Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

SELECT COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 16 Jun 2009

2009 Annual Output Statement.

On 23 April 2009, the Dáil referred the 2009 Revised Estimates for public services to committees for consideration. I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Finance with responsibility for the Office of Public Works, Deputy Martin Mansergh, and his officials. The purpose of the meeting is to consider the Revised Estimates and the output statement for Vote 10, which pertains to the Office of Public Works. An amended version of the Estimate, published in the 2009 Revised Estimates Volume in respect of subheads C3 and E of Vote 10, has been circulated for members' information. A draft timetable for the meeting has been circulated. It will allow for opening statements by the Minister of State and Opposition spokespersons, followed by a discussion on each Vote and the output statement. Is the timetable agreed? Agreed.

Members will be aware that as part of the budgetary process reforms initiated by the Minister for Finance in budget 2006, each Department must now publish an output statement for consideration by Oireachtas committees. In line with that reformed budgetary process, an output statement has been provided and circulated along with a briefing to members. This is an important initiative and is intended to facilitate better parliamentary involvement in the budget and Estimate processes. In addition, the Minister for Finance, in letters in 2008 and 2009, respectively, requested that the Estimates debates have a particular focus on the outputs to be achieved for the moneys being voted. In the 2009 letter from the Minister, the committee has again been asked to undertake a similar critical and co-ordinating role in respect of this round of the 2009 annual output statements. A letter has been sent to each of the select committees in this regard. If this committee has any constructive criticisms regarding the quality and nature of the documents and how they might be improved, I ask that they be articulated so that they can be brought to the Minister's attention. I call on the Minister of State to make his opening statement which will be followed by the opening statements of the Opposition spokespersons. I will then proceed to deal with individual programmes and subheads.

I am pleased to be here today, Bloomsday, to introduce the 2009 Revised Estimate and annual output statement for the Office of Public Works. On the last such occasion, 12 March 2008, I was on the opposite side of the table at the meeting of the select committee.

In line with the changing economic circumstances the gross allocation for the Office of Public Works will see a 27% decrease to €496 million comparing the Revised Estimates Volume for 2008 and 2009, respectively. Thus the OPW is making its full contribution to necessary reductions in Government expenditure, while maintaining core services. Committee members have a copy of the OPW annual output statement for 2009 and a summary brief on the subheads and allocations included in the OPW Vote this year. I hope these will prove useful when considering last year's output against allocation and the 2009 spending proposals.

With regard to the 2009 Estimate, although the gross allocation to Vote 10 amounts to €496 million, this does not reflect the full range of activities of the Office of Public Works. As well as expenditure under Vote 10, the OPW acts as an agent and incurs expenditure on behalf of a range of Departments and Government agencies. Funding for this expenditure is provided for the OPW by the sponsoring Department or agency and appears as a charge on the account of the client organisation. The cost of providing these services in 2008 was more than €117 million, the main areas of expenditure being major capital works, maintenance works, the purchase of school sites and buildings and leasing of accommodation. For example, the OPW's project management services provide specialist procurement and technical advice for the Government and various Departments on major projects such as Campus Stadium Ireland, the new Lansdowne Road stadium, the National Conference Centre and the redevelopment of the Mountjoy Prison site. These do not appear as expenditure items in the Vote but the OPW provides a valuable contribution to the overall process.

The reduced allocation for the Office of Public Works in 2009 reflects the overall Government priorities in leading the country and managing the economy through difficult times. The challenge for all Departments and Offices is to focus on their primary roles and ensure they can provide the optimum service for the public for the resources employed. I welcome the opportunity to demonstrate to the committee the value for money and premium service provided by the OPW. Its chairman and his staff have grasped the opportunity to seek maximum efficiencies and savings in carrying out their functions, while developing a greater focus on the primary responsibilities of the office.

I would like to outline some of the management and organisation measures implemented, before commenting on the programmes of work to be funded from the 2009 Vote 10 allocation. The Office of Public Works is first and foremost a service organisation. Our customers are the public, Departments and Government offices and the Government. Therefore, customer service is paramount. The acquisition and maintenance of ISO accreditation for each of the business units are priorities. All our services are being benchmarked against national and international best practice in the private sector and other public organisations. One example is the significant notional profit shown by the office's architectural service when notional income is measured against expenditure. This has recently been reinforced by a value for money report on the engineering service where a cost benefit analysis of the service proved very positive.

On the property side, a draft value for money report by independent consultants concluded that OPW negotiated rents compared favourably with market rents. The report suggested that, in effect, the OPW average rental rate approximated to the market rate for suburban space, even though many OPW properties are located in city and urban centres. A constant challenge for the office is the management of rental space for Departments. The annual allocation in Vote 10 for rents, rates, etc., in 2009 is €130.3 million. The office currently has a vacancy rate of only 1% of the portfolio, the minimum necessary to facilitate the efficient management of the portfolio.

The utilisation and rationalisation of space in office accommodation provided for Departments is a challenge for the office and will be all the more critical with the roll-out of decentralised accommodation in the coming months and years. Economies of space and cost, particularly in the Dublin area, will be a primary responsibility of the property management function of the office and the OPW is aware of the importance and scale of the task, particularly in the current economic climate. As part of that ongoing exercise, it is planned to surrender more than 10,600 sq. m of space in Dublin and Galway before the end of the financial year, with a reduction of more than €4 million in annual costs.

The committee will also be aware of the successful programme of surplus property disposals in recent years undertaken by the office generating in excess of €575 million in value to the Exchequer. Project management and property maintenance functions within the office have also continued to develop and refine construction cost norms for the wide range of building types for which it is responsible. Generally, the standard costs are below the industry norms for similar type buildings, and will continue to be benchmarked against best practice in the industry. As part of that ongoing process, the office is committed to fixed-price contracts for major construction projects and to framework contracts under the new conditions of engagement for the provision of professional and technical services.

I am confident the contract and procurement reforms will enhance the management and delivery of all such contracts by eliminating the scope for price variation and extras on major contracts in the future. Further inherent benefits that will accrue from that system of contracts will be greater clarity in planning, scheduling, timing and delivery of projects, while increasing accountability in the achievement of targets and goals and ultimately ensuring better value for money for the taxpayer — a key performance indicator for the future. Fixed-price contracts will also become the norm for major flood relief contracts, and is the basis on which the recently placed Fermoy flood relief project will proceed.

Apart from the major projects undertaken by the office, a huge staple of its activities is the provision of building maintenance and upkeep services. Recent improvements in that area have seen a move towards measured-term contracts for those services again providing enhanced value for money for the client and ultimately the public. In the area of procurement, the OPW has recently assumed responsibility for the newly established national procurement policy and operations unit. The unit will drive a programme of reform in the area of procurement aiming to provide a comprehensive shared service to Departments and other public bodies in this area. The immediate aim will be to extend the services currently provided for other public service organisations such as the HSE, while actively seeking opportunities to co-operate with our counterparts in the North, where possible. The scope of savings could be significant, and will focus on the provision of a wide range of services on a more centralised basis.

I now turn to the sub-programmes, as set out in the annual output statement. The first programme, decentralisation, is part of the economic infrastructure priority in the national development plan, and has a gross budget of €57 million. Decentralisation has provided the OPW with one of its greatest recent challenges. The office needs to continue to carry out its full range of activities — including delivery of the accommodation requirements for the decentralisation programme — while at the same time planning for its own move to Trim, Claremorris and Kanturk. At this point, we have advance offices functioning in both Trim and Claremorris. The fit-out of the Trim headquarters building is well advanced, and we plan to move there during the third quarter of the year.

Advance decentralised accommodation is now in place at 21 locations nationwide. While staffing numbers vary from town to town, there is now a significant presence in each of those locations. The construction and fit-out of the accommodation programme is proceeding in line with priorities set out by the decentralisation implementation group, and is provided for under subhead E, with a budget of €52 million for 2009. In 2008 work was completed and buildings occupied in Athlone, Killarney, Newcastle West, Na Forbacha, Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, and Tipperary Town, the Private Security Authority.

I am pleased to say that 2009 will see further openings at new facilities in Clonakilty, Wexford, Newbridge, Buncrana and Trim is now under way. Subject to final approval, further contracts are planned in a number of the following locations: Roscommon, Tipperary, Charlestown, the Curragh and Claremorris and the midlands bundle at Carlow, Portlaoise and Mullingar. Part of the economic infrastructure priority of the NDP is the Government sites and buildings subprogramme. The function of the subprogramme is to respond to the accommodation provision needs of Departments, while continuing to achieve best use of State property assets through a balance of ownership, leasing and disposal and to maintain and upkeep the State property portfolio.

A number of individual projects and ongoing programmes will be managed in 2009 as part of the project development and management aspect of the programme under subhead E. Major works will advance for several clients in 2009, namely, the Department of Social and Family Affairs at Buncrana and Kings Inns and the Department of Transport at Dundalk and Leeson Lane, Dublin. Both projects will be completed in 2010. Other clients are the Department of Education and Science with a project in Sligo and the probation and welfare section of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform with projects in Blanchardstown and Ashtowngate, Dublin. The latter is in respect of the Garda Síochána.

Due to the increase in numbers on the live register, 2009 will see an acceleration in the provision of additional accommodation for the Department of Social and Family Affairs local office network. The increase in customers and staff is putting extreme pressure on the local office accommodation. Additional resources have been assigned to provide for capital works in 2009 to assist the Department. As part of this, accommodation is to be provided in Balbriggan, Swords, Cavan, Killarney, Ballina and Mallow and refurbishment work. In many cases, the provision of additional office space is also planned for at least 11 other locations. The fit-out of the new Dublin north city local office at Kings Inns, Parnell Street, will be completed in 2009.

A sum of €42 million is provided under subhead F.1 in 2009 for property maintenance tasks, which will be carried out to schedule and to the satisfaction of the client. Facilities management services are currently being delivered at Dublin Castle conference centre, Farmleigh, Áras an Uachtaráin and the Department of Education and Science, Marlborough Street, Castletown House and Kilkenny Castle.

The third sub-programme in the output statement is flood risk management, for which the capital allocation falls under the community infrastructure priority in the national development plan, NDP. It has a gross budget of €67 million on Vote 10, subheads G and H.1 to H.3, inclusive. The function of the programme is to advise the Government on flood risk management and flood risk management policy, develop detailed programmes and measures to implement the recommendations of the report of the flood policy review group, deliver on flood risk management work programmes and projects and maintain an effective programme of maintenance of river courses drained under the provisions of the Arterial Drainage Acts.

A budget of €43 million was provided for the flood relief capital works programme in 2009. Major flood relief schemes will be advanced to construction stage at Fermoy north, Mallow south, Mornington, Enniscorthy and Templemore and detailed design development is also under way for further stages at Clonmel north and east, Ennis lower and Fermoy south. In addition, flood relief schemes have been brought to statutory public exhibition at Enniscorthy and Templemore. A current budget of €18.1 million is provided in subhead H.3 for the arterial drainage maintenance programme to maintain a scheduled programme of maintenance of river courses drained under the Arterial Drainage Acts. In this context, the River Lee catchment area study has been on exhibition in Cork City Hall.

The OPW also has responsibility for the purchase of Garda sites and improvement works at Garda stations under the social infrastructure priority. This forms part of the justice programme and, in conjunction with the Garda Síochána, priority works will be carried out in 2009 for the Ballyshannon traffic corps and the Garda stations in Carlow, Ballymote, Blanchardstown, Buncranna, Craughwell, Delvin, Finglas, Mooncoin, Kilmainham, Ronanstown and Clonmany. Refurbishment and provision of enhanced Garda facilities to existing stations are due on site this year in Kilkenny, Cavan, Blarney, Wexford and Henry Street, Limerick.

The culture and built heritage sub-programmes are also part of the social infrastructure priority. The combined allocation for these programmes in 2009 is €75 million, which will allow for the payment of certain grants, improvement works at cultural institutions and the management of heritage services. Improvement works at the National Gallery, the Irish Museum of Modern Art and at Collins Barracks on behalf of the National Museum of Ireland will occur in 2009. The culture sub-programme also provides for grants, totalling €6 million, for Dublin Zoo, Glasnevin Cemetery and the Louvain Institute. Following the postponement of major works at Leinster House, a number of minor improvement works will take place during the summer recess, including the restoration of Leinster Lawn.

The heritage sub-programme has a gross budget of €63 million. The function of the programme is to cater for the conservation of heritage sites, deliver a premium visitor experience and promote the education of visitors on the significant historic aspects of national heritage sites. Heritage services will continue to manage in excess of 700 sites, catering for up to 3 million visitors annually, and protect site fabric from deterioration and damage by a continuing programme of planned maintenance, adopting best architectural and conservation principles. The OPW will manage and prioritise a works programme, partly in conjunction with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, to include works at the following: Botanic Gardens; the Phoenix Park; the site of the Battle of the Boyne; the Pearse Museum, St. Enda's Park; Heywood Gardens; the Rock of Cashel; Nenagh Castle; Boyle Abbey; Castletown; and other heritage buildings within the State property portfolio such as the Four Courts complex and Áras an Uachtaráin.

The final sub-programme of the OPW Vote in 2009 is the universal access sub-programme which is part of the social inclusion programme and will see ongoing and new works on State-owned buildings to provide a disability-friendly environment for the public. The committee should be aware that the disability-friendly environment sub-programme does not represent the full extent of works taking place to make public buildings accessible to all. All major construction projects undertaken by the office ensure the best access facilities are included in the design solutions of all works, despite not accounting for them on a separate basis.

The committee can be assured that the State property portfolio is being properly and prudently cared for and managed. I compliment the chairman and staff of the OPW on meeting the many challenges presented to them. I am confident they will continue to provide an efficient and effective service under the comprehensive brief in their charge.

I welcome the Minister of State and his officials. Having listened to his statement and read the annual output statement, one would get the impression that everything proceeded as expected in 2008. However, the financial figures show that the investment in flood relief works was 18% less than was planned for, the investment in respect of the Garda was 25% less than was planned for, the investment in decentralisation was 35% less than was planned for, and the investment in disability services was 40% less than was planned for. I am somewhat bemused that a Minister of State would present the outcomes for 2008 and not advert in any way to programmes that had to be postponed or strategies that had to be changed. Am I missing something? Is the impact of the substantial savings explained somewhere? I am not arguing against the savings made. I am not arguing that it was correct or otherwise to make them; we simply do not have the information to make a judgment and on how the Minister of State chose them.

A very important impact indicator published by the Department and which the Minister of State claims is crucial to his main job, the operation of Government offices and space, concerns the timely, energy-efficient and cost-effective delivery of services. The Minister of State alluded to optimum management of the portfolio and the need to provide a disability-friendly environment. Such indicators are set out in the impact statements. One would be forgiven for believing all the Minister of State did was write these as impact indicators because, when one considers the annual output statement and outputs the Minister of State claimed to achieve, one will note there is no reference to any of these indicators. The only reference is in the Minister of State's own statement, which I welcome. He has said the vacancy rate is only 1%, which could clearly be an indicator of cost effectiveness. However, I do not understand why, if there was a draft value-for-money report by independent consultants, it has not been factored into the Minister of State's presentation on outcomes. Why are we treated to a very selective edit only? What does a vacancy rate of 1% mean? Does it mean the occupancy rate of the space is efficient?

We honestly need to see a proper assessment of what constitutes efficiency. The selection of the vacancy rate as the indicator to present to the committee smacks of a desire to report one very good performance indicator rather than many others that might have been included in the draft report. As I stated last year, and obviously not much heed was paid to it, we ought to be presented with something akin to what a private property management company would present in terms of how effective it is.

We are told the OPW's target is to be timely, energy efficient and cost effective in its delivery of decentralisation but again we are not presented with any framework within which it judges these issues other than whether it is building what it stated it would build or buying the sites it stated it would buy. That is not good enough. We do not want the Committee of Public Accounts reporting in five or six years that we have buildings half-occupied or that it proved to be a terrible lemon in the way it was developed. There is an obligation on the Department to present transparently what is happening and I do not see it. What is being reported is minimal; it is a box-ticking exercise. The impact the office is trying to measure is whether it is timely, energy efficient and cost effective and we need to see that. Presumably it revolves around many issues with regard to occupancy and the pace at which other people move to take up the space. Some of this might not be in the control of the OPW but we still need to know whether other Departments are being recalcitrant in meeting the commitments they made. The OPW ought to present us with that information so that we can direct our questions to relevant Departments which may be dragging their feet.

We are entering into a very difficult phase with regard to capital funding and the Government has chosen to cut back on many capital programmes. I am concerned that often what appears to be savings in Government accounts is really not maintaining capital; we do not present our accounts in the usual way that a private business does where money is set aside to keep assets intact. I am interested to hear the comments of the OPW on whether we are maintaining our capital.

With regard to the Garda, the OPW has cut the programme by 25% this year and another cut of 29% is proposed for next year. Is part of this simply allowing decay to set in and in a few years time will we find that this was a very short-sighted decision because we have failed to maintain our assets? Because of the very strange way we account for capital spending now that we are on a downward trend in capital spending the need will be more acute to have some way of hearing from the OPW in its output statement that we are maintaining our assets as well as making savings or postponing programmes.

Very substantial savings were delivered on flood risk this year with 18% less than intended being spent. To read the output statement it would seem that everything was on track. I do not know what fell off the table in terms of projects the OPW hoped to achieve. Will they reappear next year? To be a bit parochial, I am interested to know what is happening to the project to provide relief on the Clontarf seafront. This is a project that has been in gestation for quite some time and an earthworks barrier is proposed which would effectively be like building a saucer on the seafront so that at high tide the water would flush back out again. Has money been set aside for this project? I understand it is coming to the end of its environmental impact assessment process.

The OPW has always been regarded as a professional outfit, but I would like to see this backed up by presenting to the committee a genuine warts and all picture of what is going on. The Minister of State has indicated his intention to find savings of 10,600 sq.m of space in Dublin. The question is whether all Departments have bought into the plan. Are they going to deliver on it? Who is driving the agenda? Is it a team within the OPW which does not have the authority to force people out if they do not want to move, or is it an aspiration that depends on Departments? I suspect the OPW has enormous problems with some of its clients who say they will do something but then when it comes to it, will do not do it at all. If that is the case, we ought to be seeing this. It may be the case that they are all perfect and move exactly when they say will. If it is a strategic objective to release space, I presume a steering group is driving it. Who is in charge and what will be the consequences if another Department does not meet the deadline, swings the lead for six months and does not move? I understand Departments do not pay rent to the OPW. What disciplinary action is taken or what are the consequences for such a Department?

Does the Minister of State wish to reply to both questions together?

Perhaps the Minister of State might reply to the first question.

Yes. I might get lost in the detail. Deputies should feel free to come back to me on anything I do not address.

Reference was made to the 18% reduction in the investment in flood prevention works. That is not really a cost reduction measure. It is more a case of planning works according to a different schedule. Projects can be delayed for technical reasons which do not necessarily have anything to do with the availability of finance. It is probably difficult to accurately predict what one will be able to spend in a year, especially in the area of flood relief. Flood relief schemes have a particularly high priority because of existing serious problems but also because of the precautionary principle in regard to climate change. Personally, I regard it as my highest priority. One of the first questions I asked when I went to the Office of Public Works was what evidence was there of climate change in the incidence of flooding. The answer I received a year ago was straightforward — none to date. That does not mean climate change is not in danger of occurring and affecting us. Most of the flood relief schemes are being constructed according to the 100 year protection standard, which is normal, although it varies in some places. If need be, defences can be further raised at relatively little cost.

Deputy Bruton will be aware that a total of €75 million was taken from our budget in July, which affected outputs. He will also be aware that there has been rationalisation, at least pro tempore, of the decentralisation programme in the sense that those projects that are viable, where there are plenty of people to fill posts, and where there is a good justification for them are proceeding. However, projects in which the critical mass for taking a decision has not been built have been deferred until 2011 for further consideration.

Some specific regional studies of the benefits of decentralisation have been conducted, most notably by the Western Development Commission, on the impact of the relocation of staff at the Departments of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, and Social and Family Affairs to Tubbercurry and Carrick-on-Shannon, respectively. Living close to a town to which staff have been decentralised, I am well aware of the impact of the programme at local and regional level.

I do not want to cut across the Minister of State, but he is essentially claiming that he wants to be timely, energy efficient and cost effective, none of which has anything to do with the social benefits of the decentralisation programme. It is a narrow, property-related exercise. When I asked about the outcome, I expected to be told about the delay between building completion and full occupation, whether there were still vacancies in buildings and whether the programme was on target in terms of cost. Since this information must be available to the Minister of State, its absence is a mystery. I agree that flood relief programmes can move more slowly, but I would have expected a statement on whether projects were two months from completion and, if so, whether An Bord Pleanála was the reason for the delay. Is this information being reported?

In parliamentary questions I am always asked about specific projects, changes in timescales and so on. The information——

If these projects have an impact, why are we not being told about them in the report?

It is a question of the level of detail that should be included in the report. For example, the project at Fermoy was delayed because we needed to switch from the traditional form of contract to a fixed price lump sum contract. The spend on other projects was lower than anticipated due to the need to reschedule river works to comply with environmental regulations.

Any decent system would have a green, orange or red rating scheme. Delays signal someone's failure. A file was not advanced; a plan was not created or a design was not——

I am not aware of any failures on the flood relief side.

We need to see such reporting. If there are failures, such an exercise would exert pressure on whoever is managing project X, Y or Z, as he or she would know that a report on the failure would be presented to this committee, the Dáil or somewhere else. We require to be presented with an adequate reason for failures. Such information is lacking from the Minister of State's presentation.

Let us deal with the issue of flood relief first followed by other topics.

The flood relief investment scheme has been successful. Where schemes have been completed, towns have not flooded during times of bad weather. A graphic example was the River Suir in County Tipperary in January. Clonmel was badly flooded and works are only under way. Phase one has not been completed, although it will be in September. Downriver in Carrick-on-Suir where flood defences were completed, there was no flooding and the town was able to send its fleet of boats to help in Clonmel. As the flood relief programme has been an extraordinary success, I apologise I do not have failures to report.

As I stated in my qualifying remarks on climate change, it may be that what at present satisfies the one-in-100-years requirement will not prove sufficient, depending on the pace of climate change and its impact on Ireland. However, in a sense we have allowed for this by way of a design that will allow us to build up the necessary defences at minimal extra cost should the danger materialise and such investment seem to be justified.

On the climate change issue, is the Minister of State's Department not in constant touch with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government? I am Chairman of the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security and note there is considerable information submitted to us on changes in weather patterns in this country. I recommend that the Minister of State talk to Professor John Sweeney from Maynooth urgently because what we face is staggering. If one is planning for the future, one should be aware of all this readily available information.

We are aware of it. I asked whether flooding incidents to May 2008 showed evidence of climate change. That is an empirical question and the answer is "No". I fully accept that does not mean climate change will not increase the risk of flooding, but the weather patterns and flooding caused by extreme events to date cannot be attributed to climate change.

That is not the information we are receiving.

With respect, the engineers employed by the Office of Public Works who are flood experts should be in a position to offer an informed opinion. That is not to say climate change is not having other effects. It does not mean to say it will not begin to affect flooding patterns seriously in the future. I am not disputing this but referring to the empirical evidence accumulated to date.

Deputy Bruton asked about flood defences in Clontarf. We have agreed with Dublin City Council to combine the Clontarf flood defences works with the proposed main drainage works. The council is advancing the project and the Office of Public Works has earmarked the funds required. We have only assumed responsibility for coastal defences, as opposed to inland flooding defences, since 1 January this year.

Deputy Bruton also asked whether it was short-sighted not to maintain Garda stations. The clients — the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Garda Síochána — undertake maintenance works, while we carry out major building and refurbishment works. The Office of Public Works is not responsible for the maintenance of Garda stations; it funds them.

On the question of occupancy and vacancies, all of us who have worked in the public service have experience of offices that are overcrowded and others that are not fully occupied. No decentralisation project was approved until there were sufficient numbers to fill the offices or fill them to a very large extent. There are many decentralised offices in temporary premises.

Will we see a table showing the properties vacated or filled, their capacity and the percentage of occupancy? That would seem to be a fairly standard document with which the Minister of State should be presented by his departmental officials on a regular basis.

We have answered many parliamentary questions along those lines.

I am not talking about parliamentary questions but about the Minister of State managing his Department and presenting us with a report showing that outcomes are being delivered.

If we are requested for more detail on anything which is being discussed——

Take this as a request.

I would be requested by the committee Chairman and secretary with the agreement of the committee, but I am very happy to supply the Deputy with whatever information the committee needs to fulfil its——

I do not want to hold up proceedings, but the Minister of State needs this information; he is running the Department and needs to be able to see——

If six volumes are brought to this committee——

The Minister of State can condense it and we can seek further information. All I am saying is that an output and impact indicators report is remiss in not presenting us with this basic information on the success of the programme on an aggregative basis.

The OPW's brief, as opposed to the wider brief of the Department of Finance, is to build buildings. The Department of Finance is involved with the central applications facility and the actual filling of them. I take note of the Deputy's remarks which we will certainly try to bear in mind in future annual output statements.

We have been asked by the Minister for Finance to make recommendations that we consider would make annual output statements more meaningful and we will take note of this point.

I welcome the Minister of State and his team of officials. Earlier he noted that today is Bloomsday. It is remarkable that if we were to draw a map of the Dublin buildings mentioned, it would include the zoo, Glasnevin Cemetery, the Phoenix Park, the Botanic Gardens, Earlsfort Terrace and Marsh's Library. The only feature that would not feature is the River Liffey and the flood defences, but perhaps I will ask the Minister of State about this and Mullingar House.

I have a number of questions, some of which I have asked previously by way of parliamentary question. I compliment the staff of the OPW on their work, particularly on some of the public facilities available. At this time of immense economic difficulty, one of the ways of helping the economy to recover is through tourism; much of this work will be of the type facilitated by the OPW through the provision of walking trails, access to national parks, facilities and sites. The OPW has an important role to play in this regard. Properly done, its capital spending forms an important part of a stimulus programme. In that sense I strongly support the OPW being used for this purpose.

I have a number of general questions for the Minister of State on decentralisation. With regard to the projects which have stalled and are on hold, the Minister of State replied to me on properties which had been acquired at a number of locations in Cavan and parts of Waterford, Kilkenny and north Tipperary and where decentralisation has been deferred. In particular, he referred to a site in Waterford which had cost €8 million. He said that where it looked like decentralisation was being indefinitely deferred, for example, in Dungarvan, at a cost of €2.3 million, he would be looking at ways to achieve value for those sites and properties. What is the position on these sites and properties? For instance in the Phoenix Park, near my constituency, Ordnance Survey Ireland was due to relocate to Dungarvan, but for a variety of reasons it does not look like that will ever fully happen.

Does the OPW have a perspective on what happens with projects? I note that the Minister of State has indicated that more than 20 projects or moves have been completed. Originally, 53 decentralisation projects were identified by the then Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy. He said they were "do or die" projects. The number seems to be down to the low 20s. What is the Minister of State's take on where the decentralisation programme currently stands? It is clear that much money has been expended. The Minister responded to a parliamentary question from me on a number of sites and offices that the approximate total involved was €16 million. What is the game plan, if any, on decentralisation projects?

What is the position on the advance parties of civil servants who in some cases, because permanent facilities were not ready, were accommodated in facilities rented on a temporary basis? Specific locations have been mentioned from time to time in the media such as buildings in the Carrick-on-Shannon area which appear to have been acquired, leased or rented — I am not sure what the case is — but which are largely empty, except for the advance parties. Does the Minister of State have a management framework in terms of what is happening to these buildings? Is the Office of Public Works looking after these sites and buildings and holding them in reserve for the future?

I wish to refer to a specific site in my constituency, namely, the old bank site on Main Street, Blanchardstown, which was acquired approximately seven years ago by the OPW and intended for various purposes. At one stage it was to be something to do with the probation and welfare service, but at another it was to be used for driver testing. I asked the Minister of State about it because a local organisation providing training for people with an intellectual disability was interested in acquiring or renting the building. It is a charitable organisation for young adults with an intellectual disability, but no progress has been made due to a lack of information on the building. It was bought when property prices were high for a handsome figure, which I presume is not recoverable. If the Minister of State does not have the details, I would appreciate if he could forward a reply to me.

The next question relates to the position on the review of rent downward. I asked the Department about the matter some time ago. Like most organisations which rent property, the OPW is in a situation where rents are continuously reviewed upwards. In the budget the Minister for Finance suggested a reduction in service costs, which I presume includes rental charges, of approximately 7%. Has such a reduction been achieved and are such rental charges being negotiated? I presume for the most part the clients are either insurance companies, pension funds or property developers. Is the OPW negotiating with them? One of the problems with decentralisation was that so many sites were chosen — 53 in total — there were mini property booms in the locations targeted. The prices of many properties in these areas went through the roof. Is the Department now being offered really attractive bargains in renting for advance parties or renting or leasing more permanent sites?

I have specific questions on the Phoenix Park. Steward's House in Farmleigh which was prepared as a potential Taoiseach's residence was refurbished and looks lovely from the outside. As it is in my constituency, I know the outside of it well. Quite a few million euro was spent on it. Has it ever been used, either during the day or overnight? If so, by whom?

The Minister of State, as a former member of the committee, may remember that I long advocated to his predecessor that there be more playgrounds for children in facilities. I used the Phoenix Park as an example. I am delighted the playground at Ashtown Castle is very successful and very much used by children and parents. However, there is still a case for having a children's playground in Farmleigh. The lands are extensive enough to accommodate it.

Public facilities such as those provided by the OPW are generally not vandalised at night by teenagers. By and large, they are closed at night and subject to caretaking and supervision. They serve as places where separated parents, men in particular, can bring their children rather than McDonald's. The Phoenix Park is a wonderful example of the facility to which I refer. It costs parents nothing other than the cost of getting there. The model could be replicated throughout the country. I urge the OPW to have an active programme. While I realise this has been the case in a number of areas, it could be extended.

With regard to family tourism and amenities to attract visitors from Ireland and abroad, we really do not have enough child-friendly facilities. I urge the Minister of State to consider this.

Has the bus operation in the Phoenix Park been successful? One does not see many people on the buses. The main users of the park are the several thousand people who work there. They all park their cars there. What happened to the brave move in a certain budget to impose a charge on civil servants for car parking and to urge them to cycle or walk to work? A free bus is provided in the Phoenix Park. How is this received, not only by visitors but also by the staff of the various public bodies who work in the park?

What is to be the future of the Natural History Museum? Perhaps we are back to James Joyce at this point. The powers that be in Leinster House seem to have designs on the museum. Various parties in Leinster House seem to have their eye on it, perhaps for the Oireachtas——

Not Fianna Fáil.

I refer to committees which have always been eyeing the museum rather covetously. Perhaps that is why the stairs collapsed; I do not know. What is the story on the Natural History Museum? Speaking about children and visitor attractions in Dublin, it was a major children's attraction in Dublin. Is it long-fingered indefinitely or do we have a more interesting programme?

Does the Minister of State know how many OPW staff have opted for the voluntary retirement scheme and the other schemes announced in the budget allowing people to take time out? Are people in the OPW as concerned about potentially taxing Civil Service lump sums as people seem to be in other Departments?

With regard to the decentralisation project, the Minister of State said that the office in Trim will open later this year. What is the position on people who transferred into the OPW expecting to go to Trim? What has been the change of personnel in the OPW, particularly in the St. Stephen's Green head office, who did not want to go to Trim and decided to try to stay put in the Dublin region as opposed to those who opted with alacrity for Trim and are still waiting to go there? What is the turnover of staff?

To return to the point I made on stimulus, what is the position of the OPW on apprenticeships and graduate training internship schemes, which the Labour Party promotes? Does the OPW see itself as having any role in that?

As the Minister of State knows, the position with regard to architects and architects firms is that work has died. There were references to where when firms have fallen below a certain size it becomes very difficult for them to compete in competitions run by the OPW even though those firms may well have world-class reputations. Is this under review? Subject to EU procurement rules I would like to hear that Irish architectural firms are enabled and encouraged to apply for OPW work where it is available.

The preferred method of financing was PPP for a number of OPW schemes but as everybody knows the cost of financing PPPs is astronomical. Has the OPW considered any alternative method of financing?

The Deputy has asked many questions and one of them related to flooding in Clontarf. We will prioritise the Liffey catchment flood risk assessment — as we have done with the River Lee — which I launched a couple of months ago. Preparatory work is at an advanced stage in partnership with Dublin City Council.

Does "prioritising" mean moving it ahead of the Clontarf project?

Flood risk assessment is a separate matter. I am a bit unclear about who asked me about the Liffey.

I mentioned the Liffey but only in the context of Ulysses, Joyce and the Minister of State’s reference to Bloomsday. It was not listed here and the Minister of State has now completed the map for Bloomsday.

Would the response be different based on who asked the question?

What about the Brian Boru historic sites?

Before answering any flippant questions I will answer those questions asked by Deputy Burton. I thank her for the compliments paid to the OPW; it is a fine public service organisation and one of the oldest in this island and dates back to the early 1830s. We are conscious of the importance of heritage sites to tourism, which is not just about people coming here from outside the country; it is also about Irish people visiting various places around the country. One should never be afraid to be a tourist in one's own country. There is an accent on making sites more accessible and also, where suitable, making more use of them, not just for visits but for performances and events. I attended a pleasant event called Taste of Dublin on Sunday in the Iveagh Gardens, where there were huge crowds. I am conscious that the type of capital spending we undertake, which is not on housing and apartments, is capable of providing a stimulus. We are subject to Government decisions but if there was a need from a general economic point of view to bring forward projects relatively quickly, we would be in a position to do that.

In the case of the decentralisation sites, in general we have bought sites not offices. Where there has been deferral, and depending on whether there is further deferral in 2011, which I imagine there is bound to be in some cases at least, then it will be a question of achieving value for them in some other way.

Is NAMA taking them over?

No, I do not think so. We do not need NAMA to manage our properties. We are in discussion with various organisations around the country on them. The Deputy is correct to say there are community or other public service organisations on the look-out for buildings or sites. If a good case can be made, and usually speaking that must be done more than just bilaterally, one must bear in mind that other people might be entitled to express an interest. For example, in my constituency in Tipperary, a disused social welfare office was made over without any money changing hands to the VEC to provide an adult literacy service. In other cases community groups have been interested in acquiring buildings. In County Limerick, for example, there was a case in Murroe, which I personally regret, where there was a desire to have a playground but we were advised by the Garda Síochána that as it was an expanding area, it was not prepared to release the adjacent ground. We were not in charge of the situation. Where land is occupied by the Garda Síochána, in the final analysis, it has the say on whether that land is to be released. All we can do is try to persuade and influence people.

Deputy Burton inquired about the former AIB premises in Main Street, Blanchardstown. It was proposed that it would be suitable for use as a driving test centre and the building was consequently assigned to the Department of Transport. A formal planning application to develop the premises was launched in September 2007. There was some toing and froing, but the final planning permission was received in May 2008. In the current financial climate, there are no immediate plans to progress the project further. However, the position will be kept under review in light of the developing financial situation. A formal decision on whether to proceed with the driving test centre at that location would be required before alternative uses could be considered.

As I stated in reply to a slightly different point, we have received representations from a number of bodies and organisations over the years seeking to acquire premises for various purposes. Should we accede to such a request and while we always try to be helpful, we have an obligation to show that the decision was made in a fair and equitable manner and that we are not prematurely disposing of a property that is still required, albeit with some delay, for its original purpose.

The proposal for a driver testing centre was always odd because such centres inevitably feature cars, yet this main street property has little or no parking facilities. The reasons for designating it as a centre were obscure. The people who provide the services for young adults with intellectual disabilities already run three premises in Dublin 15 for a swathe of the city's north side as far as Santry. They could provide significant extra placements. The site will never be used as a driver testing centre. It is on a main street, there is almost no parking and there is certainly no parking in front of it on the public street, which is already overcrowded.

In light of the Deputy's comments and while I am not familiar with the site, we should——

It has been vacant for seven and a half years.

——try to expedite consideration and a final decision on whether it is ever likely to——

I will write to the Minister of State again.

——be used as a driving test centre so that the Deputy's proposal can be considered.

The next question was on the downward review of rent. While it is true that some prior rental agreements only contained an upward rent review clause, most leases made during recent decades contain break clauses. If one knows that a break is coming in the lease in two or three years' time, one has scope for entering into discussion with the lessor in anticipation. One might choose to tell the lessor that, given the break, it is unlikely that one would be renewing the lease unless the State's financial interests and the general state of the market are accommodated. Even in the absence of a downward rent review, there would be some leverage for negotiating lesser rents in many instances, even though the lessors would not be legally obliged to do so.

I will turn now to the question of the Phoenix Park steward's house. The Taoiseach has occasionally stayed there overnight. That is understandable nowadays, with the state of the roads and the assumption that often he cannot go home in the middle of rush hour, though probably the journey to Tullamore does not necessarily take very long. The house has also been used for meetings. Obviously a house of this nature is not just of use to the present incumbent but is potentially useful to future incumbents. As Deputy Barrett, in particular, will remember, the issue of a suitable Taoiseach's residence, particularly for a Taoiseach from outside Dublin, but not necessarily so, has arisen before. It goes back to the time of Jack Lynch. The idea was abandoned in 1980 as a cost-cutting measure. Many Taoisigh I have known would have hesitated about going to live anywhere grand at the public's expense. The steward's house does not fall into that category. Farmleigh House itself may fall into this category but it is not under consideration as a Taoiseach's residence. The steward's house is appropriate for the purpose. It is not the case that it is unused; it has been used on occasion and no doubt will be used more in the future.

I have four grandchildren and very much agree with what Deputy Burton said about the value of good playgrounds, which can keep children happy for a couple of hours, at least. I had great pleasure going, for the first time in my life, to Doneraile Park, where I opened a brilliant playground. It is pretty much vandal proof, unless vandals go to enormous lengths to get in at night. It is shut off at an appropriate time. We have also opened a playground in Kilkenny and there is one near the walled garden in the Phoenix Park. The question of having one in Farmleigh is a matter for further consideration but the general principle of modern well-produced playgrounds with surfaces that look like concrete but which are actually very soft is good. Such playgrounds are of enormous value.

We are always looking for opportunities to encourage increased use of our properties. Once people come to a property for one purpose, they may come to it for another. In many cases, there is a tremendous throughput, particularly at weekends. That is what State property is for. These places, regardless of their history, belong to us now and it is up to us to make maximum use of them. In many cases, we are investing quite an amount of money in them and, therefore, there should be a return, not necessarily a financial return but a return in terms of amenity enjoyment.

The bus in the Phoenix Park is not free and has not been very successful. In some instances, these sorts of services take time to build up. The No. 92 bus from Heuston Station to outside Leinster House and the OPW offices, which I use quite a lot, used always to be empty but is now used much more frequently. People must get used to a service being available but I am not absolutely sure what else we can do. Part of the problem is the Phoenix Park is so vast that many locations are miles apart and the bus travels through the centre of the park. I watched an unhappy film about Cromwell in Ireland last night but the park is at least one positive legacy of the 17th century to Dublin from the Duke of Ormonde, which I am glad we have not dissipated. The critics who make me go wild are those who suggest we should turn our fine parks in Dublin into social housing. There are many other sites for that. I recall a suggestion relating to St. Anne's Park.

The chairman of an bord snip made that proposal. Can I expect to see it again?

I have the greatest respect for the chairman but not for that proposal.

I refer to the National History Museum. Many people may want to take the place of dinosaurs and prehistoric animals or even stuffed animals but it is our aim to have the restoration work completed and the museum open to the public by September 2009. The cost will be €750,000. The museum is popular and anyone entering Leinster House over the years will have seen the queues of schoolchildren visiting the museum. To my shame, I only visited it about five or six years ago, despite working in nearby buildings for a long time. We all look forward to the reopening. It would be a mistake — and this applies equally to the National Gallery and the National Library, which are also located beside Leinster House — if we or anyone else cannibalised those buildings for another use.

In restoring Leinster Lawn, how many car parking spaces will be lost?

This will not only affect Leinster Lawn. There are car parking spaces at the front of Leinster House and one or two spaces in the vicinity. The net loss will be 38 spaces. This has been discussed exhaustively by the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission and I had several sessions with its members. A deficit of 39 spaces must be found by the OPW in Leinster House but the net reduction will return the number of spaces to the level available in 1998. Public transport around Leinster House has improved considerably. Commuter rail is available nearby, bus routes pass on both sides of the House, the Luas is available at St. Stephen' Green and there is a bus connection direct to Heuston Station. There is an all-party policy to encourage greater use of public transport and it is not possible to make the claim that Leinster House is not served by public transport. The opposite is the case and more availability will be provided in the future if all goes well through the connected up Luas lines, the metro and the interconnector. Last week, I looked in on a display at Jury's Inn on Parnell Street on connecting the Luas lines, given that I have certain responsibility for St. Stephen's Green.

Does the Minister of State propose to rent or replace the 39 spaces lost with other spaces?

It is not that all of the spaces are lost; the idea is to restore the same number of spaces as in 1998 and that will be somewhat down on what is available at present.

The next question was on voluntary retirement in the OPW. We will have to double-check but the number is between three and five.

What is the impact of the embargo?

We are discussing voluntary retirement, which is a separate issue.

What does the Minister of State anticipate will be the impact of the embargo in terms of natural wastage?

We are down 18 since last December. In some cases, such as with regard to seasonal tour guides, while there may have been some reduction one could not operate these places if one was not able to recruit or re-recruit them and we have the permission of the Department of Finance to do so.

Decentralisation is on a voluntary basis. The specific question was on the position with regard to the OPW moving to Trim. I intend to take up an office in Trim outside of Dáil sitting times. Naturally, between Tuesday lunchtime or early afternoon and an indeterminate time on Thursday I would not be able to hotfoot it from Trim to here in time for a vote. I am fortunate that I am kept fit coming from No. 52 St. Stephen's Green. A total of 333 posts are due to go to Trim and, for the sake of completion, 104 posts are to go to Claremorris in phase one of the project. Phase two has been deferred to 2011 and the 88 posts to Kanturk have been deferred altogether pending a review in 2011.

With regard to Trim, the fit-out of the new building is due to be completed in July 2009 when the installation of the IT requirements will begin. The movement of staff into the building is due to begin in August and September on a phased basis and it is expected that all staff due to move will be in place by the end of 2009. With regard to how many posts have relocated to date, the Trim advance office has 35 in place and the estimated number of posts to be relocated by the end of 2009 is 249, of which 179 are relocating from Dublin. There are 218 OPW staff in place to move to Trim and of these 72 belong to professional and technical grades.

What was the staff turnover rate at the St. Stephen's Green office as a consequence of all the changes?

Approximately 75% on the administrative side.

My last question was about Irish architects.

The Deputy had three more questions. I have nearly finished answering them. We are seeking to maintain the apprenticeships and the graduate training. They are important.

I take Deputy Burton's point about architects and firms below a certain size. We need to keep that under constant review. We are not outsourcing as much as a year or two ago when a great deal of work had to be outsourced. We are now trying to do as much as possible in-house.

The Deputy also made a valid point about the financing of public private partnerships, PPPs, which is much more complex than it was a year or two ago. In our sphere, as in any other policy sphere dealing with PPPs, if necessary and in the last resort, a Government office might have to reconsider its financing strategy and whether it was still correct to go the PPP route. The onus is on the firms or successful tenderers to get the financing but there is an issue there.

Will the Minister of State give the figures the OPW contributed to the State coffers on the basis of the development of land in the State's ownership? Could he comment on one of the great success stories of the public service over the past few years in which the OPW maximised the value of its properties by getting involved in the planning process and taking full advantage of the planning permission granted, thereby contributing considerably to the State coffers?

Since Deputy Mansergh became Minister of State in the Department of Finance with responsibility for the OPW has he considered any policy initiatives to extend that kind of work to other Departments with considerable land banks to encourage them to utilise these to their full extent? While the property market has changed drastically there is a great deal of waste in the utilisation of State lands. The OPW, given its good experience in this respect, should be involved in maximising the value of State lands across all Departments. Has the Minister of State considered that policy initiative?

I have one or two questions for the Chairman.

The Deputy must address his questions to the Minister of State.

Is it not possible for the Chairman to comment?

That is the procedure, as the Deputy is well aware.

I asked that question before coming in here.

If the Minister of State wants to defer to his Chairman or Secretary General that should be possible.

We can go into private session and the Deputy can question the Chairman if he wishes.

I want to ask a number of specific questions that are pertinent to the officials. I do not expect the Minister of State to have the answers.

I put it to the Minister of State and the Chairman that the State is not maximising the value of its lands. Given that a vast amount of land is being wasted across the sector, has any attempt been made to get various Departments, such as the Department of Health and Children and the Department of Education and Science, to utilise that land to better effect and where there is excess land the money would accrue to the State?

Specifically on the efficient use of State resources, has any comparison been done between the building costs of the Office of Public Works, the building costs of the Department of Education and Science and those of the Department of Health and Children for office accommodation or school accommodation, in other words, shell and core costs? I compliment the OPW on the design-build formula it has used in the provision of various types of accommodation which has been cost effective and has provided good value for the State. I am sure the same applies when architects are let loose on school buildings, health buildings and so on. I would appreciate some information on whether any comparative costs have been compiled? Have comparative costs been compiled in respect of the public private partnership approach by the Department of Education and Science for the provision of school buildings and by the OPW for the provision of office accommodation?

Will the Minister of State and his officials agree there is a massive waste of money by the State right across the country in renting property when the State should be replacing much of that property through the provision of accommodation provided by the State? I will give the committee two examples. In Galway, the HSE has an office building for which it pays an annual rent of €1.8 million. It is estimated that the day it rented that building, it could have constructed a similar building on some of the vast tracts of land it owns in Galway, for approximately three years' rental. This is a downright waste of money.

Similarly, Galway City VEC has recently submitted a proposal to the Department of Education and Science to replace all of its office accommodation across the city of Galway with one new building on land it owns and repay the mortgage for less than it pays in rental. Am I correct in saying that in Galway all kinds of offices are rented by various organisations, NGOs, the State sector and semi-State sector at top commercial rates, all of which is funded by the State, while the State owns tracts of land in Galway which should and could be built on? I put it to the Minister of State that if a policy was pursued, similar to that pursued by the OPW, it would provide a significant stimulus to the construction sector.

On the issue of lands in the ownership of other Departments, has any attempt been made to have the OPW model, which has been so successful, used in other Departments with a view to maximising the value of those lands and in providing urgently the facilities required across the spectrum?

The OPW has been very successful in managing and developing the assets under its control. The Department of Health and Children and the Department of Education and Science in particular have been wholly inefficient in maximising the value of lands they own. There is a ridiculous situation in Galway where the Brothers of Charity own an 18 acre site on which there is a temporary school and recently it refused the Department of Education and Science part of that site, which is in a meadow in the centre of Galway city, to build a new primary school. Instead the Department has had to take land from the GMIT third level campus to build that school. It is the most ludicrous decision I have seen in my 27 years in this House. If ever there was an example of lack of joined-up thinking, of complete and utter waste of public money, this is it.

There is an ideal opportunity now, given the leadership by the OPW, to turn around some of the crazy decision-making that has been going on. When I put suggestions to people in the Department of Education of Science or the Department of Health and Children or other Departments, they look at me as if I have two heads. We have an ideal opportunity now to maximise the value of the State's lands and provide facilities that are urgently required. Why not do it now? Recently the Department of Education and Science had a tender for €29 million for a new engineering block in NUIG which was estimated to cost more than €50 million.

I call the Minister of State to respond.

I thank Deputy Fahey for his intervention. As I said in my statement, the total income from property disposals in Dublin over the period of the programme amounts to more than €575 million. This is made up of €373 million already received together with property valued at €75 million transferred to the Affordable Homes Partnership. In addition, the OPW has agreed joint venture redevelopment schemes with an approximate value of €125 million, subject to current market fluctuations. I can name one instance in relation to the proposed Westgate development at Military Road where planning permission was obtained before disposal of property, and so was involved in the planning process.

I very much agree with the thrust of the Deputy's intervention regarding the best use of landbanks. Obviously the property market is in a different state today than a couple of years ago. However, it is important to achieve the best utilisation of State lands, and State lands are under the ownership and control of many different organisations, some of which the Deputy has named. Putting on my constituency hat, I know how difficult it can be when one has different public authorities to try to reconfigure the sensible use of lands owned by, say, the HSE or the IDA, for educational or commercial purposes. Sometimes it takes a long time, and we are talking entirely about public sector interests, to get sensible agreement with different bodies to even accept fairly obvious cases.

The Department of Education and Science has its own building unit. I opened an extension of a school yesterday in Lisronagh in my constituency. In my experience the finished product is generally of a very high quality. I accept the point that many public sector bodies are involved, some of which may be more experienced at managing properties than others. The Deputy suggested the rationalisation of property management functions but the decision is a matter for Government rather than the Office of Public Works. Different Departments and agencies may also have views on the matter but I do not disagree with the general thrust of his argument.

In that case I ask the Minister of State to put it to Government as a policy change which is urgently required. The OPW should be given charge of the management of State property and Departments, which from the taxpayers' point of view do not have the ability to do it to the best effect, should be led by the OPW in this respect.

My experience is that the best way of getting things done is not to be too thrusting in extending one's remit. It is more an issue for Government and though we have views we should put forward suggestions with full respect for the function, mission and purpose of other Departments and agencies. I do not want to say anything that would prejudice our relationship with them. Less than a year ago, Government decided to rationalise the procurement function and OPW, in conjunction with our parent Department, the Department of Finance, operates that policy. It is a matter for consideration as to whether there is a case for extending the approach. If it is in the right direction we would want to bring it about, as far as possible, by agreement and with general recognition that it is the way to go.

The Deputy is in a position to say the things he has said. I do not have the same freedom if I want to achieve results. At the same time, I do not take issue with the case he makes.

I have a quick comment.

Is it a comment or a question?

I love the Minister of State's diplomacy but if he wants to make progress in this position he will have to cut back on diplomacy.

That has never been my experience.

The State has benefited to the tune of €575 million from the policies of the OPW and that shows exactly what can be done. I think we should compliment the OPW staff on that achievement. It points to what can be done in the future with regard to maximising value for taxpayers, as opposed to what can be done now in the current property market. The Minister of State referred to a joint venture involving €125 million and the creation of badly needed facilities like schools and hospitals.

I received a timetable that said the Minister of State would have ten minutes to make his opening statement, followed by opening statements of ten minutes by members of Fine Gael and the Labour Party. This was all to finish by 2.05 p.m. but it is now 3.25 p.m. and it is impossible for us to plan our days in such circumstances. I was supposed to be somewhere else; we should stick to the timetable. It is ridiculous and it is the same every time we have a meeting; two or three people dictate the whole agenda and everyone else must accommodate them. The timetable should not be circulated if we are not going to stick to it.

It is up to members to stick to the timetable.

It is not up to me; it is up to the Chairman.

Has the Deputy a question for the Minister?

I have, but I expect the Chairman to stick to the timetable, which is circulated for the benefit of all, otherwise none of us will know where we will be each day

The Deputy should speak to his colleagues about that.

It is not about my colleagues; it is up to the Chairman.

The Deputy should speak to his colleagues and if they do not agree with the timetable that is their problem.

There was supposed to be an hour and a half for general discussion after all of this.

I apologise if my answers have been too long but I was asked many questions and did my best to give as much information as possible.

The Chairman has to be fair to everybody.

Regarding grants for certain refurbishment works, the Minister of State's Department kindly gave €1 million towards the restoration of the Mariners' Church in Dún Laoghaire and this was very welcome. However, like many projects, the problem is that unless the works are completed the benefit of the grant will never be realised. The building in question could be used for many purposes if the money was available to complete the refurbishment. I have been pursuing the Department of Defence regarding a premises for the Army Reserve, formerly the FCA, and the trustees of this building feel the basement is suitable for use by the Army Reserve. However, this would not be possible until the building is finished. The building is only three quarters finished, despite the €1 million investment. If the Department is to get involved in such projects it should be satisfied that the grant, together with other moneys raised, would be sufficient to finish the work. Can moneys be found to ensure the building is finished and to make it available for use by the public? It is a building of historical significance and would make a very welcome mariners' museum.

Has the OPW met the target set by the Government for employing people with disabilities? This is particularly relevant to the area of professional staff; often a fully qualified person with a disability, such as an architect or the like, will find it difficult to find employment in the private sector, despite being perfectly capable of doing an excellent job. Is the OPW policy on employing people with disabilities confined to unskilled workers or does it cover the entire spectrum? Does it ensure that a person with a disability will have the opportunity, through the normal channels, to get a professional post? Such a policy would be of great help and I would appreciate the views of the Minister of State in this regard.

I fully support the views expressed by the Minister of State on the official residence in the Phoenix Park. For years I have been saying that we should honour the position of Taoiseach and it is only right that there is a residence that he or she can occupy for his or her period in office. It is a shame that people are afraid to use the facility because of the fear of a media campaign. The facility is in place and if it is not used it becomes run down.

A similar situation applied to the Mansion House. For years Lord Mayors were fearful of using the accommodation until somebody bit the bullet and now it is accepted that the Lord Mayor moves in for the year, which is right and proper. We are a modern democracy and it is only right that the Taoiseach uses the facilities that are provided at Farmleigh. Let us show off our State as a modern democracy and be proud of the fact that we have such buildings rather than hide them away in the hope that the media will forget about them. It is so silly.

Look at the tourism potential of Buckingham Palace and No. 10 Downing Street and what it brings to London. We should be proud of the fact that we bring people on tours and show them what we have. We are as good as anybody else. We should be up-front about this policy and it should be expected of the Taoiseach of the day, whoever that may be, that he or she would automatically move into the official residence. Asking somebody to drive 150 miles is not good for the individual or the office of Taoiseach. I will certainly support any move that will lead to the use of the official residence. I have no doubt that if the Minister of State or I were honoured with the position of Taoiseach, we would have no difficulty about taking up residence there, or at least I would not.

In terms of acting as agents for FÁS or the Department of Social and Family Affairs, does the Minister of State have a role in finding accommodation at the request of FÁS or other Government agencies, or do they do it themselves? The Minister of State may be aware that the social welfare office and the FÁS office are located side by side in Dún Laoghaire and it is an ideal set up, because a person who is unemployed can be referred to FÁS next door for advice on further training. However, of late, there is talk of the FÁS office moving somewhere else. That does not seem to be coordinated policy, if that is the case. Has the Minister of State's Department a role in this regard?

I thank the Deputy for his questions. Personally I am quite familiar with the Mariners' Church in Dún Laoghaire as I dealt with representations about it when I was special adviser to the Taoiseach. My knowledge of that situation goes back to the late 1990s and of course I would have visited it when it was a very interesting and fine museum.

The credit goes more to a colleague of mine than to me who got deeply involved in it after my time in the Taoiseach's office. The Taoiseach was persuaded to provide funding for it. I have visited it as Minister of State with responsibility for the OPW and climbed up the ladder from the inside and gone to the top and looked at all the special features. It is undoubtedly a very fine building. I would like to see it back in use and completed as far as possible subject, of course, to financial conditions. The Deputy will be familiar with the basic information. The grant was to fund extensive repairs to the roof, pointing of the external stonework and urgent safety works to the belfry. Incidentally, the church looks exceptional from the outside and inside.

In 2005, the Government announced a grant of €3.3 million over three years for the Maritime Institute of Ireland towards the cost of refurbishing the National Maritime Museum in the Mariners' Church. Some €1.5 million of the grant was to be spent in 2006. Due to internal problems, however, a contract was not placed until late 2006. As a result, only €500,000 was released and the balance was carried forward into 2008. Some €1.8 million was allocated in 2007 and spent in full. The €1 million allocated for 2008 was likewise fully spent.

In May 2008, the Maritime Institute submitted a proposal to the Government seeking additional funds to complete the refurbishment and museum fit-out. To date, I presume that, due to the financial situation, there has not been a response to the proposal. In 2008, the OPW advised the institute that available funds should be utilised to open the building to the public even though it did not have sufficient funds to develop the museum fully. Sometimes, the ideal can be the enemy of the good, as Deputies know. If the institute could get restarted and bring people in, this would help to justify the project's completion in time. I have an interest in it and would like to see the vision's completion when conditions allow. In the meantime, the building must be used as much as possible.

Regarding the employment of people with disabilities, we meet the quota requirement and no attempt has been made to concentrate on the lower end of the scale. To be fair, this is the case in the general public service where quite a number of senior people have various disabilities. One way or another, some of our elected representatives fall into that category. The employment horizons are expanding for people with disabilities.

I agree with every word uttered by the Deputy on the steward's house. It is not extravagant, but if there is any criticism, so be it. We live in a democracy and people are allowed to criticise, but that criticism should not deter the house's use in any way. Farmleigh is open to the public and it holds many events. In 2008, 103 high level events attended by nearly 6,000 people were held. In 2008, Farmleigh saw nearly 200,000 visitors and 172 public events. The OPW policy, particularly with high profile places — Farmleigh, Kilkenny Castle and Castletown House — is to use them for a variety of events apart from welcoming visitors. For example, Kilkenny Castle has an area that is used for conferences. The idea is to bring people in, which we would like to see occurring in respect of more properties. Last year, for example, Ouroboros Theatre Company which performs many plays of Brian Friel staged productions at a number of locations, including Kilmainham Gaol. Blackstairs Opera is performing in Kilkenny Castle this year.

We have no role in regard to the offices of FÁS, certainly not at present.

Is it possible for the Minister of State's office to establish how much money would be required to complete the National Maritime Museum in the Mariners' Church to a point at which it would be safe and attractive to open? It is a while since I have been there, but when I saw it, it was certainly not in a condition that made it attractive enough for people to visit. Will some official of the OPW make contact with the relevant authorities to determine how much money would be required to open it and ascertaining what fund-raising is taking place? Seeking funding is becoming more difficult. Golf teams could be created easily in the past, but it is not so easy now. The taxpayer has invested so much in the project that it would be a shame to see the venue not being used. Although priorities must be decided upon, it should be made certain that the money that has been invested will enable venues to be used in the future. Perhaps savings could be made if the Department of Defence did not have to hire other places.

I will look into that matter, communicate with the Deputy and send a copy of the correspondence to the secretary of the committee.

I thank the Minister of State.

I welcome the Minister of State and his colleagues and commend them on their work.

Some €43 million is being spent on flood risk management under the capital programme for 2009. The issue of funds being provided to those whose homes have been flooded has arisen, certainly in Limerick, as the Minister of State will know. I recently dealt with a case in which the only funding for which an applicant could apply was from the Department of Social and Family Affairs. It was just for fixtures and fittings. There is no provision to meet the capital cost of repairing a flooded house. The Minister of State should examine this matter and I would like to know his views thereon.

Henry Street Garda station in Limerick city in my constituency is to be refurbished. When will the work be carried out? What will be the capital cost and when will the project be completed?

The Minister of State referred to the issue of using lands under the aegis of a State body for an alternative purpose. What body actually owns the land? Is it the OPW or the State agency or organisation whose fixture is on the land? The Minister of State raised this issue which requires clarification. It is an important point considering we have such scarce resources.

The Minister of State referred to the value for money and policy reviews. The cost in this regard has risen considerably from €10 million to €39 million. What reviews are being carried out and what is their current status? How many staff members are involved in them based in the offices of the OPW?

With regard to the national public procurement policy unit, reference was made to driving reforms. What savings does the Minister of State hope to realise in this area and over what period? What work is being done in this regard? If reports are being carried out, what are they on and when will they be published?

As regards flood relief, I visited Newcastle West recently.

This has come up elsewhere. I refer, in particular, to isolated cases.

I appreciate that, but infrastructural works are taking place. They were commenced relatively quickly. The flood occurred only last August and the works are well in hand.

A decision was made by the Government in 2004 that claims relating to properties, mainly homes, damaged by flooding would be dealt with by community welfare officers. I observed this at close hand in the case of Clonmel last January and it seemed the system was working exceptionally well. The community welfare officer managed to draft in, on a temporary basis, two or three officials from other local authority sections who visited every home, obtained detailed estimates and, in some cases, helped affected householders to obtain estimates. I do not have enough experience of how this model has operated in other parts of the country, but it has operated well in Clonmel. All bar one person who was very much in the well to do category out of the 40 or 50 householders affected was dealt with by the community welfare officer. However, a number of people adopted the attitude that they did not need help and would look after the work themselves.

Community welfare officers do great work and that is the route I have taken. However, my question relates to bricks and mortar.

A distinction must be made. One or two homes are being affected by flood relief schemes and if a homeowner must be moved, we can take care of this. In many instances, despite what one might think, householders have insurance on which they can call. However, everyone does not have insurance. I was informed by a number of business owners that as soon as the Clonmel relief scheme was completed, they would be insured. We do not want to arrive at a position where the State acts as insurer of last resort.

What about people who are badly off and do not have insurance?

This responsibility was assigned to the Department of Social and Family Affairs, not the OPW. We take an interest in the issue because it affects flood relief in a holistic sense and what places are damaged and so on. The community welfare officer system is working reasonably well and can work exceptionally well.

The Garda will lease premises at Estuary House next door to Henry Street Garda station in Limerick. The lease is to be signed soon and the fit-out cost will be approximately €1.5 million. The project will go to tender when the lease is signed and is expected to be completed within nine months.

The Deputy raised a point about ownership of State property.

The Minister of State raised the point.

Most State property may be owned in a formal sense by the Minister for Finance, but in practice, as we know, there are properties which are managed by the Garda Síochána, the HSE, the Department of Defence and so on. Obviously, the OPW manages certain properties directly, but with regard to others, effectively, we can only act on instructions and very often if a financial contribution is forthcoming. We will act as an agent for any body in the State sector which seeks our help, particularly when it is able to provide the finance required.

With regard to the value for money reviews, the estimated cost is in the thousands, not millions of euro. Deputy O'Donnell need only look to see where the decimal point is.

The subhead provides for salaries and expenses; it is not a hugely expensive exercise.

Point taken. Will the Minister of State provide an overview of national procurement policy?

On foot of a Government decision, we have been establishing the operation and project board and have appointed a head of unit. The immediate objective is to try to secure a reduction of approximately 8% in contracts for goods and services. The Deputy will remember that in the recent budget the Minister announced a reduction of that order in certain categories of fees. We are discussing extending that principle to all goods and services.

For which year does the Minister of State expect this to come into being?

If it came into being at this time of year, a full year's saving might not be realised, but, if possible, we want it to come into effect this year.

What does the Minister of State expect to be a full year's saving?

For the rest of this year, one simply divides the number by the number of months. We will probably realise a saving of only 50% this year. The total value of the categories it is proposed to place within the new unit's remit is estimated at approximately €500 million. The Deputy has a calculator.

That is approximately the same figure as that for the value for money policy reviews.

We hope to do rather better than that. If we are to recover competitiveness as an economy and address our large financial deficit, we must achieve savings. As I mentioned with regard to rentals, most of the people with whom we do business will want to do business with the State in the future and compete for contracts; therefore, I do not think a totally negative attitude to requests from the State would be in the self-interest of——

Is the €500 million only for the OPW or for other Departments?

No. I am talking about the public sector.

That is a relatively small sum.

It covers only certain categories such as office equipment, furniture, fittings, fuel, electricity, printing, stationery, office supplies, uniforms and transport fleets. The remit may be extended over time in respect of goods and services and agencies. The important point is to get this on its feet.

This covers only office administration overheads, such as fuel and stationery, general business functioning costs.

Yes, that is probably a reasonable comment. There are also fees of course.

I thank the Minister of State.

The Minister of State has seen the flooding in Fermoy and Mallow. When will the Fermoy north scheme commence and finish, and when will the Mallow south scheme commence?

The successful tenderer for the Fermoy scheme has been identified and requested to provide the requisite documentation before the appointment is confirmed. We await one item and expect to receive it and place the contract next week. The works will get under way in 2009.

There is a great deal of work going on in Mallow but the contract for the next phase will be placed by the end of 2009.

We will wait until next year for the work on the Fermoy south scheme.

I thank the Minister of State for his attendance and his forbearance with all the questions thrown at him and for his detailed replies.

Barr
Roinn