Are the minutes of the meeting of 7 July 2011 agreed?
Business of Committee
I was at that meeting but my name is not on the attendance list.
I apologise for that. Subject to that correction are the minutes agreed? Agreed. If there are no matters arising from the minutes we will proceed. I apologise for that. The next item is correspondence received since the meeting of Thursday, 7 July 2011. No. 3.1 is correspondence received dated 27 June 2011 from Mr. Ray Mitchell, director of the parliamentary and regulatory affairs division of the Health Service Executive. It responds to correspondence forwarded by the previous committee regarding Cork University Hospital. We will deal with Nos. 3.1 and 3.2 together but for the information of members, issues relating to the Cork University Hospital foundation were raised with the committee of the 30th Dáil, which was informed that the internal audit of the HSE was conducting an investigation of this foundation.
The internal audit report makes serious findings in the way this foundation was run. There now appears to be a shortfall of €162,000 and there is a question mark over consultancy expenditure of €365,000, which was procured in a non-competitive manner. The committee must revisit the issue and I propose that we refer it back to the Accounting Officer of the HSE for a note, which can be supplied in time for the examination of the accounts of the HSE. We will note and publish this. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 3.3 is correspondence received dated 7 July 2011 from Ms Susan Gilvarry, solicitor to the Tribunal to Inquire into Certain Planning Matters and Payments re the committee's third interim report on the procurement of legal services by public bodies. This correspondence will be noted and published. As the previous committee had agreed to add the tribunal correspondence as an appendix to its report in order to have the matter fully dealt with, I propose that we accede to the request of the tribunal. Is that agreed?
Has that report been published?
Clerk to the Committee
It was published and it is on the relevant website. We can place it as an appendix to the report as it is clarifying a certain matter that was raised which the tribunal was concerned about. We did not get the legalities right so we will just put the correspondence with the report.
It is to be helpful and resolve the issue.
I agree with that completely.
No. 3.4 is correspondence received dated 7 July 2011 from Mr. Benny Gilsenan, spokesman for retailers against smuggling re providing further information to the committee regarding cigarette and tobacco smuggling, to be noted and published. Is that agreed? Agreed. Correspondence was received 13 July 2011 is from Mr. Diarmuid Byrne, head of administration at the Financial Services Ombudsman Bureau re correspondence forwarded by the committee regarding a complaint made by Tomás Ó Scanlon on dormant bank accounts in Germany, to be noted. Is that agreed? Agreed. Correspondence was received 13 July 2011 from Mr. Tom Moran, Secretary General at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food re his opening statement, to be noted and published. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Is there a list of witnesses for today? We have somebody from the Department of Finance, Ms Gráinne McGuckin, principal officer. Will the witnesses not come from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform as opposed to the Department of Finance?
She is from that Department.
We have finished with the Department of Finance officials, by and large, coming here. Officials from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform will be here from now on.
Clerk to the Committee
Yes, and Ms McGuckin is from that Department.
That is all I am asking.
No. 4 is reports, statements and accounts received since the meeting of 7 July 2011. Without reading them out, the items range from 4.1 to 4.15 and take in VECs. They will all be noted. We encountered the same problem with the out of date VEC accounts at last week's meeting, and the Comptroller and Auditor General explained the position last Thursday. Related correspondence has been published on the committee website. We dealt with the matter last week and will continue to highlight it.
I have a question on this. We covered the issue at last week's meeting so it is just a brief question to ensure my understanding is correct. Taking County Meath VEC, No. 4.6, as an example, it provides a financial statement up to the end of 2004. Does that mean the last six to seven years of financial statements are still due?
Mr. John Buckley
It appears that they lodged 2005 on 31 January 2007, 2006 on 16 October 2007 and 2007 on 6 October 2009. The subsequent accounts were lodged. What happened is that there were a number of accounts which they have recently identified that they did not lodge, but they managed to lodge the subsequent years. One could argue that perhaps they should have been tracking and should not submit an account to the Oireachtas for 2006 without checking if they had already sent the account for 2005. However, those are the facts.
I am conscious that we discussed this on the last occasion. Is that still the common trend across all the VECs before us? If I picked County Roscommon VEC, for example, subsequent years are lodged-----
Mr. John Buckley
Yes, one will find that 2007 was lodged on 29 October 2008 and 2008 on 19 October 2009 and so forth. They were done in the normal fashion in the subsequent years.
Thank you.
The VECs are an example of a broader issue with regard to all the Departments. I spoke to you about this, Chairman, in recent days. The VECs are a good example of the downsizing that will occur over the next couple of years. Most of our constituencies will see the amalgamation of VECs. I have written to the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Skills asking what system the Department has in place to determine where the new locations should be. I am concerned that some Departments do not have proper analysis of where to put new offices, if there is downsizing in a region or a county. I suggested that the Committee of Public Accounts has jurisdiction or a remit in this area, because this ultimately has a bearing on savings for the taxpayer. I promised you correspondence, Mr. Buckley, and I will get that to you in the next couple of days. This is a general issue the committee should examine. We should correspond with the different Departments to ascertain what systems they have in place to determine properly where downsized offices should be located. My concern or suspicion is that some Departments have proper systems, but some do not.
Mr. John Buckley
In the autumn the committee will be able to examine work we did on semi-State downsizing. We will make a certain number of suggestions in that, including that just as one needs a change management plan when one's entity is expanding, one also needs a plan when it is reducing. Also, clearly, one can then raise issues about optimum distribution and how modern techniques can be used to determine the optimum places for siting offices, centres and so forth.
Deputy Deasy suggests, if I understand him correctly, that this should be front-loaded, that the Departments that are currently downsizing, at a quite rapid pace, should have a model to work to and that they get the optimum from what he suggests with an appropriate and cost-effective geographic location.
Exactly.
The same applies to a Department attempting to downsize and where it is abandoning decentralisation and so forth. Perhaps you would address that, Mr. Buckley, in terms of bringing it forward.
Chairman, you mentioned decentralisation. Without getting political, it did not work. The concept was bad from the first day. We must get away from that and if we do not create a model for downsizing in the different Departments, we will repeat that experience to a certain extent. Mr. Buckley said he is dealing with semi-State companies. Is it limited to semi-State companies?
Mr. John Buckley
We have already published this report; it is in last year's report. It might be useful to tag the conversation on to that report because it deals with the agencies that were already downsized, what we could learn from the process that has already happened and the deficiencies.
Fair enough.
Mr. John Buckley
The Deputy's concerns are somewhat related to that. Perhaps the conversation can be informed by that work.
To pick up the Chairman's point, can we front-load this? Can we contact the Departments and ask them what models they have in place if downsizing occurs in regional offices throughout the country?
We could find out if there is a model of best practice somewhere in the middle of that. Can we do that?
Clerk to the Committee
Yes, we can do that.
We will do it as a matter of urgency, because it is current.
The VECs are probably the best example.
We will write to each Department and get the views of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. We will tag that with the Comptroller and Auditor General's report and hold a separate meeting on it as soon as possible.
Thank you.
No. 5 is the work programme. The autumn work programme will be circulated to members for agreement at next week's meeting. The other work programme is to be noted.
On the work programme, with no disrespect to Deputy Deasy, I notice that I am lead speaker today and he is second speaker and then it rotates to him as lead speaker and me as second speaker over the course of several meetings. Could that be moved around by one speaker so it is not always the same pair? It is Deputy Kieran O'Donnell and Deputy Shane Ross next week and they participate in reverse order in the same way too. Perhaps we could be moved around rather than having set pairs each week.
We can do that. It is a matter for members to draw our attention to what way they want it configured so we can deal with it.