the value for money that will be obtained for the £31 million. I am not convinced that it is value for money. Including it in the Estimates for the Department of the Taoiseach is a way of getting around the normal controls which exist in Government. Remember the Goodman package announced by the then Taoiseach sweeping through all Government procedures—
The Deputy is now making a statement. This is Question Time.
I want to know if we are in a similar situation here where the Taoiseach has got this big bright idea and is sweeping everything aside saying, "Boys and girls, if you can't agree I'll put it in my Estimate because this is going to happen anyway because, like the national stadium, this is my big project." Charlie Haughey's big beef project was one that he wanted to announce, sweeping everybody else aside.
Not to mention Carysfort.
I am not saying that is the case but I want to question it.
It is not even my project.
At least I am finding out something here, I am getting an answer of a kind.
If the Deputy read the newspapers he would know who is driving the project.
It would be more appropriate to raise the matter on Question No. 6.
We will pursue it on Question No. 6 next week.
I can call Question No. 6 now.
That is no use because we will be cut off in about one minute. We would only have one minute to deal with Question No. 6.
That is not the fault of the Chair.
I wish to ask another supplementary question on Question No. 5. What is the reason for the increase of £150,000 in grants under the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Act? What happened to necessitate the increase?
The 2000 allocation is £600,000. The 59 projects to be assisted were decided in May last year. The provision in the 2000 Estimates relates to the ongoing process of dispersal of the total of £1.2 million to the projects concerned, some of which were not in a position to draw down all their funding last year. The 2000 allocation, therefore, includes some deferred expenditure.
I understand there is £300,000 in the increased Estimates for the independent inquiry being conducted into the bombings in Dublin, Monaghan and Dundalk. Is it the Taoiseach's view that this sum will be sufficient in view of the active workload being pursued in the inquiry?
This was a provisional sum to cover the administrative costs of the independent commission of inquiry. It is hard to predict how long it will take the former High Court judge to complete his work but the hope is that the money provided will be more than adequate to complete the inquiry. I do not have a date. It is too early to say when he will complete his inquiries.
