SELECT COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE debate

Vote 10 — Office of Public Works (Revised).

Chairman

Last month the Dáil ordered that the Revised Estimates for Public Services, Vote 10 — Office of Public Works be referred to this committee for consideration. A draft timetable for the meeting has been circulated. It allows for opening statements by the Minister of State and Opposition spokesperson and then is open to discussion on the Vote. Is the timetable agreed? Agreed.

I welcome the Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works, Deputy Parlon, and his officials. In a change to procedure in previous years and in line with the expanded budgetary process the OPW's 2007 annual output statement has also been provided and circulated to the members to facilitate consideration of the Estimates.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. Parlon)

I am very pleased to introduce the 2007 Revised Estimate for the Office of Public Works. The gross allocation for the OPW Vote will see a 21% increase on last year's allocation amounting to an unprecedented allocation of €637.622 million for the office. This level of funding again reflects the Government's firm support for the OPW and in particular, the implementation of the decentralisation programme. I welcome this commitment and the commitment provided in the recent National Development Plan 2007-2016 allocation of €2.4 billion to the Office of Public Works which will allow for key infrastructural developments for which the OPW will be responsible.

Our success in securing this inclusion in a seven-year plan means that we can now plan programmes and projects with greater certainty than ever before, because we know that there will not only be ongoing support but assurance of the availability of funding to deliver. The introduction of the national development plan; the reforms of procurement processes, which will provide fixed price contracts and professional fees; the enhanced project management skills of the OPW, and the new reporting requirements such as the annual output statement to be introduced today will bring greater certainty with regard to the planning, scheduling, timing and delivery of projects. Ultimately this will also ensure upfront clarity on costs, enhanced accountability with regard to the achievement of targets and goals, and better value for money.

As part of the reporting reforms, I am pleased to be able to provide the committee for the first time with a statement of annual outputs to be achieved with the allocation provided in 2007 under four main programmes of expenditure: property acquisition, maintenance and management, including the procurement of properties for decentralisation; new building works, payment of grants and the provision of accommodation for decentralisation; flood risk management; and heritage services.

Although the gross allocation for the OPW Vote for 2007 amounts to €638 million, this does not reflect the full range of activities of the office. In addition to expenditure on Vote 10, the OPW also acts as an agent and incurs expenditure on behalf of a range of other Departments and agencies. Funding for this expenditure is provided to the OPW by the sponsoring Department or agency and appears as a charge on the account of the client organisation. The cost of providing these services in 2006 was in excess of €130 million, the main areas of expenditure being major capital works, €60.6 million; maintenance works, €15.6 million; purchase of school sites and buildings, €13.8 million; leasing of accommodation, €10.1 million; Courts Service work, €14.8 million; and prison projects, €14.9 million.

Other major areas of activity not reflected in the Vote include the agency work of the Government Supplies Agency in placing €80 million in drawdown contracts for the procurement of printing, stationery, uniforms, advertising, energy and transport vehicles for other Departments and agencies in 2006. The architectural services certify the payment of sports grants for the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism, with a capital value of €55.7 million in 2006. The project management services of the office provide specialist procurement and technical advice to the Government and Departments on major projects such as Campus Stadium Ireland, the new Lansdowne Road stadium, the national conference centre and the redevelopment of the Mountjoy Prison site. These do not appear as expenditure items on the Vote but provide a valuable contribution to the overall process.

Let us consider the four programmes as set out in the annual output statement. The first — property acquisition, maintenance and management, including decentralisation — has a gross budget of €203.8 million. The function of this programme is to continue to achieve best use of State property assets through a balance of ownership, leasing and disposal, and to maintain and upkeep the State property portfolio.

Some €35 million has been provided for site acquisition for the decentralisation programme to be progressed. Sites where legal formalities are expected to be concluded this year include those in Youghal, Waterford, Wexford, Drogheda, Newbridge, Mullingar, Enniscorthy, Donegal, Roscommon, Portlaoise, Listowel, Kilrush, Carrickmacross, Clifden, Ballina and Macroom. Site acquisitions will be advanced at a number of locations, including Portarlington, Roscrea, Fermoy, Athy, Arklow, Ballinasloe and Kanturk.

Temporary decentralised accommodation is being actively sought in 2007 at a number of locations. Locations where we expect advancement include Roscrea, Claremorris, Navan, Limerick, Wexford, Donegal, Athy, Carlow, Portlaoise, Clonakilty, Cavan and Tipperary town. On the decentralisation of my office to Trim, I am glad to say planning permission has been granted and the contractor will go on site shortly.

The OPW has responsibility for the purchase of Garda sites and, in conjunction with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, has identified a number of priority locations where sites are actively being sought, including those in Wexford, Dromad, Limerick, Swords and Portlaoise.

A sum of €124 million has been provided in 2007 for property portfolio tasks, such as lease renewals and rent reviews, which fall due to be settled within market benchmarks or rates. Rented accommodation affords the office the necessary flexibility to respond to urgent requirements for Departments while the OPW's reputation as a gilt-edged tenant allows it to secure optimum value for money.

A sum of €35.503 million has been provided in 2007 for property maintenance tasks, which tasks will be carried out to schedule. As an innovative measure, a pilot scheme of measured term contracts has been introduced in the east region for the delivery of maintenance services linked to measurable relevant performance indicators. The progress of the scheme will be carefully monitored and, if successful, it will be rolled out nationally.

Facilities management services are being delivered at Dublin Castle conference centre, Farmleigh, Áras an Uachtaráin and the Department of Education and Science in Marlborough Street.

In mentioning aspects of OPW's work not included in Vote 10, I refer to our major programme of disposal of surplus State assets. One of the Government's principal objectives for the OPW and one of my primary aims when taking this office was to transform underutilised State properties and turn them into realisable assets. The rationalisation and consolidation of office accommodation has resulted in the release and sale of surplus office accommodation in Dublin and, since the Government's decentralisation announcement in December 2003, the OPW has realised in excess of €362 million on the sale of properties.

Another element of the asset disposal process worth noting is the fact that sites at Infirmary Road, Inchicore, Harcourt Terrace and Broc House, which were identified as surplus to Government requirements, have been transferred for use under the Sustaining Progress affordable housing initiative. These four sites had an indicative value in the order of €71 million. Sites and buildings scheduled for disposal have been identified and a target of €50 million from the proceeds of these sales has been set for 2007.

The second programme — new works, payment of grants and decentralisation — has a gross budget of €297 million. The function of this programme is to deliver on the annual work programme and to respond to the accommodation provision needs of Departments, deliver on the decentralisation accommodation programme in line with priorities set out by the decentralisation implementation group, and carry out the payment of grants.

For the first time, framework contracts, under new conditions of engagement, for the provision of professional and technical services will be in place in 2007 throughout the office. This year will also see the introduction of the new forms of fixed-price contracts for major projects to be carried out by the OPW. This is a key reform and has been discussed at this forum in previous years. It should lead to greater price certainty and clarity of roles and accountability.

A sum of €135 million has been allocated for the provision of accommodation for decentralisation. I am pleased to say the decentralisation programme is progressing to plan and 2007 will see a major acceleration. It is anticipated that contracts to be placed in 2007 for the provision of accommodation will include Trim, Athlone, Killarney, Knock, Newcastle West, Clonakilty, the public private partnership projects for Carlow, Portlaoise and Mullingar, Wexford, Newbridge, Claremorris, Roscommon and Dungarvan. A number of projects will also be advanced during the year, including those in Cavan, Donegal, Drogheda, Fermoy, Kanturk, Youghal, Portarlington, Thomastown, Clifden, Tipperary town, Edenderry, Roscrea, Athy, Enniscorthy, Ballinasloe, Arklow and Waterford.

A sum of €141.35 million has been provided for project development and management. A number of individual projects and ongoing programmes will be managed in 2007, including the Garda station programme, estimated at €46 million. Garda projects scheduled to advance during this year include stations at Leixlip, Oranmore, Castlerea, Irishtown, Ballymun, works at Garda headquarters, the Forensic Science Laboratory and others.

An estimate of €45 million is provided for the office provision and rationalisation programme. Projects scheduled for advancement during the year are refurbishment projects for the Departments of Transport, Foreign Affairs, Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Social and Family Affairs. Also included are the Department of Finance, 7 to 9 Merrion Row, the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Agriculture and Food offices at Backweston and the Assay Office. A sum of €5 million is estimated for the cultural institutions programme and €7 million is estimated for the universal access and health and safety programme.

The third programme in the output statement concerns flood risk management, which has a gross budget of €66 million. The function of this programme is as follows: to advise the Government on flood risk management and flood risk management policy; develop detailed programmes and measures to implement the recommendations of the report of the flood policy review group; deliver on flood risk management work programmes and projects; and maintain an effective programme of maintenance of river courses drained under the provisions of the Arterial Drainage Acts.

A budget of €32 million has been provided for the flood relief capital works programme in 2007. Major flood relief schemes will be advanced to construction stage at Clonmel, Ennis, Fermoy and Mallow during this year. Flood relief schemes will also be brought to statutory public exhibitions at Enniscorthy, Templemore and Tullow. A budget of €18.249 million is provided for the arterial drainage maintenance programme to maintain a scheduled programme of maintenance of river courses drained under the Arterial Drainage Acts.

The fourth and final programme, heritage services, has a gross budget of €54 million. Its function is to care for the conservation of heritage sites, deliver a premium visitor experience and promote education regarding the significant historic aspects of national heritage sites to visitors. Heritage services will continue to manage in excess of 700 sites catering for approximately 2.6 million visitors annually, and protect site fabric from deterioration and damage by a continuing programme of planned maintenance adopting best architectural and conservation principles. The OPW will manage and prioritise a works programme in conjunction with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to include Castletown House, the site of the Battle of the Boyne, the Phoenix Park, St. Enda's in Rathfarnham, Durrow and Glasnevin Cemetery.

It might be useful at this point to draw attention to the centrality of contracts and procurement to the delivery of the OPW service. Most of our work is done by contract, which means that detailed specification, tendering, contract monitoring and performance evaluation are at the heart of our activities. The OPW is involved in placing thousands of contracts each year between construction, maintenance and supply contracts and property leases.

There is a detailed system of monitoring in place for major capital projects. The OPW and its clients are obliged to take steps to ensure that value for money is obtained and that controls are in place to ensure that projects are completed on time and within budget. This involves various steps, including pre-project appraisal and cost-benefit analysis, spot checking of progress, monthly reporting of expenditure, periodic reviews and detailed reports on completion by the OPW and its clients.

A major development the OPW has been fully implementing since the beginning of the year is a fixed price regime for major capital contracts which I referred to earlier and which will bring more price certainty and eliminate the scope for price variation and extras on major contracts in the future.

On the property side, the OPW is currently carrying out a value for money review of the property management service. In broad terms this analysis comprises a benchmarking of aspects of the property management service against similar aspects in a spectrum of organisations with similar services nationally and internationally. The range of organisations covers the State, semi-State and private sectors, providing a comprehensive tableau for credible and robust comparative rating of the OPW's property service. The type of measures and indicators arising from this qualitative study will better inform the range of output measures being developed by the OPW over the next few years and will provide a qualitative reference point to more standardised quantitative measures.

The OPW is also carrying out a value for money review of the office's flood relief programme. Preparatory work on this review has begun in the form of a qualitative study examining the approach taken to the planning and procurement of flood relief schemes. This analysis will examine alternative methods for the delivery of such schemes.

Further evidence of the high standards which obtain in the OPW is the fact that most business units within the office have not only achieved ISO accreditation but have retained this status following external audits. This highlights once again the quality and service-led ethos that exists in the organisation.

I assure members of this committee that the staff of the Office of Public Works and I will continue to advance its activities in all areas of responsibility entrusted to us by Government in a professional manner with a focus on governance, quality product, value for money and customer service. I will be happy to answer any questions that members of the committee wish to ask.

Deputy Bruton

We were supposed to have completed the decentralisation of 1,000 Civil Service and public service staff by now. The most recent count showed 7% delivery by the due date. Missing the target by 93% does not strike me as a strong indicator of achievement.

Let us not forget that the Minister who launched this clearly stated that Ministers should be judged by their performance against this benchmark and Ministers who failed to perform could expect the electorate to take due cognisance of that. In reality, the Ministers concerned, and I do not lay all of the blame at Deputy Parlon's door, have not delivered.

The reason they have not delivered is that project was not properly planned before it was announced. It did not conform with the spatial strategy, there was no business case for individual moves and the notion of disintegrating the core policy elements of Departments and dispersing them around the country was foolhardy. It was one of the worst examples of strategic planning for a major reform of public service delivery. It was done under the secrecy of the budget so none of the participant Departments or agencies could comment on it. It was launched without the Government memorandum and the usual process of governance where those involved comment on the proposals. All of them were disregarded in a calculated insult to the public service in general and senior policy advisers, who are there to assist the Government in making good decisions, in particular. We go to great lengths to do that, with the Accounting Officers in Departments having an obligation to ensure Government decisions do not run counter to the integrity of the delivery of State services. That was totally undermined by Government fiat.

I feel strongly about the way in which decentralisation was undertaken — it was an abuse of power. Seasoned public servants who help us to make these decisions in a proper, planned and effective way were disregarded. Many of them would have liked to have seen a property plan before the decision was made but the OPW, with all its skilled staff, was not consulted about the property-based plan ahead of the decision. What sort of procedure is that? The Minister of State has been made to try to sell a pup — trying to deliver something that was not properly planned.

I welcome the innovative output targets in the report. I do not see them, however, setting out benchmarks against which the committee could realistically judge the OPW. I am not an expert but I would have expected benchmarks for the cost of accommodation provided by the OPW compared with other providers in comparable locations and benchmarks for the cost of administration and maintenance provided by the OPW as against the private sector. I expected in this energy conscious environment to see the energy efficiency gains from the property portfolio. The Taoiseach stated at the weekend that 5% could be shaved off the energy use by changing light bulbs. If that is so, it is strange that the OPW, with its assembly of expertise, has not already done that. It appears to be an after-thought on the back of an EU decision.

There are no performance indicators for property management on behalf of the State. This is more about activity, saying we will complete site acquisitions. Those acquisitions could be bad decisions, we could be making a mistake by acquiring these sites. If this was a property management company reporting to the board, what would it report? It should show us that it is getting an edge, that it is ahead of the reasonable benchmarks for the area. This is in the old style of delivery without mentioning efficiency or benchmarks. It does not convey much else, there is no historic element to it.

Since the 2001 Estimates there has been a 32% increase in staffing. I do not know if that is a good or a bad thing. The capital programme does not seem to have risen by a comparable amount so staff have increased by more than the apparent capital investment programme. The rent book has increased but we cannot tell if that is due to higher rents or higher output. This is an advance on previous debates on the Estimates but we still cannot get an idea of the cost-effectiveness of this operation.

We can see a great deal we are satisfied with, such as flood protection. The Office of Public Works is taking a fresh approach to flood risks in Dublin in light of climate change. I would like to hear the Minister of State say more about that, for example, the sort of preparation we need to make to deal with the enhanced flood risks anticipated.

The 200 year protection in the present relatively modest proposals for Dublin will not give us anything like that. We need to move rapidly to the next phase of investment. What is the demand? I am concerned about Dublin where I and my constituents live, but I presume that many other coastal communities are equally concerned. I see the OPW is considering hydraulic barriers to be placed further out. What work is continuing and what risk assessment is being undertaken to support that technology? Those are a few thoughts.

I welcome progress and the concept of an output statement, but I hope that this time next year it will be more meaningful and will contain a trend line comparing present progress with the past and with that of others. That would help people like me who cannot absorb the complexity of much of the project management.

I sincerely welcome the effort being put into cost-benefit evaluation. The OPW has been scorched by the Kilkenny project which appears to have gone well over budget and been poorly conceived and managed. The Committee of Public Accounts and Deputy McGuinness have criticised the changes of mind in that project. The key issue is that the OPW should publish the cost benefit analyses. It is no good having these internal analyses and checks and measures of different projects without presenting them to us who represent the taxpayer. The OPW can decide the threshold over which we ought to see a project report. Before committing to the project it should publish a cost benefit evaluation, the key assumptions and hoped-for outcomes. As the project progresses, we should see how it performs against target.

Ministers can say anything they like when cutting the ribbon, for example, that the project is 100% cheaper than they expected or is ahead of target, because the OPW has never let us see the target, the budgets or the cost benefit analysis. The National Roads Authority has stopped publishing its costings of these projects precisely because it does not want someone to go back and check on it. The new emphasis on cost efficiency, which the OPW no doubt takes seriously, must be backed by openness and publication so that we can see what any board would expect to see in respect of the progress and performance of major investments on its behalf.

Mr. Parlon

I welcome Deputy Bruton's welcome for the—

Mr. Bruton

Did we not agree to group the questions?

Chairman

Perhaps we will group a series of questions because people are pressed for time.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

The single largest percentage increase for the OPW's operational costs is for consultancy services. An increase of 62% is provided for on the 2006 expenditure. Can the Minister of State assure committee members that every effort has been made to source the expertise required in-house instead of from the private consultancy industry? In what areas would these increased consultancy services be sought? Does the staff of the OPW, with its large property portfolio and related work, not already cover many of the areas of expertise?

Under item D in the document circulated to the committee, the list of sites for which legal formalities are expected to be concluded this year does not distinguish whether they are for decentralisation, for Garda sites or for general office purposes. Will the Minister of State say for which of these purposes the sites on the list beginning with Youghal and ending with Macroom are intended?

While I welcome the inclusion of Carrickmacross in my constituency on the list, this is dilatory. It refers to concluding legal formalities before the end of 2007, which is trundling along at a very slow pace. Will the Minister of State inform the committee how quickly he is likely to see progress in respect of all those on the list? He also refers to actively seeking temporary decentralised accommodation and lists locations throughout the country in practically every county, if not constituency, outside the greater Dublin area which I am sure is magical for other purposes. Why is the Minister of State considering temporary arrangements for a long-signalled decentralisation programme? This is very slow progress with little certainty when the promised decentralisation will take place. While I welcome the inclusion of Cavan in the list, temporary accommodation goes a very small way to accommodating the significant decentralisation committed to that town.

The Minister of State indicates in his report that the OPW is a significant player in the property rental market and that it is able to secure favourable terms and rates as against the private and semi-state sectors. Is the OPW paying ground rents on property owned, or towards ground rents as part of a rental or leasing arrangement, on any of the properties under its aegis? If so, what does it pay directly or indirectly for ground rents?

Like everybody else, the Minister of State must be aware that the increase in fuel prices approved by the Commission for Energy Regulation is artificial. It is granted to act as a carrot and stick approach to private interests to come into the overall energy provision market. Does he believe it is immoral and unacceptable that we as consumers must face this significant increase in fuel costs? Rather than being complicit in maintaining it, he should be seeking to address it to ensure electricity is provided at an appropriate and affordable level and that we will not be looking at this inflated arrangement that is most vexatious and creating impossible circumstances for hard pressed families.

Ms C. Murphy

The Minister of State made great efforts to ensure no town was left out in his presentation. When he was reading his script, he was like a train driver announcing the various stops en route. I was waiting for him to give us the choice to change trains at Mallow.

Mr. Bruton

Mitchelstown was left out.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

There must be something with the letter "M". Monaghan has been left out too.

Ms C. Murphy

Cost benefit analyses were conducted in several areas. However, one third of the expenditure will go on the procurement of buildings and lands for the decentralisation programme. The unprecedented increase in the budget has been linked to the issue of decentralisation. It is hard to get one's head around a cost benefit analysis of decentralisation. Will the final costs be in the negative or positive? One would expect the values of departmental properties in the capital to be significantly higher than those being purchased outside. This was used as a selling point for the programme. I understand it is not always possible to get a snapshot in one particular year and that some buildings will be sold after the event. It is difficult when buildings are considered only, not staff costs. If we ever get to the end of the decentralisation programme, questions will be asked as to why it cost money when it was presented as an economic benefit to the Exchequer.

It is not only coastal areas that have flood relief projects with the Office of Public Works. The allocation of €66 million is far short of the number of projects queuing for completion. Flooding has a real effect on people such as not being able to get household insurance or where insurance companies will not quote for whole areas. Local authorities may be providing short-term solutions when larger ones are required. The 100-year flood cycle was explained to me but by the time all the flood relief projects are completed, it will be time again for more flooding.

There is a great sense of frustration in areas waiting for flood relief projects. Is the money made available in the national development plan sufficient to deal with the needs identified? There is no point in referring in the budget to unprecedented growth when there are necessary and worthwhile flood relief projects not being completed. There was an underspend in the Department last year. Why were additional projects not taken on board because of this?

The Department has a role in determining school sites. I cannot remember the Office of Public Works purchasing a site for a school in the Leixlip area. When I was a member of the local authority, choosing school sites came down to the county development plan and haggling over the rezoning of land. Some of the sites offered were not particularly suitable and purchasing others would have been a better option. The process is so painfully slow it forces the situation. Earlier this week it was announced that 660,000 new houses would be needed in the next nine years. If that is the case, more schools will be needed. Will there be sufficient planning work done in the Office of Public Works to purchase sites for this future development so as not to have a repeat of what happened in counties Kildare, Meath and west Dublin?

I welcome the allocation of funds for the development of Leixlip Garda station but the plans to update the station were announced when Nora Owen was Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. That gives an indication of the length of time it takes to get projects from announcement to completion stage. Such delays add greatly to the cost of projects. While I am not wild about the location for the new station, it is welcome that it will finally be completed.

Mr. Finneran

I welcome the Minister of State. A sum of over €637 million constitutes extraordinary involvement by the Government in the maintenance and provision of accommodation for State bodies and flood relief measures. It is encouraging to see that the Government is investing heavily in the Office of the Public Works.

The old chestnut of the decentralisation programme keeps popping up at the committee.

Mr. Bruton

It is rather different now, according to Government plans. It should be finished.

Mr. Finneran

I will get around to that presently. Sometimes people forget their past statements. I remember well what was said in 2002 when my party spoke of 10,000 civil servants being decentralised. I know what the main Opposition party said at the time, namely, that it would decentralise 18,000. However, they seem to have struck that from the record or censored their thoughts since.

I compliment the Office of Public Works and the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, on the positive steps taken regarding implementation of the decentralisation programme. In 2002, my county won a Government building. Not only has that now been completed, it has been inhabited for the past 12 months. That there are now 200 civil servants there is a great credit to the Office of Public Works. In the past two weeks, the OPW has purchased a site for the Land Registry. I understand it intends to go to tender within a few weeks. That is extraordinary progress, and I am also pleased to see that an advance party of 34 civil servants is already there, with another 50 to follow.

Whether people like it or not, and regardless of any desire or reason they may have to speak against it, decentralisation is working. It may not be happening as fast as originally envisaged, but it is working. Those in the Civil Service who wish to be decentralised are there in vast numbers. I know the figures come from my own office, but I make inquiries constantly. The Ministers should continue the good work. The public understands it, and it is a matter of Government policy rather than poor spatial strategy. Governments are elected to make decisions, and that is what it did on this occasion. "More power to it" is my sentiment. I have been very vocal regarding regional policy over the years, and that every town in the midlands and west will have 400 to 800 decentralised civil servants is a very welcome development that enhances them.

Another area on which I compliment the OPW is the major job it is carrying out on Castlerea Garda station. Perhaps I might ask the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, regarding flood relief. I am pleased he found a way around the question of maintenance on the Shannon, in which regard we have all had to endure the wrath of farmers, landowners and householders for many years. For my entire adult life I have attended public meetings and joined deputations. While draining the Shannon or its tributaries was an issue at various times, the proposal became a non-runner many years ago.

However, many of us believed all the same there was another way, namely, to prevent the Shannon's main channel from being an outfall for everywhere else, including major Bord na Móna developments. Without some kind of maintenance, we could not expect it to survive. I am very pleased and compliment the Minister of State and the OPW on implementing a programme of river maintenance which I hope will be successful and will continue.

Perhaps we might consider other trouble spots. In particular, I know from a geographical perspective that the area from Athlone to Meelagh has always endured flash floods and severe damage to properties. Many people in the area believe it would be minimised if there were a certain level of maintenance and co-operation between various bodies. It is encouraging that we are now looking at maintenance because a great deal of rubble, branches and so on is bound to have accumulated in the lower sections of the river. It is in the best interests of the Shannon that maintenance be carried out. Perhaps the Minister of State might comment in that regard in his reply.

I also mention two major sites in the county, Roscommon Castle and Ballintubber Castle. They date from the 11th or 12th centuries and, recently, great interest has developed on the part of the visiting public. One is inaccessible and the other quite dangerous. Perhaps at some point the Office of Public Works might report on them to determine if any conservation work might be carried out to allow the public to walk around them. I am not at this stage talking about anything major, although that might happen in future.

Many people stop on the roads to view the two properties but cannot get past the iron gates, having to content themselves with reading the little plaque on the outside. That is unfortunate. We are trying to boost tourism, but when the buses stop, we cannot offer them an explanation. Perhaps some limited works might be carried out, although there are questions of insurance, health and safety, and so on. Perhaps someone might take note of it. My county manager, Mr. John Tiernan, and I have discussed the matter, and I told him I would raise it. Today has provided that opportunity.

Mr. P. McGrath

I apologise for being late. I am delighted to be at this meeting with the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, because I wish to put one or two questions to him. I hope he will answer because he failed to do so in the Dáil. Members will recall that on the previous occasion the Minister of State attended, he stated the OPW had underspent by €56 million on capital projects in 2006. We are all aware of Garda stations, public parks, waterways and so on in our constituencies that need work. However, at the end of the year, the Minister of State was able to return to his constituency colleague, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, the substantial sum of €56 million.

I submitted a parliamentary question to the Minister of State asking what projects had underspent their budgets. I wanted a complete list but got a list of only four or five, amounting to less than €10 million. In my view, it was a deliberate attempt not to answer the question, but I wish to give the Minister of State the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity of answering today. If he has not got the information with him, perhaps he might send to the Chairman the full list of underspending projects, setting them out in detail.

The Chairman and I are entitled to know about projects in our constituencies that did not fully spend their allocations and why. I know the Chairman would not talk about it in his constituency, but I could do it in mine, saying the Minister of State had let us down on spending. We should not come up with lame excuses along the lines of planning permission not coming through, there being a problem or delay, or contractors not coming up to scratch.

The sum of €56 million out of a total budget of €300 million is sizeable, amounting to 18% or 19%, and that remained unspent at the end of the year. If one were doing that in business, one would probably be hailed as a hero for saving so much. However, regarding public spending, if one fails to do the required works, it is seen as negligent. I hope the Minister of State will furnish us with a very detailed explanation of where and why budgets were underspent and what has happened in that regard. I do not want to hear that it was all tied up in decentralisation. The total budget we had last year for decentralisation was €20 million, which is a damn sight short of €56 million.

Mr. McGuinness

The old Garda barracks in Castlecomer, in my constituency, was a listed building. Has the OPW assessed the damage to that building because of the recent fire? Will it be restored, disposed of or what does the OPW intend to do with it? It is now a derelict building and a source of some concern. I have approached the Department before as regards the adjoining school which is interested in taking it over, but it has been burned down since. Perhaps the OPW can give me some idea of its intentions regarding that building and the cost to the State if it is intended to rectify the damage that was done.

The OPW was offered a significant garden and estate in County Carlow. I wonder why it has taken so long to take that property in charge and what are the OPW's intentions in that regard? Has it got over the legal difficulties? While I understand there will be difficulties as regards a will of that type, surely it does not take that number of years to sort out the problems involved. The OPW might outline what those problems are.