Results 181-200 of 30,975 for speaker:Catherine Connolly

Public Accounts Committee: Business of Committee (14 Jul 2016)

Catherine Connolly: I appreciate that and I have experience of that in Galway, where the Health Services Executive was paying almost €1 million per year and it was cheaper to break the lease and pay a €1 million penalty. However, it certainly highlights the failure of these bodies to look at leases regularly and to see whether they can get more cost-effective and shorter leases. We must also look...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 92 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Strategic Planning for Flood Risk Management (14 Jul 2016)

Catherine Connolly: I realise this work was being done against a background that was unprecedented. In the seven years from December 2006 to December 2015, there were nine major weather events that affected more than ten counties in the western, midlands and Shannon regions. The Comptroller and Auditor General referred already to Storm Desmond in this regard. Another of these events involved an exceptional...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 92 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Strategic Planning for Flood Risk Management (14 Jul 2016)

Catherine Connolly: The OPW went ahead with four of the nine pilot projects identified.

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 92 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Strategic Planning for Flood Risk Management (14 Jul 2016)

Catherine Connolly: Some of them were, but what about the rest?

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 92 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Strategic Planning for Flood Risk Management (14 Jul 2016)

Catherine Connolly: There were four projects - two in Dublin, one in County Meath and one in County Cork.

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 92 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Strategic Planning for Flood Risk Management (14 Jul 2016)

Catherine Connolly: I ask Ms McGrath to let me put my question.

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 92 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Strategic Planning for Flood Risk Management (14 Jul 2016)

Catherine Connolly: I would like to return to what the Chairman said about what had been learned from the projects. The Comptroller and Auditor General has highlighted - perhaps not in red - for our attention that there was some learning from them. He accepts that the OPW made this point. However, there was no formal learning from them. We cannot see a document that shows what was learned when the OPW looked...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 92 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Strategic Planning for Flood Risk Management (14 Jul 2016)

Catherine Connolly: I ask Ms McGrath to, please, allow me to finish my question.

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 92 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Strategic Planning for Flood Risk Management (14 Jul 2016)

Catherine Connolly: I will not interrupt her when she replies.

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 92 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Strategic Planning for Flood Risk Management (14 Jul 2016)

Catherine Connolly: Ms McGrath has said it was vital to learn from the four projects.

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 92 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Strategic Planning for Flood Risk Management (14 Jul 2016)

Catherine Connolly: One of the recommendations made by the Comptroller and Auditor General on foot of his findings was that this learning should be formalised. He also asked the OPW to account for the reason this had not been done in the first place. That is the first thing on which I would like Ms McGrath to comment. My second question relates to the manner in which the two projects were compared and...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 92 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Strategic Planning for Flood Risk Management (14 Jul 2016)

Catherine Connolly: Ms McGrath is outlining what was learned. It would have been better if it had been outlined in a formal manner. It is a question of confidence. The Comptroller and Auditor General has highlighted the question of oversight in the context of the governance procedure set in place. The top interdepartmental co-ordination group, a high-ranking group, did not meet at all between 2009 and 2015....

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 92 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Strategic Planning for Flood Risk Management (14 Jul 2016)

Catherine Connolly: I appreciate that, but I am looking at the delays and the overspend. The OPW started the project in 2005 or 2006. The pilot projects were expected to be finished by 2007. Is that right?

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 92 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Strategic Planning for Flood Risk Management (14 Jul 2016)

Catherine Connolly: Two of the pilot projects have been completed in 2016, but one of them is still at draft report stage. The other has been included in the CFRAM programme in the south east. Is that correct?

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 92 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Strategic Planning for Flood Risk Management (14 Jul 2016)

Catherine Connolly: From the point of view of the public, that is a serious delay. It would be better if we could see a trail in support of the OPW's argument. I do not doubt that difficulties arose, but it would have been much better for public confidence if the OPW had gone back and the governance procedures in place had functioned. Why did the top departmental group not meet between 2009 and 2015,...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 92 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Strategic Planning for Flood Risk Management (14 Jul 2016)

Catherine Connolly: I am not sure whether I accept what Ms McGrath has said about going into abeyance. The steering group - the top interdepartmental group - should have met. Some of the groups had no terms of reference. Those were only introduced when the Government suddenly decided to reconvene the groups in 2015. Notwithstanding the good work being done on the ground, there was an absence of terms of...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 92 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Strategic Planning for Flood Risk Management (14 Jul 2016)

Catherine Connolly: They were not put in place.

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 92 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Strategic Planning for Flood Risk Management (14 Jul 2016)

Catherine Connolly: I appreciate where Ms McGrath is coming from, but there were no service level agreements. Such an agreement is basic. It sets out what has to be done and, in case issues arise, how they should be addressed. Significantly, it helps to avoid costs. In this case, did the costs in the pilot projects not nearly treble?

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 92 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Strategic Planning for Flood Risk Management (14 Jul 2016)

Catherine Connolly: The overall figure nearly trebled.

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 92 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Strategic Planning for Flood Risk Management (14 Jul 2016)

Catherine Connolly: It is accepted that this was wrong and that there should have been an agreement. The Comptroller and Auditor General made conclusions and specific recommendations. My understanding is that the OPW has accepted all of the recommendations. One caused a problem for the OPW. It related to a project's detailed budget expenditure. The OPW did not accept the recommendation initially.