No. 6 is the final report on the hearings of the 30th committee for the period July 2009 to January 2011. The draft report has been circulated to members and represents the work of the previous committee. There are several items outstanding in respect of replies to come from, I presume, the Minister with responsibility for public expenditure and reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, on those reports. I ask the secretariat to write again to the Minister to remind him that we are still awaiting replies from the different sections and different Departments. That is critical to finalising the work and understanding what action has been taken arising from that work. Would any member like to raise an issue on the draft report?
Draft Report on Hearings of the Committee: Discussion
Who wrote the report?
The report was compiled by the secretariat-----
Fine.
-----arising from the committee hearings and, I presume, the Comptroller and Auditor General's reports would be tied into it.
What is our role in respect of this report? I appreciate it is a précis of the work of the previous committee. With few exceptions, none of us was on the committee last time around. I need guidance in terms of what the Chairman is looking for from us. We can hardly be asked to sign off on, or verify, work in which we were not involved or in the calling of witnesses or the evidence. I read through it in some detail and some of the recommendations, aside from an auditing point of view, from a policy point of view sounded alarm bells in my head. Will the Chairman provide some guidance?
The background to it is the hearings for the period July 2009 to 2011. It is, in fact, the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. At the end of each chapter are the findings of the last committee, following which are the recommendations made. These recommendations and findings are sent to the Minister for Finance, as it was then. Following consideration he would issue a response as to what actions were taken or, perhaps, not taken, or his view on the report. That response would form the basis of concluding the chapter to the satisfaction of the committee.
The report itself and the findings of the Comptroller and Auditor General, followed by the findings of the committee and the recommendations, are pretty clear. I am unhappy about the fact that this report is not conclusive, through no fault of the secretariat or the Comptroller and Auditor General. It makes recommendations. Reading through the various chapters, each chapter is shock upon shock in terms of administration of State value for money, the ongoing issues of accountability and systems and analysis not working, moneys not being spent properly and the recommendations not generally being acted upon. In essence that is what is contained in this report. I have read the report. I believe, in the Chairman's remarks on behalf of the committee, that we should reflect on that, and should send a message to the various Accounting Officers stating that it is not business as usual, that we will expect a full response to each and every item in this report, and that we will expect the Accounting Officer and his staff, when they arrive here, to give us an account of what action was taken arising from this report and how their ongoing work within the Department has been affected in terms of creating greater efficiencies and getting better value for money for the taxpayer in the context of their spend.
There are specific issues in these reports. For example, we expected agencies or Departments to come back to us with a more extensive overview of the problem or the issue. My understanding is that the Departments have not come back, that some of the work here has not been concluded and, therefore, I do not think we can sign off on the report without teasing out the issues that have been raised.
I will not go through each report but I can give some examples. Perhaps the newer Members may wish to raise issues to give them a steer on what is happening. For example, under farm grants, in chapter 1, page 3, the Department decided on the scheme at a cost of €550 million but, in fact, it cost €1.1 billion. The question has to be asked, where did the money come from to offset the balance? What Departments or other schemes were deprived of money at that time to shore up the shortfall in this scheme? At that time, the committee said that, as a start the committee would wish that the Department had a better system of profiling the type of farmer who should benefit most from such schemes. We must find out if that has been put in place or what has happened.
In terms of the delivery of broadband, which is an issue in most constituencies, that broadband structure was delivered in 2009. The report reflects on its delivery. Is the broadband system currently in place actually being used? Is it generating revenue or is that still a continuing problem? That is something this committee might like to know.
In another chapter, the issue of FÁS was raised and debated publicly. There is a comment in the chapter to the effect that FÁS was to conclude some business and come back to us. Has that happened? Until we know all of these things we cannot sign off on the report. This report should be attached to whatever work we do with whatever agencies or Accounting Officers appear before the committee, so that we can explore in a very real way the changes that have taken place, if any, or the questions that arise from this report, and there are many, so it is unsatisfactory.
I agree with the Chairman. Some of the material relates to March 2009. The whole controversy around FÁS, at least in public terms, has played itself out. We are doing more than playing catch-up. It is very unorthodox that a piece of work would be done by this committee and it meets a logjam somewhere in the system and then we are presented with reports and accounts that are out of date. We need to remedy that. The point I wish to make is more fundamental, I am not questioning the efficacy of this work and the merit of this report, but clearly there are issues that have to be clarified. Are we as a committee being asked to sign off on findings, and then recommendations arising from a process of which many of us were not a part, given that we were not here for the calling of witnesses for the hearing of evidence?
Let me give an example of my concerns. One of the recommendations made in respect of drug rehabilitation and treatment services is a source of worry, particularly with regard to individual markers and a relaxation of the data protection laws in order to track individuals as they move through the system. I am all for effective rehabilitation and proper service delivery. I am also very concerned for people's privacy and data protection and about the effect the recommendation might have in that regard. As such, I would not be happy to sign off on any report or recommendation that has such things contained within it. Does the Chairman understand the point I am making? Perhaps my concern stems from the fact that I missed the session at which the logic behind the recommendation was explained and when reassurance was provided. I am of the view that the report contains elements which are not about what the Accounting Officer did or did not do or the inadequacies of the system but about much bigger issues. Therefore, it is not just unorthodox but improper to ask a committee to sign off on a document in this manner. I know, however, that is not the Chairman's fault and I am not saying it is. I suggest we seek a way to siphon out those elements that are accountancy or money matters such as those to which the Chairman alluded in respect of farm subsidies and pursue them without asking the committee, particularly new members, to sign off on more substantive, almost policy recommendations. If that is what we are being asked to do, we will have to have the whole debate again as a group to see whether we agree or disagree, but we already have a long agenda. I suggest, therefore, that we refine the issues more precisely.
I agree with much of what Deputy Mary Lou McDonald has said. As a new member looking at the draft report, I see it as an account of grotesque misspending of public money by State agencies. When one reads chapter 2 on FÁS, one relives and sees in black and white issues such as the giving of tickets for concerts and matches and senior public servants availing of lavish hospitality at my expense and that of every other taxpayer and the lack of normal controls. I made the point at the first meeting of this committee that I did not want to just tick a box and say, "There we go, that report or body of work is done," and the issue then disappears. I am certainly not sure where we stand on the entire FÁS issue. In the current economic climate it is very important that we follow up with organisations; the Chairman has made a similar suggestion. I suggest that, before we sign off on this report, issues of concern to members of the committee should be highlighted and pursued by the secretariat to ascertain the up-to-date position. I wholeheartedly agree with the Chairman's suggestion of beefing-up, be it in the foreword by the Chairman or elsewhere, to send a clear message that this will not just be a committee which knocks down trees to produce lovely reports, that there must be an implementation process to be engaged in by the Government, Departments and State agencies. I welcome the Chairman's comments in that regard.
The report deals with the hearings held between July 2009 and January 2011. However, the accounting years covered should be stated on the cover. While hearings were held in July 2009, the relevant accounts could have been for 2007.
I suggest we dispose of the report and move on, but the committee should not make a recommendation with which it is unhappy. There are five or six chapters, but the recommendations run to only approximately half a page for each one. I suggest the Chairman include a preface to the report stating the new committee acknowledges the investigations undertaken and the evidence received in making findings. However, let the recommendations be ours. We need to dispose of the report in the interests of conducting the proper business of the Committee of Public Accounts. Elections come and go and we all have to stand over the recommendations made in our name. The old committee held hearings and statements were made at meetings and evidence was produced. We should admit that this was done and state we are not commenting on it, that we are just making recommendations. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald mentioned the recommendation on PPS numbers. We will never get anyone to go into a drug treatment centre if he or she thinks the Garda will get his or her PPS number. We must be very careful in dealing with such an issue. There is a simpler way to deal with it. We should clear the recommendations and explain in a preface to the report what we are doing and then move on.
I do not suggest for one second that we should sign off on the report. The committee has just been formed and has not had a chance to peruse the information contained in the report, nor have we had an opportunity to say logically and conclusively that an element of business can be wrapped up. Signing off will require a bigger input from us and involve more time, but this must be done in the interests of conducting business properly. If that means more or longer sittings, so be it.
All of the points made by previous speakers are valid, but we must sign off on the report and get down to dealing with the body of work we have to do. We must find a position on the report with which members are comfortable. I accept the point that this will involve extra work. The point I take from the report is that when we come up with findings, we must set deadlines for bodies in coming back to us so as to have a beginning, a middle and an end. The problem is that the tail-end of the work done in compiling the report is drifting into our work programme and my concern is that this will drag on for too long. We need to find an accommodation with which the committee members can live.
To accommodate previous speakers, the secretariat and the Comptroller and Auditor General, I propose we extract the recommendations, deal with the unfinished business highlighted in terms of the work of the previous committee which needs to be continued by this committee, sign off on the limited report and use the Chairman's remarks to capture what has been said to explain to Accounting Officers and others that it is not a case of business as usual, that we will not tolerate the way business was conducted and that they need to sharpen their pencils. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The witness withdrew.
The committee adjourned at 10.50 a.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 7 July 2011.