Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The local authorities have until the middle of next year to finish the work, according to the documentation. In other words, they do not have to have it done by 31 December. My understanding is that last year there was still a small provision in the Estimates for legacy expenditure under the RAPID programme, which closed down when I left the Department. That is how slow the local authorities are to spend. They promise the sun, moon and stars in terms of speed.

Once the money has been given, there is a problem. If the Minister draws back, they will tell her that they will go to the public and say the Department withdrew the money. They will never say that they did not deliver in time. Recognising realities, I always believed that the only way around that was to actually sanction way more money. Then there is a dilemma, which concerns me. If the Minister does that before the 2016 funds are spent, there is a chance the authorities will not even spend that money this year. I am really concerned, and that is before we look at the €25 million saving in the Leader programme. I was given a figure of €300,000 for projects that had been approved under the Leader programme. These are going to communities, local authorities and all sorts of combinations.

We all know how slow they are at spending. Therefore, I have to disagree from my experience with the Minister when she says that it is too early. It is not too early because this is like turning the Titanic, as it is so slow, big and cumbersome. Simple as the schemes were ten years ago, they have all gotten so convoluted and so much paper is needed. When applications are opened, 300 are received that have to be sifted down to 30. That takes the time of the Minister's staff. Everything has to be scored and so on. Everything takes time. There is so much compliance nowadays. If we going to have all this compliance in the system, on which we all insist, the only solution is to start way earlier, because the process cannot be cut down. I do not want to labour the point, but I will be pursuing this agenda every week of every month.

I think it is a right agenda because, as the Minister said, she did a good job. I can have arguments about how good a job she did but I will give her credit for a reasonably good job in getting money. The real sin in this game, however, is to get the money and not spend it. There is a knock-on consequence for next year. If the Minister gets the money this year and does not spend it, when she returns the next year saying she needs more, she will be told that she did not spend it in 2016 or 2017 and will be asked why she needs more next year when she is not spending it. This is an Estimates meeting so it is fundamentally about the money. We have piles of figures in papers and how many people are going in this door and that but ultimately, one has to get value for money, and one does not get any value for money if it being handed back to the guys in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform because they will just put it in some black hole. My worries are not assuaged. When I hear "it is too early", that is something I used to hear myself. I could take a piece of paper and write out all the steps that it takes from deciding to start a little scheme to getting someone with a shovel or digger or whatever it takes to work on the ground and this is growing continually. Insurances, insurance bonds, or whatever one cares to name, there is so much process now that my worry is not that it is too early but it is actually too late. I hope the Minister proves me wrong but I will be back after her in June and July - I will not give up in August, September, October, November or December - and then in January I will count it all up, just as I did this year and I will look for the underspend. This is not because I want to pay games but because I think it is an awful travesty of justice when one states continually that we have no money, only to hand back a wad at the end of the year.

I will compliment the Minister on one thing before I hand over to my colleague, namely, setting up the Moore Street advisory group. It was a courageous decision and could have gone very wrong or very right. I had suggested that it might be the way forward. It is fair to say that the chair of that group did an excellent job in bringing together disparate people in a coherent plan. The group presented a report to the Minister. Last week in the Dáil, she told me she hoped to be able to move ahead with its proposals. This matter needs to move forward. I noticed again that €3.8 million was carried forward on centenary events and put into the National Gallery or something like that. Will she tell us when we will move forward again with this? I am afraid that when the bicycle stops moving the person on the bicycle falls off. Can the Minister tell me if she has been able to move forward on this in the last week?