Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach debate -
Wednesday, 25 Sep 2024

We have received apologies from Senator Higgins. Previous to this meeting, in a private meeting, we adopted the minutes of the meeting of 18 September 2024.

I draw the attention of members and witnesses to the note on privilege. Witnesses who are present on the Leinster House campus are covered by full privilege. Those who are not attending in person may only be covered by partial privilege. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

On behalf of the committee, I welcome the OPW today. I understand Mr. Conlon is going to give his opening statement now.

I thank the committee for its invitation to attend this afternoon. It is my first opportunity to address the committee since my appointment as Chairman in April. I am joined by colleagues from the management board of the Office of Public Works.

I will start by addressing the bicycle shelter at Leinster House. This has been the source of considerable concern for the political system and the general public. I very much welcome the opportunity to explain, in person, to you, the circumstances around the construction of this project. First, I understand the anger and frustration of both elected representatives and the public. I want to make clear that I am taking immediate steps to ensure that this does not happen again.

As Accounting Officer for the OPW I acknowledge that, while the costs for this project can be explained, the overall cost of delivering this bicycle shelter is not acceptable in the wider context of value for money and value for the taxpayer. It is an extraordinary cost for the provision of a bicycle shelter and one which the OPW must reflect on. I have set out in the review that the project was delivered on foot of a specific request from the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission to provide covered bicycle parking on the Merrion Square side of Leinster House. The design of the facility was conservation-led, with the main focus of being to provide a solution that met the client needs.

I am taking immediate measures to ensure that, in future, the value for money aspect of projects of this scale is more front and centre in our processes. I have revised downwards the project approval thresholds that currently apply and I am also putting in place new governance measures to ensure that management board members oversee and approve all works above €200,000. This essential step will provide me with the assurance as Accounting Officer that public funds entrusted to the OPW are being spent effectively.

In future, the OPW will ensure that the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission is fully informed of costs for all elective projects in Leinster House. This will ensure the decision-making process is more robust. To ensure that the OPW can build on the lessons learned from this project, I have engaged an external auditor to provide advice to me on additional measures that I should take to ensure that the value for money objective is given due weight throughout the whole project appraisal process for projects below €500,000 and this work will include an audit of this project.

In conclusion on this issue, as Accounting Officer I want to acknowledge that it was a failure on the part of the OPW not to inform the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission of the cost of the project.

As Accounting Officer, I am here to take responsibility today.

I will now address the other matters that the committee wishes to consider. The OPW is leading a proactive, whole-of-government approach to managing flood risk across three areas covering prevention, protection and preparedness. The Government has committed €1.3 billion over the lifetime of the national development plan to protect approximately 23,000 homes and businesses in communities under threat from river and coastal flood risk. Nationally, 55 schemes have been completed at a cost of €550 million, which are providing protection to more than 13,000 properties and an economic benefit to the State in damages and losses avoided estimated at €2 billion. The OPW recently gave approval for the construction of the King’s Island flood relief scheme in County Limerick. This, when completed, will protect 528 homes and businesses. The scheme at Crossmolina, County Mayo, recently received confirmation to progress. The OPW now plans to construct this scheme. When completed, this will protect 116 homes and businesses. A substantial body of work has been undertaken in the past few months on progressing interim flood measures at both Lough Funshinagh in County Roscommon and Midleton in County Cork, following the recent severe flooding at both locations. With regard to coastal erosion, the OPW is the national lead body for the assessment of coastal change and risks and the assessment of technical constraints.

The OPW was granted planning permission by An Bord Pleanála on 28 March 2024 for the development of a national children's science centre at a site adjacent to the National Concert Hall in Earlsfort Terrace. The conditions of this planning are being reviewed by the OPW. The project is the subject of ongoing arbitration between the National Children’s Science Centre and the Commissioners of Public Works. The arbitrator issued an interim decision on 25 June 2022 and found in favour of the applicant, the Irish Children’s Science Centre. This has reinforced a legally binding commitment on the OPW to construct the centre in accordance with the planning permission granted. The next step in the arbitration process is the arbitrator will reconvene the parties to the case now that planning permission has been secured and will issue further direction regarding specific performance of the contract. No provision for the development of this project was made in the NDP due to the ongoing arbitration process and uncertainty about the timing of this project. While there is a legally binding contract, the OPW and I are conscious of the concerns raised by Deputies that this project should be subject to robust value for money analysis before Exchequer funding can be committed to the development of the project. The issue of funding for the project will be considered by the OPW and the relevant funding Department in due course. I thank the Chairman and the committee members for their time and welcome their questions.

I thank Mr. Conlon. I propose to take the issue of the cost of the bicycle shelter as the first topic. We can then deal with the other matters with the agreement of members. The clerk to the committee has listed Deputies Doherty, Tóibín, Matthews, Conway-Walsh, MacSharry, Senator Sherlock, and Deputies Durkan and Boyd Barrett in that order. Before I call Deputy Doherty, will Mr. Conlon tell me why we received the opening statement and reports at 9.15 this morning and not earlier, as is usual?

I apologise for the lateness of the submission of both my opening statement and the review I completed and gave to the Minister late yesterday. I wanted to ensure the committee got both documents together rather than one after the other. I acknowledge that it is discourteous to the committee that it only came this morning. The reason it only came this morning is I only gave the review to the Minister late last evening.

I accept that it is a very high cost for delivery of a covered bicycle shelter where it is. I have set out in my review what drove the costs of the project. It was conservation-led. It was procured in a certain way. It had materials that were in keeping with the environment around it. In that context, the costs were driven by the design and driven by the aspects of where it was located. From that perspective, I accept it is a very expensive shelter, but it was procured in a way that was competitive. It was procured in a way that was cost competitive, but the design and conservation drove the cost to the level it is at. As I acknowledged in my report, it is an expensive cost for a bike shelter in that context. I accept that.

The first thing I would have done was to make sure the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission was advised of it, and to take its input first. That is an important lesson to learn from this. It is a failure I have acknowledged in my opening statement. It should have happened and there should have been some judgment check on the costs at that stage. I fully accept that.

The Houses of the Oireachtas Commission is important in this, but the OPW is the most important party. It spent the money, designed the bike shed, issued the contract and decided not to go to tender. It is the OPW that signed off on this and handed out taxpayers' money. Because Mr. Conlon has now reviewed all of this process and talked to the principal parties, I would like to know, outside of telling people about it, would he have stopped this project?

Mr. Conlon would question it in the context of asking if they could get this any cheaper, and he would be told it had been put out to tender and they were going with the lowest price and all that. They would have informed him of all that information we see in his review. What would he have done then?

What does that mean? I do not want to split hairs, but I do not understand. Will he answer my question? Did they follow the procedures or not? The question he is asking the independent auditor, which more taxpayers' money is being spent on to find out how this went wrong, is if the appropriate processes and procedures were followed. I am asking Mr. Conlon. He has reviewed all of the documents. He has interviewed all of the parties involved in this and is the senior accounting person in the agency. Were the appropriate processes and procedures followed in his opinion?

Okay, that is just basically telling people what OPW is doing, the upfront part of it. We would expect that if the OPW were to tell the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission that it was planning to build a bike shed for €336,000 - I will come to that number again because the OPW actually expected it to cost a good deal more than that - the commission would ask those in the OPW if they were off their head. That is what would happen. Really, that is a secondary protection. In respect of the OPW, which spends hundreds of millions if not billions of euros of taxpayers money, we need to know it is getting value for money because we cannot be told of every single project it is spending money on. I am concerned that Mr. Conlon is saying that the processes and procedures were followed and that the only thing the OPW would have done differently would have been to ensure other people were informed of the cost. It seems this bike shed would have gone ahead even with what we know now.

What I am saying quite clearly is that the processes and procedures were followed by the officials concerned. There could have been a stronger emphasis on the cost in the business case at this stage when the original costings were done. That should have been highlighted up to the senior managers at that stage to bring them into the loop. That is something I am also addressing in my recommendations. That is a weakness I can find in retrospect that should have happened at the time and I want that to be stronger in projects of this type going forward.

Mr. Conlon says the assessment by the OPW should have placed greater emphasis on the value for money aspects of the project. Was there any emphasis or concern about value for money? When this assessment was carried out, the "simple assessment" as Mr. Conlon describes it, was value for money on the radar at all? Was there a box that had to be ticked?

I will give Mr. Conlon an example. I asked the OPW, through the Minister, to address an issue of flooding in the Clady River. It failed. Why? It was because of the cost-benefit analysis. What happened after was five houses were flooded and the money we were looking was less than the cost of the bike shed. We could not protect houses in my constituency because of the cost-benefit analysis in the Department. I want to know if there was any value for money appraisal. Mr. Conlon says there should be a greater emphasis on that aspect. Was there any emphasis on it?

A basic assessment was done which had regard to the request that came from the Oireachtas for a covered bike shelter. In my view, it was not strong enough. It is easy to say in retrospect that it was not strong enough. I want to ensure we make the cost assessments for these types of projects more robust going forward and that is what I want to do.

Mr. Conlon also said in his opening statement that the value for money aspect should have been more front and centre. I am asking whether it was on the page at all. This is the review. I expected something completely different from Mr. Conlon in the review. I want the documentation. This will either be through a freedom of information request or Mr. Conlon will give all of the documentation to the committee, and I request that Mr. Conlon give all of the documentation to the committee. I want to see the simple assessment. Was there any reference to taxpayers' money and value for money when this assessment signed off on a bike shed which was costing nearly €400,000? That is the simple question to Mr. Conlon. Was there any reference?

Okay, I thank Mr. Conlon. On these measured term maintenance contracts, and I will not have a chance to go through all of these costs but some of these costs I think are baffling, to tell the truth, some of these costs went to other suppliers. The big shelter, the structure as we see it, was not done by the main contractor. Somebody else did it. They came and installed it. It was the same way with the granite landscaping. This company provided the granite landscaping and installed it. The contractor then gets all of the other bits and pieces - the landscaping, the ducting, the power and the day works, which we can come back to. This all emerges from these measured term maintenance contracts. This contract was entered into with the supplier in November 2021 and became operational in 2022.

Sensori Group is well known in these Houses for other reasons. The owner of that company at the time of the tender was a political donor to the Minister in this Department and that became a subject of controversy earlier.

These contracts and how they are operated are supposed to be for routine maintenance services and all the rest. Is it not the case that the Comptroller and Auditor General has called out the OPW with regard to these contracts?

The C and AG raised concerns with the procurement which were addressed when we re-tendered that measured term contract in November 2021. It is a contract that provides us with a quick and efficient response across a wide range of areas for the delivery of services in the Dublin region where we have a huge number of properties. It allows us to do small and reactive call-outs, which we do every day. These are minor repairs of windows, plumbing, door handle repairs and that type of stuff. It allows us to plan maintenance work such as gutter cleaning and roof maintenance and allows us to do some small-scale projects.

It talks about the value of the contract being €3 million per annum whereas the total amount ended up being €40 million, which is €10 million per annum or three times more. If a local group in my constituency in Donegal wants to buy a lawnmower to cut the grass out in front of a housing estate, it has to get three tenders. The OPW does not have to do that at all for a bike shed because it can do it under this contract. The OPW had the option to put this work out to tender and it decided not to. Does the OPW regret the fact this was not the case?

I would make it very clear that this contract provides us with a quick and efficient response to doing many projects up to a value of €1 million.

We have done approximately 161 projects in the past three years since the contract started for small-scale works, at an average cost of €136,000. We have done over 2,800 planned maintenance projects under this contract for an average cost of €5,800. We have done almost 8,500 works calls on small-scale reactive cases, which I spoke about initially, at an average cost of €280. It provides us flexibility to do a lot of small, planned and minor-scale works.

It overran by €500,000, that is, half a million euro. It cost €1.4 million. It was probably the most expensive shop in Dublin and in Ireland. It is 40 sq. m and has lain idle for years. Where are the lessons learned? There is a commonality here and I could go through numerous other examples. The Garda headquarters were built by the OPW. I raised it here at the committee a couple of times. It does not even accommodate the number of gardai that we need. I am aware Mr. Conlon is new to the Department but he is representing the OPW. Where are the lessons learned when taxpayers' money is wasted building a shop out the front that goes half a million over budget and a bike shed out the back that came in under budget, from what the OPW expected to spend on it, which is bizarre but is a complete waste of taxpayers' money?

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach agus leis na finnéithe as na cuir i láthair. The current anger and frustration among the public about this is palpable. The reason is that this issue is not unique. The Gucci bike shed is simply the tip of the iceberg regarding Government waste and public delivery of infrastructure. It is really damaging for citizens because we are incinerating hard-earned taxpayers' money. Moreover, as the delivery of infrastructure is grinding to a halt, people cannot consume the infrastructure they need. The bike shed is emblematic of all that. It is amazing that in the four-page document we received from the OPW, nowhere did it say who was the contractor that delivered the project. It is startling that the individual contractor that delivered that project was not named anywhere.

There are two elements to my questioning and why that is important. I want to look at the political oversight and the actual oversight within the OPW. The owner of Sensori was within the public domain in the Oireachtas in a big way for making corporate donations to a senior Minister who did not record those properly with the Standards in Public Office Commission. That was a serious issue at the time. I know, from looking at the diary of that Minister, namely, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, who is now the senior Minister in charge of the OPW, that he met the owner of Sensori in the same month that Sensori won the contract with the OPW. The owner of Sensori then sold his 50% share in December for €23 million at a profit of €17 million. That contract elevated the net worth of Sensori one month after the contract was won and one month after the owner met the Minister.

Has the current Minister for public expenditure, Deputy Donohoe, been in contact with the OPW at any stage regarding these procurement measures for the rolling contracts with these two suppliers?

I emphasise that the contract for the measured term maintenance contract was an open contract that was competitively tendered in the appropriate and proper way. It was evaluated and awarded in the proper way. I need to emphasise that because I do not want to get sucked into any political discussion on this. It was a contract which we procured in full accordance with the Office of Government Procurement guidelines. It was properly evaluated and awarded. As I said earlier, there are two contractors in the Dublin region, one for the north and one for the south. That is all I can say on that.

Can the Chairman provide the details of that tender document to the committee in order that we also can have a look at it?

I have one question relating to the multi-party framework procurement process. The office came up with the idea that this was going to cost €350,000. People would be surprised by that because when you procure something for your household, you do not say that you want something and you are willing to pay €350,000 for it and ask how much you will be charged for it. The person who is tendering will probably say he or she will charge €350,000 for that. People are frustrated because the figure was not generated by an individual, private company. The outrageous figure we are talking about emanated from the OPW itself. Is that correct?

I understand that but we need individuals to be personally responsible for the work they deliver. If people do not fulfil their contracts, then there is a personal responsibility and a form of discipline at some level, up to and including, necessarily, some people losing their jobs on certain occasions. If there is no cost for individuals in terms of waste of taxpayers' money, there will be no change and we will be back here over and over again. Would it be possible to find out if there is anything in the contract or job spec relating to a responsibility to provide value for money for the taxpayer? Mr. Conlon might provide that information to-----

I am not sure if there is a specific clause but to be clear, I am conscious of ensuring that when it comes to identifying people, we treat public servants with respect and the basic principles of fair treatment. I do not want to individualise this issue to that person. I am here to account for the OPW and will do so. I accept it is a legitimate thing for the Deputy's parliamentary scrutiny but I do not want to individualise it to one person.

The reason for that is that the measured term contract provides, in that contract, a list of prices for a list of products, etc. The two issues that were tendered for in this case, namely, the steelworks and the granite, were not part of that and were tendered to the market in a competitive way by that contractor.

It is important that the OPW has an internal oversight where people are employed directly in relation to this.

Two suppliers were invited to quote for the Wicklow granite paving, for example. That was not tendered by the OPW. It was tendered by an outside company. Is that correct?

We walked over the area of the granite and I think it is 60 sq. m. From the figures that we see here that works out as €800 per sq. m and yet if you go online you can see Wicklow granite paving for about €200 per sq. m. My point is that we need to have internal checks and balances in relation to external contractors who, in fairness to them, are profit-generating organisations who are charging us.

Finally, and I know I am running out of time, there is a lot of detail here about the costs and yet some of the costs are quite hidden. Day works have been mentioned. Is it possible for us to find out the labour cost per hour for day works? I ask because I cannot work out what day works actually means in terms of the cost per labour unit. There is another issue at the end of that. Preliminaries looks like an additional 10% cost. What exactly does that mean? I refer to the granite landscaping. Again, there is talk about supply and install. Can Mr. Conlan separate the labour content from that so we can get a clear understanding of all of those costs?

Can we have the quantity of works as well? When the OPW says that it has spent €121,000 on steel, if we are not given the quantity then how can we work out the exact cost per unit? Again, I feel the information we have been given here is not detailed enough for us to properly analyse it and I do not think that is by accident.

Mr. Conlan is very welcome and I congratulate him on his appointment last April. I thank him and his staff for attending.

The OPW does some very fine work in this country, throughout all of our counties, constituencies and not least in this fine building we find ourselves sitting in. I also acknowledge the tremendous assistance Mr. Ciarán O'Connor has been to us on the Joint Committee on the Housing, Local Government and Heritage on a lot of the work the OPW is doing. It is important to acknowledge that work. When an organisation is in the spotlight, which quite rightly the OPW is because of the excessive costs of this bike shelter, that can have a detrimental impact on many of the staff across the country who work for the OPW and it can be demoralising for them.

I want to acknowledge the very fine work done by the OPW and its very good history.

I want to start with the bike shelter. Did it require planning permission?

On the location of the structure, according to the costs the cost of the bike shelter and the manufacture, supply and install comes to €121,000. So it is all the extra works around the shelter that have trebled the price. On locating the shelter quite far from where power was available, why not go to the other side of the buildings where there are EV charging points to pick up on that power? I am looking at the ways this project could have provided a bicycle shelter that would serve its purpose without incurring all of these costs. Did the OPW look at the location to assess where is closest for ducting, drainage, power and supply? The OPW seems to have chosen a very extreme location for picking up those services.

I do acknowledge that the location chosen turned out to be probably the most expensive location that could have been chosen. The location followed a lot of discussion with the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. As I indicated in my review, there were other locations that could have been chosen that would have been far cheaper, particularly in the westward area and areas like that. The decision to locate the shelter there was made between the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission and the OPW after a lot of engagement on where it should be put. Some options were ruled out and that is where they ended up.

Were the people who were making that decision aware that this project was going to incur all these extra costs due to being quite far from power, the difficulties in try to connect to drainage over there and the granite paving? Had it gone to where the EV charging points were located, the OPW would not have had to try to marry the paving up with the building next door. If somebody were spending their own money, or were more responsible for money, they would have said let us look at the area where we can cut down all these excessive costs? Does Mr. Conlan accept that?

I do accept that and, as I have indicated in my opening statement and in the report, I do accept that there should have been more fulsome discussion with the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission on the costs of these locations, so that it could have been option-wise in a better way having regard to costs.

I think one of the main concerns I have from the discussions with the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission, was that there was not a fulsome discussion, if any discussion, on the cost of each of the locations. That should have been the case. That is something I am addressing now by ensuring that the cost of all elected projects be discussed with the authorities in Leinster House, throughout the whole process of planning for these projects. It is something that, as a chairman coming in, I find very difficult to understand, to be very frank.

I want to emphasise that that followed an extensive review of security in this campus by the Garda Síochána technical advisory group. While it looks like, and is a fairly significant cost, there are very significant mechanical and electrical security system costs in that. There was also a significant cost to provide a temporary structure while that building was taking place. There was significant underground works. There was significant ventilation, data communications, CCTV, ramping into a control centre, a significant substructure, and a significant rerouting of underground services. So there was a huge security element to this project.

I do not believe that it is given the significant security dimensions to it and the security elements of it, which were very costly. Mechanical electrical security systems cannot be done to the dimension required without considerable investment. It is not just the hub. The hub ties into a control system across the whole campus. There has been a lot of routing and that kind of work which is quite hidden - you do not see it by looking at the pavilion itself - as well as significant underground works that took place. Significant networking arose in that project in the Leinster House-Government Buildings campus, including power communications, security and CCTV systems. It is not just what we see when we look at the south gate. There is far more to that project than meets the eye. It was a completely different project and I want to emphasise that point.

Notwithstanding the security considerations of that, is Mr. Conlon in a position to provide us with a breakdown of the costs of that? I do not mind if he has to remove the sensitive security nature of it, but I am interested to see if it was value for money. We are picking holes in the costs of this bike shelter. A total of €50,000 was paid for granite landscaping and I do not think that was not necessary. The groundworks came to another €50,000. There were also day works completed which Deputy Tóibín has referred to. We could have done that bike shelter completed without excessive work for a relatively high cost but without coming up with that astronomical figure. I want to see if that is reflected in the security project.

As was said earlier, Deputy Doherty asked for the full documentation to be furnished to the committee. It was the expectation of all committee members that all relevant documentation would be submitted. We look forward to hearing about it. It is very disturbing that Mr. Conlon cannot say this was a waste of money. We have to remember this is taxpayers' money, and when I say taxpayers, it belongs to every person living on this island who pays VAT and tax and everything else, and they consider their money to be wasted on this project, especially when we are looking at it in the context of 14,000 people being homeless and the fact the money spent on this would have built a very substantial home for some of those who do not have one right now. The least we can do is to examine all the documentation thoroughly.

I would like to establish one thing first. With regard to the measured term maintenance contract, will Mr. Conlon confirm on the record that the procurement was complete in November 2021 for the Dublin area? Was it complete in November 2021? I am talking about the overall contract.

I am not suggesting anything different. I just want to get the timings right. The timings are very important in this. Mr. Conlon said earlier that he would re-scope the project if it were to come to his desk now. How many projects under €1 million have been re-scoped in the past because the project that was being presented was not deemed by the OPW to give value for money?

I appreciate Mr. Conlon might not have the documentation here today but perhaps he could let the committee have note of how many projects were re-scoped because they were deemed not to be value for money? That relates to projects under €1 million in the past four years. That would be useful.

How many people were aware of what was happening? Who was involved? I know Mr. Conlon said earlier he cannot mention individual names. I am trying to get at how many people were making decisions and how many made the decision around this.

It would. With respect to the advices I am seeking, however, I want to bring a more robust assessment to this. Committee members will have seen from the review that was published this morning that I am seeking advices from that. I am conscious we do a lot of work and deliver a lot of projects in this area and I just want some advice as to how to make that process more robust from our point of view. The public spending code is quite silent in relation to the assessments done for values of less than 500. I want to make it more robust within the OPW, learning the lessons of this going forward.

Yes, but as was said earlier, the lessons to be learned were to be learned in 2014 when the Siopa was built, and obviously they have not. People will ask what reason they have to believe now that lessons are going to be learned. Lessons are going to be learned seems to be the mantra of so many things across government.

Okay, if that can be furnished. I can see we may need another session to scrutinise this when we have all the relevant documentation.

Is it usual for no estimates to be submitted to the promoter of the job? Is it usual for a job to be given the go-ahead without there being any ballpark figure or discussion of what the cost might be? I understand it cannot be pinned down because the jobs go out to tender, but for the Oireachtas to say go-ahead without any idea of the cost is like signing a blank cheque.

It is usual that the officials working on the project do an order of magnitude costing, which was done in this case, and work from there. As I said on a number of occasions, the order of magnitude costing was done with regard to the particular circumstances of conservation and with a design-led approach. It would be usual for officials on any project to do an order of magnitude costing to get some assessment of the cost and move forward from there.

From a technical perspective, when the contractor finished the installation of the bike shelter, the levels needed to readjusted for health and safety reasons to avoid slips and trips in the winter. It is standard that if the levels are not right they have to be fixed and that it is a variation on the contract.

The initial designs around levels were done before the installation of the shelter. Then archaeology work and digging out was done when the shelter was being installed and I think there were some changes to how levels needed to sit to make sure there was the right falls and there would not be any slips and trips. It was due to a health and safety assessment that is done at the end of the installation and it required a variation on the contract. That is how it works.

I would like to speak.

I thank the witnesses for coming and wish them well in their new-----

I will take them.

I wish Mr. Conlon well in his new role. Of the existing management team, other than Mr. O'Connor, does anyone have an engineering, quantity surveyor, QS, or valuer qualification?

Okay. I thank Mr. Conlon for clarifying that.

Is the OPW aware whether the preferred measured term maintenance contractor - that company or those companies - have loyalty arrangements with suppliers, whereby if they pass a threshold of supply, they gain a rebate?

I am more interested in a common-sense approach. I am a buyer of steel or granite and I am doing a lot of work because I am a good contractor. I am doing work for the State and private work and so on. Do I have rebate arrangements with suppliers, albeit that they win tenders, whereby if I do so much business with them over the course of six months, a year or two years or on an individual contract basis, I would gain a rebate.

Clearly it does not, with respect. That is the practice. We are all here because the practice is flawed in the first place. It seems, with the best of respect to the experience the commissioners have, that it would be preparation 101 that I would want a QS on my management team if I were in the OPW.

Could I finish? I would want mechanical and electrical engineers, not just a civil engineer. I would want the State architect who I am sure is a grade 1 conservation architect and a consummate professional and I would certainly want a valuer. By the OPW's admission, we have absences for some of those professions. No doubt, the officials have a lot of experience. Mr. Conlon's background is on the climate side of public expenditure. Is that correct?

-----because you are trusting, like the OPW trusts the person who wins the contract to get the best possible price and operate to the highest standards and governance. Mr. Conlon is assuming that the QS further down the trough is doing the best possible job. That is the practice that leads us into trouble. One of the big problems is this. Mr. Conlon said earlier when someone asked about the identity of the person who signed off on some aspect that he is very conscious that he wants to treat civil servants with the dignity and respect they deserve at work and that he does not wish to individualise it. I suggest that this is the problem.

By the way did we ever get a reduction in rent from Larry Goodman on the Miesian Plaza building which was mis-measured by the professionals in the OPW?

Please do. These are the things that need to be known by the public. The reason I am bringing this up is that just as the OPW wants to treat people with the respect they deserve, provide dignity at work and so on, we want to treat the taxpayers with the respect they deserve. When I asked Mr. Conlon's predecessor whether a disciplinary process was afoot because of that absolutely maximum 101 mistake, he said that, no, it is not a disciplinary issue. In fact, when I asked Mr. Conlon's former boss at the Department of public expenditure why there was no disciplinary process, he, number one, did even know the Miesian Plaza issue had occurred and, number two, he said we do not operate a "gotcha culture" in the Civil Service. The administrative merry-go-round keeps going around. Mr. Conlon has said repeatedly today that an appropriate procurement process took place in line with the rules. What is missing in this is cop on and basic common sense. In fact, the OPW is going to waste more money now by getting in an external auditor to make sure the OPW is doing what it wants to do.

I will move on to my next question. At what level does expenditure come before the management board?

The facilities management team attends meetings of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. I am a former member of this committee, the Committee of Public Accounts and the commission. I know about some of the things that go on. I find it absolutely ridiculous in the extreme that somebody with the professionalism and experience of the Clerk of the Dáil would not even ask how much this was going to cost.

I find it difficult to believe, not to understand. It is difficult to believe. Sadly, because of what Mr. Conlon said, because of our practice of covering everybody's ass or, to put it another way, give people the dignity and respect they want, provided they are on this side of the table, for the people on that side of the table, that is, the people ponying up the cash, it seems we have no respect for them. The outcome of this will be what is always the outcome after the 2022 experience. The witnesses are all going to blame it on systemic failure and the merry-go-round will move on to the next security hut or the next bicycle shed. By the way, who decided to face the shed towards the weather as opposed to sheltered towards the wall?

I thank Mr. Conlon and all his team for attending the meeting today. I congratulate him on his appointment. It is regrettable that he is having to attend the committee in these circumstances. It is very sad for all the OPW staff across the country that such a cloud is being cast over the organisation now. Some excellent work is being done.

Regarding the bike shelter, many people have expressed their outrage at the cost. I am also outraged at the time that was spent on the design. As a cyclist, I find myself extremely irritated that the OPW seems to have no problem with all the cars parked at the front and back of Leinster House, yet it was intent on hiding the bike shelter. All the talk with the bike shelter was about the serious impact it would have on the integrity of Leinster House and the undesirability of having it visible to the public, such that an objective should be that it was out of sight and the impact should be minimised on the vista of Leinster House. We are talking about a bike shelter. We are not talking about a cowshed being put on the grounds of Leinster House. To be very clear, the objection to a bike shelter, and the intent to try to hide it, is really frustrating.

I want to ask about the accounting processes within the OPW. In the final account in front of us, there is a line about day works. I am a bit confused by that. Do day works refer to something separate to the covered shelter and the other works or do they relate to them? I see it is a very neat 12.75% of the total cost. To what precisely does this expenditure relate?

Day works is a standard clause that is used in construction contracts. It covers items that are not part of the measured items that are tendered as part of the original tender process. It is usually for things such as the material and the plant that are included in a particular item that were not part of the measured items. In this case, it covers the safety bollards at the front of the bicycle shelter. They were the items covered under day works. The supply, the workmen's time and the installation of those bollards are what is covered under day works.

I find this a bit strange. Everything should be itemised. Having this catch-all under the project does not seem acceptable.

I move on to my second question. The scope of works was issued in 2023 and the final account report was issued to the OPW official in July 2024. Am I right in my understanding that there was no direct role by OPW officials in that 12-month period with regard to the tendering process? Was there no oversight by an OPW employee during that tender and quoting period?

The OPW's documentation states that the scope of works was issued in 2023 and the final accounting report was issued in July 2024. It seems the intervening period was handled by contracted agents of the OPW. There does not appear to have been any direct oversight by an OPW official of the tender process and the assessment of quotes received during that time.

The full contract is overseen by a senior architect in the OPW. To be clear, it is that official who oversees everything in regard to the certifying of the works and dealing with the contractor in terms of the estimated costs that come in. When an estimated cost comes in, it is submitted to the quantity surveying contractor, who assesses it and provides a recommendation certification to the OPW. We review that and it is certified by the senior architect on the job. There is a series of processes that are done by technical people who have the accredited skills and the necessary technical obligations, as it were, in how we do our processes to fulfil these functions.

It absolutely is overseen to the end by the relevant official in the OPW.

If a project such as that was to come before that official today and was just under the €200,000 threshold, it would not go to the board. Would a project such as this still go through today? Ms Collier is saying that there is a proper process in terms of the architect overseeing it. To me, even a cost of just under €200,000 would still be outrageous for a bike shelter. Could something like that still happen today?

The Chairman has alluded to how we are learning lessons and are looking at our processes and systems to improve those. We have standards and processes in place for our teams that they must follow. We have to empower our teams to do the work. We are delivering a huge programme of work across Dublin. There are 600 buildings and 110 of them are historic. There are a huge range of programmes of work that have to be delivered and people have to be empowered to follow the processes and systems we have in place. It goes back to the judgment call piece. The costs here can be explained; it is just whether they are value for money or not. We all agree with the Senator's assessment that this does not represent value for money. Would it represent value for money at a lower level? It might, depending on the design and the cost but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about this particular instance.

I am concerned there is not a common-sense check somewhere in the organisation that ultimately would have put in context that this is a bike shelter and not something more elaborate. On the specifications, I see that lights and charging points were part of the original specification and do not appear to have been delivered on. Were they paid for?

They cannot be operational now because we cannot certify charging for e-bikes now in the vicinity of the National Gallery. It is all to do with building regulations and the certification of charging for e-bikes at the moment. In time, it is future-proofed so that power and charging for e-bikes can be installed in the future.

I have a question for the Chairman. One of the things that really strikes me is that he said he will commission an external auditor to inform or advise as to how value for money can better inform practices in the organisation. With respect to Mr. Conlon, the OPW's bread and butter is spending money on maintenance and capital projects. Mr. Conlon's background within the public service has been monitoring of how money is spent. Does he really need an external auditor to tell the organisation how to do its job? I hear what Mr. Conlon said in terms of putting in place the process with regard to the thresholds, as of yesterday. Going back to my earlier question, I do not hear how, with regard to the processes put in place for that type of project. If the cost came in for just under €200,000 today, it would probably still go through and that it still completely unacceptable.

There are two reasons I want to have some external advice to help me on this. We deliver a huge number of projects in that range. As a new Accounting Officer, I want the best advice I can get on an independent basis to allow me to put in a more robust structure for the delivery of projects in that category. I accept that projects that might be slightly under that threshold should require further review, probably by a more senior person. I indicated earlier that the OPW does a huge amount of work in the category below €200,000 in terms of very small works and medium works. Under the medium-term framework, over the past two and a half years we have delivered more than 11,000 projects. I do not want to slow down that system because we must be able to react efficiently and effectively to the huge amount of work we are asked to do on an ongoing basis. I want more robust structures in place for the category of works that are similar to this, between €200,000 and €500,000. I would like some assurance and advice on that.

Like Deputy MacSharry, I am a former member of the Committee of Public Accounts. I was a member for 15 years, for my undoubtedly very long list of sins. I also am a former Minister of State so I have a bit of knowledge in that area. I also am Vice Chairman of this committee. In that context, I will raise a couple of questions which I am led to believe I have a right to be concerned about regarding the direction in which OPW is heading at present. The witnesses will be familiar with the situation in Castletown House in my constituency. I compliment OPW for the tremendous work it did in relation arterial drainage in conjunction with the local authorities all over my constituency. It was very well done and effectively carried out.

I have different views with regard to Castletown because, rightly, Castletown House was in the charge of the OPW on which the organisation spent €25 million over the last number of years. It was on good causes. I have never gone into the individual causes in any way but €25 million was spent. Because €25 million was spent and more was obviously going to be spent over a number of years, an access and egress point could not be guaranteed and as a result the OPW went through an interregnum with the adjoining landowner to the effect that by way of permission, to be renewed on a fairly regular basis, access would be from the M4 to a car park, which was provided, to Castletown House and the adjoining gardens and lands.

The State owns Castletown House with 220 or 230 acres and has done so for several years. It entered into an agreement with the adjoining landowner at that time because it was conscious of the fact it did not have any kind of guaranteed, unimpeded access for itself or its assigns. That was proved when an alternative, temporary arrangement was sought. Right now, the OPW has failed to protect Castletown House. A year has gone by since the situation developed outside the hands of anybody. Nobody was accountable as far as I can see, to the effect that no work has been done. Local residents, rightly in my opinion, put a picket on the gates which were intended to be used. The front gates of an historic mansion were to be used as a means of toing and froing - whatever was required - in the future. That is not feasible because they are right onto the main street of the adjoining village which is choked with traffic at present. The OPW knows that.

Another thing happened then. I raised it on numerous occasions. Notwithstanding the attempt by other Members of the House who spoke previously to suggest a particular senior Minister was responsible, the line Minister is the Minister of State. That is correct as he is accountable to this committee and to the House and appears before this committee on a regular basis. That has not worked. I have raised that particular issue in the House on something like 22 occasions to get a response and failed. I saw something happen in the last 24 hours that really raised the alarm.

There were two things. I want solutions to the issue and answers to these questions. I was to attend a meeting in Castletown House yesterday. Because of other circumstances I cannot walk a distance of a mile or a mile and a quarter but, touch wood, I will shortly. I decided to place myself strategically on the route I thought the Minister would take and that was at a gate at the border of the estate. I was there when suddenly, the Minister came along, almost running, and hurried himself for the last mile to walk to the estate where the meeting took place. I cannot understand who is running the show in the OPW, that is, whether it is the Minister or the OPW telling the Minister what he should do. I am quite clear as to where the pecking order is.

I would have presumed that as a courtesy to the Minister, arrangements would be made to unlock a particular gate where there was no other designated traffic and that he would be able to use his time to good effect - and I am sure he has plenty of other issues to deal with - to be on time for the meeting. Needless to say, I could not go there.

I will say the following. I have twice in the past three months submitted a comprehensive question to the Minister in question seeking to ascertain the extent to which any previous arrangement might have been entered into with a nod or a wink, or may have been inferred or implied. The question was drawn up by a legal eagle in order to ascertain what went on behind the scenes that I might not know about, that was outside my remit and left me trying to guess what had taken place. The question was not answered. It was returned to me with a note that the Minister would talk to me about it. He has done so, but always under the umbrella of the power and influence of the OPW. I have put that question down twice and twice it has been refused. I am now issuing a warning and the Chairman knows this has to be done from time to time. I expect that question to be answered. Every aspect of it and every nuance has to be answered.

The local people have been portrayed as a rabble causing interference and slowing down the progress of the OPW. There has been no progress. A year has gone by, with the working committee meeting every couple of weeks, and nothing is happening. That is to the frustration of the local residents and the public representatives of all parties. I resent being told, or its being inferred, that this is above the competence of ordinary country rednecks and Deputies and somebody else should be dealing with it. We have not yet decided who should be dealing with it. The Chairman was not responsible for this but I had a long conversation with his predecessor and there is no doubt at all as to where the buck stops. I believe that the current Minister is entitled to exert his authority and respond to the reasonable requests of local residents who have a serious issue. They are frustrated because they have been given a hand-off.

There is no sense in telling me or anybody else that we have another agenda and want to buy more land. The first thing we have to do is to secure access to the land and premises that we own. The OPW has failed to protect the concept of a listed and historical building. The building in question is a local amenity and is urgently required. The residents around the area are adamant that they will defend their right to enjoy that particular building and the lands involved. I am asking for a serious effort to be made in the next week to ensure that some progress is achieved in the short term and that it does not consist of temporary arrangements, which usually come back to bite the people, as they know. A temporary arrangement that was put in place 20 years ago to gain access from the M4 was ceased when an adjoining landowner put a gateway across that temporary arrangement. The challenge is to the OPW. Let us face the challenge and deliver.

I thank the Deputy. I have noted the issues he has raised. This is an issue we are trying to work through carefully. I am working closely with the Minister on approaches. I will speak to him directly about the issues the Deputy has raised. It is something we are making a real effort to progress with the Minister.

I thank the representatives of the OPW for their contribution to this discussion. They are obviously aware that the bike shed scandal has brought the Houses of the Oireachtas, the OPW and the public services into disrepute. People cannot understand how a bike shed could cost the same as a house. I cannot think of any good explanation for why a bike shed would cost more than a house. I am still not clear, even after all the discussion we have had, how we have a bike shed that cost more than a house. I see the costings here and they do not make sense to me. After two hours of discussion, I cannot understand how the bike shed cost so much. As has been pointed out, it is open to the elements so it is not even clear that it will keep bicycles dry. I am not being glib but that is what somebody in my office who cycles said. That person is not using that bike shed, I hasten to add. The shed may not even protect the bicycles from the rain. It is quite an extraordinary situation and brings far bigger issues into disrepute. It is symbolic to the public of many things in respect of how their money is misused and misspent at an extraordinary level.

I would certainly like to see a more detailed breakdown. What the witnesses seem to be saying is that they understand where the costs come from but are not sure whether they represent value for money. I do not understand where these costs come from. I want to see a more detailed breakdown. I have seen a breakdown from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors or quantity surveyors on the construction of a house and different elements are included. The figure for the actual construction costs, €121,000, is the approximate cost of the construction of a house. There are also all these other things. Perhaps the witnesses can elaborate further or provide us with more detail. The public will find all of this hard to understand unless somebody explains how on earth a project could have been approved to spend as much money on a bike shed as on a house. That is the first thing.

It is being reported as we speak that the OPW proposed an area near the Members' bar on what is referred to as the west road. Is that right? Is that the area just under the Members' restaurant?

I do not see why the OPW would not have put the shed there. Security concerns have been cited but I do not see what the additional security burden would have been. There is still a security gate between that area and Leinster House itself. Do the witnesses know how much less that would have cost? Would they still be of the view that it is the option we should have gone with? Who made the decision that the option that the OPW had initially proposed was not acceptable and we had to go for the option that has turned out to be far more expensive and comparable with the cost of building a house?

The Houses of the Oireachtas Commission refused the OPW's initial suggestion. When the OPW had to ascertain the cost of the new location that the commission wanted, was there not some requirement, obligation or request for the new cost to come back for the commission to sign off on it? I cannot understand how that would not be the case.

I thank Deputy Boyd Barrett. Regarding his first comments, in my opening statement I acknowledged that the cost of this was not acceptable in the context of value for money and value for the taxpayer. I have acknowledged the extraordinary costs and I reflect on the Deputy's comments on that very seriously.

In relation to the Deputy's comment on our suggestion that it be located on the west road, this was an option we put forward to the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. As I understand it, the security issues were raised by An Garda Síochána. That was taken on board in moving away from that as a preferred location.

When that option was refused, and what turned out to be a far more expensive option was decided upon, was there not a requirement for the costing of the new location to come back to the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission to say the option chosen has turned out to be much more expensive and to ask if the commission was sure it wanted to go ahead with this? That strikes me as something obvious that should have happened. I do not understand how it would not have happened.

I totally agree with the point the Deputy has just made that it should have been relayed back to the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. It was not. This is one of the reasons I am insisting that the commission be fully informed at the monthly meetings of all elective works the OPW does on its behalf. I find it very hard to understand, and I have said it twice during this committee meeting so far, why those costs were not relayed back.

It should have been. Lastly, we have heard today in a different context that the board for developing the national children's hospital accused the main contractor of trying to extract every single cent it possibly could from the State. Is there an element of that in all of this, given the extraordinary costs? All the people doing the work, whether they are this medium-term group or outside contractors, were presumably in it to make a few bob. Everything was outsourced to commercial businesses who were also out to make a few bob. The consequence is an incredibly and shockingly expensive bike shed. Are we looking into whether there was profiteering going on here? Were they just extracting every cent because they knew this was the public purse and if it is the public purse, they can bump up the prices?

My very last question is this. At some point, before it was approved, somebody saw an estimate of what it was going to cost and that it was going to be an extraordinary amount of money. That would have been after July 2023 and before July 2024. Somewhere in between, somebody was given an estimate which detailed all these costs and the total cost. That one individual signed off on that. Is that what happened?

When a decision was made that there was going to be a bicycle shed shelter installed in Leinster House - I think it was on 1 June 2021 - did anyone in the OPW say that we actually have a bike shed installed in Government Buildings and Farmleigh previously and should we not go back to that contractor?

I think the assessment made at that stage was that the team who would have designed this would have had more regard to the conservation aspects of the Leinster House and lawn site adjacent to the National Gallery. The team would have proceeded on that basis rather than taking the approach the Deputy is suggesting.

A decision was then made that we needed to go down the procurement route and Mr. Conlon mentioned in his report that can be done by either an advertisement on eTenders or by way of the measured term maintenance contracts, MTMC, framework scheme. Why was it decided not to proceed by way of advertisement on eTenders?

The estimate is fully assessed by the quantity surveyor. They assess it against the tendered rates on the original contract for the measured items. They then assess the rates that have been received in respect of the mini-tenders that happened under the contract. They do a very detailed assessment and then make a recommendation to the OPW in relation to the cost estimate we have received. As I say, the relevant officer in this scenario was a senior architect who was overseeing this contract and this job and it is reviewed by them. The instruction to proceed is then issued at that point. This process would have all been carried out within the team. That is in line with standard OPW process and procedure on jobs.

From listening to the witnesses today and listening to Mr. Conlon today, he is stating unambiguously that the expenditure is not consistent with the scale of the project under consideration. At what stage does this go beyond the small team and somebody in the OPW says this is a completely inappropriate price we are paying? When does that happen?

It is certainly an awful of responsibility to give to one person. Mr. Conlon says the OPW has now lowered the limits to €200,000. The same person could still sign a check for €199,000 for another, similar project and that would not be a problem. Are there other oversight mechanisms that have been put in place as well?

I am sure Mr. Conlon has met the Minister of State with regard to this since the news first broke in the media. Mr. Conlon was appointed in April, am I right?

That is quite something. It is an awful lot of responsibility. I do not want to personalise it to any one individual but this principal officer grade, what training did they have in terms of financial management or anything like that? What would be their training and is it mandatory? Let me phrase it in a different way. Is it a requirement currently, or does Mr. Conlon think it should be a requirement, for a person who has the responsibility of spending €500,000 of taxpayers' money to have some sort of training in financial management or budgetary oversight or anything like that?

I would prefer to phrase my answer in the context of project management, which has regard to cost, rather than financial management. The development officers on that level in the OPW are responsible for a lot of project management and I would expect that project managers within the office would have regard to cost issues.

What has Mr. Conlon done to ensure that? We would all expect the people charged with the responsibility of spending taxpayers' money would have regard to that. They clearly did not, which is why we are here. What would be Mr. Conlon's level of expectation? Has he checked the qualifications of staff? It has been reduced down to a threshold of €200,000. That is still a phenomenal amount of money. Has Mr. Conlon made sure every person under his remit, with the responsibility of spending €200,000, has in fact got those qualifications and they are up to date?

I have a qualification from college but I would hesitate before I would use it because it is an awful long time ago. Do they have current skills in terms of financial management or that part of project management which encompasses value for money?

It will be part of our learning and development process to ensure they have project management skills and we need to continuously update that. The people who delivered this project are responsible for delivering quite a number of projects and we have enhanced our project management training in conjunction with the Institute of Public Administration, IPA, over the last couple of years. That is something I will put more emphasis on as well.

It is not a brilliant ad for it, is it?

In terms of the order of magnitude costing, it was a hell of a magnitude, was it not? The order of magnitude costing was carried out by this individual at the grade of principal officer or equivalent and at no stage was any more senior person notified about that, am I right?

This individual obviously felt empowered by senior managers to act. I do not want to personalise it to an individual, but whoever the person was at the level of principal officer felt very comfortable in signing off a project of this size without any recourse to senior managers?

As regards making sure that will not happen again, the OPW has put some limit in place. It is still a hefty enough amount of money - €200,000. In Mr. Conlon's meetings with the Minister of State since this story broke in the media and since Mr. Conlon tells us he himself became aware of it, has the Minister of State advised him that he wanted action to be taken? Did he specify any particular action? Did he ask Mr. Conlon to itemise what action he himself would take on foot of this?

He did not direct me in any particular context in that way. As I have outlined in my review, I am taking certain actions as Accounting Officer in that respect. The Minister of State would not direct me what to do. What I have set out in the review is what I have set out in the review, and the recommendations are my recommendations.

Thank you, Chair. The order of magnitude costing that was done did not contain within it the €11,000 that was needed to ensure the bike shed could be safe during the winter. Why was a kind of bike shed for all seasons not built, or how did the OPW end up getting surprised or stung with a bill for €11,000 at the end? Surely the specification would have been to build a bike shed that could be used for 12 months of the year rather than to build a bike shed and then be hit with another bill for €11,000 to make it safe during the winter. I am sure I am not the only person scratching my head looking at that.

So the contract was not to create a bike shed that was fit for purpose, albeit massively expensive. It was to create one that was not and then had to be adjusted at the end. I am just wondering. This seems like a very good deal for the contractor at the end. Mr. Conlon was at pains to point out how detailed the plan was and the order of magnitude costing and all that stuff that went along with it. In all that detailed planning and all that detailed engagement, using the in-house or the external QSs or the in-house or the external staff, or all the qualified people or the people Mr. Conlon would say are at senior enough grades, it was not felt appropriate to make it weather-proof for winter, or somehow the OPW got surprised with the charge at the end.

I thank Mr. Conlon for his presentation and for coming here. I first welcome the fact that the King's Island flood relief scheme has gone ahead and that Mr. Conlon has it mentioned in his submission because that is really important. We, the people in Limerick, waited a long time for it. In his presentation, Mr. Conlon mentions the fact that An Bord Pleanála has given planning permission to the national children's science centre. That has been going on for 20 years. A former chair of the OPW said at a committee meeting here that he would be extremely concerned about the possible exposure to the public purse. He went on to state that the project had never gone through the requirements of the spending code. Is the OPW still concerned about this project and the potential cost to the taxpayer and how much-----

Just from recollection, and I need to double-check this but we can get the information to the Senator later, I think the OPW would have spent about €1.5 million on this over recent years. In response to her earlier question about value for money and the previous chairman's comments, the OPW is in a position where we have this legal obligation to construct this. As I have outlined in my opening statement, there is the issue of value for money, on which I am sure whatever Department ends up funding this will require some assurance. I think that process would have to be gone through if this project evolves to that stage. That should be appropriately done, in my view, but from an OPW perspective, we are in the position where we have this legal obligation as a builder of the project. I have no funding in my funding base for it. As I have outlined, there is no funding in the NDP envelope to date, so there have to be future negotiations with the Government, the Department of public expenditure, on funding for this. At that stage then, the funding requirement, I would imagine, will come with a value for money assessment requirement.

You have been asked on a number of occasions to provide certain paperwork. I have to ask you to ensure that paperwork gets to us as quickly as possible.

I would like to see the minutes of meetings that were held on the project, whether these minutes were taken by the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission or not. The committee, I am sure, will agree that we need to see copies of those minutes.

Going down through the report, Mr. Conlon made his presentation. The Houses of the Oireachtas Commission, first, provides for the running of the Houses of the Oireachtas. The commission is responsible for determining financial and administrative policy, according to the annual report. Is it correct that Mr. Conlon made the report available in a presentation to the commission?

I am asking Mr. Conlon about the commission. The Houses of the Oireachtas Commission was informed of this project by a number of individuals working here, that they wanted to have some form of parking space for their bicycles. Arising from that, the commission asked the OPW to come up with a proposal. Is that correct?

Actually, I was not at the commission at this stage. In November 2020, the commission asked the OPW to attend the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission meeting to talk about the issue of a covered bicycle facility. In April 2021, one senior official from the OPW attended and presented options to the commission and that included the preferred option of outside the 1966 block on the west road. After that meeting, the facilities management team wrote to the OPW the next day saying that was not an acceptable location for the Members, that they were not approving that, and that there were security concerns at that location. The OPW was asked to go and consider locations on the Merrion Square side, specifically in Leinster Lawn. At that point, the OPW did an internal appraisal process and came back to the commission meeting in June of that year with an option adjacent to the National Gallery. That option, which included e-charging, 18 stands and 36 bikes, was approved by the commission.

No, I am sticking with the commission here. This whole debacle started somewhere. It started with a request to provide a bicycle shelter. It resulted in the OPW coming to the commission and making a number of submissions and a final submission. That is the full commission. I will not name them but they are senior people in these Houses who perhaps should have known better with regard to how this was proceeding. The commission then gave the OPW permission to move ahead with the project. Is that correct?

Yes. There would be a deputy secretary, assistant secretary and principal officer from the facilities management team here. I think the assistant principal here attends as well. The superintendent for the Dáil attends some of the meetings. On our side, it would be myself, an assistant principal architect, senior architect, grade 1 engineer and the engineer. It is would be quite a meeting.

He had the commission, made up of very senior people. He had this working group that was made up of really professional people who knew their stuff and were meeting once a month. Presumably, when he got the costings, he said, "Well, you know, it seems to be okay". All of these people are above his pay grade so he would make certain presumptions from that.

Anyway, the project then went ahead. What fascinates me here is that nobody, none of you senior people, none of the commission members and nobody senior in politics, bothered their ass to question why that amount of money was being spent on a bicycle shelter. Everyone wants to blame someone but when you go back to the source of this problem, the blame rests firmly with the commission not conducting its business properly. That essentially is what Mr. Conlon is pointing to. He is not happy with that process. He told us that already.

I wonder whether Mr. Conlon's predecessor happy with the process because what is happening now is that the waters are getting muddier and muddier. We do not know who to blame. We do not know who is responsible for it - the nameless PO, the working group or the commission. For me, it is the commission. They are the OPW's client, and it is delivering for them but they could not give a rat's whatever about the cost. It never came back and asked Mr. Conlon. It never questioned him, is what Mr. Conlon said. They never came back and asked, "How much is it? We need to know because we are watching every bob here on behalf of the Members and the taxpayer." They never did, and that is why I want the minutes of all of those meetings Mr. Conlon referred to so that, in turn, we have a thread of meetings and decisions and who knew what and when. By the way, we should have had that today. There are enough games going on in these Houses without the bureaucracy of the State engaging as well, although it is very good at it anyway. I feel that is a problem with the OPW.

I want to say something to the individual who might be watching this discussion, or the reports that are made of it, and the references made to the employees of the OPW and how demoralised they must feel.

Going back to basic contracts that were handed out way back in 1999 and 2000, to the Kilkenny flood relief scheme, the cost of which increased from €4 million to €50 million, to the issues with Durrow Abbey and to the issues recounted in reports from the Comptroller and Auditor General, I am shocked that the witnesses are telling me today they are going to learn lessons going forward, as they say in this House. I do not believe them. I believe they will make their best effort because they seem to be genuine in that regard, but they are up against it in here because I have seen the OPW recklessly spending taxpayers' money. It had nothing to do with the workers or the delivery of the project but certainly to do with the management of the systems in the OPW.

I and, I am sure, all the other members will give the OPW every support in trying to move the Titanic a little bit away from the iceberg, but I think it is too late. There is a culture there and it stinks. I am very upset over it and I think the public is very upset over it. It is not so much about the bicycle shed or cover, but about the whole process and how we have arrived here.

I am going to leave that with the witnesses and I hope they will consider what I have said during the break and give us some response. Right now, all we are hearing are Groundhog Day comments that have been given to previous meetings of the Committee of Public Accounts and this committee. There is no accountability, very little transparency and, certainly, no political leadership. That is how I see it.

The OPW might furnish that information to the committee, please.

Did I hear correctly that only contractors in south Dublin could pitch for the contract in south Dublin? Was it open to contractors from all of Dublin?

I will leave it there, as other members wish to contribute, but the witnesses might provide that information.

Regarding the other OPW-related subjects that we have to discuss, I ask that the witnesses appear before us again as soon as possible. There are a number of other projects that need to be considered.

I am not on this committee, so I thank the Chair and members for allowing me to speak.

I was listening from the seats at the back of the room when it was stated that the OPW identified the back way into Leinster House beside Agriculture House – I am familiar with the area – because it would not have to remove any parking spaces, given that it was a wide area across from the restaurant. Is that correct?

Deputy Boyd Barrett and I are based on that side of Agriculture House and people have to pass through security, including at the gate. Could the committee be forwarded a letter – I am not a member, but I would like to see it – about the grounds on which the decision was made? Obviously, the OPW received a letter from the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission, which handles that side of the work here, giving a reason for the decision. Is that letter available?

If possible, I would like the committee to get that information from the parties involved.

Is there a procurement framework document on which suppliers of projects valued at €500,000, €1 million or whatever are put? How does it work?

The multiparty framework, whereby the two contractors are appointed to Dublin north and Dublin south, covers the Dublin region. Elsewhere around the country, we are in the process of developing a framework of regionally based contractors covering contracts with a value of €200,000 to, I believe, €1 million. Over that amount, any project would have to go on eTenders.

If we could get that as soon as possible, I would appreciate it.

Mr. Conlon stated that signing off on that level of expenditure - €1.5 million – would be done by an assistant secretary.

I am considering an idea to do with a Garda station in County Wicklow. I will not name the location because I have not spoken widely about the matter, but my idea has to do with the installation of a playground on the station’s grounds. There seems to be quite a deal of land around it and we are stuck for space in the small village in question. Would the OPW consider assessing building a community facility where there are grounds around a Garda station?

In my own local Garda station in Bray, there is a kind of walkway through it that the public can use and a picnic table. Is that something the OPW could look at if I were to come to Mr. Conlon separately? I do not want to put him on the spot.

I want to draw the OPW's attention to a strategic infrastructure development that is being proposed in Wicklow. It is a very large quarry, Ballinclare quarry, and is quite close to Kilmacurragh, for which the OPW has responsibility. That is not a live planning application at present. As I understand it, it is going through non-statutory public consultation at the moment. It is not a live planning application as such, which is why I am happy to raise it here. However, I want to draw the OPW's attention to it and raise my concerns about the potential impacts of such a large development so close to Kilmacurragh.

Let us look at projects with a cost greater than €250,000. That is roughly the new bar being placed in terms of the decision-making process by the principal officer. Ken Foxe broke this story, and a number of journalists have sought information through freedom of information, FOI, and they have told us their FOIs are being blocked. They are not even getting an acknowledgement in terms of FOIs on this project and others. Obviously the OPW has a statutory responsibility of transparency and to adhere to FOI legislation. Why is that the case?

They will be dealt with under FOI. I am not clear as to why it has taken so long, but they will be dealt with expeditiously. The decision-maker may have had some regard to the security implications of the information and may have been considering that but we will follow up very quickly with those requestors.

I understand that the former Chairman of the OPW went to study in Paris just the year before he retired. The taxpayer footed a bill of €35,000 for that. I welcome State investment in the education of staff, but it seems strange that such an investment would be made just before a person retires. Was that good value for money for the taxpayer?

As chairperson, he signed off on that. It is startling that there is no oversight in terms of expenditure such as that. I imagine that education is more useful when it is front-loaded in a person's career when working for a State organisation. Putting that investment at the bookend of a person's career is of very little, if any, benefit to the taxpayer.

The Deputy is correct. The planning application for Midleton is not yet submitted. The design of the project is nearing completion presently. The occurrence of the extreme flood last October required us to review the design to check that it was capable of mitigating a flood event of the nature of that which occurred during Storm Babet. That design review has been finalised now and we are confident that the design option for the permanent scheme in Midleton will meet the required protection standard.

Our best estimate currently is that we will make a planning application for that toward the end of next year. In the interim period, a lot of work has been under way by Cork County Council and the OPW to identify interim measures that can be delivered before the permanent scheme. Our Minister and senior officials at the OPW and in Cork have been liaising throughout the summer on this and interim measures will be brought forward in the coming weeks to mitigate flood risk insofar as it is practical.

Can the witnesses understand the frustration, not just of the people of Midleton, but the people across the country at the grindingly slow pace of delivery for infrastructure, especially when it comes to non-politicians or average, normal or ordinary citizens? A flood risk was deemed so bad in 2017, it was promised that a defence would be built. During the floods, politicians from Dublin landed in Midleton, stood in high water in their wellies and told people that they would be looked after and sorted. Yet, here we are, talking about the end of next year potentially for a request for planning permission to go in. Planning permission has to go through the process, which could have objections or judicial reviews. There could then be difficulties in terms of funding and delivery. We are potentially five or six years away from the people of Midleton having a flood defence protecting them, which is quite incredible. That would mean that it would take probably 12 years since putting in place the flood defence was promised.

I can understand the frustrations of the community. That is why we are looking to bring forward interim measures as a matter of urgency in the meantime. We would like to deliver flood relief schemes a lot faster than is happening at the moment and we are looking at how we might do so. Some of the reasons it is taking so long in the case of Midleton is due to the complexity of Midleton. All four mechanisms of flooding are impacting on the community of Midleton, namely, tidal, fluvial, groundwater and pluvial. It is quite a complex flood problem and extensive environmental assessments and surveys have to be carried out on that. We have to come up with a scheme that meets the requirements of the community in consultation with local stakeholders. We do have to comply with all the regulatory and legislative frameworks that are there, including all the environmental frameworks. We are doing that as quickly as possible. There are constraints in the marketplace in terms of the services we need, such as the engineering design services and the environmental specialist services and in the carrying out of those services.

It does take a long time. Some of those surveys-----

It is taking too long. I know that this is not an OPW-particular project, but the Navan to Dublin rail line has been promised since 2002 and its projected completion date is in, I think, 2036. It was built in three years during the 1860s with picks and shovels. What is happening in this country in terms of the delivery of public infrastructure?

I know that it is legislation, and I understand we are heavily regulated in these spaces and that there is a need for a change in the regulations, but we also need to make sure the organisations that are tasked with these jobs do their best to make sure they happen in a reasonable and sane timeframe.

I thank the Chairman for allowing me to bring forward the local issue to which I referred before the committee, which I will do as soon as he can arrange. On the issue of coastal erosion, what actions have been taken in respect of the issues that have been highlighted? For instance, the part along the Wexford coastline was one of the ones that have been mentioned in recent times. There has been mention of the flooding in Roscommon, for which I understand planning permission for a scheme is being requested. People have visited my clinic regarding the Roscommon flooding issue and various reasons have been put forward as to why it should be part of a flood plain and so on. That is fine, but the people who are living there have a right to live, and the people whose roads are flooded permanently have a right to travel on those roads. The inconvenience to them is, obviously, miserable for everybody, but if it occurred one of our major cities, for example, it would have to be resolved quickly. We cannot just turn our back and say that because something happens a bit down the country, we need not treat it with the same seriousness.

By the same token, as I have said previously, this also applies to my constituency. I emphasise the tremendous work done in the past by the OPW in respect of drainage in Leixlip, Celbridge, Naas, Monread and other places. That was vital drainage, and while there were some objections, they were overcome, as they have to be for the common good. It goes without saying that when issues arise in the future along those lines, greater cognisance needs to be taken to be able to move with alacrity and say it needs to be dealt with because it affects the livelihoods of people, whether they live in an urban or rural area. It has happened previously in urban areas and we had to take action to deal with them. They need to be dealt with quickly and we need to get in front of the storm, both literally and metaphorically, before it starts.

The work of the OPW is very important, on behalf of the State, to maintain public buildings, spend money on them and ensure it has the right of access to the buildings it has responsibility for and maintains. If it does not have rights of way or access, it has a problem and needs to state that clearly and upfront. If we cannot maintain our public buildings and spend money on them at the same time knowing we do not have guaranteed access, questions will ultimately have to be answered. One of the questions that has to be answered arises when people say they have other plans for that area. We need the plans now. We need to ensure we have the answers because we as public representatives have to relay those answers to the people we represent. If we do not, we are at fault.

Following on from my earlier questions and linking together two issues that have come up, namely, the bike shed and the security issue, as I said earlier, I am familiar with the area. The witnesses stated that the place the OPW initially proposed for the bike shed would have cost significantly less than the one the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission opted for in the knowledge it would cost considerably more, if I understood what they said. I think they said the OPW had not had an exact estimate of how much more but that it was made clear to the commission that it would cost a lot more to put it where it ended up going.

The commission's opposition to the OPW's more cost-effective proposal related to security, but bicycles already enter from Merrion Street via that security hut - hundreds of them, I would say - and they are covered from the rain under the Department of agriculture, using just racks that I imagine cost next to nothing. It was just down from there that the OPW had proposed we would put a more cost-effective, cheaper bike shed. The security is dealt with, therefore, at that gate, past that security hut. There is no other security issue once someone gets past that gate.

Even if we were being doubly cautious, in any event there is another security gate, beyond where the OPW had proposed the shed would be put, which people can get through only with a security pass or if one of the ushers or service officers allows them in. I am bemused as to what possible security advice could have prevented the original proposal made by the OPW for a much cheaper bike shed. I cannot see it. Was any explanation, further than security concerns, given to the OPW as to why its original proposal was rejected by the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission? I cannot for the life of me see what the security issue would have been.

I think there might have been a second concern that it was located on the Merrion Square side for ease of access for Members and staff when they are coming in and they wanted it on the Merrion Square side. Bear in mind, however, I was not at the meetings myself. This is just what we are gathering from the communications on the file. There was a requirement to have it on the Merrion Square side for efficiency, I suppose, as well. We were not advised of the security issues. There was a preference for it on the Merrion Square side.

Maybe it is a question more for the commission, but I cannot see what the issue was, given people have to go past a security hut and gate, which they can get past only with passes and which many people do go past with bicycles every day. Once they have got past the gate, they can go to exactly the place the OPW was proposing to put a different bike shed, which would have been much cheaper. If there were a security issue, the security issue long pre-existed the OPW's proposal for a bike shed. In other words, there was not a security issue. I just do not see what it was. In fact, Ms Collier is suggesting it was a matter of convenience.

No, I am saying the Members would have had a view on where it should go and I think they had a preference for the Merrion Square side, which was communicated to us. I am not here to tell the Deputy why they had that preference. I am just telling him what was in the email to us, which was that they had a preference for the Merrion Square side. That is all we have on the file.

For the record, they are both on the Merrion Square side, as against the Kildare Street side.

I know the witnesses are just told what they are saying but it does not really add up to me. That is the point, particularly if there was going to be a very significant additional cost. Serious questions therefore must be asked about why the more expensive option was opted for, because I cannot see any possible security issues.

Very quickly, I seek advice from the Chair. We were supposed to discuss the children’s science museum, which is a very important issue. At least some of the people who have contacted us have suggested that this issue could be the bike shed multiplied by a hundred if we do not get it right. We are being left with very little time to address this. I am wondering what we should-----

I will comment briefly on that issue. I am not over the detail of all of this, but the idea of an Irish children’s science museum in and of itself seems to be a good one. The Iveagh Gardens, however, is a very important amenity and we must look at the potential impact on it, as well as the cost issues. Many questions have been raised with us and I believe thousands of submissions have been made that seriously question the location, the potential costs, the case for this, etc. This correspondence we received raises a number of detailed questions on what I think the OPW identified as our obligation to build this thing. It seems extraordinary that we have an obligation to build something. We could do with the OPW giving us answers to some of these questions before-----

I have one last quick question. Mr. Conlon might not have an answer to it but maybe he could correspond with me. I tabled questions about the sale of Dalkey Garda station by the OPW during the summer. I certainly was very unhappy about that sale because in our area, we are crying out for public amenities and I do not understand why that space would have been sold by the OPW. I do not expect the representatives to give me a detailed answer-----

I can give the Deputy an answer to that. In the OPW, before we dispose of any State properties, we must go through the protocols for the transfer of State properties. There are two circulars from the Department of Finance that deal with that. Under those, we must first offer the properties to the local authorities, to the Department of children and integration and to the Land Development Agency. That was all done and no other State use was identified for those proprieties. Therefore, in accordance with our disposals policy, we put those two properties on the market.

The fact is that we go to local authorities and the LDA, so obviously, we are trying to identify housing uses for those properties. We dispose of some properties to local authorities that are for uses other than housing, such as local enterprise, etc. We are quite clear that we follow that policy on disposal to the letter. We do give them time to consider it and respond. We do not rush it. It is up to them to make their decision.

I thank the Chair and I am conscious that this has been a very long afternoon for the witnesses. I must say it is extraordinary to hear that when we need buildings for childcare, art spaces, and a whole variety of uses, a building like that - although I do not know its dimensions - would end up on the open market.

My question is in regard to the office portfolio of the OPW. I understand that there are 340 leases for office spaces but the witnesses might clarify how many there are exactly. The rental expenditure is well over €100 million per year. Does the OPW conduct an annual audit of its leased buildings regarding those that are occupied, fully occupied, vacant or part-vacant?