Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)

I assure Deputy McDonald and other Members of the House that this relates to a Bill passed in 2004 providing that when a capital allocation was being transferred from one year to the next, the order needed to be placed before the House by 31 March. While we are responsible for many things, we are not responsible for that.

I agree with colleagues that this should in future be debated at the select committee. I will ensure that every Member of the House receives a full Vote-by-Vote assessment of the savings made by Departments and what they are intending to do line by line. That will be in their pigeonholes by late this afternoon - I give an absolute commitment on that. I apologise that it did not happen before the debate.

We are dealing here with money allocated for 2011. To answer Deputy McDonald's question it is approximately 2.5% of the 2011 allocation. So while €114 million is a significant amount of money, it is very small in global terms. As Deputies will appreciate there is general support for the idea that if a Department cannot spend the money by the end of the year, the worst thing it could do, as Departments did for many years, was to spend a glut of money at the end of the year very often unwisely. It was spent badly and there was no value for money and everyone knew that. The 2004 legislation provided for an opportunity to spend that money in the following year and also to change it between subheads if there was not the expenditure profile there.

Colleagues have legitimately asked why we have these underspends. Much of it is down to timing. In the OPW, for which I have responsibility, almost half the capital allocation is spent on flood defences. We set out a profile for a year and the contracts that are to be awarded and the progression of those contracts. However, much of that depends on whether the other bidder takes an action as to whether he won the contract or whether the contractors actually get on-site into the river. It depends on whether the agreement on the purchase of the private landholding as part of the scheme is agreed and proceeds. It is not as if the money will be spent on anything different in the following year for the OPW. It is just the way the scheme is progressing and the drawdown of funds accordingly.

See this speech in context