Mattie McGrath slams Appropriations Bill over cost overruns

and this appropriations bill, the cost overruns and lack of value for money is a major issue, Minister. One of the most glaring issues with the appropriations bill 2024 is the persistent problem of cost overruns. I mean persistent. Projects across multiple departments routinely exceed their initial budgets, often by substantial margins. For instance, the Department of Defence has seen numerous projects balloon in costs with little or no accountability for the overruns. The Department of Transportation frequently exceeds their budgets, leading to waste the taxpayers' money. The lack of value for money is another crucial issue. Despite substantial funds allocated, the outcomes often fall short of expectations. The healthcare sector, for example, my god, can we just even look at it? As I said today earlier, I came in here in 2007, the health budget was 7 billion, it's now 26 and a half. And there's cost overruns every year. And you've been in the Department of Public Spencer for a long time, and now you're back in it again. So these overruns are just unbelievable. As I said, it also highlights the allocation of, you know, for the upcoming fiscal year. But it's a lack of accountability. A fundamental issue underpinning the problems is the lack of accountability. Departments and the agencies often operate with minimal oversight, minimal, leading to mismanagement and inefficiencies. The absence of stringent accountability measures means that those responsible for cost overruns and poor value for money face little or no consequences. And that is not acceptable. I'm a small business person. Any small business person or any business person wouldn't, couldn't operate and they're small or be. This culture of impunity must be addressed if we are to see any meaningful improvements in the government spending. It must be. You can't have impunity. There must be responsibility. Secretary-General to the Department, I don't name anyone, are well paid. Well paid. So you'd imagine that they'd be well, well, have experience enough to watch this. And it's just simply unacceptable. The Appropriations of Bill 24, while necessary for funding government operation, exposes deep-seated issues of cost overruns, lack of value for money and government overspending, without significant reforms to enhance accountability and ensure efficient use of funds. These problems will continue to undermine public trust and waste taxpayers' money. It is imperative that the government takes decisive action, but I don't think you will. Just take the Children's Hospital. My goodness. My goodness. And as I said, Professor Jimmy Sheehan and indeed others came in here and told us that they would build a hospital in the M50 or whatever. We had a site of 70 acres and they'd build it for 1.1, for between 900 million and 1.1 billion. And they'd do it in every month to 13 months. And they also pointed out that they, that at this, we're going ahead now here, they warned of it. For anybody who was invited to AV Rome, you were as well, Minister, to hear that the equipment would be obsolete at times built. And here we are, six, seven, eight years later, and equipment, of course, would be obsolete. That is shameful to put that into the wrong place and with no helipads, a small helipad for light craft on a camp day. That's the most massive one. And we take then, everywhere you go, they're knocking on the door, the bike shed. Like, someone has to be accountable. Every minister said, no, and you're nothing about it. Teacher, you're nothing about it. He's angry over it. It shouldn't happen. It won't happen again. We get to use this stuff. No one accountable. Somebody, the procurement officer and his superiors must be responsible first. Have to be responsible then the hood came, the security hood going into Ag House, and no one was responsible for that hire. This is not acceptable. In any private company, heads will roll, full stop. And they couldn't act with the house because you can't. First of all, it wouldn't happen because the company wouldn't keep functioning. So how come the government projects are a soft touch? As I said, and the national roads, when they were built and motorway, the MA is, they all came in under Sisk and Road Bridge. They came in under budget and ahead of time, the different aspects of it. It was well publicised and well acknowledged at the time, rightly so. And I saw the way they worked and built doors. So why are we allowed sense that there will be such laggards and allow this to happen? And then the funding going back to the departments, Minister. As I said, Minister Baird Baird talked about the money going back in sport. I think they said 24 million. I know that clubs, even my own club in Newcastle, have money allocated with two years. And unfortunately, Board Pinala turned down their planning application yesterday. So that's kind of funny. We'll probably have to return. I can understand that with projects. But 24 million is a lot of money. I was talking about a couple of hundred thousand. So we know there's issues like that, and they have to be planning and tick boxes. But that kind of money going back, and to think that 129 million going back on national roads. How could this happen? We're uproar this year when, and rightly so, when many, many roads overlay present existing national roads were taken out of the proposed roadways. No funding. Fermi Town had the very same thing. Funding pulled for the pavement overlay in the town of Fermi. Councillor Peter Donoghue was on to me about it and many others, even though I'm not from that area at all. And massive, they've gone up here to do sit-ins in department offices. How can this happen? And how can we see that we have 124 million going back? It's only early November, 124, when there are projects waiting. Take the N24, soon to be M24 projects out of consultants are doing it from from Palace Green to CAIR, Cockbreda. Thankfully, that's continuing on with a lot of lobbying to get the couple of million to keep the consultants in place. But the other leg of it, the most important road from Cockbreda roundabout, outside CAIR, on to Cranmel, on to Carrick and Shure, and on to Piltdown to Waterbury, and part to Kilkenny. And Kilkenny council are the lead design team here. But that has been installed, because Arab consultants, or whatever consultants got it, but Arab had it, and they wanted 3 million. Not that they wanted it. It cost 3 million to keep the consultants engaged on that most important, long-term, desperately needed upgrade of that road to motorway, we thought. But now we thought it was a single carriageway again. But nonetheless, it stopped dead in the water for the sum of 3 million. The same happened two years ago, and all the deputies from all the counties, Kilkenny, Waterford and South Tipperary got together, and thankfully money was found. 3 million is not an awful lot of money. And there we see a vast amount of money going back on that. So this kind of project shouldn't be happening. That whole stops that. How can you develop a project, if you're going to be depending on consultants for one year, to bring it on to different pre-planning stages, and to notice the trees, and all the different ideas and design, all the stages? You have to have this continuity. There's no planning funding for this year, and last year. And there's no funding, so it stops dead in the facts. That kind of piecemeal, lack of planning, and lack of forward planning, is not good enough either. Again, a business person wouldn't be able to sustain that. And as I said, someone must be responsible. You as Minister, and the Taoiseach, and all the Ministers, the bookstops there, but it stops equally with the Secretary-General of those departments. And I saw that you, Secretary-General, and your department at one stage was asked to move to health, and he got a huge increase in wages. But that wouldn't happen in any private sector, because it couldn't happen. I think there's 20,000 of an increase on top of already exorbitant wage. So what's so special about these people? I mean, they do a job, and they're paid to a job, and they must have the competence. But when there's answers, when we can't go out and not face the public, who's responsible for the bicycle shed? Who's responsible for the house? Who was responsible for the printer that wouldn't fit in to the printers? And I thank the printers for all the book they did for us. Who could design and procure an item that wouldn't fit? Who was responsible for procuring the loose that wouldn't fit over a corner of the bridge, and they blocked the traffic? Where is the giant up thinking here? So somebody must be held accountable. We are the people out there entrusted by the people, and I'm thankful to the people of Chipper, really. It's important to me to get in here and ask these questions. But it's just beggars' belief that we go back now and we have to wave our hands at the door. We don't know. Nobody's responsible. Nobody's responsible. Nobody knows who. That's not acceptable in a so-called elective. It's not a dictatorship we're worked in. We have to be held accountable, and you have to be held accountable. And in turn, the Secretary Generals and senior officials have to be held accountable. Nobody. And they operate with impunity. There's no repercussions for the willful waste. And the old saying is, willful waste makes woeful want. And my goodness, have we willful waste now going on. In a time of such need, people with scoliosis and a plethora of different problems, issues out there, the bad they need money. I mentioned a school of Angus. I mentioned special schools and time and special places. When they look at this, they won't vote minister for any of us because they're just deflated, disappointed, disgusted. I don't know if anything else to describe it. And you can't blame them with the waste and the lack of accountability. And these issues come up in the media or the ditch or whatever, and no one is responsible. It just happens. It's anti-claus or, I don't know who, nobody. That's not acceptable in any democracy. It's meant to be an accountable democracy. We're held accountable with the appropriation bill here. And it's meant to have answers. And it will be the same mixture. Thank you. Thank you very much. And thanks to all the deputies for the contributions that they've made. Just to respond back to a number of the matters that have been raised in this debate. Firstly, the issue here of accountability in relation to the huge amounts of money that I'm asking the Dáil to vote on this afternoon. And I thank deputies for recognising the importance of the passing of this legislation. But I would emphasise to them that in order to get to this point, there's revised estimates and supplementary estimates that have to be passed in order for this bill to be passed. And those individual estimates are all debated by the Oireachtas in their relevant Oireachtas committee. So before we got to the point of doing the Appropriations Bill here today, supplementary estimates have been passed. And those supplementary estimates involved ministers bringing those supplementary estimates into their Oireachtas committee, and be scrutinised at that point. So yes, it is custom that this piece of legislation be dealt quickly with by the Dáil. And as Deputy Conway Walsh acknowledged, Deputy of Snuddig, it does normally happen during the month of December, later in the year. We know that it's not happening now for other reasons. But it is still important to emphasise that even though the timing is different, in order to get to this point of the Appropriation Bill being in front of the House, estimates will be discussed by the relevant Oireachtas committee. That is the point at which the scrutiny happens. The second point I would make is in relation to the carryovers that we have discussed here this evening. Two points in relation to that. Firstly, the capital carryover here in this particular Appropriation Bill at €207.21 million, I take the point that is a very large amount of money. It is still 1.6% of the total capital allocation that was available to government departments for 2024. So even though it's a very large amount of money, it's a comparatively small amount of the total capital budget that was available to all government departments. And because the money has been carried over, it does not mean it's been handed back. It just means it's going to be spent at a different point. So Deputy Boyd Barrett, when you were talking about the €24 million, that money has not been surrendered back. The money is still with the Department of Sport. What it means is, as opposed to that being spent in October, November or December, it will be spent in January, February or March or at some point next year. And the point that you were making and other deputies did. But the money is not lost. And the point that was being made or suggested is that because this is a carryover, the money has been handed back. That's wrong. Because it's a carryover, it's been retained within the Department, but spent in a different year. And the absence of a carryover would mean the money is not being spent in the Department. But the presence of a carryover means that it is. And there's a real fundamental misunderstanding regarding what a carryover is here. The money is being spent, but just spent in a different calendar year. And then in relation to the different charges that are made in relation to waste and mismanagement, and they were made there strongly by Deputy McGrath there a moment ago, you made the point about accountability. I'm here in front of the Dáil and in front of Venerbahce's Committee very regularly regarding the use of the taxpayers' money as it should be. And I'll be the first to acknowledge that there are a number of areas in which things should have been done better. And I've acknowledged that in the past. But I'll still make the point to you that for the vast majority of the spending of our country's money, particularly when it comes to capital expenditure, it is being used in the way the country would want, and does deliver projects that are either on time or broadly on budget. And I make the point to you broadly about costs going up. Just because a cost goes up doesn't mean it's the same thing as a cost overall. And we've just gone through a period in which the cost of building anything within our country has gone up for reasons that are beyond our control. The price, and you'll know this as well as I will do, the price of concrete, wood, metal, energy, all the things that we need, just as the private sector needs, to build a home, to deliver a wastewater treatment plant. The cost of those projects have all gone up. Much of that is because the cost of the raw materials, the cost of energy has gone up as well. So the cost of something going up is not the same as a cost overrun and isn't in many cases due to any alleged incompetence or inefficiency. It's just as the private sector is having to spend more to deliver certain projects. The state and no government is immune to those changes in the price of raw materials that we need to deliver very big projects, or indeed any projects at all. And then finally, in relation to the point that was made by Deputy Boyd Barrett there, in relation to a state construction company, and I look forward to having the debate with you in the coming weeks in relation to that. But it's still worth emphasising that the state does deliver homes and does build homes. It builds it through local authorities. And as I noted there in my speech there a moment ago, in 2023, 11,938 social homes were delivered. I know that's not the same as built. I know many of them were purchased, but the majority of them were built by the state. They were built by local authorities, which as you know, as well as I, are units or parts of the state. So while there is a definitely a discussion to be had regarding a state construction company, and I'll have that debate with you. No, no, I am right. No, I am right. I know I'm right about it. And I'm weary of making points with absolute certainty. But the point I'm making to you is the state is directly involved in building homes. It does it through local authorities. And out of that, 11,938 homes, the majority of them would have been direct builds by local authorities, which is the state. That's the argument that I'm making to you. And to suggest that the state is not involved in directly building homes would be wrong. But even if that state body was set up that you're referring to, it would still have to buy concrete, it would still have to employ people at rates that are comparable to what is in the private sector. Otherwise, those people won't work for the state. So it may well be the case that in the argument, the organisation that you're making the case for, there wouldn't be a profit. There wouldn't be a marketing, all of which you acknowledge there. But they're only a comparatively small part of the cost of building a home at the moment. And the state would have to deal with all of the other costs that any private sector company is dealing with at the moment and our local authorities are currently dealing with. So as I said at the very beginning, I just want to thank all deputies for the recognition of the importance of passing this legislation, to acknowledge that this debate is comparatively short, given the amount of money involved in this bill. But just to emphasise again, last round quarter, that all the different strands of this funding have been debated elsewhere within the Oireachtas. And thank you for your cooperation.