Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 30 Jan 2014

Vote 13 - Office of Public Works

Ms Geraldine Tallon (Secretary General, Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government) and Ms Clare McGrath (Office of Public Works) called and examined.

We will deal now with No. 7, 2012 Annual Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and Appropriation Accounts, Chapter 6 - Land Swap Arrangement in the provision of affordable houses and Vote 13 - Office of Public Works.

Before we commence, I remind witnesses and members to switch off their mobile phones because they cause interference with the sound quality and transmission of the meeting. We have received ongoing requests from the public viewing and media resources in this regard. I also wish to advise witnesses that they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against a Member of either House, a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I remind members of the provisions within Standing Order 163 that the committee shall also refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or a Minister of the Government, or the merits of the objectives of such policies.

I welcome Ms Geraldine Tallon, Secretary General, Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and invite her to introduce her colleagues.

Ms Geraldine Tallon

I am accompanied this morning by Mr. Michael Layde, assistant secretary, and Mr. Philip Nugent, principal officer.

I thank Ms Tallon. I welcome Ms Clare McGrath from the Office of Public Works and invite her to introduce her colleagues.

Ms Clare McGrath

I am accompanied this morning by Mr. John McMahon, commissioner, and Mr. Brian Allen, principal officer.

I also welcome Mr. Dermot Quigley and Mr. Frank Griffin from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. I now invite the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, to make his opening statement on Chapter 6.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

In the course of audit of the 2012 Appropriation Accounts for the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and for the Office of Public Works it emerged that a number of payments made in 2012 pursuant to a High Court order had been split between the accounts. The ultimate beneficiary of the payments was NAMA. Chapter 6 was compiled primarily to present a coherent account of the circumstances that gave rise to the payments. The High Court decision awarded €32.6 million to a firm of house builders now in an arrangement with NAMA in a case taken against the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government. The case arose after the State was unable to deliver a Dublin city centre site in accordance with the terms of a land swap agreement.

In 2004, the Government decided to pursue land swaps as a means of delivering affordable housing. The plan was that high value parcels of land in State ownership would be exchanged with developers in return for the delivery of affordable housing on sites owned by the developers. Being already zoned residential and serviced, the developers' sites would effectively be ready to go. The site involved in this case was at Harcourt Terrace in Dublin. It was owned by the Office of Public Works and at that time accommodated a Garda station and the Irish Film Censor's office.

In 2006, the Affordable Homes Partnership carried out a feasibility study and decided that a land swap of the site offered the best opportunity to deliver affordable housing. In May 2006, the OPW wrote to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government expressing its reservations about the proposed timescale for the delivery of vacant possession of the Harcourt Terrace site. Nevertheless the site was advertised. The successful bidder offered a price considerably in excess of other bids. It already had control of an adjoining site which it had previously purchased from the State.

In December 2007, an agreement was signed between Affordable Homes Partnership and the firm setting out the terms of the swap. Some 215 affordable housing units were provided by the Affordable Homes Partnership at discounts valued at €31.2 million in total. As part of the agreement, the freehold title of the Harcourt Terrace site would transfer to the successful bidder when all the affordable units had been received and the site would be leased back to the State until the end of 2008. However, by the end of 2008, the site was still occupied by An Garda Síochána due to delays in delivering the planned alternative accommodation at the junction of Kevin Street and Bride Street.

Further negotiations between the parties took place in 2009 in order to put extended transitional arrangements in place. By late 2009, the broad shape of an agreement was in place, providing for the firm to lease the property back to the OPW for a five-year term. However, there were further delays in completing the transfer documentation. In 2010, the firm served a completion notice under the terms of the contract. As the site was still unavailable, the firm subsequently instituted legal proceedings in the High Court and demanded payment of the amount of the discount together with €4.2 million for penalties. Affordable Homes Partnership was dissolved at the end of 2010 and its assets, liabilities and outstanding litigation transferred to the Department. Ultimately in July 2012 an award was made for €32.6 million plus court interest and costs. The Department and the OPW have agreed to apportion the payment, with 60% being charged to Vote 13 for the Office of Public Works and the remainder being charged to the interim housing and sustainable communities agency subhead in Vote 25 for the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government.

In effect, the full payment relates to the provision of affordable housing in 2007-2008, which in the normal course would have been expected to be charged in full to the relevant subhead in Vote 25. By agreement with NAMA the award is being over a period of five years commencing in 2012, when a total of €11.3 million was paid. Both Appropriation Accounts reflect the respective outstanding financial commitments. I understand that the Accounting Officers will be in a position to outline payments made since 2012.

I thank Mr. McCarthy. I now invite Ms Tallon to make her opening statement.

Ms Geraldine Tallon

I thank the Chairman and members for the invitation to attend this meeting today to discuss the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the land swap arrangement at Harcourt Terrace.

As the committee is aware, the land swap proposal was a complex and challenging intervention in the housing market by the Government. The Comptroller and Auditor General's report provides a useful overview of the events from 2004 to end 2012. A briefing paper from the Department and OPW was provided earlier this week to update committee members on the situation. To provide an overall context for the committee's discussion today I would like to make a number of points. First, the Harcourt Terrace land swap was a Government intervention aimed an enabling first-time buyers to get on to the property ladder at a time when the Irish housing market was undergoing a period of dramatic growth. While young, middle income affordable house purchasers, would historically have been able to acquire a starter home without assistance, in the housing market conditions of that time these households were no longer in a position to realise their home ownership aspirations. Given what has happened in the property and housing markets in Ireland and internationally since 2007, it is hard now to imagine a situation where annual rates of double-digit price appreciation and successive years of record housing output were the norm.

An intervention in the market ten years ago to deliver 10,000 affordable homes to meet burgeoning demand for a particular demographic cohort might seem extreme to us in 2014 when demand remains sluggish outside of a limited number of years, overall housing output remains at record lows, mortgage lending is weak and property values have decreased by over 50%. It would not be appropriate therefore to consider affordable housing delivery mechanisms such as the land swap arrangement under discussion only through the prism of the last few years.

Second, even the most simple property transaction can be quite a complicated and protracted process. The land swap proposal for Harcourt Terrace was an innovative approach to leverage the value of assets held by the State to deliver on a key public policy objective of supporting home ownership for middle income first-time buyers priced out of the market.

Like many innovative public policy interventions, it was also complex. There were many moving parts and participants. What is now the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government was responsible for setting the policy and supporting the statutory affordable homes partnership in delivering on the affordable housing initiative. The Department of the Taoiseach chaired a group to provide further co-ordinating support to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. The justice Minister proposed the site at Harcourt Terrace for possible use under the initiative. An Garda Síochána was then in situ in Harcourt Terrace. The Office of Public Works, OPW, owns the site and building and was also involved in the proposal to develop a new Garda station at Kevin Street to allow for the station at Harcourt Terrace to be vacated. The Office of the Chief State Solicitor was involved as the legal representative for the OPW. Various external entities from the legal and property sectors were also involved and provided their expertise, and the developers - Durkan New Homes - were party to the transaction as the successful bidders. They provided significant discounts to the State and they were to become owners of the site for redevelopment. In this organisational context, my Department's critical interest was in the timely delivery of the affordable housing. All of these parties acted in good faith throughout the period from the launch of the affordable housing initiative in 2004 right up to the point at which court proceedings were initiated. All parties sought to avoid going to the courts but unfortunately that proved not to be possible.

Finally, by way of overall context, it should be noted that for the land swap at Harcourt Terrace, the State received discounts from Durkan New Homes of over €31 million in value on 215 affordable homes in the south Dublin area. While this has to be set against the High Court award of €32 million made in favour of Durkan New Homes, those earlier significant discounts had enabled 215 households, in 2007, to realise their aspirations to own their own homes.

There are three points. The world has changed radically since this process was initiated; this property market transaction was particularly complex, with many players; and the State received very significant discounts which should be balanced against the court award. These points are essential to a full understanding of the land swap arrangement at Harcourt Terrace. I am, of course, with my colleagues, happy to elaborate on these points or on any other issues that arise in the course of the committee's work in this regard.

May we publish the statement?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

Yes.

Will Ms McGrath give her opening statement on this chapter?

Ms Clare McGrath

I thank the Chairman and committee members for the invitation to attend today. The Secretary General has already set out the background and the context of the affordable homes initiative. I wish to outline to the committee the role of the Office of Public Works, specifically relating to the lands at Harcourt Terrace which are the subject of the Chapter 6 report published by the Comptroller and Auditor General in September last year.

The site in question remained until 2012 occupied by a Garda station. As stated in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, at the end of 2008, the Garda station continued to be occupied because of delays in delivering the planned alternative accommodation at a new station on Kevin Street. As a result, the OPW was not in a position to provide vacant possession by the due date to the developer which supplied the affordable homes. Conscious of the fact that the site at Harcourt Terrace would not be vacated so that it could be transferred, the OPW, advised by the Chief State Solicitor's office, together with the Affordable Homes Partnership and, later, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, entered in to negotiations with the developer with a view to the transfer of the site taking place and a lease-back arrangement being put in place that would allow continued occupation of the Garda station until a new divisional headquarters at Kevin Street was built.

In reply to the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Accounting Officer of the Office of the Chief State Solicitor has confirmed that, while agreement had been reached in principle on the outline terms of the transfer and lease-back arrangement, it took several months for the detailed terms to be finalised, by which time the developer was unwilling to complete the deal. The Accounting Officer noted that there had been ongoing correspondence between the parties and that the length of time taken to reach agreement on the terms was not unusual for a transaction of this complexity.

As pointed out by the Secretary General, the developer provided significant value - in excess of €30 million - to the State by way of affordable housing. As the transfer of the site to the developer was not concluded, the State did not have to find and fit out temporary accommodation for An Garda Síochána, and neither did the State pay rent on the Harcourt Terrace site for a period of up to four years, during which time it continued to be occupied by An Garda Síochána. It is important to note the State has retained ownership of the valuable real estate in Dublin 2, which will be used for State purposes or disposed of at the appropriate time. The amount awarded by the High Court, as has been mentioned, was ultimately transferred to NAMA.

May we publish the statement?

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes.

I thank the ladies and gentlemen for being here today. I know they have provided context and background but there is something of interest that I have not yet seen published. It is the good news bit before I get to the rest of this. When the 215 affordable houses were sold to people at affordable prices, what was the total amount received with respect to the €31 million value? A value was put on the 215 housing units at €31 million and they provided affordable housing sales. What were the proceeds, as nobody has mentioned them?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

I can certainly provide some more figures.

Ms Geraldine Tallon

The total market value of the 215 units at the time was €77.63 million.

What year was that, as the value changed every year?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

It was the end of 2006 and early 2007.

What was achieved when they were sold?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

The total discount, excluding VAT, was €31.243 million.

I do not know what "discount" means in this context. I just want to know what were the sale proceeds. The State acquired, in a timely manner, the 215 affordable houses, and I laud that. They were sold to people on the housing list in south Dublin. How much was received for the sale of the 215 housing units? I am sure some of them were apartments.

Ms Geraldine Tallon

The developer sold the houses at that discount, so the arrangement was that the houses were sold to people identified in association with South Dublin County Council.

So the developer got the proceeds of the houses?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

The developer sold houses that had a market value of over €77 million effectively for a discount; they were sold for approximately €45 million. The pay-off, to use that term, was that the developer could acquire the site at Harcourt Terrace.

I have listened for a few minutes and nobody has referred to what I would see as a basic element of this transaction. I assumed the developer got the €31 million to pay for the cost of building the houses which the State got. Ms Tallon is telling me now that the developer got paid in full - the figure is €45 million or thereabouts - when the houses were sold. What was the other €31 million for if the developer was paid in full for the houses? The developer got the full proceeds for the houses. That has not emerged in anybody's comments today.

Ms Geraldine Tallon

In the market of the time, the housing units involved were worth €77.6 million. The Government's objective was to make housing affordable for people who could not afford a home from their own resources. The Government's intention was to subsidise the provision of housing for people who would otherwise not have been able to afford to buy.

The subsidy was met or managed by way of a land swap arrangement. The Government had decided that the means of releasing value was to release State property.

I understand that. I should point out, to the Comptroller and Auditor General as well, that I got no sense from reading the chapter, the opening statements or the documentation provided that Durkan New Homes got €76 million. It got €45 million from the proceeds of the housing units and €31 million from the Department-----

Ms Geraldine Tallon

No.

Explain it to me.

Ms Geraldine Tallon

It did not get any money from us. It gave those discounts to the purchasers and in lieu of the discount, it was to get possession of the site in Harcourt Terrace.

The witness is saying that the Department is paying €31 million in lieu of Durkan New Homes not getting the site in Harcourt Terrace.

Ms Geraldine Tallon

Effectively, one could say that is the result of the court case.

I do not mean to be critical, but I did not get the basic picture from any of the reports. It is probably eminently understandable to everybody on the witness's side of the table, but there was no mention of this €45 million being paid to the developer. Okay, he built them for the price, which turned out to be €200,000 per housing unit. That was probably reasonable value, but I will not even go there at this stage. Essentially, the witness is saying Durkan New Homes got the €31 million because the Department was unable to provide vacant possession. That is the position, to put it in a one liner.

Ms Geraldine Tallon

In a one liner, that is the result.

Okay. The Comptroller and Auditor General said in his opening remarks in July 2012 that the High Court awarded €32.6 million. The final sentence in that paragraph was that the final bill for the firm's legal costs was still awaited. Has the Department got the final figure yet?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

No, we do not.

When does the witness expect it? Have there been any discussions since this report was issued last September?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

They have not yet submitted their legal bill, so we have no idea.

I refer to the opening paragraph of the judgment by Mr. Justice Charlton delivered on 5 July 2012 in the case of Durkan New Homes v. Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. That paragraph states that in 2006 the site on Harcourt Terrace comprising the film censor's office and the Garda station on 0.87 of an acre was valued at €17.7 million. That was at the height of the boom. The judge goes on to say in the opening paragraph that in 2008 it was worth €9.6 million, in 2010 it was worth €3.8 million, it was worth €3 million in 2011 and by the day he issued his judgment it was valued at €2.8 million. At best, the value according to the High Court judge was €17.7 million. How did the Department end up having to give Durkan New Homes €31 million for something that the judge says was only worth €17 million at the height of the boom? Will the witness explain that?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

That was the valuation placed-----

This is in Judge Charlton's opening sentence in his judgment. We will leave aside what the witness, developer or Chief State Solicitor's office thinks. The judge has the final word on this and he is giving those values. At the best possible value, he says it was €17.7 million. A key body that is not represented here today and which remarkably is mentioned several times in the judgment is the Chief State Solicitor's office. Did this legal wrangling end up costing us the difference between €31 million and the €17 million that the site was worth at best in its heyday?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

I will go back briefly over the history on this and when this land swap was being investigated. The site had been identified in late 2004. The Affordable Homes Partnership was the statutory body set up under Sustaining Progress.

We know that. I am not being rude, but I know all that. Even the OPW had the value of the site at €17 million in its heyday.

Ms Geraldine Tallon

The function of the Affordable Homes Partnership in this regard at the time was to put the package on the market. The package-----

The 215 houses were delivered and the builder received €45 million.

Ms Geraldine Tallon

No. What was effectively put on the market-----

I compliment the Department on getting the houses.

Ms Geraldine Tallon

I thank the Deputy. What was put on the market at the time was vacant possession of 0.8 acre in Harcourt Terrace. It was valued-----

It was valued at €17 million and ended up costing the taxpayer €31 million.

Ms Geraldine Tallon

It was valued by the Affordable Homes Partnership, through professional valuation, at €17.5 million.

That is what I told the witness five minutes ago.

Ms Geraldine Tallon

The developer clearly saw value in the site at the time, notwithstanding the €17.5 million, and offered discounts. There were three tenders when this was tendered.

We will not go there. We are just dealing with the chapter-----

Ms Geraldine Tallon

The developer-----

We will deal with the chapter from the Comptroller and Auditor General. We know the background and that the tender received was the best. That is fine. The Comptroller and Auditor General starts with the High Court judgment. There are a couple of issues, because this chapter hinges on the High Court judgment, and the judge had the final word. It is a very short chapter. There is one interesting item from the Accounting Officer of the OPW at paragraph 6.19. I understand the role of the OPW, but even though the OPW warned there would be difficulty getting vacant possession, the witness still must explain why an agreement was signed that vacant possession would be able to be delivered when the OPW flagged this. Aside from that, the Accounting Officer stated that the OPW had at all times acted in good faith, having regard to the advices. Is that the legal advice that was received?

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes.

I detect what is essentially a code word. The witness is saying she acted in good faith having regard to the advices. She appears to be pointing the finger at her legal advisers. To whom is she referring when she says that in the paragraph?

Ms Clare McGrath

The legal advices-----

So the witness was not happy with-----

Ms Clare McGrath

I am not saying we would not have been happy. We were following advice we received from the Chief State Solicitor's office.

The Chief State Solicitor's office was the OPW's legal adviser. Who was the Department's legal adviser during this or who was the Affordable Homes Partnership's legal adviser?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

The Affordable Homes Partnership at the time was being advised by Eversheds solicitors.

Did the Department have any advisers in this?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

We were not directly involved at that stage. We inherited this when the Affordable Homes Partnership was dissolved at the end of 2010. We would normally be advised by the Attorney General's office or the Chief State Solicitor.

Unusually, the judge refers to the Chief State Solicitor's office several times in his judgment. In paragraph 15 he says that the Chief State Solicitor's office objected to a final transfer. What is curious about the judgment, and this chapter emanates from that, is that the Affordable Homes Partnership - this is from paragraph 18 of the judgment, which might not be before the Committee of Public Accounts but is a public document in the High Court - was on the one hand asking Mr. Durkan to withdraw the completion notice he wished to serve on the partnership and, at the same time, the partnership, which was a State body, served a completion notice on the Office of Public Works. We now have the two State organisations, the Affordable Homes Partnership and the Office of Public Works, dealing with this and serving legal notices against each other. I thought they were on the same side, which is the taxpayers' side.

Ms Geraldine Tallon

We did not serve notices-----

The Affordable Homes Partnership served notice on the Department to join it in the process, and the Department objected because there was a stamp duty issue. The judge says that the commissioners attended a meeting with the Department on 28 September, and the Department changed its position, for the reason that the Affordable Homes Partnership had agreed to provide an indemnity relating to any potential stamp duty liability.

This is how it appears to me. One State body, the Affordable Homes Partnership, was having an argument with another State body, the Office of Public Works, regarding the issue of who would be liable for stamp duty. I believe the Department has some type of exemption that might not have applied to them.

The Chief State Solicitor was involved, and Eversheds, which acted on behalf of the one State body, joined the OPW in proceedings. All this wrangling went on and on, and at the end of the day the taxpayer paid €14 million over and above what the site was valued at its highest peak, because of the way the process was managed. We know the background. The houses are fine, people are living in them - and I hope they are good houses - and we are all happy with that. It is a question of how the case was managed such that the developer ended up getting an extra €14 million over and above his highest expectation. A lot of this was because of the way the various State bodies dragged it along and did not come to an agreement much earlier because they were having their argy-bargy among themselves. Can the witnesses see what I am saying? The judge said that the OPW changed its position once it was satisfied about the stamp duty.

Ms Clare McGrath

The Deputy raised a question earlier with me. We had sought in good faith to give effect to vacant possession at the end of 2008, notwithstanding the concerns we had raised. Our concerns were in the context that we were building a divisional headquarters for other purposes elsewhere and we saw Harcourt Terrace being satisfied in that requirement. That was very complicated and complex, and there was issues around that site.

In relation to the other parts of the Vote, we are constantly in the situation of having to surrender or take advantage of lease breaks, where we rehouse the occupiers. We are constantly doing this. It is a thing we are doing all of the time. This is, in a sense, what that was too. However, it was a more substantial transaction. We would have been giving effect to that but when we realised we were not going to be in a position to give vacant possession we engaged with all stakeholders, including the developer, to put in place a lease arrangement. He was genuinely working to give effect to that - everybody, all things. There were legal issues that came up as part of that and I think the judgment acknowledged that these issues could have been raised. Dealing with them took time. The accounting officer at the Chief State's Solicitor's office has said these are complex matters and they do take time. Everybody was working to that. However, the developer then was unwilling and that is now why we found ourselves in the situation that we found ourselves in.

Because of the passage of time.

Ms Clare McGrath

Because of that. We were not able to complete because we were into a situation of a leaseback arrangement. The developer saw a situation - I am contextualising - in the market then such that there would not have been a market in relation to what he was proposing, and having us as tenants would potentially be a good outcome for him. We were working back and the rent was back to the date that he would have been due to occupy, but we were unable. His position changed and then he was unwilling, and that is how we found ourselves-----

What you are saying, essentially, is this. Thirty-four million euro has been paid to date - €32.6 million by the judge, and there was interest that he got in addition, plus the developer's portion of legal fees that have been submitted so far, and a portion of fees from the Chief State Solicitor's office, which brings the sum up to €34 million paid out to date. However, €17 million was the original valuation of the site at its best. You are explaining to me now that the extra €17 million was really compensation for loss of income to Mr. Durkan because he could not get vacant possession to develop his property and earn rent from it during the earlier years. Is that it?

Ms Clare McGrath

No, sorry. I think-----

Ms Tallon wants to reply.

Am I understanding it right?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

Not-----

I got worried when you started your opening statement by saying that the situation was very complex, which almost implied that it was a bit too complex for ordinary people. I like to bring it back to ordinary people's level, take out the complex element and get back to basics. From what you are saying, Mr. Durkan was saying that because he did not get rent - I am paraphrasing what you said - his case was based on the lost rental income he could have received.

Ms Clare McGrath

No.

Is that not what you said?

Ms Clare McGrath

No.

There was an allowance.

Ms Geraldine Tallon

Can I comment for a second before Ms McGrath comes back in? The fundamental point, I think, is yes, the site was valued at €17.5 million. The discounts awarded or the discounts offered and accepted from the developer were worth €31 million. The court award equates approximately to the discounts awarded - to the discounts given - not to the value of the site. The court award relates to and equates to the discounts that the developer had given.

Are you trying to say it cost nothing?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

I would not dream of putting words in the Deputy's mouth in that regard.

But you are saying that it almost cancelled out the €31 million - that was a discount.

Ms Geraldine Tallon

No.

The taxpayer ended up paying €31 million and the people who bought the houses paid €45 million.

Ms Geraldine Tallon

I would have to acknowledge that where this left the State was paying full price for the affordable houses. The fundamental relationship is not between the cost of the award and the original value of the site. The fundamental relationship is between the cost of the award and the discounts given previously by the developer.

Okay. I will move on. Chairman, I will not be long more and, to use Ms Tallon's words, it is a complex issue. When do the witnesses expect to have finality in terms of the total cost of the scheme? Has there been any discussion? You are now saying that the money is payable to NAMA so this is money due to NAMA. Is that correct? It is obvious and we all understand that the company is in NAMA. It is stated, in black and white, in several reports here-----

Ms Geraldine Tallon

Yes.

-----that the payments are being made to NAMA each year. It is really NAMA's responsibility to send the Department the bill because it is due the extra legal fees. If there is an extra €1 million in legal fees, it will be payable to NAMA for NAMA to discharge to whomever necessary. Am I right in saying that?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

No. I think we owe legal costs to Durkan New Homes when it presents its bill as the developer.

What has and has not been transferred to NAMA out of this arrangement?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

The court award effectively has been transferred to NAMA - the equivalent of the discount, the interest for a ten-month period and the special damages that the court awarded. The court judgment breaks down into three figures in the course of the judgment: the €31.243 million; €0.782 million in interest for ten months; and special damages awarded to the developer, which related to project design costs, of roughly €0.5 million.

It was €562,000.

Ms Geraldine Tallon

Yes.

Plus interest of €192,000. The court award is payable to NAMA. What other costs will follow in order to complete the process?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

The remaining costs are the developer's legal costs.

Has Ms Tallon any idea what that fee will be?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

No.

What Vote will the money come from? There is a 60:40 arrangement for the payment to NAMA.

Ms Clare McGrath

Equally.

Ms Geraldine Tallon

We would expect that those costs will be shared.

Is there a ratio for sharing the costs of the payment to NAMA?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

We have a ratio that reflects the fact that the OPW still owns the site. The value of the site is reflected in the OPW's one.

Please give me the breakdown. What is the split between the OPW and the Department? We have two accounting officers present.

Ms Geraldine Tallon

It is 60:40, as the Deputy has said.

Yes, 60:40. That is what I understood it to be. How much of that will come from the OPW's Vote this year?

Ms Clare McGrath

Does the Deputy mean 2014?

This year - 2014.

Ms Clare McGrath

In 2014 we will be transferring an allocation in the order of €3.5 million to NAMA.

Under what heading in the OPW's Estimate? Please bear in mind that the Estimate for the Office of Public Works was discussed here yesterday. Ms McGrath and the Minister attended and I have pages of documentation. It is interesting that the Estimates that were given for 2014 made no reference to the payment to NAMA as a result of the High Court judgment. We had a lengthy discussion yesterday at the Estimates meeting for the Office of Public Works. One can say that the Opposition and Government Deputies did not ask about the matter. We got pages of documentation from the OPW in preparation for yesterday's OPW Estimates and no reference was made to this item. It is quite unusual for a High Court award not to be mentioned by the Minister or in the briefing notes supplied by your office. It would have been helpful if the matter had been mentioned during the course of the Estimates debate, given that Ms McGrath has said that €3.5 must be paid out of the Estimates for this current year. There was no mention of it during the Estimates debate yesterday. Where in the Estimates is the figure mentioned, the one that nobody was told about yesterday?

Ms Clare McGrath

It would be part of the estate portfolio management figures.

Under what subhead is it listed?

Ms Clare McGrath

B6, I think. Actually, it is B7. Forgive me, Deputy.

Where we have contractual commitments, I am not sure of the extent to which we can provide information. It is not that I wish to avoid it but we have a contract and it carries forward into a number of years. We have talked from the time we placed the contract. I take the point the Deputy is making.

Subhead B7 refers to property maintenance and supplies.

Ms Clare McGrath

B6 is the subhead.

B6 is the new works, alterations and additions. On that figure, the outturn was €40 million last year and yesterday's figure is €38 million. If the OPW is already down €20 million in the Estimate, in addition to the reduction it must take account of the €3.5 million. Does that not come out of compensation or legal fees? Is it the correct heading for this?

Ms Clare McGrath

The moneys come out of programme subheads where they arise.

I will conclude by making a general comment for the Committee of Public Accounts. When Departments are presenting Estimates to the committee and issues arise out of public court judgments, it would be helpful to Members of the Oireachtas if they are included in the briefing notes in order that Members of the Oireachtas are conscious of why some of the figures are included, especially if they are public High Court cases. I have some information I did not have a few minutes ago. We now know the developer received €45 million for the affordable houses, which is good and I hope people are happy in their homes. The site, now valued at €2.8 million according to the High Court judge, ended up costing the State €34 million to date plus legal costs that are still outstanding. Much of it is due to how long it took and the complex nature of the transaction.

The 60% figure and the 40% figure come from two different Votes. To make that complicated statement a little less complicated, it came out of the pocket of the taxpayer.

I thank the Chairman for the clarification. In all of these discussions, the devil is in the detail. For people who are not aware of Part V, it was introduced by the Department for social and affordable housing. Any developer building a development was required to provide 10% social housing and 10% affordable housing. Developers complied with the Part V obligations by weighting the social and affordable into one area. Was this a Part V development? Was a developer satisfying a Part V obligation in this development?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

No, it was not a Part V development. The concern of the Government at the time was that Part V was not generating a sufficient number of units sufficiently quickly to address the impact of the rapidly escalating market. In the context of the Sustaining Progress social partnership agreement, a decision was taken to set up an affordable housing initiative. It was designed to complement Part V and in recognition that Part V developments were not delivering quickly enough.

Was there any social housing in the 250 units?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

No, these were entirely designed to be affordable. They were not for social tenants . They were for affordable purchasers.

In a normal development, where a developer built 100 houses and ten of them were affordable houses sold at a discounted price, how did that system work? What was the financial arrangement? If a house was selling at €200,000 and there was a discount so it was sold to the individual for €160,000, how did it work?

Mr. Philip Nugent

The Part V process for affordable housing works with the local authority housing buying the units from the developer-----

Is that at a discounted price?

Mr. Philip Nugent

Yes, and selling the housing units on to eligible individual house purchasers.

The developer did not get the full sale price of the house and got a reduced price.

Mr. Philip Nugent

That is correct.

If a local authority was buying a house from a developer under the normal affordable housing scheme, the developer only receives the figure of €45 million, the sale price, rather than €77.6 million. The point I am trying to make is that the Department paid the full value of the house, €77.6 million, for affordable housing to the developer. Is that correct?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

No.

The total value of the development was €77.6 million on the open market. The housing units were sold at €45 million and the balance owing was €31.5 million. The developer was given a site, which was the value he took. It just so happens he was willing to take a site valued on the open market at €17.5 million but he was willing to take the gamble that the site would accumulate in value. The value agreed with the developer was €31.5 million.

Ms Geraldine Tallon

There was no purchase involved by the State at that stage. These were affordable-----

It came to the court. The court made a ruling based on what the houses would have been sold for on the open market, which was €77.6 million. He received €45 million for selling them as affordable housing. The court deemed that he was to be paid €31.5 million and the Department paid him the full going rate for affordable housing.

Ms Geraldine Tallon

That is it a nutshell and that is the result.

When Ms Tallon looks back on that, was it the correct approach? People have differing views on NAMA but, if it had not been established, some €31.5 million of taxpayers money would have gone directly to a private source, not back into NAMA, which is effectively owned by the taxpayer. The structure of the deal was such that he got a value that was the market value at the peak. What was the date of the valuation of €77.6 million?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

In no sense did this turn out as intended, unfortunately, and I do not want to use the word "complexity"-----

That would be an understatement.

Ms Geraldine Tallon

It is an understatement and I do not want to refer to complexity but I wanted to explain there were different parties involved and it genuinely became a very complex matter. Comparing it with other-----

In the limited time I have-----

The Deputy should allow Ms Tallon to continue.

Ms Geraldine Tallon

Unfortunately, this was a particularly difficult contract. There were other measures in the initiative to release State lands. There had been one on an adjacent site at Harcourt Terrace for a 0.4 of an acre in 2004, where the site was exchanged for early delivery of 193 affordable homes.

Is this the same developer?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

Yes it was the same developer. Clearly, there was an interest in accumulating property. In fact, the Taoiseach at the time took the view that it was desirable the market should be aware of the second site.

Who was the Taoiseach at the time? What year was that?

I need to know the precise date on which the valuation took place.

Ms Geraldine Tallon

The valuation took place in summer 2006.

Bertie Ahern was Taoiseach at the time.

Ms Geraldine Tallon

He was Taoiseach at the time. The Government's approach was very strongly related to the release of State lands for productive use for affordable housing.

The property was occupied by An Garda Síochána. This was not a vacant site. The Department was extremely lucky that NAMA was formed. If NAMA had not been formed, it would have had money going out of the State purse. That €31.5 million could have been used for day-to-day services within relevant Departments but it has now gone into NAMA. What due diligence was done at the time? Were fences rushed at the time? It just so happens that this parcel of land was adjacent to land owned by the same developer. I assume it was acquired previously from the OPW. A sale had taken place with the same developer previously. He was effectively accumulating a parcel of land in that same area. What due diligence was done at the time? On what date in 2006 was the valuation done?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

The valuation was done in summer 2006. The full report by the Affordable Homes Partnership, the valuation report it had done which included valuation and report by architects-----

That was at the peak and when we saw the water starting to come out of the burst balloon. July 2006 was effectively the peak in terms of valuations. Someone got peak valuation for affordable housing and got a site adjacent to an existing site with the Garda in situ. It was not a vacant possession site. The question I am asking Ms Tallon - is nothing personal; this is what we do here - is what due diligence was done. Clearly, there was exposure. Was legal advice sought at the time about the exposure to the taxpayer if this deal went pear-shaped? Was due diligence carried out as to how quickly vacant possession would be achieved? I note that in 2010 the Department looked to have discussions with the developer about whether he would lease the property back to the State. When the contract was done initially, did the Department look at options or fallback positions such that if it could not get vacant possession, it would go for a sale and leaseback arrangement? Did it look at those options? What due diligence was done at the time?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

As I said, there was emerging experience from other affordable land swap arrangements in the 2004 to 2006 period. The site at Harcourt Terrace, which comprised the Garda station and the film censor's office, had been put forward by the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in 2004. It was seen by Government in 2004 and agreed by it at that stage. In late 2004, the then Taoiseach acknowledged that this was an important site in terms of affordable housing and that the market should be aware of the potential for a second site to come forward in the context of the affordable housing initiative. The Affordable Homes Partnership did an assessment of the site. The first thing in each of these cases was to see what the site itself could accommodate.

How did this particular site come up on the radar? Why was this site pursued in June and July 2006?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

The intention was that a new Garda station was to be provided on Kevin Street. The clear understanding was that vacant possession of the site could be provided.

Who advised the Department that this would actually happen?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

That came from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the then Minister. That was the intention-----

The then Minister and officials from the Department are not present today. By when was the Department advised directly by the Department that vacant possession would be achieved? Was this other site on Kevin Street? Where was the new Garda station to be built?

Ms Clare McGrath

There is an existing station on Kevin Street. There is a site adjoining it, which has hoarding around it currently. That is the site on which we were going to house a divisional headquarters comprising Kevin Street station and part of Pearse Street station. Work commenced in the beginning of 2006 to develop briefs and planning for the development on Kevin Street, which included this.

Ms Clare McGrath

It was to include the station on Harcourt Street. That is why we said we would concur with this. We may have had questions because we would prefer to have the site vacant - we would have prefer to have the other one built. We work in the environment in which we are where we have to deal with things. If one thing is not going to work for us, we look at other ones. This was the situation in 2008. We were on-site on Kevin Street on an enabling works contract because there was substantial archaeology on the site. I take the point about risk assessment, but once this began we were in the mode of asking how we could respond to the risks and the issues that were arising.

Once the contract was signed by the Department with the developer, the genie was out of the bottle. Did anyone look to see if the dominos were lined up? Was the Department under pressure to push ahead with this site and get it over the line? I do not fully understand why such pressure was applied at the peak of the market to push for this particular site.

Ms Geraldine Tallon

There was no particular pressure to push for that particular site. That would not be a correct assumption. The direct dealing on this was done by the Affordable Homes Partnership. The Department was not involved and was not a contracting party. The Affordable Homes Partnership was dealing with it. The pressure was coming from the other side. House prices were extremely high and there was extreme concern about the number of people who were priced out of the market and about the cohort of people who were not social housing applicants but who were no longer able to afford a first home. The Government's pressure was much more around the policy and the means by which the policy could ensure that homes could be made affordable for people and how that policy was to be delivered. The pressure was not around a specific site or sites. There was considerable concern in Government to identify potential lands that could be used. There was a whole variety of areas, including Infirmary Road, McKee Barracks in Kildare and Broc House in Nutley Lane. A whole variety of sites were looked at over that period.

Whatever way one looks at that site, the timeframe on getting vacant possession was extremely tight. The Department was hoping to get vacant possession by 2008. Am I correct?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

Yes.

We are talking about a year. There were problems with the site. I refer to the terms of the sale contract, or the agreement with the developers. Who were the developers?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

Durkan Homes.

Why was a contract not negotiated that would have included vacant possession or, if vacant possession was not possible, a lease agreement, as the Department sought to achieve in 2010?

Why was that not examined? Did the OPW regard the timeframe to get vacant possession as optimistic?

Ms Clare McGrath

The preference would always be that it would be vacant before we would be completing. That is what was ultimately signed up to in the contract. In the signing of this agreement in 2007, when Kevin Street was on the move, we would always have had a mind to doing whatever was necessary to have it vacated by the date. In the doing of that, we would have been looking at alternative, temporary, interim accommodation during 2008. However, that was not proving feasible in the vicinity of Dublin 2. That is why we commenced discussions with the developer with a view to transferring it and leasing it back.

Why did those discussions break down?

Ms Clare McGrath

We had heads agreed but legal issues came up about sub-sales and VAT which were quite complicated. I do not presume to understand all of the niceties and complications. We were taking advice and engaging with the legal people on the other side. We engaged with a property negotiator on the issue of putting the lease in place. All of that was happening and was coming to a conclusion but then the developer was unwilling to proceed.

The developer at that time already had a contract in his possession which stated that he was entitled to get vacant possession of the site by 2008.

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes.

He was basically playing with all of the aces in that situation. The OPW was caught because he always had that fall back position. Would that be a fair comment?

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes.

Looking back at it again, would the Department and the OPW have done anything differently? I know that hindsight provides 20/20 vision but the bottom line is that we are talking here about €31.5 million of taxpayers' money. The market was at its peak and one would question the risk assessment carried out in the context of the timeframe. If confronted with the same situation now, would the Department and the OPW do anything different?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

Certainly, hindsight is 20/20 vision but I deeply regret the way this turned out. I would dearly have liked this to work in the way that it should have worked and was intended to work. I have to acknowledge that the developer fulfilled all of the conditions and that there is not any issue of culpability on his part. Indeed, the court recognised that and I do not question the court judgment and will not comment on it one way or the other. With hindsight I can say that we would have needed and should have had better co-ordination. We had quite a lot of co-ordination but we also had a lot of moving parts. Ultimately, in such a situation, one needs a single authority calling the shots and determining how the process will go.

The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, the housing agency, the OPW and the Department of Justice and Equality were all involved.

Ms Geraldine Tallon

Yes and also a series of advisers ---

There was also the Department of the Taoiseach and the Chief State Solicitor's office.

Ms Geraldine Tallon

Yes.

Who fell down on the job?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

I think we all have to share responsibility for the way this turned out. I am not in a position to start apportioning blame. The focus in my Department was on the delivery of affordable housing. We thought this was a very good deal under which 215 housing units would be delivered on a site which was assessed architecturally as only being capable of bearing a maximum of 52 units.

When the contracts were being negotiated, it should have been implicit that the developers were accepting that the balance of moneys they were owed, outside of the sale of the houses themselves, should have been related to the valuation of the site. Is that a fair comment? The developer gained in the sense that he would be getting a site with vacant possession which increased its value. He ended up getting paid the balance of the sale of proceeds, based on the market value at peak, which was double the value - he was paid almost €32 million instead of €17.5 million. The contract should have been written in such a way that in the worst case scenario, the amount he was to be paid would be based on the valuation of the site, which is what he was willing to accept at the time.

Ms Geraldine Tallon

I understand the Deputy's point and it is a valid one with the benefit of hindsight. However, none of us knew what way the market was going to go, nor expected it to go so suddenly. In 2006 we were in a high and rising market and the circumstances were very difficult. This was an open tender for the site, which had been valued at that ---

Ultimately, it is the taxpayer who ended up picking up the tab. Looking back, does Ms McGrath think things could have been done differently?

Ms Clare McGrath

The point the Deputy made about the valuation of the site was one of the arguments in the court case but the judge ultimately decided differently. I can say, in my role as the responsible owner in the context of property asset management reform that the co-ordination between public bodies in the context of intra-State property transactions needs to be improved. There is something in this space for all of us to learn, not just in relation to this situation but more generally too. We are looking at the protocols around intra-State transactions to minimise transaction costs and to improve efficiencies. We are working to improve co-ordination and the exchange of information.

Was it the case that turf wars between the various agencies got in the way ---

Ms Clare McGrath

No, I would not use that phrase. I think people were acting in the best interests, at all times, of the bodies which they were representing, having regard to the legal complexities around the transaction. That was the case but there are certainly lessons to be learned, particularly in the area of the co-ordination of intra-State property transactions.

I thank the witnesses for attending. We are in an odd place really because the witnesses are being asked questions which relate to policy matters and they are being held to account for policy decisions made by people who are no longer around. The policy, in and of itself, is quite perverse whereby we overheated the property market, lived off the taxes from that but then sat in a room and tried to figure out how to deliver housing at an affordable price. Such was the time we were in and that was obviously a policy matter which I do not expect the witnesses to comment on.

It seems that once the legal contract was signed, the developer acted fully in accordance with his commitments under that contract, fulfilled every part and the State was left exposed. Would that be a fair summary?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

Yes, the developer fulfilled all aspects of the contract from his point of view and we were very satisfied that we were getting 215 housing units at the level of discount that we hoped to get at the time.

The issue is obviously the content of the contract. Can the witnesses give us an insight into the process of formulating that contract and how we ended up with a contract that had no 'Plan B' or get-out clause if vacant possession could not be secured? I detect from some of Ms McGrath's earlier comments that the OPW had a degree of reservation about engaging in a project where there was not vacant possession. Is that a fair interpretation?

Ms Clare McGrath

In our experience, it would be preferable to have the alternative accommodation in situ beforehand. In the last five years, we have undertaken a programme of lease surrenders. We are taking advantage of the current situation and handing properties back to landlords but we are moving the occupiers to other locations. If we do not take advantage of the break date we then have to pay another year's rent.

If we do not take advantage of the break date, we have to pay another year's rent. We are monitoring this constantly and this situation is not dissimilar. We would be looking at the alternatives if we would not be able to get the fit out done in time. We meet our break dates. In this instance we were not able to provide the alternative accommodation that would have allowed vacant possession.

I presume the OPW would have been involved in the process around drawing up of the contract and would the staff have expressed concerns or have been very confident they could meet the 2008 deadline of vacant possession?

Ms Clare McGrath

We would have expressed concerns because of the context that the alternative accommodation was in a divisional headquarters in a larger complex. That is a complicated transaction. We would not have seen that we would not be able to provide vacant possession, because if that was the case, we would look at alternative locations. That is what we were doing in 2008. The developer's situation changed so we then engaged with the developer by putting in place a transfer and a lease back. In fairness everybody was working to achieve that. There was an alternative being put in place. We had passed the deadline for vacant possession. We argued in court that we had an estoppel.

The OPW is the body for property management and I presume it would have said that it would aim to meet the target, but with a short window, one would have imagined that when the contract was being drawn up that concern would have been reflected and that a safeguard should have been put into the contract. Would that be fair?

Ms Clare McGrath

There was some element of additional time allocated. I do not think anybody would be signing a contract with a view to not giving effect to it. Our preference might have been otherwise, but we were giving effect to Government policy.

Why was the deadline for vacant possession set for the end of 2008?

Ms Clare McGrath

That was in the contract with the developer.

Was the developer looking for that condition?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

The idea originally was that vacant possession would have been delivered once the housing units were delivered. One of the particular attractions in the tender submitted by this particular developer was that 80% of the units were already available in developments around the Dublin area. The units were already by and large available. The remaining 20% were in train and that was an attractive feature of the bid. The intention originally was that vacant possession would transfer on the completion of the provision of the units. It was already a compromise with the developer that vacant possession was deferred until the end of 2008.

This is my final question for Ms McGrath. In respect of 6.19 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, the commitment given was that the Garda station would not close until the St. Kevin Street Garda station was constructed, which seems to be the nub of the problem because the OPW could not close down that station until it provided another station. Who gave that commitment?

Ms Clare McGrath

There may have been a commitment in the Department of Justice and Equality in regard to how it might be relocated. That commitment on Kevin Street Garda station was separate. In the interests of this contract, we would have stated if it would not be ready, we would be looking at alternative accommodation. In fairness, all the parties involved in the contract were conscious of this contract.

On the question of who gave the commitment the station would remain open until the new station was constructed, was that a commitment on the part of the Department of Justice and Equality?

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes.

I thank the witnesses for attending. I wish to raise the issue of legal costs arising from the deal not reaching completion. The cost of the settlement will be paid out over a five year period, and that figure is set, but are the firm's legal costs the only costs in respect of this deal still outstanding?

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes.

Paragraph 6.14 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report states it was agreed to make a payment of €861,000 for the firm's legal costs with a final bill to be submitted before the end of 2013? Has that sum of €861,000 already been paid to the firm?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

That bill has been paid.

In regard to the outstanding bill that was expected, but had not arrived by the end of 2013, why is that amount outstanding and why had it not been calculated previously?

Ms Geraldine Tallon

It is up to the plaintiff to submit the bill and he has not done so.

Has the Secretary General any idea of the amount involved? Are we talking in terms of a figure of €861,000 or €200,000? In the previously furnished bill for €861,000, there is a breakdown as to how the amount was calculated. Is it not possible for the Department to do an estimation of what work might still be outstanding on its side and to calculate the amount involved?

Mr. Philip Nugent

We would anticipate at this stage that it would be broadly in the region of €861,000 rather than €250,000. Once it is submitted it will go to the Taxing Master for adjudication.

In Mr. Nugent's opinion will the bill be in the region of €860,000 rather than the lower figure?

Mr. Philip Nugent

It will be closer to that figure than to €250,000. It is impossible to say.

Has Mr. Nugent attempted to make an actual calculation based on the first bill that was received?

Mr. Philip Nugent

No. We would not have the expertise to do that. The Chief State Solicitor might advise, but we have not attempted to do so. We would anticipate that it would be broadly in that region.

What is the basis for anticipating a figure of that magnitude?

Mr. Philip Nugent

We have discussed the matter with the Housing Agency and we have come to the view that it might be broadly in that region. We could be wrong.

Once the bill comes in, will the costs for this deal be closed? Is that the final figure?

Mr. Philip Nugent

Yes

My second question relates to the site. I understand the valuation is €2.8 million.

Ms Clare McGrath

No, the valuation of the site today is up to €5 million.

What is the use of the site today?

Ms Clare McGrath

At present, it is being used temporarily as a national school.

When did it become vacant?

Ms Clare McGrath

It has been vacant since 2012.

In terms of managing that property on the OPW site, what are the plans for that site?

Ms Clare McGrath

With the site occupied for 2013-14, we will be reconsidering whether to dispose of it or use it for other State purposes, not yet identified.

Has the OPW not decided on whether to dispose of it or use it for other State uses?

Ms Clare McGrath

It is in use as a site for the national school and following that we will then look at other uses.

Will the OPW arrive at a decision based on financial or other considerations? Let us say the value of the site increases again, will the OPW decide on other uses?

Ms Clare McGrath

We will be informed by that, but with the new Property Asset Management Delivery Plan, when all public property owners identify that a site is surplus, and is open for either use by other bodies or for disposal in the market we will make that known. Other public bodies may wish to indicate that they have a use for such a site or other sites, if that was the case. We will then enter legal arrangements with them and would value it at the market price with a discount for other public sector users. If not, we would take a view on its disposal in the market.

If that were to happen, could the Department of Education and Skills be a preferred bidder on the site?

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes.

Before it went to the open market?

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes, before it went to the open market. One might have other public bodies that ascribe a use to the site.

Could they acquire that site at a discount?

Ms Clare McGrath

They would acquire that site at a discount. We are giving effect to a property register from all public property owners in respect of all State property. People will be able to identify assets that are surplus. That could be assets of property for disposal but it could be that they have surplus accommodation in their building available for somebody else to come and occupy. It is about sharing and co-ordination. We are also putting in place a property manager's network across State property owners in which they will share knowledge and there will be a better exchange of information on property assets so that we can maximise the use and disposal of assets for the benefit of the taxpayer.

To return to this particular site, after 2014 will the OPW reconsider the use of this site?

Ms Clare McGrath

We may do that sooner because the Department of Education and Skills may be asking us for a site for a longer-term use as a school.

Has the Department of Education and Skills asked the OPW for it?

Ms Clare McGrath

No, not directly and it currently is in temporary use.

I thank Ms McGrath.

While members were in committee last Tuesday night, there was a briefing on Mount Congreve. Can Ms McGrath provide an update in this regard?

That pertains to the Vote.

That is fine.

We wished to start with this business first.

That is quite all right. If the Chairman does not wish to take it, that is fine and I can deal with it some other time.

We can deal with it immediately after this.

That is fine. Alternatively, an hour afterwards would be fine.

The Deputy can come straight in. Does Ms McGrath wish to make a short statement on it?

Ms Clare McGrath

In respect of Mount Congreve, one of my colleagues who will be present for the discussions on the Vote might be able to provide a more particular update.

Ms Clare McGrath

I can state, regarding the Mount Congreve estate, that the Mount Congreve Foundation has expressed its intent to remain in situ in Waterford and to open to the public the gardens and the estate. As for the involvement of the Office of Public Works, OPW, in this regard, members are aware the Mount Congreve Garden Trust owns the gardens and the house. The State, through the OPW, is one of the trustees. The employees who are working in the gardens are employees of the Mount Congreve Foundation, which has expressed to us its intention to remain in situ and to run the gardens. If the Deputy wishes, I can provide him with an update directly or when we take the Vote, I can give him more information.

Whichever Ms McGrath prefers.

Ms Clare McGrath

The Mount Congreve Foundation has submitted a proposed plan for the gardens, which would see them being open from Thursdays to Sundays from February to October. The foundation has suggested a charge in this regard and is projecting visitor figures of 100,000 based on the average number of visitors who came to open days in 2013. From the OPW's perspective in respect of the State side, the State will obtain freehold with regard to the gardens 21 years after the passing of Ambrose Congreve and in 2059 in respect of the house. In the interim, it is in the interest of the Office of Public Works that the gardens are being managed and cared for by the Mount Congreve Foundation.

This is significant, in that from the standpoint of the OPW, this constitutes progress.

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes.

This issue has been ongoing for years now.

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes.

I thank Ms McGrath. My second question pertains to the proposal for businesses on heritage sites and historic properties.

We are going into matters pertaining to the Vote. Can we take that immediately afterwards?

Yes, whatever the Chairman wishes to do is fine.

On Chapter 6, which the committee now is closing off, is it agreed to dispose of that chapter? Agreed. I had a number of questions for Ms Tallon regarding Dublin, water and Poolbeg but I understand this could be her last appearance before the Committee of Public Accounts. I understand she is due to retire.

Ms Geraldine Tallon

That is correct.

I wish Ms Tallon well and thank her for her appearances before the committee, for all the information she gave members and for her co-operation and courtesy while under pressure from members. She was always very comprehensive in her replies and very helpful to the Committee of Public Accounts. I wish to put on record the committee's thanks to her and to wish her well for the future.

Ms Geraldine Tallon

I thank the Chairman and greatly appreciate his comments.

Representatives of the Department will now withdraw, as the next part of the meeting concerns the Vote. I propose a five-minute break because Ms McGrath will appear before us again for that discussion.

The witnesses withdrew.
Sitting suspended at 12.05 p.m. and resumed at 12.25 p.m.

I invite the Comptroller and Auditor General to make his opening statement on Vote 13.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The principal activity of the Office of Public Works is the delivery of architectural, engineering, property management and project management services for both its own projects and those of other State agencies. The OPW manages a large property portfolio, consisting of State-owned property with a book value of around €2.85 billion, and substantial leased property.

The Office of Public Work's appropriation account for 2012 records spending of around €393 million, divided between three programmes, namely, estate portfolio management, flood risk management and the National Procurement Service. The major expenditure from the Vote in 2012 included: rent and rates on leased properties amounting to €107 million; flood risk management and drainage maintenance at a cost of €67 million; payment of €52 million in respect of the National Convention Centre public private partnership project; purchases of sites and buildings, new works, alterations and additions at a cost of slightly more than €40 million; property maintenance works and supplies costing €36 million; and spending of €36 million on upkeep and visitor services at heritage properties.

In addition to its spending on Vote 13, the Office of Public Works also manages property related works reimbursed from other Votes. The expenditure in 2012 in that regard is estimated at almost €80 million.

I invite Ms McGrath to make her opening statement.

Ms Clare McGrath

I am pleased to be before the Committee of Public Accounts to present the 2012 appropriation account for the Office of Public Works and answer any questions that may arise. I will take the opportunity to refer to some important aspects of the work that was funded through the 2012 appropriation account and provide the committee with an update on the current position in some areas. The 2012 appropriation account was structured in line with the new format for the Revised Estimates under three main programmes, as referred to by the Comptroller and Auditor General, namely, flood risk management, the National Procurement Service and estate portfolio management.

The Office of Public Works, the lead agency for the management of flood risk, expended €52 million on the flood management programme in 2012 and a total of €367 million from 1996 to 2013. Works in 2012 included schemes completed at Fingal, Mornington and Johnstown and ongoing works at Mallow, Clonmel, Bray, Fermoy and Waterford city. A sum of €4.8 million was also provided to local authorities under the minor floods and coastal protection programme in 2012. The OPW continues to work with local authorities to ensure there is sufficient capacity to undertake flood mitigation measures in their administrative areas as promptly as possible. In the aftermath of the recent flooding, the Office of Public Works sought applications for funding from local authorities to remedy damage caused and reinstate coastal flood defence assets. The Government has reaffirmed the priority for funding in this area by committing €45 million per annum over the five year period from 2012 to 2016. This funding will be prioritised to allow for the reduction of flood risk to the greatest possible number of households arid businesses.

The National Procurement Service was established within the Office of Public Works in 2009 and tasked with centralising public sector procurement arrangements for common goods and services. During 2012, efficiency savings in excess of €39 million were achieved as a result of contracts initiated by the National Procurement Service and included savings of €10 million on energy costs and €8 million on fuel charge cards.

As members will be aware, a Government decision of April 2013 agreed the outline plan for the development of an expanded central procurement function. From January of this year, the Office of Government Procurement will continue the work currently done by the National Procurement Service and previously done by the Government Supplies Agency. This will be done under its own Vote as part of the public expenditure and reform group.

The largest programme in terms of funding is the estate portfolio management programme. This programme encompasses the management, maintenance and development of the State's property portfolio, including the care, protection and presentation of national monuments and historical properties. The programme, as an integral part of this function, comprises a wide variety of services, including, as the Comptroller and Auditor General noted, professional services such as architecture, engineering, valuation, quantity surveying and project management.

The main areas of expenditure under the estate management programme in 2012 included the following. The payment of rents on behalf of all Government Departments to the value of €107 million. The committee will be interested to note that the Office of Public Works has achieved savings in annual rent each year since 2009 and reduced the outturn to €97 million in 2013. This reduction in both the annual rental bill and the State's property footprint has been achieved through a targeted lease rationalisation programme and a robust approach to rent reviews. Some €36 million was spent on the property maintenance subhead which includes the facilities management function of the office and the management and maintenance of certain prestige buildings.

From 2013 onwards, the Office of Public Works assumed additional responsibility for the funding of all non-elective building maintenance on departmental property, with an additional allocation of €19 million being provided from other departmental Votes. Essential maintenance will now be provided on a shared service basis to Departments from one central maintenance fund managed by the Office of Public Works. The reformed service will produce savings both directly through the OPW prioritisation of planned and preventative maintenance and indirectly through the centralisation of the professional expertise and administration of maintenance for all Departments. The management, conservation and presentation of 780 national monuments and 26 national historical properties with a combined provision of 70 visitor centres accounted for an output of €36.2 million in 2012.

I am glad to say that visitor numbers are steadily increasing with more than 4 million recorded visitors at our heritage sites in 2013 compared to 3.4 million in 2011. It is estimated that the total number of visitors to heritage sites is in the order of 10 million but the recorded numbers are 4 million.

Although the capital provision for new works has reduced significantly in recent years the outturn was €39 million on the capital works programme in 2012. This included refurbishment works at Swinford and Dundrum Garda stations, major projects at the Phoenix Park, Castletown House and Dublin Castle in readiness for Ireland's hosting of the EU Presidency for the first six months of 2013. The Office of Public Works paid €51.6 million in 2012 in unitary payments on behalf of the Government in relation to the Convention Centre Dublin.

With regard to more recent developments under the Government's reform programme, currently I chair a steering group on property asset management. I have mentioned this earlier. This group is working to review existing property management arrangements across the public sector and to develop standard frameworks to drive efficiency and value from the State's property portfolio. In addition, a cross-disability committee within OPW is developing a set of standards for office accommodation and space norms in accordance with international best practice.

One other area of activity to which I wish to draw member's attention is the public service energy conservation initiative for which the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has provided funding from the carbon levy fund of €9 million over the coming years. This is the continuation of a programme we have been doing on our own portfolio. This new programme will roll-out energy saving measures already introduced to more than 200 buildings to a further 500 large buildings from various public sector organisations. We hope to repeat annual energy savings for public sector clients of up to 18% over the next three years.

The gross outturn for the Office of Public Works Vote was €366 million. The property and project management services which the OPW continue to provide are not directly funded from the Vote but absorb considerable administrative resources. We are a shared service and in this role we act as agent on behalf of other Departments and agencies, managing contracts and services which exceeded €79 million in 2012.

I thank the committee for its attention. Perhaps I can introduce my colleagues as I omitted to do so at the outset. I am accompanied by Mr. Tony Smyth, chief engineer, Mr. Michael Long, accountant with OPW, Mr. John McMahon, commissioner with responsibility for maintenance and heritage services, and Mr. John Sydenham, commissioner with responsibility for property management.

I am happy to take questions on the account.

Mr. Dermot Quigley and Mr. Frank Griffin are also present. I call Deputy Paul J. Connaughton.

I welcome the witnesses and thank Ms Clare McGrath for her presentation. I shall commence with the procurement side. I note the documentation provided by the witnesses states that, "The office is compliant with all relevant guidelines regarding procurement with the exception of one contract in excess of €500K. Services continue to be provided beyond the original contract end-date without competitive procurement". May I have more detail on the contract? What was the contract? Why did that happen and why was procurement not sought?

Ms Clare McGrath

That contract was in relation to our maintenance help desk. We run an outsource help desk for our clients where they make contact with us on building issues through the help desk. It is an outsource contract. The term of the contract was up in 2012. We have an enterprise property system and in advance of retendering it we were considering whether we should take elements from that outsourced help desk into our enterprise solution. We were deliberating on which was the optimum way to do things and at the end we determined to remain, leaving the outsource help desk doing more and we went back out to tender. We were balancing doing procurement with the value-for-money question of how we were doing things generally. We have retendered for that and we are in the preferred bidders stage at the moment.

In terms of the contact, the note states it was in excess of €500,000. What was the exact figure?

Ms Clare McGrath

€800,000.

It was well in excess of €500,000.

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes, because of the way it is reported.

So it is €800,000.

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes.

Is that the only time that has happened? Did everything else go out?

Ms Clare McGrath

Sorry, I think that was the way the Comptroller and Auditor General reported under circular 40/02. We would have identified instances, I do not have them to hand but we do report if there are instances. Under circular 40/02 there can be instances where one is allowed to roll over. In doing that one also reports on what is happening. I am not sure of the examples but we would have reported all the instances.

The only reason I raise the issue is that on a broader scale the witness mentioned in her opening remarks the new procurement strategy and cost savings. A number of small business have concerns in regard to the procurement process being followed by the Office of Public Works on the basis that while its directive is to reduce costs and make savings for the State, it is potentially putting them out of business. Anybody looking at this has to follow these very strict new procurement rules and yet this was going on. From a leadership perspective, how would the witness equate that back to those people under new procurement rules?

Ms Clare McGrath

In terms of centralised procurement, the Office of Government Procurement will have responsibility in that space. In regard to this issue, we would always have been concerned. We were doing centralised procurement of supplies and services for Departments and we were always looking to optimise the State's covenant to get maximum value.

Ms Clare McGrath

We were doing that. Under the new contracts, consideration would always be given as to whether they should operate in lots giving maximum procurement application potential to SMEs but that would be determined on the basis of whether it was high volume low risk. One would have to determine how one would know the market and how one would want to break it up. The concerns of the SMEs are being factored in to the procurement policies of the Office of Government Procurement.

Even on the basis of tendering.

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes.

I understand, unless there has been a recent change, that the SMEs had to come together to put in one tender as compared to some of the larger multiples who can come into the system. They find that very cumbersome and hard to work with. Is that taken into account? It is very easy to say we are taking account of SME concerns but unless that works on a practical basis and unless they can tender effectively, what is happening is that they are being undercut and taken out of the market. While the OPW as an organisation will reduce the costs, who factors in job losses and that type of loss of revenue?

Ms Clare McGrath

Deputy Connaughton is raising an issue on which there is constant tension as to the value-for-money question, whether that is getting the best outcome in a product for the best price or factoring in what is happening in the market in terms of employment and other elements. There are tensions within that. I will not speak for it but the Office of Government Procurement is exercised to get that at the best level. It depends on what is being purchased as to how it will manage it. Enterprise Ireland is looking to see how it can assist small businesses to tender and to work together in order that they can get competitive advantage by using the skills and competencies that may be in other local businesses.

Yes, the only concern I have is that if we are always driven by the bottom line, while we may report success in terms of savings, have we taken a bigger hit in the longer term with people losing jobs? What the witness is saying is that there is more of a focus on the SME sector in this process.

Ms Clare McGrath

It is part of the focus. There is no doubt that the spend that is available for goods and services has reduced.

Ms Clare McGrath

As there is less money available, to maximise the use of that money we are looking to get the optimum return. There is a tension in that and there is a balance that has to be struck. The Office of Government Procurement is looking at the issue. When it was with us in the National Procurement Service, NPS, we would have had many meetings with SMEs, IBEC, and industry representatives. We would have worked to have road-shows around the country with IntrerTradeIreland bringing public buyers together with the private sector to communicate to both sides what was involved in a procurement and the implications for SMEs. In fairness, with the e-tenders website there should be a minimisation of the paperwork that has to be done. The actual limits in terms of turnover are carefully scrutinised to assist SMEs to compete and to take procedural things out of the equation. That is very much in the equation at the moment.

Another area of responsibility for the Office of Public Works is flood risk management which is topical, considering the storms several weeks ago. The accounts state additional contractual payments were made on several flood relief schemes including Bray, Waterford and Fingal. The excess was funded through the funds from other OPW voted subheads. What were these contractual payments and why was there an increase in them?

Ms Clare McGrath

In some cases, works could be brought forward and be happening sooner. Accordingly, we could have contractual commitments within a fixed contract that may need to be addressed. It is a matter of timing.

Why is that not set into the budget initially?

Ms Clare McGrath

When a budget for a contract is profiled, it is based on the contractor’s submission. However, issues may arise such as a project may be completed faster than expected because the weather might be good. This is all within the overall budget.

Flooding is a topical issue at the moment and it will always happen with the rainfall levels we get. One area that concerns me is my own area of south Galway which saw massive flooding in 1995 and 2009. Flood relief works have been carried out to alleviate the risks in some of the larger towns in the area. The Kiltiernan-Ballinderreen area has suffered from bad flooding in the past but its scheme has yet to be improved. The OPW does cost-benefit analyses of projects. How are these conducted? What details are used for these analyses?

Ms Clare McGrath

The cost relates to the building of the scheme and the benefits relate to the figures for houses, businesses and infrastructure. Basically, one is looking for €1.50 of a benefit for every euro spent.

On improving the Kiltiernan-Ballinderreen flood relief scheme, the initial figure was outside the cost-benefit analysis, so they are working on it again. With the weather over the past few weeks, the area nearly flooded again, yet the improvement scheme cannot go ahead because of the cost-benefit analysis.

Mr. Tony Smyth

For minor works, we simplify the cost benefit to several criteria. We put a value on damage to a house which is flooded of €25,000, a house threatened by flooding of €10,000, and a commercial premises of €30,000. These then accumulate depending on the number of houses and so on that flooded. There are other elements such as land flooding, delays to journeys and so on. The damage prevented by a scheme is then computed against the costs of doing the works.

In south Galway, the works we can do are environmentally constrained as the area is environmentally sensitive. We are waiting for Galway County Council to look again at the proposals for flood relief in the environmental context and come back with another proposal because it does not stack up on a cost-benefit basis. In other words, not enough damage will be prevented against the cost of flood relief works.

That is very hard to explain to anyone in that area, particularly when they look out their windows and see floodwaters a couple of inches from their driveways. This area has seen two massive flooding events with damage to houses and other premises but the flood relief works have not been carried out. Surely, the information from the 1995 and 2009 flooding can be used to justify the works. Thankfully, no flooding happened this year. However, I cannot understand how the cost-benefit analysis is still weighted against the area.

Mr. Tony Smyth

It is not weighted against the area. It is about how many houses actually flooded and then what is the cost of fixing them against the engineering works. In some cases, engineering works could run to millions of euro just to protect two or three houses. That does not stack up. I do not have the exact number of houses affected in the area in question but in the normal case it is computed on how many houses are protected against the cost of €2 million for engineering works.

Has the OPW an estimate for the overall storm damage done over the past several weeks?

Ms Clare McGrath

Local authorities have submitted estimates to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government totalling between €60 million and €65 million. I understand this comprises costs of €20 million for road repairs, €35 million for coastal repairs and €10 million in respect of tourism. Of this total estimate, €41 million is in respect of Clare and Galway. Local authorities are working to fix on these figures and will be making submissions to the Department within the next month.

Since 2009, the OPW has a minor works scheme in place for flood protection infrastructure repairs. We have written to all local authorities to submit applications to us this scheme. We have not yet received these applications but we have committed to processing them as quickly as possible.

On portfolio management, what is the total figure for vacant buildings under the OPW?

Ms Clare McGrath

In respect of leased accommodation, we have no vacant buildings. In respect of office accommodation, we do not have vacant buildings. However, 155 Garda stations which were operationally closed have been handed to us and we must look at disposing these. We would have some buildings which we are refurbishing for office accommodation. We also have built new Coast Guard stations and, accordingly, we are looking at disposing the old ones. We have community initiatives which have seen Garda stations licensed to local communities for their use.

How many Garda stations have gone to communities?

Ms Clare McGrath

Out of 155 stations, 13 have been handed over to local communities.

What does the OPW plan to do with the rest of these stations?

Ms Clare McGrath

We will be putting quite a number on the market in the next two months.

Could other Departments or agencies use these stations?

Ms Clare McGrath

We start by asking other Departments, local authorities, the health services, if they would have uses for them. When we complete the register of every Department’s property, we will then use it to identify surplus property. Of the Garda stations in question, eight will be going to other State bodies.

Has the consultation process with the State agencies finished. Is the next stage putting these stations on the open market?

Ms Clare McGrath

That would be the next stage. We would have to be strategic as to whether there may be a point in holding some of them. Accordingly, we might not move to dispose of all of them.

Who makes that decision?

Ms Clare McGrath

The OPW.

Is there more of a chance the OPW will hold properties in Dublin where the property market is picking up rather than in the rest of the country?

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes, if a market is moving in a particular direction, one might hold. We will do this case by case.

What is the cost of maintaining such a building?

Ms Clare McGrath

That would be at an individual level. For many of them, it is a minor cost such as maintaining the alarm on the property or checking it.

In the case of the market outside of Dublin which is not picking up yet, will the OPW just sell those properties?

Ms Clare McGrath

There will be locations where things will be changing. We are going to the market in the next two months for 12 of them which we have identified.

I note a new policy initiative allowing business on heritage areas or sites. When was that announced? What is the take-up so far?

Ms Clare McGrath

It is not altogether new to our heritage sites. The committee will beware that in the Iveagh Gardens or the Phoenix Park there are events like the Taste of Dublin or the Bloom festival and concerts as well. Towards the end of last year we advertised seeking suggestions on proposals from individuals who might wish to provide new or enhanced facilities on our sites on a licensed basis. To date, we have received 40 requests for information and 11 proposals have come in.

We are looking at how we can achieve greater footfall on our sites by adding additional facilities to those sites. The idea is to enhance the visitor experience but it is also about working in partnership between the State and private and commercial interests. However, it will be on a licensed basis and there will be an agreed facility fee. Furthermore, we recognise that potential employment opportunities might arise, such as local jobs, etc.

Does the Office of Public Works have any projection of what jobs total might emerge?

Ms Clare McGrath

I will depend on the individual cases made.

Does the OPW have any idea of the potential earnings? If someone comes in, there will be a contract.

Ms Clare McGrath

No, we said we would run with the initiative and get a sense from the market about what participants might say and then make a call. It will be for a given period. We would then use the procedure to review what we could learn from it and see how to enhance and improve it further.

I understand that last year the numbers were up for heritage areas. Is that the case?

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes.

Was the revenue down?

Ms Clare McGrath

The revenue was up.

Was it up in the same way as the numbers? Was there a direct correlation?

Ms Clare McGrath

We charge at some sites but not at others. For example, for the first six months of 2013, Dublin Castle was not open because it was being used for the EU Presidency. Things will vary. Our figures are up on admission charges.

Ms McGrath referred to the EU Presidency. What was the total cost?

Ms Clare McGrath

The total State cost was €42 million but our costs were €11 million.

Was that as projected or was it over?

Ms Clare McGrath

That was as projected. We carried out capital works by providing additional conference facilities at the stamping building or print works in Dublin Castle. That was where the capital cost arose. On the current side, we provided the logistics for meetings and we used the National Botanic Gardens as well.

It cost €11 million. Does the OPW have a comparative figure from the last time we held the EU Presidency?

Ms Clare McGrath

It was €20 million on our side but without the works element. We would not have been carrying out works at that time.

That indicates a major saving.

Ms Clare McGrath

That arose by hosting the meetings, of which there were 265, in public facilities.

I have two brief and final questions on the accounts. I am looking for an explanation more than anything else. One programme relates to Áras an Uachtaráin. How many staff does the OPW cover for in the Áras?

Ms Clare McGrath

We have in the order of 24 staff between permanent and permanent-casual for Áras an Uachtaráin.

Has that number gone up or down?

Ms Clare McGrath

No, it is holding. Actually, it has gone down somewhat. In 2009, it was 26 and in 2013, it was 23.

What other costs arise at Áras an Uachtaráin? Does it have its own Vote?

Ms Clare McGrath

The Office of the President has its own Vote.

The OPW expenditure relates only to the staff. Is that the position?

Ms Clare McGrath

It only relates to the household staff. We maintain the facility as well.

What is the cost for maintaining the facility?

Ms Clare McGrath

I do not have that directly because it is a prestige building. The cost of maintenance, like these Houses, would be done on an exempt building basis.

Is there a set cost or does it go up and down each year?

Ms Clare McGrath

What arises in the case of many historic buildings is that after a certain time we have to carry out infrastructure works. Incidentally, I am never funded sufficiently for preventative maintenance. We get a level. We are always trying to optimise that resource around the portfolio. In the case of the Áras in 2011-12 we undertook a capital project around rewiring. There were substantial issues with rewiring. That was a one-off project. Ongoing maintenance is at a level.

I note another point from looking through the accounts relating to Glasnevin Cemetery and what is coming up in 2016. There is a reference to a major €25 million scheme of restoration at Glasnevin Cemetery. Initially, it was allocated a grant of €2.5 million. Was that simply a starting allocation?

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes, there was an intent for annual works over several years at €2.5 million. It was a 2016 project some years ago with a view to having it fully restored by 2016. Obviously, with the economic downturn the actual grant has contracted in line with the rest of the Vote. What we have achieved there is considerable albeit somewhat invisible. The works include drainage at the grounds and a link with the National Botanic Gardens. The Sigerson monument has been restored and works are going on at the O'Connell monument and the pedestrian link. It started out as a higher grant but it has contracted.

The project is not running over or costing more. Is that the case?

Ms Clare McGrath

No.

I have a feeling Deputy Connaughton has covered something I had intended to ask. It related to the proposal for businesses on heritage sites and historic properties. It is interesting because the budget for the area of built heritage in the past six years has probably diminished by 90% in some cases. From what Ms McGrath has explained, we are moving towards an element of self-financing when it comes to these historic properties and heritage sites. I apologise if Ms McGrath already answered the question, but what structure will this take? Where are we with regard to these proposals?

Ms Clare McGrath

At the moment we have several proposals in and we are assessing them. We are allowing participants in the market to say to us how they can work with us to enhance visitor experience at heritage sites and to increase numbers. Our primary responsibility under legislation for many of the national monument sites is their preservation and conservation.

Will Ms McGrath draw a picture for me or give me an example of what we are looking at potentially in future? Can Ms McGrath highlight some places and explain what exactly we will end up with?

Ms Clare McGrath

I will use the example of what we have ended up with to show what we are open to. In the Iveagh Gardens at the rear of the National Concert Hall and off Harcourt Street, we have allowed, under licence, the Taste of Dublin, comedy festivals and concerts on the site. This is opening up the gardens to other uses and increasing footfall. We receive a fee for that. It is similar with the Phoenix Park for concerts. We have provided for community use on many sites where people wish to host events. We are asking whether there is something more. We might not necessarily know what is possible for all of them. Certainly, we would not have the funds for it but the private sector may have the funds.

I presume the OPW has been relatively successful if it is extending the approach. Has the experience of the OPW been good as far as the financial aspects and income are concerned?

Ms Clare McGrath

It has been positive because we are getting more use. The income goes to the Exchequer.

Is there an element of ring fencing?

Ms Clare McGrath

From this year it has been identified that where we generate income a certain amount can come back in and we can invest it in the heritage estate.

It does go back to the Exchequer. Anyway, it is a significant departure for heritage in the country that the OPW is thinking in this manner and adopting this approach for the first time since the foundation of the State.

There is an element of self-financing when it comes to these properties. It is significant for the Committee on Public Accounts to know that. Ms McGrath says it has been positive so far and that is why the OPW is extending it. Can Ms McGrath say how much has been raised?

Ms Clare McGrath

We are getting €350,000 additional this year in the Vote because of this initiative.

How many enterprises or ventures does that cover?

Ms Clare McGrath

It goes across the entire range. Until we process the 12 applications we have now, identify what they involve and what is being sought from us, we are open. When we can identify that and the fee arrangement, I will come back to say what has been achieved in 2014.

How many proposals does the €300,000 cover?

Ms Clare McGrath

We have not yet made out the proposal.

That is fine.

Ms Clare McGrath

This is coming from what we have achieved. It is the existing income we derive from visitors to our heritage estate.

Fair enough. I thank Ms McGrath for her response with regard to Mount Congreve. Does Mr. Sydenham want to add anything to that? If not, that is fine. I think Ms McGrath explained it all.

Mr. John Sydenham

It was covered pretty comprehensively. It is welcome news that the foundation is remaining and will keep the facility open. There is an opportunity to bring in commercial interests to augment the outgoings and enhance the visitor experience. Equally, there is an opportunity for the State, at our level or at local level, to enter a partnership with the foundation to improve the visitor experience. We will explore that with the foundation.

Ms McGrath mentioned €250 million over five years for flood damage. Of that €250 million, what does Ms McGrath estimate the damage so far this year to be worth? I want to know whether this sum is sufficient for the future.

Ms Clare McGrath

In terms of the catchment flood risk area management plans, what we are achieving and the areas we are identifying where we need to do the work, we will need more. We have to work towards that. To take a concrete example, Dublin is now protected by works that were completed by the OPW and Dublin City Council. The tide level in January 2014 was greater than that in 2002 but in 2014 there was very little damage. In 2002, for a lower tide there was €60 million worth of damage in Dublin. We will report under the Ireland Stat and the Government statistics that approximately €800 million worth of property was protected by the schemes. I think I spoke about 1996-1997. In schemes we have carried out since then we have achieved €800 million worth of property protected. Any scheme we carry out has a cost-benefit. The Dublin one is a very good example of what has been achieved. Due to the works done since 2002, although there was a higher flood tide level in January 2014, there was damage but it was small.

In other words, the OPW has averaged out the €800 million over the past 18 years and thinks on that basis that the €250 million will be sufficient for the next five years.

Ms Clare McGrath

The Government has guaranteed the €250 million at €45 million a year to 2016.

I have made a rough calculation. Over the past 18 years the OPW has probably averaged €42 million per year.

Ms Clare McGrath

We would not have been spending €45 million. That has been ramped up. It was a lesser sum earlier.

Coming back to this year, how much is the damage worth?

Ms Clare McGrath

Following the recent storm there is €65 million worth of damage. That includes roads, coastal and tourism damage. Our element is those parts that protect flood defences. That is where we will help local authorities.

I thank Ms McGrath.

I call Deputy Eoghan Murphy. I ask him to be conscious of the time because we will be back in here at 2 p.m.

I appreciate that. I will take 20 to 25 minutes because there is a particular project I want to consider. It is a private entity but the OPW has been involved with it, namely, the redevelopment of the Irish-Jewish Museum.

I am not interested in the plans. I did not make any observations or submissions on them, because I do not think that is the role of a Deputy but I do believe a Deputy has a role in oversight. My interest is not in the body with which this is being done, the Irish-Jewish Museum. It is important the State contributes to its own history, heritage and culture.

I am interested in the particular way the OPW has conducted itself in this project. I want to get a better insight into how the OPW works when it does these things and the conclusion in this particular case. The OPW was first engaged in this project in 2007. Was that done at the instruction of the Taoiseach at the time?

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes.

How does that work? Did he make a formal request in writing to the OPW?

Ms Clare McGrath

There was a formal request to the OPW.

Did that come from the Taoiseach’s office?

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes, it came via the Department of the Taoiseach.

Was the request that the OPW become involved in this project?

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes.

Does the permission for that come under legislation? Ms McGrath has cited two Acts in documentation, the Commissioners of Public Works (Functions and Powers) Act 1996 and the State Authorities (Development and Management) Act 1993. What exactly do they provide for? Is there a broad provision that the OPW would act at the discretion of the Taoiseach when he orders it to? How does that work?

Ms Clare McGrath

It allows that we can use the resources of the office on the direction of Government. That might come through our own Minister or the Taoiseach.

This direction came from the Taoiseach’s office. Did the OPW have to seek clarification that it was within the scope of the OPW’s mandate or did the OPW know that at the time?

Ms Clare McGrath

It would have been comprehended that we had the authority to do this.

At the time was there a precedent for this type of work by the OPW?

Ms Clare McGrath

We would have been involved in several projects, for example, the Irish College in Paris, St. Isidore’s College in Rome and the Leuven Institute for Ireland, where other entities owned the properties but we were asked to provide support to them. The Government might subsequently have provided funding too, but initially we would have provided professional and technical services. Another very recent example is the JFK Museum in Wexford. It is privately owned. We designed and provided the funding for its development.

This is something that the OPW does.

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes.

What did the involvement consist of in this instance? Was it architectural assistance?

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes, our resources were provided in the development and design, and the preparation of the planning drawings, including resources from our architectural services, our civil and construction engineering services and quantity surveying services. There was a gap because we needed information on the ground conditions and we availed of an external provider. The total for the specialist planning advice - because we were engaged to take it to planning stage - was approximately €13,000.

I will come back to that in a minute. I want more clarity on a time period because the OPW was engaged in this work from 2007 to 2013.

Ms Clare McGrath

We were engaged in the planning and the designs.

Was it a constant project over that time?

Ms Clare McGrath

No.

Was there a gap at all? Did the OPW work from 2007 to 2008 and did work then halt for two years?

Ms Clare McGrath

I will not have the actual time lines but I agree there would have been gaps. The client was the Irish-Jewish Museum. We were working with it and developing designs. There would have been pauses because, unfortunately, there was a number of bereavements among the principals in the project within the family of the Irish-Jewish Museum.

I refer to the number of people involved on the OPW side. The planning applications list a total of five architects on the design team, a principal architect and three other people involved in the report done on the water.

Ms Clare McGrath

These are all recognised as supervisory roles but they are actually a line management rather than being directly involved on the work. It is a supervisory element.

When plans are submitted the bottom of each page shows a principal architect - which is the State architect in this instance - and a list of the design team. Is this a list of the design team or are they just people who have signed off on the plans?

Ms Clare McGrath

I refer to the level of effort from any one of them. We looked at this from the point of view that overall there would have been one person for 58 weeks but in fact that then broke down between different people at different times over the period 2007-13. The totality was one person over 58 weeks.

I will return to that point. Ms McGrath did that work for Deputy Kevin Humphreys as he asked a number of questions previously. If I may deal briefly with the external services. Ground investigations work cost €8,066. The estimate for specialist planning advice was €5,000 as of October 2013. Is a final figure available yet?

Ms Clare McGrath

That is the figure. We use external providers on planning and the estimate is on their planning advices.

They do the work for the OPW.

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes.

Is this the first time the OPW has engaged external services or is it a common practice?

Ms Clare McGrath

It is a practice because we do not have the resources in-house to do everything. We use external providers to do work.

On the JFK project?

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes, in part of it. We use them for construction surveys and on flood relief. We use them on all fronts. We need in-house specialists to supervise all such work.

This is a regular practice of the OPW that such external client services are engaged for projects where the OPW is doing the design for a private entity.

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes.

The final bill for external services is-----

Ms Clare McGrath

It is €13,000.

I refer to the question submitted by Deputy Kevin Humphreys. He was given a reply stating one person for 58 weeks. I am trying to assess the monetary cost to the OPW. The reply to Deputy Humphrey's parliamentary question refers to procedures being in place to monitor and manage the resource input by professional services in the OPW, which includes the recording of the grade and contributed hours of all professional staff employed on the project. The reply states that these records inform OPW management on the efficient use of and deployment of its resources. What this tells me is that the OPW architects and design team are clocking their working hours so the OPW can see how they are spending their time, similar to how records are kept in an accountancy or legal firm. That is the practice in the OPW.

Ms Clare McGrath

That is the case certainly within our architectural practice. It arises particularly where people are working on new projects because we want to ensure that if we get external demands that we have the capacity to release people onto other projects. We have heavier demands on particular teams. We have architects who are not employed in design work; they are responsible for overseeing maintenance on our buildings. They would not necessarily be under the same clocking procedure as design teams.

On site somewhere.

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes.

That does not apply in this case under discussion.

Ms Clare McGrath

No, it does not apply. I was supplying a clarification.

The reply to Deputy Humphreys's question states that where requirements arise to support initiatives or provide services outside of the strict parameters of a project time line, as occurred in this instance, the recording of the full extent of such resource inputs is not assiduously observed.

I want to break down that sentence in order to understand it properly. In this instance, it was a requirement from the Taoiseach's office.

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes.

The reference to "support initiative or provide services outside of the strict parameters of a project time line". What does that mean?

Ms Clare McGrath

Where somebody doing the design has a particular instance of some concern they will consult with their colleagues who will provide information. That information might not be recorded by the colleague. They have a core responsibility to produce the work. Our organisation works on sharing knowledge between colleagues. I do not have all the information to hand now and I would prefer if I had.

I refer to the strict parameters of a project time line. What is meant by "strict parameters"?

Ms Clare McGrath

The Jewish museum may have been in a different category. Certainly, we have time lines on all our construction projects. We manage risk and we ensure the resources allocated are operating and working on a project. This was a somewhat different project because it was to someone else's time lines. It was being driven by-----

Someone else. As occurred in this instance, the reply states that the recording of the full extent of such resource inputs is not assiduously observed. Why were they not observed? If the OPW is doing a project on someone's time lines, it is still an architect sitting at a desk who may be working on the design for a designated time.

Ms Clare McGrath

The persons who were working on this project and who were responsible for the overall design, their time would be fully accounted on that project.

Fully accounted?

Ms Clare McGrath

All their time. However, all their time may not have been but the time they spent on it would have been.

The full extent of such resource inputs also includes people whose advice is obtained.

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes. A person with known expertise in an area such as air-conditioning, for example, might give advice on the scheme. They might not be recording that professional input.

For example, a person's time coming over to the desk to give advice might be clocked in as time on the project. That is what is meant when Ms McGrath says it is not being assiduously observed.

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes.

They may have spent 15 minutes thinking. Nevertheless, an estimate of technical contributions recorded from 2010 to 2013 on this project, such as architectural engineering and quantity surveying services equates to one person for 58 weeks. Why is the period from 2010 to 2013 and not from 2007 when the OPW was first engaged by the Department of the Taoiseach?

Ms Clare McGrath

I would have to look at where the scheme was developed. I think there might have been the concentration of the effort in the later period than in earlier times. While engaged in 2007 this project did not move for a considerable period of time. I think it may have been within our own organisation and elsewhere that there were particular circumstances. It was the case that the project did not get the effort until later.

There was a pause in the concentration of work. How was the estimate of the technical contributions achieved?

Ms Clare McGrath

It was by looking back through records and on what was involved and understood to be by line managers within those areas.

It was shown that person A spent ten hours-----

Ms Clare McGrath

I will not say exactly. I would need to consult my colleagues but I would imagine it would be along those lines.

I would like to have a detailed note on how that figure of one person for 58 weeks was arrived at and why the period is from 2010 to 2013. That information is important in order to be certain that the OPW is keeping a record of the work it is carrying out for anybody, not just in this instance but at any time. What is the cost of one person for 58 weeks? What grade is that person?

Ms Clare McGrath

I think it is at architectural grade. I am not sure but I can supply the pay scales.

I would like to have a note on those pay scales.

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes.

When Ms Murphy refers to one person for 58 weeks, is she talking about seven-day weeks or five-day weeks?

Ms Clare McGrath

I imagine it would be working weeks.

And a normal working day?

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes.

The committee has received correspondence about this. People have questions about how the OPW is conducting its work in these instances.

Ms Clare McGrath

The OPW conducts its work assiduously-----

That is clear from the conversation we are having. I am not raising any questions in that regard. However, the answer Deputy Kevin Humphreys received did not contain the level of detail I would like to have seen. It was not clear, for example, whether time was being clocked on the project or if there was a way of saying that an architect was at a desk doing work for a specific period of time. I am seeking clarity on that point, without in any way calling into question the work done by the OPW in general.

The Deputy is veering into a different area with these questions.

I am about to conclude, Chairman. I am asking about the current state of play in regard to this particular project. It is important to see where we are at. The oral hearings concluded in November 2013. Did that mark the end of the OPW's involvement in the project or is there more work to come?

Ms Clare McGrath

Any further work by the OPW would arise out of a request from elsewhere. Our resources were employed on the design and preparation process and the planning permission application has now been submitted. From my point of view, our involvement on that end of things is at an end.

Would any further work on this project by the OPW require a direction from Government?

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes.

Are any further bills expected relating to the external service providers who were engaged on the project?

Ms Clare McGrath

No.

When the OPW engages the expertise of external services, are other Departments generally involved in that process? In the case of this specific project, was any other State entity involved or was the OPW alone engaged in the planning and design?

Ms Clare McGrath

I am not aware of the involvement of any other State entities.

Am I right in saying that the OPW will not have a role during the construction phase?

Ms Clare McGrath

I am saying that our role is now complete in terms of the phase on which we were engaged to work.

The question of any further involvement will depend on a direction from Government.

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes.

I have a number of questions which I will go through briefly before our time is up. Ms McGrath might give a note to the clerk responding to these points. I asked the last day about the sale of Carrisbrook House and the costs or value for the State arising from that sale. I would like information on that point.

Under the analysis of administrative expenditure, the seventh item on the list refers to value for money and policy reviews. Could we have a copy of those reports to see what they are about, as well as the costs associated with conducting each of the reviews?

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes.

No. 2.9, net liability to the Exchequer, refers to a sum of €6 million as being moneys owing to the OPW. Will Ms McGrath provide a breakdown of that figure?

Ms Clare McGrath

That relates to payments of tax and VAT to the Revenue Commissioners. I will be happy to provide a breakdown.

No. 5.2, other remuneration arrangements, indicates that 12 retired civil servants were re-employed by the OPW at a cost of €198,790. Can we have a breakdown of those costs and the areas to which these persons were deployed, whether an area of speciality or otherwise in each case?

No. 6.4, provision of agency services, shows expenditure of €29 million, €21 million, €17 million and €6 million, respectively, under various headings. In the case of the €6 million allocation there is a reference to local loans, while the other sums refer to capital projects. Will Ms McGrath provide a breakdown of these items of expenditure?

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes. They are off the boat, so to speak, in that they relate to agency services. Other Departments pay for them but we administer them. I will provide a breakdown to the Chairman.

Mr. Paul Quinn has been appointed to head up the new Office of Government Procurement. Is Mr. Quinn working within the OPW and liaising closely with Ms McGrath?

Ms Clare McGrath

Mr. Quinn is not working within the OPW. The Office of Government Procurement is a separate office under the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

Does the OPW not retain a responsibility for procurement? Mc McGrath is reporting on it here.

Ms Clare McGrath

We are reporting in respect of 2012.

Henceforth, it will be done by the Office of Government Procurement?

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes.

Under the previous system, as led by the OPW, there was a number of procurement processes in place for, say, the provision of printers, stationery and so on. I am interested in the detail of the switch-over process and the value of the equipment for which the OPW was formerly responsible. My question relates specifically to any overlap that might have arisen. Perhaps Ms McGrath will speak to Mr. Quinn about this. When the new procurement process came into play, I understand equipment such as printers and photocopiers was taken out and new devices installed. Who got the value for the equipment that was taken out and how did that replacement transaction take place?

Deputy Connaughton made the point that many Oireachtas Members have received complaints that there was greater value for money at many locations around the country under the old system than what we are seeing now. When Ms McGrath provides the information I have requested, will she include the cost per copy under the old system compared with the cost under the new system? I am told that in terms of the national spend, it may look as if we are getting value for money but, in fact, a significant number of locations were getting better value under the previous system. I would like to tease out that argument at some stage with either Ms McGrath or Mr. Quinn, but it requires me to obtain the necessary information from both of them. We are dealing with two separate timeframes and two separate procurement processes.

The OPW provides €15.5 million in its accounts for maintenance under the urban flood relief scheme. Does it actually carry out that work?

Ms Clare McGrath

We carry out some of it.

Can Ms McGrath give me a list of where that money was spent?

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes.

My next question relates to the history of the OPW book. Will Ms McGrath supply a note on the cost to date of producing the book and where the value is being achieved in terms of that spend? Has the OPW now abandoned the project? I would also like to know how the procurement was done in respect of that process.

Deputy Connaughton asked about Garda stations. Will Ms McGrath provide a list of the stations that were sold, the price achieved in each case and the stations it is intended to sell? Will she also indicate the stations that were sold for community purposes?

In regard to State assets such as Kilkenny Castle, just to give an example, does the OPW list those sites and put a value opposite them for any purpose? If so, can we see it?

I understand the funding the OPW provides to local authorities for local flood relief projects and schemes is given by way of grants to individual authorities.

Who accounts for that? Is it the OPW or does it get lost in the local government audit?

Ms Clare McGrath

We account for it because it is part of our Vote.

So is the OPW actually in a position to account for it?

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes.

Will Ms McGrath communicate to me the details relating to it?

Ms Clare McGrath

Does the Chairman wish to know the details for 2012?

Yes and also for 2013 if the information is available. Money was allocated in respect of a number of the schemes and it did not prove to be sufficient. Much of the money was spent on engineering advice, etc., and, as a result, the actual work was not done. The local authorities have now returned to seek more money in order to carry out the work itself. These were supposed to be low-cost schemes. However, the local authorities have really done the rounds in the context of obtaining all sorts of opinions on them. Much of the money allocated has been used towards this end.

Mr. Tony Smyth

In some instances, that has happened. There is one scheme in the Chairman's area, in Graiguenamanagh or Thomastown, in respect of which legal difficulties arose when it was decided to implement a particular solution. The schemes usually proceed as normal. When I came before the committee last year, I stated that we were carrying out an audit of some of the schemes. Our report in that regard is almost ready and we will be able to supply a copy of it to the Chairman in approximately three weeks.

That is grand. I was going to refer to consultancy services but it relates to the value-for-money policy, the reviews, etc., and I have already covered it. Does the OPW pay for light and heat for the Oireachtas?

Ms Clare McGrath

No.

Does it pay for the printing of envelopes and so on?

Ms Clare McGrath

No, that comes out of the Vote for the Houses of the Oireachtas.

That is okay. I discussed a local issue with Ms McGrath and I would appreciate it if she could forward me a note on it.

I would like to clarify one matter with Ms McGrath. It is absolutely right that we should support our culture and heritage and that - as is the case in this instance - we should use State services to do so. In case there is any confusion, I am not calling into question how the OPW did its work in this instance or how it does that work normally. I am merely seeking more details in respect of the process. Can they be provided?

Ms Clare McGrath

Yes.

That is all the homework for our guests. I thank them for coming before the committee. Is it agreed that the committee dispose of Vote 13? Agreed.

The witnesses withdrew.
Sitting suspended at 1.35 p.m. and resumed in private session at 2 p.m.
The committee adjourned at 5.25 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 6 February 2014.
Barr
Roinn