We use Google Analytics to see which pages are read and how the site is used, so we know what to improve. This only runs if you accept. See our privacy notice for details.

Dáil
‹ Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - OPW Building Programme.

OPW building programme costs and jobs

Summary

The OPW’s current building programme is estimated to cost £39 million, £9 million more than last year, with about 90 per cent of the work on site. The Minister could not say how much of the increase reflected inflation rather than additional work, but confirmed a projection of 500 jobs and accepted £18,000 per job as a reasonable figure.

asked the Minister for Finance the total capital cost of the building programme under the responsibility of the Office of Public Works.

27.

Comment on this

asked the Minister for Finance in terms of the building programme of the Office of Public Works the percentage of this work currently on site and in the course of construction.

28.

Comment on this

asked the Minister for Finance the number of new jobs being created in the building industry and associated sectors by the present building programme in progress by the Office of Public Works.

Comment on this

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 26, 27 and 28 together.

The total capital cost in the current year of the building programme under the responsibility of the Office of Public Works, including works undertaken for other Departments on a repayment basis, is estimated at £39 million. This is £9 million more than was spent on last year's programme and obviously it will have a significant incentive effect on the building industry and associated sectors. It is not possible to say exactly how many new jobs will be created, but it is estimated that it will be of the order of 500.

It can be taken that the vast bulk of the expenditure, in the region of 90 per cent, relates to work on site and in the course of construction.

Comment on this

Will the Minister of State say how much of the £9 million is taken up by increased costs of material, labour and so on? How much of it is a real increase and how much is due to inflation?

Comment on this

We have allowed for increased costs and inflation. They are included in the total.

Comment on this

I understand that. I wish to know how much of the £9 million will be reflected in actual additional work and how much of it is gone because of inflation, wages and costs.

Comment on this

I have not got the exact amount but I can assure the Deputy that it is included in the extra £9 million.

Comment on this

I am not questioning that. I am asking how much of it will be reflected in additional work and how much has gone because of inflation, wages and costs.

Comment on this

I have not that information. The Deputy should put down a question on the matter.

Comment on this

I wish to ask a question arising out of Question No. 27. The Minister has told us that the total capital cost is estimated at £39 million. Will he indicate how much of that is actually on site and currently under construction?

Comment on this

About 90 per cent.

Comment on this

Am I right in assuming that the extra £9 million this year will produce an extra 500 jobs?

Comment on this

Yes.

Comment on this

From my calculations that would mean that it will cost £18,000 for extra new jobs in the building industry. Does the Minister accept that that is a reasonable figure?

Comment on this

It is a reasonable projection of our work on the building programme.

Comment on this

Does the Minister accept that that is an accurate interpretation of the figure, that the new jobs being created by the Department will cost £18,000 each, that they are tying down £18,000 worth of capital?

Comment on this

I am satisfied with the projection figure of 500 people in employment in our building programme this year.

Comment on this

Will the Minister state——

Comment on this
Joseph Brennan An Ceann Comhairle Fianna Fáil

The Deputy is aware that the Minister requires notice of such questions. I am calling Question No. 29.

Comment on this