Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE debate -
Wednesday, 5 Apr 2006

Estimates for the Public Services 2006 (Revised).

Vote 10 — Office of Public Works.

I am pleased to introduce the 2006 Revised Estimate for the Office of Public Works. The gross allocation for the OPW Vote will see a 19% increase on last year's allocation, amounting to an unprecedented allocation of €581 million for the office. This level of funding reflects once more the Government's firm support for the OPW and the implementation of the decentralisation programme. I welcome this commitment.

Perhaps I can deal first with decentralisation. This is a major undertaking for the country involving the relocation of 10,000 civil and public servants in 60 Departments and offices to as many as 53 different locations in 23 counties. It is without doubt one of the biggest infrastructural projects ever undertaken by the State.

From the OPW's viewpoint, there are two main physical aspects to the programme, namely, the identification and procurement of suitable sites and buildings, and the provision and fitting out of buildings. There is also the equally important task to be undertaken at the same time of managing the OPW's own decentralisation to Trim, Claremorris and Kanturk.

There are four principal means of providing permanent accommodation for the programme. The first, which will be used in the majority of cases, is where the accommodation facilities will be provided by the construction of new office buildings. The second procurement method involves a public private partnership approach, as recommended by the decentralisation implementation group. This will be utilised for the provision of office space at Carlow, Portlaoise, Drogheda and Mullingar. The third solution will involve leasing and fit-out of existing buildings, and the fourth method is the purchase and fit-out of existing buildings.

Cost estimation must take account of the different methods being used. Emerging costs based on actual locations are within the range of estimates provided previously by myself and the OPW. Building costs are estimated against 2004 prices for the provision of standard office facilities on greenfield sites.

The programme of site and building identification and acquisition is progressing satisfactorily. To date, property acquisition negotiations have been completed or significantly advanced in 23 locations and 2006 will see the programme move into top gear, with a regular flow of site acquisitions in the coming months. This represents significant progress given the complicated process involved. By the end of this year, it is expected that permanent buildings will be available for occupation in four locations. These buildings, together with temporary space which is being sourced in a number of locations for advance decentralisation groups, will provide accommodation for 1,000 civil servants by the end of 2006.

It is estimated that approximately 210,000 sq. m. of office space will be required to accommodate the total numbers included in the programme. The cost of providing accommodation in provincial compared with central Dublin locations should yield considerable cost savings to the State over time in terms of site costs, capital build costs and maintenance costs.

The overall site and building acquisition cost for the entire decentralisation programme is expected to be in the region of €75 million to €100 million. An allocation of €75 million has been provided in the purchase of sites and buildings subhead D this year. The allocation within the new works subhead E for building construction and fit-out costs is €30 million in 2006. It is not expected that there will be any payments this year for the PPP sourced buildings. The allocation of €105 million, and a carried forward saving of €9.8 million from 2005, gives an OPW 2006 decentralisation budget of €114.8 million. As this is a multiannual programme, with work progress in the short term dependent on various factors, expenditure in any given year may vary from the allocation, while remaining within the overall Estimate.

In this Department, the tenders for the provision of accommodation for Trim have been received and are currently being evaluated. It is one of my principal objectives as Minister of State at the Department of Finance with responsibility for the Office of Public Works to transform underutilised State property and turn it into realisable assets. The examination of the State property portfolio by the Commissioners of Public Works with a view to identifying vacant, underutilised, underdeveloped or surplus property is continuing. The rationalisation and consolidation of office accommodation in Dublin will run in tandem with the decentralisation rollout. The sale of surplus property has contributed some €315 million to the Exchequer since the outset of the programme.

As part of this process, sites at Infirmary Road, Inchicore, Harcourt Terrace and Broc House, Donnybrook, have been identified as surplus to Government requirements and have or will be transferred for use under the Sustaining Progress affordable housing initiative.

In addition to the decentralisation programme, there is a capital allocation of €147 million on Vote 10 for major new building works. This year will see the completion of state-of-the-art laboratories for the Department of Agriculture and Food and the State Laboratory at Backweston, and the relocation of the Marine Institute to Galway. Ongoing improvement and refurbishment works will continue on behalf of cultural institutions. The provision in the Revised Estimates will allow for the continuation of the Garda building programme and the regeneration of existing office accommodation for public servants not due to decentralise.

The Office of Public Works will continue to implement the most up-to-date measures required under the recent Health and Safety at Work Act for all Government office accommodation. The Government and OPW are committed to the principle that all building environments should be accessible to everyone. An allocation of €5 million has been ring-fenced specifically for the universal access programme in the new works subhead. However, this does not represent the full extent of OPW expenditure on disabled access, as all our major new construction projects, including those in the decentralisation programme, are accessible to all. All new buildings and major renovations will also incorporate the latest environmentally friendly and sustainable features, in terms of both design and ongoing maintenance costs.

The Office of Public Works currently manages over 1 million sq. m. of Government accommodation consisting of almost 2,000 buildings, of which some 41% are leased. Rented accommodation affords the office the necessary flexibility to respond to urgent requirements for Departments and is provided for under subhead F3, rents and rates. The allocation provided in the Revised Estimates for rents and rates represents a 10% increase in the annual provision. This will, for example, allow for the signing of leases for much-needed driver testing centres and social welfare offices throughout the country. This will allow for the consideration of options for this landmark property.

The management of national monuments and historic properties, including the provision of visitor services for the public, has been successfully merged into the day-to-day operations of the office over the past number of years. I am convinced that this has led to a more coherent approach to the protection and maintenance of our heritage of national monuments and historic properties.

National monuments and historic properties has responsibility for some 760 sites and 700 permanent staff. The heritage services will account for €41.4 million of the OPW Vote in 2006, a significant proportion of the overall Revised Estimate.

The allocation provided will allow the office to make considerable progress on the implementation of the flood relief programme. Works on the Kilkenny scheme are completed and the ongoing flood alleviation measures on the Tolka are proving to be very successful. In 2006, the emphasis will move to other major flood relief projects such as the Mallow and Clonmel schemes. Additional funds have been made available on the engineering group of subheads to facilitate the studies required for the implementation of the policy on flood risk management. Effective implementation of the proposed approach requires the development of adequate information databases, understanding and expertise in the areas of river engineering and hydrology that can only be secured with the most up-to-date gauging equipment.

The care of the State property portfolio and the sourcing of accommodation requirements for the decentralisation programme are being properly and prudently managed. I compliment the staff of the OPW for meeting the many challenges presented and am confident they will continue to provide an efficient and effective service across the wide variety of functions. I will be glad to respond to any questions members may wish to raise.

The central issue raised by the Minister of State, and that which causes greatest concern, is progress on decentralisation. His report indicates that by the end of this year, when the programme should have been completed, four buildings will have been constructed and 1,000 people will have moved. In other words, 10% of the proposed move will have been achieved. The Minister of State's account of his stewardship of this process would lead one to believe that he was closer to 90% achieved, with 10% to be completed.

While the Government's ambitions have been disappointed, the responsibility does not lie at the Minister of State's door. No proper business case for, or assessment of, the programme was made. The Minister of State informed us previously that criteria were applied but he has not volunteered or produced documents to show the business case assessment carried out. There is a particularly serious problem in respect of the State agencies proposed to move. Not one person in Bord Iascaigh Mhara or Fáilte Ireland wants to move and only one out of 90 in the National Roads Authority, two out of 100 in the Public Appointments Service, five out of 100 in the Valuation Office, nine out of 110 in the Health and Safety Authority, 15 out 210 in the Ordnance Survey, and 19 out of 300 in Enterprise Ireland are willing to move with their jobs.

There must be a serious threat of a meltdown in key specialist skills if these moves proceed. The first to be affected will be FÁS, moving to the Minister's constituency. It was told to implement this brief and sought to do so in the only way it could, namely, by restricting promotions to people who were willing to move. The unions rightly saw this as a breach of established agreements and went to the Labour Court, which agreed with them. The court found that FÁS was in breach of the consultative procedures provided for in the company-union industrial relations. Noting the Government policy of voluntary decentralisation, it recommended that the matter be referred back to the appropriate central body for further discussions, to tease out the issue with a view to arriving at agreed long-term solutions in consultation with all parties involved.

I met representatives of the unions concerned, as I am sure have most Deputies. They do not see a negotiating framework within which to resolve the difficulties they face. The Minister of State said that his door is open and that he wants to meet representatives of SIPTU to discuss this matter. Neither I nor the unions are clear on what is being offered to employees of State agencies who wish to remain in Dublin. There is no offer on the table. The Minister of State has not said what will happen in this area. There is no arrangement or procedure for people to move between agencies and retain their skills. Are many highly skilled people, such as valuers, mappers, experts in health and safety, road engineering, tourism and fisheries, being told to move and administer driver tests?

These skills have been built up at great expense to the State, making a valuable resource, but the people do not want to move. What is the Government's solution to this problem? What is the central body and what is on the table? If the Government is going to push this through, we must address the issue of how the State will deliver crucially important services and ensure that the decentralisation process remains voluntary in nature.

The other side of this concern is that the Minister of State will invest in a substantial portfolio of property to the value of €900 million. He appears to be proceeding with this and, I presume, meeting his targets. He has pinned down 23 sites and another 13 are close to completion. Will there be an expensive property solution in place but no agreement from the crucial staff to make the moves possible? In four or five years' time, will the Comptroller and Auditor General be obliged to state that the Office of Public Works successfully managed the property but that the project fell apart and that buildings constructed at great expense are half empty?

The Minister of State stated that €315 million has been released from property sales, which is slightly dishonest because he informed me in the Dáil that none of those properties has anything to do with decentralisation. These are other properties. The quid pro quo for a good deal by the State on the property side, which is only a minor part of the programme, is to see the sites the Government is vacating. In response to my parliamentary questions and questions in this committee, the Minister of State indicated that he would forward details of the properties being vacated. However, I have seen no such details. It appears that a three card trick is being played, with the Minister of State saying that the programme is cost-effective because he is getting rid of expensive property in Dublin and acquiring cheap rural property. When one asks which expensive Dublin properties being released, there is a deafening silence.

We need an honest appraisal of these matters. I tabled a parliamentary question to all the Departments involved in decentralisation asking about the non-property costs. Not one of them could volunteer any estimate of the non-property costs. We cannot believe that there are no such costs. When representatives of the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social and Family Affairs came before the committee, they stated that up to half of the posts were filled either by new recruitment or promotions. That was the only way in which they could deliver on decentralisation. New recruitment and promotion cannot be costless. The Minister of State's officials, in juggling the figures to suggest that it is costless — they also suggested to the Minister for Finance that the entire programme will cost only €20 million — are fooling someone but I do not know whom.

The Revenue Commissioners indicated that they have a float of 200 people to secure their staff. In other words, they have a guarantee for five years that they would have 200 surplus staff to use as a float to allow the retraining the gearing up of the staff and the duplication of workers for a time in order to ensure that the job can be done.

The Minister of State and his colleagues are not volunteering any information as to what float of this kind is being made available, what additional promotions are being sanctioned to make this possible or how the recruitment is proceeding. In the Minister of State's Department, 20% of the remit was filled by new recruits. Up to the end of last year, however, the Department had in place a ban on recruitment. That freeze on the size of the public service did not happen despite the Department's public declarations. I would be willing to give this a fair wind if I thought it was being properly planned and built on a proper basis because decentralisation is a good thing.

Our colleagues may say that we are trying to run with the hare and course with the hound but that is not the case. I would like to see decentralisation executed in a well-planned, well-thought out manner. The information we are receiving, however, does not represent a Government that is open, transparent and delivering a properly planned process in this area. We need much more information from the Minister of State's Department than the PR spin we are receiving.

People working in FÁS who are threatening to go on strike within days want to hear the Minister of State's offer to them. Dozens of other State agencies with significant skills are lined up behind them and we do not want them to meltdown in a mishandled process. What is the procedure for State agencies? What options will be on the table? How will we be assured that the important work they do will be effectively delivered as the Minister of State pushes ahead with the process?

I know the Deputy has motivated other people to call him names in the past. I will certainly not do that but I do get annoyed when he suggests we are involved in a three card trick or juggling our figures. That is not the case.

When the former Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, announced the decentralisation programme, he referred to an aggressive and ambitious implementation target of three years. Anyone would have said that such a target was impossible. Deputy Bruton is always saying the programme should be well-planned and well-executed and that care taken of the human resources issues. This is what we are engaged in now.

So, the target was meaningless when it was made?

I did not make the target. I am now dealing with——

The Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, said it would happen. He gave a commitment that it would be completed in three years. He put up signs about it.

Allow the Minister of State to continue.

We are planning to deliver a well-planned and successful decentralisation programme. For that reason, a decentralisation implementation group has been established under the chairmanship of Finbarr Flood. He is well-respected and has been involved in the area. He has broken down the delivery of the programme into two phases. The first is for the early movers. This takes into account the availability of property and human resources. Staff have signed up to the programme and are ready to move.

While the Office of Public Works has responsibility for the property issues, any deal must be signed off by the Minister for Finance. There is joined-up governance of the plan.

Deputy Bruton has tabled many parliamentary questions on the matter. From the replies, he claims only 10% of people have signed up. That is factual in some ways but does not reflect the real situation. It is an extremely popular programme with civil servants. Over 10,600 civil servants have signed up for decentralisation and they continue to do so at the rate of 100 per month.

In the Health and Safety Authority, for example, a large number of staff applied but none were suitable.

I am taking note of what is being said.

Allow the Minister of State to respond.

He is only spinning. He has not yet answered any questions. He has volunteered nothing that we did not know already.

Let the Minister of State respond.

If there has been spinning about decentralisation it has come from Deputy Bruton. He is a master of spin with decentralisation.

So are some party colleagues of the Minister of State.

I am dealing with the facts of the programme.

When the facts were teased out on Garda numbers, I was found to be right.

I take issue with that.

How many public servants in BIM, Fáilte Ireland and the National Roads Authority are willing to move? I have figures of no one taking up decentralisation in those authorities, bar one in the National Roads Authority.

Allow the Minister proceed uninterrupted.

He should answer the question.

If I could only get a chance——

The Minister of State is accusing me of spin. I am quoting from published figures. The Minister of State is suggesting there is something wrong with these figures. If he has alternative figures, will he inform me how many staff in the National Roads Authority, BIM and FÁS, which is in his own backyard, have signed up for decentralisation?

Allow the Minister of State without interruption.

The Department established a central applications facility, CAF, to encourage staff to apply. Staff were allowed a series of preferential areas to which they could move. There are difficulties with the State agencies because their staff do not have the same arrangements as civil servants. Difficulties have also arisen with mobility and transferability. The CAF does not suit State agencies.

As late as last night, the Labour Court sat with FÁS management and SIPTU representatives. I understand they came close to but did not finalise an agreement. Active negotiations are ongoing on these fundamental issues. The unions are careful and not wanting to be flexible. If one asks people who work in the Civil Service, in many cases they will say it is very inflexible. There are large numbers in every Department seeking to transfer. It is on a first-in last-out basis. One goes on a list and cannot transfer. The unions have a major input into the lists. Decentralisation will bring a high degree of flexibility and allow people to work where they want to and give them the choice of Departments.

The fact that the negotiations with FÁS management and SIPTU went on late last night indicates the Department of Finance is resolving these issues. Dialogue is needed.

Is the Department of Finance represented at those talks?

The Department of Finance is one of the ultimate parties in making a decision on the matter. It was FÁS management and SIPTU representatives that were involved.

Neither I nor the unions know the position of the Department. We ought to know because it will affect every State agency. This is coming down the tracks at us.

I will deal with all of the issues.

Allow the Minister of State respond

As for staff who decide to stay in Dublin, the Department of Finance has made a commitment that those people will have their jobs and the full opportunities they would have otherwise. If a full Department is moving, then those staff who remain in Dublin will have to transfer. A transfer scheme is available which has been circulated by the human resources heads of each Department.

What has the-——

Allow the Minister to complete.

I do not understand what the Minister of State is saying.

If the Deputy gave me a minute.

In the case of FÁS staff, they do not seem to know about this.

They did not know. However, they were negotiating for a satisfactory outcome. SIPTU has a mandate to take strike action. I understand staff are stopping work in four Dublin offices this morning for several hours to highlight their point. I am conscious that the national partnership talks are at a crucial stage. The unions are making their case. It will be a major element of the total package. Promotional prospects became an issue. The Labour Court recommended that all parties should discuss the matter.

With the appropriate central body.

Both sides chose to return to the Labour Court. It did not yield a solution but I am still confident it will. I have the highest regard for its sophisticated mechanisms of resolution. We must strike a balanced deal that is good for both sides.

On the issue of promotions, it is normal practice. When it was announced that a Department's headquarters was to move, it became an automatic condition that if a civil servant signed up for a promotion, he or she would automatically work where the Department was located. There has been no deficiency of FÁS staff seeking promotion. Approximately 30 FÁS staff have signed up for promotion on the understanding that the headquarters will be at Birr, County Offaly. It was on some of the negotiating conditions that they chose to go back to the Labour Court.

That is a bit of a diversion

It is all in progress. It is a complicated and politically sensitive issue. The unions will have their say in the same way as they have taken stances on other Government decisions. That is not to say the Government should lie down and roll over. I am sure Deputy Bruton would not recommend that.

No, but I am asking what is the position of the Department of Finance on the FÁS dispute? We will have the threatened meltdown in key skills in FÁS if the staff voluntarily stay in Dublin. What alternative does the Government see in terms of being able to implement decentralisation and preserve the skills base?

The responsibility ultimately rests with the Minister. He has political responsibility for the Department. Every Department has a decentralisation implementation group which has to produce a plan.

The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment cannot offer something unless the Department of Finance says what——

FÁS has a plan which shows where the differences are at the moment. Clearly, if there was flexibility as regards the transfer of people from FÁS to the Health and Safety Authority, to Fáilte Ireland or anywhere else that will be sorted out, as happens in any Department or agency. If a person is in the Department of Agriculture and Food and chooses to stay in Dublin, he or she can sign up to move to the Departments of Social and Family Affairs, Defence or whatever.

That is fine, but mappers cannot be moved from Ordnance Survey of Ireland-——

The trade union, IMPACT, represents the specialists and these matters are being negotiated. The professional grades such as engineers and architects in the OPW, for which I am responsible, have a particular case to make, which was put very strongly to me, the Secretary General and the Department of Finance. Negotiations are actively taking place in that regard. I have not heard of any threat of strike action, although SIPTU chose to go that particular route. However, SIPTU does not represent all of the people in FÁS. There are solutions. These are complicated human resource issues that have to be addressed as indeed they are. I understand that last night we were very close to a solution.

What is the Minister of State offering them?

I want to call on Deputy Burton at this stage. We have agreed a timetable and I want to move on.

He will not answer the question.

There will be a further opportunity——

The questions have not been answered.

That is fine, but there will be further opportunity to ask questions; we cannot risk a situation whereby several members will not have an opportunity to contribute. I want everyone to have an opportunity to speak first and then we can come back.

I agree.

To continue with decentralisation, does the Minister of State accept, as Mr. Finbarr Flood indicated to the committee when he made his presentation, that the issue of the State agencies and their structures is a separate issue from the general Civil Service question? Given that State agencies are separate legal entities, and that their employees have separate terms of employment and conditions, does he accept that the comparison with the general Civil Service, where people transfer regularly in their careers from one Department to another, is not relevant to them? I want to ask the Minister of State, specifically, whether he or his Government has proposals to change that situation.

Is the Government offering general civil servants positions in the State agencies such as, for example, FÁS, which is relocating from Dublin, and in respect of which the Minister of State has finally acknowledged that the number of people willing to transfer from the Baggot Street headquarters is to date only six? I believe the figure could now be down to four, because there may have been a change in circumstances. Approximately 50 additional appointments or promotions have been made.

The Minister of State got his PD members in Laoighis-Offaly to do a phone-in to a local radio station——

He was caught badly.

——to say that the information I got under the Freedom of Information Act was wrong. The Minister of State subsequently found out that the data disclosed to me under the Act by the FÁS officials was absolutely correct. What is the position as regards the legal contracts and operations of the State agencies? In trying to be positive about this initiative, it is not helpful if the Minister of State sticks his head in the sand and decides that all industrial relations practice and human resource matters are irrelevant, as he seems to be suggesting. There is a strike in FÁS today, unfortunately, and the start of potential rolling industrial action, essentially because the situation as regards workers there is completely unclear. Does the Minister of State propose to change the terms and conditions of people's employment in State agencies? Does he intend to make their promotional prospects conditional on signing up to decentralisation? I do not believe that is legally possible and I want to know whether the Minister of State has legal advice to that effect. It might be possible within the general Civil Service, but I am absolutely positive that it is not in the State agencies. Has he obtained legal advice? I believe the industrial relations mechanisms of the Labour Court gave the Minister of State the answer in that regard, but clearly he is not willing to accept it.

As regards the people who stay in Dublin, they are really concerned about their prospects. Does the Minister of State have any type of plan as regards these people or will they be "white-walled", to use American management terminology? A person is put in a room with four white walls, a desk and a chair and that is where he or she basically stays, fiddling around, for the rest of his or her days. Many studies have been done, particularly as regards the effect of this on men who are career-orientated and it has been shown to be tremendously destructive.

We all meet people who are zealous employees of particular State agencies. They genuinely believe their lives are being upended. What is the Minister of State's response to this? Will he agree — in trying to be positive — that this element of the decentralisation plan needs to be renegotiated and reviewed by Government? I have told the Minister of State before that I was in Government when the first wave of decentralisation occurred. I was a Minister of State like Deputy Parlon in the early 1990s. There was no problem with the first quarter. When officials from the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Revenue Commissioners came in here, they confirmed this, but I recall it very well. There was no problem with the first 25% of people who wished to move. In those days it was to west coast areas, by and large, with one group going to Johnstown Castle in Wexford. The next 25% moved, largely by promotion, and the balance was found usually through local recruitment or additional recruitment over a very long time.

That is the template and Mr. Finbarr Flood did not disagree with that when he came before the committee and we questioned him about it. Has the Minister of State costed the previous experience as it applies to the current model? The Government is under an obligation to make some cost projections. Has the Minister of State costed the doubling of staff? I reckon that over the period of decentralisation programme, some 5,000 additional civil servants will have to be employed to supplement the people in Dublin who will be white-walled unless something else can be found for them to do. Has the disruption to the management structure of the different Departments been costed? Here I will just refer to Irish Aid going to Limerick. I have said before that Limerick deserves a large slice of decentralisation, but I do not understand why it was not done logically, and more of the Revenue Commissioners staff were not moved there. They were already heavily decentralised the last time the Labour Party was in Government, particularly during the Administration of the former Taoiseach Albert Reynolds. There are serious questions to be answered.

I have a separate question for the Minister of State, however. He talks here about the public private partnership approach and refers to the renting of office accommodation and so on. What is the tax situation as regards capital allowances by lessors in respect of State property, where they enter into public private partnerships? I ask this with a specific case in mind. The Minister of State is probably aware that a court case involving the National Aquatic Centre concluded recently. In the course of that case, to my astonishment it was revealed that although the National Aquatic Centre cost the State more than €62 million to build and was 100% funded by the taxpayer, by means of a three-member consortium, one member of it, Dublin Waterworld Limited — the subject of the court case — was able to enter some type of leasing arrangement with a named business person. It referred to that business arrangement continually during the court case. I do not know whether it was a sub-lease or a first lease — I do not understand it.

I do not have any responsibility for that. It is the responsibility of an entirely different Department.

The Office of Public Works is represented on the board of CSID. I understand it was appointed to help to rescue the situation that had previously been entered into. The OPW has tried to have a positive influence in this case. I want to know how this businessperson could get capital allowance tax values of €2 million per year, capped at €34 million, which was reported in the judge's commentary and referred to continually during the court case. Can the Minister of State give us an answer?

With regard to procurement mechanisms, will the State pay through the nose in regard to the decentralisation programme? Will friends or business associates be in a position to get tax breaks on that for which the State must pay full dollar? Do the OPW and the Minister of State have a position on the use of tax allowances and the creation of tax breaks as a consequence of their extensive property proposals regarding decentralisation? That is a completely fair question and one the Minister of State should be able to answer.

The Deputy's ten minutes have elapsed.

The Chairman allowed Deputy Bruton just under 20 minutes, with which I was perfectly happy.

I stopped Deputy Bruton after ten minutes and allowed the Minister of State to respond.

I have further brief questions. What is the position with regard to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform building, acquired through the offices of the OPW, on Main Street, Blanchardstown, which is now derelict and has lain so for more than four years? What will be the future of that building? What are the proposals of the OPW, if any, in regard to a courthouse in the Dublin 15 area? Has the OPW any capacity to influence the acquisition of land for the building of primary and secondary schools in the Dublin 15 area, where, this year alone, more than 200 junior infants have been advised in writing by their schools that there is no place for them? In Dublin West one cannot now go to school until one is at least four years and nine months old. What is the position of the managers of the State's property portfolio? What is the Minister of State doing in this regard? He tells us about his great management of the State property portfolio but will he explain it?

The Minister of State should respond on matters relevant to the Estimates.

I hope the Deputy will allow me to respond without interruption. I am delighted the Deputy told us she is trying to be positive. Having said that, she went on to find the negatives within the scheme. She acknowledged that the bulk of decentralisation involving the Departments is moving and that staff have signed up to it. I appreciate that difficulties arise in the State agencies but we are dealing with those.

The Deputy referred to the fact that just six staff in FÁS signed up to move. I can understand why nobody else would sign up, because the central applications facility did not suit. FÁS and the unions representing its workers must work out a solution. Clearly, that situation is coming to a head given the threatened strike. In some ways, it needs to come to a head and perhaps progress will be made given the threat of a strike and the fact that the two sides sat late last night to try to reach a conclusion.

There will be no white-walling and no duplication, with workers doing two jobs. That is an absolute commitment.

The Government will not allow it to happen.

How will this be achieved? I understand the policy but——

Allow the Minister of State to respond.

There is an issue with regard to mobility and transferability within the State agencies, which is a difficulty that must be worked out. It is an aspect on which unions are quite tetchy. The same union representatives do not represent all the different agencies. I believe a solution will be found. Terms will be worked out that will allow mobility and transferability between the different agencies.

Is the Minister of State acknowledging that he will offer additional terms to the staff of the State agencies who do not wish to move?

I am trying to answer the 15 minutes of questions the Deputy put to me originally. Everything is on the table. There is a sophisticated system of negotiation, much experience and much precedent on both sides. Unfortunately, precedent can sometimes cause problems. This is the biggest single movement of staff the country has ever experienced and it will cause some difficulties. However, the difficulties are being dealt with.

The Deputy referred to people's lives being upended. I feel for those who are threatened with having their head office moved. However, thousands of people in this country have a dreadful lifestyle in terms of commuting for three or four hours every day while raising small children. Decentralisation will be a godsend for them. We must achieve a balance.

The Deputy also referred to the frustrations some people may face in terms of promotion prospects. There are staff who participated in a previous decentralisation scheme, who moved to the country, to Wexford, Portlaoise, Tullamore, Castlebar——

When we were in Government, we managed it properly. The Minister of State is not managing it properly.

The Minister of State without interruption.

Some staff who moved under successful previous decentralisation schemes, under different Governments, are totally frustrated because they do not have promotional prospects unless they move back to Dublin. The volume and scale of the current operation will allow people to explore their full potential in terms of promotions. There are clusters throughout the country. If one moves to Portlaoise, Tullamore or Mullingar, one can progress all the way up to become Secretary General of a Department and still live within 20 or 30 miles of one's original home. While the Deputy suggests that some staff will be upended, and some who choose not to move may be concerned at present, the Government has given an absolute commitment that they will not be at any loss.

The Deputy said she wanted to be positive. I also want to dwell on the positives. The positives are that in the new decentralised Departments, staff will have real career opportunities and a lifestyle they did not have previously, and will have an opportunity to buy a house in the countryside——

My question referred to the State agencies. I know about the Departments.

They will be able to buy and own houses in the countryside that they would be able to buy in Dublin given current property prices. Let us talk about the positives, which are substantial.

The Deputy referred to the Department of Foreign Affairs in Limerick and asked why we did not move the Revenue Commissioners there. Revenue will establish offices in Listowel, Newcastle West and Kilrush, which are all in the general area.

Tiny numbers will move there.

The Department of Foreign Affairs was as late as this morning seeking access to the Limerick office. There is no difficulty with the move of the overseas development assistance section to Limerick. The section is ready to move and the Department is seeking to move it. I have no difficulty with——

How many specialists and senior officials have agreed to move?

This is the Deputy's fourth interruption.

When overseas development agencies of other countries can operate in darkest Africa, I have no doubt that the Irish overseas development agency——

As one who lived and worked in Africa, I object to the term "darkest Africa". It is not helpful to our understanding of the-——

Does the Deputy want to hear the answer?

Referring to Africa in those terms is not right.

It is not my intention to cause offence to the Deputy or anyone in Africa. Let us say "in Africa". I am trying to answer the Deputy's questions.

On a point of information, there is no overseas development aid department similar to the Irish aid structure located overseas. What are located overseas in the case of many countries, including Ireland, are local offices of the aid programmes. The Minister of State should check his facts.

We will now hear from Deputies Ó Caoláin and Catherine Murphy, after which I will open up the discussion to other members.

I have a number of questions for the Minister of State. The brief he circulated to members regarding subhead D, the purchase of sites and buildings, states, vis-à-vis the decentralisation programme, “to date, property acquisition negotiations have been completed or significantly advanced in 23 locations”. A total of 22 of those locations have been identified in the briefing sheet. Can the Minister of State advise members where the 23rd site or building is located? Has there been duplication in one or other of those named, or has one simply fallen off the map? I am sure it is not Birr. Can the Minster of State advise the committee as to which one is missing? How many of the 23 named locations are for State agencies, as against the decentralisation of civil servants?

The brief indicates that negotiations are at an advanced stage in a further five locations, including Cavan, to which the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources is earmarked for decentralisation. Can the Minister of State elaborate on the status of the Cavan acquisition? If he does not have the details to hand, I would appreciate it if he would provide, as soon as is convenient, a briefing note on the current status of that acquisition.

I am concerned about some of these acquisitions. How many of them are at the point where possession has been secured? How long have some such properties, either buildings or sites, remained idle, unoccupied and unutilised, and for how long is it anticipated that others will so remain? In terms returns, what cost does this represent? Are further delays anticipated in taking up relocation opportunities? Has the idle status of said buildings and sites been costed?

I refer to the buildings or sites acquired, and particularly to existing buildings. What criteria are employed in respect of terms of scale? Buildings may be presented in a number of rural town locations. What measurement does the Office of Public Works employ in respect of suitability? I presume it is based on the numbers of people to be relocated. Does the Office of Public Works have comfort parameters whereby a building might offer more than might be needed? What informs the decision to acquire a particular location? Does the Office of Public Works' assessment of suitability build in a potential for the Department or agency in question to expand? Is an assessment made in terms of potential future development and space requirements? If so, how far into the future are such assessments made? Is this part of the normal assessment carried out by the Office of Public Works in its work in this regard?

Finally, and bearing in mind that Deputy Catherine Murphy will follow me, I refer to the proposed relocation of the FÁS State agency's head office to Birr. I wish Birr well and hope that, along with Monaghan and many other locations, it will enjoy the opportunity to welcome a significant relocation of State employees in the form of agency employees or civil servants at some point. As for the FÁS proposal, the Minister of State mentioned that progress had been made. However, I understand that this progress unravelled quickly on foot of the Department's preparation of the statement to be agreed subsequently and that, as of today, this has given rise to the proposed commencement of industrial action.

This is obviously an extremely worrying development. Clearly, it is based on the breach, on the part of the Government and the FÁS management, in respect of the voluntary nature of the proposed decentralisation in the first place. Linking the FÁS relocation to Birr with promotional opportunities not only creates a major issue, it is certainly contrary to the interests of many who do not wish to relocate in Birr but who wish to remain. Most often, this occurs in cases where family commitments, including education, status of home ownership and so on are such that people are rooted to their particular locales and communities. These are all important human considerations. It is a serious matter that people would be at a disadvantage in terms of promotional prospects because they could not or would not take up the so-called voluntary relocation to Birr.

I want the Minister of State to elaborate in this regard. I have written to the committee's Chair to ask that the entire issue of the voluntary nature of the decentralisation proposals, with specific reference to the FÁS situation will become a substantive matter for the next meeting of the select committee. Having met representatives of the FÁS workers through the SIPTU trade union, it would be remiss of me not to ask the Minister of State the same question I put to the Minister for Finance last week, namely, whether there has ever been direct contact by his office with the senior management of FÁS regarding the proposed relocation to Birr. Specifically, has such contact been made to spur on and encourage whatever action would ensure a greater uptake? There is real concern in this regard and I raise the issue to give the Minister of State the opportunity to put the record straight. The Minister for Finance did not do so last week. His reply was evasive and did not definitively address the question I posed. Perhaps the Minister of State will be more particular in his reply.

Every country has a particular culture in respect of how it conducts its affairs. We have a particular genius for creating problems and then trying to solve them, rather than for predicting and planning. This is turning out to be an almighty problem. One would need to be extremely lucky to decentralise 10,000 public servants against the backdrop of a public service embargo without encountering substantial problems.

I live in a county to which it is proposed to decentralise people and in which a substantial number of public servants already live. I repeatedly hear of the demoralisation of those who will stay in Dublin and the lack of potential progression in their careers. That is the dominant sentiment. The price of houses is only one variable for people. Some public servants might be aged 50 or more, while others might have children engaged in third level education. There are a range of reasons as to why people will make certain decisions. The decentralisation of such a large number of people was not thought through properly. Cracks are now showing in the programme because of a lack of planning. The situation may need to come to a head. It is very strange to hear that a strike may be considered beneficial in this respect because people need the services provided by FÁS. We must never forget that these people will ultimately lose out.

It is critically important to have a fully functioning public service in a booming economy like ours. It is not possible to function properly with a demoralised public service. Discussions about whether decentralisation is feasible in the current timeframe should be held because serious problems are emerging.

It is not helpful that the briefing note constantly shifts between 2005 and 2006. Further briefing notes should not do this. The authorised numbers of staff for 2006 obviously exceed those for 2005. Is this a lifting of the embargo or were these people authorised but not employed in 2005? Travel and subsistence have increased by 23%. Is the decentralisation programme having an impact or is there an alternative explanation for the increase? I have read the explanation for consultancy services.

The money provided in the form of grants for certain refurbishment works is wisely invested and I would not argue against investments of this kind. I would, however, like to know what the qualifying criteria for these grants are. Figures of €3.5 million and €6 million have been quoted for the State laboratories and the Department of Agriculture and Food laboratories. Why have the laboratories been listed twice? They may well be listed under two headings but it is not very obvious from the briefing note.

The Minister argued that the OPW maintains a balance between ownership and rented accommodation. This issue is critical. It is difficult not to take note of all the notices stating that sites are for sale or for let on office properties around Dublin and the suburbs. Will the OPW hold on to accommodation that cannot be shifted because of the quantity of additional accommodation that will come on to the market? What evaluation has been carried out in this regard? Clearly, there will be considerable additional accommodation, which may drive prices down, and, consequently, the amount referred to by the Minister of State may not be realised.

The Minister of State was very lucky to get through the hoops in respect of hydrometric and hydrological investigation and monitoring. I am aware that Kildare has applied for several hydrometric gauges to measure river flows. I have kept a close eye on this development. We have experienced 200 year return floods in the past two years. An application for gauges was rejected after the local authority spent a considerable amount of money because the information in the application was insufficient. Local authorities need criteria that would give them a marker on the kind of information required to ensure that money is not wasted. There is no point in carrying out studies on their own. People want studies to be followed by action. There is insufficient action and people's homes have been repeatedly flooded. The required measures might have been under estimated. We have known about the situation in places like Clonmel and Cork, which are just beginning to come through the system, for many years. It is expected that the OPW will deal with the issue but I have not witnessed any action being taken. I applaud the flood mapping project but it is essential that it is followed through and that local authorities do not rezone land on flood plains.

I will revisit a point made by Deputy Burton about schools. I cannot understand how this process takes place. The OPW has been attempting to identify a site for a school in Kill, County Kildare, for the past six or seven years. The school has now reached a point where it will enrol 60 children when 83 children require a place. We have been informed that the children have no legal entitlement to attend school until they are six years of age. This is not going down too well with local parents. Does the OPW include forward planning in its programme? Advertisements informing people about the importance of filling in the form for the census so that the Government can predict the number of required school places are currently being run on television. I see no evidence that the Department of Education and Science pays any attention to this information because year after year, parents complain and lose sleep because their children are refused places in particular schools. These are children who have spent two years in preschool and are ready to enter primary education but a school site is unavailable. Current arrangements are not working. How is the system supposed to function and why is it not functioning properly and delivering school places?

I will begin with Deputy Ó Caoláin's questions. It appears that the missing site to which the Deputy refers is Roscommon, which is due to be the headquarters of the Land Registry. The site was omitted but I understand that we are very close to concluding a deal on it. The price has been agreed. The Deputy will appreciate that even an arrangement involving private property can be very complicated. Until everyone signs along the dotted line and the bank signs off, or in our case, the Department of Finance gives its approval, there are certain motions the parties to the deal must go through. In respect of transparency and ensuring that everyone is satisfied, the process is slightly slower and more difficult for the State. Roscommon is the missing site which was accidentally left off the list.

The Deputy also inquired as to how many of the 23 locations where property acquisition negotiations have been completed or significantly advanced have been designated for State agencies. The Health and Safety Authority is to move to Thomastown in County Kilkenny and Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM, is to move to Clonakilty in County Cork. I note that decentralisation in respect of Clonakilty will be raised on the Adjournment. A considerable amount of progress has been made in respect of BIM's decentralisation to Clonakilty. Part of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources is also due to decentralise to Clonakilty. BIM has just received approval from the Department to increase the size of its seafood development agency, which will be incorporated in the new site. BIM's old site did not have sufficient room for the scale of the operation needed to develop new seafoods.

In respect of the acquisition in Cavan, I understand that we have signed the contract, a price has been agreed and we are waiting for the vendor to sign the contract. I understand the vendors have three weeks in which to make up their mind. We have learned that, unfortunately, we are not the only buyer of property. Once, if the State was interested in buying a property in any area, vendors considered it to be the prime candidate and were very happy to deal with it. The buoyancy of the economy is such that there are other candidates for vendors to consider. This is not to say that the State can be beaten at the post in terms of a deal. We have agreed terms and signed a contract and are waiting for the vendor to sign the contract.

The Deputy expressed concerns about sites purchased but which might remain idle. The sites to which I have referred are on the fast track and sufficient people have been signed up for them. The Department definitely believes that——

The Minister of State is being contradictory. A moment ago, he said that he has almost completed the deal in respect of Clonakilty and people will only move in cases where they have signed up. The most recent information on BIM is that none of the 93 people wants to move but the Minister of State has nearly completed the deal on a building to accommodate no one. The Minister of State should not be contradictory.

The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources is also using the Clonakilty site.

The Minister of State said BIM.

Together. It makes sense that Bord Iascaigh Mhara will share a site with its parent Department.

None of the 93 staff has opted to move.

BIM is negotiating with its staff. The CAF is not a clear reflection of the wishes of the 93 people because it did not suit them to sign up. BIM indicates that it has its own decentralisation plan. It has negotiated with the Department and the OPW to incorporate its enlarged development centre.

We have definitive dates for all of the moves. We expect to have more than 1,000 places available by the end of this year. We have clearly defined for the committee and the Dáil the number of places that will be available in 2007, 2008 and 2009. Many people have raised the matter of FÁS, which is of interest to me because it will have an office in my local town. The indicative date for the FÁS accommodation to become available and its headquarters to be established in Birr is spring 2009. There is a new ball game in terms of the indicative dates. They are realistic and deliverable. Between now and 2009 leaves a lot of scope to work out the property solutions and, substantially, human resource solutions.

Regarding the Deputy's concern about sites being idle, most Departments are seeking temporary accommodation into which to move people and, through the OPW, a number have secured it. The Department of Agriculture and Food will shortly have 250 new people in Portlaoise. A substantial number of other Departments have sought temporary accommodation in advance of permanent buildings.

The Deputy inquired about the criteria for buildings. Our main criterion is 20 sq. m. per person. Depending on the different requirements of some Departments, such as for conference rooms and so on, there is a degree of flexibility. However, we are rigid when it comes to price. These are the outlined criteria. The Deputy referred to FÁS and how the deal unravelled last night. I see the glass as half full — we are close to a deal and both sides are engaging.

Deputy Catherine Murphy expressed her regret at a strike, as do I. The strike is unnecessary but concentrates people's minds. I would regret it if people looking to FÁS for a service lost out. However, the strike is for 2.5 hours per week in offices that are not accessed by the public. The decision has been made and it is outside my control.

I stress the voluntary nature of decentralisation. People may be concerned about demoralisation and afraid of the possible difficulties but there are significant positive aspects in terms of the opportunities it will give to those who choose new lifestyles and to work in locations or Departments of their wish closer to where they want to live.

Deputy Ó Caoláin asked me about my level of contact with FÁS management. The answer is "zero". Having been approached at a late hour last night about whether I would appear on "Morning Ireland" this morning, I inquired as to the outcome of the Labour Court negotiations and received a briefing from the Department of Finance. I have left the matter to others and have the height of respect for FÁS management and its staff. Coming from a lobbying background, I know that the interference of a politician might be seen to have a negative effect.

I am supportive of decentralisation, particularly in respect of FÁS to my town and will not take any moves that will hinder it. I have confidence in the professionals who represent both FÁS and the Government at the negotiations. The Deputy can take this as my definitive answer.

In respect of the unravelling of what was agreed yesterday, I made the point — which was reported — that it was as a result of subsequent drafting within the Department. The Minister of State said there was no culpability on his part. Where does the responsibility rest? Are those reports accurate and what is the Minister of State's position in respect of same? Will he tell us the impact of the placing of Bord Iascaigh Mhara and the marine section of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources in Clonakilty in respect of the proposed decentralisation to Cavan? Is there a dilution of the numbers committed to the Cavan project?

With regard to criteria, I asked whether the Minister of State was projecting forward in terms of future need when he spoke about 20 sq. m. per person and, specifically, non-new build acquisitions, that is, existing buildings. Is there a factoring-in of the potential for further expansion or how much consideration of all of same is taken into account by the Department of Finance?

On FÁS, I heard the report on RTE this morning, which gave the view of a particular side, that the problem lay with the drafting, but this was not the briefing I received. Matters are at a delicate stage and it is a positive sign that people have been engaging in the process. I will not say anything that could jeopardise the result. Last night was a last ditch effort in advance of today's threatened strike, which was voted on by FÁS employees several weeks ago. The decision went to SIPTU's headquarters for clearance. As such, the strike has been imminent for some time and was not the result of, as the Deputy said, the unravelling of the situation last night. Both sides are clear on the issues and neither lacks understanding of where we are in the game. The Department of Finance, on behalf of the Government, has a responsibility to reach a deal that is fair to all State employees.

I remember a furore when "marine" was left out of the name of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. The plan is to move the Department's headquarters to Cavan and I assume that a substantial section of the Department's marine element will be relocated to Clonakilty.

One of the few counties with no say.

Communications will also move there.

The people of Cavan have sea legs.

They have good legs.

That is a good point.

Everything is cheap in Cavan. There is good value for money. Deputy Ó Caoláin has allowed Deputy Catherine Murphy to ask the questions he was not allowed to ask. She referred to the many reasons people would choose decentralisation, which I will not go into. We must deal with the people who have not chosen to move. The Government has given a commitment in this respect. Possession is nine tenths of the law and those people are in strong positions with their union representatives to negotiate on terms. They have the opportunity to sign up to Departments in the Dublin area and many are doing so. In each Department, the human resources manager deals individually with people when choosing and there is a high degree of flexibility in terms of addressing individual problems. The strike is regrettable but, because I progressed negotiations substantially last night, I hope we will continue to make defined efforts to solve the problems.

The Deputy raised the matter of figures for 2005 and 2006. Our intention was to indicate trends rather than confuse. The Deputy also referred to other expenses. The OPW is a very busy office, with added workloads and responsibilities. As well as having responsibility for finding locations for all other Departments the OPW must also transfer as one of the early movers in the decentralisation programme. Tenders have been received for locations in Trim and are being evaluated. The architectural expertise of the OPW is being used in the design of the new headquarters. Moving staff is causing headaches and I have sympathy with people. We have hired new people as well as having lost talented employees. Some of our expenses are a result of the extra work the office is undertaking.

Can the Minister of State answer the question on staff numbers and the public service recruitment embargo?

I will answer that presently. Moving the new food safety centre to Backweston is included in this year's Vote and the agriculture lab has also moved to Backweston. Separate buildings house the two offices and that is why two separate expenses are listed.

Deputy Catherine Murphy also raised the issue of Kill. While the OPW has responsibility for State property it does not own property in all locations. In this case it is the agent for the Department of Education and Science in acquiring sites. Although there are major delays, we cannot click our fingers and create a site. The good news is that a letter of offer has been sent for a site and the Deputy is the first to receive that information, unless it has already been broadcast.

I thank the Minister of State.

A parliamentary question on the matter may not have been answered yet. I have sympathy with the situation to which Deputy Catherine Murphy refers. It is imperative that space be left for basic facilities, such as a school, in new developments. It is impossible to find sites for schools. Affordability is not an issue. We have considerable difficulty in acquiring sites for schools where there has been a major population increase, as is the case in Deputy Murphy's county and in Kill. This increase has happened over the past five or six years. In future planning regulations, provision could be made for important facilities such as schools, although this is a matter for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Identifying such sites and designating them for educational purposes would ensure one is not competing with the development of a shopping centre.

Flood control is very complicated and all of the office's flood study groups are carried out with the agreement of the local authorities. There would be no point in the OPW undertaking a study if the local authority would not participate. The OPW has completed some successful flood studies in County Kildare. The issue is very complicated and we are using the most advanced technology to conduct these studies, which will be worthwhile.

Deputy Catherine Murphy referred to the balance between owning and renting properties. Deputy Burton suggested that €315 million worth of property would be sold. If the decentralisation programme was not in place, we could not sell any of these properties. It will be a long time before we invest €315 million in the decentralisation programme because it is a substantial amount. We hold many different types of leases, some of which are about to end and some of which are long-term. We will decide on the leases to be surrendered.

Will the Minister of State address my question on tax treatment of leases?

I thought I had answered that question.

No, he did not answer my question.

I am keen to receive an answer on the public service recruitment embargo and the figures to which I referred.

Four years ago the heritage services, previously part of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, were included in my office's remit. This increased the number of employees in the OPW. This year our plans for flood relief include employing engineers with hydrology experience. It is more cost effective for the OPW to design a scheme rather than hiring consultants.

This is not what the figures suggest. I do not object to employing hydrologists if this is necessary. The number of administrative staff has increased from 384 to 424. The public service recruitment embargo is a crude instrument and should be relaxed. It disproportionately affects busy, growing offices. Is the increase in administrative staff in the OPW an exception to the public service recruitment embargo?

When I took up office the OPW undertook a flood review study, incorporating all Departments. This deliberated for over 12 months before presenting a report to Government that directed the OPW to be the principle office with responsibility for flood relief. Consequently, the office has received clearance from the Department of Finance to hire more people and this is covered in the last budget.

It breaches the public service recruitment embargo. I do not object to this, I just wanted an answer.

I asked a series of specific questions. Other questions were allocated more time. I asked the Minister of State specific questions on the National Aquatic Centre, which I can only conclude he has avoided answering. If he cannot provide an answer now, can he supply one in writing? I asked questions on buildings owned by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the OPW policy on the acquisition of school sites. I protest that the Minister has avoided answering my appropriate questions on tax treatment, the acquisitions of the OPW and the National Aquatic Centre. Questions from the Technical Group received 40 minutes, while the Labour Party questions received less than 30 minutes.

I am ruling that taxation is not a matter for the OPW Estimate. The Minister for Finance and the Revenue Commissioner dealt with the Estimate concerning taxation. Deputy Burton must find another way of submitting questions on taxation as it is not appropriate to the OPW.

Thankfully, the chief officer of the OPW was sent in by the Government to try to rescue the shambles at the National Aquatic Centre. I am perfectly entitled to ask about the OPW's participation in that——

Correct.

——which, as I stated, is largely an attempt to rescue a shambles that cost the taxpayer €62 million. I am perfectly justified in asking that question.

Deputy Burton is perfectly justified in asking about that issue. However, I rule that matters on the taxation affairs of that issue are not relevant to this meeting.

Sorry, the court case is relevant. The Chairman seeks to protect——

No, I do not.

——his constituency colleague from being asked legitimate questions by committee members. That is what the Chairman is at.

No, I am stating to Deputy Burton, that my other constituency colleague is the relevant Minister to deal with the Estimate for the Revenue Commissioners. I call on Deputy Paul McGrath, who has sat patiently.

I am patient at all times. It is an interesting answer. If the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, cannot answer the question or feels it is not in his remit, perhaps he might persuade his constituency colleague, the Minster for Finance, to reply to the questions posed. I will give the Minister of State a break from decentralisation. I will not start with it, but I will return to it later.

A number of housekeeping issues must be examined. A total of €1 million will be spent on extending Mullingar Garda station, which I welcome. The Minister of State is probably aware of the location of Mullingar Garda station. It is in the centre of the town beside the cathedral and across the road from a school campus with approximately 1,000 students. Mullingar Garda station, which is to be extended substantially, has a serious parking problem. I wrote to the Minister of State on this issue but did not receive a reply. I wanted to know about plans to extend parking at the station.

If I wanted to put a building in the centre of town, Westmeath County Council would tell me I must have a parking space per a certain amount of square feet. As this is an exempted development, that need not be done. How can the Minister of State justify extending the building, reducing the number of parking spaces and not meeting any requirements? He does not even have to subscribe to the local authority for it to provide car parking spaces. This is a legitimate query and must be addressed. It is not fair that those buildings will be extended, which will attract additional people and vehicles, when the parking situation is already chaotic. Will the Minister of State respond to that issue?

An allocation of €2.3 million has been made for Maynooth College chapel, an old favourite of the committee which was considered previously. Will the Minister of State confirm that on this occasion the money is actually for the chapel? On the previous occasion, an allocation of €750,000 was made to Maynooth College library. However, we discovered that was a mistake because when the former Minister, Mr. McCreevy, discussed it with the president of Maynooth College, he forgot it involved the chapel rather than the library.

It was probably on the back of a betting slip.

I was surprised to find that plans or proposals did not have to be submitted to draw down that large amount of money. It was a case of "nod and wink". We had to amend the order to state the money was for the chapel. Are plans submitted on what will be done and how the money will be spent? What controls are in place and how much has been allocated to date for this project? The €750,000 went through in 2004, an allocation was probably made in 2005, and we now have this amount in 2006. Will we get an update on it?

The Minister of State mentioned on a number of occasions that we do not want empty buildings or half-empty buildings lying around. The Minister of State does not have a half-empty building leased by the OPW in my base at Mullingar, he has a two thirds empty building, which is used by NEPS. It is leased for the Department of Education and Science at a cost of tens of thousands of euro. The building has only been one third occupied for quite some time. How can the Minister of State justify that? Who is getting it wrong? I suppose it would be easy to blame the Department of Education and Science as it is not represented at this meeting. It is a waste of taxpayers' money.

Staying on the themes of Mullingar and wasting taxpayers' money, I am extremely interested in what the Minister of State said on the almost completed PPP arrangements in the four decentralisation towns mentioned, namely, Carlow, Portlaoise, Drogheda and Mullingar, and I know a fair bit about what has been proposed.

The Kilcock to Kinnegad motorway is a PPP. I thought a PPP involved partnership between public and private sectors. In any partnership, one expects an even break. Regrettably the Kilcock to Kinnegad motorway is anything but a partnership. Almost 60% of the money was initially put up by the taxpayer. The company that built the road put up less than 10% of the total cost and borrowed another €150 million. The poor unfortunates, such as myself, who will use it on a regular basis and who also happen to be taxpayers will pay a further €600 million at present day terms for the use of the bloody road. I apologise for the use of unparliamentary language. I should have said "for the use of this motorway".

It is a super highway.

I thank the Minister of State. I knew he would come to the rescue.

It is a joy to travel on.

It is a joy to travel on, but not to pay on. The Minister of State probably does not have to pay.

Yes, I do.

The Minister of State probably does not have to pay going through it. I have examined some figures on the use of partnership. The big winner on the motorway will be Ferrovial.

I would say it is the commuters.

I have not heard a single complaint about it.

I am in possession of the floor. Since the Minister of State mentioned commuters, let me explain to him the situation regarding them. The additional charge to use the motorway for an ordinary person from Mullingar commuting to Dublin on a regular basis is €1,200 per annum at present day terms.

A young carpenter from my area commuting to the Dublin area in a van told me he must earn an additional €2 per hour to keep pace with what he must pay on the toll-road. A company doing business in Mullingar and employing 60 people regularly runs goods trucks to Dublin. It told me that for one of the trucks, which does four runs to and from Dublin every day, the motorway represents an additional cost of €13,000 per year. That is a significant amount of money. All of those figures are factual.

One may call it a superhighway but it is not being used by those lorries. Has the Minister of State noticed that the number of lorries using that road is minimal? They do not use it because of the cost. It costs approximately €6 each way for a lorry, which is extremely expensive. Instead, they can come off the motorway at Kinnegad and go through Enfield.

The Government and taxpayer put in the vast majority of the money to cover this PPP. Will the Minister of State tell the committee what the arrangement will be for the PPPs for the OPW? In Mullingar, for example, the OPW is negotiating on a site for an office building. I am anxious to learn more about that PPP arrangement because one of the major arguments that will be made by the company involved is that it owns the site. The irony, however, is that the local authority owned the site eight months ago. When this site is returned to the OPW, the interesting thing will be what will be the factor of the original buying price that will be used in the negotiations for the PPP. I am dying to see what it will be. I will return to this issue in the future, although I may by then no longer be a Deputy.

The Deputy is beginning to sound like someone who is not going away at all. I note that a third candidate has not been selected in his constituency.

I am under pressure. With regard to PPPs, can the Minister of State indicate the inputs required of private companies and of the taxpayer? Taxpayers invested almost 60% of the money required for the motorway but what do they receive in return? The road will not revert to the taxpayer until 30 years from now. When the M50 bridge was almost complete, a decision was made to build extra lanes which led to the renewal of the contract for a further 25 years.

I intended to discuss the number of chefs employed in Áras an Uachtaráin but I will refrain from comment, other than to express my surprise that the President is not gaining weight.

I wish to return to my question on the relocation of Irish Aid to Limerick. Will the Minister of State elaborate on his comment that the civil servants concerned should consider themselves lucky that they are not being sent to darkest Africa?

I never made any such comment.

The Minister of State spoke about darkest Africa and the luck of civil servants.

I withdrew the comment immediately because of the offence it may have caused.

I want the Deputy to be fair because the comment was immediately withdrawn.

The Deputy is being tetchy if that is as far as she can go. She should check the record for any reference to the matter.

The Minister of State referred to the relocation of civil servants to Limerick and to darkest Africa.

The Deputy should check the record because she is totally mistaken.

I accept that the comment may have been withdrawn.

It was immediately resolved.

No, the matter was resolved after I made my objection. The Minister of State made an unfortunate reference but I accept that his comment was withdrawn.

However, the Deputy has raised the issue again.

It is an important issue in terms of how people perceive Africa and Irish Aid's programmes. Many Irish nuns and priests and other volunteer development workers have given their lives to Africa.

I do not need a lecture. I have been in Africa on fundraising missions.

There was disrespect for Irish Aid's programmes and the development work done by Irish people in Africa.

It did not come from me.

Recently, the chairman of the decentralisation group, Mr. Flood, confirmed that no senior public servant or development specialist has agreed to transfer to Limerick. I and others have fought to increase Government spending in this area, yet Irish Aid is now at risk of losing most of its management capacity and institutional memory. What is the Minister of State's response to that? Does he acknowledge that serious challenges are thereby presented to the future stability and coherence of our development aid programme, most of which is focused on Africa?

The Minister of State spoke about the continuation of the Garda building programme. Expertise has been developed by the OPW in this area and the work it carries out is of the highest standard. Anybody who has seen the improvements in the workmanship of OPW projects would agree that a good job is being done. With regard to the Garda building programme, a number of stations were in poor repair and are now being refurbished. However, it is difficult to find out when particular stations will come on stream. Does a pecking order exist and, if so, what criteria are set out? I do not expect the Minister of State to have the relevant figures at hand.

I know them off by heart.

Perhaps the figures could be circulated to members so that we will know the status of individual Garda stations. High standards have been achieved in all projects, whether for schools, office accommodation or other buildings.

A programme has been introduced in which many of the existing rural Garda stations are sold through PPP arrangements. In my home village, Ballymore, County Westmeath, a contractor was invited to build a new Garda station. However, the old station has not yet been disposed of and will be left to deteriorate into a derelict eyesore. Is it not important that old stations are sold when new ones are built?

I will begin with the question put by Deputy Nolan. Approximately €22 million will be spent this year on the Garda building programme. A priority list of Garda stations has been compiled by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in liaison with the Garda and, while that list changes on occasion, we try to work on the top ten projects and probably complete seven or eight per year. The only major delay on these projects arises from the procurement of sites, which, given the development taking place in many towns, can be difficult. In some cases, local gardaí and public representatives want the station to be in the centre of the town, while in other cases they prefer to locate it on the outskirts. I have seen the successful completion of both sorts of projects but delays can arise when gardaí or others do not agree to a new location. We are agents for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and we try to acquire sites with which it is satisfied, working off a list it provides for us. That list is available and I can supply one to the joint committee.

I am not sure if Deputy Paul McGrath is happy or unhappy with the massive expenditure on infrastructure in his area in the form of a new Garda station and the new motorway. I had expected him to welcome those with open arms. I have occasion to travel on that motorway and now have a choice of the Portlaoise or Kilcock bypass. It is a fabulous road which saves time and reduces stress for daily commuters. The time saved travelling means people have more time to carry out their work in Dublin. At the rates a carpenter charges the costs incurred were fully justified.

It makes a difference of ten minutes.

That is not the case.

If people use the old road they will reach the Spa Hotel a maximum of ten minutes earlier than by travelling through Enfield. That is a fact. The benefit is in travelling home the other way.

I will not argue with that. I have only used the motorway and would not dream of going the other way.

The straight and narrow.

I understand there is a plan to develop a substantial multi-storey car park in the centre of Mullingar.

In the Garda station?

No, in the town centre.

Come off it. Is the Minister of State saying gardaí will park in the multi-storey car park and walk up to the barracks to work? That is rubbish.

We have the choice of either developing the Garda station or not.

Put an underground car park or a multi-storey carpark on the site.

The allocation of €1 million for the Garda station would not be sufficient for that.

If I wanted to carry out that work on a commercial building I would have to do so. Why should the State not have to do so?

Other Garda stations are also on a priority list.

That is not an answer.

It is about value for money. I am not immediately familiar with the situation but that was the choice we had to make. Mullingar is one of the fastest developing towns in the country, with the attendant pressure on property and the cost of sites.

The Deputy also asked about PPPs. Carlow, Portlaoise and Mullingar will be involved in the next round. PPPs must be costed in detail and subjected to a thorough benchmarking process. They will only be entered into if they demonstrate better value for money than the traditional route. I am not entirely sure of the scale but the cost of the building between Carlow and Portlaoise in my constituency, which will be the headquarters of the Department of Agriculture and Food and will house more than 900 people, will be in the region of €150 million. Projects on that scale allow a PPP to produce favourable costings. It will, of course, have to be cleared by the Department of Finance.

Will the Department undertake the four projects together?

Three of them.

In one contract?

In one contract. We will seek expressions of interest in the next month. It will have to be advertised on a Europe-wide basis but a building contract of €150 million within an area covering 40 miles will be attractive.

How will the Department work the site?

In all cases the OPW will buy the sites so the State will own them. The State also owns the motorway site, which is a substantial investment.

It is worth €268 million.

I am sure Deputy McGrath negotiated strongly with some of his constituents in the area to ensure a good price was received for the land sold to the NRA.

The motorway does not go through Westmeath.

Deputy McGrath also referred to the site the OPW acquired for the Department of Education and Science or NEPS. Clearly NEPS sought a building of that size, though it has yet to fill it. I would rather have it now than have to find a new site, given the pressure on property at the moment. It is an issue for the Department of Education and Science and we are only its agent. If we are asked for a site of a specified size that is what we will deliver.

I attempted to answer all the questions and took detailed notes. I would have answered all of them had Deputy Burton not interrupted me consistently. The Chairman said we should move on.

I moved on.

I wish I had had further opportunity to answer the questions in detail. The Deputy asked about the relocation of Irish Aid to Limerick. The Department of Foreign Affairs, which has responsibility for Irish Aid and its own decentralisation plans, is keen to move to the building in question as soon as possible. I understand from the Minister that good progress is being made on that front.

Despite the fact that, apart from one, none of the senior staff has agreed to go.

Plenty of people have signed up to work in Irish Aid.

They are all transferees from other locations. Irish Aid is a highly-specialised agency.

I have no doubt that the people recruited by the Department of Foreign Affairs from other agencies will be fully competent to do the job.

The Minister of State should ask some of the agencies receiving people at the moment.

The Department of Foreign Affairs is dealing with it. It has the expertise and is pushing to have the building made available. Irish Aid will be spending unprecedented amounts of money that has not heretofore been available for foreign aid. We should be proud of that fact. The agency will have a new name and new identity.

No, it will have the old name and the old identity.

Top
Share