Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach debate -
Wednesday, 22 Feb 2023

Vote 13 - Office of Public Works (Revised)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Patrick O'Donovan, his staff, and members of the committee, both here and remotely, and those viewing from outside or on television.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I remind members of the constitutional requirement that members must be physically present within the confines of the place in which Parliament has chosen to sit, namely Leinster House, in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement.

We now move to No. 1, which is the consideration of the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2023, Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. The Dáil ordered that the Revised Estimates for public services in respect of the following be referred to this committee for consideration: Vote 13 - Office of Public Works. I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, Deputy Patrick O'Donovan, and his officials.

Members have received the briefing documents provided by the Department in advance, and I thank the officials for providing these. 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 Department has committed to achieving in terms of actual outputs and outcomes; consider whether the performance targets included in the Estimates are a sufficiently complete description of the services provided by the Department; whether these targets strike the right balance in terms of the needs of society; and consider whether the information provided by the Department makes clear how the moneys available are allocated between services, and whether these allocations are the most appropriate in the circumstances.

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

I thank the Cathaoirleach, and I am pleased to before the committee again to present the 2023 Revised Estimates for the OPW. The gross allocation for 2023 is just shy of €617 million, which comprises €126 million for flood risk management and €491 million to be invested in estate management.

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

As the OPW funding allocations, projects and scope of work continue to expand, the two main strategic programmes, flood risk management and estate management, have grown in tandem. The recognition of the threat of climate change has been underlined by events such as COP27. While the State needs to introduce measures to decarbonise, it also needs to introduce measures to prepare and adapt to the impacts of climate change. As I have highlighted regularly, Ireland is an island and the sea around us is one of our greatest risks. Under its flood risk management brief, the OPW continues to co-ordinate Ireland’s whole-of-government approach to managing 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 on families and businesses, especially in those communities known to be at significant risk from flooding. I have seen the damage and distress flooding can cause first-hand.

The flood risk management plans launched in May 2018 provide evidence to support the Government’s investment in flood risk management over the lifetime of the NDP. This investment supports the progression of 150 schemes. As members will be aware, delivering flood relief is complicated, involving many distinct stages, including but not exclusively: to understand the source and extent of flooding; to identify the preferred option to protect the risk areas; to secure the relevant consents and planning permissions; and to construct the schemes through private land. Throughout all of the stages, public consultation and detailed assessments of the environmental impacts are key to informing the design of a scheme for a community. The prioritisation of schemes means that work is under way to protect 80% of properties at risk, with proposed solutions for the other 20%.

Since 2018, the OPW has been able to treble to 90 the number of schemes at design and construction stage. Flood risk projects require expertise and input from engineers in the area of hydrology. As we progress with future schemes, the OPW will continue to make the most efficient use of all available resources and specialist personnel.

One of the principal factors affecting flood risk management in Ireland is climate change. In designing and building all of our schemes, provision is made to ensure that we can meet the risk posed by climate change. The OPW's assessment of that risk is fully supported by the evidence of the International Panel on Climate Change, IPCC. Schemes to be completed in 2023 include Athlone, Templemore, Springfield, and the second phase of the River Dodder. These schemes will provide protection to more than 1,500 properties.

Outside of these major schemes, local authorities can, and do, 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, this has protected 7,400 properties. In addition to the major and minor flood relief schemes, the allocation of €126 million to flood risk management in 2023 will allow the OPW to maintain 11,500 km of channels and 800 km of embankments as part of our statutory maintenance duty. This maintenance provides drainage outfall to some 650,000 acres of agricultural land and a level of protection from flooding to urban areas and critical infrastructure, including more than 20,000 properties.

The second major OPW programme is estate management, and this continues to fund the design, upkeep and modernisation of a significant number of properties within the State’s property portfolio. This includes heritage sites, Civil Service office accommodation for all Departments, An Garda Síochána and many State agencies. In all, the OPW manages in excess of 2,500 properties on behalf of the State, which includes some of Ireland’s most significant heritage properties, monuments, gardens and arboreta, including Leinster House, Sceilg Mhichíl and other office buildings. The management role includes the curation and presentation of 30 major historical properties and 700 monuments, as well as the State art collection, artefacts, plants and trees. This is work that makes a significant contribution to the health and well-being of the public, providing inviting green spaces and walkways for the public to enjoy and benefit from.

In 2023, OPW sites will play a key role in the resurgence of our tourism economy, which are particularly important assets for our rural areas. With the recent opening of Annes Grove in north Cork, investments in Doneraile, County Cork, Emo Court, County Laois and the newly-refurbished visitors' centres at the Blasket Centre in County Kerry and Céide Fields in County Mayo, the OPW continues to invest in the visitor experience and the conservation and enhancement of these unique places.

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 facilitates more agile ways of working to meet our future needs. The OPW is actively engaging with our clients in the context of their operational requirements and their long-term blended working policies to ensure that they have right-sized accommodation that continues to provide value for money for the Exchequer. In 2023, the OPW will substantially complete Tom Johnson House at Beggar's Bush. The project, which is largely funded by the EU under the national recovery and resilience plan, when completed, will provide an exemplar of how an existing obsolete building can be transformed into a highly modern, efficient and agile workplace. It will provide a long-term headquarters for the Department of the Environment, Climate Action and Communications, and this development will enable the release of an expensive leasehold in due course.

Members will be aware that as a consequence of the ongoing war in Ukraine, Ireland, along with our EU colleagues, has welcomed thousands of displaced Ukrainians to our shores. The OPW is assisting the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth on an agency basis by piloting a project to deliver 700 modular houses that will accommodate up to 2,800 people on sites throughout the country.

Similar to the Brexit infrastructure projects, the Ukraine modular homes project represents another unique example of the OPW assisting an all-of-government response to an unexpected event or crisis.

A gross sum of €490 million has been provided for estate management within the 2023 Revised Estimate. Of this, €60.5 million 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 OPW 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 that the OPW does in all aspects of our work, whether that is the maintenance of our national heritage sites or arterial drainage works.

I have only referred to a small section of the work the OPW does. It goes without saying that the scale and complexity of our responsibilities in the delivery of our two infrastructural programmes have a considerable impact nationwide, and are dependent on the expertise and commitment of our staff. The nature of the work of the Office of Public Works requires the input of a dedicated team of professional, technical and administrative staff, working in a multidisciplinary team, across a wide range of property management, heritage conservation and engineering functions, and others. The roles cover professional managers, valuers, architects, engineers, mechanical and electrical specialists, surveyors, planners, financial advisers, property economists, and project managers, to name but a few, and are supplemented by other specialists as we require them. These staff play a vital role, and as Minister of State I want to thank them. I can say with confidence that the Office of Public Works is ready to deliver key programmes for the Government as outlined in 2022. I would be happy to take questions from the Vice Chairman and members.

I thank the Minister of State. I call Deputy Doherty.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. I welcome the Minister of State and his officials to the committee to deal with the Estimates. Part of the Minister of State's opening contribution dealt with the issue of flood management, which is a major concern for many communities, and particularly those communities subject to flooding over recent years. I will begin by asking the Minister of State some questions about the progression of the flood management strategy, and where we are at.

I will focus on Donegal town, which is a good example of where we have seen a lack of action in the last number of years. It is located on the mouth of the estuary of the River Eske. It meets the sea at Donegal Bay, and is susceptible to all types of flooding from rivers overtopping, flash and coastal. Flooding in Donegal town has, unfortunately, become more frequent in recent years. We had Storm Abigail in November 2015, Storm Desmond in December 2015, and Storm Lorenzo in October 2019, which flooded 22 properties. The catchment flood risk assessment and management, CFRAM, report estimates that there are 75 properties in the town which could be flooded in the future. Last year thankfully, and touch wood, was the only year in the last six years that Donegal town was not flooded. Imagine having a home or business in that town and the concern that you would have as a result, as you face into another winter. Given the type of climate we have at the minute, you may not even have to wait for a winter to experience the types of flash flooding we see in some cases.

The flood relief scheme for Donegal town was identified in the flood risk management plans, but it is neither an ongoing scheme nor is it at stage one, or the first phase of projects to be progressed. The only commitment given to date has been that it would be delivered within the timeline of the national development plan. The residents and the businesses in that town are fearful of further flooding and the impact it is going to have on their homes, commercial properties and on getting insurance. I raised this with the Minister of State on 20 January 2022, and he said at that time that he was going to come to Donegal in the next number of weeks. Maybe the Minister of State could update us on to that visit. He said he would have more information. I have not heard that "more information", and I do not think there has been any progression during that year, at least from a public dimension. Will the Minister of State give us some positive public news today on the Donegal town scheme? The Minister of State and I know that without a doubt, the scheme has to move to the next stage. Houses and properties are at risk. We also know some schemes are held up in judicial reviews or planning but this is not one of them. This is one where the community needs this to progress, and to be allowed to be advanced. I am pressing the Minister of State today: we need action on Donegal town. Can he provide a fuller timeframe for the Donegal town scheme?

I thank Deputy Doherty for his question. He is right; I was in Donegal shortly after the meeting last year. I met with the CEO and director of services. I was in a number of locations across the county, not only seeing the projects that have yet to be commenced within the CFRAM programme, but those that are well under way. It is worth pointing out that the Office of Public Works already funds officials in Donegal County Council who have responsibility on the ground regarding the leading and implementation of the design of the schemes. Having been in almost all of the local authorities at this stage, I was hugely impressed with the magnitude of work that is already under way in Donegal, including in places like Lifford, Burnfoot, Castlefin, Ballybofey, Stranorlar and Buncrana and with the plan that is in place for Letterkenny. While we fund a resource within Donegal County Council, at the time I asked the council if it was satisfied with the level of resourcing available to it. The council has since come back and said it was satisfied with the number of staff, based on the size of the operations it was managing.

In the meantime, discussions have progressed even further. Donegal County Council is preparing a business case to look at resourcing issues, with a view to seeing if additional resources can be applied. The Deputy will be familiar with the public spending code and we have to wait until we get that business case, but I expect to get that shortly. The chairman of the Office of Public Works and I have both been there, and met the CEO of the council. We reiterated our support regarding what it is we can give in the short- and long term. In the short term, it is worth pointing out that we have funded Donegal County Council specifically with regard to the minor works scheme in Donegal town, and that includes €369,000 of upgrading works for walls, river banks, installation of non-return valves in some of the larger diameter pipes there and culvert works. A consultant was appointed, and €131,970 has already been drawn down from the Office of Public Works specifically in relation to the wider scheme in Donegal.

Regarding the scheme, Deputy Doherty is right that it is not unique to that town. We have a number of towns across the country that are of particular concern to us with regard to the tidal and coastal element, with the sea levels rising. That said, I am on the record of this committee and of the House with regard to the difficulties we have in pursuing schemes through planning, that is, not even getting to planning stage, but in terms of the preliminary works that are required of us under law, whether it is environmental impact assessment regulations, appropriate assessments, the actual physical design or the consultation that takes place. All of these require a huge amount of work. Regarding the Donegal issue, for instance, the engineers who I met at the time said that some of the preliminary work around the metrics of rising sea levels could be done in the short term. I expect to receive correspondence from Donegal County Council with regard to its business case very soon. It will supplement what it has already said, in that it has said it is now in a position to take on an additional person or an additional resource who will devote their time to this scheme and other schemes. That will allow us to collect some of the preliminary and early data that will form part of the ultimate planning application that will be made.

That said, the council has it within its grasp, and I made this clear to it. If there are mitigating works that the council feels can be done in the short term, and I mean within months, we have resources and money available to local authorities which it can apply for under minor works.

I thank the Minister of State. The council is fully aware of that, and has assessed this. In absence of progressing the CFRAM scheme, the council will obviously continue to apply for short-term works, and all the rest. However, let us not kid ourselves. These properties will still be at risk of flooding.

That is Clareden Drive. That is what has happened in Donegal town in five years out of the last six. It is happening every single year. It could happen this year. It could happen next month. We know, even if approval was given to progress this scheme, that it will take years for the scheme to actually come about. Issues continue every month that we delay. I raised with the Minister of State last year and nothing has happened. Nothing has happened to progress the catchment flood risk assessment and management, CFRAM, scheme.

Local councillors got a presentation from Donegal County Council about the flooding. I will read from it. It shows all the money that has been made available for culvert replacement and emergency flood relief works, which the Minister of State is suggesting more of. It states that any funding that is made available to try to help to alleviate flooding in Donegal town is welcome but, and this section is in red, the works noted above will only help with flooding up to a point. It states it is therefore essential that the scheme that has been identified in the CFRAM risk management plan for Donegal town is advanced as soon as possible. It talks about what the future holds for Donegal town with regard to global warming, rising sea levels, rising temperatures and storm events being more frequent and more intense. It states the CFRAM scheme is essential for Donegal town. That is the long and short of it. We all know that, as does everybody who is looking at Donegal town. I genuinely believe the Minister of State knows that. When will a decision be made to allow this scheme to progress?

That decision has already been made. By including it in CFRAM, we, the Government and everybody accepts the towns and cities that need to be protected, including Limerick, Cork, Galway and Enniscorthy. They are all over the country. We have to operate on the basis of presenting an application, which, in this case, is led by a local authority, to a planning authority, whether that is An Bord Pleanála or the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, that is likely to get through a planning process. Since the advent of CFRAM-----

For information, since the Minister of State knows this inside-out, does the local authority need approval for consultants to be appointed for the design of the scheme?

That has to be done before it can do planning.

I asked the county council if it was satisfied with the level of resources it had from OPW support when I was there last year and it made it clear that it was. It was leading most of the CFRAM delivery in County Donegal, with the exception of one, which I think is in Burnfoot, which we are leading ourselves. We know that Donegal is a highly vulnerable county. So are Galway, Mayo and Kerry. The whole coastline is vulnerable. The Deputy is absolutely right that no scheme will protect all of the communities all of the time, no matter whether it is completed or to be completed, because some events will happen that are never legislated for in the scheme itself. There will be towns that will have completed flood relief or coastal relief schemes that will continue to flood. It is the context of how much they flood and the scale at which the sea level rises which none of us at the committee will be able to predict. What we will be able to predict-----

That is not the point. I agree with the Minister of State's points and am not contradicting them at all but that is not the issue at heart here. The issue at heart is the approval for Donegal town to advance a CFRAM scheme. The Minister of State is giving the impression, and can correct me if I am wrong, that it is solely in the hands of Donegal County Council to advance that scheme and that it does not require approval from the Minister of State or Department. My view is that it requires approval from the Minister of State and Department. In its presentation, Donegal County Council is basically saying that this scheme is essential. As we know, it needs approval to appoint consultants. When the Minister of State answered the question, he rightly pointed out that this is not one of the schemes in the first phase of projects but at the time last year, he acknowledged, as we all know, that much spending is going unspent because of planning difficulties. There is a need to reprofile some of that money and to advance schemes that are not being delayed.

This is why I am asking the Minister of State about Donegal town, and the same could be argued about Letterkenny, but let us focus on Donegal town for now. Donegal town needs to be given approval by the Department to say to go ahead, appoint consultants and prepare plans. God knows what will happen when it goes into planning.

As I said before, I think in advance of that, once Donegal County Council has completed its business case, the OPW will not be found wanting. We have not been found wanting with respect to any application that has come from the council, including about the appointment of staff. All the staffing levels will be required to collect the preliminary data in advance of any scheme being designed. That is the stage that this is at.

The council is not saying that. It says it needs approval from the Minister of State's organisation.

Hold on a second. I have correspondence.

It wants more staff but it is not saying that that is the difficulty in Donegal town.

If the Deputy is going to ask me a question, let me answer it. We have engaged with Donegal County Council and we want to support it. It has to produce a business case to us that will allow us to approve the appointment of another engineer who will be able to specifically work on this scheme. When that is done, the OPW will not be found wanting. With regard to the presentation where Donegal County Council said this is essential, that is stating the obvious, because the fact that it is in CFRAM means it is essential. We believe it is essential but we have limitations too. They are not financial limitations. There are a certain number of people with the skill-set, either in the private or public sector, who will be able to deliver what we have delivered over the last number of years. Incidentally, our output has tripled in the short term. We are now doing far more work on the ground. In 2023, our output will be even bigger. We have been frustrated and stagnated with a process that is not fit for purpose. The challenge I would lay down for this committee is that we need its help if we are to deliver to Donegal town, Letterkenny, Crossmolina, Cork city, Galway city and Dublin, which is at huge risk. This committee and all committees of the House need to radically change how large-scale infrastructure is being delivered because, at the moment, it is completely unfit for purpose. Too many people have too much of a right to object, slow things down, and inflict the sort of pain and misery that the Deputy has referred to on the people of Donegal.

Let us be clear about this. Nobody has objected to Donegal town.

I did not say that.

The Minister of State did.

I did not say that. Check the blacks.

Let me say what the Minister of State said. He referred to progressing projects such as Donegal town, Crossmolina, and so on. The point I am making is that nobody has objected in Donegal town because they have not even had a chance to object because the scheme has not been allowed to progress.

(Interruptions).

I will let the Minister of State answer the question if he will let me put the question.

At the risk of repeating myself-----

Let me put the question.

I can circumvent and be helpful.

We cannot have this.

I am trying to be helpful.

Hold on. One speaker finishes and then the other responds. Listen carefully to each other and then I might even intervene myself, horror of horrors.

At risk of repeating myself, we recognise the issues regarding some other schemes. In Donegal town, there are no objections. There is unanimous support from the council, elected members and officials that this scheme needs to happen, not as part of the 2020 plan, but it needs to be expedited. The view here is that the reason this is not happening is not because the council needs more resources. Of course the council will look for more resources and is doing so, but it is not suggesting that is the delay here. It is suggesting the delay is that the Department has not given sanction for the next step of this project to commence.

Can Deputy Doherty produce something for me that says Donegal County Council is saying the OPW is holding this up?

No. What I want-----

"No" is the answer to the question.

I want to intervene for a second.

Let me just put the question.

I know Deputy Doherty is putting the question. I think both sides are genuine in what they are trying to do but they are at cross-purposes. They are not coming at it at the same level at all.

I do not think that is the case. A suggestion is being made here that the OPW-----

Wait until I finish. I would like to see what is holding it up. What procedure is now required and whose hands does that power lie in?

I think it is my fifth time saying that the OPW is totally committed to Donegal town. Can I be any clearer? When Donegal County Council presents a business case to us with regard to additional resources, which will be required to collate the preliminary data in advance of any scheme being proffered, the OPW will support that.

When will that be required?

As soon as possible. As soon as we get a response from Donegal County Council, we will expedite it. It will be up to the council to make sure that it can do what it needs to with the resources that we attach to it. I cannot make it simpler than this. I know the local community will be listening to this. We want this scheme to be built, as we do in all other parts of the county, where we have a good working relationship with the council and local community.

There is nothing stopping this. I think Deputy Doherty accepts that we have a very good relationship with the community in Donegal and we want to proceed with this. However, we want to proceed with it on the basis of a scheme that is likely to get planning permission. There is no point in us going half-baked around the place trying to do something that will fall flat on its face at the first hurdle. We will not do that.

Can the Minister of State take us through, step by step, how a local authority engages with the Department and the points of approval relating to a scheme of this nature, whether it is in Donegal town or anywhere else? For example, is the first step data collation and does the Department have to give approval for that? This is not a priority scheme. It does not have a timeframe and it is not in phase 1. Is the council, therefore, prohibited from carrying out work for schemes that are not included in that phase?

As the Deputy will be familiar with the public spending code, everything that we do has to go through a series of gateways. Whether it is the building of a flood relief scheme, the refurbishment of a house or the building of anything, we have to go through a series of gateways before it ever goes to a tender application system. That is what we are doing in respect of this. That is what we have done with regard to all of the other towns and villages in Donegal.

The first point of approval that is required from the Department-----

Has been made because of its inclusion in CFRAM.

And then the second point.

Our officials are engaging with the directors of services of all local authorities at the moment to see what capacity is in the local authority system, in conjunction with the OPW to animate more projects that can enter the pipeline because it is in everybody’s interest that we fill the pipeline with more applications, which is what we want to do.

If a project is not identified as a priority – there are priority projects in each of the local electoral areas – can a local authority just start the work on a non-priority project?

It was the local authorities, in conjunction with the OPW in the first place, that prioritise these and identify the risks.

Can they begin to collate the data relating to the non-priority projects or do they need approval from the Department?

The Deputy knows the answer to the second part because it is part of public spending code.

Every decision on the expending of public money requires the approval of the Accounting Officer, who, in this case, is the chairman of the OPW.

Okay. Donegal town is not a priority scheme. Does Donegal County Council need approval from the Department to start collating the data?

It needs to present - I think it is my sixth time now saying it – a business case that will, hopefully, be before us soon that will allow them to appoint somebody who will be able to start that work.

The Minister of State is saying that is solely for the work in Donegal County Council.

It is up to the council to decide how that resource is-----

No. Let me just make this-----

Chairman, If I am going to be asked a question, at least let me answer it.

The Minister of State is answering the question.

This is not a one-way street here. The Deputy is trying to create the impression that the OPW is somehow against Donegal town.

Let me state quite clearly and unambiguously in the simplest language that we want a scheme built.

Yes, but I want to go through the spending and decision processes. The Minister of State made the point that Donegal County Council will apply for additional resource, but that is an additional resource overall in the county. Up until a number of months ago, the council was not looking for that resource, but it was still looking for the project in Donegal town to proceed. The point I am making is that, for the council, within its existing resource, to carry out the necessary assessment, it requires approval from the Minister of State’s Department. Does it not? Has it sought that approval?

I will put it another way.

Has it sought the approval?

I will put it another way. How can a local authority, without the preliminary data around the need for a scheme, advance a scheme through the public spending code without the empirical evidence required for the scheme to proceed? It cannot and, therefore, to do that, it needs additional resources. Up until recently, officials told us and made it very clear that they were satisfied the resources that the OPW had funded. They have now looked to see if that can be expanded. That can only be expanded in conjunction with the presentation of a business case. The business case will identify the needs-----

Let me finish. It will identify the needs of the local authority, specifically around whatever schemes are outstanding under CFRAM that they want to progress and it will be determined on that basis.

Has Donegal County Council sought approval? I do not know either way but we will table some questions. Has the council sought approval? Have officials written to or corresponded with the Department to allow Donegal town to advance to the next step?

We have had a lot of dialogue with Donegal-----

Has it sought approval?

Chair, I am only wasting my time in here if-----

If the Deputy-----

No. One thing has to come before the other.

This is not RTÉ; this is an Oireachtas committee. If the Deputy is going to ask the question, he can at least give me the courtesy of answering it.

Please. Has it sought approval? That is the question; it is not about the Minister of State's conversations. I know Ministers are having conversations all the time. He met the officials and he told me that 20 minutes ago. Has they sought approval?

I ask members to calm down.

Again, as I said, with the risk of repeating myself, it will require a lot of preliminary work to be done in advance of making sure that scheme can go ahead. We want to make sure that preliminary work can be done. To do that, it will require resources within the council, which we are open to funding and resourcing once a business case is brought before us. We have had a lot of dialogue with the council officials, written and otherwise, to clarify its position and needs. We will work with them in the same way as we are working with them in all the other towns and villages that we are protecting in the county.

It is excellent that the Minister of State is open to additional resources for Donegal County Council. However, I will ask the question again, because this is a committee of the Oireachtas and this is scrutiny on the Estimates and the outcome of those Estimates. Has the council at any stage requested approval to advance to the next step with the Donegal town scheme?

I do not have the copies of correspondence here, but I will revert to the Deputy after the committee meeting.

Is the Minister of State aware of any request?

I am not but I will find out. I will ask and we will revert to the Deputy in writing.

Okay. I appreciate that. I thank the Minister of State. There has been no progress in the Donegal town scheme in the past year.

It is not. Perhaps the Minister of State can explain the progress of the CFRAM programme last year.

I will explain the fact that the OPW - again, this is to the benefit of the people who live in the town - has made multiple allocations to the council specifically relating to flood risk in the town, which is captured under the Vote we are discussing.

But there is no progress in respect of the CFRAM programme, which was the point I made. Does the Minister of State accept that is the case?

It is within the hands of the local authority to correspond with us on that basis to request additional resources.

We will see when we get all documentation on it from Donegal County Council and the Department. At the end of the day, I take the Minister of State at his word on this. Why would he not do this? There is money to spend and it seems to me he wants it spent. I am not suggesting in any way that there is ulterior motive on this at all. However, what people cannot understand is that we had this discussion this month last year and there has been no progress on the CFRAM programme for Donegal town.

I am not finished. There has been no progress over the past year. The Minister of State’s point is that it is Donegal County Council’s responsibility and its officials need to prepare the report. Donegal County Council will tell us that it is the Department that needs to allow them to do the necessary works and prioritise this. In the middle of this, we could have another flood. At the end of the day, the Minister of State needs to butt some heads somewhere. A year has gone past and on the CFRAM programme we are no further forward in Donegal town than we were this time last year, and it flooded five out of the past six years.

Let me put it this way. Donegal County Council is answerable to the elected members of Donegal County Council. I think the Deputy’s party controls that council.

No, it does not. With respect, we have ten councillors

Let me finish. If the Deputy can give it, he should take it.

Let us be accurate. Just withdraw that comment.

Let us be accurate.

We cannot have an argy-bargy argument across the room. One speaker will finish and then the other will start.

Is the Minister of State blaming Donegal County Council? Is that what he is trying-----

No, I am not, but the Deputy is trying to create the impression that-----

Let me finish. The Deputy asked me a while ago to let him finish; now he should hear me out. He is trying to create an impression that somebody or something is preventing Donegal town's flood relief scheme from going ahead. Let me be very clear. The record will show umpteen times that we want it built, as does the council. If the Deputy wants to play politics with it, that is his business. I went to Donegal County Council and I asked the officials if they had sufficient resources at the time. They said they did. In fact, they complimented the OPW on everything else that it has done in the county, which, by the way, the Deputy still has not even mentioned and he is going now for approximately 20 minutes.

I am coming to that.

He still has not mentioned it. The Deputy has not mentioned anything of what the OPW - its officialdom, engineers or outdoor crews - has done. The Deputy has not mentioned anything about the local authority staff members who have to go out to face these floods. He wants to come in here to try to play politics and stated that, in some sort of warped and twisted way, someone is preventing the scheme going ahead. Let me be very clear; the Government, through me, the OPW and Donegal County Council, wants this scheme the go ahead.

It is the Minister of State who is playing politics with this. We are talking about my constituency. I know these people. Many of the people in these communities vote for me, and they are at risk of their properties being flooded again. I tell the Minister of State not to make those accusations. He knows fine well what I said.

I do know fine well what the Deputy said.

Let me finish, please. I just said that there is no suggestion by me that there is some ulterior motive. I made a point that I believe-----

I am glad the Deputy clarified that point.

I did not clarify it; I already stated that the Minister of State is trying to make politics out of this issue-----

I absolutely am not.

-----in circumstances where houses and businesses are at the risk of being flooded. I clearly made the point that it is in the interests of the Minister of State that this project should go ahead. What I am really frustrated about is that, a year on, the seafront scheme has not progressed. The Government is responsible for the implementation of this scheme. We have a situation whereby the Minister of State, who represents the Government, is saying that it is up to the local authority to progress the scheme. The local authority is saying that the Minister has to allow for the next steps to take place. In the middle we still have houses that are at risk and there has been no progress on CFRAM. That is what I said. The Minister of State should not try to twist my words or to make politics out of it.

The Deputy is the only person twisting words in here.

I also said, and I will finish on this point on Donegal town, that as Minister of State, he needs to butt heads to ensure that whatever the blame game is here between the Department, the local authority and the OPW, the matter needs to be resolved because the people on the ground do not care about that. They want this scheme to progress. As the Minister of State, he needs to take charge and accept responsibility.

I cannot make this any simpler; we are fully supportive of the scheme. The Deputy is taking the attitude that I, as Minister of State, needs to come in and tell people to move on. If I did that in another part of the country, the Deputy would be the very one to ask about the public spending code and all of the gateways relating to it, the procurement process and the form of works contract. He would state that the OPW is circumventing the process laid down by the Oireachtas. The Deputy has his cake and now he is trying to eat it.

I will move on to other schemes now.

We may be gone home.

The attitude of the Minister of State in respect of houses in my constituency that belong to businesses and homeowners and that are at risk of being flooded is disgraceful. Honest to God-----

If the people in Donegal are watching this now-----

I want to intervene. My apologies to the Minister of State, but I must intervene-----

This scheme needs to progressed, for God’s sake.

The select committee should seek an appropriate note-----

There is an investigative statement.

----- to give us an indication as to where the scheme stands, who has responsibility for it and in whose hands it is now. We also need information on the next steps and so on.

That is appreciated. It would be very appropriate.

Is that okay with everybody?

If that had been asked for at the start of all this, rather than having this discussion-----

------ and saying that people were out to get others-----

I know. I ask everybody to come to order. I must intervene again. I ask Deputy Doherty to move on to other matters and not to drag out the debate so much.

I thank the vice chair. On the OPW flood relief capital works programme, ten schemes are ongoing with the council in County Donegal. I refer to the schemes in Ballybofey, Buncrana, Burnfoot, Castlefin, Glenties, Kerrykeel, Lifford, Downings, Ramelton and Raphoe. All of these schemes are badly needed, and it is very welcome that they are ongoing. None of the schemes has progressed past stage 2, which is the planning process or confirmation stage. Can the Minister of State provide an update of the timelines for the completion of these schemes and when he expects them to reach the next stage? If he does not have that information available, can he provide a full, detailed report on the schemes to the select committee?

The Burnfoot scheme, which is to protect 49 properties, will be going for planning this year. The Castlefin scheme is to protect 35 properties and will be going for planning permission this year. The Raphoe scheme will be going for planning permission in March or April. That is a big scheme covering 387 properties. The Glenties scheme is smaller. Public consultation on it will end in May. The Ramelton scheme is to protect 37 properties, and an application for planning permission for that will hopefully be lodged next year. The Lifford scheme is quite big and complicated because of the nature of the location. A planning application is expected to be lodged in 2025. A planning application in respect of the Ballybofey scheme is expected to be lodged in April 2024. On the Buncrana scheme, an application for planning permission will be lodged in April 2024. The Downings scheme will be subject to public consultation up to April. All of those schemes are at various stages within the planning process.

Does the Minister of State believe that an application from Donegal County Council could in any way expedite the timeframes he just outlined? I am thinking, in particular, of Lifford. We are conscious of the challenges in respect of that scheme. In that context, 2025 is a long way away.

I can come back to the Deputy in writing. In general, however, we work on the basis that we try to get the maximum number of schemes that are most likely to go through the planning process done in the shortest period. We routinely check to ensure that if anything can be condensed by way of timeframe, we do it. I can come back to the Deputy specifically with a schedule in respect of each of the schemes, including the projected costs involved.

On flood risk management plans, I was examining the period from December 2021. It is stated that €1.3 billion has been committed to the delivery of 118 schemes. Some 60 of these schemes were under way at the time, with 58 remaining to be completed by 2030. How many of those schemes are still awaiting commencement?

I can get the Deputy the detail on those, broken down in tabular form. Similar to the schemes in Donegal, most of those will be at the following stages: preliminary; data collection; public consultation; live planning; or if they are being done under the Arterial Drainage Act or by An Bord Pleanála, before the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. I can think of two in Cork that are before the Minister for consent. Others will be dealt with by direct application. If, for example, it is a smaller scheme, it will be with either the local authority or An Bord Pleanála.

We would appreciate that breakdown. I presume that some of the 58 to which I refer are now ongoing. In turn, I presume that the number of ongoing schemes has increased. If the Minister of State could provide details of the 118 schemes in tabular form, that would be great.

Some of the 58 will actually come out this year. Six schemes are at construction stage, including those in Athlone and Templemore, which will be completed this year. Three schemes are at detailed design stage. These include King’s Island in Limerick, Glashaboy in Glanmire, County Cork. Five others are at stage 2. These include the scheme in Enniscorthy, which, unfortunately, has had to go back to stage 2 because the application for planning permission was unsuccessful. Some 75 schemes are at design, development or preliminary business case stage. A further 58 are in tranche 2, and are identified under the NDP. Of the 75 schemes at stage 1, 12 will be going for planning permission this year.

If the detail in that regard could be provided, it would be helpful.

In the context of the OPW's estate management portfolio, the Spending Review 2022 reached conclusions similar to previous reviews and states: "... if the State requires office accommodation for long-term use, it may get better value for money [for] building or purchasing office accommodation instead of leasing." The local authorities’ spending reviews came up with similar findings, namely, that purchasing offers better value for money. Despite this, we see the current expenditure going towards leasing continues to rise year on year. The report highlights that the current expenditure for such purposes rose from €91 million in 2018 to €98 million in 2020. Can the Minister of State explain why this policy is continuing. Can he indicate what the figure will be for 2023?

This depends on circumstances. I refer, for example, to the locations where the OPW is asked to find office accommodation or circumstances where, for argument’s sake, a tribunal is established, a change of Department occurs or an agency needs to expand. Sometimes, we just do not have a choice but to take out a lease. It is not our preferred option. Our preferred option is to consolidate leases and, where possible, to extinguish them.

Here in Dublin, for instance, the development of Tom Johnson House, which is located in Beggar’s Bush, will release a significant amount of office accommodation. We will be able to move one of the Departments there. The same will be the case with Leeson Lane, where we have a mix of a new, contemporary building and an old, architecturally conserved building. It takes a great deal of time to bring these buildings to a stage where they can be occupied.

In the absence of that, sometimes, whether you like it or not, you have to take out a lease because the demands on a particular Department, new agency, tribunal, inquiry or whatever have to be accommodated. In that context, when leases are extinguished and our own accommodation becomes available, we try and move people. Obviously, as the Deputy will appreciate, some people do not want to be moved. Often there are tough, difficult conversations in terms of moving people.

Our movement is towards consolidating into our own space and recognising that, even in my own headquarters here in Dublin, the days of having everybody having his or her own work station is something that we will have to revisit. It will not be feasible or plausible in the future to have 100% of the people have 100% office accommodation in perpetuity when maybe there is 40%, 50% or 60% occupancy on any one day. We have to look at doing things differently. That will involve discussions with employee representatives and management. It is certainly something that the Office of Public Works is conscious of. We have written to Secretaries General of Departments asking them for ideas as to how they can reduce their footprint because that, in turn, reduces our lease need and how they are embracing new forms of working.

Ultimately, it is up to each Accounting Officer - each Secretary General of a Department - to deploy the staff that they have and to find office accommodation for them. Then the demands come on us if additional accommodation is required, and often that comes by way of a Government decision.

In relation to the vacant properties under the control of the OPW, the Minister of State identified 70 vacant properties and 33 vacant sites in information released by the Department in July last year. Can the Minister of State provide an update on those numbers? What is the current number of vacant properties and sites within the OPW's portfolio? I acknowledge that some of these are not lying vacant and there is ongoing discussion with local authorities, the HSE or different State agencies in relation to the use of them, but can the Minister of State give us an update in relation to the current figures?

We have an ongoing process of disposal or reuse of vacant properties for different State bodies and agencies, including local authorities and Departments. The current vacant building stock includes 31 former Garda stations, on most of which we are in discussion with local authorities or local groups or we have a plan to dispose of them by way of public auction, regrettably, where local authorities have not shown an interest. In the past fortnight, a local authority, coincidentally, my own, expressed an interest in two former Garda stations and they were removed from a list to be sold by public auction. There are other former Garda stations and residences. There are 12 of those. The number of former Coast Guard properties is ten. Some of these are not in great condition. There are two former customs properties. There is one former meteorological station. Then there are 12 other properties.

With regard to sites, we have: one former Coast Guard site; five former customs sites; one site for a Met station; three former decentralised sites; and 18 others. Over the past 12 months, we have reduced that considerably.

I can get the Deputy a year-on-year report as to the progress that we are making and the timeframes, particularly around the former Garda stations, for disposal.

Finally, I come to the issue of the Garda headquarters. It is great to see that the new venue is open. The new accommodation is open as of last year at a cost in the region of €86 million. We discussed this in the past. I made the point to the Minister of State that the OPW was planning for a property that was of insufficient capacity to house the Garda. The Minister of State made the point that that was not the case. We now believe that the OPW has had to take over the Intreo office in Cabra from the Department of Social Protection to house Garda staff due to insufficient space in the new headquarters. There is quite a bit of local annoyance in relation to this. There are other questions in relation to how this new Garda headquarters was planned when there was need for additional capacity and space within the headquarters. I would appreciate it if the Minister of State could elaborate on this.

The Office of Public Works commissions public buildings on the request of public bodies and on the request of Accounting Officers. In this case, the OPW commissioned the building of the Scott House at Military Road on the specification and request of An Garda Síochána at a particular point in time with the emphasis being placed on relocating all of the personnel on time and on budget from Harcourt Square in Harcourt Street, which we did. The project at Military Road is as per the design request that was given to us by An Garda Síochána at that particular time.

It is inevitable that there would be circumstances after the fact. This building is now open and operational. Naturally, we built a building that was set out to a specification and programme of works that was set out for us by An Garda Síochána at a particular point in time. That building now has been delivered. It is a building of 10,060 sq. m over four floors with 9,275 sq. m of basement car parking. Everything that we were asked to do by way of the specification from the Garda at the time of the commissioning of the building has been done. We are pleased with the outcome. It came in on time and on budget and has been handed over to the Garda, and is operational.

But it is not big enough. The Minister of State talks about an application at the time. I understand the Military Road building is designed for 880 gardaí, which is 200 fewer than the number in Harcourt Street in 2016, and the number working in headquarters has increased by over 400 in the intervening five years. The building was only opened in November last year and it is too small to host all of those who are required to be hosted in headquarters. Would the Minister of State acknowledge that?

What I would acknowledge is that we built the building that we were asked to build for the number of people who we were asked to be put into it and it took a number of years to build that building. An Garda Síochána expanded its resources, which it did because the Government ploughed funding into the Garda to increase the number of gardaí, while a Garda station and a Garda headquarters were under construction. We built the building as was laid out at the time to move from Harcourt Square in Harcourt Street. We have done that. The building is as was required at the time of the planning application and at the time of the request.

Hang on, now. That is like saying we were asked to build at a point in time, we built for that and that was it, and we were not worried about looking into the future. If we were building infrastructure in the State on that basis, God forbid what would happen. It is akin to saying that we will build a broadband network and not take into account the capacity of population growth, future needs or future demands.

In 2016, there were 200 more gardaí assigned to headquarters in Harcourt Street. There were over 1,000 gardaí, which was the official figure that was given, and this building was built for 880. Growth in population is natural and requires growth in Garda numbers. Unfortunately, the Government is not succeeding in that as only an additional 19 gardaí were delivered last year, although that is a different point. There have been 400 more assigned to headquarters in the past five years and the Minister of State is 500 places short. The Minister of State has built somewhere which he turned the key on in November of last year. It is great that it came in on budget and came in on time, but it is 500 places short of what is needed in a Garda headquarters. There must be answers somewhere in relation to that.

What went wrong that nobody saw why we were building a place for 880 when we had more people assigned to Garda headquarters when the application went in? What might happen if we increase the number of people who are assigned to headquarters in the future? Will we leave any additional capacity for expansion? Before the project started, these numbers started to increase.

We actually built in a contingency on top of what we were asked to build for Military Road. We built in 20%.

The Deputy is suggesting that with some sort of crystal ball we should have built a building with perhaps seven or eight empty floors on top of it in the hope that at some stage in the future we might be able to occupy it. If we built a building that was 200% or 300% over the capacity the Accounting Officer for the accountable agency had asked us to build, I can only imagine the questions the committee would have. If the Office of Public Works had taken a design specification from an Accounting Officer, added 20% onto it but then decided it knew better and added on three or four more floors, negating the public spending code and all the gateways we referred to a while ago that we would have gone through, not only would we not have got planning permission for it, we would not have got financial approval for it. We got financial approval for what was requested by the Accounting Officer at the time to vacate Harcourt Square with a contingency built into it and that is what we built.

Let us deal with some facts here. Does the Minister of State accept that the OPW stated on the record in 2016 that the number of people who would need to be moved was 1,090?

I do not have that in front of me so I cannot confirm that.

It has been put to the Department by newspaper journalists. Are any of the departmental officials able to confirm that figure? It is on the record,

They cannot confirm it because we do not have it. Whatever might or might not be in a newspaper, the Office of Public Works, as the commissioners of public works, takes its requests from the Accounting Officers, in this case An Garda Síochána.

It is on the record that the OPW has stated that the number of gardaí who needed to be moved at that time in 2016 was 1,090.

Not all of them were to be moved to Military Road. Some of them were to be moved elsewhere.

Okay, so the figure is 1,090. The Minister of State has said it is appropriate to build in a contingency, is that right?

Of course, it is appropriate to build in a contingency. The Minister of State should not throw away glib comments about building extra floors to lie empty.

That is what the Deputy is suggesting.

He is suggesting we should build something-----

One speaker, please.

It is a contingency.

How many would the Deputy have built for at the time?

Let me deal with this. A total of 1,090 were assigned to headquarters and needed to be moved. The Minister of State said the OPW built in a contingency of 20% which means it should build for about 1,300, yet it built for 880. That is why 500 gardaí are without a place in Military Road. It is not rocket science.

This is not rocket science either. We built what we were asked to build. I have a question for the Deputy. If he were asked to build what we were asked to build, how many additional floors that were not needed at the time would he have put on it?

That is quite simple. If 1,090 gardaí needed to be moved-----

It was not all to the one location.

-----from headquarters-----

It was not all to the one location.

The Minister of State asked a question; he does not want to hear the answer. If 1,090 gardaí needed to be moved from headquarters, at the very start I would build enough accommodation for those individuals and then build in a contingency, which is probably appropriate, of 20%.

Let me get this straight. As the body which provides the State's public works accommodation, the OPW engages with the Accounting Officer who outlines the demand. The Deputy is suggesting going off and say we know better, we will not do whatever it is the Garda is looking for and, even though not all the people in this building are going to move to the new building, we will assume they all will and add on an extra couple of floors. How could I get that through the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform?

First of all, the OPW has already had to go to the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform with a request to rent out more accommodation because the place it built and turned the key for last November does not have enough spaces in it.

There are hundreds of gardaí with no place in headquarters.

Can I intervene here?

(Interruptions).

I want to move the debate on.

I am answering the question. How many gardaí are going to be-----

Hold on a second. I want to move the debate on because we do not have control of this room for the foreseeable future.

If I could answer-----

The question coming from this side appears to be who the requesting body is. I presume the requesting body is An Garda Síochána. It requested space of a certain nature to be provided. The OPW is in the business of providing that.

In the intervening period, it is at the discretion of the Garda Commissioner and An Garda Síochána to develop as they see fit new units, new mobile units and new specialised units - all of which happened. The Garda is a fluid organisation which grows and changes all the time. In the intervening period, from the time a major made development of this nature is initiated, the organisation's demands will naturally change. Are we supposed to stick another couple of floors on a building without planning permission?

Exactly. I thank the Deputy.

The Minister of State asked the question. It is very simple. In 2016 when the OPW said that there were 1,090-----

That was seven years ago.

Exactly. When 1,090 gardaí need to be moved, the starting point for me if I were Minister of State would be to build accommodation for at least the 1,090 individuals and then build in a bit of contingency. The Minister of State decided not to do that.

No, I did not actually. The Deputy is wrong.

Let me finish. I am in possession.

The Deputy is wrong. I did not decide anything.

The Minister of State will get to reply in a minute.

I actually did not decide anything.

This is very entertaining from the point-----

-----of view of interrogation-----

The Minister of State-----

-----but it is not achieving the objective.

I have a question.

I am just setting the guidelines.

We are not going to get anywhere with this.

We want to get the business done.

This is my final question. I would just like to get to ask the question.

We want the Deputy to ask the question and move on. We want to be objective about this.

The Vice Chairman might have a few questions.

The Minister of State asked me a question. I just gave him an answer.

The Deputy will not recognise that not all of those people were to go to that location.

Let me put this question to the Minister of State. This deals with the Estimates before us. How many gardaí who are assigned to the headquarters are now being accommodated in other centres? How many gardaí are in the Department of Social Protection Intreo office in Cabra? What is the cost for the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform? What is the long-term proposal for that accommodation? There was some commentary, I am not sure whether it is valid, about the open-plan nature of some of the offices on Military Road, particularly given that the people there are dealing with sensitive material, including issues of child protection. We can all agree that the building is too small to accommodate the number of gardaí assigned to headquarters. That is why the OPW has had to source other buildings in the city. How many gardaí are assigned to that? What is the cost? What is the long-term plan?

I will get the Deputy the numbers and the cost. We can also agree that the building the Office of Public Works was asked to build was built on time and within budget.

It is too small.

Sorry, the building we were asked to build-----

It is too small.

If the Chair is going to protect the Opposition side, he must also protect the Government side.

From here on, we will have one question and one reply.

Perhaps I can answer without interruption this time. The building we were asked to build has been built as per the specification of the Accounting Officer concerned, namely, the Garda Commissioner. With respect to the design and layout of the offices, the State architect would carry out all that work in conjunction with all the relevant people in An Garda Síochána and would have obvious regard to the sensitivities and concerns of protecting the security of the building and the nature of the services being provided there. Part of the reason it took so long to build was that we needed to make sure the design was right. However, the building as requested has been delivered.

How many gardaí are in it?

I do not want to quote a number here because the Deputy will throw it back at me.

I will send it to him by email after the meeting.

Is it more than 100 gardaí?

If I knew what this week's lotto numbers were, it might be as easy-----

The Minister of State is saying he does not want to give a number, but I am asking for a range.

I think what I said I would do is appropriate given the long-standing tradition in the committee regarding specific questions seeking exact numbers at a particular date and time. I will email them to the Deputy.

That is fine. Regarding the OPW, the purpose of this meeting is to deal with the Estimates and so we are dealing with numbers and the expenditure for the OPW buildings. It is not a sidewinder to ask the Minister of State for actual numbers. This is what this whole process is about. I understand if he does not have the number in front of him. That is okay.

In relation to the OPW building, what had to be been done to accommodate the other gardaí who cannot be accommodated in the headquarters that were built too small? What other buildings have been rented? Is it just one?

Yes. Contingency plans were developed in the event that Garda security and other issues were not fully completed at the time. In the event that we were not able to vacate - which we were actually able to do - we had contingency plans prepared. Works are ongoing on Clyde House and block J, which is in the Phoenix Park, into 2023. There was also work on the Intreo office on the Navan Road, Dublin 7, which is an office of the Department of Social Protection, DSP. The Department cleared out of the building and it was handed over to An Garda Síochána on 18 November 2022. It is now fully occupied by An Garda Síochána.

I presume that is a medium-term arrangement. It is not a short-term arrangement in that they are moving out of the Intreo building?

All of the matters about Garda accommodation and needs will be determined by the Accounting Officer, the Garda Commissioner, in his multi-annual capital programme. We carry out the works for him. It is in our interest and everybody's interest that the maximum amount of money is apportioned for physical infrastructure to the Garda because we have an ambitious plan across the country-----

Is the Intreo office owned by the State?

Yes. It is a former DSP building.

So it is owned by the State. The Minister of State mentioned Clyde House in the Phoenix Park. Is it envisaged that this building will be handed over to the Garda once works are completed?

Block J is in the Phoenix Park, which is already part of Garda headquarters, and it requires works to be carried. Some work was also carried out at 52 St. Stephen's Green, a building vacated by the OPW almost 18 months ago.

What is the future purpose of 52 St. Stephen's Green?

I do not have the details in front of me because we do not determine what the Gardaí does within its offices. We can get a more detailed answer, through the Garda, for the Deputy.

I know the Minister of State said he will give us further details, but it appears from the information and given the fact that Military Road is too small for Garda headquarters, that there are three other premises across the city that are either in the process of being refurbished to accommodate the Garda headquarters or are already occupied.

I need to correct one small thing. This is not a Garda headquarters. Military Road is a supporting office accommodation for An Garda Síochána. Further accommodation will be freed up in Garda headquarters now that the forensic science laboratory has moved to a new location. The former OPW building, 52 St. Stephen's Green, is temporary. The other accommodation, including that which was formerly occupied by the forensic science lab in the Phoenix Park, is the Garda headquarters. That will help them in their accommodation needs and we will work with them on that basis.

Is the Minister of State satisfied that the number of gardaí who cannot be accommodated in Military Road will be accommodated within the other three premises that are either under refurbishment or currently occupied?

The Deputy will appreciate that these are operational issues for the Garda. The specific needs and asks of gardaí, in respect of refurbishment or additional accommodation, routinely come to us in the OPW and we often have to get either temporary or permanent accommodation for them. This depends on whether there are new units in the Garda or there are elements of the organisation that need to be accommodated. That accommodation measure will be met within the Garda capital envelope.

Has the Minister of State received any other requests for accommodation apart from the three that he mentioned?

All over the country-----

I mean requests from gardaí at a head-office level.

No, because we are working through-----

If he has not, that is fine.

It is important to point out that we delivered Phoenix House, at the entrance to Parkgate Street, in the past two years. We delivered Military Road. We are in the process of the works for the forensic state laboratory, which is a hugely important infrastructure to be handed over to the State. We will also modify the building that it vacates.

I want to make it very clear to the committee; we work very well with the Garda Commissioner. His asks are being met by the OPW, notwithstanding the huge challenges that are faced due to inflation and other issues such as complicated sites in terms of archaeological and architectural conservation and all the rest of it. The State architects on our major project design teams within the OPW are delivering quite well, including in regional areas. I must mention that O'Connell Street Garda station is almost complete and Athlone Garda station will be finished this year. We hope the Garda Commissioner's list of priorities for the Garda station building programme for the next number of years will be published shortly and we will be able to get stuck into those as well.

As for the premises we just discussed - Clyde House; the Intreo office; and 52 St. Stephen's Green - I ask the Minister of State to provide a note to the committee on their purpose, their duration and their costs, if there are costs associated with them. To be clear, there are no requests to the OPW for adaptations to Military Road.

Not that I am aware of. For the benefit of the committee, two national Garda bureaus are currently accommodated at Clyde House. Heads of terms have been agreed with the landlord and the Chief State Solicitor's office. A lease was executed in 2022 and the fit out commenced in September 2022. Substantial work is due to be completed in the first quarter of 2023.

We will move on. I have a couple of questions to ask. I will not take too long because we are under pressure to finish by a certain time. How many public properties are there throughout the State, for which the Minister of State's Department has responsibility, are decommissioned, idle or whatever? How likely are they to be required in the context of meeting housing requirements and refugee requirements? In other words, do we have empty, unoccupied spaces that might be readily and quickly made available?

The short answer is "Yes, we do". A number of former Garda stations across the country have been offered to local authorities on more than one occasion and have been regrettably declined. Some of these buildings might require works, significant or insignificant, depending on the location and the scale. Some of them are in relatively good condition and others need to have their title cleared up.

Regrettably, in many instances, we got little or no attraction from the local authority sector and, as a result, depending on the locations, there may or may not have been community interest. How we dispose of them is very simple. First, they are offered to the local authority sector, the HSE and other State bodies to see if they want them. They are then offered to the community sector once an organisation can prove to the OPW that it would not be a burden on the local community and that they would be able to secure the support of the local authority. Failing that, they go to public auction.

Over the past two years, we have come across an issue I am very keen on. I know some people jump up and down about vacant properties. One would swear we were trying to hoard them and retain the cobwebs ourselves. We have no interest, strategic or otherwise, in these properties. We want to dispose of them and give them a new life. If that life is to a young families or someone in the community, that is a great thing. I want to put it on the record of this committee that it is a pity we have not received the responses we should have had from some local authorities. Some have been excellent. Off the top of my head, Roscommon and Leitrim have been very progressive and proactive. For others, their silence is deafening.

Would it be possible to conduct an audit of the various locations where it might be beneficial to the State, or be in the State's interest, to bring to a conclusion the various possible uses and disposal? For example, I saw on the news that a very large, preserved building in HSE ownership is idle and has been so for some years. There is a debate on what the cost might be to make it operational. Modern building methods make it possible to segregate a building from within and put it to multiple uses if necessary and have it doing something. It does not make any sense to me or, I am sure, to the Minister of State that a preserved, fine building would be idle because there is a debate ongoing. In this particular case, an offer was made by a developer or a builder to carry out the necessary works to make it habitable.

There was a debate about whether it could be done for that. In other words, that it was short of the cost price. What can we do about that? Are there more of these buildings? I suggest simply doing an audit to list the various buildings, locations or sites that could be put to good use at this time and to find out what can be done to speed up the process.

That audit has been done. I contest that all of them would have another use. Depending on the circumstances, some would be more expensive than others. In a situation where we need houses to accommodate people, it is unforgivable that a State body cannot get traction from local authorities to take them over. We do not want to auction properties that are quite suitable. There is every breed of scheme under the sun now, such as the town and village renewal and repair and lease schemes, and various other supports have been given to the local authority sector. In some cases, there has not been so much as a response to a letter in advance of those properties going to public auction. These are the statutory local housing authorities, yet we are disposing of properties because there is an impetus on us to do so from this committee, the Committee of Public Accounts, the media and elsewhere, which are implying that we are somehow trying to hoard property. We are not trying to hoard anything. It is in our interest that these properties are used for the public good. Some have been but, regrettably, others have been less than forthcoming as regards positivity. The Vice Chairman may have a specific property in mind. There are a load of them in counties Clare, Cork, Donegal, Galway, Kerry, Leitrim, Limerick, Longford and Mayo that have various transfers under way, some of which have involved costs and some of which have not involved a whole pile of costs. All of those should have found their way into the housing system but have not.

I suggest, arising from this meeting, that there be an updated response or email to all authorities about the various buildings to ascertain the current position with regard to utilisation of the buildings for necessary and urgent housing purposes. Thousands of people are homeless and thousands require accommodation of varying levels of quality. It may be felt in some quarters that this does not apply to them but it applies to us all. I ask that there be a quick response to a probe to find out what is going on. We cannot afford to live with the luxury of unoccupied or empty spaces all over the country at a time when space is at a premium. I would be grateful if the Minister of State did that.

I do not disagree. Those sentiments are my sentiments. It has been very frustrating for us that all over the country the route for these properties has been either through local community groups or public auction. As I said, there is a lack of engagement by some local authorities. We will make available to the committee a spreadsheet of everything that has been done in the last two years, to include all of the local authorities, whether we got responses or engagement or not, and the costs we have deemed appropriate in terms of their sale. We were not proposing to gift these properties to the local authorities. Perhaps that is why some ran away from it. The previous contributor would be the first person to say I am giving away property now for nothing. These require market interventions to ensure we accrue the market value for the Exchequer. We are not a charity. When we put these properties up for sale, they go for a valuation and then they go to tender. Ideally, we should not be at that stage at all. We should be getting the valuation and consideration from the local authorities. If we do not do that, we are amenable to a licence, lease or anything else to keep these properties in public hands and to giving them to the local authorities for 25, 30 or 40 years. We made it that easy, and some local authorities grasped that option, while others did not. The last option, which is not what we want, is to put them up for sale. Unfortunately, we have had to do that in too many cases.

I have two other questions. One relates to drainage and CFRAM and the ongoing campaign all over the country to address it. I realise the difficulty in co-ordination and there are always snags. We had them in my constituency, where somebody comes up with an objection and suddenly the progress of the scheme has to stop. I ask for confirmation that we are progressing as was intended in County Kildare and the surrounding areas. River desilting has gone by the wayside for several years. It used to be done under the arterial drainage programme. It has been left by the wayside on the basis that we do not need to do it any more. That is not true. I have some experience in that area and am certain that if rivers are not desilted from time to time, or at least have obstructions removed from them, capacity is dramatically reduced. That capacity will only be seen and felt when a storm comes. That is how it works.

In near-urban areas attenuation tanks have become a major feature. There was severe flooding in my constituency a few years ago and I discovered that the attenuation tanks were full and there was no release. The water was up to the tops of the windows and a lot of damage was done to property and a lot of distress was caused. By various means, we responded by getting a digger - it was an emergency - and dug a channel from one area to another to allow the water to flow away, which it did. That needs to be noted. We are all on for rewetting now. It should be done in areas that are marginal so that we do not decommission food producing land or land for agricultural purposes.

I have also noticed that areas near rivers, especially small rivers, are being allowed to fall into ruin, for want of a better description, and weeds, grass and debris accumulate, which again reduces capacity. Even when the best drainage procedures are followed and attenuation tanks come to capacity, the overflow goes into the river or stream, which is now obstructed to the extent that it is not able to do its job. I ask for that to be examined as soon as possible to reassure everybody that flooding where they are living will have this or that result but they will not be flooded out.

I am interested in objections. There is a lot of emphasis nowadays on the rights of the objector. In the case of planning, a person has the right to object. That is correct and the way it should be because a development may impact heavily on the person making the objection in a very specific way. On the other hand, it may not. If it is totally unrelated, however, and a person living 40 miles away decides, for no one's benefit, that there should be an objection because he or she has the right to object, the answer is simple. We all have the right, but not the obligation. We need to ask if we are making life more difficult for some other person, persons or group of people by holding something up. To what extent is the Department conscious of the validity of the objection - the strength of the objection is probably a better description - before seeking an early decision from An Bord Pleanála or elsewhere? We cannot allow ourselves to wait for six, 12 or 14 months, during which everything is held up and at the same time there is an urgency. I am conscious of various places in the north of the country, the Dublin region and the midlands where there have been objections to flood relief works that are absolutely necessary.

To what benefit, I do not know. I cannot understand why that should be other than to achieve for the individuals who object in those cases a feeling that they have done something good for themselves, the country, society or whatever. That has to be the end game. It has to be of benefit to somebody at the end.

To take that last point first, unfortunately in Ireland we now have our own migrants who have been displaced from their houses thanks to the advent of climate change and flooding. These are people living in County Roscommon in Lough Funshinagh. They have not had the scheme delivered that we all thought would be delivered and in some cases they had to move out of their houses and the houses have been demolished. I often wonder privately if that Lough Funshinagh situation had happened in a highly urbanised constituency like Kildare or Dublin or Meath, whether the people would have had to move out of their houses. Of course the answer is that they would not because this House would move heaven and earth to make sure people were protected. However, they are in part of the country that people can barely pronounce the name of and that no one has ever heard of. They will hear of it in the future because of the precedent that has been set in that very small, beautiful part of County Roscommon where people are essentially being bulldozed out of their houses because of a system that clearly is not delivering for ordinary people in respect of a modern planning process. It is thanks to all the great luminaries we have sent to the European Parliament, the Commission and elsewhere over the last number of years, which has given us a hierarchy of protection that puts weeds and dirt higher than families. It is a sad reflection on those of us who are democratically elected to this institution and who see nothing wrong with it. We see nothing wrong until such time, and it will happen, that a large urban place in this country cannot be protected because of the intransigence of a law that allows every Tom, Dick and Harry to go up to the High Court and stop anything and everything that is happening without any degree of locus standi.. We are the only people who can change that.

I am glad the former Attorney General has done up the heads of a Bill. I will be interested to see where Members of the Opposition stand on this. Will they be with the people of Lough Funshinagh and all the other places around the country, including Donegal town, who are desperately waiting for a flood relief scheme or will they be with the weeds and dirt that could be protected in a lower form of hierarchy? These are fundamental questions that have to be asked because the climate migration situation that we see happening around the world will not be unique to those countries. It will happen here and it will happen at scale, thanks to the coastal communities and all those other areas that cannot be protected.

With regard to the drainage system, most of the channels the Vice Chairman referred to are district drainage under the responsibility of the local authorities. The system, quite evidently, is not working. The Office of Public Works has it within its mind to expand and encourage the local authority system to make sure local authorities avail of minor works to a greater degree than they already have been doing. As the Vice Chairman quite rightly pointed out, a lot of the channels that are in the charge of the local authorities are jungles and water cannot flow through an Amazonian jungle. We maintain 11,500 km of channels and we do so on a yearly basis to make sure the water gets out but there are parts of the channel system or catchment areas that are not maintained because of resource issues within the local authorities. That is what they claim is the problem even though they have never enunciated a resource problem. If they are not maintained then you cannot be surprised when the water backs up and an application comes in for minor works. That is essentially what is happening.

Regarding the River Morell, the Deputy is right that a judicial review delayed it. However, 40% of that is complete. The total cost is €1.3 million. There is a history of flooding there going back into the 1990s, with flooding in 1998, 2000, 2008, 2009 and 2010, which also flooded the N7. Some 60 houses will ultimately be protected. It has been delivered by the men and women of the Office of Public Works themselves as it is a direct labour scheme. We would hope to be finished with it fairly soon.

Deputy John McGuinness took the Chair.

I was following some of this in my office. I am not a member of the committee but I would like to contribute. First, I thank the Minister of State and his staff for their work in Cloonlara. The Minister of State has been down there several times with the Oireachtas representatives and local residents. It is a success and we thank them for that. The water levels were getting quite high in the last five or six weeks but lo and behold the embankment and sluice gates did their job. I just wanted to put on record our immense gratitude to the Minister of State, his officials and most important, those who were on the ground with machinery for well over a year putting all of that place. It is very much appreciated.

I just wanted to speak very briefly about the drainage Act. I have raised a number of parliamentary questions in this regard. The Arterial Drainage Act dates back to the year 1945 and it split the function of managing Ireland's water courses and the drainage of them between local authorities and the Office of Public Works, or the Board of Works at the time. The officials will say they have a finite budget but county councils are definitely not resourced. When they prepare their annual budget every December there is only a small sliver of funding set aside for drainage. The River Inagh in County Clare is one of those managed by the council. I do not know how it happened. In 1945, which predates all of us being around or being in politics - I am not going to guess anyone's age here - somebody decided that the River Inagh was for Clare County Council to maintain. That is grand but the reality is that year on year, Clare County Council has a budget of €80,000 for arterial drainage maintenance. It is minuscule. It does not get next or near to it. After all those decades of a lack of maintenance, we now have a channel that totally floods. It spills out onto neighbouring farms and roads. I cannot expect the Minister of State to have all the minute details of every river or turn in a river in the country but there needs to be some flexibility so rivers like that, or sections of them, can be transferred from local authorities to the Office of Public Works to ensure they actually get dealt with. It is simply never going to get dealt with by Clare County Council. There are probably 100 other examples in the country. There needs to be a way for rivers that have been designated one way to be reassigned and vice versa, or segments of them at least.

The Minister of State visited a site in County Clare about 18 months ago. Again, his presence was very much appreciated on the day. I am talking about Clare Abbey, which is a beautiful abbey. The Office of Public Works had undertaken a lot of work along the riverbank and the Minister of State came in to visit the historic structures there. Essentially, the abbey is being vandalised quite a lot. Plenty of drug paraphernalia can be seen there following weekends and a number of beautiful gravestones have been smashed to pieces. The ask, very simply, was that CCTV cameras be installed. I know it is a sensitive site. It is a protected site and very little can happen there without authorisation. Away from politics, I farm with my family down home. Since January we have put up a number of CCTV cameras without any wiring systems. They have a simple sim card and I am able to follow, hour by hour, what is happening in certain fields, gaps, entrances to sheds etc. There has to be a way to put up a few cameras to be able to monitor this in-house without compromising the beauty and integrity of this old building. We do not expect someone to be sitting in front of the screen all day long watching what is happening in Clare Abbey but at the very least when an event or incident happens there would be a cache of evidence there that the Minister of State's officials could pass over to the Garda. I ask that the Minister of State move on that. I again thank him for what he is doing. He is making inroads in his Department and it is appreciated.

The Deputy is right about Springfield. This was done well ahead of schedule and it is a very important piece of infrastructure that will protect a lot of houses down there. Cloonlara was one of those places that was synonymous with the terrible winter floods every year. The scheme is more or less complete. We hope to hand it over to Clare County Council early in the spring, as we did with the Ennis scheme. There are three schemes in Ennis now protecting thousands of houses in the largest town in Munster. The town has been transformed by it. There are other places in County Clare as well.

With regard to the drainage Act, the reality is the Arterial Drainage Act was developed for a different country at a different time. It had an agricultural element as its main basis, which was a very good idea at the time to help those parts of the country with particular soil types to be adequately drained so they could be tilled. There was logic in it at the time. As a result of that, the Office of Public Works became responsible for the management and maintenance of the channels. The local authorities have statutory responsibility for the rest. I have met all the local authorities at this stage, more or less and unfortunately, for one reason or another, they do not do it.

Historically, they did and gradually over a period, the practice evaporated. Now, if Clare County Council are putting down €80,000 for district drainage then that is €80,000 more than some local authorities are putting down because some of them are not putting down anything at all because they want it all done for them. In the normal course of events that is not really practical.

I have engaged with the local authorities, through the Office of Public Works, on this matter. We have already spent in excess of almost €70 million on minor works, which are houses in rural parts of County Clare and wherever else that are at risk of flooding from a lot of these channels that are not being properly maintained. The local authorities can come through with an application that includes the environmental impact assessment of what it is that they propose to do on the river, which we will fund. We encourage them to do more of that.

On the maintenance of channels, like ourselves, local authorities must undertake environmental studies for everything they want to do to maintain a channel. You cannot take a chainsaw out on to a river any more, as was possible a couple of years ago because you are not cutting a tree anymore but a habitat. It is not possible and if you did it, you would have your backside inside in the High Court faster than you can say Jack Spratt. That is the reality and a lot of local authorities do not have to capacity to deal with this work, so they rely on us.

We are primarily focused on the protection of properties and businesses and if that can be achieved in the short term through minor works. We are interested, potentially, in lifting the thresholds around minor works and doing more smaller elements of minor works, up to the threshold of €750,000, which we currently are increasing to take them up to a higher level.

We also encourage executive engineers at a local level in local council offices to first become aware of the scheme. Members would be surprised at how many of them have a low level of awareness. They lack the preparedness of the OPW to assist them in how they go about the applications, though not actually do the application for them, and then in the delivery of the scheme, whether it is either through direct labour with the council themselves or by way of contractor that they would have on a procurement framework.

On Clare Abbey, unfortunately yahoos have entered a number of sites and done damage such as emblazon the surface with graffiti that says so and so "waz here", which shows a really clever lad. These people scrape their names into something that could be thousands of years old.

These people think that it is worth noting that so and so "waz here". Nobody wants to know that they were and would prefer if they were not there in the first place. We want to have these places open and available to people as these are the public's assets. All of our keyholders are local people around the country. For a really small amount of remuneration they do a huge public service in locking and unlocking these places every day of the week.

CCTV is fine but then there is the general data protection regulation, GDPR, data storage and who becomes a data handler, and everything else, and you wonder whether it is us, Clare County Council or the Garda that is responsible for all of this. Also, we do not own the property outside.

We will keep an open mind about this matter. I am not satisfied with the fact that yobs destroy national heritage and use them a public lavatory, which is another problem. Clare Abbey is located close to a motorway. Some people, after they come off the motorway, tip all of their rubbish out on the ground and expect Clare County Council to clean it up. It is not just rubbish that is dumped but everything else as well. The Deputy is right that some of these places have become places synonymous with the most unsavoury activity. We work with the Garda and the local community. We rely on the local community to alert us to these problems because we all own these buildings and they are not just the property of the people who live in a particular parish. It would be great if we could keep the yobs out of these places. Whatever deterrents we will be able to use, we certainly will consider them.

Recently the Dutch ambassador came in here to meet some representatives of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport and Communications, and a few of us travelled to the Netherlands. We asked them how can they maintain all of their water channels routinely and every day of the year. The man we asked said he would find out and get back to us. We expected a big volume of a report but the answer is very simple. There is a Dutch policy that stipulates only one side of a river can be designated a special area of conservation, SAC, or have protected status and they alternate it, so it can be the left bank, then the right bank and so on. The policy also allows their drainage contractors and their State bodies that deal with drainage to have access all year round. I know this is a whole different debate but I would like to hear about this from the Minister of State.

Before Christmas I made a similar visit to the Netherlands with regard to flooding and the Office of Public Works. I would put it down to one word in the Netherlands, and it will become the same word here, "survival". No-one objects to the work that the Dutch authorities do through the Rijkswaterstaat. No one objects to the maintenance programme, the rehabilitation of sand dunes or anything like that because they realise that without the work of the Dutch Government and our equivalent agency, there is no Netherlands.

That is correct, yes. Maybe it is a controversial thing to say but we need to remove the protected status from certain sections so at least, on the meander of a river, a machine can do work without having to first go through a rigmarole of protection and the opposite side could be for bird nesting. That is how other countries seem to have got around this matter.

There is a fundamental question for our European colleagues around what it is that we are trying to protect. Notwithstanding the importance of making sure that there is proper biodiversity, habitats and heritage designation, what is it that we want? In the face of huge catastrophe for the world, all the great and the good went, as part of COP27, to the middle of the desert and spent a couple of days there talking but I did not hear anybody talk about climate adaptation, and the works that will be needed from a civil or engineering standpoint to protect communities. They all talked about reducing emissions.

It is great that people are buying electric cars. They are plugging them into the Deputy's constituency below in Moneypoint, County Clare feeling that they are of no consequence to the environment, yet they spew out tens of thousands of tonnes of God only knows what, from Moneypoint, down on the rest of us. All these people feel good about themselves because they have bought an electric car but it has a battery that was harvested out of the ground from a big, huge pit in Western Australia with thousands of tonnes of carbon dioxide gone up into the atmosphere. None of these things are without their consequences. I am routinely asked which is cleaner, the second-hand diesel engine, which I have, or the lithium and beryllium battery that was mined in Western Australia but is now plugged into Moneypoint. I am unconvinced.

I ask the Minister of State for an update on the flood relief schemes in County Kilkenny.

We have very much engaged with Kilkenny County Council, as the Chairman will know. Graiguenamanagh is the first one and, hopefully, there will be planning in August 2023 and completion in 2027. Ballyhale is at planning and there are compulsory purchase order, CPO, issues with Kilkenny County Council. The remainder of the schemes at Freshford, Pilltown, Inistioge and Thomastown are in the second tranche of the catchment flood risk assessment and management, CFRAM, programme.

Recently Freshford was flooded very badly and, unusually, it is at a higher risk than before. Is there a timeframe? Where is Freshford in the scheme of things?

The Chairman is right about the extensive damage because 30 properties and two businesses were flooded, and there was a lot of land and infrastructural damage. The OPW is in discussions with Kilkenny County Council to see if there is some way to move the scheme forward. Kilkenny County Council is due to deliver its report to the Office of Public Works and we expect that shortly.

What about the Inistioge and Jenkinstown schemes?

Both schemes are in the second tranche and are under discussion at the moment with the county council.

What is the timeframe for the second tranche?

It goes back to the earlier part of the meeting that we had with regard to Donegal. These are all important projects for the Office of Public Works. When CFRAM was identified initially, those with the greatest level of risk were put into the first tranche of the delivery programme. In conjunction with the advices that were given by the local authorities at the time, and having regard to regional balance, it is spread across the country to make sure that the maximum number could be delivered over the shortest period.

As I said previously to Deputies, we have had a number of different delays. Most of them have been in the area of planning, environment constraints and otherwise. These prevented us from making the progress that we would otherwise have liked to have made in the earlier part of the tranches, which is consuming both a huge amount of resources both in terms of local authorities and the Office of Public Works.

With regard to the other schemes in the second tranche, our staff in the Office of Public Works are engaging with the directors of services in each of the individual local authorities because we do resource engineers in individual local authorities, including Kilkenny. We do that to ascertain whether, were additional resources to be applied, it would be of benefit to the council in terms of doing some of the preliminary works around collecting the data that will be needed to present a planning application that is likely to succeed.

We are having that discussion with Kilkenny County Council at the moment.

There are problems with one-off houses in particular areas. There is one in Jenkinstown where there has been serious flooding. If a local authority has in its housing stock houses that flood, do they qualify under those schemes or is there a separate budget for them?

They qualify for consideration under the minor works scheme. If there is a viable option to prevent a property from being flooded, we do not care who owns that property. The way the metric works is that, the more properties that are impacted, the greater the business case. Notwithstanding that, if a property, and particularly a residential property, is being impacted, the local authority is within its rights to make an application to us in respect of minor works regardless of whether it is local authority-owned, privately owned or community-owned and the application will be considered on that basis. As I mentioned to Deputy Cathal Crowe, that has been a very successful scheme for many local authorities. Some are good. Galway County Council is probably best in class. I will not mention the ones that are not worth mentioning but there are others that could do better. For instance, since 2019, Kilkenny County Council has drawn funding down for 15 different schemes. I am not sure how many properties are covered by those schemes but the total funding drawn down is €1.1 million, which is about the middle of the table. Based on the fact that it is a local authority area with a small population, it is considerable.

It is up to the local authority to make the case for minor works funding for those one-off houses.

Yes. If the local authority executive engineer wants to engage with our officials at a regional level to do some early scoping out, that can be looked at.

With regard to estate management, the OPW has a lot of properties in its care. Many of them are on the tourist trail and bring people to the various parts of the counties that benefit from these sites. How is that estate portfolio being developed? We know about Kilkenny Castle, for example, but is the OPW looking at other sites that would be worth developing? Has it stopped taking properties of that kind onto its books for further investment?

No. For instance, we took on Annes Grove in County Cork a couple of years ago and have since developed it and opened it up as a very important attraction for east Cork, for the south-east region as a whole and for Ireland's Ancient East. I am delighted that one of our sites that is local to the Chairman, Kilkenny Castle, was voted best visitor attraction in Ireland. I pay tribute to all of our guides working down there. They are doing a fantastic job, as are guides across the country. We have in our care several hundred national monuments. Some have permanent guides, some have self-guided tours and some just have a keyholder. Their significance is based on the number of visitors they get. The more visitors we get through particular locations, the more resources we can provide for them. In that context, it is really up to local authorities and local communities to drive forward with plans to use the properties they have in the centres of their communities. I will use an example from my own area. The number of visitors to Desmond Castle in Newcastlewest increased from approximately 1,100 to 27,000 or 28,000 last year. That was really driven by the local community and the local guides employed by the OPW. They put in place a plan to promote and use the facility. The more people we get in there, the more guides we can apportion to the site and the longer the season we will be able to open it for, particularly for guided tours. The local authorities have a very significant role in this. I was formerly a Minister of State with responsibility for tourism and, at that time, I got the local authorities to introduce local authority tourism action plans and to work with the OPW. Some have been excellent. Kilkenny County Council has been one of the best in the country with regard to the package it offers, which consists of OPW sites within the city and other sites we could see more people going through. For instance, St. Mary's in Gowran is very close to the city and, with some small money provided by Fáilte Ireland, Kilkenny County Council or both, that site could be promoted as an add-on to Kilkenny Castle and the city's Medieval Mile trail, which would really help the village and community of Gowran.

Is the Minister of State talking about Gowran?

Yes. It is a magnificent site. It is absolutely fabulous. There are permanent guides there. However, its proximity to Kilkenny suggests that the numbers visiting should be far bigger. There is an opportunity, particularly in a county like Kilkenny, for villages to draw off the centre where there are OPW sites. We will work with any such villages. I do not have the number in front of me but, last year, close to 1 million people went through Kilkenny Castle between the parklands and everything. It is a very significant part of the city and county.

The Minister of State mentioned Gowran. One of the other important sites in Kilkenny is Kells. A considerable amount of work was done there by the local community. It would be a great attraction if it were examined and the community or council encouraged to develop it. It is a fine example of a rural village but it also has fine walks around it. During the Covid pandemic, the likes of all of these sites, particularly Kilkenny Castle, turned out to be great areas for walking. Out of necessity, local people discovered their own historic sites and walkways during that time. With the new focus on walking and being in the outdoors, the likes of Kells, Gowran and Freshford should be looked at. The Department should focus on getting the county councils in those areas to respond to an overall plan and to aspire to be part of that plan by bringing forward their own plans. Encouragement is needed.

We will certainly help any organisation that wants to reach out to us. We have already done so. I chaired community meetings in Quin, County Clare, in Kinsale, County Cork, and on the Aran Islands with the comharchumann out there with regard to how the local community can maximise the potential of whatever the OPW owns in their communities, whether that is Dún Aonghasa, Charles Fort or Quin Abbey. We invited in the local authorities, the LEADER companies and Fáilte Ireland and had a discussion with the local community with regard to the infrastructure they believe necessary within the national monuments with a view to including this in the OPW's plan and with regard to the wider use of the likes of the Minister, Deputy Humphrey's Department in respect of the provision of signage, town and village renewal funding and so on. We are talking about the very basic things needed to accommodate people getting off of bus, such as bus bays and toilets. They always say you need the two Ps. You need somewhere to park and somewhere to pee if you are to pull up at a place. Once people pull up, park and pee, you might get them to spend money. It is in that spending of money that you keep coffee shops and pubs in rural locations open. The OPW is open and amenable to community requests to attend or facilitate meetings of that nature. We have no problem with that.

So, it is a park and pee campaign.

Yes, the P and P campaign.

With regard to these public sites, I also want to bring to the attention of the Minister of State the need for appropriate signage. People, including me, walk with their dogs. There is always the issue of dog fouling. Is there an overall national contract for the provision of the bags people use when walking their dogs?

Is the Chair asking about pooper scoopers?

Yes. Is there a national contract?

I am not sure but I will find out for the Chairman. With regard to the signage, the OPW has a new livery and we are going to do a signage replacement programme across the estate. Some of the signage dates back to the time of Dúchas, so it is outdated and needs to be updated. With my other hat on, I will note that all signs must be bilingual. In my opinion, the less you put on a sign, the better off you are. Sometimes if you have a sign for Kilkenny Castle surrounded by all of this stuff about opening times and what you can and cannot do, you actually reduce the impact of the sign on the passing motorist. We are rolling out a national programme of signage replacement. In that context, we require the assistance of the local authorities and the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage because every sign we put up on a national monument requires a consent. You cannot put a shovel in the ground without a consent from the Department. On another side of the matter, we could do with an awful lot more help from the local authorities and Transport Infrastructure Ireland, which take a very zealous approach to the erection of signage.

You would swear we were trying to do a stick-up. We are just trying to promote these places but it was like trying to extract the third secret of Fatima from them.

I want to bring the Minister of State back to the issue of dog walkers and fouling.

We will get back to the Chair on that.

It is important because these parks------

We want them to go in.

-----are used more and more. It is to facilitate the public in terms of facilities but also to facilitate those who use the park, whether walking on their own or with the dog or with the family, so that everybody can get the same level of enjoyment from what is an important amenity. Does the Minister of State think there is sufficient staff in locations like Kilkenny Castle that has a huge acreage to look after? Are more groundsmen needed particularly during the summer months or the months when we get the largest number of tourists? Certainly in Kilkenny Castle there is a need for more groundsmen because a huge number of people use it. I would certainly like to see more of them there. They do an excellent job, by the way. With the numbers that go there and the size of the grounds, the optimum number of groundsmen could certainly be examined again.

In terms of the property itself, the guides and the outdoor staff are different parts of the one agency. The outdoor staff are reaching out to other sites as well, and the maintenance crews look after other sites depending on the district they are working out of. They are pulled and dragged all over the place, so what I can do is feed back to the organisation. We deploy people on a temporary basis during the summer. If we need additional resources, we can do that. We want to make sure people enjoy the experience, particularly in such a massive location as Kilkenny Castle. If there is a specific issue, and I was down there myself last year in a private capacity-----

I heard about that.

I was there in a private capacity and I was there in a political capacity. I do not think the Chair was invited to the Fine Gael think-in.

I sent you a text to come and visit me but you did not bother.

I was unable to on the day but I do not think-----

You were very busy on the local radio.

I do not think the Fine Gael think-in was an appropriate place for your, Chair, but you are always welcome and I have always said that.

Thank you very much.

I must relay that back to Deputy Phelan.

My compliments to all of the staff. I visit many of the sites, especially Kilkenny Castle, and they do an excellent job. There is no doubt about that. Walking into these places, you hear the different languages being spoken, and the tourism season gets continually extended.

I have an unusual request which I would like the Minister of State to consider. I could have written about it but I decided to ask him here because it might cut a lot of the correspondence short. "Pangur Bán" is an old Irish poem written about the 9th century. I googled it just to be absolutely clear about it. It is now being kept in Germany but a lady from Kilkenny, Ms Rosaleen Crotty, who has connections to the Minister of State's party that go back over the years, is anxious that that book from the 9th century be brought to Ireland for a period to be put on display. Is that something the OPW would consider? The keepers of the book are quite happy to engage with the authorities here to make the book available. I am sure those in academia and involved in other studies of history would like to see it. Would the OPW engage with the authorities on the other side where we have direct contact and where verbal permission has been given in terms of the project itself? Could it then be made available through Kilkenny Castle or the universities for a period of time?

The Chair will appreciate that this is the first I have heard of this but we certainly will. If he could give me the details, I will ask our officials at senior level in the OPW to look at it and engage with the relevant authorities wherever this manuscript is to see whether it would be more suitable to us or to the National Library of Ireland or whomever. We will certainly explore it.

That is fair enough and all I can ask for. That brings us to the end of our consideration of the Revised Estimates. The clerk will send a message to that effect to the Clerk of the Dáil in accordance with Standing Order 101. Any information the Minister of State may have committed to giving, I ask him to please do so. I thank the Minister of State and his officials for being here today and I wish them well.

Top
Share