This is a discussion on the minute of the Minister for Finance in response to the committee's annual report on the 2001 Appropriation Accounts, audit reports on non-voted accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General's VFM and special reports considered by the Committee of Public Accounts between November 2002 and September 2003. We will wait for the members of the press to come in. I will then call on Mr. Purcell to open the discussion. I suggest we take it paragraph by paragraph. If they are accepting our recommendations we need not dwell on it very much and if they give a reasonable explanation as to the reason they are rejecting our recommendations, we do not need to dwell on it very much either. We will move on and see how we do.
Minute of the Minister for Finance: Discussion.
Mr. J. Purcell
(An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) called and examined.
Mr. John Purcell
As the Chairman said, this minute of the Minister for Finance was issued in response to the committee's report published in May 2005. That particular report covered my report on the 2001 Appropriation Accounts, audit reports on certain non-voted accounts, and some value for money and special reports. It is a substantial document that spans a wide range of public service activities. While the basic material contained in the various reports is now up to four years old, many of the issues raised by the committee are still very relevant in today's world, and that will become evident as the committee works its way through the minute.
A quick review of the minute's contents revealed that the vast bulk of the committee's recommendations have been accepted and acted upon by the relevant Departments and agencies. However, in some cases progress has not been as good as might have been expected at the time, mainly because legislative considerations come into play. For example, the first one we meet concerns bail arrangements. Changes to bail arrangements suggested by a review group, which was set up on foot of the committee's recommendations, must be underpinned by amendments to existing laws. Legislative change is also necessary to buttress improved Revenue controls over taxation in the property development area and also the licensed pub trade.
Finally, in a small number of cases, the committee's recommendations have not been accepted. One case that comes to mind is that pertaining to improving the monetary return to the Exchequer from the sale of census products where the official view is that the value of widespread public availability of the data and information collected by census activity outweighs any short-term monetary gain that might accrue. That is it in a nutshell, Chairman.
Thank you. I remind colleagues that the way the cycle of accountability works in this committee is that Mr. Purcell, the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff do the audits of the Departments and agencies within the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General. He reports to the Dáil and to the committee and the committee then discusses the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. We do it chapter by chapter and usually, in association with the chapter, make comments on particular Departments' activities. We take the total expenditure of that Department as well. Our meetings are always held in public session. The witnesses are invited in and at the end we note the chapter and accept the Vote. We then publish reports; we are all familiar with that. The reports are available publicly. Historically, the reports were annual reports. We have now moved towards interim reports as being more manageable units of work.
Our reports contain findings and recommendations. The findings and the recommendations go to the Minister for Finance. The Minister for Finance replies to our findings and recommendations by way of a document described as the Finance minute, which comes to us under the signature of the Minister for Finance. He is free to accept, reject or modify our proposals. We then discuss the Finance minute. Until recently, the minutes were discussed in private but to ensure there is public awareness of our completing the accountability cycle we decided, on my recommendation, to discuss the minutes in public session. We are in public session today. The stage of the process we are at now is that on the 2002 report, which is the work of the committee between November 2002 and September 2003, we made our recommendations and this is the reply of the Minister.
As Mr. Purcell said, many of the issues raised are quite topical. The first one I am moving on to is the bail system. Some of the recommendations made by the committee in this report are the type of issues that were being discussed two, three and four weeks ago when somebody on bail committed heinous offences. We will go through it on that basis but it is important that we are seen in public to complete the accountability cycle. What we disagree with in the Finance minute we reserve the right to raise again in subsequent reports or directly with the officials of the Department of Finance.
On the bail system, our recommendations are on the screen. It can be seen that there is a partial response to our recommendation but not a full response, the reason being that legislation is required. An ad hoc group was established by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, representatives from the Courts Service and the Garda Síochána and the group’s report included a number of conclusions regarding the operation of the bail system. The report is now being reviewed by the Department with a view to giving consideration to amending legislation in this area but it is a long way down the line from then. The committee discussed this matter between November 2002 and September 2003 and reported. Three years down the line it is being re-examined in the Department and no firm proposals have come forward.
There is no sign of legislation.
No.
Is that not the worrying aspect of the work we do in that we draw the attention of the appropriate Department to a weakness within its system and even when it requires legislation, there is a delay? We are considering it today, in 2006, but the process actually started in 2001 or 2002. How long more should we have to wait for these matters to be addressed?
Mr. Purcell made a distinction between recommendations we make on administrative issues which seem to be implemented fairly readily and the slow process in implementing recommendations we make which require legislation. Their implementation seems to be long-fingered.
Many constituents would argue that the current bail system is not effective, that a large number of offences are committed by persons on bail and that the process needs to be changed. While that position was pointed out by this committee more than three years ago, no action has been taken.
What action can be taken by this committee in such circumstances? In considering the document before us, we constantly refer to the Minister's letter of 26 April, which takes issue with the fact that we are discussing these matters in public. Weighted against our doing that is the element of public concern about these matters, which require the introduction of legislation. What action can we take if no legislation is produced on foot of our recommendation, or if a matter has been at issue for three or four years and no legislation has been produced? We can mention it at the committee, which we are doing in this instance, but where can we force an action?
We are a creature of the Houses of the Oireachtas in the first instance and only one committee, albeit a significant one. We can discuss these matters in public session today and, as the Deputy did, express concern that no action has been taken. When officials from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform attend a meeting of the committee on 15 June, we can raise the matter again, and these matters will become an item in another report, but we cannot force the introduction of legislation. The issue must be passed back to the main House if it is to be treated as a matter of urgency within the parliamentary system. A point comes where we report to the Houses of the Oireachtas, specifically the Dáil, and if an issue is of major public concern, our colleagues in the Dáil will take it forward.
There is a challenge in the Minister's letter of 26 April to the committee. If I am reading it right — I am trying to catch up on some of my correspondence from last week — he is saying that if we are not satisfied, he would welcome a Dáil debate on some of the issues. Am I right in my reading of his letter?
Yes, he says——
If that is the case, what road must we travel, from looking after the public interest and demanding that legislation be put in place in response to our assessment of a Department's activity or accounts, to a Dáil debate to achieve the kind of change that is necessary, as has been pointed out by the Comptroller and Auditor General? That is the point at issue. Alternatively, will it transpire that all the issues with which we are not satisfied will trigger some Dáil debate which the Minister is suggesting? I do not mind if that is what transpires.
My view is that the Minister's suggestion of a Dáil debate was sparked by the disagreement between the report of our committee on the audit of local authorities and the views of the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Finance that local government auditors should remain in situ and that responsibility should not be transferred to the Comptroller and Auditor General and consequently to this committee. That was the issue that sparked that suggestion.
If we take the accountability cycle to its conclusion and if we are firm in our view that change is required in the public interest and we get no response from Departments to our requests for same, we should accept the Minister's invitation and take the issue to the Dáil, but that is an invitation that we should accept rather sparingly. We are an important group within the parliamentary system but the normal work of Parliament will proceed in any event. Matters such as the bail issue will be the subject of a debate in the Dáil without our prompting. A view is held by some members of the public that there is the Government, the Committee of Public Accounts and nothing in between. That is complimentary to us but the Dáil exists and we should not push our hand too much.
When we hear from Mr. Considine next week on the issue of who audits local government accounts, I do not believe we will reach agreement. According to the Minister's letter, the process seems to be that we would contact the Whips and request such a debate. It is implicit in his letter that the debate would be held in Government time.
I strongly concur with what the Chairman said. In the report there are a number of red line areas, which are fundamentally important reform requirements. Departments, including the Department of Finance, have been given significant notice, as the Chairman said repeatedly in reports over a number of years, of areas that require attention and reform. The bail issue is one of them. An issue related to bail is that of PPS numbers and the identification of people on bail. Another issue is the outrage of people being given a jail sentence for not paying relatively small fines when there is a shortage of prison places for serious offenders. I follow closely the issue of school provision, and the school accommodation section in the Department of Education and Science has not measured up to the job of providing new schools or refurbishing existing schools.
Another issue is that of Exchequer figures, which arose again yesterday. We get little or no analysis of Exchequer figures when published, a point this committee has made time and again. The Minister concerned invited me and other finance spokespersons to a meeting next week to examine reforms in accounting. For instance, in regard to the Taoiseach's Vote last week, the new broadly-based accounting report of objectives and outcomes is meant to give us a better idea of the objectives different Departments have been set by Government, or have set themselves, and the outcomes. If we were to produce from this report a table of comments and tie them to outcomes in terms of bail reform, the provision of school buildings or financial forecasting by the Department of Finance, which are high on the list of issues we hear Ministers say need to be addressed, as the Minister's reply to this report shows, in some areas progress has been made but in others the lack of progress is outrageous.
The bail issue relates to public safety and the fine issue relates to prison places and Garda time. Such issues should be the subject of such consideration, if this is the appropriate mechanism of ensuring further accountability, and these issues should be dealt with through the Dáil process. However, last week the Taoiseach's Department showed the objectives in this new style financial reporting system but there was no negative outcome. There was no note of what was not done. If we want to cut to the chase on this matter, if reports produced by the committee recommended that the fine system needed to be overhauled five years ago and the Government promised to arrange for that to be done seven years ago, action needs to be taken and progress measured in respect of red line areas, the really important issues. Otherwise, essentially, the Department of Finance, which has oversight of the Government's stance in respect of all Departments, is simply not managing the oversight process. That is the only conclusion to which one can come. I understand why the Minister wishes to have the discussions in private without public accountability but the committee should reject this. As the Chairman said, it has published many of these items on a number of occasions and has done the follow up work when the line Departments have appeared before it.
I am my party's finance spokesperson, Whip and member of this committee. I do not believe any of the avenues open to me are likely to lead to much progress in this area. We need to look at other means and perhaps the workings of similar committees in other jurisdictions. When we examined the workings of similar committees in the United States, I was impressed by the existence of parliamentary draftsmen to provide assistance in the work of committees, not so much to draft legislation but to identify faults and suggest and table amendments if, or when, it was introduced.
In regard to the Minister's minute on bail, are we awaiting particular legislation to deal with the issue or could it be dealt with in more general legislation from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform? The Criminal Justice Bill is before the House and the Minister has spoken about making changes to the bail laws, although not the ones this committee has recommended.
If the committee had a link to parliamentary draftsmen, it could state whether a Bill before the House or existing legislation should be amended and recommend that the Government does so in the quickest possible time. Otherwise we will operate in a vacuum where reports by the Comptroller and Auditor General will be examined by the committee and responded to by the Minister. The committee will then at the Minister's response without any progress being made over a five-year period.
Additional resources should be given to what is already the most effective committee in terms of its remit and the one with the most resources at its disposal to bring about changes in public expenditure. Without this, we will be engaging in a type of verbal table tennis match. I would like the role of the committee to be beefed up to allow it to be more effective.
The first and second paragraphs of the minute state the Department is considering amending legislation on bail. It is pointed out that the process of bail is governed by statute. Therefore, to change the process, one would need to change the statute. Examples are given of where change may be required. That is a reasonable response but it is not reasonable that it is happening four years after the recommendation was made. The delay is the issue; the response is okay. By its nature, legislation is policy. Therefore, we are moving straight to a policy role.
Overall, the Minister accepts approximately 90% of the recommendations made. The problem does not arise when we recommend changes to practised procedure or administration — they are usually accepted and have been implemented in many cases. It arises where implementation of our recommendations requires a change in legislation. That seems to be where the long delays occur.
As we move towards completing the accountability circle, we must reflect on how best we can advance our agenda, the implementation of the recommendations we make, which are always unanimous. It is not easy to answer that question but we should not get stuck in one area. We should note the recommendations which have been accepted and leave the ones which have not aside for consideration on how we process them subsequently.
In regard to the audit of local authorities, we have decided, in the first instance, to raise the matter with Mr. Considine when he appears before the committee next week. We will need to raise other issues with other Departments.
There is a strong argument to be made in favour of the Minister's suggestion that to complete the accountability cycle where policy issues arise, the appropriate forum is not this committee but the Dáil and that we should not be reluctant in taking the case to it. We should think about this and the way we would manage it. If we were to take the case to the Dáil, as members of the committee, we should have the first shot at the debate. Committee members from all parties should be initial contributors to the debate setting out the case to be made. Obviously, our colleagues in the Dáil who are not members of the committee would be free to participate in the debate also.
To be effective, we would need to agree a motion in advance. I do not believe a "take note" type motion would be any good. To have a fruitful debate we would need to agree a motion with the Minister for Finance. The Whip system for such a debate would also need to be much lighter than the practice in the Dáil. There is no point in Government members of the committee having strong views if they will not be allowed to express them when the debate takes place in the Dáil.
We should identify areas of disagreement, which are important but comprise only 10% to 15% of the total of 50 pages. We should then stand back to see how best we can process the matter. How best can we achieve the objectives of the committee; in other words, ensure the recommendations made by it are recommended not only on the administrative side but also on the policy side and that if they require legislation, it follows through? If there is agreement on this, we could start to go through the paragraphs now. Rather than have a Second Stage-type debate, we could focus on individual recommendations and note what the Minister accepts, which would then be off the table.
Before we totally rewrite the role of the Committee of Public Accounts, we should address a few issues. As the Chairman said, we are not allowed to impinge on policy issues. We have stretched this to the limit and cannot go much further. That leads us to the comment about the public perception that there is a Committee of Pubic Accounts. The public may not be aware that the committee has been in existence since the foundation of the State. It has done extremely good work and achieved a considerable amount without too much political conflict. I would like this to continue, regardless of who is on the committee or in government. The committee is a useful vehicle and has a role to play.
I am concerned that the committee will try to become the Government. Members of the committee come from both Government and Opposition parties. We must realise this. As I have stated in the past year, I have concerns about policy issues. I agree we separate the positive reactions from those which are not. We should publicise the positive reactions in the same way as the negative ones. We have tended not to do this in the past 12 months. It would not just be playing the Government card but the committee's card to show what it has achieved. We all refer to the obvious example of the DIRT inquiry when we received an immediate response from the Government to a request from the Chairman to change the legislation, provide extra facilities and so on. There was an immediate positive response from the Government and it worked to everybody's benefit. We should bear this in mind. The ethos and integrity of the committee are important. The committee will still be in existence when we have moved on to an easier life.
A number of issues were raised, the first of which was bail. The way a number of contributions were presented, one would think it was the committee versus the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. However, it is everybody else versus the Judiciary. People forget a referendum was held on the granting of bail. The Minister can draft new legislation next week but the Judiciary will implement it. A previous Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform attempted to introduce a mandatory ten-year sentence for serious drugs offences but at least one senior member of the Judiciary publicly stated no political hack would tell him how to run his court.
There is a clear division between the Oireachtas and the Judiciary. We cannot comment on individual cases and many other restrictions are rightly in place. While the Minister is trying to rewrite the bail laws, the problem is how they are implemented. The same argument is ongoing in the United Kingdom and the issue has been narrowed down to non-nationals. I do not wish to become involved in a major row with the Minister or the Department about the bail laws because, ultimately, the Judiciary will decide who gets bail, with certain restrictions provided for in legislation. However, the Judiciary has displayed an unwillingness to take on board efforts to deal with serious drugs offences. If amending legislation is required, it will be a difficult, sensitive area. The committee stated people's means should be taken into account when making a bail application but that is done anyway. My main concern relates to policy. The position could change in 12 months. A Fianna Fáil or Progressive Democrats member could be Chairman and other new members could be appointed to the committee. We still need a forum to get on with our work properly without being politically partisan. This is a useful vehicle.
Many other issues were raised. I am not satisfied an effort has been made. Perhaps everybody will not agree with the committee's decision. We are a relatively small, select group and may have a view on how something should be handled but a majority in the House may think we are wrong. We cannot achieve a 100% positive response to our proposals or suggestions. We make them after a great deal of debate but may not always be correct. There must be room for that discussion.
The OPW and others have made an honest attempt to react. It may take two or three years but that reflects the ethos involved. The committee receives reports from statutory bodies dating back to 2002 and 2003 because they fall behind for some reason. It is a slow process but part of what we are. The committee must recognise this.
I would like to be positive. If there is a need for a meeting in the Dáil, I would not like members to go in as a group under the Whip. That would be a concern but I will make the case for any decision made by the committee to my parliamentary party, the Taoiseach or anybody else involved, as well as in the House. I would not agree to us making a statement in the House that the majority of the committee's members have made a decision, which I would have to support. I would not go along with that and I am not elected to do so.
There is no suggestion of that happening.
We can make recommendations on the bail issue. Most of that to which the committee referred is in place. Legislation is in place and a referendum on the issue has been held. Further amending legislation will be required. It is a difficult, technical area and the Chairman knows the legal process better than I. We have to accept the situation on the issue, which is of great concern to the public. However, we do not have a say in what happens. The Judiciary has the final say, no matter what legislation is introduced.
On whether the committee should discuss this issue in public or private, a letter from the Minister, adverted to by Deputy McGuinness, suggested it should be debated in private. I disagree because we are public representatives and what we are doing is in the public interest. It should be debated in an open, public forum such as this.
I agree with the Chairman that the committee should list the exceptions but I have a problem with the context in which they are listed. I also agree with Deputy Dennehy that the positives that emerged from our investigation and the positive responses received from the Department of Finance and other Departments should be given at least the same weight as the small number of exceptions.
The other problem with such exceptions is that they are used by members of the committee and others for party political purposes. For instance, a recommendation has been made, because the continued cost of storage the e-voting machines is high, that they should be sold or given away, while the Punchestown-Department of Agriculture and Food issue is often raised. These issues are used as clout for party political purposes and it is difficult for members of the Government parties who are also members of the committee to do their duty and analyse or positively criticise issues raised at the committee when such criticism is used for political purposes against their party, the Government and the members themselves. The system zips the mouths of Government members because of the abuse of the information that emerges.
We are auditors, not executioners, on behalf of the Dáil. We should point out the failings, the responses from the Minister and highlight the differences but it is not up to us to initiate legislation. The committee is a creature of the Dáil and it is up to Members, usually those in opposition, to raise questions about bail legislation. The responses of the Department on the issue are significant and helpful.
One must consider the amount of legislation going through the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The Criminal Justice Bill has reached such a size that it is practically unmanageable and the Minister is trying to draw it in so that it can go through the Dáil in a reasonable period. It is just acceptable to include another section in the Bill to deal with the issue of bail. The immigration Bill is going through the Department, which is also trying to codify all the criminal offences and consolidate the liquor licensing legislation and to deal with anti-terrorism legislation and legislation dealing with European arrest and evidence warrants.
The change in the law on bail is important. How it is done should not be a matter for us. We must point out the need for the change, but it is the responsibility to the Dáil to exert pressure on the Government to make the change. It is wrong for us to act as if, as the Chairman said, there is just the PAC and the Government. That is not the case. We are here on behalf of the Dáil to point out where the weaknesses lie and to allow it to exert pressure on the Government in respect of the issue.
On the question of bail, the minute states that the means of the charged person as well as the seriousness of the offence should be taken into account before the amount of bail is set. I am concerned about the people who end up in our jails, most of whom come from the south and north inner city. The people in Mountjoy Prison do not have means because they barely have their social welfare allowances. The collection of fines from people on such low means is crazy. I have huge sympathy for the usual inhabitants of Mountjoy and for the life they have experienced, although I do not accept that what happened to them is an excuse for their committing crimes. We have more work to do with regard to putting drug schemes and programmes in place, improving the quality of life, improving educational opportunities and the social and economic situation of people in these areas before we become over-excited about pursuing fines from people on social welfare.
The question of fixing the bail amount at a certain level is a matter for the courts, not us. When discussing the Criminal Justice Bill recently, the issue of mandatory minimum sentences arose. The constitutionality of whether the Legislature has the power to recommend to judges the imposition of specific sentences or bail amounts is uncertain. Much work remains to be done on these issues. The response we received from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, in the context of its ability, competence and the resources available to it, was excellent. It showed that the Department has respect for the Committee of Public Accounts.
I have a few comments to make arising from the contributions of DeputiesArdagh and Dennehy. The letter of the Minister for Finance did not criticise the committee for debating these issues in public. The initial paragraphs in the letter noted that we had changed procedures but did not criticise us for changing them. One might say that a certain tone attached to the letter. However, that is as far as it went. I wish to be fair to the Minister and his officials. They did not say that we had exceeded our mandate or that we could not do it. They simply noted it and we have noted what they said and are meeting in public again today.
I take Deputy Ardagh's point about the over-politicisation of a committee such as this, which proceeds on the basis of consensus and which has never had a vote since it was founded in 1923. That is a tribute to the people who served on the committee over the years. However, as we are all in the business of politics, there is an issue that affects the Opposition as well as the Government. Every so often an issue arises which is highly political. It is in the nature of politicians to try and get either party or personal credit for some of these issues. This applies to both Government and Opposition Members. The Deputy mentioned two issues, namely, Punchestown and electronic voting. This is not a criticism, but it was the Deputy who raised the issue of Punchestown in his first intervention. He referred to gangsters riding into town and raiding the bank and coming back a second time when they discovered that there was no security at the bank. He was referring to the second tranche of money given to Punchestown.
I said it had taken too much on board and refused.
It was an excellent colour piece. However, when the Opposition scrambles to catch up with the Deputy, he should not be offended.
It will certainly quieten me down for the future.
On electronic voting, there was much publicity last week on what I said at the press conference with regard to the scrapping of the electronic voting machines. I was quoting the Vice Chairman, Deputy McGuinness, who, three or four weeks ago, said the same here and was reported extensively in the newspapers. We all agreed with him. That was not a party political run but something that was discussed here. The debate on it was led by the Vice Chairman, a Government Deputy.
There is give and take in respect of these matters. We are all in the business of politics and we all like to get publicity and obtain credit from our constituents for doing a decent week's work. We should not become too excited when there is some political point scoring at times. Most of the time we do our best to advance the public interest on a consensus basis. As Chairman, I will continue to do that.
I agree with Deputy Dennehy on the issue of bail. The reply we received in respect of the justice issues is reasonable. The Department met the recommendations of the committee fairly, on both the bail and collection of fines issues. There are particular difficulties that explain the delay. Apart from saying that we would like more rapid progress, there is not much more we can do on this section. Deputy Dennehy is correct that, in the final analysis, the manner in which bail law is implemented in the courts is a matter for the Judiciary. We all support the independence of the Judiciary under the Constitution. We also note, however, that its independence is under the Constitution. When the people decide by referendum to change the Constitution in respect of bail law, judges have the duty to implement the new constitutional position. I share a view expressed by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform recently that he needs to consider the issue. Some judges do not seem to take cognisance of the views expressed by the people in the referendum or to make the necessary changes, which were the motivating factor in the referendum.
In terms of our meeting, the letter constitutes a reasonable reply and, therefore, we should note it and move on.
I do not wish to go over old ground. The Chairman and the Comptroller and Auditor General indicated that 90% of the recommendations made by this committee have been accepted. Week after week, representatives of Departments or Government agencies come before us and we have highlighted and identified serious issues that arose through bad administration or deficiencies in certain areas.
What we are considering today is the addressing, in a proper manner, of these issues and the making of changes. It is important that the work of the committee and the changes being effected are adequately noted. It was stated at the beginning of the meeting that we note where there is agreement on sections. In some ways this is a fundamental flaw because we are acknowledging neither the problem nor the specific changes as a result of the committee's recommendations. This is important as 90% of our recommendations have been addressed.
I refer to the other areas, such as bail, that have not been addressed. A statement referring to the ad hoc group states: “This report is now being reviewed by the Department with a view to giving consideration to amending legislation in this area.” This is now a policy issue, in my view, which the committee should not abandon, rather it should stay in contact with the Department for a progress report by way of correspondence so that in due course when that Department comes before the committee, we can follow up on the issue. I disagree with the Chairman on the issue of this committee going to the Dáil because that is a matter of policy and legislation and in my view is outside the remit of this committee. We should adequately highlight the issues such as electronic voting or Punchestown and I have no problem with that. However, it is not up to this committee to solve those problems, in particular where they are to do with policy or legislation. This committee may identify the issues and make recommendations but it is up to either the Opposition parties or Ministers to raise them in the Dáil; it is not our role to drive the matters beyond a certain point. It is a matter of highlighting issues of accountability and we do not shirk from doing so. I am well aware when an issue is brought up at this committee and discussed that a certain negativity which might be expressed towards a Department or a Minister will be used by the Opposition. This will not stop the committee from dealing with the issue. In my view we deal with issues fairly and honestly but it is beyond our remit to go further and try to bring it into the Dáil.
This committee cannot be made into a politics-free zone. It is perhaps unfortunate that the first chapter deals with the subjects of bail and crime.
Part of the reply is satisfactory but the last paragraph of the Minister's response, in my view as a newcomer to the committee, is a disgrace. Like Deputy Ardagh, I represent a constituency where we have grave difficulties with gangland crime and burgeoning drug crime. Regardless of the poverty of people's backgrounds, there are people in the courts every week who may come from extremely deprived backgrounds but they are running rings around the legal structures. They may well be facilitated by the Judiciary. There was a politically correct attitude on the part of some people to the bail referendum which, to be political about it, was introduced by the rainbow coalition as a response to criminal elements at that stage.
Everybody will agree with the committee's recommendation that there needs to be reform in respect of attachment orders. There should not be large amounts of Garda time being absorbed by these items and the report is correct in making very valuable and specific suggestions about those items. However the Minster's response to the committee is "The execution of the warrant is currently a matter for the Garda, but active consideration is being given to implementation of a pilot project to outsource collection of fines which, if successful, would support the case for an extension to bail estreatments also". This is ten years after the bail referendum and several years after the very measured comments in the committee's report. I am sure a civil servant rather than the Minister, Deputy Cowen, is the author.
The next element is the use of the PPS number. As Deputy Ardagh knows, the attachment issue is a grave one for people. Some people who are either petty criminals or becoming major gangland figures, can play ducks and drakes with the Department of Social and Family Affairs and be facilitated, until it gets to such a scale that the CAB finally goes after them. This is not a serious, measured response which will result in the reform of an abuse within a measured period of time.
This has been an ongoing extraordinary and difficult situation for communities under pressure who must now deal with cocaine abuse and drug-related crime. Deputy Ardagh knows well that various communities feel bereft of support with respect to the problem of drug criminals and gangland figures. He and I have discussed this matter and we are in agreement in large measure. As a newcomer to this committee, my view is that the third paragraph of the departmental ministerial response is not adequate because it is putting on the long finger a reasonable measure which needs to be taken more urgently in order to address a very serious feature of our crime problem.
I wish to deal with a number of the issues raised. It is the nature of our business that the Opposition will make hay when issues warrant the making of that political hay. I deal with this on a regular basis in my constituency from a member of the Chairman's party and I do not mind doing it because that is how things are. I was sick last week but had I been here I would probably have been sitting on that bench on the plinth with the Chairman or instead of him. I certainly would not have let the occasion pass without making the points that I believed were relevant about the issue of e-voting. I make no apologies to anyone because it is part and parcel of what we do and I will express my personal opinion.
With reference to the letter from the Minister for Finance, like Deputy Ardagh I am satisfied that this committee conducts its business in this manner and is open and transparent in its operation. People can hear and see what we do, which is the way it should be.
With regard to the Chairman's suggestion of a Dáil debate and what the Whips might do, I would like to think we were mature enough as a democracy and as a Parliament to have an open vote but I do not think we have yet reached that point. However, as suggested by the Minister, I would like the option of a Dáil debate on some of the issues. It is part of the committee's remit to pursue an issue if it has such strong views about it and this should include debating the issue in the Dáil and putting it to a vote. The issue is how far this committee should go in its scrutiny of accounts and other matters to ensure corrective action is taken in order to prevent recurring failure within the system. This is the issue to be dealt with. Deputy Curran has put his finger on the nub of the issue. The Chairman stated earlier that much of what the committee has suggested is contained in the Minister's response. This should be highlighted and given the positive reflection it needs and it should be publicised. It is a completion of part of our work which has ended in a positive way and we need to inform the public. On the issues where the committee has not reached a conclusion or has reached a poor conclusion, I see nothing wrong with a revisiting of the issue and the issuing of an ongoing report to prompt the kind of action we want to see taken. This is the relevant procedure for this committee. If we are to be relevant and have the support of the Dáil and the public, it is very important that we are seen to bring some of these issues to a conclusion. If there is any weakness in the system, it is seen in the slow response from the Department or the Dáil or from wherever these responses come.
In essence I would go along with the suggestions made regarding how we should conduct our business. It is constructive, the best way to go and very businesslike. I see nothing wrong with it. We are dealing with a very small number of issues in this regard. We can single out the ones and praise them for their positive response, and on the other side we can pursue them for better and quicker reaction. This would deal with the issue of the past paragraph etc. We need to respond to these matters and this is the way to do it. Otherwise we would just continue to talk about the issue endlessly.
I think Deputy Burton has clearly highlighted one of the problems I have had for some time regarding where we are going and what our job is. She said the committee could not be made into a politics-free zone. I believe I am the longest-serving member of this committee and I have worked with some of the toughest of cookies in the Opposition who ever came into this House. They are outstanding politicians and I can never recall having a problem. We have dealt with issues that hung over from previous Governments, in some of which the Chairman served. We have managed that work. While it was not a politics-free zone, there was a different approach somehow. The records exist. Ten or 15 years ago we would have made the same kind of criticisms. They may have been proportionately less as there was not the same amount of money. They may have overspent by €50,000 rather than €50 million. While I may be misleading myself, I believe we managed that in a very efficient manner.
My chief point in response to Deputy Burton is that we have a very specific role related to finance. Our role is to ensure financial control, appropriate expenditure and proper accounting. We may get sidetracked when dealing with, for example, drug barons in Dublin, Cork or any other place. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights has the expertise to look at such issues. It is not our role, which relates to the financial implication of policies, how money is spent and how it is voted. We are getting sidetracked not just on this issue but also on many others, including the health scare and the issue of the masts. We are suddenly not talking about the financial aspects. We are talking about whether there is a danger to health from the masts and we are getting sidetracked on many issues.
I accept we have exactly the same fears about drug barons and how the courts are handling the cases. We have seen challenges to the Constitution, etc. However, we are getting diverted in many ways. We are doing excellent work and I hope we can continue to do so. I believe that we are getting diverted into extraneous matters that are not finance related. I have voiced this concern several times. I accept all the concerns that Deputies Burton and Ardagh have about such areas. We have exactly the same concerns and must deal with them. However, this is not the committee to deal with them.
We should note the response on the bail system, fines, etc. on the understanding that members are free to raise these issues on 15 June when officials from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform will appear before the committee. If anybody wants to pursue these matters we can do it on that basis. If there is a sufficiently strong debate on that day, it can be reflected in our next report which, as it will be an interim report, will come up quite quickly.
The next paragraph relates to the valuation of court property.
I raised this matter initially with the Office of Public Works. It is not just the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, but the Department of Defence, for example, never had a portfolio valuation. I am concerned at the figure of €23.62 million. I would reckon that Cork Courthouse has cost that much on its own and is separate from Spike Island and others. I wonder where that kind of figure came from and what the date of the valuation is.
Mr. Purcell
I am not quite sure of the origin of the figure of €23.62 million. In recent appropriation accounts, in the past four years or so, as part of the development of the appropriation accounts, giving information and making them more meaningful in conjunction with the Department of Finance, we agreed that asset values should be reflected in the accounts, which was not the case previously. It has taken some time to gear up to getting full valuations etc. We did not want to preside over what might have been unnecessary expense in getting professional valuations every year. There may have been somewhat of an arrears problem in this regard. The last two sentences in the penultimate paragraph reflect this:
To date not all vested properties have been valued by the OPW. Where possible, estimated values have been included based on guidelines provided by the OPW.
Some of these are quite movable feasts. When we were discussing the health boards' portfolio, clearly the location would be very important in giving guidelines. Distorted figures can emerge. Regardless of what we might say here, it is still a work in progress to get it to the level where we would feel comfortable with the kind of valuations being expressed in the appropriation accounts.
Cork Courthouse alone would have a replacement or sale value that would exceed the figure quoted. Historically a notional value was applied, which was crazy. I have raised this point with Mr. Seán Benton from the OPW. Some military barracks and other buildings use only notional valuations. I take the point of the Comptroller and Auditor General that it has improved. However, we should get more up-to-date figures.
We note it and the Deputy may raise it again.
The minute states: "To date not all vested properties have been valued by the OPW." How many properties have been valued? That is the key issue. Is it 90% notional figures and 10% valuation or have more been valued? I agree with Deputy Dennehy regarding Cork Courthouse and other properties under the auspices of the Departments of Defence, Justice, Equality and Law Reform and others. They need to tell us how close they are to accuracy on the total portfolio.
I will ask the clerk to ask the question before they appear before the committee in June. As a division has been called in the Dáil, should I suspend? We will not have a fruitful debate on this issue if I remain with just one member.
Sitting suspended at 12.48 p.m. and resumed at 1.08 p.m.
Army pensions are discussed on page 3 of the minute. The Department of Defence has fairly met the property maintenance issues which were raised.
The committee should note that land has suddenly become an extremely valuable commodity.
Mr. Purcell
To bear out my comments in respect of valuations, members can see towards the end of the page that the Department of Defence is currently undertaking an in-house estimate and valuation of its property portfolio, based on local market values and conditions. Hence, it is trying to be more exact, rather than using the broad brush to which I referred, which is not always appropriate. Things are moving on that side.
Is it agreed we note the sections related to the Department of Defence? Agreed. Any issues which members might have in this regard may be raised in June, when representatives from the Department of Defence will appear before the committee.
The final paragraphs are a response to the committee's recommendation that the level of stock parts and equipment which can no longer be used should be quantified, as well as a note on the asset register.
We will move on to the minute's contents in respect of Vote 34, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Members raised many issues in this regard, including the overlapping functions of different groups, such as Forbairt, Enterprise Ireland, Údarás na Gaeltachta, Shannon Development, county enterprise boards and county development boards. Neither the public nor even parliamentarians are quite sure who does what.
Mr. Purcell
There is a general concern about the plethora of bodies. One could add Leader programmes and partnerships to the total mentioned by the Chairman. The committee's recommendation has been accepted here and taken up by the deliberations of the enterprise strategy group.
In respect of the specific concern of the committee relating to city and county enterprise boards, the report of the enterprise strategy group states that these should be integrated into the mainstream enterprise development system by the establishment of a central co-ordination unit in Enterprise Ireland. At the very end, the Department indicates its wish that the arrangements be approved by the board of Enterprise Ireland in April 2006 — we can always check back on this — and that the new unit be established by the middle of the year.
There will always be an element of overlap, duplication and displacement but the aim is to minimise it. The action has been taken in this case on foot of a specialist group set up to meet the committee's concerns in this regard. As to whether it meets the committee's concerns in total, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
As a farmer, I am very aware of the need at times for a group to focus on a specific need in an area. The fact that Shannon Development survived is interesting because we thought it might be done away with. There may be a need for regional bodies. The main thing to which we wish to draw attention is keeping matters under review, which I accept has taken place. I propose that the committee note this.
In respect of the Department of Health and Children, the committee's first recommendation arose from the gross underestimation of the cost of extending medical cards to the over 70s. We stated that Departments should estimate properly so the Government can make decisions founded on true cost.
Is a word missing from the last line of the recommendation? I am referring to the phrases "adequate time" to "all the facts". Perhaps, the word "consider" should be included, as well as the word "arise".
In the reply at the bottom of the page, it was noted that the health board GMS database of medical card holders in the over 70s category upon which much of the costings were based was inaccurate. This is their explanation. Could Mr. Purcell indicate what were the figures?
Mr. Purcell
I am not quite sure, so I would not like to put anything on the record. I think the ultimate cost ended up as a multiple of three or four of the estimated costs. I recollect an original figure of something of the order of €19 million, which ended up somewhere around €70 million or €80 million.
They take the point and we will note it.
The next issue is the overall responsibility for the proper functioning of the medical card system. When the recommendation was drafted, it was the responsibility of the individual health boards. It is recommended that such responsibility be centralised, which is being achieved through the HSE.
I wish to refer to the two issues. I referred to the repayment of nursing home charges on Second Stage of the Health (Repayment Scheme) Bill 2006 in the Dáil last week. I accept the recommendation that people should be able to supply accurate information to Ministers and decision makers. However, I also agree with granting medical cards to everyone over 70 without a means test. One speaker noted that these matters tend to be mixed up in the public mind when they are put forward and that people suddenly think it is wrong to give medical cards to those in this age group because they cost €70 million.
I agree with the principle of looking after the elderly in a specific way. I would follow the recommendation that accurate information should be provided because it is part of the job for these people. Chaos prevailed in this sector in the past. We are talking about a period not too long ago when health board clerks were taking home a considerable amount of information relating to medical cards and trying to write them up. This is probably one of the benefits we will obtain from the HSE. Apparently, approximately 95% of entries on the medical card holder database have been assigned PPS numbers, which we felt was a very positive recommendation. The figure is down from 190,000 at the end of 2004, so progress is being made. The matter should be quite simple.
People forget that the much-criticised PPARS system is part of this process. There was no mechanism for doing this kind of work and 100 other procedures that were extremely expensive because we did not have the necessary equipment. I am happy with the response to these two issues.
The HSE should go a step further. I have encountered cases where persons over 70 did not realise they were entitled to medical cards. These cards are not issued automatically; they are only issued if people apply for them. They should be issued automatically when someone reaches the age of 70. However, that is another matter. We will note these two issues.
Members can see that the recovery of the overpayments to the Irish Medical Organisation, IMO, is a matter for negotiation. The IMO has claimed that underpayments have been made as well. We stated that overpayments and underpayments be treated as separate issues but during the negotiations it appeared that one issue was being offset against the other. Will we note this issue?
At the time, a commitment was given before the committee that every effort would be made to recover this money. The IMO later argued that its members were owed money and that these underpayments would be offset against overpayments. However, we know nothing about what is owed to the IMO. In the context of understanding the accountability of both sides of this equation, is there a way of discovering the current position and the amount of money owed to the IMO? It is important for us to have this information.
Will Deputy McGuinness raise this matter in correspondence in advance of the meeting with representatives from the Department of Health and Children?
On what date was this matter originally raised?
The minute refers to the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General in 2001. The committee's scrutiny took place from November 2002 to September 2003. However, the committee was not very good at reporting because the report was only published in April 2005. There was a delay in compiling it.
From 2001, when this issue was highlighted, one would have imagined that it would have taken on a life of its own within the Department in the context of its being resolved. This does not appear to happen readily within Departments, which do not appear to identify how much is owed to and by them, thus allowing them to offset one against other and produce a final figure. We now find that either the IMO or someone else is reluctant to bring this matter to a conclusion so we are still in negotiations. This again goes back to private practice and private business. One does not find ongoing evidence of such practices in companies, where both parties will resolve a matter and move on. Within the public sector, however, it appears to be acceptable to leave such a problem unresolved for five years. The latter is unacceptable. I recall making the comparison with people who were overpaid by the Department of Social and Family Affairs where the Department would insist on immediate repayment from their next cheque or repayment over a period. I would like to see balancing information.
Is more up-to-date information available?
Mr. Purcell
No. I agree that we need up-to-date information because it has been indicated that the calculations from both exercises designed to determine overpayments and underpayments have been compiled into one analysis, which was subjected to a further independent external analysis to underpin its accuracy, comprehensiveness and objectivity. It states: "On completion, the HSE will review the analysis with the Department of Health and Children and discuss the next steps in the context of the resulting net overpayment-underpayment outturn". It seems that this has taken more time than expected. It has been complicated by being brought into the framework agreement on the new contractual arrangements with the IMO, wherein changes are afoot. Being sucked into that process has not been helpful in reaching a conclusion.
My concern is that the issue of money owed to the GPs did not arise until such time as we said that they owed the State money. Suddenly, a hand went up and they said that the State owed them. For how long were they going to leave that debt before they dealt with it in the context of the Department? It is unacceptable that the State's debt to them arose because we questioned the overpayment. How much has conducting the analysis and arriving at the point of setting two figures against each other cost the Department? It is this type of waste within the service that we must continue to highlight and knock on the head, but this minute does not do so. Rather, it prolongs a protracted system of negotiation, which is unacceptable.
We must realise what is occurring in the real world. The IMO is described as a trade union. The committee made a clear, plain, one-line recommendation to the effect that any claim by the IMO that its members were underpaid should be negotiated separately. However, we are dealing with a trade union. It asks the Minister what she will do next and if she says that she will take the money from it, the IMO will go on strike. These are the difficulties in the real world, which is the reason I sometimes worry that we can be carried away by our sense of power.
This is a difficult matter, as has been the issue of health in general in recent years. We have gone easy and tried not to tread on toes, but the issue is not as simple as just speaking at committee meetings. It must be dealt with separately and the union involved must agree to it.
We will seek the information requested by Deputy McGuinness and have it for our next meeting with officials from the Department of Health and Children.
The next item has been overtaken by the PPARS issue. We will have much scope to discuss information strategy in the health services. I suggest that the committee note the reply. A drugs payment scheme has been introduced, in which 38,000 claims have been dealt with, €6.73 million has been refunded and average payments per claim are €179. Is it correct that the matter has been concluded?
Mr. Purcell
Yes. There was a deadline but it was extended. The Department has indicated that it would be sympathetic to any very late claims.
As officials from the Department of Finance are attending our meeting next week, I would like to deal with related issues so that colleagues will be in a position to raise them if necessary. Preliminary material from the Department, an opening statement on taxes by the Minister, has been circulated to committee members. The issue was one of a variation in outturn between estimates and tax returns and why the Department of Finance could not more accurately estimate. The preamble states that taxes rise and fall in step with economic activity and there was a downturn in taxes as estimated in 2001 because there was a downturn in the economy before it picked up again. Everything the Minister states is reasonable.
The last paragraph of the preamble on page 11 displays how inaccurate the Department was. It states: "While it is difficult to isolate the impact which these changes have had, the variance from the budget targets for income tax has improved significantly". The variations were -5% and -4% in 2001 and 2002, respectively, and less than -2% in 2003, 0.5% in 2004 and -0.7% in 2005, excluding returns from Revenue's special investigations. Our point has been addressed and we have been given the information.
How does Mr. Purcell view the response to our recommendation that the Department of Finance should report to the committee on how it proposes to put the basis of the forecasting model on a better footing in terms of underlying data used and the ability of the model to cater for abrupt changes in external economic conditions?
Mr. Purcell
In 2001, there were problems. These errors have been acknowledged and corrective action has been taken with regard to two aspects, those being the overestimation of duty, VAT and so on from new car registrations and the deferral of excise payments, which was not taken into account but should have been. The corrective action in each case is specified in the minute.
A general factor affects the calculation of the tax forecast. Both the Revenue Commissioners and the Department were awaiting the full figures for a previous year in order to calculate economic growth and so on. The minute clearly states that changes in procedures and methodology have been made as a result in part of issues raised by the committee. A significant change that has contributed to more accurate forecasting is the use of information drawn from a sample of incomplete income tax returns from a more recent year. It is clear that this is not an exact science but there is evidence that the use of more recent data, while not as complete as one might wish, results in better forecasts.
In the last two sentences of that section on page 12, the Department states:
Best practice is to subject estimates to risk-sensitivity analysis. This is required to provide forecasts that are seen by informed commentators at the time of publication as reasonable in the light of expected economic growth and valid risk parameters. Such risk analysis is required, and carried out, in the context of the annual update of the Stability and Growth Pact.
This is a reasonable statement.
The whole response by the Department of Finance is good. I welcome its indication of this committee's positive input. The issue is important and, according to former Ministers, is one in which the Department never accepted anyone's input. As stated, responses in respect of several issues result from the committee's recommendations.
Obviously, it is not an exact science. Every night of the week, different commentators, though they are some of the best in the business, forecast this or that, which can be poles apart. The minute states that the forecasts would be seen "as reasonable in the light of expected economic growth", which is all that can be done. It refers to the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak and the events of 11 September in the US to show how matters can go belly-up very quickly. I welcome this positive response to the committee's input because the Department is important.
Speaking as the party spokesperson on finance, there have been structural improvements but finance forecasts continue to be wide off the mark. Exchequer figures published yesterday evening show major differences to the profiles outlined by the Department at the time of the budget. We accept that differences can occur but we do not receive an explanation of the differences. Over the past few years, income tax is consistently below the budget profile. This happens because many more people are in employment and in low paid jobs, including many families with one spouse working part-time. At the same time, special collections from Ansbacher accounts and DIRT payments, partly the result of the work of this committee, are included in income tax receipts. I have sought a detailed breakdown of these figures on several occasions. The Department seeks to improve the situation but for most analysts, never mind Deputies, it is extremely difficult to analyse the figures. If the Department produced detailed quarterly information we could make sense of what is happening with the economy.
With regard to returns, VAT is increasing but remains below the profile published in the budget. The Government is dependent on VAT for the highest level of returns from taxation. The monthly Exchequer figures do not explain the reasons for the VAT results published yesterday being far below the profile of four months ago. These are technical questions but they are important if one is to make an assessment. The Department often states that a cheque in the post for a major capital project will adjust the figures by the end of the year. It is extremely difficult to work with these forecast figures because people are not bothered when the outcome has been positive. In areas where problems are growing, such as income tax receipts, we do not receive the quality of information that the Department of Finance should provide.
Officials from the Department are appearing before the committee next week. Deputy Burton can address the matter at that stage.
I will raise the matter then.
I concur with Deputy Burton's point on explanations but she joined the meeting just as we had covered income tax. The variance between the budget target and the figures published was 5% in 2001 and 0.7% in 2005, excluding the special investigations. In some areas there has been an improvement in the difference between the budget forecast and the outcome. I do not know if an explanation given at this point would be factual or speculative.
I was wondering if Deputy Burton had received a different report to me. She referred to Ansbacher and other emotive names but the report excludes excess yields from special investigations in 2004 and 2005. It shows how it has improved. Members would like to receive explanations as to why forecasts do not correspond to reality but it is not an exact science.
Can we note the final paragraph, which states that monthly profiles of Government expenditure including debt service should be published?
Mr. Purcell
I do not look at these things in the same way as committee members. From January 2006, and in the monthly profiles for 2006, provision is made for the service of debt. Perhaps one committee member, who is not present, has a problem with the fact that the variation month by month is not shown.
It is a point made by Deputy Fleming.
Mr. Purcell
This is a point about which he was exercised. Figures concerning debt service are now being published whereas they were not in the past. It was reasonable for the committee to note this and to suggest their publication to complete the picture.
I hope that it is acceptable to everyone.
The secretariat will write to inform the relevant Departments that matters discussed today will be considered when the Secretary General meets with the committee. Is it agreed that the committee note sections 1 to 6 inclusive? Agreed.
I have requested the clerk to the committee to contact Mr. Colm Dunne, consultant to the committee, to read through the minute and provide a tabular statement reflecting the views of the committee, particularly in the context of focussing on the positive as well as the negative. I suggest headings of "recommendation", "response", "accepted/rejected" and "comments". This would make it easier to process reports at meetings.
Future meetings will proceed much faster. There was a long preamble today.
Could we relate the tabular statement to the report done by the committee on the change in the Estimates process and the proposals made by the Minister that the financial reports be changed to include objective outcomes? Members received drafts of this and I found it very difficult to follow. What is the use of adding nine bus lanes in Dublin if the outcome does not reflect on journey times?
I am not certain of Mr. Dunne's availability.
It would be interesting to examine the current proposals.
We will request him to make the minute more accessible to us for the purpose of discussion. As a separate task, he can address Deputy Burton's point, concerning the recommendations of the Rabbitte report and how that matches what the Government has agreed to do.
The agenda for our meeting on 11 May 2006 will address the 2004 Annual Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General Appropriation Accounts; Vote 1, the President's Establishment; Vote 6, Office of the Minister for Finance; Vote 7, superannuation and retired allowances; Vote 12, secret service; chapter 1.1 financial outturn, contingency fund deposit account and financial accounts 2004; and discussion of the minute of the Minister for Finance and the committee's proposal for altering the way the Estimates for expenditure are considered by Dáil Éireann, specifically the response regarding central and local accountability, section 5 of the minute.
The witness withdrew.
The committee adjourned at 1.40 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Thursday, 11 May.