Results 30,601-30,620 of 32,983 for speaker:Paschal Donohoe
- Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)
Paschal Donohoe: By whom?
- Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)
Paschal Donohoe: Just so that I can be clear, is it the case that there was €291 million from Anglo Irish Bank and the shareholders were providing a guarantee in proportion to their share of the guarantee?
- Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)
Paschal Donohoe: So it was not the total amount. It was for €100 million.
- Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)
Paschal Donohoe: What did that mean when the cap was lifted? Did it then increase the liability of the DDDA for any potential loss?
- Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)
Paschal Donohoe: Did that increase the DDDA’s liability to a potential loss?
- Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)
Paschal Donohoe: Why did that happen? If the cap had stayed in place, the State would be dealing with a smaller loss than is the case to date.
- Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)
Paschal Donohoe: I wish to zone in on a point amid all the complexity. The cap, which was key in terms of minimising the exposure of the State to the project if something went wrong, was removed.
- Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)
Paschal Donohoe: What part of it was removed?
- Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)
Paschal Donohoe: How much money did that end up costing the State?
- Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)
Paschal Donohoe: But are we talking about several millions?
- Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)
Paschal Donohoe: So the cap in regard to the 26% remained unchanged. I assume the cap would have been covering a larger amount of money than the cap on the interest.
- Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)
Paschal Donohoe: How much money are we talking about if the borrowings were not repaid?
- Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)
Paschal Donohoe: The additional exposure to the State by the removal of the cap was €8.5 million.
- Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)
Paschal Donohoe: That book-ended it.
- Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)
Paschal Donohoe: We have an additional exposure to the State of €8.5 million due to the removal of the cap. Is that correct?
- Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)
Paschal Donohoe: Was capped.
- Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)
Paschal Donohoe: I understand that completely, and thank Ms Moylan for the manner in which she answered my questions. I understand there was a 26% stake and that the cap was in place. I also contend, as the figure increased exponentially, notwithstanding the presence of the cap, the Department should have been aware of that. The original figure was €220 million, a figure of €375 million was...
- Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)
Paschal Donohoe: It is and not complicated. The simple point in all of this is that we have a figure of €375 million and a final figure of €411 million which differ massively to the only written communication I have to the Department. The Chairman has been very generous in terms of time with me. In her concluding paragraph, Ms Tallon states: "I am sure the committee will appreciate the risks...
- Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)
Paschal Donohoe: I want to end with a point with which I began, namely, the selection of Mr. McNamara and his role. I want to quote from The FitzPatrick Tapes by Tom Lyons and Brian Carey, to which I have referred in other committee meetings. Mr. FitzPatrick said: There was little discussion at board level about whether Mr. McNamara was the right man for the job as his reputation spoke for itself ......
- Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Resumed) (2 May 2013)
Paschal Donohoe: I will conclude on that point in a moment. I am just asking questions, I am not drawing conclusions at this stage. Paragraph 2.4 states, "The Chief Executive confirmed that all of the negotiation and preparation of documentation by the Executive had been virtually completed before the issue arose". Does that refer to the issue of potential conflict of interest?