Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the Estimates for the Office of Public Works, Vote 13, for the year ending 31 December 2015, I welcome Ms Clare McGrath, chairperson of the OPW. Ms McGrath is accompanied by Mr. Mick Long, accountant and Mr. Tony Smyth, director of engineering services.

On part 1, structure and purpose of the meeting, there have been ongoing efforts within the Oireachtas committees to improve the way that committees and members engage in the budget and Estimates process. In order for committees to fulfil their responsibilities and hold Departments and public bodies to account for how they spend public money, the quality of information that committees receive needs to improve. A number of committees, through their secretariats, have been in communication with several Departments and public bodies, including the OPW, over the past number of months to look at ways in which spending can be tied more closely to output targets and long-term outcomes. Committees need to be able to assess how public bodies are performing. The OPW is to be commended in how it has engaged with this conversation with the secretariat over recent months and also on its willingness to examine the type and quality of information it makes available to the committee.

There are two key parts of today's meeting. Part 1 will allow members to discuss how the OPW measures performance, what it has done to improve these measures and what needs to be done in future. Part 2 concerns the mid-year view of the position as regards outputs and expenditure in regard to the OPW Vote for the year ending 31 December 2015 and the emerging position for that Vote. They will alert us to issues that will be relevant to the 2016 Estimates discussions in advance of the allocations being finalised as envisaged by the Comprehensive Expenditure Report 2012-2014. As in the case across a number of committees, I propose that at a further meeting the joint committee may agree a report on the outcome of our deliberations today and lay it before the Houses.

Members have been circulated with a briefing document for today's meeting. The format of the meeting will be that Ms McGrath will make some opening remarks which will be followed with a question and answer session dealing first, with performance measures and then a second round of questions on the spending figures.

I remind members, visitors and those in the Visitors Gallery that mobile telephones must be switched off. I advise the witnesses that, by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing ruling of the Chair to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I ask Ms McGrath to make her opening statement.

Ms Clare McGrath:

I am joined here today by Mr. Michael Long, the accountant for the Office of Public Works, and Mr. Tony Smyth, the director of engineering.

I am pleased to be here today to assist in the committee's deliberations on this pilot exercise undertaking a mid-year review of the position on outputs and expenditure, brief the committee on the OPW's emerging position on the Estimate and comment on the performance data presented in the Revised Estimates for the Office of Public Works.

Before I present the challenges that we face in demonstrating performance on the main programmes, I will brief the committee on progress to date in 2015. In terms of outputs, progress on the flood risk management programme has been hampered by a number of factors such as legal challenges within the procurement process and legislative requirements relating to environmental impact analyses of schemes. These unavoidable difficulties result in a long lead-in time in bringing these complex infrastructure projects to commencement stage. As a consequence, there are challenges in accurately identifying programme milestones in terms of output and expenditure where external factors can have a significant impact. The committee will be aware that I have presented these difficulties here previously.

While the OPW has made every effort to advance the schemes planned for commencement and completion in 2015, specific difficulties have been encountered and have led to delays. For example, the design of some schemes had to be revisited and required further consultation with stakeholders following the exhibition stage, a stage at which we conduct extensive public consultation. In addition, despite robust planning and contract management, one project encountered procurement challenges, which resulted in the procurement process having to be terminated and restarted. These issues have impacted on the Vote from both an output and expenditure perspective.

In expenditure terms, the OPW Vote spend is split between two programme areas. Overall, €397 million was allocated to the OPW in 2015, and expenditure at mid-year was 47% of the gross current allocation and 31% of the capital allocation. Current expenditure is on profile to break even for 2015 and while capital expenditure on one programme is behind profile, significant expenditure relating to major capital contracts is projected for the final quarter.

We have indicated to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform that an application to vire funding between subheads may be submitted this year and a carry-forward of capital savings to 2016 sought under the deferred surrender scheme, within the 10% saving permitted. While the scale and composition of the 2016 OPW Vote is currently under consideration, the current expenditure ceiling for the Office is €276.5 million, which is in line with the current allocation for 2015.

The 2016 ceiling will allow for the existing level of service to be maintained in property management, heritage services and drainage maintenance, with an increase in the provision on property maintenance for buildings occupied by Departments to be funded from within the Vote. A reduced requirement on unitary payments for the convention centre in Dublin will allow funds to be redirected to the essential planned preventative maintenance programme now that we have assumed, since 2013, overall responsibility for this function.

While the capital allocation in 2016 will remain constant, the Government has demonstrated its commitment, announced yesterday, to flood risk management in Ireland with the announcement of a €430 million six-year programme of capital investment on flood defence measures as part of the Government's overall Capital Investment Plan 2016-2021. The programme will build on the very significant investment that has already been undertaken in flood relief works throughout the country over the past 20 years, with over €410 million invested in that period.

In 2016, schemes will get under way in Bandon, Skibbereen, Clashaboy, Douglas, Blackpool, Claregalway, Lower Morrell, Ennis south and Foynes on a staged basis. In 2016, reductions in capital unitary payments will allow for an increased investment in the ongoing office rationalisation programme. This will ensure the State rental bill can be maintained at a sustainable level and accommodation for essential State services can be provided in a cost-effective manner.

In terms of output measures, I am of the opinion that the OPW targets used in previous years may now need to be revisited. I am open to applying the principles drawn from the guidance issued by the New Zealand Comptroller and Auditor General to improve the performance information in the Estimates. I would welcome the views of members on the type of performance data they wish to see presented. I acknowledge that the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, as the publisher of the revised Estimate, will have a key role in agreeing any proposed changes.

As members are aware, the OPW is responsible for a wide variety of functions broadly based in two areas of responsibility: flood risk management and estate portfolio management, which includes heritage services. I will address the challenges faced in demonstrating output within those programmes. Members are aware that the OPW is the lead agency for the management of the flood risk management programme in Ireland. The key purpose of this programme is to ensure the risks associated with flooding and the impacts identified in climate change are considered and appropriate mitigation plans are put in place. The overall outcome is to reduce the risk of flooding to homes and businesses and to ensure appropriate flood risk information for planning in Ireland.

The setting of performance targets and interim goals to measure this presents its own challenges. The OPW currently publishes output indicators on irelandstat.gov.ie. I suggest to members that these indicators might represent a more appropriate way to measure the performance of current flood relief schemes and the impending catchment flood risk assessment and management programme. On irelandstat.gov.ie, we publish the number of additional properties benefiting from flood relief works in a given year and the cumulative number of properties benefiting from flood relief works. We are incrementally demonstrating what is being achieved. The value of benefit to properties, or damage or loss avoided in financial terms, is also represented, as is the cumulative value of benefit to properties, or damage or loss avoided in financial terms.

In order to implement the State’s strategy for flood risk management in Ireland, we have developed a catchment flood risk assessment and management plan, known as CFRAM. This programme represents a major advance in the way that the management of flood risk is approached, involving a move to strategic planning at the river catchment level. It establishes a new framework for the proactive development and planning of flood relief schemes and other measures by applying international best practice. CFRAM lies at the core of the assessment. It is focused on 300 areas of potentially significant risk, known as areas for further assessment. The ongoing programme will look at all possible options to address flood risk in each area for further assessment for inclusion in the flood risk management plans. This programme, which has been allocated additional funding from 2018, will set out a medium to long-term strategy and will prioritise a programme of work with appropriate output measures to achieve the effective and sustainable management of flood risk.

I will set out the progress that has been made on the programme to date. Draft maps were completed for 282 areas for further assessment by the end of 2014 and for all 300 areas by June 2015. Over 40,000 maps have been reviewed by the OPW and the local authorities and have been subject to public consultation. Under the EU floods directive, the flood risk management plans are due to be reported by March 2016. This deadline will not be met until the end of 2016 due to delays in producing the flood maps. It is worth noting that the capacity to deal with flood risk management has been enhanced in recent years through greater collaboration with local authorities, which act as the contracting authority for certain schemes and carry out some minor works projects funded by the OPW as long as the works meet strict cost-benefit criteria.

The other main programme for the office is estate portfolio management, which encompasses the management, maintenance and development of the State’s property portfolio in our care, including the conservation, protection and presentation of national monuments and national historic properties in State care. We have been tasked by the Government with rationalising the State's property portfolio to reflect the changing numbers across the Civil Service. Since 2008, the OPW has undertaken a major rationalisation programme that has resulted in the surrender of over 1.2 million sq. ft. of office accommodation and yielded a cumulative reduction of €111 million in rent on the OPW Vote. In that period, we have surrendered 276 leases with an annual rental yield of €34.7 million. Rent reductions have been negotiated on 121 leases, yielding an annual rental reduction of €8.59 million. The savings achieved and the reduction in the State property footprint are output measures reflecting the significant work undertaken by this office over the last five years. With rents now rising, particularly in Dublin, mounting challenges in the negotiation of rent reductions and the rationalisation of properties will need to be considered as part of the output measures to be set for 2016.

The objective of the property asset management delivery plan, which applies to all public property holders and not just the OPW, is to achieve a more strategic approach to the management of State property. It requires all State property holders to view public property from a State perspective rather than from the perspective of individual ownership, notwithstanding that ownership will remain the same. The plan sets out a series of actions aimed at improving the planning and management of the public service property portfolio though improved co-ordination, an increased capacity to benchmark building performance, standardised building measurement and the optimisation of the use of the Slate's property assets through asset-sharing and more streamlined processes. As part of the plan, State property holders have been tasked with verifying their property data and submitting the data to the State property register by the end of 2016. A network of property managers is to be established across public property holders and will be chaired by the OPW. The application of the ISEN standard for facilities management for measuring and analysing office space to OPW office accommodation is to be introduced on a phased basis over the next two to three years. A training model for public service staff is to be developed in the property asset management area by mid-2016. A programme of information workshops has commenced, with further roll-out to be agreed with the steering group on property asset management, which I chair.

Regarding the capacity of the OPW to carry out the necessary reforms in this area, we have engaged in a business transformation process for our estate portfolio function. We are taking a lead role in the property asset management delivery plan. By looking at ourselves from an external perspective, we aim to improve our processes to deliver better outcomes for our clients and structure the organisation in a way that supports the most effective delivery of outputs. The ambition is to increase overall efficiency, given the significant reduction in our staff resources, and to optimise the stewardship of the property assets entrusted to us. Good progress is being made in this regard. Priorities for improvement are emerging around supporting our clients, developing our programme and project management functions, enhancing our planning capability and using better information systems. We will make progress with all of these areas for improvement in the course of the work of the business transformation, which will run until the end of 2016. We will foster and support a culture of continuous improvement, with which further progress will be made in future years.

As part of our property portfolio, we are responsible for the ongoing management, conservation and protection of some 800 historic properties and national monuments sites. The policy for this area is vested in the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. We provide guide services to visitors at 70 sites nationwide, many of which attract a significant number of visitors and are key to contributing to Ireland’s cultural and heritage tourism. During 2014, admission numbers to OPW-guided sites reached 4.5 million, which represented an increase of 33% on 2010. From an output measurement perspective, we are faced with the challenge of balancing the needs of conservation, for which output is difficult to measure, with the strong desire to increase public access and visitor numbers. This challenge of balancing the demands of tourism arises where the visitor experience derives from the quality of what we are presenting, but that same quality can be affected by those visitors. The OPW has a number of internal measures in place to assess performance at visitor sites. Traditional measures include simple analyses of increasing or sustained site popularity by reference to overall visitor numbers. Similarly, customer feedback mechanisms such as customer comments and visitor books at sites are employed to capture the experience and the quality of the engagement. In this digital age, the OPW is mindful that social media mechanisms such as Facebook and Twitter provide immediate and powerful feedback on the visitor experience.

I am sure members saw recently that of the top ten visitor attractions in Ireland recommended by TripAdvisor, four are managed by the Office of Public Works. That demonstrates the value that these and all heritage sites bring to the tourism sector.

With regard to additional functions performed by the office, which are not reflected directly in the Vote, client services performed on an agency basis consume staff resources and were therefore included in the performance measures in past Estimates. For example, the roll-out of the Intreo offices across the country that provide one-stop-shops to perform functions previously offered by separate social welfare, community welfare and FÁS offices have been successfully delivered to the Department of Social Protection within a very ambitious timeframe. Similarly, the construction and fit-out of seven primary schools were delivered to the Department of Education and Skills during 2014 and 2015 with a further eight schools in train. I would suggest that the work and commitment in the delivery of this accommodation, albeit funded from the Votes of other Departments, needs to be reflected with the OPW output measures, and I would welcome the input of members as to how this might be reflected in Estimates.

In general terms, I welcome the review of the performance measures and its consideration by the committee. My officials and I have committed to work with the committee and the secretariat to review the current output measures in order to produce outward facing indicators that are of relevance to the public and, importantly, can demonstrate clearly the considerable work being carried out by the office and value being achieved for invested funds.

It is worth bearing in mind, however, that the illustration of progress towards what is trying to be achieved is also important. While I accept that output performance measures should not relate to internal processes, events or milestones, these can usefully demonstrate the progress being achieved in reaching targets. The outputs from the OPW are in part processes for other Departments, giving rise to outputs or outcomes for their service users and for the public.

In regard to the published output measures, we are not going to be able to address every area immediately but we would expect to consider all the measures in each area over the next number of Estimates. These are just a summary of the key issues facing the office and I welcome any suggestions, comments or engagement with the members on these priorities and how we can improve the presentation of targets in order to assist the committee in its deliberations.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to seek clarification from Ms McGrath on one point and also I wish to make one comment. Can I clarify that the OPW accepts the New Zealand guidance given to it by the secretariat as a good basis for the creation of the effective performance measures?

Ms Clare McGrath:

Absolutely.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I note Ms McGrath added a proviso that we must also consider what the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform would say, but Ms McGrath is happy enough with that guidance.

Ms Clare McGrath:

Yes. I accept it as a base.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Good. I am not having a go at the OPW by any means in making this point, rather it is very much about what we are seeing as relevant from the committee's point of view. In a recent OECD study this Parliament ranked the lowest for holding Government Departments to account. We would like to see changes come about in the next few years in our role as to how we interact with Departments on how taxpayers' money is spent. That is very much what is driving this from our point of view.

Ms Clare McGrath:

As an operational agency, we would very much welcome having quantifiable output measures that can be used to consider Estimates provision in the committee's deliberations in the course of the Estimates process. Yes, we welcome that.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are in the very early days of this process, but that is where it is going and that is where we hope to take it. I will open the discussion to members and start by calling Deputy Sean Fleming.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The chairman of the OPW and her colleagues are very welcome. This is an unusual meeting for us, in that it is not the normal type of discussion we have. It is focused on a much more principled-based approach to issues we do not normally engage with here. I wish to again confirm with Ms McGrath the point the Chairman asked her. She said in her opening statement that she is open to applying the principles drawn from the guidance issued by New Zealand's Comptroller and Auditor General's office to improve the performance information in the Estimates and she concluded by saying some of these measures will carry forward over the next number of Estimates. There is an agreement in principle to do it over several years. She said in the final paragraph of her statement that it will be done over a number Estimates, over a number years. She accepts the principle. Is she hoping that somebody will forget about this as she seems to be putting it very much on the long finger?

Ms Clare McGrath:

Not at all. If we are conducting a construction project the delivery of which will take three or four years, as I comprehend from the New Zealand model, and I can be corrected on this, the output is what we are going to deliver for the public because it must be outward facing to third parties. I suggest, and this is a modification rather than being at odds with that model, that the milestones in the achievement of that, which might be reflected in earlier years, could be usefully included in our outputs. It is not at all to take from what is being suggested in the New Zealand model. Where processes are multi-annual and the final delivery of a project is a number of years hence, how do we reflect on the progress towards achieving that? That is more where I am coning at in terms of the resources being expended in a given year.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to hear that. Ms McGrath is essentially saying that with the nature of some projects being such that the work involves takes a few years, progress on such projects cannot be completed for a few years until she has the final outcome.

Ms Clare McGrath:

Yes, it is a question of how do I reflect the output for a given year where resources are being consumed on that project, if I am correctly comprehending the New Zealand model.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms McGrath is doing so.

Ms Clare McGrath:

It is in that context that I am saying there may be other things that could be measured as well.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Moving away from the script because it is a little theoretical, in layman's or laywomen's English, if Ms McGrath was to set out in her own words, rather than reading from a script, how would she describe the difference she would see in such a process? Normally our Estimates are based on the level of activity and inputs, whereas now we want to know if we are getting a bang for our buck; we want to know what are the outputs or what is the outcome. I will give Ms McGrath an example. As a Deputy I remember issuing a press release about a road project in my area. I knew the figure and budget involved and somebody came up to me afterwards and read the press release and said, "That is wonderful, but what are you doing? Are you improving the junction? Are you putting in an extra lane or are you putting in extra lights?" That stopped me in my tracks and I realised then that it was not what we were spending or how long it would take to do the project that mattered. It was the output or what will be there when it is all over. That made it clear to me the difference between the two. At this level we tend to talk about the wonderful work we intend to do but the public does not care how busy we are. It wants to know the output in terms of what it will see when it is all over. That is my way of putting it.

Ms Clare McGrath:

Given the different programmes, to take the flood risk management side, it is probably around what we are publishing on irelandstat.gov.ie. It is around what properties will benefit from what we are doing, the number in a given year that will benefit, and what is the damage avoided We are reflecting through that what the work we are doing is achieving. It is very much an outward facing indicator from the public point of view. If I looked at it on the estate portfolio side, we hold the Civil Service estate, so I might look at that, and some of my opening remarks were reflective of that. I would point to our efficiencies with regard to our cost per square metre and what is the direction of travel in that regard, and our efficiencies relating to utilisation. In previous years we have benchmarked ourselves externally in regard to our cost per square metre, and that is going in a good direction.

In this regard our utilisation requires more work. When I say "utilisation" I mean numbers of square metres per person, namely, the occupancy. The Deputy might ask me what I am aiming for and when will I get there. What we have said on this area, and with respect to asset management reform and our own capacity and capability review, we are aiming for 12 sq. m per person. I will go into the definition of that in more detail if necessary. We are also looking at occupancy. For every ten staff in an organisation we provide eight desks. We are looking at putting these measures in place and we are asking Departments to account for that through their annual reports. The OPW provides the desks. Departments provide the staff. It is a question of how we keep track of that. We have provided the desks but who is occupying them? In fairness, the shared service PeoplePoint is now in a position to provide information on who is where and we can marry that to what we are providing and aim towards moving to this over a number of years.

The reduction in the footprint that we have achieved from 2008 to this year in terms of the 1.2 million square feet of accommodation is reflective of this. We are travelling in this direction but we need more supports. I am looking to ourselves internally, in terms of our technology and our information systems, to provide this, but also how we then have a standard language for measuring. That is our introduction of the IEN standard.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would it be more difficult in aspects of your work to judge the output? For example, we can all see it in the flood risk, in some of the building, the schools, with the square footage per student or whatever the case may be. With issues like maintenance, which the OPW does a lot of, it is not very visible at the end of a year, or two or three years, what was and was not done. Where would Ms McGrath see the difficulties in displaying the output in those areas?

Ms Clare McGrath:

There is an issue-----

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What would the international comparisons be?

Ms Clare McGrath:

I recently had conversations with international colleagues in this area and the issue we all have is the data to underpin the evidence, which will allow us to create the standard. We are looking at the building, but the occupier is responsible. Looking at total facilities management, one would be asking how much the building costs to occupy. That applies to the cleaning contracts, window-cleaning, utility bills, and so on, some of which we do not record because we do not deal with it; the occupiers do. We are seeking - the Office of Government Procurement is also working in this space - to use the standard language, the IEN standard, when we are replacing any of these contracts in the future. That would mean that when they place a contract for cleaning it will be reported on, and the payments will be made based on the standard, so that ultimately, in a number of years' time, we will be able to give the total cost of occupancy for any given building. I see that as deliverable, but it will take time. We need to put the information systems in place so that we are all applying the same standard and so that our financial systems are recording the same information. We will then be providing that.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be brief. Listening to this - and this is no criticism, as it is a big job - I can conclude that there is a decade in that. First the data has to be recorded, then the evidence will have to be produced from the data, and when all that is done, standards will have to be drawn up. Each of those, in the Irish way of doing business, will take a few years. If that was to go ahead, it would take a long time.

Let us take the cost of a building - a Garda station the OPW works on, a Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine building, or any building. The Department is probably carrying the costs of the porters and so on, and the OPW is carrying other costs such as maintenance. Some buildings are owned by clients of the OPW, and sometimes it is just part of the OPW's job because it is a State building. Would it make sense from the State's perspective for all the costs of the building to be under the OPW rather than in all the different Departments? For example, some of the school package is done by public private partnership, PPP. The cost of everything to do with that building could be obtained easily because that private body is responsible for the caretaker, the minding, the maintenance, the heating, the lights, the water, the rates, fixing the roof, and so on. It could tell anyone that it costs €3 million a year to keep that building as it is, but that cannot happen in the public service now because line Departments are carrying some of the costs, staff are coming from elsewhere, and so on. The other way is much simpler. Would there be a benefit in the OPW taking charge of that? I know it would be a massive policy change.

Ms Clare McGrath:

The funding for maintenance before 2013 was with the occupier. The building might be held by the OPW, but the funding for maintenance was with the occupier, although we did the work. Since 2013, that money has transferred to us. We now have sight and control of the funding and have moved to a preventative maintenance programme on the estate. Some of what Deputy Fleming is saying is, therefore, beginning to happen. It is like what I said earlier about ownership with the whole of Government estate. The State wants sight of the whole-of-Government estate, but the responsibility and the accountability still rest with the owner of that estate. It is about finding a mechanism to bring this information together. It does exist out there. The Office of Government Procurement is part of that, as is what we are doing here, and every other public body. I see it as being achievable, perhaps in less time, but I am certain that it is the right direction of travel. We will know total cost of occupancy, what we are doing with the State's estate, and where we fit in.

The bigger game will be in the future, if we can get to a point at which, when the State is looking at a site for delivery of a public service, whether national or local, somebody will look through the register and see what estate can be availed of, so that we are not out in the market but optimising the State's estate across all service delivery areas. That does not mean the OPW has to be the entity; it means that every public body that holds estate is looking in and able to tap into other public bodies. This is what we are saying about the property network. We tap in, we are learning from other agencies and we are sharing. We have seen it on the Intreo programme, where local authorities have given us space in their county halls to provide Intreo offices. That meant we did not have to go out into the private sector to source it. We are beginning to see efficiencies in the use of the State's estate and where we have a demand for increased staffing in a particular Department we are able to look to the local authority estate, see what is available on the register and talk to them. There is a greater efficiency in delivery and in the use of the estate.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Moving on to a more difficult area, flood risk management, all of what Ms McGrath mentioned is in some way under somebody's control, but with flood risk management and flood defence work the OPW can spend X amount of money, build X number of walls, redirect rivers and so on. It can see what can be done, which is the output, but the difference between outputs and outcome might take a long time to become clear. The OPW might do its end of it right, but events outside its control, from Mother Nature, might intervene. How can the OPW know, in a big project like that, the value of its outputs when the outcomes are outside its control?

Ms Clare McGrath:

If I am understanding Deputy Fleming correctly, we have taken account of climate change in the 300 areas we are looking at. That is included in what we are doing in our development of what are considered based on previous work the 300 areas of greatest risk, which are largely urban but which include 90 coastal areas. We are very much guided by where we will get the greatest minimum of damage and the greatest benefit. That is what is predicating the work on the flood risk management side.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to hear that.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be brief. Deputy Fleming spoke in terms of outputs, outcomes and all of that. I want to take a step back. Ms McGrath spoke about the State's estate - the State's entire property holding, for want of a better word. Is there an overarching vision and mission in respect of the State's holdings? Do we have a strategy that says, for the sake of argument, that 30% of all State building requirements should be fulfilled through, for example, ownership as opposed to leasing, and so on? Ms McGrath mentioned that the OPW had exited a number of leases because, I presume, the properties were surplus to requirements, they were too expensive, or whatever reason. I am taken by the idea that there needs to be something over and above this.

To my mind, outcomes and outputs come below some type of overall strategy.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Some of the things the Senator is referring to are more policy-oriented.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps just a very quick answer; is this fitting within some overall strategy that says "We own about 30% of the State's requirements for office space," for example? Do we, or where do we stand?

Ms Clare McGrath:

The property asset management delivery plan is Government saying to all State property holders that it wishes us to be more strategic in the way we manage the estate, that we have a responsibility and should communicate and collaborate better in how we manage that. We have put in place the protocols the Government has identified for our interactions. We are streamlining the processes between public bodies in dealing with property transactions, which previously could have been quite cumbersome. We now have streamlined processes, have put in place a single valuation and have seen a major improvement in transaction costs and transaction efficiencies. That has been put in place. We are looking at that in relation to disposals and inter-body uses. When it comes to the management of our own estate, which is what the Senator is asking about, the OPW was previously 50:50 as between leased and owned. Where a lease is particularly important to us is where it gives us flexibility around movements in numbers and Departments, so that we can exit by looking to exercise the break. That works two ways. If I am in a lease and the landlord has the decision, he or she can exercise the break too. One is balancing that. At the moment, we are at about 60:40. Strategically, depending on location, function and duration, each entity will have policies in that regard. However, if I am looking to take accommodation where previously I might not so easily have done so, I can have regard to other public bodies through the register. If they have capacity, I can go in there on a lease basis, but it is with another public body.

In the overall, the Government has said to all public property owners through the property asset management delivery plan that it wants us to be more strategic in our long-term planning around our estate. Part of this will come through networking with each other. In particular regions, we will create networks and property managers will communicate with each other around what is happening in a locality. Individual public property holders will make long-term plans which will come in part from our strategy statements and Government plans.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask that we stick to the issue of the running performance indicators. This stuff is interesting also, but we are trying to keep the meeting to the subject of performance indicators.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I take the Chairman's point. It is really more for an overall perspective. In terms of being able to look at performance indicators, an overall picture does not hurt. In terms of the OPW's performance issues, Ms McGrath said there had been a culture of greater collaboration. She referred to being able to use local authority offices for the delivery of services. She mentioned the Intreo offices. I am aware myself that local authorities have made rooms available to other State or semi-state bodies. Is it easy to have an indicator that appropriately measures co-operation in reality and a willingness in one agency to move into the offices of another? Has there been a certain dragging of feet in that regard?

Ms Clare McGrath:

There are two elements to that. The OPW has to do that in collaboration with the occupiers, and I am saying I get that easier with PeoplePoint as I have access to capacity data. I have to start by asking whether there is capacity. The property register, which is the register of all State property, is now showing where the property holder is saying "I have capacity in my building or a surplus property." I can now look to the register before I communicate. They have now told me they have space, so we are immediately communicating, and by putting it up as available, they are showing a willingness to have it used.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One is depending on a willingness to put it up.

Ms Clare McGrath:

No, but we are moving towards all of us beginning to show what our total cost of occupancy is. In one area, that will also include the space per person. I am saying that the OPW is moving in the direction of 12 sq. m per person. We are not at that now. When I report on this annually, it is an internal measure, but I think it is an external one too. I will be saying this has to start moving towards 12 sq. m over a period. To do that, I need to know that I have all the data and the survey. All of this is costing money to provide. No less than us, every other property holder has this. It is not in our interest to hold spare capacity if somebody else can come in and give us a rent or a lease. It is not in anybody's interest. That is what we will be looking to do collectively. The willingness will be there on various levels. If the Senator is asking me how one might measure it, I am not sure. I am not sure how one puts a performance measure on willingness. I have the reverse issue, in fact. The OPW has properties close to Garda stations which are individual units nationally, but I do not have vacant office space. As a property organisation, I should be running at a percentage of vacant space to enable me to move people so that I can retrofit and upgrade accommodation to provide greater quality accommodation and ensure it is at the highest level of performance while also increasing densities. I need people out so that I can take down walls, and as such, I should be running at vacant space. However, I am not. I would like to use some of the vacant space that might be available throughout the whole of Government estate to decant elements of our organisation during upgrades, rationalisation and investment in the owned estate to improve utilisation performance.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This question may not be appropriate. The Chairman can direct me. Ms McGrath mentioned a number of indicators in relation to flood works as to what constituted output, and she mentioned additional properties that would benefit, the cumulative number of properties, the value of the benefit to the properties and the cumulative value of the benefit to the properties. When one measures the value of the benefit to the properties, a consideration the committee looked at with Mr. Smith was the fact that some of the value of the benefit to properties in terms of flood prevention works did not give a value to the property that received that benefit in terms of its insurability. There was a gap between the works being done and their recognition in terms of the householder or individual beneficiary. It was not being reflected in lower premiums to households. In fact, there were households where significant works had been done by the OPW flood programme where no benefit was achieved at all and they were simply uninsurable. When the OPW looks at the value of individual benefit to properties, does it take this into account in terms of the wider public interest?

Ms Clare McGrath:

When we look at the benefit, what we are talking about are the benefits of the scheme. In the matter of insurance, to which the Senator refers, we have engaged with the insurance industry, but it is a separate market.

We would be looking to ensure that in the schemes where we have undertaken works, the insurance industry would consider them when engaging with individual householders or determining their premiums. We have provided it with the information and are engaging with it. My colleague, Mr. Tony Smyth, might come in on this. I think we are waiting on responses from it in certain areas. That is the position.

I will not go into a policy area but I expect those agencies of State which have responsibility for this sector would be looking to ensure that the information we are providing in relation to flood relief is impacting on how they are treating it. It is not something with which we would have direct responsibility but we would expect there would be engagement.

Mr. Tony Smyth:

If insurance premiums were falling, it would have been a positive outcome.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Indeed, it would. Families remain uninsurable.

Mr. Tony Smyth:

We have asked Insurance Ireland for various metrics in relation to the response to what might occur. The difficulty for it is that it does not have bench marketed data pre-scheme to know the level of premiums and the number of people covered in a particular area. In terms of post-works analysis to see what the improvement is, we have asked that this should commence and that it should be looking at that in order to inform whether the policy is working. We are providing it with the information and that should impact on the availability of insurance. To test that, one needs data and we have asked it to provide the data.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose we suspend as there is a vote in the Dáil.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In this part of the discussion, I have a sense that I am getting two messages from Ms McGrath so I would like some clarification.

The proposition is to have a system with a reporting mechanism that is based on output-based performance targets.

From my reading of the documentation we have been given, there is no suggestion that other data or information would not also be reported. The proposition here is particularly focused on identifying and measuring outputs. While I understand, on one level, that it might be regarded as crude given that it misses the intermediary stages and all the work, effort and resources involved, the OPW should either adopt this model as an integral part of its overall reporting or not. Without casting aspersions on Ms McGrath, her staff or her organisation, if there is equivocation or a half-way house, it will not happen or, at the very least, it will be muddled. Would it be reasonable for Ms McGrath to say she accepts not just the principle or spirit of the guidelines but the guidelines themselves and make them applicable in terms of outputs for the OPW, while accepting and acknowledging that other data, narratives and explanations would accompany that particular slice of reporting? Would this work?

Ms Clare McGrath:

Yes.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is great. Given that in Ms McGrath's contribution she mentioned a culture of continuous improvement in the course of business transformation, she is obviously minded towards measurement and targets. It is all there in the mix. As a member of the committee and the Oireachtas, to have precisely this slice of reporting before us would be very useful. It would not be a mechanism to gainsay or disregard everything else but would give us the basis to identify outputs in a forensic way. It is how we should proceed. While I am not privy to the discussions Ms McGrath had with the secretariat and officials, this is what I understand the objective to be. We are getting a very precise take regarding output while also considering costs, internal milestones, dynamics, etc. I noticed the spending head for training and development, which is a very important key component of what the OPW does and I would like to keep an eye on it and know about it, although it would not fall within this formula. Is that fair enough?

Ms Clare McGrath:

Yes.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A cost-benefit analysis is done of the resources that are channelled through the local authorities. Could Ms McGrath give me a potted account of how it happens?

Ms Clare McGrath:

Regarding minor flood relief works, a local authority would make an application for works in its area in respect of a flood mitigation measure. We have guidelines on the application and the cost-benefit it must demonstrate when it applies. All the criteria are published on our website. The application comprises it all and we, through our regional structures, assess it and approve it, subject to its coming within the parameters of the scheme.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

While the output is at arms length from the OPW, it is important those works and the system be assessed in terms of efficacy, efficiency and delivery at the far end. I appreciate that the OPW is in a strange position, not just in terms of its portfolio, which includes estate management, but in many other respects. The OPW is almost a conduit for other agencies. While I do not suggest this is the be all and end all, we need a very definite understanding in terms of the ten or 11 points here, including target setting in a precise way, that the OPW is on board for delivering this and the rest of the information we need and which we would be just as keen to scrutinise and understand in terms of the OPW's overall performance.

Ms Clare McGrath:

Yes. We were asked about the following point, and I think it was in this committee. We audit the outputs produced by the local authorities to ensure the purpose for which we granted the funding is met, and is meeting the objectives stated in the application.

Mr. Tony Smyth:

We sample 5%.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The OPW is an excellent organisation in terms of the heritage sites and maintenance.

Ms Clare McGrath:

Thank you.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The OPW staff should be commended. How does the OPW assure the quality of its maintenance projects?

Ms Clare McGrath:

The maintenance activity on the flood risk management side is covered by an independently accredited, monitored and integrated management system and we have ISO 9001 accreditation. On the safety side, we operate to the OHSAS 18001 standard. Customer satisfaction is part of it and we also poll people with issues regarding the outcomes when we undertake works. We do the same on our maintenance. On the national monuments maintenance, there are international standards such as the Granada convention, through UNESCO, and we operate to those standards. The Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht has guidelines and policies in that regard and we operate with its consent in the works we do. We are very conscious that we do the maintenance of the historic properties and national monuments to best practice and in compliance with all national regulations and international conventions to which Ireland has signed up.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy McDonald has made a great deal more progress than I in grasping the changes contemplated here. I can understand the operation of performance indicators and outputs in the area of flood risk management. If I am sitting in my living room watching Barcelona and the water comes up over the television, it is not a great output. How, in the area of the estates portfolio, can the OPW apply indicators and measure outputs? We are talking not just about the OPW doing its business efficiently, which is desirable, but about accountability to committees of the Houses and enabling committee members to assess progress and implementation of plans and targets more professionally. I am not sure I understand how it can be done for the more nebulous - I do not intend any derogatory sense - functions. How does one apply those performance indicators?

Ms Clare McGrath:

At an expenditure level on the State portfolio side, we have targeted reducing the rent roll by certain percentages year on year since 2008. We have adopted an international standard for developing key performance indicators, KPIs, on accommodation. This means that we must survey, gather data and measure. The KPIs are cost per square metre, space or personal utilisation and energy costs. While we have information on two of those KPIs and benchmarked them internationally, we have not done so as regards space utilisation. These are the performance indicators on which we and other occupiers of the State's estate are measured.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Reverting to Deputy Fleming's original question, is responsibility not disparate? The OPW is responsible for the upkeep of Leinster House, but the Oireachtas commission determines policy on what must be done and the OPW is brought in as the contractor. Strictly speaking, it is not a contractor, but it performs the work. Is the OPW's control over that not limited? Consider a subject we have discussed previously, namely, energy efficiency. Leinster House is probably the least energy efficient building in Ireland, but no one wants to know about it and Ms McGrath will tell me that it is a matter for the Oireachtas commission, not the OPW. Or will she?

Ms Clare McGrath:

I will not. It is a combination of the occupier and us. Through our energy efficiency programme, we have been working with the occupiers of our estate, including Leinster House. We all have targets for reducing carbon emissions. There are benefits to working with occupiers. Behavioural change, combined with works, is leading to a reduction in use. I would need to see the figures first, but I could provide a report on Leinster House. It is more energy efficient than one might believe. As the Deputy rightly stated, the occupier occupies while we provide the building, but we are considering setting density targets, namely, numbers of people per square metre. Occupiers must work towards these when utilisation starts being reported on. If there is a building of X sq. m with a certain number of persons, the figure should be 10, 30 or 50 sq. m per person.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand. Consider the question Deputy McDonald mentioned about savings on the rent roll and so on that arose from the contraction during the recession. The problem is that, as a member of this committee, I am in no position to offer an opinion on them. I do not know how many State buildings are only partially occupied. I do not know whether a future Chairman of this committee will, in a number of years' time after numbers begin increasing again, claim that the State surrendered a great building at €7 per sq. ft. and will then have to pay €13 per sq. ft. to accommodate the growing numbers. Does Ms McGrath know what I mean? I take her at her word, and on the credibility of the OPW, that it is doing the best that it can to manage the estate efficiently. Reverting to the point on accountability, which is what I believed we were about, neither Deputy McDonald nor I are in a position to say whether the OPW could have saved more than €111 million in rent or that there was imprudent decision making based on targets that were right during the recession but will not be right in two years' time.

Ms Clare McGrath:

With the setting of the space and cost-per-square-metre targets, the Deputies can move into that position. With occupiers, we will be accounting for those. The Deputies will need an international comparison of public property holders. What is happening in the UK, the Netherlands or Finland? We know that the OPW is achieving its targets, but could it be more efficient? What is the benchmark in other jurisdictions? We are interacting with them as we speak on that regard. We are all considering the issue in terms of cost per square metre, occupancy and energy. As there are different languages and ways of measuring, though, we need a common way. In future, Deputy Rabbitte might be able to tell what we have achieved from the performance indicators that are used by the OPW and occupiers, but when he asks us how good it all is, we will point to how they have been benchmarked against similar jurisdictions. He might then revert to me and say-----

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why does Ms McGrath exclude the OPW's internal processes from the application of the New Zealand principles? I understood her to say "except the internal processes", and that for the OPW to seek to measure them-----

Ms Clare McGrath:

Apologies. I comprehend the New Zealand standard to mean that internal processes should not be measured and that what we need to measure is our outward-facing interaction with third parties. If the New Zealand guidelines are different than that, forgive me.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I understand. I have a question on the heritage side of the portfolio. If the OPW approached the Oireachtas or the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform with a requirement for €5 million to patch up any damage done to Skellig Michael - I am not implying that any will be done; I am not on that side of the argument - how will we measure that request? Is it down to the number of boats that sail around it during August? Is it an act of faith that, if professional engineers and technical people in the OPW assert that these works are necessary for the preservation of an outstanding national monument that we ought to treasure, we do them?

Ms Clare McGrath:

Forgive me. We are actively working to ensure the preservation and conservation of the Skelligs to the highest national and international standards. It is a discrete area, but we interact with visitors. In our management of visitors to world heritage sites such as the Skelligs and Brú na Bóinne, we ensure that we are not doing harm to what we are preserving. We developed a separate visitor centre in Brú na Bóinne because there had been an impact. This question arises in other jurisdictions. There is a constant balancing.

I would hope that I would never be coming looking for money to that extent for Skellig Michael. I might be looking for money for somewhere else but it would be around enhancing the visitor experience while doing the least harm to the monument. I mean that in the best sense. The monument is what brings the visitor but we must determine how to best manage that.

There is a difficulty for this committee in terms of measuring the outputs, in a qualitative sense, connected with our care of the national monuments. In the context of international delegations and being assessed by the likes of the International Council on Monuments and Sites, ICOMOS, I would like to see that we meet the criteria. We look at the outputs in the context of the visitor experience and that is more measurable.

If there is something from the committee's point of view that would be helpful in this space, I am receptive to that. We have been looking at our office accommodation estate but maybe we should be focusing more on our monument estate, although there are different internal rules in that regard. Maybe we could ascertain if there is something there that could be helpful. I would ask that the committee secretariat liaises with my officials to try to determine if there is something we can do that might be helpful to the committee.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support this process because it is good for all of the relevant organisations and the Oireachtas to understand what is really happening. One of the grocery multiples in this country builds all its new outlets to the same size and configuration. In that way, it knows what to expect in terms of heating, maintenance and staffing costs. It can compare outlets in different countries, whether that be Ireland or Germany. Direct comparisons are possible. Ms McGrath made reference to environmental and legal factors but all of those can be taken into account. One can still strip it down to day-to-day costs and long-term maintenance costs. It is a little like comparing private and public hospitals in this country. Every time one tries to make a comparison, the public hospitals will say that private hospitals do not carry out the complex work that is carried out in the public hospitals, as if that means that one cannot look at day-to-day expenditure and governance arrangements. In reality, however, there is still a substantial amount of waste within some of the public hospitals. The absenteeism rates, for example, are incredibly high in the public sphere and many of the hospitals operate in an inefficient manner.

This is very much the purpose of today's discussion because we can strip everything down and - no disrespect to Mr. Long - get the accountant's view. It is often said that accountants know the cost of everything and the value of nothing, while economists know the value of everything and the cost of nothing. We need to be able to strip it down so that we can make comparisons across the different units within the OPW. Hopefully this exercise will be done across all Departments so that we can make meaningful comparisons.

I am sure the OPW is comparing its costs with those of the public private partnerships, PPPs, in the school sector, for example. There is scope to analyse OPW schools vis-à-visPPP schools. I do not know what role-----

Ms Clare McGrath:

We have a role as the contracting authority for the convention centre, for example, so we are very mindful of our learning in that context because that is a full PPP. We are monitoring the project agreement, the targets set and so forth. We have direct experience with that PPP and are conscious of the importance of learning from that and bringing that learning to our dealings around the office estate. That said, I take the point the Chairman makes about schools.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In terms of what we are discussing, is it a resource problem or is it a question of resistance from Departments? Does the OPW need more resources and staff?

Ms Clare McGrath:

To do the outputs?

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To do everything.

Ms Clare McGrath:

I might say that we need more resources for everything we have to do but in terms of the production of the production of output data, it is more a question of working with the officials in order to have clarity on what we are producing. I take the points made earlier and I am fully aware that investment decisions are being made here and we must determine if everything is being done optimally. I am quite happy with the process but my only concern would be that I have the required information to do the producing. In essence, yes, I am in agreement.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not hold Ms McGrath up but if any members have further questions, please indicate now.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to ask a few very short questions if I may. Reference was made earlier to training and development and I would ask Ms McGrath to give us a flavour or overview of the type of training and development provided to OPW staff. Has the OPW been moving staff from different locations or centralising staff recently? What is the dynamic in that respect?

Ms Clare McGrath:

There are a number of different headings relating to training and development. Given that the OPW is a professional organisation, one such heading is continuous professional development for accreditation to various bodies under which staff must meet set criteria in terms of numbers of hours in a year and so forth. That is ongoing and is delivered internally. We would also have a focus, in terms of our business transformation plan, on a skills analysis or audit. We are looking to our future state and are asking what competences we will need and what our current capabilities are. We fit our training to the skills we need in particular jobs. We are minded that we will be moving people who have competencies in certain areas to other areas where the focus is changing in terms of strategic planning, portfolio planning and so forth. Where we need the people who have certain skills now to change direction, we are providing training and upskilling. Divisions and functional areas throughout the organisation are looking at the competencies they need to fulfil their roles and determining whether there are any skills gaps. We then focus the training on those identified areas.

The answer to the Deputy's second question is "Yes". There is not much movement in terms of locations because our main locations have already been determined and we have a regional structure. Our headquarters are in Trim. We move people within the functional areas and people also make choices or decisions and seek to move to different areas. It is more of an issue in the context of the estate portfolio and the work being done at the moment as to the current position with staff resources. I am not hung up on the location but am more concerned about whether we have the skills and competencies within the organisation to do our work. Staff can work in a number of different places and in the future, potentially, staff will go to the nearest location to their home, irrespective of what department they are in. That is the potential for the future. In that sense, staff could be in any location. We have not been engaged in wholesale movement or closing of offices within the organisation. In the future, however, we will have to increase our capacity to deliver on the capital programme in the area of flood relief. We commission extensively for a lot of the work. The private sector provides the inputs for projects and we oversee the work and act as the intelligent client. We will be increasing our capacity to allow us to deliver on the flood relief capital programme in 2018 and beyond. That is an area that we will have to consider carefully.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Was there a proposal to move staff from the National Botanic Gardens?

Ms Clare McGrath:

No, I am not aware of one but within functional areas people can be located at different sites. There may be instances where staff are moved to areas of greater demand but ---

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not mean to spring that on Ms McGrath. I might write to her about it.

Ms Clare McGrath:

That is fine.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Ms McGrath and her officials. My focus is local, on my own constituency and specifically, Limerick city. I ask Ms McGrath to provide a summary update on the position in Limerick. Various announcements have been made with regard to flood relief works on King's Island in the city. What is the time-frame for the completion of those works? It is a big issue in Limerick and obviously, in King's Island itself.

Ms Clare McGrath:

I may not have all the information here but I will revert to the Deputy if that is acceptable.

Consultants have been appointed by Limerick City Council. However, I am unable to provide any further update on that. As I have said previously, a flood relief scheme is very complicated because one is in a river, in an urban setting on land which does not belong to one, so there is quite a complicated and complex series of steps involved. If it is acceptable I will revert to the Deputy directly or via the committee on King's island.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the process in terms of physical works getting under way? What is the normal process?

Ms Clare McGrath:

I can speak to that issue but not on the specifics. On flood relief schemes generally, we undertake a pre-feasibility study in terms of the various stages during which we undertake consultations with local stakeholders and local authorities. We go through the pre-feasibility stage, the feasibility stage, the exhibition stage -which involves extensive consultation - and then the pre-design stage. Under the Planning Acts, the exhibition stage deals with what, in the context of construction projects, would normally be referred to as the planning stage. There can be various iterations as has happened on a number of schemes where we get a lot of observations which might have us reconsider what we have and then we have to go back to exhibition stage. There are quite a few stages that must be undertaken. After this we must consider ecological and archaeological issues that might arise. One cannot go in and carry out works and come out and consider what has to be done because it is within a river. We have to engage in a great deal of information gathering, extensive modelling, hydrology studies, surveying and hydraulic modelling, for example, on the CFRAM maps. We have produced 40,000 such maps for the 300 areas and have surveyed 12% or 13% of the country. Extensive works must be undertaken. We procure consultants and contractors in compliance with EU rules and, as part of that process, we are obliged to obtain statutory consent. Statutory consent is something new which has arisen. We are the developer and would have undertaken the environmental impact assessment. Consent is undertaken by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. Under new EU regulations, the Minister is required to obtain an independent assessment of our assessment. So that is another step that has to be undertaken. Once we have the consent, we proceed to undertaking the actual work because we will also have completed extensive design work in relation to this and procuring the contractor.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Obviously, Ms McGrath with will respond in writing to the Chair. Will the Chair arrange for me to obtain a copy of that correspondence when it is received?

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Deputy mind if I wrap up the meeting? There is a vote taking place in the Dáil. I thank Ms Clare McGrath and her officials for their input today and the level of commitment they have shown to improving the quality and type of information given to the committee as part of the business process. While we appreciate there is a huge effort to make the changes requested, it will allow members and the public see more clearly how its public bodies are performing and give the OPW a better platform to demonstrate its own successes.