Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach debate -
Wednesday, 2 Feb 2022

Vote 13 - Office of Public Works (Revised)

I welcome members and viewers of Oireachtas TV to today's second public session of the Oireachtas Select Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I also remind members of the constitutional requirement that they be physically present within the confines of the place in which Parliament has chosen to sit, namely, Leinster House, Dublin, to participate in public proceedings. I will not permit a member to participate where he or she is not adhering to this constitutional requirement.

We have before us the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2022 for the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Patrick O'Donovan and his officials. Members will have received the briefing document provided by the Department that was circulated in advance of this meeting. The purpose of this meeting is to consider the Revised Estimates and performance information regarding the outputs and impacts of programme expenditure. The programme-based structure of the Estimates should allow the committee to focus on what the OPW is committed to achieving in terms of actual outputs and outcomes; to consider whether the performance targets included in the Estimates are a sufficiently complete description of the service provided by the OPW; to determine whether those targets strike the right balance in terms of the needs of society; to consider whether the information provided by the Department makes clear how the moneys available are allocated between services; and to consider whether these allocations are the most appropriate in the circumstances.

I call the Minister of State to make his opening statement.

I am pleased to appear before the committee to present the 2022 Revised Estimate for the Office of Public Works. The gross allocation for 2022 is just shy of €597 million, which comprises €143 million for flood risk management and €454 million to be invested in estate management.

Given the recent easing of restrictions by Government, I pay tribute to the staff of the Office of Public Works who maintained a full service for client Departments and the public during the pandemic. Parks and heritage sites provided much-needed relief from the restrictions and the building and engineering services allowed Departments and local authorities to continue to deliver critical functions throughout the pandemic. The OPW now stands ready to move forward in 2022 and I will now set out the investment priorities for the coming year.

The structure of the OPW Vote remains unchanged. However, in line with the Government’s infrastructure investment programme of €165 billion under the National Development Plan 2021 to 2030, the OPW Vote has seen a 30% increase in its capital allocation. This funding will contribute to the ambitious plan for a greener, more efficient, connected Ireland as part of our climate goal to cut emissions by 50% by 2030.

While the OPW funding allocations, projects and scope of work continue to expand, the two main strategic programmes of work on flood risk management and estate management have grown in parallel. Since I last addressed this committee, the threat of climate change has been reinforced at events such as COP26. It is clear the State needs to introduce measures to decarbonise but it also needs to introduce measures to adapt to the impacts of climate change. As I have highlighted regularly, Ireland is an island and the sea is rising around us. This is one of our greatest risks.

Under its flood risk management brief, the Office of Public Works continues to co-ordinate Ireland’s whole-of-government approach to managing Ireland’s flood risk from rivers and the sea, the primary source of Ireland’s flood risk. The OPW's core objective is to reduce, to the greatest extent possible, the impact of flooding to the families and businesses in those communities known to be at significant risk from flooding. I have seen at first hand the damage flooding can cause.

The flood risk management plans launched in May 2018 give evidence to support the Government’s investment in flood risk management over the lifetime of the national development plan. This investment supports the progression of some 150 flood relief schemes. As Deputies know, delivering flood relief schemes is a very complex process, involving the following distinct stages: understanding the source and extent of flooding, identifying the preferred option to protect at-risk areas, securing the relevant consents and planning permissions, and constructing the scheme. Throughout all stages, public consultation and detailed assessments of the environmental impacts are key to informing a flood relief scheme for a community.

Tomorrow, I will be visiting Bantry, County Cork, for the contract signing to appoint engineering and environmental consultants to progress a flood relief scheme for the town to protect 198 properties.

The prioritisation of schemes means work is now under way to protect 80% of at-risk properties with proposed solutions for the other 20%. Flood risk projects require expert input and knowledge from engineers in hydrology. As we progress future schemes, the Office of Public Works will continue to make the most efficient use of all available resources, including these specialised and limited personnel.

One of the greatest challenges to Ireland’s flood risk comes from climate change. In designing and building all our schemes, provision is made to ensure schemes can meet the risk posed by climate change. The Office of Public Works assessment of that risk is fully supported by the evidence from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Outside these major schemes, local authorities can address local flooding issues through funding from the OPW’s minor floods mitigation works and coastal protection scheme. This provides 90% of the funding required by local authorities and, since 2009, has protected some 7,500 properties.

In addition to the major and minor flood relief schemes, the allocation of €143 million to flood risk management in 2022 will allow the Office of Public Works to maintain some 11,500 km of channels and 800 km of embankments as part of its statutory maintenance duties. This maintenance provides drainage outfall to 650,000 acres of agricultural lands and a level of protection from flooding to urban areas and critical infrastructure, including some 20,000 properties.

The second major OPW programme, estate management, continues to fund the design, upkeep and modernisation of a significant number of properties within the State’s property portfolio. These include heritage sites, Civil Service office accommodation for all Departments, An Garda Síochána and many State agencies. In all, the OPW manages more than 2,500 properties on behalf of the State, which include some of Ireland’s most significant heritage properties, monuments, gardens and arboreta. Properties range from Leinster House to Sceilg Mhichíl and office buildings. This management role includes the curation and presentation of 30 major historic properties and 700 national monuments as well as the State’s art collection, artefacts, plants and trees. This work makes a significant contribution to the health, enjoyment and well-being of the public, particularly in recent times and for which the OPW is quite rightly recognised.

I was especially pleased with the impact of the Government decision to waive entry fees to heritage sites in 2021. Indications are approximately 8.5 million people visited our sites throughout the country over the past 12 months. The initiative has reignited an appreciation for our heritage assets and refocused the idea of staycations. This year the Office of Public Works will continue to be instrumental in the State commemorations marking the decade of centenaries with many events at OPW-managed sites, including the recent commemoration event at Dublin Castle, which was a tremendous success.

In 2022, Office of Public Works heritage sites will play a key role in the return of Ireland’s tourism economy particularly with the opening to the public for the first time of Annes Grove gardens in north Cork and newly refurbished visitor exhibitions at the Blasket Centre in Kerry and Céide Fields in Mayo.

In the context of office accommodation, the OPW is charged with designing the workplace of the future for the Civil Service. It aims to deliver accommodation that allows more agile ways of working to meet our future needs. Across 890,000 sq. m of office accommodation, the OPW continues to undertake the maintenance and constant updating of a diverse and complex portfolio of accommodation.

Deputies will be aware that, as a consequence of Brexit, physical infrastructure is required for customs, social protection services and health check controls at Dublin Port, Rosslare Europort and Dublin Airport. The Office of Public Works, on behalf of the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the Department of Health and the Department of Transport, has delivered infrastructure at these ports and airports in the past two years. The OPW will continue this important work in 2022. The additional allocation of €1.8 million in current resources will progress the project at Rosslare Europort under a new subhead funded by the Brexit Adjustment Reserve.

A gross sum allocation of €454 million has been provided for estate management within the 2022 Revised Estimate. A total of €64 million of this has been allocated as part of the EU national recovery and resilience plan. This funding was made available to Ireland to contribute to climate action projects. This will ensure the Office of Public Works is well positioned to continue to contribute towards Europe’s climate and energy objectives and support the recovery of the tourism sector and the wider economy. Protecting the environment is at the heart of everything the OPW does in all aspects of our work, whether that be maintaining our national heritage sites or arterial drainage works.

I have only referred to a small section of the work of the OPW. It goes without saying the scale and complexity of the OPW’s responsibilities in the delivery of its two infrastructural programmes have a considerable impact nationwide and are dependent on its people. The nature of the work of the OPW requires the input of a dedicated team of professional, technical and administrative staff, working in multidisciplinary teams, across a wide range of property management and engineering functions. The roles cover professional managers, valuers, architects, engineers, mechanical and electrical specialists, surveyors, planners, financial advisers, property economists and project managers, supplemented by various other specialists as required. These staff play a vital role in protecting, promoting and sustaining rural and urban areas.

I can say with confidence that the OPW stands ready to deliver key programmes for Government as outlined in 2022. I would be happy to take any questions on the OPW’s Revised Estimate requirements for 2022.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire Stáit. It is great to see him appear before the committee. As I said earlier, I need to attend another committee after this and, unfortunately, I will need to leave after I ask my questions.

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donovan, for appearing before us. He will be aware of recent media reports that a former senior civil servant and valuer with the OPW has written to leaders of different parties. In a letter, he described a system that he called "dysfunctional and wasteful" and that he claimed had led to hundreds of millions of euro in taxpayers' money being wasted. He stated that the "exposure of persistent gross mismanagement" of the portfolio in recent years had "achieved nothing in the way of change". He listed a number of noteworthy examples: the overpayment of €10 million by the State for the rental of the Department of Health's headquarters; the series of missed opportunities that saw the Garda missing out on, and being forced to vacate, its command headquarters on Harcourt Square in Dublin at a potential loss of over €100 million; significant unutilised investment, notably a Georgian office complex on Merrion Square in Dublin that was purchased for €23 million in 2007 and left vacant for seven years; the Hammond Lane site in north Dublin, which was purchased in the late 1990s, has never been used and has recently been earmarked as a site for a much-delayed new family courts complex; and the "inexplicable" way in which the OPW became involved in the children's science museum project on Earlsfort Terrace in central Dublin. At the start of this week, there were media reports about a whistleblower who had made a protected disclosure to the Minister for Justice alleging that Legal Aid Board property leases worth millions of euro were "unlawful". An allegation was also made about the use of an OPW building in County Kerry.

I wish to raise these matters with the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donovan, because he is before the committee. I have a few questions on them. In light of these claims in the media, the general conversation and the problems with the management of State properties as identified by a former senior civil servant in the OPW, what has he done to ensure that they do not arise again? That is important, given that these are State assets.

I am a Member of this House as well and I take allegations of that nature seriously. Some of them were circulating in the media prior to my appointment as Minister of State with responsibility for the OPW. None of the allegations that have circulated recently is new and many of them are historical. Most have been the subject of internal audits within the OPW. Some do not involve the OPW at all despite being attributed to it.

I have answered questions on Miesian Plaza in the Dáil. The question of how two different measurement standards, for want of a better term, were attached while the lease was being negotiated has been well documented. In the time since my appointment, the OPW has taken a proactive approach to engaging with the property owner on trying to make good, from the public's point of view, our long-term relationship with the owner while acknowledging that the owner has done nothing wrong. Within the next number of weeks, although possibly longer than that, I hope that we might be in a position to bring forward some positive news about a different relationship between the OPW and the property owner.

The Deputy referenced Hammond Lane and the family law courts. The Courts Service, which is a separate entity to us, hopes to move forward with a planning application. The Deputy also referenced the National Children's Science Centre. It is an historical issue that somehow wound up with the OPW. It is part of an arbitration process, so I am limited in what I can say.

Most of what has been raised in media commentary about property management is historical. Some of it does not even relate to the OPW but the OPW has wound up with it and is now dealing with it. Since my appointment, there has been a proactive response by the chairman, the commissioners and the senior staff in the organisation to dealing with legacy issues that have been left to the OPW's current management. I am confident that procedures are in place to ensure such situations cannot arise again. The team in the OPW must ensure safeguards are in place, in particular double-checking and cross-checking, because this is the public's money. We are trying to ensure that we provide good office accommodation for our public services, not only in Dublin but the rest of the country as well, that there is a good blend of owned office and rented office accommodation, and that the organisation has the necessary skill set to do this.

Some of the issues that the Deputy raised have been aired on television or in the broadsheets. I have answered parliamentary questions on most of them. Some have been addressed at the Committee of Public Accounts and others have been addressed on the floor of the Dáil. Some of the issues have been closed out and we are making progress on some of the others.

I thank the Minister of State. I will take his word about there being historical issues and how some others do not fall under the OPW. Those of us in the public eye are aware that issues like these that are in the media could cause reputational damage to any organisation.

The Minister of State referred to cross-checking and double-checking. What are the new procedures that the OPW has introduced to ensure issues like these do not recur? Will the Minister of State provide details in this regard?

The chairman is the organisation's Accounting Officer and is answerable to the Oireachtas. I am not the Accounting Officer. The day-to-day operation and management of the organisation are matters for the Accounting Officer. He has been before the Committee of Public Accounts dealing with, in particular, the steps that have been taken as regards valuations. In the immediate aftermath of the Miesian Plaza issue, he answered questions on how there were two different measurement standards to ensure that cross-checking could be brought into force and how that was being reinforced within the organisation. More has been done to beef things up.

From our point of view as an organisation, we must take the public's trust seriously. The OPW has a very strong brand, not only in terms of the flood alleviation work that we do in the Deputy's constituency and other constituencies, but in providing accommodation across the country. We maintain 2,500 properties on behalf of the State. There have been issues with a very small number of those - I believe the Deputy identified five. We have a portfolio in every town and village in Ireland amounting to 2,500 properties. Invariably, we will have issues relating to vacant properties and so on, but we have shrunk them down to a handful. That is still too many, though, and we will reduce the number even further.

In 2020, I asked the Minister of State about the vacant buildings that the OPW held. As he said, there are 2,500 properties. At that time, just over 80 buildings were vacant. How many are vacant now?

If the Minister of State does not have the exact figures, that is fine. I do not expect him to have the parliamentary question from 2020 in front of him or to have all the answers. A few of those were of interest of me. Three were listed as sale agreed and 14 were being prepared or considered for disposal. I am looking for an update on that. Have they disposed of? We have seen other ones retained for strategic purposes.

We have made significant progress in this area. We have made a lot of progress with local authorities in particular. When I was appointed, I was very keen to engage with local authorities and other public bodies so that if there was a vacant property, we would give local authorities and other public bodies first refusal and ultimately get to community groups if community groups had a viable interest and could demonstrate that with the support of a Leader company or local authority, it would not become a burden on a local community. In other words, community groups would not come looking to us for grants. Only as a last port of call, would we put a "For Sale" sign on it. At the moment, 4% of properties are vacant so the number has decreased considerably.

What is the figure?

It represents 99 buildings. Of those, 36 are Garda stations. They represent 36 of the 139 that would have been in the original number that had been closed as part of the consolidation of Garda stations. The number has dropped considerably. We have a plan for all of them in terms of the number of properties that are unoccupied. In other words, we are working through them. By the end of the year, we estimate that the number will have decreased even further.

Did the Minister say there were 94 vacant properties? In the reply to my parliamentary question in 2020, I was informed that the number was 80. That means there has been an increase.

Some properties may have come on to the list but I can tell the Deputy that at the moment-----

What I might do is-----

In total, we have 31 sites and 68 buildings.

So it has dropped by 12.

There are 99 properties, of which 31 are sites and 68 are buildings. So the number of buildings has dropped.

So the figure had been 80. I will not ask for these details now because-----

For the benefit of the committee, I can say that 36 are former Garda stations, eight are other former Garda stations that predate the closures that are historic, two are former Garda residences, eight are Coast Guard properties, two are former customs properties, one is a former Met Éireann property and there are several other properties. Of the sites, seven are decentralisation sites, one is a Coast Guard site, five are customs sites and one is a former Met Éireann site. There are 17 other sites bringing the total to 99 properties. We have a plan for each one of them. Most of them are being worked through local authorities. The Deputy will appreciate that there are many issues relating to title because many Garda stations predate the foundation of the State. Some Garda stations were taken off old estates. They were barracks prior to the formation of An Garda Síochána so many of them do not have clean title. Even if community groups or local authorities want to take them, many of them do not have clean titles. In such circumstances, we have to establish title. This means that the Office of the Chief State Solicitor and others must try to establish title, which can take years because we are going back through defunct estates and it can take an awful lot of time. While a local authority might want to take these buildings off us for a house, we cannot transfer them for no value because it is against the law. We must get the actual purchase price and to do that, we need clean title and the Office of the Chief State Solicitor is finding it extremely difficult to establish that title.

When the Minister of State mentioned Garda stations, it reminded me of the issue of the Military Road and the new Garda headquarters. It is said to be too small by quite a distance to hold all the gardaí who are supposed to move from Harcourt Square. Could I get an update on that and the risk of a loss if they are not moved out of Harcourt Square in time?

Military Road is not too small. It is important not to believe everything you read in the papers.

I do not believe everything I read in the papers.

Military Road is on schedule, target and budget. It will be opened and we will vacate Harcourt Square-----

Will everyone be out of Harcourt Square by the end of the year?

Yes. The new premises is being built to the specification of An Garda Síochána. It is not too small. It is built as per the security specification laid out to the OPW. We do not lay down the specification. It is laid down to us so we agreed it with An Garda Síochána. Gardaí will be in well before the time by which we need to vacate Harcourt Square. The contractor is comfortable in that.

What date does An Garda Síochána need to be out of Harcourt Square?

The date is 31 December.

So there will be no overspill at all and no additional budget allocation because of overspill. Is the Minister of State 100% certain?

We do not anticipate delays in terms of vacating Harcourt Square. However, we always have contingencies, which is only right because it is our national police force.

What are the contingencies and how much are they?

I am unable to discuss them here.

I do not mean how many. I meant-----

Military Road is being designed for 880-odd gardaí so it is a massive undertaking. The movement of gardaí into will start in October. We must give Harcourt Square back to the property owner by 31 December and we are on track to do that.

The Minister of State is fully confident about that. He indicated that there would be contingency plans with other buildings. How many other buildings would that apply to and how much would it cost?

I do not have that detail in front of me.

Could the Minister of State furnish the committee with that detail after the meeting?

Within reason, we can provide whatever detail we have available to us.

The Minister of State knows nearly as much about flooding in Galway as I do. I am in Galway city but the Minister of State and I have had many conversations about Clifden. I know how much it impacted him at that time. Could he give me an update regarding Galway city? I know he visited there in November.

I understand that there is a lot of interest in the Galway scheme. I was glad to get the perspective of the engineers from the city council, our own people on the ground and some local people. Many people have many different perspectives about what should or, more importantly, should not happen. You will always hear about what should not happen. We know it is a very vulnerable part of the coast line, particularly around the Spanish Arch. This area has many very old properties and residents and is really vulnerable. The situation is not going to get better any time soon. Great credit must go to Galway City Council for the interim measures it deploys, which work. However, they only work up to a point. The design consultants were appointed in November 2020. It is due to go into planning permission in the second quarter of 2024. If everything goes to plan, it will commence construction in 2025.

My view is that a massive overhaul of the planning legislation around not only flood relief schemes but major public infrastructural projects is needed so we can deliver them faster.

The reason being that if we do not, as the Deputy knows as she represents a coastal community, the climate will be changing faster than how we, the OPW and Galway City Council, are able to respond to those communities. How many more storms like Storm Barra will lash the west of Ireland? The opportunity falls to the Oireachtas to decide which is more important. Is it the legislation that we are saying is not up for negotiation by way of say, for instance, judicial review, or the communities whom we claim to represent? I think that that is going to be fundamental to the people we represent. We must grapple with that because I have with me the files of the flood relief schemes and the bulk of them are stuck somewhere in a court somewhere in Ireland. That is not sustainable.

The Minister of State has said that he hopes the scheme will be delivered by 2025. If it is delayed then how much time does he think we have in, for example, Galway city? How long will the current plan be sustainable for? If the situation progressively worsens with climate change does he think such a scenario will have an impact? If the scheme is delayed further than 2025, how much time does he think we have?

Anecdotally, Senator Denis O'Donovan, from west Cork, told me when we were in Bantry, which is where I am going tomorrow, that when he was growing up a massive Atlantic storm was likely to hit Bantry once every ten or 15 years but now the area is hit by four or five Atlantic storms every two or three years. We are playing Russian roulette with these communities unless we can get on and deliver to them. However, we cannot deliver to them and pretend that the legislative basis on which we have been asked to deliver to them is fit for purpose. It simply is not. I know that people will cry foul of the Aarhus convention and all of that. That is all very well and good when one has the Atlantic Ocean coming through your front door when you are living in the Claddagh. There is no one going to say protect the Aarhus convention when there is a wave coming bursting through the front door in Salthill so we have to get real. We cannot continue in the way that we are going.

As Minister with responsibility for the OPW, I must be honest with people. I cannot protect the communities that I am being asked to protect while I have the legislative basis on which I am being asked to deliver on. I ask my colleagues, as a Member of this House, to please bail me out. The way that I need to be bailed is that I need a new legislative basis in the planning Acts. When the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Burke, says that he is talking about a judicial review for housing that sounds like manna from heaven to me because everything that I am trying to get delivered across the country at the moment is tied up in court and the only beneficiaries that I seem to hear at the moment is not the people who must use pales to get water out of their houses but people who are in courtrooms. The only people who seem to benefit from the work done by the OPW are the people who seem to be getting largesse out of courts and that is not sustainable. It is not sustainable where we have communities waiting 20 years, and in some cases more years, for flood relief schemes, especially when we know that the sea is rising at the current rate. A 1 metre rise in the Atlantic Ocean will wipe out whole communities on the west coast. If I am saying to people in the Deputy's constituency, and in my constituency up the Shannon estuary, that they have to wait 20 years then they may as well start asking themselves if they are better off moving now because we will not be able to protect them. This Oireachtas must respond in a positive way to climate change. I do not mean to start saying how much emissions we will claim to cut and clapping ourselves on the back saying we are great for cutting emissions by 30% and 40%, and that means absolutely nothing. I am talking about how are we actually going to deliver physically to these communities, and I do not mean cheques to barristers and solicitors who are the real winners at the moment.

I am very aware of the impact that flooding has had on Galway city and Clifden. As the Minister of State said, we need to do everything to protect communities in the Claddagh, and the businesses around the Spanish Arch and Salthill, that are so affected by flooding every time there is a storm. As the Minister of State said, these storms are becoming ever more frequent and that causes a huge amount of anxiety and stress for the people of that area. Indeed, we have seen that in other parts of country, as he has outlined.

I wish to ask one final question before I must leave to attend my next committee meeting. I understand that there are 1,400 guards in Harcourt Square and all of them will be facilitated on Military Road. Is that correct?

The number that I have is 883 gardaí. We can check and I can revert to the Deputy in writing.

I thank the Minister of State.

Deputy Neale Richmond is on his way. I will ask a couple of questions in the meantime. I have an ongoing interest in the work for which the Minister of State is responsible and I congratulate him on the work that he has done.

On buildings at risk such as period houses, castles etc. up and down the country, is the progress sufficient to address the multitude of such cases in the shortest possible time?

I thank the Vice Chairman for his question. Every building is different and we have a mixture that are in our custody. Over the last two years, the same as every element of construction, work has progressed on a stop-go basis due to Covid and we had to meet social distancing requirements but luckily now that has all stopped. Yes, is the short answer. We have our own limitations. We would like to have more outdoor staff and more craft workers. We have the apprenticeship programmes that the former Minister of State, Brian Hayes, resurrected when he had my role. We definitely would like to have more such programmes, particularly stonemasonry as it is a craft for which the Office of Public Works is renowned. Anybody who travels through the properties that the Office of Public Works is responsible for is in awe of the restoration works done by OPW staff. The Vice Chairman need only look at sites in his own constituency to see an example of the work that the OPW can take pride in, whether it is historic properties, the national monuments or any of the buildings. One does not need to go outside the four walls of this building to see an example of the work done by OPW staff and the pride they take in it.

Yes, is the short answer. We would always like to have more resources. Skilled labourers are very difficult to get. We must compete with the private sector in the form of the construction sector. We have a very good story to tell in terms of new entrants. When one joins the public sector one joins an organisation with a lot of pride. It is like a family and there is career progression. Also, there is a great opportunity not only to progress in terms of skilled labour but to progress into other elements of the organisation and to train and develop in different forms of careers.

The OPW affords opportunities and flexibility at that level to those who join it. Whether it is in Castletown House, Kilkenny, Leinster House, Sceilg Mhichíl or elsewhere, we have in our portfolio some of the most iconic buildings in the world. We are very proud of them. Our workforce is limited. We would like to take on more and to do more. We would like to be able to expand our ambition for 2022.

I thank the Minister of State. There are still many stately homes and residences that have fallen into disrepair. A prominent one, with a large acreage attached, was purchased in the past few days. It is great to see such properties being purchased because it means they will be retained and refurbished. Does the Minister of State's Department keep an ongoing watch to identify such properties and deal with them on the part of the State?

I am not opposed to private-----

Absolutely, we do. Private owners of listed properties have an obligation to ensure that they look after them to a given standard. There is an obligation on us to look after them to a standard. We receive properties into our possession on occasion. I mentioned in my speech Annes Grove in County Cork. I was there during lockdown. Its story is one of lockdown, really. It will be open shortly this year. It is one of the newer properties in the sense that it is new to our portfolio. Properties do come into our portfolio from time to time, but perhaps not as often as I would like. Then again, we are not a bank. We do not have deep pockets. They are certainly not as deep as I would like to have. However, where the attention of the State is drawn to particular properties, the chairman and the commissioners always evaluate them and make a decision in the best interest of the State. When they make such a decision, they do so having weighed up the asking price and costs in the best interest of the State. They routinely acquire property for the State. It is the commissioners who make the decision, in consultation with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, but having regard to the need to achieve the best value for the State. Adding value and assets to the State's property portfolio is the right thing to do, but only at the right cost. As I stated, we are not blank-cheque merchants and we add to the portfolio only where it is the right thing to do.

Deputy Richmond has made his way all the way down from the upper reaches of the House. We thank him for that. I am sorry we could not make contact but electronic equipment does not always work.

The fault is probably all at my end, so I apologise to the Chairman and Minister of State, Deputy O'Donovan, for the messing about.

There are three areas I want to ask about. The Minister of State referred to all of them in his opening remarks. I just want more elaboration and meat on the bones. The first point, which is pertinent, relates to commemorations and the important calendar of events over the past two years. The events were held in very difficult circumstances. I would appreciate it if the Minister of State could elaborate on the impact that Covid-19 has had on the commemorations in respect of his Department’s need to be flexible. Were additional costs incurred or savings made? What was learned that can be taken forward into 2022, remembering that the pandemic has not completely gone away, although we hope we are out of the worst of the emergency phase?

In general, commemorations are managed and operated by the Department of the Taoiseach. As the Deputy knows, the OPW is an agency that supports the Department of the Taoiseach. In many cases, we do much of the back-of-house work or donkey work for the commemorations. We do all the heavy lifting and get none of the recognition, for want of a better way of putting it. Most of the commemorations happen on properties run by the OPW.

May I use this opportunity to thank the OPW staff because it is they who do all the heavy lifting and the putting together of the nuts and bolts for many of the commemorations? They bring in the outside bodies to put the events together. Without them, we would not have what we see on television, namely showcase events that in many cases involve military precision. The back-office teams at many of those events are the men and women of the OPW. I pay tribute to them. The events are routinely held in historical properties run by the OPW, most notably Dublin Castle. Covid limits the number of people who can attend them. Invitations are sent out primarily by the Department of the Taoiseach. It would have the protocol people but we would have the people who do the heavy lifting in respect of the mechanics.

The years 2022 and 2023 will see the Department of the Taoiseach and the Department that is headed by the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, Deputy Catherine Martin, leading the commemorations. We are getting into the more difficult and sensitive commemorations, involving the outbreak of the Civil War and the events at the Four Courts. We have a role in that we have already finished the restoration of the cupola at the Four Courts. There will be a role for the OPW in future commemorations.

With regard to the party political element of commemorations, it is important to point out that I recently took the opportunity to remind political parties that there are State commemorations on State properties for a purpose. I have asked them to be mindful that we would like State commemorations only on OPW properties and that we will not entertain party-political commemorations on them. This is because the OPW properties are the properties of all of the people of the State. They are the properties of people who vote for my party, every other party and no party. For that reason, I wrote to all political parties and asked them to respect the fact that the properties are to be used to facilitate State commemorations and, in some cases, commemorations led by local authorities. I asked them to respect these commemorations only and stated we will not be facilitating party-political commemorations. That goes across the board.

The easier commemorations, covering the period from 1916 to 1919, when the First Dáil was established, are now over. It gets more difficult from now on. That is why the staff of the OPW, in particular, must be respected by individuals of all political parties and none. Events should be run in conjunction with the Department of the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media and the local authorities only. Everything else should be outside the gates, precincts or curtilage of the national monuments or State properties operated by the OPW, because they are the property of all the people regardless of who they vote for.

I really appreciate that. There is heavy lifting in the literal sense and every other sense. It is a credit to the men and women in the Minister of State's Department.

I would like to move on to an extremely topical issue to which the Minister of State referred in his opening remarks. It relates to the construction and installation by the OPW, in co-operation with the Revenue Commissioners and the Customs and Excise, of Brexit infrastructure, be it at Rosslare Europort or Dublin Port. It is hard not to refer to the really disappointing announcement made only in the last hour by the North's agriculture Minister that checks at the Port of Belfast are to be halted. Those behind the announcement are daring the British Government to renege once again on an international treaty. The work of the OPW to which I have referred is ongoing. This work is not done only once in that constant modifications will be needed, particularly considering the much-needed and planned expansion of traffic through Rosslare Europort but also the potential for expansion at Dublin Port and possibly the Port of Cork and other ports.

I would appreciate if the Minister of State fleshed out the expected timeline the Department, in co-operation with Revenue, has for expected additional infrastructure. Last week, I raised this with the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, in a discussion on Estimates and expected staffing requirements for Revenue. It will be the same for the OPW. What further work is possibly required? Is this issue something that receives ongoing updated analysis? As we have seen even today, things can change rapidly.

I thank the Deputy. He is absolutely right. We have an ambitious programme for Rosslare Europort. The Deputy is also right that this is not an insignificant investment that we are about to embark on. It involves the OPW, Irish Rail, Wexford County Council, the local community, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the Revenue Commissioners and a host of local agencies. The investment is enormous by local standards. It is worth €150 million. It represents a site of 10,700 sq. m. made up of 19 buildings that will provide a new border control for the country. We have seen the traffic into and out of Rosslare Europort in recent months. The additional new services operated in the port dictate we have to provide additional new services for hauliers coming in and out of there. The OPW has been charged with this. The spend to date by our Brexit unit on a range of measures is €81 million. This is capital spending across all of the headings provided for.

In his question the Deputy mentioned the work we have done on Dublin Port. Our short-term ambition for this set of Estimates is focused on Rosslare. We see the potential for Rosslare to be an additional node into the country and the additional border control point we need given the traffic being generated through the port. We know remote access from the port causes difficulties in terms of time delays. It is about ease of access out of the port. Wexford County Council, Iarnród Éireann and the hauliers will provide support in terms of anecdotal evidence, as will Revenue and other port users, as to the final design. This will be supported by the European Union and will represent a massive investment into County Wexford. The Deputy has seen the scale and finished product of what the OPW did in Dublin Port. Other Deputies may not have seen it. The manner in which we were able to turn it around and the speed with which we were able to turn it around are a credit to OPW staff, including our internal architects and engineering staff. We were asked to do it in a very short period of time. The same will be able to be accrued in Wexford.

It is very interesting. It is a massive investment but one that will lead to a return for the State particularly in Rosslare Europort, with the increase in traffic and the increase in opportunities. As the Minister of State rightly said, essentially it is doubling the capacity.

I have another set of questions on an issue the Minister of State touched on briefly. It is an issue I raised with the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, last week. It is on remote working and encouraging a move in the Civil Service to achieve 20% of staff working remotely. The Minister of State referenced it briefly in his remarks. The detail is quite important with regard to how it can be achieved and how the Civil Service can be a model for the semi-State sector and the private sector. This is something worth pursuing. It is doable and affordable. I would appreciate if the Minister of State would elaborate on the strategy for remote working being co-ordinated in terms of being facilitated by the OPW. While the Estimates for this year are set in stone, is this an area that will grow in terms of funding requirements and the amount of work required?

The short answer is that it is not set in stone. It is up to every Department to identify how it will manage it. It is then up to us when asked how we will support it. We already support not only our own staff to work from home but we have also supported other Departments in this regard. There will be fundamental questions on office accommodation in this city. If we are going to have hybrid working environments there will be a requirement for the Government as an employer to have discussions with our employees on the type of working environment we will have. If 20% of people will be in a different type of working environment there will be a question as to whether we will own the buildings or lease the buildings. There will be different types of conversations not only in Dublin but throughout the country. Someone in Longford or Sligo may be working for the Department of Social Protection. Wherever people are they will be in an OPW-owned, operated or leased building. This will happen organically over a period of time. It will require conversations between us and the parent Departments once the parent Departments have worked out what hybrid working looks like for them.

I have had this discussion with our internal management board and the chairman. We need to start looking at other elements of the public sector, such as local authorities and other State agencies. We have begun to look at partially filled buildings that house local authority buildings, semi-State companies or public agencies. We are looking for Civil Service gaps to be filled by people working in a different environment, such as somebody who might be looking for a remote working environment in Stillorgan. We know the local authority does not have full capacity in that area. We need to start seeing the Civil Service and public sector as "Ireland Inc." rather than two different entities. We need to start looking at how we can collaborate all of our working environments as one "Ireland Inc." working environment. We need to make sure we maximise all of these working spaces before we start looking at building any more. This is very important. It is something the OPW has already started to do in regional Ireland. We need to see whether workspace is available from local authorities, the HSE and other State agencies before we start going off entering into leases, buying buildings or building buildings.

This is what hybrid working and various forms of working will look like as well as working from home. People have jumped to a conclusion that hybrid working will be working from home. It will also be about remote working and working in a local authority office but being a civil servant or being a local authority employee working in a Civil Service office. We have to be open to change. A motor tax official for Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council could be working beside somebody from the Department of Social Protection. We are all working for "Ireland Inc." and we should be prepared to look at these models and not be so protective of the type of offices we are working in.

I thank the Minister of State. I apologise as I must leave to go to the Dáil Chamber.

I welcome the Minister of State to the committee. Many of my questions deal with flood risk management. In the capital allocation for 2021, €88 million was allocated for flood risk management. In 2020 it was €88 million. Back in 2019 the chair of the Office of Public Works made a pitch to the Department that the funding needed in 2019 was €103 million, in 2020 was €112 million in for 2021 was €114 million to continue to provide existing services and implement the flood protection schemes in 30 areas in the CFRAM proposals. The allocations provided to the OPW were €70 million less than this over the three years. Will the Minister of State explain this? I am conscious of planning issues but I am also conscious of the fact that if the Minister of State does not have the money he cannot authorise a scheme to go to the next stage. Even before a scheme can go to planning or somebody can object to it, the design will need to be done.

I am sure there are many schemes in my constituency, and the constituencies of others, that have not been able to go on to that stage because the funding was not required. Will the Minister of State explain why the request of the OPW at that time was left €70 million short in respect of flood risk management?

The Deputy has answered his own question in a way. The main issue we have is planning-related. These are major schemes so when we anticipate, as we do, we plan on the basis of a forecast that things will move along smoothly and, naturally enough, we will build into our capital plan a sufficient amount to allow for that. For instance, the profile for 2019 to 2021 combined Crossmolina, Glashaboy, Enniscorthy and the River Poddle. When the four of them are put together, there is a combined underspend coming in of approximately €75 million. All of those schemes are at different stages. We could get into each one individually to see where they are or, more important, where they are not.

We have to build into our profile each year a sufficient money for each one of them to be able to proceed because we do not know what is out there on the horizon, or what rock one of them will hit, during the planning process. We have to build a sufficient amount of capital into our profile to allow them to move on. We hope and anticipate that they will move smoothly. Unfortunately, some of them are fairly big in scale, such as Enniscorthy, a town with a population upwards of 10,000 people. These are not small schemes but major ones. We are carrying over capital for fairly substantial population bases. We do not want to carry over that capital, but we are doing so due to factors outside our control, primarily judicial review. As I said to the Deputy's party colleague earlier, I hope that as part of the upcoming legislative review in this context we will get to a situation where we will not have towns throughout the country that are waiting more than 20 years for flood relief schemes.

I understand that. That is a very genuine issue, which we have discussed previously. I acknowledge that issue, but it has nothing to do with the fact that funding requested by the OPW was left €70 million short over those three years.

Let me give the Minister of State an analogy. If ten schemes are approved and, as he said, funding has to be profiled for those schemes, and we then hit roadblocks from judicial reviews and all the rest, and half the funding cannot be spent in a given year, for example, the problem is there are no other schemes that can pick that up.

When the €70 million that was requested was not provided, it meant other schemes that could have been sanctioned and where the train could have left the station, were not able to do so because the money was not profiled.

There were other schemes. There are a load of schemes in the station that cannot get on the train because, unfortunately, the judicial review process has a knock-on consequence. There is a finite and limited number of staff who can work on all these schemes, whether they are in the engineering or environmental elements of them. We do not have people sitting around doing nothing. All our people are tied up all the time. When the schemes run into judicial review, people do not just sit back and do nothing. They move on to the next scheme, whether it is Ennis, Limerick, King's Island, Morrison's Island, any of the ones in Kilkenny, Ballyhale, any of the ones the Minister wants, Donegal or any of them. The pipeline is continuously being filled. This year, for instance, we are moving to construction for seven schemes; Douglas, Springfield, the River Morell in Deputy Durkan's constituency, the River Dodder, Templemore, Ashbourne and Athlone, all of which are swallowing up at various stages some of what would be regarded as part of that underspend.

Is the reason the allocation was €70 million less than the chairperson of the OPW requested over three years because the Minister of State believed it could not be spent anyway? Is that what he is trying to say to me?

What was the reason? I have heard a lot of stuff. I know there are issues but I still have not heard the reason.

Some of these schemes that are stuck are much bigger than the ones coming on behind them. Even though some of the schemes coming on behind are smaller, that does not mean they require any less environmental consideration, any less engineering and any less attention from the OPW or local authorities. It does not mean that just because they are-----

Is there a capacity issue?

It is not a capacity issue.

It is because the towns are bigger. Enniscorthy is a much bigger town than some of the towns that are coming on behind it. It means that the contract we will be giving out for Enniscorthy is a lot bigger than that for some of the towns coming on behind it, but the resources available to us are the same. The number of people we have available to us for environmental impact assessments is the same. They are the same people.

Is it a capacity issue within the OPW?

No, it is not a capacity issue.

Okay. What is the issue? Is it because Enniscorthy is a big town that the budget was cut by €70 million? I cannot understand what the Minister of State is saying.

Does the Deputy know of the concept of near and far away?

Enniscorthy is a huge town. It will require a large amount of capital. I will give another analogy. Rathkeale is a small town that does not require the same amount capital to fix it. However, the same number of people are required to do the environmental impact assessment for a small town as for a big town. We have set aside a significant amount of capital for a big town. That means that carryover will hit our books. That is what it is.

It is not about carryover. The OPW chairperson asked for €103 million, €112 million and €104 million; he was given €88 million. I want to know why there was such a cut in the budget.

He is also anticipating that we will have good news on some of these schemes and that we will actually be able to start them. We do not know what might come out of the courts, but we have to have a sufficient amount to be able to start. We believe we have a sufficient amount to be able to start these schemes.

Was the chairperson of the OPW wrong in his assessment that-----

No, he is not wrong.

-----this is what is required to continue to provide existing service and implement the flood protection schemes in 30 areas within the CFRAM programme?

Is that not exactly what I just said?

The funding was cut by €70 million. He was left short €70 million.

On his profile-----

Yes, on his profile.

On the profile, we have a sufficient amount to carry us over, notwithstanding the fact that we are bogged down in court with an awful lot of the very big ones.

I acknowledge that is a genuine issue. I understand the resource implication for a large scheme as against a small scheme, but what I hear all the time is that it appears there is a capacity issue in the OPW and that is not the fault of the Department's because it is into a judicial review, JR. I am sure it is not the case that departmental officials sit back. They have to service that process as well. What is the solution to this?

I have advocated the solution and I hope the Deputy will support it.

If the Minister of State is talking about legislation-----

We need a legislative remedy.

That will not stop any of the JRs that are going through at present.

I hope when it comes before the House, because it will affect the Deputy's constituency, that he will support it. We need serious legislative reform in the area of JR. He should not come into the Dáil crying to me when Donegal town is raised as an issue in the House because it is taking ten years to get its scheme advanced and it is bogged down in the courts.

First, that scheme is not in a JR. The second thing-----

There is a statistically high probability of all of them ending up in that process.

Sinn Féin wants to reduce the number of JRs and we can do that through a proper planning process-----

-----to make sure that, downstream, it is adequate and fit for purpose. The Minister of State mentioned me coming in crying about Donegal town. It is a good analogy because it is the people of Donegal town who have been left in tears on many occasions-----

-----when the waters have come in on them, time and time again, and they are seeing no response from the Government.

They actually are.

I will ask the Minister of State this because I asked it two weeks ago in the Dáil. Some €157,000 was approved in 2018, but what we have is not in the first phase. He gave a response stating that it was not in stage one and he talked about some schemes potentially being moved up to stage one, but it appears Donegal town was not in that. He said: "...Donegal town is not in the first phase of projects to be progressed, the OPW and DCC are working closely to ensure that it will be commenced as early as possible in the current programme of investment". Has there been any movement on the commencement of this work? Has a date for commencement been chosen? I am not the person crying.

The people of Donegal town are screaming out for this time and again. I outlined to the Minister of State regarding the floods that if it was not for the work of public officials, who did tremendous work the last time around, many other houses would have been at risk. What is the date for commencement for these works in Donegal town? There are no judicial reviews involved.

The Deputy asked me that question a week ago, and I am going to give the same answer now as I did then. I do not have a date for the commencement. It has to go through a planning process. The Deputy just said we cannot usurp the planning process. Therefore, I do not have a date.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan took the Chair.

Have all the stages been approved to allow planning permission to be applied for?

No. I did not say that.

I am due to meet representatives of Donegal County Council within the next fortnight-----

What stage is the process at?

-----along with officials of the OPW. I hope to have a clearer picture then of where the flood relief scheme in Donegal town stands. From our perspective, and I wish to make this point very clear, because I know the Chairman of the committee is concerned with issues in Kilkenny as well, there is not an issue with schemes being held back or anything like that. We have been clear we will progress flood relief schemes that need to be advanced, and we are anxious to progress them.

We must, however, also be upfront with people. I will need a clear legislative reform agenda to be advanced by this Oireachtas if we are to make progress. I had a good discussion with Deputy Doherty’s colleague, Deputy Mairéad Farrell, concerning the situation in Galway. This type of problem is not unique to any part of the country. It was the same situation when former Deputy Moran held this portfolio. The problem has been going on for years. I refer not just to a problem with flood relief schemes but also to major public infrastructure projects. It does not matter who is in government. We must deal with the planning system in respect of the delivery of major public infrastructure projects and how quickly they can be realised.

I refer to the planning system, and the OPW is no different from any local authority or any public utility in respect of how quickly it can negotiate the process. I also want to make it clear that this is not an issue with money. I have more than €1.2 billion profiled for spending out to 2030. We are anxious to spend that allocation in my county, in Deputy Doherty’s county, in the Vice Chairman's county and elsewhere.

All big money. I am not going into the planning issues because I agree they exist. Let us take the scheme in Donegal town. It is a simple scheme. Houses are at risk of flooding and people have been in tears. The Minister of State mentioned that aspect. What stage is that project at and what is required to take it to the next stage?

As I said to the Deputy last week and again a while ago, the project in Donegal is a tranche 2 scheme and the council and the OPW are working closely to see how it can be advanced. Funding of almost €400,000 was allocated in 2019 by the OPW to Donegal County Council to carry out minor works there. It is part of an overall €2.5 million approved for Donegal County Council since 2009 under the heading of minor works. I hope to visit there in the coming weeks.

Okay. That is great. I am glad that the Minister of State will, it is hoped, meet residents-----

I will, as I do everywhere.

I am glad the Minister of State will do that, and in fairness to him, he is available to meet people. Returning to this issue, though, because he talked about the big numbers and that there is no problem in the context of the billions of euro available, there is a desire for the Donegal town project to proceed. Is it not the case the Minister of State needs to give approval for it to go to the next stage?

Okay. What needs to be done?

I know the Deputy might try to come in and try to presume-----

No, I am genuinely asking this question. What is it that needs to be done?

I have answered the question, Vice Chairman.

One speaker at a time, please.

I have answered the question in the Dáil and now here. I do not know what kind of a platform Deputy Doherty is trying to create, but I have answered the question. I have answered it in the Dáil and three times here already. I will be meeting with representatives of Donegal County Council in the next fortnight specifically concerning the scheme in Donegal town.

I will revert to Deputy Doherty at that stage.

I appreciate that. As a representative for that area-----

By the way, the Deputy is not unique in addressing this problem. Deputy McHugh has also raised this issue with me, as have individual councillors.

I would never suggest I am unique. I am just making the point that as a representative for that part of the constituency, as are others, I have a genuine question I need to ask the Minister of State. I know he said he has answered it three times-----

The people and all the public representatives in Donegal want that scheme to go ahead, so can the Minister of State explain to me, because he says it is in tranche 2, if it is Donegal County Council, the OPW, the Minister of State or the Department which has the power to move it ahead? What are we waiting for?

This is not a case of either-or. This is a decision that will be moved ahead jointly.

Who has to make it?

This is a decision that will be moved forward jointly by Donegal County Council and the OPW. I know the Deputy is trying to trivialise it and to distil it down-----

No, that is not-----

Yes, the Deputy is.

That is not fair.

He is trying to trivialise and distil it down into a situation where someone is holding something back. That is not fair to the people the Deputy is trying to represent.

Therefore, it is Donegal County Council, and the members in-----

The Deputy can try as much as-----

No. I want to know the process-----

One speaker at a time, please.

I am around this place now as long as Deputy Doherty-----

I ask the Minister of State to hold on for a second.

-----and I will not have words put in my mouth.

Stop for a second, please.

I have answered the question, and the Deputy is now trying to put words in my mouth. I am not going to have words put in my mouth by the Deputy or anybody.

No. Order, please. I want to make one thing clear to the Minister of State. No good will come from having an argy-bargy across the floor. It does not achieve any progress. I ask both parties, therefore, to please respect the other's view. Deputy Doherty can ask the question-----

And it has been answered.

With respect-----

One speaker at a time, please.

I thank the Vice Chairman for that intervention. With respect, we are going through the Estimates here and we are supposed to look at the outcomes.

Well, it would be good if we got back to the Estimates.

This is about the Estimates. We are supposed to look at the numbers and the outcomes.

I am asking about the process of authorising this type of work and asking the Minister of State to help me to understand this process. Is the next stage a joint decision-----

-----in the context of which Donegal County Council has the authority to move this work along to the next stage in conjunction with the Department? Is that the process?

This decision will be taken jointly between Donegal County Council and the OPW.

It is the OPW. Okay. Donegal County Council wants to move this project on, so why has the OPW not-----

As I said already, and not to repeat myself, but I think I have answered this question now maybe five times. Once my officials and I have had an opportunity to meet with representatives of Donegal County Council, I will then be able to give a detailed response to Deputy Doherty, and all the members of the Oireachtas who have raised this issue, regarding this scheme in Donegal and other issues relevant to that county.

It would be helpful if the Department or the OPW can send to the committee information regarding the different stages of a programme like this and who authorises them. I would like to see the details of the joint authority Donegal County Council shares with the OPW, which the Minister of State has said he has referred to on five occasions, and how that process works. I ask that because if the block is in Donegal County Council, then we need to know that.

Regarding Ballybofey and Stranorlar, a start-up concerning that project was held by the OPW and Donegal County Council. More than €157,000 was approved back in 2018, and the total budget is more than €1.92 million. A total of 59 properties are at risk. Where do we stand with this project?

The project costs for the scheme at Ballybofey are just short of €2 million. The estimated spending to date has been just less than €207,000. Consultants were appointed by Donegal County Council in April 2021. The scheme is at stage 1, and it is due to move into the planning phase early next year and into the construction phase in early 2025.

Okay. Regarding the situation in Lifford, when I raised this project with the Minister of State last year, he explained that consultants had been appointed at the design stage and that the public exhibition stage would begin in early 2022. Will the Minister of State let us know where we stand regarding progress there? I also ask him to give us an update on any progress in Burnfoot and Castlefinn.

The OPW is the contracting authority in Lifford. The scheme is programmed to be submitted for planning in the third quarter of 2023 and for construction to begin in 2025. The estimated spending in Lifford to date has been €344,000. At Burnfoot, consultants were appointed in June 2020, and that scheme is programmed to be submitted for planning in the first quarter of 2023, with construction to begin in 2024.

All these schemes are pretty much due to come to fruition, with construction getting under way in early 2024.

Most of them will wind up in construction at the same time.

Please God, all going to plan.

Hopefully we will have support for a legislative remedy from all sides of the House.

In fairness, not every project-----

I hope we are relying on more than prayers.

Not every scheme requires a judicial review or is subject to judicial review. Some of them have not been given approval to move to the next stage, such as the Donegal town scheme, as I have discussed at length with the Minister of State. The families do not care whether it is Donegal County Council or the OPW that is at fault.

It is important to point out that there is nobody at fault in these matters. My officials and the officials of Donegal County Council, every county council and the OPW - those responsible for the north west are sitting in the Gallery - are at pains to point out that they are often in people's houses when they are flooded. They have to brush out the faeces, the urine and the excrement at 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. The officials in the Gallery today from the OPW are not in any way holding back anything, in any county in the country. I can assure members of that.

In fairness, the chairperson asked for €70 million more than the Minister of State allocated over the past three years so I would agree with that statement from the Minister of State. However, that does not mean nobody is at fault because some projects are delayed or not given approval. Sometimes that approval is not given sufficiently quickly.

I would like to ask about the River Clady, where there was flooding and serious damage. Kevin Boxer Moran came out to visit the site, which is in Bunbeg, County Donegal, and tried to work through this issue with the residents. I am not sure if Donegal County Council and the OPW ever progressed the application for funding for upstream flood mitigation. Will the Minister of State look into this?

Did Donegal County Council submit an application for minor works?

I believe that they did. There was discussion between them. The former Minister of State, Kevin Boxer Moran, was very hands-on in regard to this issue. I ask the Minister of State to pick that up.

I do not know if an application for minor works was submitted. I can check to see if an application was made. Unless an application for minor works was made, obviously we would not have been able to approve it. If an application was made, I can check it out and revert to Deputy Doherty. Is it the bridge in Bunbeg?

It is. I appreciate that.

I have raised another issue in the same vicinity with the Minister of State previously. Numerous Garda stations have been closed down by previous Governments and some are lying idle. One of them is the old Bunbeg Garda station, which was hit by lightning. It was not actually closed down by the Government; it was hit by lightning. It is in a bad state. Is the OPW open to providing that site to the nearby primary school, which has an issue with car parking?

My understanding is that the former Garda station in Bunbeg went for public auction and was sold. The new one is up by the údarás facility.

It is near the industrial estate.

I am informed that it is to be sold in July. There have been a number of auctions. Deputy Farrell queried us about disposals earlier. She had previously raised the issue of reducing the amount of properties on our books. We have been at pains over the past 12 months to try to reduce those. There is a date assigned for the former Garda station in Bunbeg, and that is in July of this year.

I pay tribute to the staff in the OPW because they engaged in the past with regard to potentially leasing it to community groups at a nominal value, as has happened in other areas. There is an issue across the road from that site. This small Garda station was hit by lightning and had serious damage done to it. I am not sure what other use it could be used for. There is a school across the road. The Department of Education approved an extension because of the increased pupil numbers in the school. There is no car parking facility whatsoever. This is one potential remedy, although not completely suitable. I strongly urge the Minister of State to engage with the Department of Education and the board of management of the school to look at this option before it goes to public auction. There was a willingness in the Department to offer this site, as it has done with other sites in the past, to community groups.

We can look at everything. One of the things we have been doing in the OPW is that we have exhausted local authorities, community groups, Departments and bodies such as the HSE. I served on the Committee of Public Accounts, as did Deputy Doherty. One of the things we cannot do is dispose of State assets for anything above the market value. If we were to do that, no doubt somebody else would be writing a report about it. Deputy Doherty would probably be the first person to be very critical of me for doing that. What we must do is get market value.

Or a 100-year lease.

We have to get value for the State in the first instance. We will consult the Department of Education. I presume the Bishop of Raphoe is the patron in this case. The OPW will ask if the patron has an interest. However, we cannot operate on a mañana basis. I know the site. The former Minister of State, Dinny McGinley, is a good friend of mine so I know it. We cannot leave derelict sites in the middle of villages. If we do, Deputy Doherty will be on to me to say there is a clapped-out former Garda station in the middle of the village. The local Tidy Towns committee will be asking for it to be cleaned up, and the Deputy will be writing a different letter to me. We are damned if we do, and damned if we do not.

I have never damned the Minister of State on that issue.

The Deputy has damned me for many things.

I would not jump to conclusions. If the Minister of State wants to take that approach, that is fine. He is entitled to do so. I am making a point. He might be familiar with that site.

As he said, Dinny McGinley used to be the headmaster of the school opposite. Currently, people park on that site we are discussing. I was not aware of its planned sale in July, which will increase the problem in regard to parking and road safety in that area, even before the school is extended, as already approved by the Department. This is a genuine issue. There has always been an openness in this respect. The OPW was willing to lease it to a community group in the past. Unfortunately, that did not materialise due to an issue on the part of the community group.

I can understand that because the community groups are taking on a fair burden.

We will engage with the Department of Education and the patron in the full knowledge that the patron would be taking on the liability of the building. We will exhaust that option in advance of any potential auction. I commit to doing that.

I appreciate that. I thank the Minister of State.

I thank the Deputy. We do not have many deep sea ports in Kildare. We have quite a number of harbours, albeit canal harbours, but they are still there. In regard to the development of facilities for educational and tourism purposes, however, we have quite a number of historic houses, some of which are under the guidance of the OPW already. Moneys have been spent and continue to be spent. As the Minister of State mentioned, the Morell River drainage scheme was held up by judicial review. I understand it is now going ahead.

As one drives around the country, there are houses that catch one's eye. A few of them are in County Kildare. Is there a mechanism for houses that might be at risk of disappearing into decay and disrepair? Some of them may be on private property, which creates a problem. Some of them may be on public property, which does not create a problem. What mechanism might the Minister of State have, create or avail of to deal with them in order to protect them?

To answer the second question first, the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage in the first instance is the line Minister with responsibility for the protection of those buildings. It is an anomaly that probably should be corrected at some stage. The Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage actually owns many of the properties that we have responsibility for maintaining. It is not ideal but it is what it is and we have to get on with it.

It is a legacy from a bygone day when somebody above our current paygrade decided to split them and leave them in the current legislative lacuna. It is probably best to raise that issue with the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage.

The Vice Chairman will be glad to know that the eastern division is making considerable progress with the Morell. It is a big project which will be finished in 2025 and will cost about €10 million. Many homes in the Vice Chairman's part of the world will benefit. It is being done in conjunction with Kildare County Council. It has had its problems, but luckily those are behind us now. All going well, completion will be in 2025.

The works that have already been done have made an enormous improvement. Hundreds of acres were regularly flooded - it was not just once every ten years. That is good.

Grace O'Malley was a very progressive lady and built a number of castles along the western seaboard. Some of them have been restored and upgraded but some have not. How can the rest of them or the best of them be safeguarded and refurbished? Is that planned?

I presume the Vice Chairman is talking about Clare Island.

They are not only on Clare Island; they run along the coast.

I do not have a detailed note on the ones the Vice Chairman is talking about. I can send a written answer to him in the next couple of days. I presume some of the castles he is talking about will be in our custody and some will not be. I can get a detailed response for him in writing.

That would be fine.

I hope the Minister of State will be visiting my constituency shortly.

I was very disappointed that the last time I was supposed to go there, the Vice Chairman stood me up.

It was not possible for me to turn up on the last occasion because three other issues needed to be dealt with on that day. There are a few very ancient buildings there that have been pinned in an effort to hold them together. The work on Taghadoe Abbey and the round tower will not last for ever. The tower will need its walls and roof to be sealed. If the walls can absorb water, any building that is not sealed will have problems.

There are a number of issues in the Vice Chairman's part of the world relating to flood-risk management, estate management and historic properties. I look forward to going to County Kildare and meeting representatives of Kildare County Council with him.

Despite the level of interest early on, the interest has waned.

As some members have requested that further information be sent to the committee, I propose that we agree that the consideration of the Revised Estimates has concluded, subject to the committee receiving supplementary information, as requested. The clerk will circulate the information once received. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Top
Share