I welcome the team from the OPW and thank them for coming in today. The Chair is not here today but, as the Leas-Chathaoirleach, I will stand in for him. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the role of the OPW in delivering high-quality infrastructure, including projects set out in the OPW's national development plan sectoral investment plan 2026 to 2030. We are obviously focused on infrastructure and the plan for the next four years. I ask members not to deviate from that and to keep the discussion focused on what we are here for.

I am pleased to welcome, from the OPW, Mr. John Conlon, chairman; Mr. Conor Sreenan, State architect and principal architect; Ms Rosemary Collier, head of heritage services and capital works delivery; Mr. Jim Casey, head of flood risk management; and Mr. Robert Mooney, head of planning and climate adaptation.

I will read a note on privilege. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Members will be afforded a six-minute speaking slot for questions and answers, with a second chance to contribute later, if they wish. I now invite Mr. John Conlon to make his opening statement on behalf of the OPW.

I thank members of the committee for the invitation to discuss the OPW's national development plan sectoral plan 2026 to 2030. I am joined, as was said, by some members of the OPW management board, who have responsibility for designated areas across our wide-ranging remit.

The OPW sectoral plan reaffirms our commitment to delivering evidence-based, strategically prioritised and sustainable infrastructure, guided by principles of timely execution, value for money and excellence in public service over the next five years. The plan reflects our diverse and vital responsibilities, including flood risk management, stewardship of a significant portion of the State’s property assets and the conservation of our built and natural heritage. The plan sets out the investment priorities, allocations and outputs that will guide our work in the coming years. It also recognises the importance of effective governance and ensuring we have the capacity and capability to deliver planned programmes on our own, as well as our clients’ behalf.

Under the plan, an investment of €1.845 billion is allocated to the OPW, enabling us, working collaboratively with local authorities, to continue to progress delivery of the national flood relief capital works programme in line with the Government’s flood risk management plans. In addition, it will support the ongoing management, maintenance and conservation of State buildings, including heritage sites that are vital to the delivery of Government services and local communities, and which support regional tourism.

The OPW is also ready to deliver up to €1.5 billion worth of programmes and projects on behalf on our clients, with up to €1.3 billion being funded through the NDP. These programmes include the national cultural institutions capital investment programme funded by the Department of culture, delivering projects, for example, at Crawford Gallery in Cork and the National Concert Hall in Dublin. It also includes the capital programme for An Garda Síochána, some capital works for the Courts Service and a programme of works for the Coast Guard service, which is funded by Department of Transport. We will also deliver the national centre for research and remembrance on the site of the former Magdalen laundry on Seán McDermott Street and major refurbishment works to Áras Mhic Dhiarmada, the headquarters of the Department of Social Protection, in Dublin.

The OPW remains committed to the principles of value for money, sustainability and transparency in the delivery of all capital projects and our project governance arrangements fully comply with the infrastructure guidelines and capital works management framework. The lessons learned from recent project delivery experiences have fed into our governance and planning processes. We revised our approval procedures while ensuring that value for money remains at the core of project appraisal management. Our internal capacity is also being strengthened through ongoing investment in the professionalism of our staff in areas such as project management, digital transformation, cost estimation, project evaluation and procurement.

We have a strong track record of delivering high-impact capital projects on behalf of the State. To date, 56 flood relief schemes have been completed, providing protection to 13,580 homes and businesses, and an economic benefit to the State, with damage avoided estimated at around €2 billion. The County Clare Springfield flood relief scheme is the latest scheme to be delivered. It reached substantial completion in August last year, protecting 21 properties. The scale of such construction is reflective of the progress in delivering flood relief schemes and has contributed to over €100 million expenditure on such measures in 2025, our highest investment in a single year on flood relief management.

The scale of our capital works projects under estate management varies, from smaller projects such as Garda station refurbishment through to major infrastructure projects. Notable examples include the delivery of the Rosslare Europort project recently completed; a Government data centre at Backweston; a new forensic science laboratory; and the construction of a new office block at Leeson Lane, Dublin 2, which provides flexible, purpose-built, value-for-money, energy and space efficient accommodation for Civil Service staff in two Departments. We also delivered the exemplar refurbishment and deep retrofit of Tom Johnson House, supporting our climate action obligations, as well as delivering Walter Scott House at Military Road to accommodate a significant number of units and staff in An Garda Síochána.

The OPW is responsible for the conservation and presentation of 780 national monuments across the country, along with 33 national historical properties. Enhancing our built heritage, encompassing developing and modernising our visitor experiences, and ensuring our heritage portfolio delivers for the regional and national tourism economic agenda, are our priority. During 2025, our sites had almost 15 million visitors. Our direct labour workforce protects hundreds of significant heritage buildings and structures through skilled conservation works and maintenance. Alongside this, our capital investment programme in 2025 saw the completion of the first phase of conservation of the Magazine Fort in the Phoenix Park; the reopening of Barryscourt Castle in County Cork following an extensive repair and upgrade project; and the completion and refurbishment of visitor centres at Carrowmore in Sligo and Dún Aonghasa on the Aran Islands.

We are also committed to ensuring the delivery of Government priorities, including the key project to refurbish the GPO, as an integral element of the Dublin city rejuvenation programme. This will be part of the ongoing urban and social renewal of Dublin’s north inner city, led by the Department of the Taoiseach’s Dublin city task force oversight board.

Our delivery of high-impact projects on behalf of the State ranges in scale from small projects, such as minor works and fabric upgrades, through to major infrastructure projects. These projects are at various stages of their life cycles, ranging from completion of feasibility and preliminary design work to advanced stages of planning, design or procurement, ensuring that a stream of projects will be delivered over the coming years.

The programme for Government includes flood relief schemes among the large-scale projects vital for the economy and society. Capital funding of €715 million out to 2030 for flood risk management will strategically enable the delivery of a comprehensive flood risk management programme for mitigating flood risk and its impact on people, property, infrastructure and communities. The ten schemes at construction or implementation stage include those in Athlone, Crossmolina, Glashaboy and King's Island, and they will protect over 2,800 properties upon completion. Up to three schemes are expected to be substantially complete this year. In addition to these schemes at construction and implementation stage, there are some 90 flood risk schemes at various stages of implementation. The programme for Government committed to streamlining and simplifying the delivery of flood relief initiatives to address the threats posed by river and coastal flooding. Therefore, improving efficiency and timelines for the delivery of flood relief schemes is a key priority for the OPW, in line with the goals of the accelerating infrastructure task force.

The delivery of estate management programmes and projects will be undertaken through our workflow streams of maintenance, capital works, heritage works and purchases of properties. Examples of capital works projects to be delivered over the next two years include retrofits of 52 St. Stephen's Green, Government offices in Sligo and in Renmore in Galway and new office accommodation for the Passport Office in Cork. Additional projects that will commence within the life of the national development plan include the GPO, as I have mentioned, the retrofitting of Osmond House behind Dublin Castle, the Director of Public Prosecutions site at Infirmary Road, the development of options for a district heating scheme for the Backweston campus, along with the completion of Government offices in the Opera development in Limerick city centre.

The OPW manages an extensive portfolio of modern and historic properties that house Government Departments, State bodies and associated agencies. Continued investment in the building stock and upgrading of properties is a core part of our work, forming a key part of our sectoral climate action agenda. These works also address the critical requirement for compliance in areas such as fire safety, accessibility, building regulations, conservation, planning regulations and health and safety standards. The new works programme encompasses hundreds of projects across the estate portfolio each year. This investment, under the national development plan, allows for the delivery of planned annual programmes of fabric and building systems upgrading, ensuring the appropriate management of the State's property portfolio to meet the business needs of Government and the State.

Conservation projects range from the refurbishment of the lighthouses on Sceilg Mhichíl to the reinstatement of the aquatic house at the National Botanic Gardens. Improving access to national heritage is a key objective to be addressed via projects at Kilkenny Castle and Emo Court. Improving infrastructure at heritage sites is central to enhancing visitor experiences, with refurbishment projects at the Battle of the Boyne site and Roscrea Castle and Damer House in Tipperary, as well a new visitor centre at Casino Marino in Dublin 3.

The portfolio of historic properties in Dublin encompasses some of our most important civic buildings, which have considerable business and Government uses, including projects at the Four Courts and Dublin Castle, the latter of which will provide up-to-date facilities for the EU Presidency later this year. Major redevelopments of the National Library and the National Concert Hall will be completed, with projects for the Natural History Museum and the National Museum of Archaeology to be substantially advanced.

We are committed to delivering our ambitious programme set out in the national development plan, while recognising that challenges exist. Key measures to achieve these targets include ongoing development of key internal skillsets, while also prioritising robust project management to deliver results while ensuring value for money. We continue to deploy our resources in the most appropriate way, to deliver our own and client-funded capital projects in an efficient manner.

The Accelerating Infrastructure report and action plan has core objectives to foster a culture of faster delivery and streamlining approvals to expedite projects to delivery stage. We are working with the Department of public expenditure and reform to incorporate the actions proposed by the Accelerating Infrastructure task force, including working with the National Development Finance Agency in respect of large projects such as the GPO. We are also working with the Department on leveraging the time savings resulting from the speedier timeframes of planning approvals in respect of flood relief schemes, with some evidence of positive change in this area in the recent past. We are also supporting the Department as it improves the processes by which flood relief schemes are confirmed under the Arterial Drainage Acts.

Notwithstanding the clear challenges, we are well positioned, prepared and fully committed to deliver on our priorities through the mechanism of the national development plan, in collaboration and partnership with our stakeholders. I will be glad to welcome committee members to further engage with us on the progression of these projects, hopefully by joining us for site visits. I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach and committee members and I welcome the discussion.

I thank Mr. Conlon for his contribution and I will now invite questions from the members who have indicated.

I thank Mr. Conlon for his opening statement and I thank all of the witnesses for coming before the committee today. The OPW is an organisation that has a huge remit in many areas. Mr. Conlon mentioned 15 million visitors. We had a meeting of the enterprise, tourism and employment committee earlier, at which the Irish Tourism Industry Confederation was discussing tourism in Ireland. The OPW plays a huge part in this major part of our economy. It is a part of the economy that other indigenous companies and FDI companies cannot get into.

I had the privilege of attending at tour in Kilmainham Gaol last year, which was absolutely fantastic with regard to the condition of the site and how well informed the tour guides were. The tour they gave was fantastic. One of the schools in my constituency, Sacred Heart School in Tullamore, attended Collins Barracks and came back with great reports about the tour and the facility. We see on chat boards that tourists from around the world who come to Ireland and attend the sites are very happy, and they mention that the sites are very well maintained and the personnel employed are really good.

We have to get back to the elephant in the room and value for money with regard to the OPW. We are all aware of the cases that have been in the media recently. Given the scale of the €1.5 billion funding, why should the public and the committee have confidence that the cost overruns and excessive pricing seen in OPW projects will not be repeated in future? Mr. Conlon spoke about lessons learned from recent project delivery experience. Will he name specific projects that have been reviewed and where what went wrong has been identified? Will he clearly outline what has changed in OPW governance as a result?

To get back to local issues, Clonmacnoise is on my doorstep. It is a fantastic amenity and a very important monastic site, not only for the country but for Europe and the world. Will Mr. Conlon give me an outline of the works that are happening there and what will happen in future? I have met the Save Our Shannon group, and I am sure Deputy Clendennen has also met it. What is happening with regard to the Shannon Callows and the flooding there? What has the OPW earmarked as a way to solve this issue?

I will bring in other witnesses to address some of these issues. I thank Deputy McCormack for his comments on our offering at our heritage sites. As recently as this morning I had a very constructive conversation with the Secretary General of the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Trade on working closely together and how we can assist further with the tourism offering around the country. This is very much part of how we will work in collaboration with the Government.

With regard to value for money, we are deeply committed, and I as the accounting officer am deeply committed, to improving our standards in achieving value for money. We have always strictly adhered to the infrastructure guidelines and the capital works management framework. We have learned lessons, particularly with regard to smaller projects, in recent years. We have put in place new procedures for small capital works projects, which we review regularly. I want to share with the committee that I am confident that our approach to all our projects across all our portfolio, which are numerous and many, is fully compliant with all of our value-for-money infrastructure guidelines, capital works management frameworks and procurement guidelines.

We are very conscious of value for money. We work hard on it. We have steering groups in charge of all our projects. Governance is now a far stronger feature of our management board meetings. We are deeply committed to this as we move forward. Lessons have been learned and lessons will continue to be learned. We do a huge amount of work, and we are always reviewing how we do it, where we do it, when we do it and who we do it with. Lessons learned are a key part of the feedback loop now in the office. We will continue to do our best, but we are very focused on the question the Deputy raised regarding value for money.

I will ask Ms Collier to address the Clonmacnoise site and Mr. Mooney to address the Shannon Callows question.

We have one minute and ten seconds left in this slot. Please, be brief because I want to try to stick to the six minutes.

I think Deputy McCormack is very familiar with the project and we have given good information in relation to the visitors' centre. It is fantastic that we got the Just Transition funding. We will be going to site shortly and hopefully appointing a main contractor. The tendering process is almost complete. We will be on site this year and it will be substantially advanced to claim the Just Transition funding. It will be transformative in terms of the visitor experience and Clonmacnoise.

I look forward to seeing the finished article there.

With respect to the Shannon Callows, we met with representatives of Save Our Shannon group last November and gave them a commitment that we would meet them as part of the subgroup of the Shannon State agency co-ordination group to work through them. We had an environmental report done on the pinch points project on the Callow which indicated significant ecological hurdles to overcome and required us to look at all other available options. We said we would engage with the Save Our Shannon group and that is due imminently.

That is absolutely fantastic because up to this that group had no engagement from anybody. They are farming the land and doing the best they can with the situation and the flooding. It is good the OPW is engaging with them and looking at the pinch points because historically they have been looking after the land and are the custodians of the land and they have been doing the best they can with it and their livestock. We have seen a lot of cases where they have lost their winter feed because the lands have flooded.

That is brilliant. It is now the turn of Senator Stephenson.

Going back a little bit to the governance and planning changes, the witnesses did say lessons have been learned. For a lot of the general public or anyone listening in today, although it is not the fault of the witnesses as it is mostly due to politicians, that is a tried and tested term that falls flat. It would be great to hear a little bit around specifically what improvements there have been. The witnesses mentioned strengthening governance. What does that look like in practice? We have some examples - we do not need to go into the details - of high overrun costs that the public see as eye-watering figures. Why was that happening in the first place and where have improvements been made in relation to that? When we see future projects coming, how will that be avoided? I am thinking specifically about procurement and tendering designs not really showing the full scale of the project required and then having the whole issue with significant change orders leading to cost overruns. Where, within the planning and development of these large-scale projects, have those governance changes been made? That would be helpful to hear about.

Regarding the flooding piece, has the OPW been considering nature-based flood adaptation methods in the current flood relief measures it is undertaking? Some of that has been quite successful in the UK. Is the OPW looking to the UK at all in terms of best practice? I am also interested to hear a little bit about the method of redraining rivers and dredging as it relates to flood relief because that can have quite a significant impact on the health of the rivers we have, for example by increasing river flow, which can cause unintended consequences for downstream flooding for communities.

The key issue working forward is to make sure all projects have steering groups and oversight for each project. I can ask Mr. Sreenan to talk about how we do that on some of the bigger projects. I am not sure what projects the Senator is referring to in terms of cost overruns. We deliver a lot of projects, and we deliver most of them on time and within budget. There can be occasions where costs and change orders happen in projects. It is a normal part of developing, in particular, big projects where we intervene in a project and find things during the project, which could be archaeology or a number of different reasons that things happen, and we deal with them as we go along. I will ask Mr. Sreenan to talk about some of the large project governance.

I will take some of the latter questions first around procurement and lessons learnt on quality and so on. The OPW's architectural services division operates within the OPW and provides services across other divisions. We have in place an ISO 9001 quality management system. That is subject to internal audit annually and external audit annually. We capture the good and bad lessons from large capital delivery. That is folded into the audit. We have an internal audit report that picks up on actions and that is then picked up externally. We are fully accredited by the NSAI. That is a live loop where we can pick up the good and the bad.

With respect to procurement, there are known frustrations in the market particularly on the technical consultancy services side. We have a number of recent initiatives in place. We have a dynamic purchasing system in place which is relatively uncommon in the procurement of technical services.

What does a dynamic purchasing system look like?

In very plain English, it is always open. One of the large frustrations in the market is that a window opens for procurement and then closes.

So, it is open tendering.

Yes, and it is always on. The other characteristic of it which we have worked quite hard on is to access not only SMEs but also the micro sector. A huge number of architectural services and other disciplines are practices or companies of ten people or less. They offer huge capacity to increase delivery of the national development plan. The dynamic purchasing system is quite forgiving because if a particular bidder does not hit the grid the first time round, they are more than welcome to come back in the next time round and it is always on. That is live for the next five years with the option to extend that for a further five years. We also have skin in that game in terms of reducing the amount of time we spend in procurement and that increases the amount of time we can spend on project delivery. We have a second two-stage restricted procedure about to launch soon and that will confront two other frustrations in the market whereby the micro-SME sector is excluded from participating in public works because of what it would consider to be punitive turnover rates as a measure of their capability and additionally low-ball fee bidding. We have no interest in that. That will come out. We also sit on the European directors of architectural policy working group on procurement. We are not only trying to engage with the indigenous market, but also learning from the EU's 27 members.

I am really glad Mr. Sreenan mentioned the underbidding piece because obviously that is an issue with the delivery of contracts. There is only 50 seconds left so I will bring in other witnesses on the flooding mechanism.

I thank the Senator. Regarding her question on the nature-based solutions, I reassure her that for at least the last five or six years for all of our flood relief schemes we have looked specifically at nature-based solutions and the potential for bringing those forward either as part of a flood relief scheme or as the flood relief scheme. An example of that is on the Midleton flood relief scheme. We have studies coming forward shortly from east Cork, namely Mogeely and Castlemartyr where we will be looking specifically at nature-based solutions and how they can mitigate flood risk. In respect of dredging, we look at all options to alleviate flooding on all of our schemes. Dredging is one of many options to increase channel flow or channel conveyance.

Thank you for that. It is the turn of my good friend, Deputy Réada Cronin.

I welcome the witnesses into our committee and congratulate them on working for an organisation that is so vital to the people of Ireland. I read the opening statement before they came in where it mentions the Botanic Gardens and part of my brain said that is mine because I spent so much of my youth walking around there because we used to live there. It is great that people feel an ownership of the different buildings and things the OPW manages across the country. The opening statement mentioned the lessons learned from recent project delivery experiences. Nowhere did the ownership of a local amenity come as clear as in my own constituency of Celbridge with Castletown House where the people really showed great resilience in making sure they could protect that and the land surrounding it.

I did ask about it when the OPW was in before the finance committee. Will the OPW be sharing information on the two failed business cases? I know it was prior to Mr. Conlon coming along, but will the OPW share that and what lessons were learned? As the Senator said, saying lessons were learned sometimes sounds like an excuse, but what lessons has the OPW learned around the failed business cases?

On the Deputy's first comment on Castletown, we have recently procured the 235 acres, as the committee will know-----

Which is brilliant, well done.

In relation to previous efforts to buy the land, these are part of the property market and property transactions so there is never a guarantee that one will succeed in any property thing. For people to look in hindsight and think we could have done things-----

It was in the last minute, just the day before they were due-----

People made their best efforts at that time in a very difficult commercial market and they were outbid. That is just the fact of the way it happened at that stage. We did put a lot of effort into trying to procure it at that stage. Hindsight gives perfect vision.

It does but it was very late. The Department of public expenditure and reform was very disappointed with how late the OPW was about bringing forward those business cases the day before.

There would have been ongoing discussions with the Department at that stage. In terms of the perfect vision and looking at them in hindsight, of course we will always learn from these things. The best lesson learned is the professionalism with which we did the two recently published reports when we purchased lands recently. This would have been learning from previous experiences.

We know how much that meant to the people of my constituency as well, and we are very grateful for that.

Moving on to the future and some of the capital delivery projects, will the witnesses tell me a bit about the GPO refurbishment plans? There was a lot of concern around that. There was talk that it was going to be turned into office and commercial units, which would be horrendous. Certainly my party would like it turned into a cultural quarter. It is the site of us celebrating the winning of our partial independence and there is revolutionary history there.

I will make a few comments on that and then I will bring in Mr. Sreenan. The GPO is a very significant site, as the Deputy has said. It is historic and a very big site. For almost 100 years it has included significant office accommodation for the headquarters of An Post. There has always been a part of the complex that has been for office accommodation. There has always been a retail element to that complex as well, particularly on Henry Street and the GPO Arcade. We are doing nothing different in future plans. The people who have retail units there are entitled to keep those through their leasehold arrangements. With the office accommodation for An Post, we intend to redevelop that as office accommodation for government services. We will be doing a huge amount of work on the public consultation process, which Mr. Sreenan will talk about, on options to progress the delivery of the big site over the next number of years. I will ask Mr. Sreenan to give the members an outline of our approach to that.

We are very conscious that the redevelopment of the GPO is a project that is important to the diaspora, the nation and the city. We have a steering group up and running, which I co-chair with the head of estate management at the Office of Public Works. As Mr. Conlon said, there is a Government commitment in place to retain a functioning public post office, to reimagine the retail within the existing retail footprint, and to support the expansion of government with space for the Civil Service as it has been an office building for 100 years. Significantly for others there will be the improvement of access to it on a public and civic basis along with significant cultural use or uses. As Mr. Conlon mentioned, a number of works streams are under way by the steering group. These include the transfer of property ownership to the Office of Public Works, the development and carrying out of extensive survey work so we know exactly what we are dealing with on the project. The GPO extends to about 25,000 sq. m. It is incredibly significant-----

Is there much public consultation around that?

Yes. We have drafted and shaped a request for tender to lead out on a durational, non-statutory public consultation and engagement process. If it gives the Deputy any comfort, until we have had the conversation with the diaspora, the nation and the city here will not be any design proposals coming forward because we need to listen to what people think it should be within the context of the commitment from the Government and also within the context of the development capacity within the project itself. It is important to say that it is a protected structure with national importance designation

The other piece, on which we are working very closely with the Department of the Taoiseach and colleagues in Dublin City Council, is to explore the potential for meanwhile uses. The GPO redevelopment project is huge. It is going to take us some time. We will get it right. Between now and then there are policy objectives within the city that support meanwhile use to make sure that O'Connell Street is not left in the dark during the redevelopment project.

I have just one quick comment-----

I am just conscious of the clock. We are 43 seconds over.

If members of the committee wish to visit the GPO with us we will make a tour available to them.

That is great, thank you.

I thank the witnesses for coming in. I am very supportive of the work of the OPW and the important role it plays in terms of our national monuments and our public buildings. We have, however, had a number of cost overruns and cost controversies in relation to the OPW in the last while with the bike shed, the wall, etc. Could the witnesses tell us if there is anything like that cost overrun that could potentially come out in the next couple of weeks, months or years? What lessons have been learned from the cost overruns with previous projects such as the aforementioned infamous bike shed or the €500,000 wall from last year?

As I said earlier in the session, we have learned lessons and we have put new procedures in place. We have governance systems on all projects. We are quite conscious on all projects to make sure they are reviewed regularly so we can ascertain if issues are going to happen.

Will Mr. Conlon elaborate on what those procedures are and what the difference is from what was previously there?

Particularly on small projects we now have a regimented system of going through a governance process for all those projects, which was not there before for small projects. It is more regimented. The key managers of the projects have to document in their systems the key stages of that project.

On issues like the wall I just want to make the point that while it seems a considerable cost overrun a lot of it was outside our control. We have published documentation for that project. I do not want to be pointing fingers at any particular State body but because we had particular issues with accessing ESB networks we did have a cost overrun on that, which was outside of our control. The main work on that came in within budget. The cost overrun came from finding live wires and having to deal with that.

Does Mr. Conlon think that this goes back to getting information? One of the things I noticed was with the infrastructure task force compared with other pieces of work that were done, for example by the Land Development Agency, LDA. It took the LDA five years to find out exactly where land was because it had to negotiate individually with all the different State bodies, and the State bodies were not sharing information. Does the OPW have an issue getting information from State bodies or with getting State bodies to co-operate with it?

As I mentioned earlier, we continuously want to learn lessons. In relation to our relationship with the ESB, we did have a conversation with it after that particular project and we now have a system in place with it to make sure we can access its key managers at key points in projects so there are no delays in that regard. We do work hard on our relationship with all the stakeholders we have and we want to permeate that down through organisations. As the Deputy will know, we have a footprint everywhere so it could be an issue with ESB in Galway, Cork or Limerick, or with Uisce Éireann and so on, and so we are quite conscious of making sure those relationships work well, and we work hard at it with those organisations. As recently as yesterday I was talking to Uisce Éireann in relation to that kind of dynamic interaction at local level to make sure we can progress things. We are deeply conscious of working very closely with our stakeholders.

On the flooding side, we work a lot with local authorities. We fund some of their workforce to make sure that work gets done. We are deeply conscious that we cannot do all of this stuff on our own. We have to have good relationships with stakeholders and we work hard on that.

Where are the key issues with infrastructure delivery? Is it at the tendering or procurement end, particularly in terms of cost overruns? I understand that many of the cost overruns happen because of issues with tendering on something that has not been, say, properly designed, etc.

We do such a wide range of work that the question is quite complex. In terms of the flood relief stuff, we are conscious that some regulatory forum would be useful to speed up delivery . As recently as last week, the Government decided to draft an amendment to the Arterial Drainage Act, which will speed up the consenting process. That will help speed up delivery.

Is that around parallel consent? I ask because a lot of our witnesses have raised this matter.

Yes. In terms of the consenting process, some of the consenting functions for arterial drainage will be transferred, under this new Act, to An Bord Pleanála, which has the expertise and staffing to some of the work that previously took longer. That will help. We are already benefiting from quicker decisions by An Bord Pleanála on some of our bigger flood relief schemes. That feeds in as well and we can see improvements already in that space.

On tendering, as Mr. Sreenan said earlier, we are always conscious of tendering and procurement to improve the way we do business. We have a lot of regional frameworks in place now, which helps small businesses across the country. We have eight regional frameworks with eight contracts in each of those so we can get stuff out to the market quicker. We continually review and revise these as we go along. We are deeply conscious of the fact that regional and specialist frameworks, on which Mr. Sreenan spoke earlier, help delivery and cost effectiveness.

The job of finding a site for the Castletroy Garda station, which is in my city of Limerick, has gone from the Department of justice to the Garda and the OPW. I ask Mr. Conlon to please update us by giving us a written reply.

We will, yes. We will do that.

I ask that all replies be supplied to us in writing and the clerk will forward the reply to the Deputy.

Brilliant.

I will do that, Deputy, yes.

That is what I mean, yes.

I wanted to clarify things in case there was confusion. Next is Deputy Clendennen.

I thank all of the witnesses for joining us here today. There has been a lot of emphasis on the financial cost of projects and possible overspend and I want to home in on the time delay. I appreciate that we are discussing infrastructure but time delays are related. There have been a number of projects and I will give practical examples located in my constituency. Clonmacnoise was referenced earlier. Just transition funding for that project was announced nearly two years ago and the OPW started to close down the local coffee shop, which was replaced by a trailer. It seems to be a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing in terms of removing these services. There is a new visitor centre coming in but there is a trailer for the intervening period, which has ended up being years. There is also the example of a weather station in Birr that has lain idle since 2009. Nobody has done anything with it but now, all of a sudden, a men's shed group has expressed an interest in it and the response given is that there is consideration from another State entity. I refer to the OPW's list of assets. I appreciate how big and extensive the OPW's portfolio is but if the local authorities were to be true to their word, how many of the OPW's premises should be on vacant and derelict registers?

Before I bring in Ms Collier to discuss the Clonmacnoise issue, I must state that we have a very low rate of vacant properties.

I appreciate that but I want to discuss what happens when a community group wants one. For example, the works at the reformatory school in Daingean and the Durrow site have gone on for years. I am familiar with these projects as they are local to my area. Perhaps Mr. Conlon can provide an answer to the committee on the following. I appreciate that the OPW's outlook and investment is sectoral but maybe it should be based on a county-by-county basis. There is a level of responsibility and pressure on local authorities to develop some of these sites and develop tourism infrastructure and the OPW has a major role to play in that regard. Local authorities are kind of blind, however, because they do not necessarily know when that commitment is coming. They do not know if it will be next year or in ten years' time. We are currently living a live example of that in Clonmacnoise and that is why I gave that example. Funding was announced in 2024, services started to be depleted and now we have a trailer on site but we do not know when the project will be developed.

I will ask Ms Collier to reply. We can talk further to the committee on any vacant sites we have in the Deputy's area. I am not sure we have very many, to be frank. I ask Ms Collier to address the Clonmacnoise issue.

Just transition funding was announced in 2024 as a programme and we had to go through an application process. The actual offer of funding came sometime in late summer or early autumn of 2024 so that is really when the gun is fired on the project in terms of a detailed design phase. We got ministerial consent in the autumn of 2024, we went through detailed design in early 2025 and we were out to tender by September-October of 2025. That is less than a ten-month period between getting consent and a project being put out to tender.

I appreciate that the ambition around Clonmacnoise has probably existed for many years before that. There was a whole process with Offaly County Council and local stakeholders in terms of Shannonbridge and a whole master plan looked at that. The Deputy probably thinks that we have talked about this for a long time but from when we actually got the offer of funding through to when we went to tender was about a year. From a programme perspective on a capital works project for which the total project cost is €10 million and the grant is €7.8 million, progress was very swift.

On the trailer issue, we needed the shop thing cleared this year so that we could start to decant out of the visitor centre into that shop space. That process started during the summer, in August and September of this year. I can appreciate people are saying that the new project has not started yet and asking why have we closed down the shop. There is a decanting sequencing that we needed to do. I appreciate that it does not add any public value for the Deputy but it adds public value for us in terms of it being the enabling works for the main project, and that main project will go to site at the end of February, hopefully. The process is nearly complete.

I wish to mention housing and Ukrainian rapid build programmes. The OPW has provided accommodation for 2,640 Ukrainian refugees across 11 sites in the form of 654 individual units across Ireland. Does the OPW believe that it is a solution to the housing issue in Ireland at present?

I will ask my colleague to comment on that. We did that project. It was the first pilot project for modular housing which I think can input into the housing solution going forward. We did, through that contract, bring five contractors in for modular development and modular homes, which has been successfully delivered. There were definitely some issues with the cost which arose from working on very difficult sites. The modular aspect of the project has been quite successful and can provide a template going forward. I ask Mr. Sreenan to further develop that.

Yes, 640 homes were delivered across 11 sites. Housing is not our business but two of the big, significant contributions out of that project were the pace at which that programme was delivered-----

The OPW seems to have done a pretty good job. Do the witnesses feel that the OPW should develop more houses going forward?

Before Mr. Conlon takes the lead on that-----

We have time to get the answer.

I doubt if my time is in the red yet.

No, sorry. As we go back to the answers.

On the contribution with respect to long-range assets using current technology, so all of the technology that delivered that programme for us, we have shared all of that with colleagues across government and actually with the public.

It is not part of our brief at the moment, so it would require the Government to-----

Does the OPW believe it could do so?

To be frank, it would challenge our capacity. We would need to consider it seriously in terms of our own capacity to deliver. Our portfolio workstream is quite busy as it is.

I thank the witnesses and call Deputy O'Hara.

I want to discuss heritage sites. Athenry Castle is an iconic OPW site in my area and I have raised the issue of the opening season for the castle. The castle has been closed since November and will remain closed until March. I also want to discuss the promotion of the castle more broadly. Every year 15,000 people visit the castle which is a significantly lower number than similar sites within the county or region. I do not know whether a seasonal opening period is typical across the OPW's heritage sites.

I ask the witnesses to comment on that and the promotion of these sites more broadly as well.

I will ask Ms Collier to deal with that question.

Athenry is a lovely location for visitors to visit. It is a great heritage amenity. We keep the seasonal opening under review every year and we have noted the Deputy's correspondence to consider a longer season at Athenry. At the moment, the volume of visitors does not justify a longer season in terms of retaining staff for a longer period but we keep it under review. We work with companies such as the Irish Tourism Industry Confederation, ITIC. Someone mentioned that ITIC had attended another committee meeting. We also work with Fáilte Ireland and Tourism Ireland when it comes to the promotion and marketing of sites. There is a whole process around the Wild Atlantic Way, as the Deputy will know, and Athenry sits very much there as well as being on the cusp of Ireland’s Hidden Heartlands. We are involved in all of those marketing campaigns. There is a specific marketing campaign that the OPW runs every year for our heritage sites and I will make sure Athenry features in that this year. To reassure the Deputy, we have 40 other seasonal sites. There are approximately 30 sites open all year and another 40 sites that are seasonal, like Athenry. All we can do is commit to keeping it under review. As I said, the numbers are probably not there at the moment to justify a longer season but we will keep looking at that.

With regard to the OPW’s marketing campaign, what does that involve and where can people see these sites promoted?

Each year we run a calendar where we have a reopening for all the seasonal sites around St. Patrick's Day. People will see a campaign, a kind of call to action, to reconnect with their local heritage and visit the sites that are opening for the season. There will be campaigns around our Heritage Ireland membership card, which represents excellent value for money for Irish citizens to buy a heritage card that gives them access to the sites all year round. There will be campaigns around the bank holiday weekends in May and June and there is always a summer campaign. I will make sure that Athenry features in that more prominently this year. We are trying to run campaigns for the whole country as well as get that regional balance.

We carried out some more work in Athenry. The Deputy will know that we improved the car parking facilities and did some works on the wall, etc. We will certainly seek to ensure that kind of investment is supported through marketing activity in the season ahead.

I appreciate and welcome that commitment. We are a heritage town. There is a lot of frustration locally that we are not getting the recognition that we deserve as a heritage town. We are not getting the numbers that we could. I mentioned that Athenry Castle received 15,000 visitors, while the nearby Portumna Castle received 38,000 yearly. That is almost three times as much. We can definitely do a lot better. Could more limited solutions be considered, even on a trial basis, during the winter months to keep that continuity there, such as opening the site on reduced hours or specific days of the week?

We will keep that under review and see whether that is something we can look at. Our form of contracts is tricky because we contract staff for a particular period of time. To have them available to come back for, say, a Saturday or a Sunday opening can be tricky when it comes to the employment law piece, but we will certainly have a look at it and see what we can do.

I appreciate that. I wish to inquire about the south Galway flood relief project. This is a project that has been on the cards for a long time at this stage. It has been many years. There is frustration locally at what is perceived as the slow pace of delivery. People cannot understand why we have not seen much progress on the ground over many years. Will the OPW provide an update on that project?

The south Galway project is a very complex scheme. It is an area of karst limestone, as the Deputy is well aware, and the solutions to that flood problem are quite complex. There are also, given the nature of the turloughs in the area, sensitive environmental receptors. We are being challenged at the moment to come forward with a scheme that can effectively meet the environmental standards required. We are close to bringing forward a preferred option for that scheme now. In fact, I am going to Galway at the end of this week to have meetings about it with the county council. We have also been engaging with a number of key stakeholders who have expertise in ground water, karst limestone and hydrogeology. We have been consulting the Geological Survey Ireland, GSI, Trinity College Dublin and the National Parks and Wildlife Service in this regard. We are close to finalising our assessment of the best consenting route to pursue in relation to the project. We will be having further discussions on that topic in the coming days.

Will Mr. Casey outline the next steps in that project going forward?

The next key milestone for the project is to make a planning consent application. If we can bottom out on the preferred option and the potential success of getting that through a consent process, we should be looking to get into the planning process later this year, but we have a number of assessments to do before we bottom out on that.

We have come around to my few questions. I said I would leave myself to the end, even as people came in, as we discussed beforehand. I might just jump around a number of different topics . With regard to the amount the OPW has in its budget from 2026 to 2030, is it €715 million? I have seen a couple of numbers bouncing around. Does the €715 million budget cover planning, managing the transition and construction? Is that correct-----

No.

-----or is there a different number? I have seen a couple of numbers around. That is all.

The total budget we have for the period for capital works is €1.845 billion,-----

How is that broken down? Is it broken down?

-----of which €715 million is for flood relief schemes. The balance of €1.130 billion goes to our estate and heritage portfolios. I can give the Leas-Chathaoirleach some figures by year on that, or I can forward them on. We can break that figure down.

Maybe forward them on. Just out of curiosity, what is the biggest item out of the figure of €1.130 billion?

From the estate point of view, the Limerick Opera Square is a substantial office block that we are building in Limerick and will accommodate up to, I believe, 1,000 civil servants. We are bringing those civil servants from a lot of places around Limerick into one central place.

I wish to use that project as an example. Can we get that done between now and 2030?

We already have the basement part of it done. We are working with Limerick 2030 on it. We are actually going down to Limerick next Monday. Sisk is on site and the project has commenced.

I will use it as an example. This is the infrastructure committee. Mr. Conlon feels that the OPW can deliver its largest project under the capital plan between now and 2030.

It will be delivered by 2029.

Are there any regulatory or planning issues? Is there a judicial review? Has anything like that happened? While the OPW might have started this project a few years ago, has anything like that jumped out? Overall, the biggest issue we have in this country is that we cannot deliver infrastructure projects. Is the OPW seeing any problems with this project?

We see more problems on the flood relief side because of all the environmental consents. It is similar with planning applications and issues where we must engage with landholders. That can take some time.

Neigbours?

Landholders. Mr. Casey can talk more about this but in relation to the Midleton scheme, for example, there are more than 300 landholders with whom we must engage. That takes time. Mr. Casey might wish to speak on that point.

In fairness, I get that. As I said, I am just jumping around issues. I might go into more detail specifically on dealing with landowners on a large project like that. You are going to get that with 300 people. I am thinking more of cases in which someone wants to build something. For example, I refer to cases where we want to build a bridge but cannot because the project has to go through planning, the board, etc. Mr. Conlon is saying there were no regulatory or legal blocks that delayed that process.

Mr. Sreenan can talk more about the Limerick project. That has been-----

I am conscious of my time. I might follow it up. I was just curious about it. It was jumping out at me.

In one of his responses, Mr. Conlon referenced district heating from an infrastructural perspective. I am familiar with opportunities the OPW may have in this regard. Is this something the OPW is looking at for large-scale locations?

We are looking at it for the Backweston Laboratory Campus, which is a fairly big-----

That is fairly close to me.

-----campus. There are a lot of laboratories there as well as a new data centre.

How far can that heating be fed to? Is that the issue?

The data centre alone can feed the campus itself. In relation to Castletown, for example, there are opportunities there for the data centre that will be adjacent to it. We are working with Dublin City Council in relation to the Kanadevia plant and how some Government complexes and buildings in Dublin can benefit from the Dublin City Council district heating plans that could feed into our office accommodation network in Dublin.

We are very conscious of tapping into Dublin City Council's work, our own work that will take place in the data centre in Backweston and other opportunities that will become available over time.

Does Mr. Conlon have a feel for what the distance would be from a data centre like Backweston? Obviously, it is not economical beyond a certain distance. Does it have to be within 1 km?

The campus itself is very high-energy use because of all the laboratories there.

I am talking in general. It is feeding itself there, but if there was a data centre 1 km, 3 km or 5 km away, for instance, is that still serviceable? At what point does it not become-----

We would have to get some technical information on that. We could feed that back to the committee.

We do have a huge percentage of data centres relative to Ireland's energy levels in general. I am curious how to stay competitive from the-----

I think we can work with the committee on getting some input back to it on that.

It is not talked about enough, and it is a big opportunity for us. I was curious from an infrastructural perspective on how we can benefit from it.

I will jump to a totally different subject. We are discussing here plans for the next four years. Obviously, I am very conscious that we are going to have the EU Presidency in the latter part of this year. I would imagine that is likely taking up a lot of the OPW's time with so many places around the country, and it probably has to have staff focused on that. Is that impacting on the delivery of some of these projects? Are the witnesses finding that they have to take away key members of teams to look after locations? I know it is-----

No. The benefit of the works we are doing in Dublin Castle particularly will not be just for the Presidency, but long term. The facilities we are putting in there can be useful for the next 20 years. Aside from the Presidency itself, the long-term benefit of the capital works in Dublin Castle will be of benefit for many years to come. For us, we can say-----

At the same time, is the OPW at risk of taking staff or robbing Peter to pay Paul in the short term?

No, we have been planning for this for quite some time.

Okay.

It has been part of our work programme and the teams that deal with those buildings are teams that have been put in place. Dublin conservation deals with the Dublin Government building block, as it were. There was a master plan done for Dublin Castle a number of years ago and it actually encompassed some of these projects that we are doing now. As Mr. Conlon said, some of the equipment we have had to take out was put in in 2004, so it is well over 20 years. Therefore, we-----

I just know that some people have come from certain locations, having been moved away because of the EU Presidency.

No, it is part of their programme of work, and it would have been designed into their programme of work over the last number of years.

Okay, that is my time. If there is no one new offering, I will go back to people for three-minute slots and we will do another loop. Deputy Cronin is first.

I was going to ask about Backweston as well because when we hear about district heating, people think it is for houses. It is not for houses. I was asking about that distance as well and the district heating we will get from Backweston.

I am going to ask Mr. Sreenan to address that.

I thank the Deputy. In Backweston, there are facilities for several client bodies - the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Revenue, the forensic science institute and so on and so forth. Those types of building are quite heavy energy users. They have quite specific functions. It is quite different to housing. Obviously, there is an opportunity with the heat thrown off from the data centre. If I understand the question correctly, there is an opportunity within Backweston, because of the specific nature of those building typologies or building types, to put in place district heating that is a more efficient solution than each of those having their own independent heat source. It is a different model to housing.

It is just an impression I had that district heating was for houses.

No.

It is just for the area.

Exactly, yes.

We look at district heating from the point of view of our portfolio, particularly the office accommodation in Dublin, in relation to tying into Dublin City Council's work so that we can benefit from that, but it is mainly for our office portfolio.

Does Mr. Conlon think that some of that heating can go to council houses as well?

There is an opportunity there with the data centre in the adjacent site.

In Kildare innovation centre.

That could evolve over time, yes.

That is very good. That is really what I was asking.

Does Deputy Sheehan want to jump back in?

I do. I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach very much. I am glad he mentioned the opera site in Limerick.

My family are from Limerick. Actually, Mr. Conlon mentioned it and I said I would follow it up.

It is good to see the Leas-Chathaoirleach is in tune with the ancestral home place.

I just want to ask about a couple of things. Is there funding in place with regard to the moving of, say, Revenue to the library? When that building was originally purchased by Limerick City and County Council, it was the Department of housing that gave it. The original intention was that a substantial amount of that, or some of it, would be residential. From the OPW's point of view, is there scope in future to increase the number of residential units beyond the Aparthotel?

I am not being smart, Deputy, but that question is probably better directed to Limerick 2030.

I have asked Limerick 2030 that.

Our focus in that development is on the office block we are building, and that is it.

Is the OPW okay in terms of funding for the block?

That is within our NDP envelope, so it will be financed and funded from that.

Perfect.

Deputy Sheehan is happy enough, too. I call Deputy Clendennen.

Will the OPW be making provisions for meetings outside of Dublin for the EU Presidency?

I will ask Ms Collier to deal with that.

We are responsible for the provision of logistics and event management for all the conferencing and events during the Presidency. Obviously, it is being led by the Department of foreign affairs. To be clear, all the Departments and their programmes of events are applied for to the Department of foreign affairs and it decides whether those goes on the calendar or not. On the decision as to whether it goes outside Dublin, we look at the events and we see if they can be accommodated within the State portfolio or within venues in Dublin first because Dublin Castle is obviously the State's conferencing facility. There is then an ambition to bring a certain number outside of Dublin. A lot of that is led by the Departments themselves and their requests to go outside Dublin. The Department of foreign affairs really is the lead party in that decision-making. We are the facilitators, as it were. We do not really make that call.

Okay. In relation to the sheer scale of the OPW's estate and the cost of running it on an annual basis with the likes of insurance and energy, how does the OPW manage those contracts? Are they accumulated in one contract in terms of economies of scale and efficiencies or negotiations or what way does it do it?

The State insures itself, so we do not have insurance policies on the properties. In relation to energy and facilities-----

Like all State bodies, we have to look to the Office of Government Procurement, OGP, frameworks first. There are bulk procurements around utilities, energy, gas and oil, so we have to go with those bulk procurement contracts. We are part of that whole system in terms of the OGP procurement and we use those contracts and frameworks. It is the same with fuel for our fleet. We defer to the bulk procurements that are done through the OGP.

That State would not cover public liability insurance, though.

It is self-insurance.

It is self-insurance.

Okay. Is that through the State Claims Agency?

The State Claims Agency advises us on all these things, but we do not purchase insurance.

Who provides the compensation? If there was a-----

It comes from the Exchequer after the State Claims Agency reviews the-----

Okay.

This is my last question. I do not get the impression from the witnesses that the OPW is experiencing any bottlenecks or headaches in relation to the process of delivering infrastructure. As the Leas-Chathaoirleach said, we are focusing on delivery in 2029. I have not got any sense of frustration here. I am just going to give the witnesses one practical example. Has the OPW implemented electric vehicle, EV, chargers on its sites and has it had problems or experiences with them?

The Deputy has found a weakness in the armour there. EV chargers are really important for our EV fleet that we need to transition to in terms of our own work, but not all vehicles that we require actually exist as EV options or EV options would not be suitable. In the flooding work, for instance, no EV options exist for that kind of arterial drainage work. The EV charging infrastructure is problematic in some places because we need to have a certain type of supply in the locations, particularly in our very rural locations where we are experiencing some challenges. To be fair to ESB Networks, however, it is working with us where we do need additional supply into sites. There is a programme of trying to address where there are particular challenges in locations. In Knowth in Meath, for instance, it took us a while to get that sorted. We needed an additional substation put in there to deal with charging. ESB Networks is working with us to try to address those bottlenecks. However, the ambition would not be to have charges everywhere. Actually, some sites are at capacity in terms of just having the power to run the sites themselves. The ambition would not be to have them in absolutely every location, but we are trying to map where there would be a critical mass of people who may need to be able to charge cars at visitor attractions. We are working with ESB Networks to try to get the right supply into the sites for that.

Our relationship with the ESB is quite workmanlike.

Yes. It is very practical and pragmatic.

I will refer again to Castletown House and use it as a practical example from a capital plan point of view, as I did earlier with regard to Limerick. I have worked closely with Ms Collier and Mr. Conlon on this in the past. Regarding the next phase of something like the Castletown project, I presume there will be a plan for the Donaghcumper lands, how it all links in, the car park in the short term and so on. What way would a plan like that evolve and who would set that out? Reference was made to the potential for district heating. Who oversees that within a project like that or are there multiple parties involved? What way would the phasing of the plans for Castletown House operate?

I will ask Ms Collier to comment further on this. We have just recently set up a meeting with the management team in Kildare County Council with the objective of working with them on a master plan for the Donaghcumper-Castletown estate because the council is a key partner in that space. We have our own plans as well in terms of refurbishing the estate, doing some further works on the house, as well as some other plans. I will ask Ms Collier to say a few words on that.

There is a golden opportunity here, now that we have acquired both the Donaghcumper site to the south of the river and the Castletown estate in full. The historic estate has been reunited. In terms of that Liffey Valley park plan, if we step right back there was a strategic plan adopted by the State back in 2008 or 2009 to secure public amenities along the Liffey parklands. That already exists and there were parties to that plan including Kildare County Council, South Dublin County Council, Fingal County Council and the OPW. They are the stakeholders that will be involved in the big thinking. As Mr. Conlon said, Kildare County Council is key to how we move things forward at Castletown House.

With a process like this - and we have nearly finished a similar process at Dowth - we appoint consultants to work with us and we put a governance structure in place involving steering groups and working groups. We will put those structures in place and obviously a key piece is the engagement with the local community on their requirements. There will be a process around that. There is a well-worn process around how we work through these master-planning exercises. Things like the NTA proposal for park-and-ride facilities that were live three or four years ago will come back on to the table now. The district heating issue is quite interesting and Kildare Innovation Campus, KIC, is still really interested in trying to make that connection. It has an open district heating loop system already in place so it would be very easy for us to connect into that system. It is a distance away so we would have to do the modelling and the metrics to see if it would be cost efficient. There are great opportunities there between the district heating, park-and-ride facilities, and the requirements of the local community from an amenity point of view. Obviously, we have ambitions around the conservation and presentation of the historic estate of Castletown. We already have a scheme for the farmyard that we were not able to advance over the last number of years. We actually have a well-designed scheme to refurbish the farmyard and I hope the community will be delighted to hear that this is something we can literally hit the ground running with now. There are lots of parts of that project that are almost ready to come out of the box but obviously we will put a process in place around it.

Who will be managing that?

It will primarily be led by the OPW, as the owners of the lands, but obviously Kildare County Council is a key stakeholder. Again, we will put a structure around that with our partners.

It would be important for members to have someone with whom we can liaise directly rather than dealing with the OPW as an organisation. There needs to be a management structure in place locally. We would have had connections with some representatives of the OPW in the past.

Yes, exactly, a local management structure. The strategic policy committee, SPC, system with the local authority is really important, involving the local council members, the local district municipal councils and so on. That was probably not firing on all cylinders in some of the previous episodes. We would like to think that the local elected network system will function better in this process.

I wish to ask about the policy in relation to Garda stations and mixed use, or rather, the lack of it. There is no option for a shared building in relation to Garda stations. Is that likely to change any time soon?

We work closely with An Garda Síochána in relation to the development of Garda stations. The question on mixed-use stations is probably better directed to An Garda Síochána. I am not being smart here. It is the policy and the business of An Garda Síochána as such. We contract and do the works for the force but decisions like that are for An Garda Síochána, not the OPW.

We have talked about the regulation and the blockages. I have asked previously whether the OPW has the manpower, resources and budget it needs. In fairness, the witnesses have said they are confident of getting their plans through but in general, does the OPW have the people it needs? That is one of the single biggest issues-----

It is something that we keep under close review. The construction sector is competitive in terms of labour. We have fairly significant teams across all of our professional and technical people. We are conscious that some grades and professions are difficult to recruit, which is why we have graduate programmes and internships. The aim is to make sure that graduates and interns can get experience of working for the OPW and then hopefully, they will continue to work with us. That is something we want to develop further. We have an apprenticeship scheme and work closely with the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science on that to make the OPW an attractive place to work. Moreover, because of the type of work we do, it is an attractive place to work for technical people. We continue to focus and work on that. We also use contractor frameworks to bring in expertise because we have to flex up and down as well. It is a tight market but we are quite confident that we can continue to resource the works we have.

I saw in Castletown, with the project to put in a new floor, that the team was amazing. The people involved in it got to do their work in a really lovely location and probably had great support. I can imagine that the OPW is probably a very attractive place to work and that is only one tiny example, not to mind the flood relief and the technical engineering experience that would be available to someone-----

That is great experience for graduates, to get into that type of work.

That is the beauty of the OPW. It gives graduates opportunities in everything in some of the nicest locations in the country.

To go back to the issue of regulation, are there any additional policies or process reforms that we need to achieve? I do not want the OPW to be wary of questioning other areas of the State if there are legal blockages, for example, or environmental issues. Are there any other areas that the witnesses feel we could reform or look at that might be beneficial? Ultimately, what we are trying to do here is collate as much information from as many bodies as possible to assist the Department to ensure the better running of the country.

I can give a personal view, if you wish-----

Such views are often the best.

I have worked across Government for many years. I have worked on social welfare legislation every year and have worked with the Department of Finance on some elements of Finance Bills. Having a legislative vehicle to bring stuff through works for social welfare and finance because they have Bills every year. In terms of planning, we have just come through the legislative process for a huge planning Bill but in terms of future planning legislation, to have a regular legislative vehicle to progress that through would be very useful.

That would be better than picking it up every five years and restarting the process.

Yes, exactly. With an annual Finance Bill, we can deal with things that arise during the year. The same with social welfare. We can deal with the budget measures but also with other policy measures that are identified through the year. Having a legislative vehicle every year can be very helpful.

Can I make a comment too?

Yes, of course.

On the question about blockages, I would highlight in relation the delivery of the flood relief schemes that we have a further 54 schemes to be brought forward under our second tranche of delivery but some of the challenges that we are facing include the availability of very specialised technical and engineering resources in, for example, hydrology, numerical modelling and so on. That is an area where we need to expand the availability and capability of that resource in the marketplace. Another issue relates to sharing the demand not just across our infrastructure but across other Government Departments in delivering other infrastructure. I include here, for example, the whole area of environmental survey capability. Everyone will have a demand for similar types of environmental surveys so having sufficient capability in the market to do all of that work over the coming years is important.

Mr. Sreenan will make a point on procurement.

The OPW sits on the Government's construction contracts committee. That is a very useful space for us to be in with respect to large, complex projects, particularly given the historic nature of a lot of our portfolio. There are lots of very good conversations and support within that room around pragmatic steps in terms of derogations on contracts that have a risk-based approach to them. The second piece is that we have a lot of engagement with colleagues in the Department of public expenditure and reform, particularly the infrastructure division and the accelerating infrastructure group. Work is under way there that we are very hopeful about with respect to approvals and, potentially, engagement once the ministerial guidelines are published on the action plan.

We will keep feeding into that.

Good. I think we might have the Minister here next week.

I have a couple more things to say. I think it was Deputy Clendennen who asked about vacant sites in Offaly. Could we widen the scope of that, dare I say it, to other counties, like Kildare?

To be clear, there is a list of 55 buildings and 19 sites but I would like to get an idea of what the timeframe is for when their vacancy or dereliction will be addressed.

Do you mean a high level plan for each location?

Yes.

We can provide documents to the committee on this. For those sites we work within certain protocols. They have to be offered to the Land Development Agency, the county councils and so on. We work closely within those protocols and where a transfer to another body does not happen, then we sell those sites. We have considerably reduced the number or spare property and sites we have had over a number of years. The figure of 55 is a fairly low percentage given the overall portfolio we have, but we continue to work within those protocols. We can provide some information to the committee on that.

Okay. The last issue is another side of the same coin and I think I brought it up at the PAC. I was bringing it up in the context of buildings and ensuring we are using them. Mr. Conlon was saying the OPW organises them for different Departments. I am not sure exactly how the charge works but the OPW finds sites for Departments. Does the OPW have plans to acquire land in areas or does it leave it to the local authorities? Let us say there is an area of 30 acres. It is a bit like with Castletown House where the land was coming up for sale. It is less obvious, I suppose, because that was an adjoining site. Let us say a place becomes available near Birr Castle or there is a similar prime opportunity for the OPW. Does the office have plans for that and what is the process? Similarly, what about a site that might have been relevant but no longer is and which might be good for housing?

If we have sites we offer them to local authorities and the LDA for housing. We do not buy land speculatively. To be clear, we only buy land where we have a business need.

All I mean is in the context of, say, a parkland. It might have had an old house on it. I will use an example near me, Ryevale House. There are fields around it and it might have been owned by the OPW. In such cases, does the office look at that or at places that might be needed in future or that might be of benefit to the State in future?

As I said, we do not buy speculatively. We would need to have a good heritage and business reason.

On the heritage side, we have 780 national monuments around the country so we have all sorts of issues, including public access, car parking and access to maintain things. We have a long list of things where we are trying resolve property issues and if stuff comes on to the market then, as Mr. Conlon says, we might buy if there is an appropriate business need. We are not doing it speculatively but we have areas where we have ambition about requirements for things. The Liffey valley park is a good example because there was a strategic policy adopted on amenity parkland along a stretch of the Liffey. It was the State's ambition that we would try to unite a necklace of these sites to create an amenity belt from the city out as far as Celbridge. Once that policy is adopted we have the framework to-----

Work within it.

-----if something came onto the market.

It is like a county development plan.

We have sites, say for instance in Meath, where there is the curtilage of the UNESCO world heritage site. There is the core zone and then the buffer zone. If lands come up in the buffer zone, which is covered by UNESCO in terms of development and how it should be presented and conserved because it has universal value, we would keep an eye on the lands within the buffer zone and not just the core zone of UNESCO world heritage sites. They are policy positions we have on property and heritage but as Mr. Conlon says, unless the business requirement is there we do not acquire speculatively. It is the same on the modern estate side in terms of the requirements of government. Take Department of Social Protection offices around the country or decentralisation. If the policy position is there and we are keeping an eye on things then we might have a policy basis on which to acquire.

We keep an eye on the property market. I do not want to be saying too much because some of this is commercially sensitive but in the recent past we bought two office blocks in Dublin that we had previously leased because it made sense for us to buy them. We try to manage our portfolio to prioritise build or purchase over lease but you also need the flexibility in your portfolio to lease as well. We got some economic analysis done a number of years back to support a policy position that build and buy are our first approaches and lease is the second. However, it is a dynamic portfolio. New agencies are formed, governments move and all of that stuff, so you need flexibility in the portfolio as well through leasing. Where opportunities come up to purchase buildings we see value in, we will try to.

You have the money in the bank, maybe.

Subject to business case-----

Subject to business case, I know.

-----and subject to sanction.

I know, I have seen it.

That is everything from our end so we are happy enough to finish up.

We have taken notes. There were a number of issues raised we can get back to the committee clerk on. Members should feel free to keep in touch with us.

Okay, that is great. I thank the officials for coming in. I thank Deputy Clendennen for waiting until the end as well and everybody around helping with the meeting today. Obviously it is simple here but all the work goes in beforehand and I thank the team for that. At our next meeting we will have the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, Deputy Chambers.