On 20 February last the Dáil ordered that the draft version of the Finance Act 2004 (Section 91) (Deferred Surrender to the Central Fund) Order 2007 be referred to the committee for consideration. I call on the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, to make a brief opening statement in respect of the matter.
Finance Act 2004: Motion.
The ministerial order before the committee is a technical instrument, the purpose of which is to allow the Dáil to formally approve the expenditure by Departments and agencies in the current financial year of capital moneys carried over from the previous year. The capital carryover facility forms an integral part of the five-year rolling multi-annual capital envelopes introduced in 2004. The multi-annual system is designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the management by Departments and agencies of capital programmes and projects. The carryover facility means that moneys which would have been lost to the capital programmes and projects concerned under the annual system of allocating capital can now be made available for spending on programme priorities in the subsequent year.
The introduction of the multi-annual capital investment system has been a major positive factor in the roll-out of the capital programme. Apart from ensuring that resources that would otherwise be lost are now made available for capital spend in the following year, the multi-annual capital system has given greater medium-term financial security to Departments and implementing agencies. This, in turn, has facilitated better medium-term planning of programmes and projects. The development is a key element in the objective of efficiently delivering the ambitious capital infrastructure programme contained in the National Development Plan 2007 to 2013.
The Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866 generally requires the surrender of unspent Exchequer moneys to the Central Fund at the end of each financial year. However, section 91 of the Finance Act 2004 which gives legal effect to capital carryover allows the carryover of unspent Voted Exchequer capital to the following year of up to 10% of capital by Vote by deferring this surrender requirement, subject to certain conditions. One of these conditions is that the amounts of capital carried over by Vote be specified in the annual Appropriation Act of the year from which the carryover is proposed. The actual decision in principle on the amounts of carryover by Vote are, therefore, determined in the Appropriation Act. The Dáil again has the opportunity to endorse the amounts in its decision on the Revised Estimates Volume which shows the capital carryover amounts separately in the relevant Votes.
The carryover amounts provided for in the Appropriation Act are required to be confirmed in an order to be made by the Minister for Finance by 31 March of the following year after approval of the order by the Dáil to allow expenditure to take place. The order sets out the amounts by subhead, consistent with the amount by Vote, specified in the Appropriation Act. Capital carryover within a Vote does not have to be spent on the same subhead or programme where the saving occurred. It may, depending on progress and priorities, be spent on a different programme.
The 2007 draft order sets out the subheads or programmes under which Departments and agencies propose to spend in 2007 the capital carryover amounts specified by Vote in the Appropriation Act 2006. The total amount proposed in the draft order for 2007 is €159.1 million which amounts to 2.5% of the 2006 provisional outturn as published in the 2007 Revised Estimates Volume. This compares to a capital carryover figure of €289.3 million in 2006, or 5.1% of the 2005 outturn. The total 2007 gross Exchequer capital provision in the Revised Estimates Volume 2007 is over €7.6 billion. The capital carryover of €159.1 million will bring the total Exchequer capital available for spending in 2007 to €7.8 billion.
The main priority areas for spending of the capital carryover of €159.1 million into 2007, as set out in the draft order, are: transport, where €24.1 million is being allocated for road improvements and maintenance and a further €4.9 million will be spent on seaports, shipping and the Irish Coast Guard; approximately €24 million will be spent by the Office of Public Works to fund new works, alterations to public buildings and €7 million for the purchase of sites and buildings; the Department of Agriculture and Food is allocating some €20 million for the development of forestry; a sum of €20 million is provided under the Vote for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for the development by local authorities of water and sewerage services; €13.8 million is provided for grants by the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism to sports bodies and €7 million for the provision of swimming pools; the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources is allocating some €7.5 million of its €15.3 million capital carryover for fishery harbours; and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is proposing to spend almost €9 million of it's carryover on science and technology.
Departments and agencies have delegated responsibility within the rolling multi-annual capital envelope framework to manage their capital programmes and projects. The availability of these capital carryover amounts in 2007 will assist them within this framework in tackling economic and social infrastructural priorities in their areas.
I commend the order to the select committee.
I thank the Minister of State for outlining in detail what is proposed. In plain English, what he indicated is that the Government failed to spend €160 million last year and that this will be carried over and spent in 2007. The Minister of State will have to take the same approach that one would take in respect of a slow learner and explain the position to me in full. The €160 million to which I referred was returned to the Exchequer. I suppose that is tantamount to mismanagement because the Government failed to spend it. However, we will give it some latitude in that regard because the position last year was somewhat better than in the previous year. Is the Minister of State indicating that the €160 million which was allocated in respect of projects in 2006 and which was not spent will be spent on different projects in 2007? It is difficult to understand how that could be the case. If money was allocated in respect of a project in 2006 and was not spent because the project was not completed, surely it should be spent this year on bringing it to completion. However, I may be wrong in that regard.
Will the Minister of State explain the position? He says approximately €2 million will be spent by the Office of Public Works to fund new works and alterations to public buildings and €7 million for the purpose of sites and buildings. This spending is entirely within his remit so I am sure he will be able to fully explain what happened with regard to the funding. Was the €24 million part of moneys the OPW did not spend, but should have spent in 2006 or is it money somebody else did not spend and the Minister of State has now got his hands on and will spend on sites, etc.? Were these moneys allocated for the sites in 2006? One of those sites might be Mullingar, where we have had an almighty mess with regard to decentralisation. We were on the point of signing on a site, but it fell through and we had to try again, but that too fell through. Now the Minister of State says we are about to sign again, but I am sure he will not have signed by the time of the election. He also says there is a provision of €20 million for the Department of Agriculture and Food for the development of forestry. Was that money allocated in 2006 and not taken up?
Much what may be termed "buy-the-election" money is being allocated, for example, grants for swimming pools and grants by the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism for sporting bodies. The Government will be buying the election in a big way, with a further €13 million into the election slush fund. We had buy-the-election phase 1 with budget 2006 and buy-the-election phase 2 with budget 2007. Here we have buy-the-election phase 2, part 1, with moneys left over and hanging around being put into grants for sporting bodies and used to develop fishery harbours and marinas, etc. There was a report in the press yesterday about misspent public moneys in that regard. Am I right about that Chairman or am I mistaken? I sometimes get these matters mixed up a little.
There was also a complaint yesterday that we were spending too much before the election, but now the Deputy says we are not spending moneys fast enough.
The Chairman should take off his biased hat, I did not say that at all. I know the Chair is trying to help his constituency colleague get elected; he needs a lot of help.
He needs no help.
I hear he needs a lot of help, but let him fend and answer for himself. Will the Minister of State set out in plain man's terms the details of the €160 million not spent? What projects should it have been spent on last year? What happened to those projects and is money allocated in 2007 for them? Will the €160 million now become a further slush fund to buy the election? Will the Minister of State explain it simply for me?
The moneys returned amounted to 2.5% of the overall budget, which was €7.8 billion. It is clear therefore that we carried out a massive amount of work.
I did not ask that.
The Deputy's question was so convoluted that I might take some time to get around to the matter, but I will get to it eventually. The Deputy raised the issue of Mullingar, which is an area close to his heart, but he has decided to turn his back on it and allow somebody else represent it.
The OPW, fortunately or unfortunately, is obliged to abide by normal planning regulations, like everybody else and this was a particular factor in terms of a site in Mullingar. However, I assure the Deputy very good news will emanate shortly with regard to a site. Our decentralisation plans for Mullingar are a total success story and ——
If the Minister of State is going for the regional site, he will not get planning there. I told him previously he was in the wrong place.
I am not sure the Deputy knows what he is talking about in terms of the site.
That is because the Minister of State would not tell me where the site is.
With regard to the OPW, for which I have responsibility, and to the carryover of €30 million, I will go through the different areas. Our new works are on the main area and there was an underspend of €52 million there. The main activity in this area included the ongoing programme for major clients, including the Garda and the Department of Social and Family Affairs, general office rationalisation and the completion of major projects such as the agriculture and State laboratories, the Marine Institute and the Templemore Garda college. A number of the contracts expected to incur substantial expenditure in 2006 advanced more slowly than anticipated. This is a normal situation and we do not spend the money until we have to spend it. Now these contracts will proceed in 2007. This explains that carryover.
The Minister of State said there was an underspend of €52 million on those projects. If the underspend was €52 million and the Minister is now getting €24 million, how will he make up the further €28 million needed for the projects that underspent?
Each Department is allowed to transfer overspend money within the different subheads and within the Department.
The Minister of State had a €52 million underspend. Where is he transferring that money?
I can go through the full details.
The Minister of State said in his statement he had €24 million and €7 million. That comes to €31 million, but the underspend was €52 million.
That was the net amount after the excess as I understand it.
The total amount of surrender that occurred was €159 million. We can go through the individual Departments. Three Departments underspent a full 10%.
My question was specifically about the OPW for which the Minister of State has responsibility. Will he go through that slowly and explain it to me?
What is the question on that?
The Minister of State said he underspent by €52 million.
That was in the new works section. However, we overspent substantially on the purchase of sites, by approximately €1.498 million.
That is just stamp money.
It all adds up. We underspent on flood relief and plant and machinery by €3.312 million, an area where there may often be unanticipated delays and slowdowns on projects. For example, the Department only signed off last week on the major Clonmel scheme because it took a little longer than expected. As one would expect, schemes like that undergo substantial scrutiny.
Was there an underspend there too?
There was an underspend of €3.3 million. The total underspend in the OPW amounts to €55.716 million. The maximum permitted capital carry forward is €30.965 million.
This is a serious situation. The Department underspent by €55 million and is getting back €31 million to spend. In effect, therefore, the Minister of State has allowed approximately €20 million to slip between his fingers.
Some €24.75 million was surrendered to the Exchequer.
That money was allowed slip through the Department's hands despite all the projects that need to be done throughout the country.
Is the Deputy suggesting we do not follow proper due process? He would be down on me like a ton of bricks if I did not follow the proper process.
I am telling the Minister of State that he did not manage his affairs well.
We managed them very well. We had the biggest spend ever in the OPW.
The Minister of State did not manage his affairs very well ——
The Deputy wants the Minister of State to break the law and ignore the planning laws.
—— if he had €55 million of an underspend and only got back €31 million. Projects around the country that were seeking funding and were told there was no money available will be extremely disappointed by that.
The Comptroller and Auditor General would be very irate if we did not observe the proper procedures.
There has been a significant revelationtoday that the Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works, Deputy Parlon, underspent by €55 million and he has got back €31 million in sweeties. He allowed €24 million slip through his fingers. This could have been spent on good projects in 2006 which would have brought much help and relief to people across the country. What has happened is unfortunate and I am flabbergasted.
I will relieve the Deputy's upset a little bit by pointing out where we have spent money. A total of €135 million was expended on the decentralisation programme in 2006. A total of €46 million was expended on the Garda programme in 2006, with the construction of new Garda stations, the renovation and improvement of individual Garda stations, the new Garda headquarters in Ballymun, the new forensic science laboratory in Garda headquarters and new buildings in Leixlip, Oranmore and Castlerea. The OPW will have spent more than €300 million on infrastructure projects, the biggest spend ever.
The fact that the OPW is being careful with its finances and is in compliance with all the rules and regulations, including planning regulations, is commendable. I believe I am being responsible in how I am doing this work. I do not need to make any excuses or apologies to any member of this committee whether they be on the Government or on the Opposition side.
A little more detail is required on where this under spending occurred. I ask the Chairman to ask the Minister of State whether he will circulate a note to the committee detailing where the underspend occurred in the various sections so that we can analyse them properly. I know the Minister of State is only able to provide the statistics about the OPW because this is his area of responsibility but €24 million was put back into Deputy Cowen's back pocket despite all the projects that could have benefited from that money. I refer to some of the Garda stations, which are in an appalling state. I ask the Chairman to ask the Minister of State to circulate a note.
The Deputy has asked him.
I ask the Minister of State to circulate a note to the committee members.
I have the information here and it is completely transparent.
I hope it is.
I can go through the information again if the Deputy wishes.
I was shocked with the OPW figures. I would like to see which other Ministers did not fulfil their responsibilities and carry through on projects that were allocated.
Is the Deputy proposing some sort of reckless spending by the Government and that Ministers should not abide by whatever delays and procedures are necessary?
The Government is fairly good at the reckless spending without bringing anybody else in on it.
The Deputy could be here complaining that I had wasted the taxpayers' money by overspending. It is a sign of very good management of finances that we have managed to work within our budgets.
The multi-annualcapital investment programme decision in 2004 was a good one. It allows the latitude necessary for dealing with massive amounts of capital being put into infrastructure programmes throughout the country. I am informed there is no equal anywhere in Europe to the investment in our national roads programme. This is a great credit to this country and to those in charge.
I have some questions for the Minister of State. I may not be correct but it seems the Courts Service is on a mission to close down many courthouses. I am not happy with its decisions. The service seems to have an autonomy that is unacceptable to me as a Government Deputy and as a public representative. It has decided to abandon courthouses, some of which were built up to 50 years ago and provided services in the regions and counties.
The service is using the excuse of inadequate accommodation for consultation rooms, which I reject. This week it is attempting to close two courthouses, one in my parish of Ballyforan, and one in east Galway in Mountbellew. I am informed that the courthouse in Ballaghadereen — which is a major town — is under review. The Courts Service has already closed down a courthouse in Roosky.
I do not understand the reason for these closures. If the excuse is the lack of proper accommodation then the service should be told that we have the money to provide this accommodation. It should not be let away with this excuse. The finances are available.
There is a vote in the House. Do members wish to finish the meeting now or return after the vote?
I wish to ask some questions.
I suggest we suspend for a short while.
Sitting suspended at 11.25 a.m. and resumed at 11. 45 a.m.
Deputy Finneran was speaking before we suspended.
I was commenting on the decision of the Courts Service to propose the abandonment of courthouses in rural villages and towns. I do not accept the service's argument, as outlined in letters to me, that the accommodation provided in many courthouses is not adequate. I think the service should halt its attack on the infrastructure of rural areas. Very little money is needed to renovate the courthouses in question. There is no need for renovation in some cases. A global decision seems to have been taken to invest in big courthouses in large towns while closing the courthouses in the surrounding areas. This process should be stopped. I am not sure how much autonomy the Courts Service has in making decisions of this nature, but surely it has to listen to the people who are represented by those who are elected to speak on their behalf. I am not happy about this matter. I ask the Government to make a statement on the entitlement of the Courts Service to remove a service that has been available for over 50 years, during times when we were worse off than we are now.
We do not know the people who are closing these facilities in our villages and towns. I do not know any of them — I have not met them face to face — so I cannot talk to them. I appreciate that the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, does not have direct responsibility for this matter. Given this country's current economic circumstances, money should be available to renovate these courthouses, some of which are also used as libraries. The people to whom I have referred should not be allowed to get away with the excuse that the accommodation that is available is not good enough to be used for consultation, etc. The facilities are good enough in most cases, and if they are not good enough, they should be renovated. The Minister of State and I come from the midlands and western region. I am sure what is happening in my neck of the woods is no different to what is being attempted in his locality.
I would like to comment on the level of expenditure on sites and buildings. I compliment the Office of Public Works on its recent purchase of new offices for the Property Registration Authority in Roscommon town. I noted in recent days that the final contract in that regard has been signed. Perhaps the Minister of State might be in a position to say when the construction of the new building will start.
I would like to raise some issues relating to cutaway bogs, for which the Department of Agriculture and Food is responsible. This matter should be considered in the context of the energy sector because turf from such bogs is often used by Bord na Móna for energy purposes. However, some stretches of bog in private hands are not being used.
The returns from forestry planted on cutaway bogs are very limited. Significant costs are incurred during the development and maintenance of such plantations. Trees planted on cutaway bogs will not thrive without maintenance — liming needs to be undertaken to increase the pH value of the soil, for example. I wonder if the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, which is highlighting the need for green energy, etc., could concentrate on an asset that is lying idle. My family owns up to 30 acres of cutaway bog that is practically useless because we do not use it. I am sure it is no different for my neighbours in the area of south Roscommon and east Galway. Similar stretches of bog exist in other parts of the midlands and they could be useful in terms of our drive to cut down on imported oil, coal, etc. I have made this point on many occasions previously but it came to mind when I saw €20 million extra has been invested in forestry.
I am pleased the sports and tourism areas, especially sport, has been identified for extra money. I hope the money will be used to provide grants to sporting organisations through the sports capital programme. I also hope the sum of €7 million that has been allocated to swimming pools is not the total figure. I understood more than €45 million would be allocated to this area. Perhaps the €7 million is a top-up payment.
Given all the reports we read about obesity, this is a problem that must be tackled. I accept today is not the time to discuss the matter but I am still aghast that we cannot have PE teachers in schools. It is difficult to believe after all the years and the debates that have taken place that we have not made more progress in regard to physical education teachers. In most schools of 400 or 500 pupils somebody teaches two subjects and PE as part of their teaching quota. That is not good enough any more. We need to classify physical education as a subject. I welcome the extra money being allocated to sports.
I will call the Minister of State to reply and then I will call Deputy Catherine Murphy.
The spending and policy issues raised by the Deputy are really an issue for the individual Ministers concerned. On behalf of the Courts Service, the OPW has carried out all of its renovation works. The list of work carried out is extensive. I am aware of the project in my town of Tullamore where the newly refurbished court house is about to re-open. The court houses in Longford and Nenagh have opened recently also. The court houses in Ennis, the Cork Circuit Court, Lismore, Mallow, the Four Courts, Belmullet, Monaghan and Fermoy were all either renovated or extensively refurbished last year. More than €30 million was spent on that area. This year a similar amount has been allocated for courthouse refurbishment. It is planned to do Kilkenny, Tralee, Thurles, Killarney, Letterkenny, Wicklow, Wexford and Mullingar. I accept these are all bigger courthouses in larger towns. Substantial money is being invested in the Courts Service.
A new forestry scheme is now in place with increased incentives to which strict criteria attach. One is not allowed plant forestry on lands that do not have the wherewithal to give a good yield. I do not disagree with Deputy Finneran about the suitability of some of the cutaway bogs. The target for forestry plantation in 2007 is 10,000 hectares, which is substantial. In terms of renewable energy, much of the supply of wood chip comes from forestry thinnings. This area offers a good investment.
There is no great willingness in the Department to address the issue of cutaway bogs. Hundreds of acres are lying idle.
Many of them are designated as SACs or NHAs. The Department has bought many of them back through a scheme which allowed farmers to sell their bogs. All of the bogs designated as important habitats will be kept and allowed to remain as they were.
I am sorry I was late for the meeting. The Minister of State's script refers to multi-annual capital investment. This has been a major positive factor in the roll-out of the capital programme. At the same time, an underspending of €55 million is evident and this goes back to the Minister for Finance, some of which was returned. How is it a multi-annual programme if after 12 months money is returned to the Minister? As far as I can see, that is a contradiction in terms. I agree there must be some oversight but the current position is peculiar.
Flooding is unfortunately an issue with which I am reasonably familiar from a number of episodes that have occurred in my constituency, one in 2000 and another in 2002. They were supposed to be hundred year floods but the second happened two years after the first. That is another matter. I asked a parliamentary question recently about the number of flood protection schemes in the Department waiting for funding. The total funding required was well in excess of €400 million yet the amount of money that was allocated for either last year or this year was somewhere in the region of 10% of that amount. In the case of one scheme that was submitted in 2003, the local authority was put through its paces in that a consultant was hired to do a report but a few years later this report was bounced back due to its being inadequate. That appears to be a means of filtering the funding rather than of addressing the issue.
In the meantime, many of the individuals concerned cannot get household insurance. The town in question is a restricted area in terms of availability of household insurance. Some companies will not indemnify anyone living there because of the propensity to flooding in the area. This is having a direct impact on people and their ability to get household insurance which is very traumatic for them.
In excess of €400 million is required already. Surely some schemes are sufficiently far advanced for them to have been given the go-ahead from that funding? The Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill sought to curtail objections. I have very mixed views on this matter. However, it is an issue for another day. There is no such curtailment in regard to many of these schemes. They are a part-aided process of the Planning and Development Act 2000. There is a consultation process rather than a very long planning process.
The position is exactly the same with Garda stations where there is a limited process. I previously spoke to the Minister of State about Leixlip Garda station which was acceded to by the then Minister, Mrs. Owen, in 1996. There does not appear to be any mad rush to build Garda stations. I welcome the fact that work has commenced, albeit 11 years later. A site has been chosen and while I believe better sites were available, a decision has been made and I look forward to some progress. There appears to be a significant amount of time between the arrival of a project in the Department and the roll-out of the works.
We saw a fairly high profile case on the television yesterday of a flood relief scheme in Kilkenny. When there is a major overrun, does the Minister of State come back with supplementary expenditure or does it, in effect, mean another scheme is cut out? Clearly, if there are so many projects stacked up and there is already an acknowledged problem with potential future floods because of climate change, it may well be the amount set aside in the national development plan is insufficient. Has a review been undertaken on the overruns and the impact they will have on the amount of funding available in the national development plan?
Consider the amount allocated for swimming pools. The last day of July 2000 was the final date for submitting applications for projects under the swimming pool scheme. This date is indelibly marked on my brain because I was a member of Kildare County Council at the time and was told the council could only submit two applications, one of which was for Naas and the other for Athy. However, there was demand for a pool in the north Kildare area. The towns of Leixlip, Celbridge and Maynooth had the same population as Waterford city in 2000, yet they have no swimming pool. The council was only allowed submit two applications but, on examining the matter, I noticed that Kerry County Council was allowed to submit three. Therefore, the restriction only applied in some areas.
Will the €7 million allocation be for new or existing projects? The scheme is still closed and under review and many applications for projects submitted in 2000 have not even been commenced. One must question the length of time it takes to commence projects that do not involve a rigorous planning process and which are generally regarded by the community as desirable. The system is slow, cumbersome and does not deliver. Is it a question of filtering out or holding back the money until an election? What is being done to speed up some of the projects?
If a community sought a courthouse, it would not be regarded as the main priority. There is sometimes resistance to such projects. In my constituency there would be some resistance to closing the courthouse because it probably attracts people who spend a few bob in a café or other establishment. This is a factor in rural communities. Is consideration given to older buildings? Are they sold by the OPW or ceded to the local communities? Most county librarians are looking for a decent building, perhaps one that has been refurbished. Is there dialogue in this regard? I would not like to think community buildings are sold off as I would like to see them used for alternative projects. These could be made viable by having them operate on a 50% commercial-50% community basis.
I thank the Deputy for her questions. Some 95% of the total 2006 capital budget, namely, €6.7 billion, was spent and 2% was carried over to 2007. The new multi-annual budget proposal means that up to 10% of the allowance for a year can be carried over to the following year. Two per cent was carried over and that meant approximately 97% of the total budget is being spent. This represents very efficient management. To spend 97% and not go into overspend is quite good, regardless of the moneys involved, be it a budgetary allocation or one's own pocket money.
The alternative to carrying money over is wasteful spending. This was deemed to be the case in respect of particular Departments or agencies that spent money left over at the end of the year so it would not be subtracted from their allocation for the following year. Unfortunately there are examples of such moneys being spent inappropriately. The system was such that the "use it or lose it" principle applied. There is now a facility such that, if a body has money left over in its budget at the end of the year, it can carry it over to the following year rather than having to spend it, perhaps unwisely. This leads to flexibility and better management and is generally a good idea. Spending 97% of the total allocation of €6.7 billion is quite good.
When would the Minister of State have known the budget would not be spent completely?
Heretofore a Supplementary Estimate was required if there was an overspend. I brought one of the few Supplementary Estimates before the House and it was to allow for redundancy payments for Deputies on foot of the existing provision being deemed insufficient. This was because the number of Deputies who did not get re-elected in the last general election was higher than anticipated, amounting to almost 30% of the total number. There was no scope for carry-over in this area.
The financial controller of the Department, the Secretary General, must make contingency arrangements to carry over a certain sum towards the end of the year. Under the new arrangement, one cannot opt for a Supplementary Estimate and one must work with one's allocation. Therefore, Departments will probably be quite conservative in their spending and, by the beginning of December, they will have a very clear picture of what might be carried over. The bulk of spending is in the last quarter of the year and a judgment must be made thereon by the financial controller.
If a planning application falls through or a deal is made pending planning permission, or if there is an appeal to An Bord Pleanála in respect of a site being purchased by the OPW, there can be an impact on the system. It just means the expenditure in question is carried over to the following year.
Deputy Catherine Murphy mentioned flood relief schemes. No such scheme is allowed to proceed unless it is subject to positive cost-benefit analysis. The Department of Finance always requires this and it also requires a proper technical, hydrological report to prove a scheme will be beneficial. Some applications are quite slow but the Deputy should note the ongoing schemes for 2007 are substantial. They include those in Clonmel, Mallow, the Tolka area, Ennis, Fermoy, Templemore, Waterford, Carlow, Enniscorthy and Portarlington. There is even work ongoing on the Shannon in my constituency. Some of the projects are being completed in stages.
There is a queue of work.
Absolutely. The Deputy referred to the allocation of €400 million but there is well in excess of €20 million in the flood relief package. The allocation has been substantially increased this year and new personnel have been recruited because the OPW does a lot of work itself with its own machines and staff.
The Deputy also referred to swimming pools. I do not know whether it is through my influence and that of the Chairman in Laois-Offaly, but there are new pools being developed——
There are two projects in Laois.
—— in Birr, Tullamore, Portlaoise and Portarlington.
Two counties.
Yes.
The Deputy mentioned courthouses. These are either owned by the Courts Service or the local authority. Proposals for courthouses are therefore a matter for these bodies. The OPW has a substantial scheme for the transformation of State assets. If an asset is surplus to requirement, we sell it on the open market and invest the moneys received on new infrastructure. I am not 100% sure of the position but I am aware that some derelict courthouses are in need of repair. This is an issue for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Courts Service.