SELECT COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE debate -
Wednesday, 12 Mar 2008

Vote 10 — Office of Public Works.

2008 Annual Output Statement.

Chairman

The meeting will proceed in public session. The purpose of the meeting is consideration of the Office of Public Works Revised Estimates for 2008. I welcome the Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works, Deputy Noel Ahern, and his officials to the meeting.

On 21 April 2008, the Dáil referred the 2008 Revised Estimates for Public Services to the committee for consideration. Vote 10 — Office of Public Works, comes within the remit of this committee. On foot of the 2006 budget reform measure, the Office of Public Works 2008 annual output statement has also been provided to the committee and has been circulated to members in order to facilitate consideration of the Estimates.

Members will recall the Minister for Finance wrote to the committee on 1 February 2008, requesting that this meeting should focus on outputs to be achieved for the moneys being voted. If members have any particular views or comments on the output statement, the Minister has a particular interest in hearing how the statements can be further developed. At a future date the committee will be required to decide whether it wishes to have a co-ordinating role on the conclusions of deliberations of other select committees on the Estimates process.

A draft timetable for the meeting has been circulated. It allows for the opening statement by the Minister of State and the Opposition spokespersons followed by an open discussion on the Vote. Is the timetable agreed? Agreed.

I invite the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, to make his opening statement.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Noel Ahern)

I am pleased to introduce the 2008 Revised Estimate for the Office of Public Works. The gross allocation for the OPW Vote will see a 7% increase on last year's allocation amounting to a total of €680.825 million.

The unsurpassed level of funding for the office, much of which is provided under the national development plan, reflects the Government's firm support for the OPW. I welcome this commitment which will allow for key infrastructural developments to progress, including in particular the ongoing provision of accommodation for the decentralisation programme.

The inclusion of the office in a seven-year plan allows for far greater certainty in planning and scheduling for the period to 2013 and a higher level of assurance of the availability of funding to deliver programmes and projects. It is, however, essential that there is sufficient flexibility to allow for the prioritisation of projects within the overall NDP funding and timetable envelopes. The introduction of the national development plan runs parallel with the welcome reform of both the annual Estimates process and the procurement and monitoring methods for major contracts.

As an integral part of the reform of the Estimates process I am pleased to provide the committee with a statement of annual outputs to be achieved from within the allocation provided in 2008 under various programmes of expenditure. The allocations have been streamlined within the statement in order to link the non-NDP current allocations to the NDP capital provision under each of the sub-programmes. I will deal with each of the sub-programmes in the statement later.

The second part of the reforms is the move to fixed price contracts for major building construction projects and to framework contracts under the new conditions of engagement for the provision of professional and technical services throughout the OPW. The new types of contract are already being used and I expect all major new non-specialist building contracts to be fixed price within the year.

I am confident that the reforms will further benefit the management and delivery of contracts by eliminating the scope for price variation and extras on major contracts in the future. This, in turn, will lead to greater certainty with regard to the planning, scheduling, timing and delivery of projects, enhanced accountability with regard to the achievement of targets and goals, up-front clarity as to costs and, ultimately, better value for money for the taxpayer. In addition, substantial progress continues to be made in the appraisal, planning, management and review of major contracts.

There is a detailed system of monitoring in place in relation to 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 projects are completed on time and within budget. This involves various steps including pre-project appraisal from initial concept stage, cost benefit analysis, spot checking of progress, monthly reporting of expenditure, periodic reviews and detailed reports by the OPW and its clients on completion.

With regard to the 2008 Estimate allocation for Vote 10, although the gross allocation for 2007 for the OPW Vote amounts to €680 million, this does not reflect the full range of activities of the office. As well as expenditure on Vote 10, the OPW acts as an agent, and incurs expenditure, on behalf of a range of Departments and Government 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 2007 was over €153 million, the main areas of expenditure being major capital works, maintenance works, purchase of school sites and buildings and leasing of accommodation.

Other major areas of activity not reflected on the Vote include the agency work provided by the Government Supplies Agency in placing some €63 million worth of draw-down contracts in the procurement of printing, stationery, uniforms, advertising, energy and transport vehicles for Departments and agencies in 2007. The architectural services certified the payment of sports grants for the Department of Arts Sport and Tourism in 2007. Furthermore, the OPW's project management services provide specialist procurement and technical advice to the Government and various 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.

I now turn to the sub-programmes as set out in the annual output statement. The first programme, decentralisan, is part of the economic infrastructure priority and has a gross budget of €171 million, including support and administrative costs. Decentralisation provides the OPW with one of its greatest challenges at this time. The office needs to continue to carry out its full range of activities — including delivery of the accommodation requirements for the decentralisation programme — while at the same time planning for its own move to Trim, Claremorris and Kanturk. At this point we have advance offices functioning in both Trim and Claremorris. The construction of the Trim headquarters building is well-advanced, and we plan to move there fully during the first half of 2009.

Some €50 million has been provided on the OPW Vote in 2008 for site acquisition for the decentralisation programme. It is anticipated that the remaining property acquisition deals for the programme will be finalised or significantly advanced in 2008. Sites where legal formalities are expected to be concluded in the coming months include Youghal, Enniscorthy, Kanturk, Clifden, Fermoy and Macroom.

Advance decentralised accommodation is now in place at Portlaoise, Tipperary, Furbo, Thurles, Clonakilty, Sligo, Portarlington, Clifden, Roscommon, Newcastle West, Tubbercurry, Thomastown, Killarney, Cavan, Limerick, Carlow, Athy, Claremorris, Roscrea, Wexford, Trim, Dundalk and Tipperary town. While staffing numbers vary from town to town, there is a significant presence in each of these locations. The construction and fit-out of the accommodation programme is proceeding in line with priorities set out by the decentralisation implementation group and is provided for under subhead E, with a budget of €110 million for 2008. New buildings opened in 2007 at the Department of Social and Family Affairs in Sligo which will accommodate 166 staff, and at the Irish Prison Service in Longford where up to 118 staff can be accommodated.

I am pleased to say that 2008 will see a major acceleration of this aspect of the programme. Contracts have been placed and construction is underway on seven new facilities in 2008 at Trim, Athlone, Newcastle West, Buncrana, Clonakilty, Killarney, and Wexford. Projects will also be advanced during the year at Newbridge, Roscommon Town, Youghal, The Curragh, Tipperary, Dungarvan, Claremorris, Enniscorthy, Portlaoise, Mullingar and Carlow.

Part of the economic infrastructure priority of the NDP is the Government sites and buildings sub-programme. The function of this sub-programme is to respond to the accommodation provision needs of Departments while continuing 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.

A number of individual projects and ongoing programmes will be managed in 2008 as part of the project development and management aspect of the programme, under subhead E. Major works will advance for the following clients in 2008: the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at Backweston, Longtown Farm and Drumshanbo, County Leitrim; the Department of Social and Family Affairs at Buncrana, Ballymun, Kings Inn, Castlebar and Tullamore; and the Department of Transport in Dundalk. This year will also see the acquisition of purpose built accommodation under subhead D for the Revenue Commissioners at Linn Dubh in Cork. Some €125.1 million has been provided in 2008 for property portfolio tasks under subhead F3 for rents, and for lease renewals, rent reviews, etc., which fall due for settlement within the year, or rates. Rented accommodation affords the OPW the necessary flexibility to respond to urgent requirements for Departments.

The sum of €41.4 million is provided under subhead F1 in 2008 for property maintenance tasks which will be carried out to schedule and to the satisfaction of the client. As an innovative measure, a pilot scheme of measured term contracts was introduced in the east region in 2007 for delivery of maintenance services linked to measurable relevant performance indicators. The progress of the scheme has been successful and will be further rolled out in 2008. Facilities management services are currently being delivered at Dublin Castle conference centre, Farmleigh, Áras an Uachtaráin and the Department of Education and Science, Marlborough Street, and 2008 will see the delivery of an additional service at Kilkenny Castle.

The third sub-programme in the output statement is flood risk management, for which the capital allocation falls under the community infrastructure priority in the NDP. It has a gross budget of €74.7 million on Vote 10, subheads G and H1 to H3, inclusive. 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 €50 million was provided for the flood relief capital works programme in 2007. Major flood relief schemes will be advanced to construction stage at Carlow, Ennis, Waterford, Fermoy and Mallow and detailed design development is also under way for further stages at Clonmel, Mallow, Fermoy and Ennis. In addition, flood relief schemes will be brought to statutory public exhibition at Enniscorthy, Templemore, Mornington and Tullow. A current budget of €23.7 million is provided for the maintenance of plant and machinery and the arterial drainage maintenance programme to maintain a scheduled programme of maintenance of river courses drained under the Arterial Drainage Acts.

The Office of Public Works also has responsibility for the purchase of Garda sites and improvement works at Garda stations under the social infrastructure priority. This forms part of the justice programme and, in conjunction with the Garda Síochána, priority works will be completed in 2008 at Finglas, Ballymun, Mountjoy, Fitzgibbon Street, Claremorris, the Tallaght training facility, Leixlip, Irishtown and Galway. Facilities are due to be on site this year in Ballincollig, Kevin Street in Dublin, Ballymote, Buncrana and Castleisland. An allocation of €10 million has been provided under subhead D for the acquisition of sites for the Garda Síochána and priority sites have been identified for acquisition in 2008.

Also part of the social infrastructure priority are the culture sub-programme and the built heritage sub-programme. The combined allocation for these programmes in 2008 is €114 million and this will allow for the payment of certain grants, improvement works at cultural institutions and the management of heritage services. The culture sub-programme will result in grants totalling €8.5 million for Dublin Zoo, Mariner's Church in Dún Laoghaire, Glasnevin Cemetery and the Louvain Institute. It will also result in improvement works at the National Gallery and the Irish Museum of Modern Art, and at Collins Barracks on behalf of the National Museum of Ireland. The heritage sub-programme has a gross budget of €56.8 million. The function of this programme is to care for the conservation of heritage sites, deliver a premium visitor experience and promote the education of visitors on the significant historic aspects of national heritage sites.

Heritage services will continue to manage in excess of 700 sites, catering for up to 3 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, partly in conjunction with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, to include Killarney House, Castletown House, the site of the Battle of the Boyne, the Phoenix Park, St. Enda's in Rathfarnham, Durrow and Glasnevin Cemetery, and other heritage buildings within the State property portfolio such as Leinster House, the Four Courts complex and Áras on Uachtaráin.

The final sub-programme on the OPW Vote in 2008 is the universal access sub-programme, which is part of the social inclusion priority and will see ongoing and new works on State-owned buildings to provide a disability-friendly environment to the public. The committee will be assured that the care of the State property portfolio and the sourcing of accommodation requirements for the decentralisation programme are being properly and prudently managed. I compliment the staff of the OPW on meeting the many challenges presented to them and I am confident they will continue to provide an efficient and effective service under the wide range of headings.

Deputy Richard Bruton

There is much to be praised in the work of the OPW. I say this at the outset because many of my remaining points will be of a more critical nature.

Last year we discussed the output statements and I said we should have indicators in respect of the property management of the State, presented in a way that would convince the board of a property management company that we were performing well. I asked for indicators such as the following: the cost per square meter of property we were renting compared to that in the private sector; the comparative maintenance cost of our buildings per square metre; the state of play in terms of energy efficiency and the annual gains in this regard — this is a core element of Government policy; the occupancy rates of our buildings and the efficiency of occupancy; and whether the resources put in place are being well utilised. I requested trend lines that would demonstrate an historic context for the suggested outputs.

One year later, the Chairman has rightly pointed out that we are still making suggestions. What is the point in making them if the same approach is adopted this year as was adopted last year and if nothing has happened of foot of last year's suggestions? This year's report is no more meaningful than that of last year.

Circumstances are getting tougher, as even the Taoiseach recognises, and we will have to become more efficient in our public spending to protect the frontline services. We must be better informed regarding our choices and whether we can make savings. This is very important.

I applaud many of the principles set out as high-level goals in the OPW's documents. They include energy efficiency, cost-effectiveness, achieving a proper balance between renting and purchasing, and prioritised investment in the most important flood-risk areas. However, the report we have received sheds no light on these laudable goals. This is not good enough and means we cannot perform a meaningful scrutiny role.

Of course there will be successes and disappointments but we are here to monitor both. This is not a PR exercise in which the representatives of the OPW present the rosy side of events as it sees them. We need to question seriously what we are doing. It must be shown that we are successful according to realistic tests.

The key strategies the OPW outlines refer to a value-for-money framework. The office states it has a financial management information system that reports on progress, presumably in respect of the capital projects. The system demonstrates whether the office is on target and within budget. Such systems are a closed book as far as the committee is concerned in that the OPW has not given us any insight into them.

We are told the OPW is engaging in an ongoing evaluation and that it does capital project spot checks. Again, we have not been told whether any of these checks demonstrate a slippage that needs to be corrected or a change of strategy that needs to be made. We are told continually that the OPW will not trust the elected representatives, who are elected to scrutinise public spending, with the evaluation of costs and benefits because the information thereon is in some way commercially confidential. The OPW should publish the costs and benefits and excise the confidential information, after which we could have a debate on some of the issues that arise.

The management of decentralisation is a core issue. To be fair to the OPW, it was presented with this task without being furnished with any strategic plan in advance. Therefore, I do not blame it for trying to pick up on the hoof a project that should have been planned in a much more careful way. Last year, the OPW stated there would be 16 new premises and it delivered 11. It had an underspend of €33 million. That seems to have been directed to other activities and that is fair enough. However, decentralisation was presented as being an opportunity to manage public services more cost-effectively by leasing lower cost properties, enabling us to release high-cost properties but there is no balance sheet entry for the properties acquired or those released, or details of property sizes, how the properties are being disposed of or any savings in rent.

We need to see such information. We are not here to rubber stamp Government policy but to scrutinise whether the administration of Government policy is being carried out cost-effectively. Leaving aside arguments on how the policy was developed and whether sufficient thought was put into the choices made, we need to see that the property dimension of the scheme is efficiently managed. Giving us a list of locations and how far down the track the Government has progressed amount to no more than an activity report. We are getting no scrutiny that will convince us this is being managed cost-effectively in a value-for-money framework, using management information systems showing what aspects are going well and what badly, as the Minister of State promised at the outset.

This is the same old story and I have been pursuing this issue for a long time, along with other Deputies. Deputies are continuously criticised for rubber stamping policies without serious Dáil scrutiny so when we receive a presentation such as today's we need to ask the relevant questions. I do not say the OPW is the worst in that regard — it is probably better than most in so far as it has at least presented some information. However, we need a report that amounts to a serious evaluation.

Perhaps the Minister of State needs to bring in people who run property management companies in the private sector. The tests they apply will not all be applicable because many OPW clients do not pay, but that raises a question in itself. Are we using capital resources inefficiently by not charging out rent, depreciation and interest? That is the real cost of capital to our clients, the public service users. There is no point letting public service agencies think capital is free because it is not. There is no point in rolling out a national development plan without taking depreciation into account and then finding that, when it comes to renewals, we have not anticipated the replacement costs involved in the NDP. That is what we want to see from the Office of Public Works. It is much closer to the commercial environment than most public bodies so I would expect to see leadership from the office in providing a much more informed report as to what is happening.

I have tried to put the report in context and have looked at it from the perspective of the 2002-08 period. In that time the cost of capital projects increased by 75% but, surprisingly, the cost of administration increased by far more, at 83%. It is particularly surprising to look at where OPW staff are deployed. Technical staff are declining but administrative staff are rising. There has been a sustained decline in architectural staff and engineering staff but a rise in administrators and bureaucrats. That does not seem to sit with the objective of delivering a more effective and slimmed down bureaucracy to deliver on the front line. It is the opposite of that objective in that bureaucracy is winning at the cost of frontline services.

We need to ask how efficient is the management of the property we lease. The OPW does not say exactly what its costs are. I suspect we are locked into some high-cost property because we have chosen city centre locations and, those city centre locations being very valuable to lease, the office probably looks very cost-effective. However, we need to look at that more closely. In the context of the redeployment of State resources, if we have buildings yielding, say, €500 per sq. m. but can move to Coolock or Blanchardstown and deliver an equally cost-effective service at €250 per square metre we should consider doing so. We should not ignore these choices as they are ones Ireland Inc. will have to make in the coming times.

We have been short-changed in this presentation but the OPW is a very professional outfit and does its work very well so it has the capacity to be at the cutting edge. It could show up the rest of the public service in the way it presents its case by throwing open what is going on, warts and all.

Deputy Joan Burton

Like others in the Dáil and Seanad I derive a great deal of pleasure from the work done by the staff in the OPW on the various properties, national monuments and parks under its control. It has very high standards and I am pleased to see a number of functions have reached ISO standards. The staff are to be commended.

I will start with the output statement, which the Minister referred to as an innovation. It is difficult to know what innovation it is supposed to demonstrate because it simply lists headings for the previous year's output target, the output achieved and the target for 2007. I opened it at a random page and it does not mean very much in reality, either for evaluating performance against a benchmark or in percentage terms.

On page 2 of the statement it mentions that employed numbers are to rise from 699 to an estimated 739, an increase of 40. Some three-quarters of those seem to be in the area of administration while architectural staff are expected to decline in number. Can the Minister of State comment on why employment numbers are expected to rise as set out in the statement? We have no employment numbers for the beginning of 2007 with which to make a comparison. This is a report for the 2007-08 Vote but we have no comparator for the beginning of 2007. It makes it difficult to look at trends and diminishes the usefulness of the report. Section A1 states that, presumably because of the extra numbers to be employed, salaries are to increase by 16%.

In the context of the significant fall in tax receipts and the significant decline being experienced in the public finances, not to mention the statements made both by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance on containing expenditure, what is the position as regards the OPW? Has there been any evaluation in the context of the changing economic circumstances and the decline which has been forecast, particularly in tax revenues? Have the Minister of State and senior management given any consideration to what impact, if any, these will have on the activities of the OPW?

My second question relates to reports on outputs on flood relief. When Deputy John McGuinness was a member of this committee, he took a detailed interest in flood relief schemes, particularly those in the vicinity of Kilkenny. It is notable that many flood relief schemes end up costing significantly in excess of what was previously indicated, but the output statements yield no information as to whether the various flood relief schemes are within, over or on budget. The flood relief scheme is the target and the fact it takes place is the output, but there is no comment on the quality of the output or whether the scheme cost more or less than forecast. This makes it extremely difficult to read.

Reference was made to the proposal to look at the issue of flooding of the River Tolka in Fingal and east Meath, which I presume includes the Tolka catchment area. What is proposed in this regard? There has been much work done in this area already, some carried out by the county councils. What is the OPW's relationship with the works being carried out by the county council? I have particular examples in mind. For example, in an area called Tyrellstown in the Castlecurragh area of the River Tolka some 2,500 houses have been built. The moneys which should have gone for green space for those houses was allocated instead to improvement works at the Tolka, including some little bridges over it. However, we have been told that all of that work is to be replaced or abandoned because a drainage scheme for the Tolka relating to surface and waste water for storm damage must be carried out. It seems now that all of the moneys spent are gone to waste.

The flooding of the Tolka is an important issue for all Deputies whose constituencies include part of the Tolka, including the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern and I. What management co-ordination exists between the local authorities? Much of the works carried out in the Tolka area appear, in the context of the drainage works to be undertaken by Fingal County Council, to be a waste. The record of both the OPW and the county council with regard to reinstatement is good, but what is the story on output? Do Government agencies such as the OPW and county councils discuss this kind of expenditure so that there is not a massive waste of money?

Reference was made to the National Theatre and National Concert Hall being managed as PPPs on behalf of Government. What does this mean? Does it mean the building projects and refurbishment projects will be PPPs or will the subsequent management of the National Theatre and the National Concert Hall be PPPs? This brings to mind what happened with regard to the National Aquatic Centre in Abbotstown. I understand the OPW has a role on the board or in an advisory capacity to the centre. This was a PPP that cost €62 million of public moneys. An operator, Dublin Waterworld, was chosen to operate the complex but this arrangement collapsed in acrimony in the courts, with the complex being recovered. I understand the OPW played a positive role in trying to rescue this debacle.

Currently, swimming clubs, including the National Aquatic Centre swimming club, use the pool for training purposes for serious swimmers, including elite para-olympic and disabled swimmers. Their fees are to rise arbitrarily from €35,000 to €140,000 per year. There appears to be no structure to this and no provision for appeal. Nor is there any indication of the rationale behind this increase. It is difficult for us to know what it is going on.

We had previous discussions about a Phoenix Park transport management programme, which included a proposal that the OPW would run green energy buses. I understand there has been some development of that proposal, but in terms of the output statement there is no indication as to what was done, the costs and the current situation. Making any meaningful judgment on the output statement is extremely difficult. I am interested to know the expenditure on the various planning initiatives and studies by the OPW. What is the current situation and are there any further proposals?

The Steward's House at Farmleigh also comes within the bounds of the Phoenix Park. This house was refurbished and renewed to Head of Government status and was meant, potentially, to offer a residence for the Taoiseach. I understand it is rarely used. What costs are involved with that project and what is proposed for its future? Will it stay as it is until one day we have a Taoiseach from outside Dublin who might use it? Many of the projects managed by the OPW are done well, but costs are significant. I would like detailed information on these, particularly projects associated with the Phoenix Park. The park still experiences traffic management difficulties. There were extensive consultations on the issue, but I have no idea what happened in that regard.

Deputy Martin Mansergh

I welcome the Minister of State and the delegates from the OPW. The OPW is one of the oldest and most effective public institutions in the State, long predating independence, and is a great advertisement for the public sector. I join with the tributes to it from Deputies Bruton and Burton as to the quality and standard of its work. I agree with Deputy Bruton that the OPW has potential and is a cutting edge organisation. It is a great advertisement for the public sector and I doubt whether the private sector would do as well.

I do not have issues of principle with regard to this report, but would like to ask a number of questions relating to the work of the OPW in south Tipperary. On the decentralisation programme, there have been negotiations on advance accommodation at Rossmore, just outside Tipperary town. Can the Minister of State confirm whether those negotiations are complete and whether it is ready to accommodate civil servants transferring there?

I understand that the OPW is also maintaining a temporary premises which is currently occupied by the Private Security Authority in the Tipperary Technology Park and that this will be used in addition to Rossmore. Could the Minister of State tell us how many civil servants are envisaged occupying that temporary accommodation and when they will begin moving in? I understand that, apart from maybe two or three, it only involves the Private Security Authority, which numbers about 46 and which will start on another project, which is the refurbishment of the old barracks beside the Garda station. To the best of my knowledge, a site has been acquired below the convent for permanent premises. When is it envisaged that building on that will start? It may be in conjunction with new Tipperary Town Council offices.

I wish to comment favourably on the experience of some quite threatening weather conditions earlier this year and indeed up to this week. The flood relief schemes in Clonmel and Carrick-on-Suir seem to be working well. On two occasions, the water was completely contained although it rose very high in Carrick-on-Suir. There was only minor street flooding. I understand one basement was flooded in Clonmel in January. I compliment the OPW on the progress on that work. The Clonmel work is not finished. What is the timescale for the rest of the work?

I will touch on three aspects that are not specifically referred to in the report. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform paid a visit to Clonmel late last year and accepted informally that a new Garda station was needed there. Has that appeared yet in the OPW's planning and, if so, what might the plans be?

In respect of the heritage sub-programme, the Swiss Cottage had to be closed for a year for refurbishment of the bridge and the access, to the detriment of local tourism last year. I would be grateful if the Minister of State could confirm whether it is reopening later this month. Is any particular ceremony envisaged?

When I was a child, I had the facility to climb the roof of the Rock of Cashel, as did three of my older children. That has been closed for about the past 20 years, probably for insurance and health and safety reasons. However, I read last year that it was intended to reopen at least one point of access to the roof. There used to be at least half a dozen points of access. Can the Minister of State confirm whether one point of access will be reopened? It is very desirable that this would be the case because it would add enormously to the interest and pleasure of the visit. If so, when is it envisaged that this will happen?

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

I thank the Minister of State and his officials for coming here today. I have a few observations on the output statement and, in particular, want to concentrate on decentralisation, for which we are given vague details. It is more like a novel than a document with details of figures. The OPW projected an outturn in 2007 of €170 million. The actual outturn was €54 million less than that. What was the reason for this?

In respect of an overall programme and the total number of centres, the OPW will decentralise two. How many of them have been decentralised to date? How many will be decentralised in 2008? The OPW's output target for 2008 is very vague in terms of remaining site property acquisition dates for the decentralisation programme. Where and when will this take place? What is the projected cost because we have not been given this. On page 4 of the output statement, it is stated that the figure does not include the disposal of surplus property assets. The Minister for State stated that part of the decentralisation process will involve the disposal of certain properties. What properties is he considering disposing of and how much will they yield?

The thrust of the document is good but it provides no level of detail. We are being asked to review something without any details. I do not know how many people have been decentralised to date. I am aware of the general position but for this purpose, the overall process of decentralisation is about getting people to move to various locations. I do not know the number and how many people will be decentralised in 2008, which is the year to which we are looking forward. I do not know the areas to which they will be decentralised. That is the level of detail I am seeking.

One of the aims of this meeting is to look at how the OPW manages the State's property portfolio. Today, we received information about managing the property portfolio, the type of rents the OPW is getting and the properties it is leasing. What format does the OPW normally go with? How long will the lease normally be for? Does the OPW look for break clauses? Do situations arise where it is tied into leases that cost very heavy penalties to get out of? What type of management process does the OPW have in place for the management of the property?

I welcome the decentralisation of Irish Aid to Limerick. The process is underway. A sum of €10 million has been allocated to purchase sites for Garda stations. One potential site acquisition is for Limerick city. How advanced is that process? When is this acquisition likely to take place? What is the timeframe in terms of that Garda station being put in place?

With regard to the increase in staff numbers allocated to the area of administration, salaries have gone up by approximately 16%. What is the breakdown of that in terms of the number of extra staff and other elements that make up that increase? Under subhead A2, travel and subsistence, the figure has gone up by 26%, which is the equivalent of virtually €500,000. What is the reason for that increase?

The OPW does great work. However, in terms of this committee being asked to look at annual output statements and approve Vote expenditure, the level of detail, particularly in the annual output statement, should be looked at because it is not comprehensive enough to allow us to have an overall view, particularly in respect of decentralisation. All we have is a list of places where the OPW has bought sites and building is under way. However, no information is provided on the overall view of decentralisation, including timeframes, number of people who have been decentralised, how many will be decentralised in 2008, the costs of the buildings, the costs of the sites, the potential sale of sites and the overall financial package.

Deputy Chris Andrews

Regarding subhead H2, flood relief projects, does the OPW devolve power and management of the construction of flood defence systems to the local authority? Over the weekend I was conscious of concerns residents had about being flooded and I went to Derrynane Gardens in Irishtown. There is only a mud bank with a few sandbags on top, which thankfully was not breached. However, I would be concerned that had there been more rain with a high tide, there could have been significant flooding problems. It is not long since Stella Gardens on the other side was flooded and it cost a vast amount of money to rebuild the damage done. I am aware that a wall had been erected.

There are some glaring and obvious weaknesses. While the council claims to have done everything and there seem to have been many studies, reports and programmes, the construction of these defences seems to be taking a considerable amount of time. Who is responsible for the slow rate of progress with flood defences? Of course we must carry out studies to discover what is the baseline. However, it seems to be taking an inordinate amount of time to make people feel safe in their homes. Is there a timeframe for the works along the Dodder to be finished? Much work has been done and I would have thought we would have established what is needed by now.

Should the OPW have more hands-on involvement in the physical construction? I am not suggesting that the Minister of State should fill the bags himself, because they are quite heavy. People are genuinely concerned at the slow rate of progress, a concern which I echo. Should a greater sense of urgency not be applied to resolve the problems along the River Dodder in Sandymount, Irishtown and Ringsend, and even along the seafront in Sandymount? While again the seafront was not breached at the weekend it was an anxious time for the residents. Where are the plans? When will the diggers and cement lorries be brought in and construction started? Those are my concerns, which I ask the Minister of State to address.

Deputy Terence Flanagan

I thank the Minister of State and his staff for their attendance this afternoon. I thank the staff in the OPW for all the work they do. Regarding subhead A2, Deputy O'Donnell referred to travel and subsistence, which reflects an increase in expenditure of 26%. Why is there so much travel throughout the State? A 26% increase seems relatively high. Salaries have increased by 16% and there is an increase of 40 staff. Why have incidental expenses regarding staff training, uniforms and stationery reduced by 35%? Postal and telecommunications services have reduced by 24%. Office machinery and other office supplies have reduced by 8% and office premises expenses have reduced by 13%. They are all to be welcomed.

Subhead A8, the value for money and policy review, shows an increase of 33% in costs. How many staff are involved in the value for money analysis? There seems to be a low figure of €213,000. What is the brief of those people? Are there plans to expand their role within the OPW?

Subhead C2, the grants for certain refurbishment works, shows a decrease from €6.7 million to €3.5 million, which seems fairly low. Only two projects are being considered by the OPW. Plenty of buildings could do with refurbishment works. We are refurbishing fewer buildings in 2008 than we did in 2007.

The allocation for the purchase of sites and buildings has increased by 24%. I note that we have 1,781 properties and 1,987 buildings. How many of them are vacant at the moment? Why are we purchasing more buildings when we have plenty of vacant ones? How many staff work on managing the OPW property portfolio? Is there any independent review of the property portfolio to ensure value for money as Deputy Bruton mentioned?

Regarding subhead H2, the flood relief projects, I welcome the relief works in Fermoy and Clonmel, which are two areas that have experienced terrible flooding problems in the past.

Chairman

I ask the Minister of State for clarification on one item. Under Vote 10, subhead 1A, there is a staff of 699. Under the individual programmes different figures are given, including 66 for decentralisation, 409 for Government sites and buildings, 461 for community infrastructure, 32 for culture, 1,056 for built heritage, 52 for Garda, 11 for disability and friendly environment. That would give a total employment of 2,087. I appreciate that there may be a particular answer regarding the built heritage area. It is also stated that there is a non-administrative working force of 1,430. I would like a breakdown on the original figure I gave. How many of the 739 are administrative staff?

Deputy Noel Ahern

I thank members for their favourable comments. While I was not here last year, I note their comments regarding the level of detail they would like. The output statements are new. The members have indicated what they would like to see contained in them and I presume they are accurate in what they said. For all Departments we are engaged in a process of feeling our way about what sort of data should be in the output statement. Deputies referred to all the indicators they would like, etc. Deputy Bruton mentioned them and asked whether we were getting good value for property leasing, etc.

Two money expenditure reviews are taking place or are listed for this year. One is in property management and the other is in engineering services, which will include the flood relief side of things. That one is quite advanced and the other one will be done during the year. Detailed reports will be published when the process is complete. There were many questions regarding that aspect. Those are the two expenditure reviews listed for this year. When they become available they should answer many of the questions and at least allow members to tease out matters in greater detail. I take the Deputy's point about decentralisation. We did not put too much into that topic today because we have made various statements on it. There are approximately 53 decentralisation locations altogether. In general statistical terms it was about moving 10,500 staff, of whom some 2,000 have moved to date. Advance parties have moved to approximately 30 locations. I do not have a figure for the numbers moving this year, although someone asked that in a parliamentary question a week or two ago. To an extent, this may be a lull year because many of the moves that have been done to date were by advance parties. Some of them were under leasing arrangements which can be done quickly enough, whereas some of the buildings — the big construction jobs — may not be occupied until next year.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

There are signs that there will be little, if any, decentralisation this year.

Deputy Noel Ahern

I did not say that. I do not have the figures but I will try to get the Deputy an estimate.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

I thought the Minister of State said there would be a lull.

Deputy Noel Ahern

There may well be a lull. A number of major projects are currently under construction, however, including our own in Trim where 300 staff are to be located. The premises of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in Wexford are under construction at present, as are those of the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism in Killarney. There are seven projects under construction, including one in Buncrana, although that might not be quite as big.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

Surely the Minister of State has an estimate or some idea of the number of people who will be decentralised this year.

Chairman

Perhaps the Minister of State can provide an overall response and we will come to individual questions later.

Deputy Noel Ahern

I will try to get the Deputy an estimate of what it should be this year. Just before Christmas, we announced the big PPP projects which concerned 1,400 to 1,500 civil servants. That will not come about for another while because construction has not yet started. We have announced the preferred bidders, however, for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment in Portlaoise, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Department of Education and Science in Mullingar. Many of the other construction projects may be slower but they are happening all the time. I have visited different ones around the country. Recently, I attended the opening of the Irish Prison Service's premises in Longford. The early buildings may have been leased but others can come on stream once the site is purchased, the bulldozers move in and construction commences. I will get the list of seven big building projects currently under construction for the Deputy. I have cited just a few off the top of my head.

Earlier, I was addressing comments by Deputy Bruton who mentioned a comparison of the 2002-08 period concerning capital investment and staff numbers. He said investment had risen by 75% while staff had gone up by 83%. Is that correct?

Deputy Richard Bruton

Yes. I was referring to costs.

Deputy Noel Ahern

The Deputy might not be comparing like with like, however, because there have been changes over the years. A significant number of heritage staff moved to Dúchas and then to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. In 2004, some of them came back in under the aegis of the Office of Public Works. One can have movements like those and, therefore, staff numbers may not quite be all the same. We were carrying about 30 vacancies for a couple of years but in the last year we have received approval to fill many of them. In addition, in 2004 the OPW was appointed as the lead agency for flood relief, which traditionally concerned arterial drainage. We have been doing some flood risk management for ten years. We have received approval for approximately 30 extra engineers for that section, half of whom have already been recruited. In addition, we now have an advance party in Claremorris. As part of that, we took on approximately 20 staff who worked there previously for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Their previous duties had more or less come to an end. When one talks about a 16% increase in salaries, that has been partly made up by flooding engineers, the 20 staff in Claremorris, and the approval for filling posts that had been vacant for some time.

Deputy Bruton spoke about the efficiency of leased properties and, in this regard, a major expenditure review of property management is to take place. We lease 35% of properties at present whereas historically that figure was 30%, so it has increased by a few percentage points in the last couple of years. We watch what is happening in the market, including what we and others are paying for property. That is relatively easy to do in Dublin but it is difficult enough under the decentralisation programme because staff may be going to some towns where historically there has not been a market in sizeable office buildings. The expenditure review of property management will take place at the end of the year, although the flooding one will come out earlier.

Deputy Burton referred to staff numbers, which partly comprise engineers and staff in the salaries department. She also asked if we were cutting back because of concerns about the economy. We have a budget for the year for both capital and current expenditure, so there is no cutting back. There is a general attitude, however, because everyone is conscious that the economy will not grow to the same extent this year as it did in recent years. The Department of Finance is watching the situation, while telling us to be very careful and to look for savings. Much of that will manifest itself next year. I recall that, five years ago, on the day I became a Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, a Cabinet decision took chunks out of the capital allocation. We went through 18 months of cutbacks in 2002 and 2003 but seemed to pull out of it very quickly again. If there was definitive information on whether this is a hiccup or something greater, the Department of Finance could send a clearer message to Departments and agencies. There is a general awareness, however, which we can notice in building contracts because things might not be as hectic as before. In addition, one would expect to find better value for money in buildings and sites. We are monitoring what is happening in the market in this regard.

Deputy Burton referred to Tyrrelstown. We are not involved in the works being undertaken in that area. It is hard to know what to do when flooding occurs be it in Blanchardstown, Dunboyne or any other area. A question arises as to whether we should wait until main drainage schemes come on board in ten years time. Our involvement in these projects is by way of a steering committee which works with the local authorities. We want to be involved with local authorities in addressing issues such as flooding. I am not familiar with the area to which Deputy Burton refers.

Deputy Joan Burton

If the Department is the lead agency, why then is it not involved?

Deputy Noel Ahern

I am not sure if the problem in Tyrrelstown relates to flooding.

Deputy Joan Burton

I am sure the Minister of State is aware that the Tolka overflows approximately once every five or six years and floods local areas. It is a severe problem.

Deputy Noel Ahern

Various works have been undertaken along the Tolka in areas such as Drumcondra, Glasnevin and Dunboyne. I am not sure if we can get involved in what happened in Tyrrelstown. There is work to be done in the Clontarf area which is in Deputy Bruton's constituency. It is hoped work on the embankment there will link in with proposed local authority installation of local amenities such as cycleways or new water mains. It is important we conduct a trawl of proposed capital works by local authorities or other agencies before commencing this type of work to ensure taxpayers' money is prudently spent.

I accept when flooding occurs work may need to be undertaken sooner rather than later. However, it makes sense that all concerned work together in this regard. I will come back to Deputy Burton in respect of the situation at Tyrrelstown when I have checked the details of the matter.

Questions were asked about the National Concert Hall and National Theatre in respect of public private partnerships. Works in this regard are being done by international design competition under a public private partnership on a design-build-finance-maintain basis. The PPP will not cover management; this will be dealt with by the National Theatre and National Concert Hall. Work on the Phoenix Park is ongoing. The playground is almost finished and will open soon. It appears this time of year is not the appropriate time to open such amenities, not that I am afraid of the cold. Many of the facilities referred to will open this spring.

The environmentally-friendly shuttle bus service is due to commence shortly. This service will provide public access to the main features of the park. The bus will operate all day and in a manner similar to that operated by the touring bus in the city which allows people to hop on and off at different locations such as the zoo and so on. We are hoping that visitors to the park and those who work there might use the bus on a daily basis. The official launch of the bus will be announced shortly.

Members also asked about the use by buses of the main road in the park. Planning permission in this respect has been submitted. It is hoped a bus lane can be put in place in the centre of the road near to Parkgate street and that it will operate one-way only thereby allowing buses to travel to the city from Castleknock in the mornings and from the city back to Castleknock in the evenings. It is intended that the bus lane will be only used at peak times. This will mean those currently parking in the park will have to find alternative places to leave their cars.

Deputy Joan Burton

Is planning permission required and, if so, has a planning application been submitted?

Deputy Noel Ahern

Planning permission is required in respect of upgrading the road. We are working with CIE on the matter. Arguments may arise in respect of who will bear the cost in this regard.

Deputy Joan Burton

Would it be possible to get a brief report on the matter?

Deputy Noel Ahern

Yes. I am not sure if everything has as yet been worked out. Dublin Bus, while often good at providing bus lanes, prefers to be gifted them. All of the issues many not yet be fully resolved. It is proposed that the bus lane will be used only at peak times.

Mention was made of the Steward's House and Farmleigh which is a great facility widely used by community groups and individuals. I do not know if the Steward's House was specifically renovated for use by the Taoiseach as his residence. It may have been suggested that would be an appropriate use for it but I do not believe that is the official line. The house has been used a few times by visitors. The State's investment in Farmleigh will in time be considered a good investment. Statistics in regard to the number of people who visit Farmleigh on Sundays, in particular, at Christmas and other times of the year indicate good use is being made of the facility.

Deputy Joan Burton

I take regular walks at Farmleigh.

Deputy Noel Ahern

The Deputy will, for that reason, know more about it than I do.

Deputy Richard Bruton

Are disabled parking facilities provided?

Deputy Noel Ahern

I received a letter recently from a lady in respect of the unavailability of disabled parking facilities although I think the complaint related to parking facilities at a concert. I understand such facilities are available at Farmleigh.

Deputy Richard Bruton

I will check them out next week.

Deputy Joan Burton

By way of clarification, there is no actual indication when approaching Farmleigh as to what arrangements, if any, are in place for disabled parking. A person who knows Farmleigh well can, in practice, get close to the facilities. However, a new or occasional visitor would not necessarily know how to get close to the facilities. Perhaps the erection of signage would be helpful in this regard.

Deputy Noel Ahern

As I stated earlier, buses will be allowed to go through the park. However, work on the main avenue must first be completed. The main avenue has been destroyed by cars parking there all day. It is hoped that the new car park will be used only by those visiting the zoo. We are trying to discourage parking on the main avenue.

Deputy Mansergh raised a number of issues.

Chairman

Deputy Mansergh had to leave the meeting and is now speaking in the Dáil.

Deputy Noel Ahern

I will report back to him on the matters he raised. Deputy O'Donnell asked about money not spent last year. This was a result of different delays with decentralisation in some cases and we certainly did not spend all the available funding on the flooding side. There will always be a few issues. For example, the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs was gung ho about moving to Knock. We thought that application would sail through but An Bord Pleanála refused it. Also, certain things that might have been listed to happen last year did not happen. In other cases, we might have leased some buildings as opportunities arose rather than building them. There will probably be less of this as the decentralisation programme moves on given that where we have bought sites, we are more committed to building. However, in the earlier stages, if somebody came along with a building to lease, we might have gone in that direction rather than purchasing as in the short term it is much cheaper. Whether it is cheaper in the long term is another matter.

I referred to some of the locations involved in decentralisation and I also referred to the expenditure review. On the question of the Garda station in Limerick, we placed an advertisement in the newspapers six or eight weeks ago looking for a site. Some applications have been received but more might be on their way. It will be a much bigger site than that currently available. The applications that have come in are being evaluated. More applications might yet come in but it will be a while before there is a decision in that regard.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

What is the expected timeframe?

Deputy Noel Ahern

I am sure it will be a couple of months or more. The OPW has gone to the market for a replacement Garda station for Henry Street. We are analysing the responses that have come in. The Henry Street station has approximately three quarters of an acre and we are looking for a site two or three times that size.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

Has the OPW had consultations with the Garda Síochána locally?

Deputy Noel Ahern

Yes. The Garda is the client and it calls the shots. We do not decide what Garda station is to be developed. The Garda gives us its priority list. While that list changes from time to time, it does so at the behest of the Garda. Temporary supplementary accommodation is being considered. Gardaí locally are considering two possible locations. For anything on the Garda side, it is the gardaí who call the shots. They tell us what is the priority list and the order in which they want projects undertaken. Deputies in Leinster House may ask me about a project and when I ask, I could discover it is No. 65 on the list. We take note of the list but the project only gets more serious if it is in the first 30 or so on the list. The Garda list changes from time to time due to decisions the Garda makes according to its own set of priorities.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

Will the Minister of State address the point on the disposal of buildings and how that builds into the funding of the decentralisation programme?

Deputy Noel Ahern

We have sold buildings in the past two or three years for approximately €400 million. The biggest sale was that of the veterinary college in Ballsbridge. There is no doubt that in the past couple of years we have been much more focused on this area. Much advanced thinking is being done. Some 2,000 staff have moved but they have not moved out of the same building. We are looking ahead. If 20 move out of a building, there is not much one can do other than try to make sure those who remain do not simply spread themselves around and enjoy the extra space. There is much advanced thinking with regard to where staff will move to and what will happen if, say, 20 or 50 are left behind. On our building on St. Stephen's Green, we are looking ahead and trying to move people into an appropriate situation so that 100 staff are not left in a Department office which is big enough for 300.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

Is the OPW considering matters on a strategic basis? It appears to be taking the view that it will see how things are going and then decide if it will sell the building. What level of strategic thinking is the OPW doing? It is four years since the decentralisation process began in 2004. At this stage, less than 20% of the staff have moved. To extrapolate in line with those figures, full decentralisation would not happen until after 2020. If one considers the plain facts, less than 20% of staff have been decentralised, we have no idea of the overall funding and, with regard to value for money, to which Deputy Bruton referred, surely in terms of an overall context——

Deputy Noel Ahern

The overall cost of decentralisation was estimated at €900 million. We have already sold property for over €400 million.

Deputy Richard Bruton

That property was not part of the decentralisation programme.

Deputy Noel Ahern

One could say that.

Deputy Richard Bruton

It is not just an incidental point.

Deputy Noel Ahern

One could possibly say that in some cases. We might have always held certain property just in case, subject to the State's needs and so on. However, the fact that the decentralisation programme is under way has clarified what we need and do not need.

Deputy Richard Bruton

When this began, Deloitte or some other consultants were engaged to do a sort of sketch with regard to the decanting and so on. The presumption was that there would then be a process but also that somebody would be riding shotgun on that process. What appears to be happening — it is inevitable that some of this would happen — is that probably 4,500 office places have been created but only 2,000 staff have moved so we are paying for 2,500 places that are not occupied. We are also paying on the double because those 2,500 staff are still in positions in buildings in Dublin.

The Government must create a process that ensures the taxpayer is not screwed. One process is to charge the Departments so that once the OPW has the buildings, the clock starts and they have to find from their administration budgets the cost to the OPW of this process. That would put a pin up their backsides to deliver. It is one way of doing it. We need an assurance that the gains are being realised and that the taxpayer is not being left as the patsy.

Deputy Noel Ahern

There is active management on that side. It is not fair to suggest that 4,500 office spaces are built. They might be under construction but there is no vast number of office spaces built and sitting idle. There is active management, sites are being sold and staff will be moved around. We will not just sell them all. The Deputy will have seen announcements with regard to Hawkins House and other properties in Hatch Street where we are getting into a type of joint venture with other parties. With Hawkins House, a private developer owns Apollo House next door and the old garage site on Tara Street. The commercial development one could have on the combined sites is greater than what would be possible on the individual sites so we are entering into a——

Deputy Richard Bruton

We need the stream of numbers — the square footage of this, that and the other — so we can make our judgment as to whether we think it is going well. Maybe our judgment will be wrong but at least we can have a debate about——

Deputy Noel Ahern

I take Deputy Bruton's point with regard to having more detail. I want him to know there is active management in this regard. It is not just a case of the OPW waiting to see if an old building is empty and then wondering what we will do with it. There is forward thinking looking two and three years ahead. While I cannot just announce what buildings are involved as staff must be told and there are different sensitivities involved, everything is being examined, including time schedules and so on. It is not intended that space will be wasted. However, the full value of this is not yet known because we have not moved any full Departments and it is only when one begins to do this that one can really assess the full value. There are plans for our own building on St. Stephen's Green. There are plans for the joint venture involving the Department of Health and Children in Hawkins House. Matters are being actively considered.

Deputy Chris Andrews asked whether we devolve responsibility to local authorities on flood relief. The flood relief work is done in different ways. In some cases the OPW work crews do it. In some cases we can provide funds to the local authority, use their powers and legislation, and get them to do it. In other cases we use private contractors.

The Deputy is correct in stating there are a great many studies and reports. I understood his point. I would have to be honest, having visited different projects. For instance, when there were floods in January we visited a few places. We were out in Mornington the other day and we have been in Carlow. We have been in different places launching different phases.

There were announcements in the past fortnight about Ennis and about the contract in Mallow. At some of the stages I read in the file that there are talks going on for four, five and six years, but the delay is not in the OPW. One of the nights — I had better not say where — when there were floods lapping on the doorsteps of shops and houses, there was still disagreement between the people about what needed to be done. We as a State agency will not go in and just tell the people in a town or the local authority what we will do. We want to engage in public consultation and in partnership. There is disagreement between many people about what needs to be done. Perhaps some of the objections are correct. Many of the measures we put in place involve embankments and demountable flood measures. Building a 10 ft. wall is not always the most picturesque measure.

In the process of getting agreement at local level, one needs a proper engineering study, which is a consultancy job. Then one needs to sell that at local level to get it through the local authority and out to tender, procurement, etc.

I would be a little disappointed at the delay but if I look at what is now happening, we are coming to the stage of a great deal of action. Last year when we had €32 million we did not spend all the money. The funding has risen to €50 million this year. The Mallow and Ennis projects are starting. I hope the Fermoy project will start later in the year. The Clonmel project is already under construction.

We are now doing much of this work in phases. We were probably trying to be too ambitious at the beginning, going into Clonmel or Mallow and looking at the "big bang" solution, and there were too many objections. The projects were really too big to grapple. We have now phased the projects in all these places. We are stating that most of these projects will be done in three phases and it is probably easier to get down to speak to the people in one particular area. There is a great deal of work about to start this week but it has been a slow process.

Deputy Chris Andrews

What is the Minister of State's relationship with Dublin City Council?

Deputy Noel Ahern

A few years ago the city council produced a report with which OPW and the then Department of Marine and Natural Resources co-operated. To be honest, the demarcation lines in all of these matters are not fully sorted out. OPW is the lead agency. We are responsible for flooding from rivers.

Deputy Chris Andrews

Tidal rivers or just rivers?

Deputy Noel Ahern

Sometimes it is a bit vague as to whether water is flowing in or flowing down. Historically, the tidal side of the matter was the responsibility of the then Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, but that has now been transferred on a temporary basis to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I think it is on its way to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government where there are a couple of engineers. It is logical that they all be together and that is being discussed currently. It might be clear in some cases that the flooding results from the tide or from the river, but in other cases it can vary considerably.

Work on the River Dodder is under our own OPW work crew. The Tolka work was organised by the city council but OPW gave it the funds. Sometimes due to legalities, the local authority has powers and often that is the easier and most convenient way to proceed. In some cases we can put the local authority in funds and use its powers. The local authority might be doing a joint flooding and drainage job, or whatever.

The big plan for Dublin a few years ago was done by the city council with input from the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources and from OPW. There are different aspects to the plan including Tolka, Dodder, Spencer Dock, Ringsend, Sandymount and Clontarf. The idea is to try to combine different works so that if one is digging up the Clontarf or Sandymount seafront, different works can be combined and one gets them all done together.

Deputy Chris Andrews

Is the Sutton to Sandymount project within the Minister of State's remit?

Deputy Noel Ahern

No. However, if they are going to build a cycle lane from Sutton to Sandymount, a water main or whatever, it would make sense, as Deputy Burton stated earlier, that different agencies would combine and do it all for one lump sum. If we want to put in flooding embankments or whatever, it would make sense. That is the challenge. However, the project might be on one agency's year one programme and on another's year five programme. It is a matter of trying to get projects done together and at the same time telling somebody that he or she must keep getting his or her toes wet for five years because the other crowd will not move. Matters are not as simple as they often might look.

Deputy Flanagan asked about the differing percentage. I have probably answered in the case of some of them in that he might not necessarily be comparing like with like.

The travel involved concerns relatively small issues. If one has many staff who need to look at sites and see the progress on buildings, for example, there is a certain amount of travel involved that might not have arisen previously. Many of these costs are activity related.

There is more travel due to management of decentralisation. The same is the case with flood relief. As I mentioned, although the Kilkenny and Carrick-on-Suir projects are complete, this involves many towns such as Carlow, Mallow, Fermoy and Ennis. There is considerable travel to and fro. There are extra professional staff. The administration numbers have increased as well, partly because of Claremorris and partly because of some vacancies.

Deputy Flanagan asked about empty buildings in the context of value for money. Much of that will be covered by the expenditure review on property management. I do not know whether there are any buildings empty. The building where the Irish Prison Service was located might be partly empty. Some of those buildings involve leases and one must see what one can do with them, but there is active management of such matters and forward planning. There will be some leases that we will get out of, but we try to get the balance right between the State's portfolio of what we own and what we build.

Deputy Terence Flanagan

The incidental expenses for staff training and uniforms has fallen by 35% yet the number of staff has increased by 40. Is there an explanation for that?

Deputy Noel Ahern

As to the Chairman's point, the briefing note shows there are approximately 700 administrative and professional staff, but the figures show there are approximately 1,400 industrial staff who would work on heritage sites and in different drainage and maintenance depots around the country. Many of those are permanent staff but an extra couple of hundred staff would be recruited for seasonal work, whether on the drainage or heritage side or the visitors' centres. The guides are just employed during the summer.

Chairman

I appreciate that. Just for clarification for the committee, all I was interested in was that under the built heritage programme, there are 1,056 staff. What is the breakdown of that number of staff?

Deputy Noel Ahern

Is that industrial staff?

Chairman

It is under the programme of the built heritage. That number of staff at 1,056 is possibly the largest part of the workforce. For clarification purposes, if we had a breakdown it might give us some information that may be valuable to us for committee purposes.

Deputy Noel Ahern

They are probably under different headings. There are 270 in heritage services. There are about 800 industrial staff. There are 200 to 270 guides and so on. Some of the guides are permanent and some come in during the summer.

Chairman

Are 800 industrial staff?

Deputy Noel Ahern

Yes. There are probably 200 extra during the summer.

Chairman

Is the Minister of State talking about guides and so on?

Deputy Noel Ahern

No, the industrial staff are those in the maintenance depots.

Chairman

Would they be temporary workers?

Deputy Noel Ahern

Most of them are permanent workers who work on national monuments repairs. There may be 200 extra on the industrial side in the summer.

Chairman

What about the 270 staff?

Deputy Noel Ahern

I may have to get some of that information because I am not sure if I am looking at the correct document. There are about 740 national monuments in State care, 54 of which have a visitor service and-or centre. This subhead includes wages for approximately 300 industrial staff, based at six national monuments depots in Athenry, Dromahair, Trim, Kilkenny, Mallow and Killarney. The allocation also funds a wide range of important conservation projects across the length and breadth of the country. In 2008 works are planned in Durrow, Boyle Abbey and visitor services. There are 420 guides, about 300 of whom are seasonal. Many of the visitor centres have only opened or have extra staff during the summer.

Chairman

That is fine.

Deputy Noel Ahern

Some of the larger visitor centres are open all year and have permanent staff.

Deputy Richard Bruton

To return to the general theme, I know the present Minister of State was not in place this time last year, it was a former Deputy, Tom Parlon, when I articulated my concerns about the output statement.

I am not making a complaint about the Minister of State personally but it is not good enough for him to say that he understands what we are saying. We have a published output statement for 2008 with its targets. Given that it is not adequate we need a different output statement for 2008. It has to be presented in a way that gives us more information about occupancy rates, energy efficiency, trends in the costs of renting and how effectively the transition under decentralisation is being managed in terms of vacant spaces not fully occupied. There will inevitably be a cost. We all recognise that. There is no way of avoiding it but it can be minimised. It can be well done or it can be badly done. I do not accept what the Minister of State has been presented with, that two expenditure reviews are under way, and that we should wait for these reviews before we set out a revised format that we would like to see for the output statement.

I ask that the Minister of State submit, for consideration by the committee, the empty boxes of what might be an alternative statement and let us have some dialogue of what type of output statement would give the committee an insight into what is going on that we could develop. It is in all our interest that this be done and done well. There has been much scepticism about the expenditure review process over many years. The Minister of State will recall that the Secretaries General came together and admitted that the expenditure review process had made no impact over the previous five years on decisions being made. Even though recommendations were being made they were not being implemented. He cannot offer to us a process that has been found to be flawed in the past as a solution to output statements and the lack of performance indicators in areas that matter.

The Minister of State has heard the debate and the possibilities. I ask him to look at what would constitute a more informative report, by way of an output statement. We do not always need to know that €59,000 was spent on computer training for staff. That is of very little interest to me but what is of interest is how the huge transition of the €900 million decentralisation programme is being managed and whether there is wastage along the way. We want to get to a point where the important issues are reported to the committee where we can have a meaningful dialogue on it.

Perhaps the Minister of State would forward to us the terms of reference of these two expenditure reviews and who is conducting them so that we may, perhaps, make an input in regard to what we would like the Minister to look at and so on. The Minister has written to the Chairman and told us that he wants us to play a more active role in riding shotgun on expenditure review and on this type of thing.

Chairman

Perhaps I can intervene. The letter is addressed to all members of the committee and individual members are free to make submissions as well to the Minister for Finance.

Deputy Richard Bruton

Exactly, but it is through the Chair. There is an engagement with us. I am not trying to make a solo run. The Minister has invited the committee to participate so I ask that we do that and that specifically there would be a report on decentralisation that is meaningful in terms of property management issues. I suspect that other Departments are deliberately, happily, dragging their heels because they know that the Minister of State will carry the cost on the property side. That is not a good image. That rents and depreciation are not being charged out to these people, they see it as a free good for them. It would improve the method of doing this if the Minister of State could come back to us with an alternative and the terms of reference of those reports and we will try to make some input.

Chairman

Does any other member wish to ask a supplementary question? Unless the Minister of State wishes to make a further comment——

Deputy Noel Ahern

With regard to the output statements, each agency or Department gets a certain amount of guidance from the Department of Finance. The output statements are a move forward. They may not be what the committee would like. We will see if we can be more helpful to the committee.

Deputy Richard Bruton

We are being invited to participate with the Minister of State in their development.

Deputy Noel Ahern

Equally, we think we are doing as the Department of Finances requires.

Deputy Richard Bruton

I know that you are but——

Deputy Noel Ahern

It comes down to an interpretation of what that letter is saying. We will try to push the interpretation of matters out to the maximum to assist the committee. On the other side, we are part of one Department and we are being given guidance.

Deputy Richard Bruton

The Minister of State should not forget we are the shareholders.

Deputy Noel Ahern

I do not deny that but the Deputy is quoting the letter from the Department of Finance in his interpretation that we are being unhelpful.

Deputy Richard Bruton

I am not saying the Minister of State is being unhelpful. We have been invited to participate in a meaningful process with him regarding the expenditure review initiative and the output statement to try to have a sharper focus on performance and value for money. This is the our opportunity to say we would like to play our role. The Minister of State may say our ideas would not work but, at least, there would be dialogue.

Deputy Noel Ahern

This will be a developing process and we will try to be more helpful. If the Deputy had specialised in this area during the years, he might wish to reach Mecca, so to speak, which——

Deputy Richard Bruton

It might be safer to keep the consultancy——

Deputy Noel Ahern

I wish the Deputy well but I am not sure whether the process will evolve as much as he would like but I hear what he is saying. We are getting instructions and an interpretation in terms of the new era but we will try to be as helpful as we can.

Chairman

The committee has a responsibility, too — we have not yet dealt with the issue in detail — to consider the position regarding the other select committees. It will be dealt with tomorrow by the Chairmen. The situation is fluid, taking into consideration what Deputy Bruton and the Minister of State have said. I thank the Minister of State and his officials for attending. That completes our consideration of the Revised Estimate for Vote 10 and the clerk will send a message to that effect to the Clerk of the Dáil. Under Standing Order 86, that message will be deemed to be the report of the committee.