Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We absolutely can. What is proposed is that we forward this correspondence to the correspondent who raised the matter. In view of the discussion, I propose that we write to the Department and point out to it that the responses would indicate that the bond system still appears to be not tight enough and that there are potential weaknesses in it. Deputy Catherine Murphy suggested that there would also be a register of developers in the State so that where developers have not completed work on an estate and have applied for planning permission in another local authority area, it would show up at that point. The third issue flagged by Deputy Colm Burke is that we ask the Department what procedures are in place to monitor the progress local authorities are making regarding the taking in charge of estates. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 477B is from Mr. Feargal Hartnett, government accounting unit, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, dated 24 March 2021, providing the minute of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform relating to recent Committee of Public Accounts reports. These are important items of correspondence as they address the reports and recommendations of the committee. I want to address one matter before opening the discussion to the floor. While the majority of the committee’s recommendations have been accepted or partly accepted, one has been rejected. It relates to a recommendation to the Department that was made in the committee’s report on its engagement with the Department of Education. We recommended that "the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform ensures the reasons for delays in capital projects, across all Departments, are published".

The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform’s reason for the rejection is that it publishes regular updates on Project Ireland 2040 delivery through the capital projects tracker and myProjectIreland map, but reporting on delays on capital projects seems to be a best practice suggestion rather than a requirement. The Department states that: "It is up to Departments to report on delays in delivery on an individual project level and to update the tracker with this information on a regular basis". Given that it also states that the tracker is intended to be the: “primary tool for public transparency on infrastructure project priorities, timelines and performance targets”, I propose that we write to the Department and request that it makes the timely updating of the tracker in terms of both costs and time lines a requirement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I will open the discussion to members in respect of any of the other responses to the committee's recommendations that they might wish to address.

This item was flagged by Deputies Catherine Murphy, Carthy and Munster. I call Deputy Catherine Murphy.