Albert Dolan: Publish OPW Payments in Machine-Readable Form

Over the last few years, the OPW has been one of the bodies that are very diligent for publishing their purchase order data online. You know, there's a bank of information there from Q1 2015 right up to Q4 2025, and I welcome that you've already published your Q4 2025 data, which was published in January 2026, and that was really welcome. Across that timeline, we have visibility of purchase orders or payments to the tune of £2.7 billion, and I guess I've two questions that I'd ask if you would consider. Would you consider publishing this in a machine-readable format? And also, I would ask, has the OPW received a letter from Jack Chambers, the Minister for Public Expenditure, reminding them of their obligation to publish in a machine-readable format? That's the first question. Thanks, Deputy. I'm not aware of a letter from the Minister for Public Expenditure, but can you let me check that? Because I wasn't expecting this question in this forum today. And in relation to the machine-readable format, let me talk to my finance unit, and if that's what MPAR are saying as a way forward, we will definitely consider that. Yeah, that's okay. No, because it was in response to a parliamentary question that I had put to the Minister for Public Expenditure asking, was it, you know, could he remind bodies of their obligation, to which he confirmed that he will be sending a letter, so I really wanted to check had that been done at this point. And the second thing then is, you know, one thing I am trying to work on is when you publish purchase orders, it's very hard to decipher what that was for, or what that money was spent on, or what was achieved, or what was the outcome. And there's no link between the payment that I can see on the back end, and the tender contract that was awarded in the first place. So you might have some contractor that you work with, and you might do multiple projects with them, but I can't tell which payment was for which project. But one thing that you do that's really interesting is you actually have a transaction number on every payment, and I'm just wondering, would you link that back to contract award notices and the tenders? So essentially, when you publish your purchase orders quarterly, could you put in an extra column that links it back to which contract this relates to? Because I think that is the missing link across our entire state as to where contracts are awarded, and ultimately money gets spent. Like, you know, I know Deputy Farrelly was here, and he referenced, you know, the 7 million euro budget, but if Deputy Farrelly could see how much was spent against a certain contract, he'd know exactly today, as of quarter 425, how much was spent on that project, and whether it was on, under, or over budget. And that is where we have to get to. So I just wanted to see, would you consider linking those so that I can see from contract to award to purchase orders being raised and ultimately payments being made? Can you let me take that away, and I can revert back to you, Deputy? And you're right, like, many of the contracts we have will be capital project contracts whereby there will be multiple payments under the one contract to a contractor over a number of years. And this is really important. For the likes of me, as a deputy here, and also for the wider public who have an interest in good public governance, they can't tell what the money was spent on. And like, if I look at 2025, I can see 2,353 records, 353 million worth of spend. So 495 of those records were labelled as construction contract. And that totaled 230 million approximately. So for myself looking at it, and for anyone in the wider public who's not looking at the accounts but just wants to see the detail, you can see how that would be frustrating. And so how can I evaluate value for money or performance if I don't know on what it was spent and how much? I'm seeing 200 million going out on construction contracts, but I need to be able to know which contract was that against, and then it's much easier to measure performance and ask. It allows me to come in and ask better questions ultimately. Let me take it away because there could be a number of issues we just, and I'll talk to our financial controller on this, because there could be a number of issues where you could have a contract for something in Galway, for example, but there might be three or four purchase orders in that for various types of works within it, et cetera. So can you let me take it away and we can revert directly to it on it? Yeah, or the same contractor could be doing multiple projects across the country and it's hard for me to tell how much was spent on the Galway project as opposed to some project elsewhere. So I just wanted to make those points because I think it's really, really important because we are going to get to a place where we can have better oversight and better transparency and ultimately it'll allow us as members of the committee to ask even better questions as well. The other thing I wanted to move on to, and I don't want to get too parochial about it, but just I know I had raised this when you were last in around the Turo stone in Bullon and it being returned to its home. Is there any update on progress being made there? I spoke to some officials that late last night because I knew you put on a PQ in it and I'm awaiting a further update and then I'm going to relate to you in the next day or two. Things are progressing in terms of getting that project onto a stage where we can actually site the stone back where it should be or where it was and construct it within a certain type of model we're building for it. Because it was 2023 when there was a funding announcement made around it and planning permission is secured on that site and we don't want to see planning permission run out. That won't happen. That cannot happen. And I think it'd be vital that the project progresses before that and that people be allowed to see the stone and enjoy the experience of it. We have that very much in mind. I think there was some redesign issues that brought us to where we are now, but I'll revert to you in the next few days on that. Appreciate that. And also, it was said in the Dail about the South Galway flood relief scheme that it would be going to planning in Q4 of this year. Can I just get a confirmation on the South Galway flood relief scheme? What's the latest update? Can I ask Mr. Brogan to answer that please? Thank you. Thanks, Chairman and Deputy for the question. The South Galway flood relief scheme is, there are a number of caveats which go into it on schedule or programme to go for planning consent in Q4 2026. As you know, it's a 20 million project to protect over 115 properties, which we do realise the impact of flooding to those properties over vast areas and the impact that that has on those people in the community. It's a very complex one. The combination of river water, groundwater, swallow holes and turlocks in the Karst Gartland area makes this a very unique international area and we are working hard. Not only have we employed engineering and environmental consultants to do with any scheme, we've employed specialists from Trinity College and Geological Survey of Ireland to contribute to the development of the scheme design, which we now have. And we're working through with the National Parks and Wildlife the environmental sensitivities which we have to work through to inform planning constraints which may arise, but we are working through those and we are hopeful, subject to those results and survey results, to issue to planning later this year. So am I right in saying that the scheme is fully designed at this point? Correct. So what would lead to, we're in March now, so why would we have to wait until Q4 of 26 to submit for planning? Because we have to just complete and finalise the environmental surveys and documentation associated with that and we have to get the documentation for planning together, which of itself takes a couple of months. And it's just, you can understand the frustration that's out there for those 115 properties, for the people who live in South Galway, who live around the Gort area, who know the impact that the flooding has had on people historically and we're seeing it in the east of the country this year primarily, but you know, it wasn't that long ago it was in the west of the country and I think it's just so important that we progress this scheme because planning is another hurdle, I accept that, but once we get planning all going well and assuming that the homework is done, which I have no doubt it is, because a lot of work has gone into it, you know there's another stage then to actually go and deliver the scheme and I want to know, have you a timeline for delivery on the scheme, assuming planning comes through? I don't have a timeline for that particular scheme, but subject, if we get planning, if it goes in at the end of the year and you get planning consent mid next year, I would be hopeful that construction would start on average about 7 to 9 months post planning. We will start the work on, as the chairman has said a few times, once we get to planning, one of the measures that we're bringing forward more now is to start the work on the detailed design, so in other words, when we get planning we then have to get into detailed design to get a contractor and we start that the day we go into planning, not wait for planning to come. Yeah, I think that would be very important because people are long enough waiting and I think, you know, I know that the work will be done correctly on the planning permission and really it's about getting it over now and getting it done so that people can get on with their lives and know that there's more security in South Galway. I ran out of time, but I might come back in for a met hearing question later on, so thank you. Thanks Deputy Dowling.