SELECT COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE debate -
Wednesday, 27 Feb 2008

Finance Act 2004: Motion

Chairman

I welcome the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, and his officials. The purpose of the meeting is to consider the Finance Act 2004 (Section 91) (Deferred Surrender to the Central Fund) Order 2008. On 12 February the Dáil referred the following motion to the select committee for consideration:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft:

Finance Act 2004 (Section 91) (Deferred Surrender to the Central Fund) Order 2008,

copies of which were laid in draft form before Dáil Éireann on 28th January, 2008.

Tánaiste and Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Cowen)

The ministerial order before the select committee is a technical instrument and its purpose is to allow the Dáil to approve formally 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 resources that would otherwise be lost are now made available for capital spending 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 in the National Development Plan 2007-2013.

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. Among these conditions are 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 is, 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 amounts within a Vote do not have to be spent on the same subhead or programme where the saving occurred. They may be spent on a different programme depending on progress and priorities.

The 2008 draft order sets out the subheads or programmes under which Departments and agencies propose to spend in 2008 the capital carryover amounts specified by Vote in the 2007 Appropriation Act. The total amount proposed in the draft order for 2008 is €126.119 million which amounts to 1.6% of the 2007 provisional outturn as published in the 2008 Revised Estimates Volume. This compares with a capital carryover figure of €159.135 million in 2007 or 2.5% of the 2006 outturn. The total 2008 gross Exchequer capital provision in the 2008 Revised Estimates Volume is over €9 billion. The capital carryover amount of €126.119 million will bring the total Exchequer capital available for spending in 2008 to €9.18 billion.

The main priority areas for spending of the capital carryover amount of €126.119 million in 2008 as set out in the draft order are as follows: over €35 million will be spent by the Office of Public Works to fund new works and alterations to public buildings; €23 million is provided by the Department of Arts, Sports and Tourism for Lansdowne Road; the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is allocating €21.4 million for the development of agriculture and food and €10 million to forestry; and the Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment is proposing to allocate €12.5 million to FÁS and over €4.2 million to 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 2008 will assist them within this framework in tackling economic and social infrastructural priorities in their areas. I commend the order to the select committee.

Deputy Richard Bruton

I thank the Minister for presenting this report. However, the detail presented is extraordinarily limited. The Oireachtas has made provision that we need to approve this order. It is somewhat strange that our approval is required, yet there is nothing here on which we can make a judgment. These are just numbers which I accept in good faith. One is allowed to carry forward a figure of 10%. However, the Minister has said the bodies concerned may use the amounts to continue projects for which they have not drawn down moneys or that they may switch them to fund other works. At a minium, the select committee needs information on the projects for which the moneys made available were nodt used, whether the moneys will be applied to fund their completion or whether they will be used in other areas.

On the wider capital control front, I welcomed the changes the Minister made a few years ago when he sought to make individuals responsible and sought a cost benefit analysis of projects costing more than €30 million. He also sought to have internal systems within Departments for reporting on progress and taking action if a project was seen to be going off the rails, either in the context of running over budget or failing to achieve its targets. While this worthwhile material is being assembled and utilised in Departments and agencies, we who have ultimate responsibility in the context of being satisfied with the way money is being spent are not privy to it.

It is a long time since this committee or one of its predecessors made the proposal that the Oireachtas should, as a matter of routine, receive reports on major capital projects. Why does the Minister believe the Oireachtas should not be trusted with the information to which I refer? We are, after all, referring to reports being made on the way money we have sanctioned is being spent and whether envisaged targets are being met. The Minister, on grounds of commercial confidentiality, remains committed to retaining the secret relating to cost-benefit analyses. Having watched many episodes of "Yes Minister" during the years, I am aware that "the national interest", "commercial confidentiality" and many similar phrases can be used to justify not telling people about what is happening. The Minister should reconsider the position on this issue. There is a blanket ban on Members of the Oireachtas obtaining access to cost-benefit analyses. We are not fools. The commercial confidentiality relating to most of these projects revolves around the tender issue and the fact that those tendering for contracts do not want to expose their hands. Some agencies will provide, ex ante, the internal rates of return relating to projects. However, they will not provide any other information.

The Minister should direct his officials to examine how much of this information could be usefully released for public scrutiny rather than being retained by Departments. He would be doing a service if he took action in this regard. Agencies tend to view projects through rose-tinted glasses. They overstate the benefits and understate the costs and then when things go wrong, we are left asking questions as to why that was the case. If there was a degree of public scrutiny, it would correct the position to some extent. I welcome the fact that a unit designed to ride shotgun on matters of this nature has been established in the Department of Finance. That unit would not be needed if the information to which I refer was placed in the public arena.

On the broader strategic challenges our capital programmes are designed to meet, it was interesting and refreshing that the Minister for Transport, Deputy Dempsey, admitted in recent days that the national climate change strategy 2000 had failed. The latter is not the only strategy which has set out ambitious targets and failed to meet them. For example, the government strategy did not meet its targets. In individual instances, debate will occur as to why this was the case. For all sorts of reasons, the health strategy has not reached its targets. While we may be approving each capital project in a certain way that makes sense and is controlled, at the end of the day we are not delivering in the context of the bigger picture. The climate change strategy came unstuck and we did not achieve any reduction in our carbon emissions in the five-year period during which it was supposed to be in place. We only achieved 50% of the targets set out in the e-government strategy. The Minister will obviously state these targets were extremely ambitious. Nonetheless, we spent the money and did not reach all of the targets set.

There is a gap between the Government stating its ambition and putting in place a road map for well costed projects that will deliver on that ambition. Something is breaking down in that regard. While the Oireachtas continues to examine capital programmes in the way they are being presented, it will never crack this nut. There is a requirement that if a strategy is set out — be it in respect of e-government, climate change, health, decentralisation, etc. — a proper road map must be laid down. We must, for example, be in a position to know that certain projects will be undertaken, that these are expected to deliver certain things and that there will be some form of scrutiny to establish whether they are meeting the strategic goals set for them. I do not see any evidence of such a process. Time and again, Ireland Inc. falls short in the context of framing strategies and delivering them in areas we all know will be crucial in terms of our being competitive, effective, etc. In the coming years it will increasingly be the capacity of the public sector to deliver strategic programmes that will determine our competitive success. The private sector has been extremely successful but many of constraints and other issues up to which we must face fall within the domain of the public sector.

We need to reconsider the way in which we manage capital spending. We have another day's work to do in respect of current spending. The rush to spend at the end of each year still seems to be a feature on the current side. We must move to a position where bodies will take a more long-term perspective and carry over funds. However, I accept that this probably relates to the process of three-year budgeting which, I understand, is on the way. With the introduction of such budgeting, we may begin to see changes.

I am reluctant to give approval in respect of the expenditure of €126 million because I know nothing about this money other than what is stated on the documentation provided, namely, that it is for the salaries and expenses of various offices and that it relates to particular services, administered grants, sundry grants-in-aid, etc. The information provided is the same in respect of each office and does not indicate the purpose for which the money will be used.

Deputy Brian Cowen

The Schedule sets out the format. The Deputy has indicated his view that the information provided is not sufficiently well detailed. The overall capital carryover amount is just 1.6% of the total. However, I take the Deputy's point. Perhaps next year we might provide an additional paragraph with more specific information. I will investigate the possibility of doing so and even of forwarding more detailed information to the Deputy in respect of the table provided on this year's allocation. If members are of the view that they require more information than that which is currently available, I do not have any objection, in principle, to providing it. We are trying to facilitate and assist the committee. Even though it is only a small percentage of the total spend, I am not suggesting €126 million is a small sum. Neither, however, do I suggest that the lack of detail is covering up the fact that something is wrong. It is merely a formatting issue which I will examine in the context of providing additional information in the future.

Deputy Bruton referred to cost-benefit analyses. There is not a blanket ban on issuing information on such analyses. It is the responsibility of each Department or agency to decide whether to publish information. However, the Deputy is probably correct in stating the tendency is probably not to publish. There are good reasons for this, particularly in the context of information that is commercially sensitive. I will consider this matter in the context of how we might provide better outcomes regarding requests made in respect of the cost-benefit analyses relating to certain projects.

In reply to a priority question tabled on 7 January I stated that in New Zealand all cost-benefit analyses were published on the web and that this did not appear to cause problems in the context of the publication of commercially sensitive information. I agreed at that stage to have my officials investigate the position in New Zealand and indicate what might be the comparative position at home.

With regard to the evaluation of capital investment generally, the last NDP was evaluated mid-term and subsequently. The plan performed well and the returns were good on the investments made. The public capital programme in that respect through the NDP evaluation process comes back to the public and suggests what benefits derive from the investments made under the plan. This is a particularly ambitious development plan, which is not restricted to capital investment, as there are current investments as well.

The Deputy asked how we project multi-annual current spending. That is being examined and--

Deputy Richard Bruton

I am referring to the difference between business as usual, which is building schools and the usual capital spend, and strategic projects such as those intended to tackle climate change. A different approach is needed to the latter. The Government is not getting it right. The State takes many strategic ambitions on in good faith but it does not get its act together to deliver on them. Climate change is a good case in point. The Minister for Transport is admitting that--

Deputy Brian Cowen

It could be a question of the collation of information. The climate change strategy cuts across many Departments and the capital investment in it and the progress made can be seen in the annual reports of Departments and through the Estimates process where Ministers must answer further questions on it.

Deputy Richard Bruton

On an individual basis, everything in the garden seems okay, yet the strategy the Government said was crucial at the beginning is not delivered. There is a disconnect. I do not say a bad project was undertaken by the ESB but the reduction in emissions that was intended was not achieved. Something went wrong. The ambition may have been abandoned but there was no day on which--

Deputy Brian Cowen

We grew too fast.

Deputy Richard Bruton

That is not true. Many of the decisions that were signalled were not taken. For one reason or another, they were fudged or different decisions were taken.

Deputy Brian Cowen

Where there are cross-cutting interdepartmental responsibilities, the way each Department reports on the individual projects within its remit, the exercise of doing the cross-departmental curve and fitting into whatever cross-departmental strategy is involved, would be of assistance in helping Members see to what extent strategies are being implemented and the reasons for implementation or non-implementation as the case may be. That is a fair enough point. I will have to check within our system to extent to which we pull all that together interdepartmentally in order that people can see a strategy is being implemented.

Deputy Richard Bruton

That does not happen.

Deputy Brian Cowen

I take the point and I will check on it.

Deputy Joan Burton

I welcome the Minister and I thank him for his attendance. I have a number of questions on the allocations. The capital carryover innovation is sensible, otherwise the phenomenon of Departments rushing to spend available money as the end of the year approaches would continue and it would be deemed a failure on the part of civil servants not to spend all the money allocated. This innovation is positive but much of the Government's accounting needs an overhaul to be understandable to most people. As Deputy Bruton stated, it is difficult to understand without more detailed information.

The delay in the building of the Lansdowne Road stadium is visible and understandable but under other headings how much of the carryover of money, if any, relates to ongoing decentralisation projects, which have not been completed? It is logical to move the Department of Defence to Kildare and there is significant interest in this move but it is far from being achieved. I do not know whether the acquisition of property is an issue but, like the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, it was a logical move, on which almost everybody is in agreement. However, it is far from complete. The Minister for Defence will retain GHQ on Infirmary Road, Dublin, but the majority of people will be in Kildare, as should be the case.

Capital funding for FÁS is listed at €12.3 million. Is that related to property movements under the decentralisation programme? It is proposed to move FÁS to the Minister's constituency. While people in other Departments are willing and anxious to move to towns such as Birr and Tullamore, there is a marked reluctance on the part of FÁS staff in the head office on Baggot Street to move.

The first year this was done, there was a problem with the HSE distinguishing between revenue and capital expenditure, resulting in the Minister having to resubmit a Vote. As the HSE is a significant capital spender, does this imply its spending is balanced or is its chief executive under the terms of reference relating to his position allowed to move capital and revenue? That was the impression I was under when this problem arose, but I have never understood this. The Minister stepped in and introduced a Revised Estimate in the Dáil but I am still under the impression the HSE feels the distinction between capital and revenue is flexible. The executive is not listed in the document. Is that because it transferred unspent capital to revenue? Given that the executive was involved in a strong retrenchment process for the second half of the year, following the general election, it would be interesting to know what happened in detail with its Vote.

Will the Minister provide a separate note on flood relief under the OPW Vote? Does part of its Vote involve the decentralisation programme? The organisation was supposed to be working out of Trim, County Meath, by now but that has not happened. There is very significant interest in transferring to Trim because it is in the greater Dublin region, but many unhappy people are still travelling into the office on St. Stephen's Green and they would have expected to be commuting to Trim by now. I do not know if there is a decentralisation element to that allocation.

Yesterday the chairman and chief executive of CIE launched the proposed interconnector for Dublin under Transport 21, which I strongly support because it would transform public transport in Dublin. Given that heavy trains will be used, its capacity to carry people is much greater than Dublin Bus or Luas. However, the chairman put a price tag of €2 billion on the project. That is good value for money. With regard to pricing capital projects, must the figures be verified by anybody? We have examples from Madrid and other European cities of capital projects coming in way below the cost of capital projects here. We seem to be at the extremely expensive end of the scale. We do not know whether this is because contractors inflate prices or because the cost of doing capital business here is so expensive. Has the Minister any comment to make on that?

Deputy Brian Cowen

The issue of decentralisation comes under the OPW subhead. There was an underspend on the capital side of decentralisation last year of about €63 million. Some €35 million is being carried over. Over €15 million or €17 million of the moneys were spent on other buildings, projects or priorities during the course of the year, projects that went ahead with on the basis of the others not going ahead. Those priorities moved up the list a little. Approximately €7.5 million was surrendered.

With regard to the HSE, it would not be able to move capital across to current spend without departmental approval.

Deputy Joan Burton

The Minister states that the OPW surrendered €7.5 million. Which Departments ended up surrendering those moneys?

Deputy Brian Cowen

The OPW surrendered it to the Central Fund.

Deputy Joan Burton

I understand, it goes to the Central Fund for its projects, just as in the case of the Trim project that it did not get to do yet.

Deputy Brian Cowen

Yes. With regard to Trim, that programme contract has been placed and construction is under way on new facilities, including the Office of Public Works in Trim. There is progress on that issue.

The savings on subhead H2, flood relief, were due to delays in commencing construction works at major schemes in Mallow, Clonmel and Ennis as a result of detailed design difficulties, ongoing negotiations with local authorities and post-tender negotiations with contractors.

On the question of the interconnector and major infrastructural projects, all of these projects must come back for Cabinet approval. Although projects are in the programme, if they cost over a certain limit they must get Cabinet approval to ensure they are completed at the right cost. It is true that infrastructural and land acquisition costs are high here, perhaps because our private property provisions in the Constitution and the interpretation of these by the courts have been robust. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is bringing forward a designated lands Bill which will extend beyond the current provision of Part V in terms of our powers to try and avoid the highest cost aspects of these activities for the State with regard to land acquisition.

On the health service, Vote 40 had a total allocation of €545.95 million in 2007. There was no capital carryover from the HSE into 2007 or from 2007 into 2008. There was a €21 million offset for overruns on the current side that was allowed. The balance of some €4 million represented savings from the dormant accounts provision of €7 million in 2007.

Deputy Joan Burton

Is that what the €4 million is?

Deputy Brian Cowen

Yes, it is savings from the dormant accounts provision of €7 million.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

I thank the Minister for attending. To follow up on comments made by Deputy Bruton, I agree there is a lack of detail. The Minister has highlighted that €126 million is a significant sum of money. I agree. It is only 1.6% of the capital expenditure, but overall it is a significant amount. We have just been given an overall figure for the underspend, but is there any breakdown for each Department of its percentage underspend? Why was the money not spent? Is proposed expenditure still valid and can we go ahead with it?

What is the state of progress in respect of each project with which the Minister hopes to proceed. Have these projects yet to be commenced, are they under way and have they been properly evaluated? What stands out when we look through the proposed spending is the €35 million plus for the Office of Public Works. The Minister answered the questions on that in response to Deputy Burton. I note €21 million has been allocated for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, €12 million for FÁS and €23 million for Lansdowne Road.

I would like the Minister to address these issues. We need to have proper cost benefit analyses done in respect of these capital projects. If we provide moneys, stringent criteria must apply to ensure we get value for money. Can the Minister let me know the percentage underspend in each of these Departments and what cost benefit analyses have been undertaken? Will he also refer to the €21million for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the €12.5 million for FÁS. There is a lack of detail in these areas and I would appreciate the Minister's comments.

Deputy Brian Cowen

On the breakdown of the underspend, the figure relating to the Department of Finance, which is basically for the OPW, is 10%. The figure for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is 0.3%; the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, 1%; the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 9%; the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, 5%; the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism, 10%; the Department of Defence, 10%; and the Department of Health and Children, 1%. The total amounts to 1.6% of the total capital spend, €126 million.

It is important to point out that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made its savings over a myriad of areas. Some €21 million of the savings are going to farm waste management and €10 million to forestry. The capital for FÁS is for the maintenance of FÁS properties and equipment, including health and safety improvements. The savings in this area came from IDA grants and other such areas.

The whole idea of the multi-annual capital programme is to provide flexibility to line Ministers. I am not here to go through each of them. The line Ministers can, through their reports to the various committees, explain how this works. The idea is to get away from the notion that we all have to spend the moneys in 12 months. If it is held over there could be a better contract coming up or a better way of doing or grouping projects. Priorities change. We set out at the beginning of the year what we want to do, but if problems arise with a project we hold it back and do something else. It would be terrible if the system was too structured. That would not be the way to go.

It seems to me it is a question of the public administration system reflecting how the private sector would operate. If there are certain moneys available for a few years, one knows what is available and is able to divide one's priorities accordingly, get on with the work and report annually on the progress being made. While this motion is something we can discuss, it is a technical issue through which I ask the Dáil to allow me to proceed with the order before 31 March to enable the money allocated in 2007 to be spent in 2008. It is a question for each Minister to go through his or her Department's projects in detail. Those are generally the broad areas.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

I agree with the multi-annual arrangement as it makes absolute sense. In terms of the further detail the Minister has given us, it is clear that 10% for the Office of Public Works is at its limit and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is at 9% and the Minister for Defence at 10%. There is a lack of breakdown and I ask the Minister to give more breakdown to enable us--

Deputy Brian Cowen

I said to Deputy Bruton that I want to be helpful to the committee. I acknowledge it is difficult to try and work one's way through these figures and come up with a form of intelligible interaction between us about these things as they are quite opaque. Next year we should brief members of the committee before the meeting and detail what these items are intended for so that members could read the information before the committee meeting. We might then avoid having to make these inquiries.

Deputy Seán Barrett

I have a suggestion for the Minister. The Public Accounts Committee looks at moneys spent. There should be some format for a committee to look at moneys allocated and for an up to date report during the year, for instance, on a quarterly basis, showing what percentage of change is needed. More information would allow greater participation by all Members of the Oireachtas. It is the Government's responsibility to decide on a budget to allocate a certain amount of money for expenditure but very often there are times when a committee structure could be used to give members the opportunity of examining whether targets are being met.

I am Chairman of the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security. This is a new committee and it is quite fascinating. I note an item headed "Forestry and Bio-energy" with a total of €10 million not spent. There is hardly a chance of these targets being met in the area of bio-fuels because the lead-in time is so great. Decisions have not even been taken. We are setting these targets for ourselves. It is easy to set a target but it is certainly not as easy to achieve that target.

I would like this committee to be given a quarterly or bi-annual report on expenditure to enable us to have an intelligent debate on the subject rather than shouting and roaring about it. It shows that under the headings such as science, technology and innovation, at total of €4.226 million has not been spent. The area of science and technology should be dealt with by the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment so that it could examine the reason we are not spending this money and the reason for its allocation in the first place. This would produce a far better system in operation.

I recommend that the Minister consider some new approach as to reporting throughout the year such as a structure whereby subjects such as this can be identified and referred on to a committee to have matters further investigated. A total of €10 million for forestry and bio-energy is a great deal of money. I do not know why it has not been used and it should be investigated. I urge the Minister in his capacity as Minister for Finance and as the Deputy Prime Minister to look at all these ways of improving the structures in here. That would be real Dáil reform. It is all very well deciding we can speak for ten minutes instead of 15 minutes. That is not Dáil reform; Dáil reform is allowing more genuine positive activity within Parliament. It is staring us straight in the face that somebody should answer questions as to why we are not spending this money and why it was sought in the first place. This is my contribution. I know the Minister is here to obtain approval but it is an opportunity to put forward suggestions and I ask the Minister to take this on board if possible.

Deputy Brian Cowen

I have introduced budget reforms such as providing far more detail to committees about the Estimates and proposed expenditure through the following year. There have been significant reforms. Information on expenditure used to be available only at the beginning of the following year and people were of the view the decisions had all been made and there was no point in just approving them. Interaction is now taking place between us and committees to give the committees an opportunity to suggest draft proposals as to how they would shape a budget arising out of the Estimates being provided three or four months sooner than would otherwise be the case. It often happens that people tell me what is wrong with the Estimates and then add on their wish list but still tell me they want the budget to balance. However, it would allow us to have a chat and give a real input into the work of committees to suggest priorities to a Minister for Finance, given the agreed amount of money left after the Abridged Estimates volume is produced. That has been an improvement.

On the point made by the Deputy about science and technology, that figure was a liability which did not mature in 2007 but rather matured in January 2008 and the bill was paid in January. It was a timing issue. It would not be possible to bring in quarterly Estimates.

Deputy Seán Barrett

It would improve on an Estimate.

Deputy Brian Cowen

Improving the whole format of the Estimates and the type of information provided in Estimates time is work we have been doing. I am prepared to continue to work on being more transparent on these issues. I welcome and am interested in Parliament being given an opportunity to contribute to these areas. I do not believe Parliament should be regarded as a rubber stamp or anything like that; from time to time we will all have different seats around different tables. It is important that Parliament is seen to be effective for all of us. This is good for Government and is good for us and good for committee members. It makes for better decision-making. I am very much a proponent of that approach and I have been proactive in that area.

I have introduced budgetary reforms in each of the years I have been Minister for Finance. These are quite considerable reforms. We have changed to a unified budget. At one time people were asking how it could be figured out. I have unified the budget. I have introduced reform of the annual output statements. Ministers are now required to come to committee and indicate the outputs they expect for the money they are spending. Committees can ask those Ministers to attend at the end of each year and ask them to account for the expenditure.

I have devised that mechanism to give committees the information they require. It is in my interest to put ministerial colleagues on their mettle as to what I expect to get for the money as much as the members of the committee. I can assess the performance and what the difficulties are and what the Government is delivering and which Departments are delivering or are having difficulties and how we can improve the governance mechanisms to ensure that the best performers become the rule rather than the exception. All of us with responsibilities must try to get the very best value for the taxpayers' money we are spending and voting through. It is open to any committees at any time to ask Ministers or Accounting Officers into their committee rooms on any subject, whether on issues of expenditure or policy or whatever, to discuss it with them and to hold them to account. I am very much in favour of that process because it makes for better government and keeps us all on our toes.

All of the amounts here are explicable and it was good they were not spent back in 2007 and that there were deferrals and projects were held back if they were not ready to go. Otherwise money would be spent on projects that were not priorities rather than resubmitting it back to the Central Fund. What we should do is maintain the strategic and programmatic approach rather than the project based annual system. The other problem with the annual capital programme, as previous Ministers knew, was that it was impossible to plan. I was the first Minister for Health and Children to have a multi-annual capital plan, before the introduction of multi-annual capital envelopes. When I became Minister for Health and Children, I asked the then Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, what he could give me for the following three years in order that I could see what I could do with it. I did not want to have to go back and bug him every year and haggle. How I could start a hospital project if I did not know how much money I would have in year three? All of my predecessors were asked to run the Department of Health and Children on the basis of annual budgets when everyone knew all projects required multi-annual funding plans. How could anyone run a show in that way? There were overruns because of the way it was structured which meant it was a maintenance budget rather than a capital budget. We did not have the money at the time to replace the entire infrastructure, much of which had been provided by churches and other charitable institutions, which is how the hospital system was developed. We are now coming to terms with that problem.

There are major challenges for us in terms of our demographics and how we should devise ways and means to keep people at home for as long as possible rather than finding that the capital projections for the provision of elderly services care are staggering, regardless of who is in government. They could advise on what we would need in an ideal world. I can assure Deputies that it will not be an ideal world. It is up to us to find other solutions rather than bricks and mortar. All of that is--

Deputy Seán Barrett

The Government should reintroduce equal treatment for home carers.

Deputy Brian Cowen

I am working on that issue. I have begun the process of doubling the figure. In my fifth budget I hope to have that commitment fully honoured. I know the Deputy will be the first person to stand up and congratulate me for once again fulfilling my commitment, as I did for pensioners.

The discussion was fruitful. Next year we can change the format somewhat which should make for a more intelligible discussion with information available prior to the debate.

Chairman

I have no doubt the committee will welcome the Minister's suggestion regarding an advance briefing on an issue such as this.

Deputy Edward O’Keeffe

In Vote 35, subhead C5, €23 million is allocated to Lansdowne Road. From where is the €23 million coming?

Deputy Brian Cowen

That project was approved by the Government as part of providing better stadia. Similar to the case of Croke Park, an allocation was made by the Government to assist the IRFU and the FAI to provide a modern facility in Lansdowne Road. There was an underspend of €10 million on the development due in the first instance to the exigencies of the planning process. The main contract for the construction of the stadium was awarded on 22 October last. There were savings in that respect because the contractual commitments did not start until the last quarter of the year. The savings are carried forward into 2008. There is another €13 million from savings elsewhere which will be devoted to the project this year because we reckon €23 million will be the amount required to fulfil that phase of the contractual commitment.

Deputy Edward O’Keeffe

How will the money be drawn down?

Deputy Brian Cowen

We decided that the Exchequer contribution to the project would be €191 million, with the remainder being provided by the IRFU and the FAI. It was agreed that the Exchequer contribution would be paid upfront. The balance of the €191 million, except for the €6 million retention figure, is due in 2008. The carryover amount of €23 million was to meet this commitment. There was an underspend on the Lansdowne Road development last year of €10 million which I have explained was due to the exigencies of the planning process. Having started in October, the balance to make up our upfront contribution of €191 million is €23 million this year.

Deputy Edward O’Keeffe

Given that the Minister has given such detail, I have another question on Vote 35, subhead C1, sports capital grants. Will the sum of €2 million be brought forward into the capital grant distribution programme for this year? Was it unclaimed money for last year?

Deputy Brian Cowen

The sports capital grant programme will receive a carryover amount of €2 million. The programme for Government states the Government will continue to promote the development of a wide range of local sports facilities to improve participation and provide healthy social outlets for people of all ages. There is a €2 million carryover amount from last year's allocation.

Just for the record, €93 million is going to Lansdowne Road this year, as well as the €23 million mentioned. Therefore, the figure is €116 million of the sum of €191 million.

Deputy Edward O’Keeffe

I thank the Minister for attending.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

Is the Minister happy that everything proposed to be spent will be spent in 2008? I note that of the sum of €35 million for the Office of Public works, some of it has already been spent. Of the various allocations, how many have already been spent in 2008?

Deputy Brian Cowen

The money cannot be spent until we sign the order and have it passed by the Oireachtas.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

The Minister earlier mentioned a sum of €10 million for forestry.

Deputy Brian Cowen

Yes, we are going to spend €10 million more on forestry.

Deputy Seán Barrett

I misread that. It was not that the €10 million was not spent. The Government is allocating €10 million.

Deputy Brian Cowen

Yes.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

I misunderstood. Is the Minister happy?

Deputy Brian Cowen

Yes. All this money will be spent. There will be a carryover into next year — it is the nature of the business. It is just the way the matrix moves.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

Do any of the carryovers amounts relate to 2006?

Deputy Brian Cowen

No. They are not allowed to do that. If the money is not spent this year, it is given back.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

It is purely for one year.

Deputy Brian Cowen

They have one chance and have to take it.

Deputy Seán Barrett

In other words, this is money from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that was not spent.

Deputy Brian Cowen

Under various headings.

Deputy Seán Barrett

It is now being allocated to a particular area. My apologies, I misunderstood.

Deputy Brian Cowen

They are priority programmes.

Chairman

Does the committee have a view on whether there should be further debate on the motion in the Dáil? Can I take it that it recommends that there be no further debate on the motion in Dáil Éireann? Is that agreed? Agreed. The clerk has circulated a draft report on the motion. Is the report agreed, with the inclusion of the starting and finishing times and the names of the members who have contributed to the debate? Agreed. Is it agreed that the report be laid before the Dáil? Agreed. I thank the Minister and his officials. I also thank members.