This meeting is to deal with the Estimates for the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. We have received apologies from Deputies Matthews and Doherty. I propose to take an opening statement from the Minister of State, Deputy Patrick O'Donovan, first, and then one from the Minister, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, but I am happy with whatever order suits them.
Vote 43 – Office of the Government Chief Information Officer (Supplementary)
I am only too happy for my colleagues, the Ministers of State, to go first, if they wish, and I can come in afterwards.
I call the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donovan.
As Minister of State at the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, with special responsibility for the Office of Public Works, OPW, and flood relief, I am here to propose a Supplementary Estimate for the OPW.
The OPW’s Estimate provision for 2023 is €626.8 million and, at present, is profiling an excess of €8.8 million on capital spending and €15.5 million on current spending. The capital excess spending is driven in part by the opportunity for a lease buy-out of a strategically located office block that arose during 2023. A business case, with relevant financial and economic analysis, has been prepared in line with the public spending code and approved by the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. The purchase represents a unique strategic opportunity for the State to increase its stock of State-owned office accommodation in line with overarching policy objectives. To allow the purchase to go through in 2023, a Supplementary Estimate is required.
A Supplementary Estimate is also required for the new works, alterations and additions subhead to allow the OPW to continue to deliver the State's national development plan. Extra funding is also to be provided to Dublin Zoo and Fota Island Wildlife Park to support both organisations' ongoing capital projects. These two items are funded by savings elsewhere in the Vote.
Flood risk management has a surplus of €19.5 million primarily due to certain projects not getting through the planning system and into the construction phase when the bulk of expenditure occurs. There is also an underspend of €19.3 million in the national recovery and resilience plan subhead, due to the later than expected start of the State's data centre project.
Regarding the current non-pay Estimate provided, this has not been sufficient to allow the OPW meet its remit. The factors in this regard include the impact of the ongoing construction and energy cost inflation crisis, which was flagged in the OPW’s Estimates submission and continues to place considerable strain on its ability to live within its Estimates provision. Other factors leading to this excess expenditure relate to the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine, the amendment to the Social Insurance Fund apportionment policy and a change in accounting policy for mature liabilities, all of which occurred after the Revised Estimates Vote 2023.
On a positive note, the OPW will deliver a substantial surplus of €4.5 million in appropriations-in-aid in the year, which will go some way to offset the excess in non-pay spending. This is due in large part to the increased admissions at heritage sites around the country, which is a testament to the quality of service the OPW provides. It is also a reflection of the positive impact of the investment made in the facilities at such sites in recent years. There is also likely to be a substantial windfall from sales of OPW properties that will be returned to the State through appropriations-in-aid.
I am happy to recommend this Supplementary Estimate for consideration and approval by the committee and to answer any questions the members may have on this additional requirement.
I thank the Minister of State. Will we go with this Estimate first?
Yes, we can.
I call Deputy Tóibín.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire Stáit freisin as an gcur i láthair sin. On the Government's approach to public procurement and capital development, I think there is a major problem with its ability to deliver on capital projects throughout Ireland. There are major difficulties in this regard, and this situation is costing the State greatly in terms of money and in terms of badly needed services and facilities that are delivered very slowly.
The national children's hospital is an example. There has been an overspend of €1.4 billion and it is six years late. A total of €300 million has been spent on the metro in Dublin but not one shovel has been put into the ground. Regarding the flooding issue, a context in which the Minister of State has obviously been to the fore recently, and to take Midleton as an example, we have seen how the delivery of capital projects is just glacial, and this comes at an enormous cost to individuals. I spoke to Mona Stromsoe, the chair of the Midleton flood defence committee, and we have a situation where a public consultation was held in 2016 after the last flood and storm hit the area, which I think was Storm Frank in 2015, and yet the planning permission for that project is not expected to be delivered until next year. We often hear about the difficulties that exist because of court cases taken to challenge applications for planning permission, but here is an example of a project, very much needed in terms of the safety and protection of property in Midleton, not even having come to fruition in terms of gaining planning permission in eight years.
Another example is that there are now 3,500 local authority homes empty throughout the State. It is taking eight months, on average, to turn around a local authority home and get it back into use. In the case of a private home for rent on the market, however, it takes three weeks to achieve the same outcome. It seems to me, therefore, that the delivery of Government projects is wrapped up in an enormous amount of waste, bureaucracy and red tape.
Returning to the Midleton situation, there is talk now that work on that project will not start until 2029, which seems astounding. I am a left-of-centre political activist and I like to see the delivery of public procurement, but my faith in this concept has been deeply damaged by this Government's record in this area. Why, then, is it taking so long for projects, such as the Midleton flood defence work, to even get to the stage of applying for planning permission, never mind issues around court cases that may or may not happen or the delivery of the procurement and construction of the flood defences themselves?
I thank the Deputy for the question. We have already undertaken substantial works across the country and these projects have all shown, in their own way, the ability of these schemes to be able to protect communities, whether in Ennis, Clonmel, Clonakilty, Bandon or even in Douglas or Togher in Cork city itself. One of the things we have proven in recent years is that, where these schemes have been built and delivered, they work to protect communities against what are called one-in-a-hundred-year events.
The Deputy quite rightly pointed out the scale of the situation in Midleton. This is probably one of the most complicated schemes we are working on with any local authority. I should say Cork County Council is the lead local authority on the Midleton project. There is not just one source of flooding in the town but four. The flooding comes from the sea, with the tide, from the river and naturally from rainfall. Midleton also floods, however, from underground sources, which are like turloughs in the west. The engineering response needed to design a scheme for a town like Midleton is hugely complex in nature.
The last public consultation regarding this project in Midleton took place just last summer. The intention was always that we would have an option to go to the planning permission stage in the first part of this year. I again refer to the level of complexity involved in this project. By the way, we have put all the options eligible for consideration out for public consultation. In general, the delay has stemmed from the environmental constraints placed on us and the local authorities as applicants to a planning process-----
Are any constraints in terms of the delivery of public projects emanating from the lack of existing planning resources? Would the Minister of State not admit there is a major problem regarding planning resources?
Regarding studies we must undertake in respect of birds, for example, whether they are wintering or have a nesting season, some of these must be done over a two-year cycle. We also have situations, to give another example, where we must resubmit information in respect of the Blackpool flood relief scheme for four individual otters. I refer to what would happen if we were not to do this and if we did not adhere to the rules set out.
By the way, this is not an issue that pertains only to Ireland. Last winter, I visited the Benelux countries and northern Germany and saw some of the devastation wreaked upon that part of Europe. The delays we are experiencing in the planning process are not unique but are also faced by other member states of the European Union. Naturally, it is a cause of great upset and distress for people. It is also a cause of great upset and distress to us when we are set back. However, if we were to attempt, in any way, to short-circuit the provisions-----
Is there a problem with planning resources in Ireland?
We do not have a problem with resources in our Department. I have outlined our Estimate for this year. We are adequately funded for the delivery of the CFRAM programme. I cannot tell the committee that I will cut corners or shorten processes to make things happen faster. I cannot do that because I would be back in------
Can I ask the Minister of State a question? He mentioned-----
Will the Deputy allow the Minister of State to complete the answer?
It would be nice to hear the answer.
The Minister, Deputy Donohoe, also wants to come in so let us hear the complete answer.
The answers are lengthy compared with the questions I have asked.
It is a complicated-----
I have a certain amount of time.
They may require a lengthy answer. I do not know. Would the Minister of State mind finishing the answer? I will then bring Deputy Donohoe.
If the Deputy asks what might be perceived to be a simplistic question on a complicated process for people who will be listening to this debate, watching it on Facebook or using it for videos, it deserves an honest answer. I can no more short-circuit the planning process for a major climate adaptation scheme than a person applying to Meath County Council can short-circuit the planning process for the building of a house. That would be wide open to judicial review. That has happened in the past. We have had good reason to be careful in apportioning resources, particularly in the area of environmental constraints. Many of the resources required in this sector have to be sourced from outside and are limited in nature. That is a limiting factor not only for Ireland. It is the same in the UK and continental Europe. There are not that many people with experience of hydraulic engineering available to us even within our own Department. It is not a money issue and I would not like it said that it is. The Department is adequately resourced in terms of our financial capacity.
I am glad to hear Deputy Tóibín affirm he is a left-of-centre politician and generally in favour of the State doing more. I hardly ever hear him say a good word about the State so it is refreshing to hear him acknowledge the State can occasionally play a positive role.
On the allegations he has made regarding the delivery of capital works programmes and the progress that has been made, the problems we have had with the national children's hospital are well documented and, over time, we have outlined the reforms we have put in place to deal with the difficulties that arose in delivering that project. However, I hear few people question the ability of the State to build schools on time and on budget in the way communities want. I do not hear much criticism of the State's ability to deliver road projects and public transport projects when the funding is in place to deliver them. The State can deliver these in a timely way and within budget. I would give as an example the work that is under way in our technological universities, where really important and big projects, including projects at Technological University Dublin, have been delivered in the way the country and local communities would want. The Deputy is adroitly picking out some projects we have had difficulty with but we have a whole variety of smaller and medium-sized projects that have been delivered in the way the Oireachtas would want.
The Deputy has, on a few occasions, attempted to put a question to the Minister of State regarding resources for An Bord Pleanála. The information on that issue will be supplied by the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, when he brings forward his Supplementary Estimate. However, we have significantly increased funding for An Bord Pleanála to allow it to increase the resources it has to deal with planning applications and to do so on time. The truth is we did have difficulties. The board had challenges in making decisions on important projects on time. The Government has responded by reorganising An Bord Pleanála and by significantly increasing the funding available to it, leading to a very significant increase in its headcount.
On the planning issues, one thing we do hear regularly from local authorities is that there is a serious resource issue in local authority planning departments. Many of these planning applications go through those departments. The Minister mentioned that I had picked out particular issues. These are major infrastructural projects that have a very significant effect on people's lives.
I acknowledged that.
Anybody travelling through Dublin will tell you that the transportation system in Dublin is grinding to a halt. In eight years, Madrid was able to build 130 km of underground and yet we have been talking about an underground for 20 years and have not been able to-----
For a fair bit of that time, we had no money.
Will the Minister just-----
The Deputy is glad enough to interrupt other people.
The Minister should let Deputy Tóibín finish his question.
On another issue, we had the Secretary General of the Minister's Department here last week and, with regard to the waste and bureaucracy that arises in the HSE, I asked whether any comparative analysis had been done with our European counterparts as regards productivity. The Minister mentioned other European countries' delivery of projects and need to fulfil regulations. Has the Minister's Department done any comparative analysis as to the productivity of planning departments within local authorities in Ireland as compared with other European countries? Will he give this committee any information as to the comparative productivity of planning systems in the delivery of public projects?
A lot of the projects we do are public. The only comparison I would draw is that the difficulties we have encountered, which are well documented, are faced across the European Union. The constraints presented by environmental legislation and recourse to the Aarhus Convention are not unique to Ireland but are felt across the European Union. Most European Union states talking about climate adaptation at the moment are talking about the very same issues.
With regard to the individual planning authorities, for a number of years, where individual local authorities have deemed additional resources necessary to advance particular schemes, the Office of Public Works has paid for those resources. If a scheme led by a local authority is being worked on, the engineering capacity of that authority can be supplemented through funding from the Office of Public Works. Persons provided in this way work exclusively on the delivery of those schemes, for which the local authorities are ultimately the lead agent. We have a long history of working with the local authorities. I should point out that, notwithstanding the issues that are there, we have completed a substantial number of schemes in recent years. This year alone, we commenced work in the Whitechurch area in Dublin and in Glashaboy in Glanmire, Cork. Both of these projects have been awaited for many years and we expect to see a number of others commenced by early 2024.
On the Deputy's question as to whether comparative analysis had been done, the answer is "Yes". I am happy to furnish the documentation to the committee. With regard to the delivery of general infrastructure projects, the IMF did an analysis of our ability to deliver such projects and where we are with the delivery of infrastructure in Ireland generally. The study was called the PIMA study and was done a number of years ago. We are engaging with the IMF regarding repeating that review. We can send the committee a copy of that.
Regarding the Deputy's point about productivity within the health service, IGEES, the group of economists that works across all Departments, has looked at the issue of productivity and the output from our health service in recent years. Again, we can share that work with the Deputy. It is fair to say the issues we have in measuring productivity within our health service are issues all countries are grappling with. In recent weeks, I have seen the work the UK is doing with regard to the NHS to try to understand this issue.
The Deputy's concluding point had regard to planning resources within local authorities. He raises a fair point. We do have challenges in respect of the resources our local authorities need to turn around planning applications. However, I agree 150% with what the Minister of State said a moment ago, which is that the issue is nearly never a lack of funding but the fact that, as an economy and in line with many other economies that are trying to build lots of infrastructure quickly, we do not have an abundance of the expertise in planning that economies need.
In many cases, local authorities, the office of the planning regulator,OPR, an Bord Pleanála, and the private sector in all its manifestations are competing for the same people. That is not down to lack of money, commitment or determination from the OPW or local authorities, it is a consequence of us being at full employment. We are looking at all kinds of measures to try to get the expertise into local authorities to make progress on the planning applications. I think the Deputy is making a fair point.
Workforce planning is a means to ensure that we have the required essential skills. Ireland lost a significant number of people from the construction industry to countries like Australia and Canada during the last crash. We could do with some of these people back now. A campaign to try to bring some of those people home would benefit capital projects in a significant way.
On the Midleton situation, I have spoken to some of the homeowners there. Some have not been able to move back into their houses, while others have but the houses are in terrible condition. It is very difficult to live in a house which has been considerably damaged by flooding. Some people said they have not been contacted by anybody as yet regarding help. The Minister of State mentioned the complexities of fixing an issue like this. Could I suggest that we develop a war cabinet, so to speak? This could be made up of different organisations such as Cork County Council, the OPW, Irish Water, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Teagasc, farming groups, businesses and residents. Something like this would allow us to expedite relief in the area because between now and 2029 there most likely will be a serious flood that will cause more damage in Midleton.
Bandon in west Cork provides a comparison. The town experienced a number of delays outside the control of either Cork County Council or the OPW. This added considerably to the length of time it took to deliver the scheme.
Of the online criticism often levelled at local authorities or the OPW on the work being delivered, it is never the people whose homes and businesses have been flooded who are the most vocal online with the charge our organisations are some sort of environmental heretics.
Regarding people not being contacted, in the aftermath of Storm Babet, which fortunately did not claim any lives here, unlike in the UK where four people died, the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Humphreys immediately established the fund. It was available to allow people to get back into their homes. It provided for white goods, floor coverings, etc. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Coveney announced the substantially increased business scheme as well. I encourage people who have not yet received help to approach their community officer. They were on the street in Midleton on the day I was there and met a lot of people. It was a similar situation when I was in Carlingford, County Louth. The community welfare officers issued initial payments to get people over the hump of trying to meet some of the costs.
For businesses but not for homeowners.
Yes, the business scheme is being administered through the Irish Red Cross on behalf of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. It is my understanding that the first of those payments have been issued based on photographic evidence and other means being provided by individual business owners and local authorities. The Irish Red Cross has been at pains to point out that the money should be issued as quickly as possible. It is neither a bureaucratic nor a cumbersome process for people. As a Government we are conscious to ensure this particularly for people who have lost stock in the run-up to Christmas. Midleton is a thriving market town and has a fabulous community built around it. I could see on the day I walked the streets in the sewage with local Deputy, David Stanton, and others that is resilient. Last Saturday evening the Christmas lights were turned on there showing that the town is open for business. I encourage people who are yet to receive help to engage with the Department of Social Protection or the Irish Red Cross on behalf of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
I submitted a parliamentary question last July on the number of vacant properties the State has. Earlier I mentioned that there are 3,500 vacant local authority homes which would actually accommodate everybody who was in emergency accommodation at the moment. I mentioned how long it is taking to flip those houses around compared to the private sector. The Minister of State would have to agree that this is a difficulty. There are also 150 empty State properties. Many of those are under the aegis of the OPW. On one occasion the Minister of State said that there were 65 surplus properties owned by the OPW that are vacant. This level of vacancy in properties owned by the State itself is an issue. The State is the biggest hoarder of vacant properties in the country.
Is that a question or a charge?
It is a startling fact. How will the Government inject a level of urgency into bringing those properties back into use so we can create homes?
First of all, I do not accept the Deputy's charge. I do not think there was a question there at all. It presupposes that we are hanging on to properties without engaging with anybody, which is not the case. As an organisation, our preference has always been - if it is a disused Garda station or a property that has been transferred from HSE, for example, to the OPW - to give it to the local authorities in the first instance. Some local authorities have been exceptional in their interactions with us, particularly with regard to former Garda stations. Leitrim and Roscommon county councils stand out in this regard. However, the vast majority of local authorities needed encouragement to take on these properties, many of which are untitled. I can think of one in my own constituency which came from an estate originally. It was formerly an RIC barracks then became a Garda station and then was transferred to us. It did not have clear title so the transfer of the property is not something that can be done overnight. In conjunction with the Department of Social Protection, funding has been provided to local authorities to take on once off buildings. We have seen a number of currently vacant buildings that we have responsibility for drop substantially. Within the first quarter of 2024 that figure will drop again. The number of properties currently vacant and surplus stands at 80. This comprises 57 buildings and 23 sites. Of that figure, 25 are former Garda stations. All the local authorities will have been offered those buildings. There are also four Garda residences and ten Coast Guard properties, eight of which I know are in the process of being transferred to Cork County Council. There are two former Customs properties, one meteorological station property and a number of others.
Regarding the sites that the Deputy referred to as being hoarded, we were very lucky when the Ukrainian situation affected Ireland that the OPW office had sites such as those at Claremorris, Thurles and Cavan. Someone like the Deputy might have said stick a "for sale" sign on it and take the first offer that comes in. Had we done that and taken the Deputy's advice we would not have had those sites to build the houses for those families across the country.
For better management of the meeting, I ask the Minister and the Minister of State to give their opening statements, then each can take questions relevant to his Department.
I want to come in briefly on this. Deputy Tóibín asked why it would take longer to renovate a local authority property than a private tenancy. The simple answer is that under legislation most local authority tenants are granted a lifetime tenancy. For local authority tenants, the period of the tenancy is usually far longer on average than a private tenancy and the amount of renovation required is much more. Typically, the local authority has to replace bathrooms and carry out a deep retrofit. This takes a number of months compared to short tenancy of a year or two, which can be turned round in a number of weeks. That is the simple answer to why a local authority might take months to carry out renovation whereas a private landlord may do so in a number of weeks.
I thank the committee for the opportunity to be here this afternoon. I am presenting six Supplementary Estimates, so I am required to say a word on each of them.
In summary, they are: a technical Supplementary Estimate of a token €1,000 for Vote 11, the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform; a technical Supplementary Estimate of a net €1,000 and a gross €20 million for the superannuation and retired allowances Vote; a substantive Supplementary Estimate of a net €388,000 and a gross €537,000 for Vote 14, the State Laboratory; a substantive Supplementary Estimate of a net value of €152,000 and a gross value of €282,000 for Vote 17, the Public Appointments Service; a technical Supplementary Estimate of a token €1,000 for Vote 18, the National Shared Services Office; and a substantive Supplementary Estimate of €4.9 million in net and gross terms for the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer. Together, the overall value of the Supplementary Estimates is €5.446 million in net terms and €25.725 million in gross terms across the six Votes.
On Vote 11, the reason for the increased allocation is the transfer of OneLearning, the organisation that supports the development of skills and competencies across the Civil Service, and certain senior public service functions to the Institute of Public Administration in late 2023. The transfer will facilitate the expansion of these services within a body whose core function is learning and development. It will allow the IPA to scale up and for more learning and development courses to be made available to the wider public service. Costs of just over €200,000 have been incurred by the IPA this year due to the transfer that were not originally provided for in the IPA grant line. The funding movement will allow for the IPA to be reimbursed in respect of these costs. No additional funding is required other than the token €1,000 as there are savings within the Civil Service learning and development programme subhead due to the wind-down of these functions in the Department to cover the IPA costs.
Under Vote 12, the superannuation and retired allowances Vote, there is a technical Supplementary Estimate for a net amount of €1,000. This will allow the Vote to use additional appropriations-in-aid to fund projected expenditure. The receipts for appropriations-in-aid are higher than forecast due to higher than expected contributions on subhead B7 of the single public service pension scheme. This will increase the gross ceiling of Vote 12 by €20 million. The Supplementary Estimate arises mainly due to higher than forecast costs for the year under the pension scheme for established civil servants as a result of a higher number of retirements than anticipated for 2023. Expenditure in this regard is dependent on the number and grade mix of those who choose to retire and is subject to significant variability from one year to another. The higher number of retirements than anticipated has a double effect of increasing the lump-sum expenditure in the current year as well as increasing the number of pensioners on the fortnightly pension payroll. This means a Supplementary Estimate is now required for Vote 12.
Under Vote 14, a net value of €388,000 and a gross value of €537,000 is being sought for the State Laboratory. This is to cover the increased premises expenses due to higher energy costs. The work of the State Laboratory requires energy use for the running of laboratory equipment, much of which is in operation 24 hours a day. It is estimated that an additional €640,000 will be required to meet energy costs this year, which is partially offset by expected savings of €100,000 on pay and increased appropriations-in-aid.
For the Public Appointments Service, €152,000 in net terms and €282,000 in gross terms is being sought for additional expenditure on payroll, recruitment advertising and other areas of recruitment support over the year. These areas have experienced pressures due to the volume of recruitment activity in the public service and the impact of operating in a market with close to full employment. Those pressures are mainly on current expenditure, with PAS being able to offset some of the costs due to capital expenditure savings.
Under Vote 18, a token Supplementary Estimate of €1,000 is sought for the NSSO to provide for the reallocation of funding within the Vote to areas experiencing pressures. The Supplementary Estimate will allow for €1.9 million in pay savings under programme A to transfer to other areas within the Vote, thereby meeting higher costs than profiled in areas such as additional overtime to deliver Building Momentum arrears and support the establishment of Tailte Éireann, ICT contractor costs and managed service provider costs.
Under Vote 43, a Supplementary Estimate of €4.9 million is sought for the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer to provide for the extension of national low-latency platforms, NLLPs, to the ports of Dublin, Rosslare and Cork using 5G, dark fibre and radio connectivity. This funding will support the purchase of circuits, equipment and services to plan, deploy and commission a secure network at each of the ports that will connect to the NLLP. It will support the roll-out of a number of applications to staff working in the vicinity of the ports. It will also support staff in carrying out the additional checks and controls required as a consequence of the UK's decision to leave the European Union. It will be funded via the Brexit adjustment reserve, BAR, claim to the European Commission.
Approval of the Supplementary Estimates outlined will enable the Votes concerned to continue to provide key services and projects until the end of the year. I commend the Supplementary Estimates to the committee. I am happy to answer any questions members have.
I thank the Minister. Does the Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, wish to add anything?
No, but I am happy to answer any questions on the extra moneys being given.
I will now move to members, beginning with Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh.
My first question is on the acquiring of properties by the OPW. I commend the OPW on seeking to increase the owned space portfolio and the Department on facilitating those purchases. It is the way to go when there are opportunities to reduce the cost of leasing. Will the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donovan, outline the process the OPW has to go through when it sees an opportunity to purchase an office building and how long that process generally takes?
This is a question the Deputy and others have raised on a number of occasions on the floor of the Dáil. Following the Covid crisis, we are now living in a different environment in which the amount and type of office accommodation in different parts of the country has changed, as has the usage of space. It is always far easier to manipulate buildings ourselves than it is to ask a landlord to manipulate them for us. Rather than incurring costs, we can, in many cases, absorb them by direct labour. With regard to the particular building the Deputy has asked about previously, I hope to be in a position early in the new year to be able to give further details. She will accept my position in regard to the commercial sensitivities of the transaction.
In general, every building is different. As State agencies or individual Departments come forward to the Office of Public Works on foot of a Government decision requiring office accommodation, the first thing we do is look within our own portfolio to see whether we have anything that will meet the requirements. Thereafter, we will test the market not only in the capital but in other locations as well, depending, for instance, on whether there is already a history of decentralised offices for particular agencies. It is fair to say that each case is different. We use both our own resources, in terms of valuations, and external resources to make sure we are getting the best possible deal for the taxpayer. As the Deputy rightly pointed out, there is an opportunity at this time, with a good climate for office accommodation to be acquired by the State. Acquisitions are done on a case-by-case basis and, as I said, each case is different.
Does the Minister of State have a report showing him which leases are due to finish?
Yes, it tells us when leases are maturing.
Does the OPW look out for opportunities at that point?
Sometimes, based on the investment we might have made in a particular building and depending on the lease, it will make sense to retain it. Other times, it might be opportune for the Government, through the Office of Public Works, to cease or dispose of the lease. Obviously, a building's location will be paramount in our thoughts with reference to the operation of existing Departments, State agencies and public bodies. We perform that function on behalf of all State agencies and public bodies.
It is not a competency that we would expect each individual agency, particularly the smaller ones, to have. We have a strong tradition in this space. The business sector across the country knows the Office of Public Works at this stage in terms of our demands, where we have grown and where we have outgrown buildings. Sometimes people will directly approach the OPW and make it known that particular buildings, sites or opportunities come about. Thereafter there is a very strict process by way of the public spending code together with the Department of public expenditure and reform that has to be met in terms of extending existing leases or acquiring new buildings.
On the disposal of the property, the Minister of State spoke about the windfall from sales of OPW properties. What is the total value of OPW property sales? What has led to the sales? What is the procedure for the OPW clearing these sales with the Department?
To give an example, going back to Deputy Tóibín's question, between the end of November and the end of December 2023, the following are the buildings we have agreed in principle for disposal pretty much to all local authorities: a former Garda station and residence at Shanagolden in County Limerick; a former Garda station in Kilcullen----
That is the list the Minister of State read earlier, is it?
No, these are just examples of what we will dispose of in this month alone. They include land at Rosmuc, County Galway; a former Garda station in Galbally, County Limerick; a former Garda station in the Deputy's constituency, in Bellacorick, County Mayo, which is transferring to Mayo County Council; a former Garda station in Bunbeg, County Donegal, which is sale agreed; a former Garda station at Ardagh, County Longford, which is also sale agreed; a residence at 11 Church Avenue in Templemore, which transferred to Tipperary County Council; and a former Garda residence at 12 Church Avenue in Templemore, County Tipperary.
If the Minister of State has the total value of sales, I ask him or his officials to provide that to the committee.
I can circulate that information.
As he said previously, the first offers of available properties are made to other Departments, local authorities or public bodies. What is the procedure for another public entity taking over an OPW property? Are there generic terms of transfer?
For instance, the property that is sale agreed for €150,000 at Galbally, County Limerick, is going to Limerick City and County Council. We get a valuation on a property. We are not giving them away. We are not allowed to give them away, nor should we, because they are public assets. In the first instance, we offer them to the local authorities, the HSE and public bodies. In some cases, we enter into agreements with community groups and community councils that are looking for buildings. For instance, Kilgarvan Community Council in County Kerry took a building from us. Kerry County Council took a former Garda station from us in Moyvane, County Kerry.
Sometimes it is not necessary to do it by way of sale. It can also be by long-term lease from public body to public body if it means we are facilitating a community group, for instance. We have groups such as first responders, ICA, men's sheds, and things like that. If they make it known to their local authority that they would love to have the former Garda station in X location but they have no money, the Office of Public Works would certainly consider a licence agreement to a public body or community group once the local authority is in the background. The Deputy and I both know, as constituency TDs, that community groups, though well intentioned, sometimes fall asunder. What happens to the building then? We need the local authority to be prepared to provide a safety net, by which I mean that if the community group folds, for whatever reason, we are not left with this building again and that it is given a use within the local authority's estate or a sectoral use.
Over the last 18 to 24 months, we have put a lot of pressure on local authorities and I have to say it has been worthwhile. They were slow, although I should point out that some were not. Leitrim and Roscommon county councils have been particularly to the fore in taking on these properties because they see them. Many of them are 19th century listed buildings or protected properties with fireplaces, sash windows, you name it. They do not come without problems. Otherwise, they would be snapped up. Some of them have gone to public auction in cases where the State or its agents have not shown an interest. Local families have bought them and are now living in them, so they wind up being put to a good use. One thing we have been very keen on is making sure that this list shrinks. We do not want these properties. Charges are made against us - Deputy Tóibín just did so - that we are property hoarders. We have no strategic interest in these buildings and it is in our interest that they are given a new use within the community. Since 2014, the total number of transactions is 152 and the total amount is €31,165,000.
Grand. I cannot let the Minister of State go without asking for an update on the Crossmolina flood relief scheme. In particular, will he indicate what the causes for the delay are and whether the scheme will commence construction this year?
The Deputy probably knows this already but for the benefit of the meeting, in July 2023 the Department wrote to us following a review by the environmental consultants requesting further information in the form of an environmental survey. The OPW responded to the Department of public expenditure and reform, which is essentially the planning authority in this matter, seeking further clarification of the request. In November 2023, just a couple of weeks ago, the OPW updated its environmental surveys and finalised a water framework directive assessment report, which was issued to the Department. That has just happened. We have sent back the information that was requested. I should say as well, and I know the Deputy will welcome it, while we have had longer than expected timeframes in Crossmolina, we have completed the Westport scheme faster than expected, with the Cois Abhainn scheme finishing there during the summer. It will protect a number of properties in the town.
I know that but, as the Minister of State can imagine, people in Crossmolina are asking what is different about the people in Westport. This has been ongoing since 2015, which is too long, but I do not want to go into the conversation again.
The Deputy knows as well as I do that the environmental constraints in Crossmolina are onerous, to put it mildly.
It is on the Department of public expenditure's desk now to sign off on. Is that correct?
We have responded within the last number of weeks.
The OPW has not looked for further information.
No, that is the latest update that I have on the scheme. As the Deputy will appreciate, this is a quasi planning process. We have to give the Department the space and time now to review the documentation that has been submitted from the Office of Public Works. We want to build this, we are committed to it and we are resourced to do it.
We just need to get it done. I have another question on the State Laboratory for the Minister. In his opening statement, he indicated that an estimated additional €640,000 would be required to meet energy costs this year. Did the initial allocation made as part of budget 2022 anticipate the higher energy costs, given the situation we were in at the time of the budget? What are the total energy costs of the State Laboratory?
I do not have available to me the overall energy costs of the State Laboratory. If the Deputy bears with me, I will look at the material I have. I am sure we will be able to get that information for the Deputy and share it with her. What I do know is that we are all aware of what has happened in the price of electricity and gas. The way the State Laboratory estimated its electricity needs was based on the same usage as last year but on a general average anticipated rate for this year. Overall, we ended up just short of the funding that would be needed to cover that energy cost. I can get the figure and circulate it to the Deputy.
Is the same over-optimistic assessment of the energy prices applied uniformly across the public sector or are public bodies responsible for coming up with their own projection of energy costs and prices into the future?
It is not because this is the only Supplementary Estimate I am bringing forward for energy.
In my experience of the Estimates process, Government Departments, through engagement with the agencies they are responsible for, receive from the agencies what their overall budget need is, and within all of that, the agencies themselves form a view as to what their energy costs will be across the year. This is the only example I have in the agencies that I am responsible for of the energy costs being underestimated. In general, it looks as if these bodies get it about right and they are able to cover any additional cost from underspends that happen elsewhere in their Vote.
With regard to public recruitment advertising, what kind of assessment is done to determine the effectiveness of different forms and mediums of advertising?
What happens is that Departments will look at how successful they have been in the number of applications they receive for different posts, and that tends to be the main metric against which advertising campaigns are evaluated. If we look at where we are now in this regard, at the end of quarter 3, 90% of the campaigns that were run by the Public Appointments Service were delivered within the timescales that were agreed with their clients, and for the Top Level Appointments Committee, the equivalent figure was 83%, with a target of 80%. If we look at the requests that recruitment bodies have to run campaigns for State bodies, we have seen in the local government recruitment team, for example, an increase of 73.9% in requests for new competitions and it has advertised 22% more competitions overall. Therefore, it appears that the work these bodies do on behalf of the State is well received. Overall, as was seen in many cases, these campaigns seem to have been delivered on time and there is decent interest in the campaigns that are being run.
I wonder about the effectiveness of the different mediums, but that is fine.
We must try to finish by 5 p.m.
We should finish by 5 p.m., although I do not think we will. We will do our best. I will accommodate the meeting by keeping my contribution as short as possible.
First, I thank the Minister and Ministers of State for coming before the committee. The importance of them being present is evident. I do not propose to go through the entire agenda line by line as that would take us until tomorrow morning. I have in the past gone through it in such detail but not today, although other members will no doubt do that.
With regard to CFRAM and the delays associated with flooding problems throughout the country, it goes without saying that, in many cases, objections have arisen in localities because of the proposals to address the issue. It happened in my own constituency and although, fortunately, the objections were withdrawn, it takes time and interrupts the process. When the process is interrupted, it may well create a problem further down the line. Generally, the OPW does a good, effective job in dealing with that. Unfortunately, the sensitivity to flooding is associated with the time of the flooding, not the previous time, and that is what we need to recognise. My colleague raised the issue earlier. In my constituency, we saw bales of hay floating in the month of July because there was a need for CFRAM, which was in train. It has now been done and it works extremely well.
Likewise, it is no harm to remember that major arterial drainage of rivers has been neglected on the basis that it is good for the environment. I do not accept that. I believe it is essential that main drainage areas are accommodated in so far as possible in order to get the water out of the way and into some other area where there is an outfall and it can be disposed of. We suffered the consequences of that a few years ago in Sallins in my constituency, where the water levels went up almost to the top of the doors in a few hours. That was because the attenuation tanks, which are the modern method of slowing down the discharge of water for environmental reasons, did not work and they filled up quickly. That is the nature of flooding: it happens quickly. Through local organisation, we dug a short trench across a road, which lowered the water level in three quarters of an hour and it came down from the level of the tops of the doors. That is by way of illustration of how effective intervention in an area can be. Deputy Tóibín spoke about how long it takes to do these things and it sometimes takes longer than it should but, at the same time, people’s hearts are in the right place and we have made progress.
My final point in this area concerns the drainage of the River Boyne which had to be undertaken and, gladly, was undertaken. My colleague will no doubt speak about that as well. This affects my constituency also because a huge area benefits from it. I know there were objections and concerns at the time but the fact is that fisheries still continue and fishing still takes place in the Boyne. There was also the drainage of the River Moy in County Mayo which took place many years ago. It was predicted that there would be no more fish in the river but four or five years ago, there were still more salmon caught in the River Moy than in England, Scotland and Wales together. That proved that particular point.
I want to raise a further issue that is close to my heart, and the Minister of State will be familiar with this. A stately home in my constituency, Castletown House, is currently under threat, allegedly, according to the Department, by virtue of the tenacity of the local population, who have objected to the proposals laid down by the OPW in regard to it. This is a stately home of historical, architectural, community and tourism interest that is a very important issue in the area. It transpired that a new owner of the adjoining property had proposed to cease to allow access to the property that is owned by the OPW - the stately home and 230 acres - and it is now for the OPW to open up what was the main entrance to the stately home 240 years ago. Unfortunately, the situation has changed a lot in 200 years and what was the appropriate and only entrance available to the Department is no longer practicable. It would emit onto the main street of Celbridge a traffic volume that cannot and should not be contained in the main street. Previously, there was provision with the previous owner under licence but that has now been withdrawn.
Developments have taken place in the last few days. Rather than talking about it after the event, I believe we should deal with this now as a matter of urgency. To my mind, the crucial issue is that access to a stately home that is owned by the State comes first when it comes to a right of way, which the State can share with the adjoining landowner. However, if we do not do that now, we are going to be in a backwash, we will have no influence whatsoever, things will proceed without us and the train will have left the station. It is important to all of the public representatives in the area and the community, who are not unreasonable. They have made their case and if they had not made their case, they would have been accused of not being alert to what was happening. I am not in favour of wildcat decisions or anything like that, but I will strongly defend the rights of people who are represented by anybody, where there is clear evidence that they are correct in their assessment. Without their intervention, access to the house in question would be history.
I thank the Chairman for allowing me to raise this. I recognise that it may be a small blip on the horizon. It is a big issue locally. There is no need for the Department to continue on the line because it is unsustainable. Legal action has to take place. It is a rumour because it has not been tried. The OPW said it has another entrance. It does not have another entrance; it does not exist. We are only cutting ourselves as long as we go down that road.
We will ask the Minister of State to respond to the queries the Deputy raised. I have to leave to go to another meeting. The Leas-Chathaoirleach, Deputy Durkan, has some views on when the meeting should end. My view is 5 p.m. When he gets into the Chair, he might change that view.
Deputy Bernard Durkan took the Chair.
The Leas-Chathaoirleach raised two issues. Regarding the works done in his county under the arterial drainage and flood relief schemes, he is right. The River Morell is close to his area. Total expenditure on that to date is almost €7 million and 30 properties will be protected. The second and other stages in the River Morell have protected another 35 properties. I agree with what he said about arterial drainage. One person’s rewetting is another person’s flooding. That is the reality we will see in many parts of the country if arterial drainage is to be discontinued. I think, off the top of my head, about 500,000 ha of land and about 77,000 properties in towns and villages and farms are being protected by virtue of the works that the OPW does on an annual basis. It is our intention to continue that work - the Act states we are obliged to do so - and to work with local landowners, farmers and the local authorities.
With respect to Castletown House, this is not, as the Leas-Chathaoirleach quite rightly said, a minor blip. This is a hugely important issue for us as well. Castletown is not just a local amenity; it is of national and international significance. It attracts about 1 million visitors a year and has a significant art collection. We have a good relationship with the Castletown Foundation and we have good relationships with our neighbours as well. I speak on behalf of an organisation, outdoor workers and craftspeople who have devoted their lives, in many cases, to the restoration of the house. As the Leas-Chathaoirleach will be aware, I asked for a meeting to be called this Friday without preconditions to involve the Oireachtas Members, the local authority members from the immediate area, An Garda Síochána and Kildare County Council, all of whom I think have an interest in what currently confronts us, to at least start a scoping exercise as to how we move forward. As I set out in correspondence I sent to the Leas-Chathaoirleach last week, I would not like anybody to think they are being blamed for the situation that currently arises. This is nobody’s fault. What happened is quite simple. The State tried to buy the lands that were part of the original Castletown estate and we were outbid. In that process, as the Leas-Chathaoirleach quite rightly said, the licensed agreement entrance point, which was in existence only since 2007, was extinguished to us and our agents. Everybody else can go in except us. That is the landowner’s entitlement. He is entitled to do what he wants with his land. At a previous meeting – I think this was already articulated and it can be fleshed out in more detail on Friday – questions were raised with regard to compulsory purchase powers and powers of compellability around the area that we would be able to acquire and access. Our powers with regard to compulsory purchase acquisition are limited to those that are conferred upon us under the Arterial Drainage Act. Therefore, we do not have powers with regard to what the Leas-Chathaoirleach referred to.
The county council does though.
For the benefit of the meeting, I have asked. I would like to use this forum to have it stated publicly. It continues to be our stated ambition that we want to reunite the land at Castletown. We are open to discussions - call it what you may – with the current owner to see how that could be achieved. However, we need to have regard to the public purse, the public spending code and committees of the Oireachtas like this one, which would inquire into how we came to purchase that land in the event we did so. However, it is our stated ambition that it is of national and international significance. The meeting on Friday may have to be repeatedly reconvened. I am not putting a time limit on this other than to use this opportunity to say to that my bona fides in this regard are, first, to make sure people locally do not have to expect to have anything surreptitiously done by the OPW. That will not happen. Nothing will be done on the estate without the proper consultation that is required and that the people locally expect.
Looking at similar estates we have, for example Doneraile Court in County Cork or Kilkenny Castle, vehicular accesses are maintained cheek by jowl with pedestrians. Even at St. Stephen’s Green just across the street from here, pedestrian and vehicular accesses for the service vehicles needed by the OPW are able to be done on a daily basis without any issue.
I appeal to everybody going into this process on Friday to come to a solution. I believe it is not unreachable or unmanageable and I think the Leas-Chathaoirleach would agree with me. Then we can work towards a far bigger prize for the State and the people of north Kildare, which is to attain those lands. I would like to get to a situation where everybody can enjoy Christmas and not have this issue with regard to feeling they need to man a protest line. I cannot state it any more clearly than I have stated it before in private meetings with Oireachtas Members, to the local community groups and here now in the committee. It is not our intention to do anything on that estate that will upset anybody. We know the value of what the people of Celbridge, Leixlip and north Kildare have done in terms of their interest around the house and the demesne. Our stated objective continues to be to unite the land. I have no doubt the Leas-Chathaoirleach will feed back to me next Friday, if not before. I wish that process well on Friday and I hope we can move forward with Kildare County Council, An Garda Síochána and any other agencies and community groups that Oireachtas Members deem necessary to try to facilitate this.
We need to see progress at that meeting because it has not happened so far. I will call on two more speakers. I call Deputy English, to be followed by Deputy Boyd Barrett.
I have a few quick observations. The Estimates are fine. We talked much about the flooding. I compliment the OPW and all involved in the response to the weather events over the past couple of months right across the country. I am delighted that the public finances were in order and we could do that. There was no delay in stepping up across a number of Departments to provide support to individuals, those in houses and businesses, as well as the local authorities. That has to be complimented. It is often taken for granted in this country. We have had many weather events over the past number of years that we have been able to deal with. I know, in some cases, people want the finances right away but being assured that the finance is on the way often gives people enough peace of mind as they deal with difficult situations. We cannot take that for granted and I compliment that.
Perhaps not today, but at some stage, would the Minister of State be able to give us a view on the new planning Bill that is coming through? I am conscious it was only published in detail yesterday. While the Minister of State’s officials were probably involved in some parts of that, it would be important to get the OPW’s view on it. It has been brought forward to try to fix planning delays which can cause great complications in projects it is trying to implement.
Regarding Project Ireland 2040 as well, there is an issue with planning delays. The new planning Bill seeks to assist with that while respecting everyone’s rights and dealing with their concerns. I hope we will deal with that as well. It is important we get it right. Any first version of a Bill might not be perfect so it will be important to get views of all Ministers here in the weeks and months ahead as we get that Bill through, if that is okay. I hope they will share those views with us here.
I compliment the relationship between the local authorities and the OPW in dealing with sites and buildings and the handling of that. It takes time. Some cases can be a pain in the rear end but eventually we get there, and it is important we do that. I have one ask. I ask that there might be a review. In general, in respect of OPW-owned or OPW-leased buildings across Departments, how good are we at sharing and accommodating across Departments?
Sometimes I hear of protracted delays or discussions on sharing space or facilities, which really should not happen nowadays. However, we still hear of it. Perhaps not for today, but could there be an audit or a review on how we are at sharing spaces and making sure that, within buildings we own as a Government, large office spaces are not left unused? It can happen from time to time and we should try to prevent that happening if at all possible.
On the children's hospital, one point is often missed. Most people comment on this without even reading the reports or the documents. If a decision had not been made to move along with that project a number of years ago, we still would not even be started. Sometimes, we can wait for perfection but get nowhere. Systems were put in place there to deal with cost claims, changes in design and all the procedures around that. I have looked through most of those procedures. They are there and they make sense. In most cases, it brings people around the table to thrash them out. If that was not done, nobody would bid to take on a project of that scale. Nobody would go near it. That is often missed. Corrections were made along the way but, in general, the right approach was taken to get that project started so that we are now in a situation that we can talk about its completion and its opening in 2024 or 2025. If we had not moved on with it, we would not be anywhere near this and would be waiting 20 more years. We are a long time talking about it and I am glad the project is up and running and in place.
The Minister of State referred to analysis conducted across the EU of public projects and a comparison, and we do quite well in that. Very often, what is missed in the conversation is that we only discuss the public projects because it is taxpayers' money. We hear about complications, overruns, and delays, which are probably pretty normal in construction right across all projects, but we do not discuss the private ones because they are private. Some of them are large-scale projects and we are very familiar with them. It is not something for today, but there may be an analysis comparing public projects of scale with private ones. I suspect when I talk to private operators of large-scale projects, there are similar situations because it is common sense in most cases. There are large construction projects that will come across barriers, delays, complications and cost claims that are quite normal but the public discourse is often that it is totally and utterly abnormal and that it only happens with public buildings. This then gives rise to questions about whether taxpayers' money is being lost or abused, which in most cases, it is not. I absolutely agree that we have to go to great lengths to make sure it is not. However, the reality of it is that projects have a similar storyline, be they public or private, but we only hear one side of it. It would be great to get analysis or some understanding on how it is being compared as well.
We will take two questions together. Is that all right?
Sure. How many empty Garda stations did the Minister of State say he had? Was it 25?
He said he was engaging with local authorities. What is happening with that?
Will I answer that one question? Has the Deputy other questions?
If the Minister of State will take the two together and answer them to finish up. We are running short on time; that is the problem.
Does the Deputy want to put them all together?
I would prefer not to. This is not because I am being difficult but because I am trying to gather some facts.
I want to get to Deputy English's questions as well.
I see. I apologise.
I was not trying to be smart.
I am sure the Minister of State was not. I am conscious that in my area, some of the stations have been sitting empty for quite some time and I would like to know how all that process is going.
With the Covid-19 changes and all the rest of it that the Minister of State mentioned, are we left with buildings we either own or lease that now are very significantly underutilised because a lot more people are working from home? Has a review of that happened to see whether the best use is being made of buildings or whether certain buildings are needed at all given the changes due to Covid-19 and the greater number of people working at home? Can the Minister of State provide any information on how those changes have impacted on the use of buildings? Who is in charge of assessing the property portfolio and whether State leases or buys, and what it needs or does not need? What sort of expertise does he or she have in the area of property? Will the Minister of State run through that?
I have one other question. Representatives of Falun Gong were into to see me a few times. They have a cultural wing called Shen Yun and do performances about pre-communist Chinese culture. I am not a subscriber to Falun Gong at all, but I know they are a persecuted group in China by the Chinese Communist Party. They had previously put on a big cultural event in the convention centre, possibly on a few occasions, and then all of a sudden they were told they could not have it. In the meantime, the Chinese Communist Party had a big event in the centre. The representatives of Falun Gong are pretty convinced that the Chinese Communist Party put the kibosh on the group's ability to use it. I took a quick flick on the Chinese Communist Party's website. People would want to read some of the stuff the party is saying about them. There is fairly widespread and credible allegations of massive human rights abuse of Falun Gong by the Chinese regime. The representatives of Falun Gong could not get any explanation from the convention centre as to why, when it was given to them previously, they could not get it again, but they put two and two together. Is it correct that the OPW is involved in the convention centre in a public-private partnership.
Not anymore?
We do not operate the convention centre.
I know the OPW does not operate it but it is a public-private partnership and the OPW is involved. Is that not correct?
It will, after a period of time, revert to the State's ownership but we have no operational issue with the convention centre.
The OPW has no influence whatsoever over what it does.
No. We do not organise concerts, events, or things like that. That is not our remit.
Regarding how the needs of individual Departments are determined, as I said in reply to Deputy Conway-Walsh before Deputy came in, each individual Accounting Officer is responsible for the maintenance or apportioning of space within his or her own building. Typically, most Departments and State agencies are, at minimum, doing a three-day hybrid-working-type model at the moment. The Deputy is correct to a degree, and Deputy English raised this as well, that they are not the easiest group of people to move out if change is needed. We all know that as public representatives. People in Departments are like everybody else. When they are in, they are in and they do not like moving. Sometimes they have to be moved though if, going back to Deputy Conway-Walsh's point, a lease expires. Over the past number of years, we have reflected on this, and it has been raised by many occasions by Deputies of all parties in the House, that the most preferential route is where the State owns the buildings. Ideally, the State builds them and if not, it purchases them. Where leases expire, if there is no need for them, they can be extinguished or at least have the State can have opportunity to purchase the building. We have reflected on that. I should have said in my initial comments that an opportunity has arisen at the end of 2023 and that is why I am here seeking agreement on a Supplementary Estimate for the State to acquire additional office accommodation. I cannot give the details of it now because of the commercial sensitivity but I have no problem in providing them as soon as we can after that. It is a mixture. As I have often mentioned to the Deputy and Deputy Connolly in the Dáil, it is not a one-size-fits-all response for office accommodation. Sometimes it is in the State's interest to take a lease. For instance, for an inquiry or a tribunal, if we do not have a permanent need for property in a location, it makes sense to take either short- or medium-term leases.
By the same token, it makes sense for us to hold rather than dispose of land because of, for example, potential decentralisation projects. In a previous role, Deputy English was involved in the development of the concept of modern methods of construction. The OPW has used sites that might have been regarded by a very crude instrument as surplus to requirements to kick-start the modern methods of construction, also known as modular housing, response in Claremorris, Cavan and Thurles. If we did not have those sites, we would have been starting from a detrimental point. Thanks to us having them, though, we have been able to start those projects much earlier.
Deputy English also mentioned the storms. I am glad that someone at this meeting acknowledged that the last person to die in a major weather event was an outdoor worker for Wexford County Council who was cutting a tree on the road he lived on himself. The Deputy is right, in that OPW officials, councils and volunteers with the Coast Guard and so on are the first ones to go out once the red warning is lifted. They go out into awful conditions. Without them, the situation would be much worse.
We can revert to the Deputy on the planning Bill. Internal discussions on it are under way.
For members’ benefit, Meath’s CFRAMS is all but completed. Some €27.2 million has been spent on protecting 709 properties. The last of the schemes, which is small, is in Mornington. The Ashbourne scheme has just been completed.
Deputy English made a fair point about the analysis of the delivery of large capital projects within the private sector. Most of the work we do only examines the work of public projects. I am certain that the private sector is facing the same challenges we are in terms of inflation and the availability of talent to do the work. The private sector tells us this at every opportunity it can. Obviously, though, the private sector is not accountable to the Oireachtas in the way we are. We are here to justify where we are with public projects.
I raised the matter because taxpayers would like to know that we are not always getting the raw deal that people believe we are. In many cases, the situation is comparable across the board and we face similar challenges. However, that is often left out of the discussion.
It goes without saying that many of the projects in question, which are ultimately in the hands of the private sector, are equally frustrated by the manner in which progress is being achieved. In one case I know of, ten years have elapsed since the original moneys were allocated, yet we still have not put a stone upon a stone. No progress has been made. Countless issues are involved, with one dependent on the other. Projects go on forever. This situation cannot continue. The Minister needs to take on board the point that anything that can be done should be done to ensure projects can be speeded up, as was the intention when they were first identified.
We have gone over time, I am sorry to say. Does anyone wish to make a final comment?
I thank the Minister and Ministers of State for their attendance.