Are the minutes of the meeting of 21 July 2011 agreed to? Agreed. Under the heading of matters arising from other minutes, we can address the issue of FÁS. In the public domain there was a recent report indicating that some information given to the committee during those hearings was wrong or inaccurate. I have asked the clerk to seek information from FÁS with regard to the matter. The Mazars report indicates the information was not accurate and it has taken up to now for the report to be analysed and the information to come to our attention. It was not brought to our attention by FÁS but through the media, which is unacceptable. If it was discovered in December that the information was inaccurate or wrong, FÁS should have informed the committee. I am informing members of the current position and that we have sought the information from the director general of FÁS, a copy of the report and his comment with regard to content and inaccuracies which were discovered. I suggest to the committee that we consider the matter and possibly wait for the response from FÁS. Alternatively, we could ask representatives of FÁS to appear again before the committee.
Business of Committee
We should ask those representatives to come before the committee. There are many questions to ask and apart from that, the annual report has been published since we last spoke on the topic in this committee. There are questions which must be answered.
If no other member has a view, I agree that we should ask representatives of FÁS to come before the committee as soon as possible with the required information. This would include detail of the information which was given, inaccuracies and differences between the accounts. Perhaps we can also deal with the Vote.
We can ask for a written explanation as to why the information was not brought to our attention.
The clerk has written to the director general and put FÁS on notice. With regard to our work programme, we will give it a priority if that is the decision of the committee, send a message and get the representatives of FÁS in here as soon as possible.
Do we ever ask members of a board before the committee or is it just chief executives?
We deal with Accounting Officers. The chairman of the board in question has been before us.
I am not necessarily suggesting it and I have not given it any consideration. Is there any reason we should not ask other members of the board before the committee as well?
Normally it is the chairman or Accounting Officer, and they would answer for the board. In this case, in dealing with the inaccuracies or wrong information - however one wishes to describe it - we can ask them to appear before the committee and deal with that, as well as up-to-date matters arising from the report. Previously, the Director General, as the Accounting Officer, and the chairman appeared before the committee and we will follow that practice.
I am not suggesting, because I have not given it any thought, that on this occasion we should invite the board. However, there might be issues of corporate governance here. There might be a lot of State agencies where the boards have not been kept informed of what is going on and where whether they have been told is extremely relevant, for example, in this case about the Mazars report perhaps and whether they were told that the information had not reached the public arena for various reasons. It is important on certain occasions to know what is happening on these boards and what the supposedly independent directors are doing. I do not think we should automatically just bring the Accounting Officer before the committee but we should consider inviting non-executive board members in future and on this occasion.
Chairman, to be clear about this, we are saying that the committee believes FÁS has supplied the committee with wrong information and for that reason its representatives should be invited here to clarify what they said and when they said it. Is that not what you are saying?
Yes. The issue is that the wrong information has been discovered by the Mazars report. Central to that is the fact that FÁS would have known from that report that wrong or incorrect information was given to this committee. FÁS did not come forward with that information; it was through media reports and other means that we found out. It is simply not good enough for the work of this committee that FÁS would ignore the importance of the committee, its responsibility in this and its obligation to correct the record of this committee and the House. Therefore, its representatives should be invited here to do that, explain how it happened, what the inaccuracies are and what the true information is. To achieve that we should invite before the committee the people who came before the committee previously and gave that information.
That is fine.
We should do it immediately and schedule it into our work programme as soon as possible. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Regarding correspondence received since the meeting on Thursday, 21 July, at the meeting on 14 July the committee agreed to seek information from each Department on guidelines and principles that have been drawn up in respect of the location of new entities which arise where subsidiary bodies are being merged or where local offices are being rationalised. This morning we received the last of the replies. To give the issue full attention, I propose that we note and publish all this correspondence and that we defer consideration of the issue until next week's meeting. It is apparent that Departments are not working towards an over-riding strategy and it appears that the location of offices is left to local considerations, with no input from the central Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.
Yes, we can defer it until next week. The point here was to find out from the Departments if there was a joined-up rationale within Departments. I am sure the members have seen the responses from the different Departments but I will mention a few. The Department of Health takes the OECD's recommendations on downsizing and it is examining those. That is fair enough. The Department of Social Protection is a critical Department with many branch offices throughout the country but the only criteria it mentions are geographic criteria. The strangest response, frankly, came from the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. It said the Department would base its plans and strategy on downsizing, if that occurred, on what the local authorities were doing and what the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government had put in place. There are more responses. It is a type of polyglot. It is all over the place and there is no stream running through them in terms of having a general plan when it comes to potential downsizing.
Then there is the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is clear from what its representatives said when they were before this committee and from what they have sent the committee that they have looked long and hard at this. The criteria include an even spread across the country, using a building that is owned rather than leased, the availability of staff to work in that location, ease of deployment, an alternative use for the building that has been identified, anticipated future demand for services, the efficiency and manageability of the new unit and so forth. They really looked at saving money and at efficiencies within the Department and within Government when it came to downsizing its many offices over the last five or six years.
I agree that we must wait for all the responses and examine them. I am aware that the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General is somewhat confined in areas but it does apply to examinations of economy, efficiency, effectiveness, evaluation systems within Departments and the procedures and practices within Departments. Initially, following a quick look at these responses, I believe we should act on the response from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, go to the people who drew this policy up within the Department and see if there is a model that could be put in place and which could be dealt with by the committee and its staff and that could, in turn, be recommended to the different Departments.
That is my initial response. This is about good government, streamlining government and making sense with regard to costs for taxpayers. It is clear from the responses so far that there is no joined-up thinking between the Departments when dealing with downsizing.
What are you suggesting?
Initially, I suggest that the Comptroller and Auditor General examine this. My personal reaction after examining what the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food sent the committee is that the departmental staff have thought about this, have put an extremely efficient model in place and have proved it could work. However, it is the only Department that appears to have done that. We should talk to the people in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who put this model together and prepare a potential model to send to the other Departments for use in the case of downsizing.
To refer again to the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, for a Department that size to say it is basing everything on what would happen within local government and councils merging is frankly weird.
Will Mr. Buckley comment on that?
Mr. John Buckley
I will be happy to examine it and perhaps bring a paper to the committee about the scope of any such investigation. I will do a preliminary study and refer back to the committee. There is provision in the terms of reference for consulting with the committee. We can certainly do that.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 3.1 is correspondence received on 20 July 2011 from Michael Scanlan, Secretary General of the Department of Health. It is forwarding a note previously requested by the committee on the late submission of the Health Information and Quality Authority's annual financial statements for the year ending 31 December 2009. This is to be noted and published.
No. 3.2 is correspondence received on 28 July 2011 from Ms Laverne McGuinness, national director with the Health Service Executive, providing information requested by the committee at the meeting on 7 July 2011. This is to be noted and published. The Committee of Public Accounts asked for an update of the figure 2.2 which showed the relative performance of emergency departments. While the latest correspondence gives some information on the relative performance, it is not comprehensive in comparison to the information available in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. To that extent, the HSE has not provided the information sought by the committee and it is a matter we will have to take up with the Accounting Officer at our meeting on 29 September. That is the up-to-date position. Members will recall the table from the Comptroller and Auditor General. It is difficult to cross reference that table with the table sent by the HSE. Again, we brought this to the attention of the HSE when its representatives last appeared before the committee, but the information is not really clear. We must ask them for clarification on the matter at the next meeting.
At the meeting with the HSE representatives other pieces of information were sought by members and we deliberately asked that they be submitted to the committee in a timely fashion. That has not happened either. It is something we must take up with the different Departments and Accounting Officers when they come in here. We are now beginning our work programme again and the information we requested from the HSE at the last meeting has not been submitted in a way that is acceptable to the committee. I ask members to note that because as we go from one meeting to another, it is important that we are given the information we ask for.
We had roughly 19 officials from both the Department of Health and the HSE before us on that day. The meeting lasted about two and a half hours and all we got was waffle. The HSE was here to respond to specific work done by the Comptroller and Auditor General but instead gave us an aspirational opening statement on what the health service does and aspires to do. It was here to discuss the table we have in front of us but it did not address it at all. We asked the HSE to respond to the table and again the reply we have received weeks later does not correlate at all. Is there a limit on the time Accounting Officers should be given to present an opening statement? I listened to the chief executive of the HSE that day talking at length about the health service while completely ignoring the issue we were here to discuss. When we eventually reached the crux of the topic, he did not have any of the information. He would have been better to admit he had not bothered to read the Comptroller and Auditor General's report.
This is the second time I have been on this committee and there is a time limit but they never stick to it. The Deputy is absolutely correct; it is as if they want to sedate us with excessive verbiage when they appear here.
Did the HSE offer an explanation for failing to deliver the information or did it acknowledge it as an issue before we contacted it? Is there any sanction open to the committee for organisations that repeatedly fail to provide information in the way that it is requested and within a certain timeframe?
If we go back to what was asked of the HSE at our last meeting, members raised specific issues and some of those issues were beyond the subject being discussed on that day. It was fair to ask the HSE if it would give us that information in a timely fashion. I reminded the delegation that we would like the information by return almost. The HSE has not responded to that; it has by and large ignored many of the real questions that were asked by the committee. That is not good enough.
The length of the opening statement is another issue that was raised prior to the meeting with most Accounting Officers and we told them we wanted the statement to be short and snappy because this was a members' meeting at which we wanted to get information from those before us. A further message must be sent out from this committee that, as Deputy Harris said, waffle will not do in this committee. We want clear, concise reporting of affairs and the opportunity for members to ask questions on it.
Accounting Officers can be reminded of that but we do not have any way to sanction Departments. That is a weakness in the committee and something that has been brought to the attention of Ministers for Finance down the years. We can continue to ask them to come in, as we are now doing with FÁS, and we must be vigilant about questioning witnesses, getting the information we want and ensuring they respect the role of the Committee of Public Accounts. It is the members in their work and their cross-examination of witnesses who will achieve that. Otherwise we keep asking them in to clarify, as was the case with Deputy Deasy this morning with the response we received on his question. There is no other way to deal with this but to ask Mr. Buckley to do a report and come back to invite in the responsible Departments once more.
If we are to do our work, we must have the support of the line Minister. He must understand we are having difficulty with certain Departments and that some form of sanction or timeframe must be laid down to enable us to get the information the taxpayer wants to see us get from Accounting Officers. If we start out on a road where we accept the poor standards being set by Departments, we will undermine the importance of this committee. We can request the outstanding information from the HSE again and we have agreed to take action on FÁS.
It might do no harm at this point to mention the legislation that will be before the Oireachtas on the committees because it is relevant to this discussion. We should ask the Minister or the officials to come before us to explain that legislation relevant to the inquiries we can conduct as a committee. Within that legislation there is talk of change and we want to ensure this committee is central to the scrutiny of public accounts and that we have the appropriate authority behind us to sanction or, at least, impose a timeframe to conduct our work. I suggest we request a briefing on the legislation.
I agree with almost everything the Chairman said but I differ slightly that in some cases we do not have the power to deal with them. We have the power to call a meeting whenever we feel like it. If someone is being obstructive on the imparting of information to the committee, we can call for an impromptu meeting at any time during the week, as opposed to a Thursday. They will quickly get the message if that comes across their desk. If they refuse to show up or delay, we will keep asking and the message will get across. If that message needs to be sent to the Department and to the Accounting Officers, we have that power.
Is it agreed we seek a briefing on that legislation as it relates to the committee? Taking Deputy Deasy's point, it need not happen on a Thursday.
Item 3.3 is correspondence received on 31 July 2011 from Mr. Tom Moran, Secretary General of the Department Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on the provision of information requested by the committee at its meeting on 14 July 2011, to be noted and published. Item 3.4 is correspondence received on 31 July 2011 from Ms Brigid McManus, Secretary General of the Department of Education and Skills, on the properties transferring under the terms of the indemnity agreement, to be noted and published. This correspondence outlines that two further properties have been transferred since the last update in February 2011. There are still 24 properties in total to be transferred. The process is exceedingly slow and has now been dragging on for years. I ask members to note that and perhaps we can raise these issues when we discuss them with the Department.
Item 3.7 is correspondence received on 27 July 2011 from Mr. Myles Duffy, Glenageary, County Dublin on Vote 36, Department of Defence and the Irish Red Cross, to be noted. Correspondence is to be forwarded to the Department of Defence for a note on the issue raised and to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
One thing that struck me about that letter was the fourth paragraph, which stated the Department of Defence is detached and disengaged from the conduct and detailed oversight of this society, notwithstanding that it sponsors the public funding. I thought that was an extraordinary statement to make in the context of the issues being raised here by the Oireachtas and the Department of Defence. As we pass this on for comments to the Department of Defence, I would be interested to hear its response to that particular point.
As we request the Department or the Comptroller and Auditor General to respond, we will draw that particular paragraph to their attention and ask for specific information.
That is an extraordinary comment given the issue being raised.
Item 3.8 is correspondence received on 6 August 2011 from Mr. Brendan Keane, director of the Irish Waste Management Association re taxpayer risk arising from proposed incinerator project at Poolbeg, Dublin, to be noted. Correspondence to be forwarded to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government for a note on the issue raised and to the Comptroller and Auditor General's office for information.
Item 3.9 is correspondence received on 10 August 2011 from Mr. Gerry Mullins, chief executive of the Coach Tourism and Transport Council re alleged misuse of school transport funds, to be noted. Correspondence is to be forwarded to the Department of Education and Skills for a note on the procurement practice carried out in this case and to the Comptroller and Auditor General for information.
Item 3.10 is correspondence received on 20 August 2011 from Mr. Martin Moore of Martin Moore and Company, Tralee, County Kerry, re Revenue Commissioners, to be noted. Correspondence is to be forwarded to the Office of the Revenue Commissioners for information. Notwithstanding the merits or otherwise of the issue raised by Mr. Moore, the Revenue Commissioners are independent in the way audits and so on are conducted and, therefore, my advice is that it is not a matter for the committee.
Item 3.11 is correspondence received on 20 August 2011 from the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, re responding to correspondence sent by the committee on 7 July last regarding the work of the Committee of Public Accounts, to be noted and published. The correspondence arises from letters sent by me, on behalf of the committee, in which we sought progress on a number of issues. As outlined in the letter, some of these are being progressed. On the comprehensive review that is due shortly, it is important that we as a committee get a full briefing in order that we can make it relevant to our value for money examinations. I propose we take up the Minister's offer and get a full brief and a comprehensive review, which is what we had agreed to earlier. The content of the letter is not very helpful to the committee. We also asked the Minister to attend the committee to give us his view on the new Department and how we would engage. As yet, we have had no response to that request. I ask the clerk to prepare a response to that letter and to re-issue the invitation to attend. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 3.15 is correspondence received on 9 September 2011 from Ms Niamh O'Donoghue, Secretary General, Department of Social Protection, re update of Vote and chapter information, to be noted and published. Item 3.23 is correspondence received on 13 September 2011 from Mr. Kevin Cardiff, Secretary General, Department of Finance, re providing information requested by the committee at the meeting of 21 July 2011, to be noted and published. We will return to this issue when dealing with its work programme as I want to deal with the proposed briefing that has been made available to the committee. Item 3.24 is correspondence received on 13 September 2011 from Ms Niamh O'Donoghue, Secretary General, Department of Social Protection, re opening statement, to be noted and published. In regard to the previous item of correspondence relating to Mr. Kevin Cardiff, he offered a briefing and we are accepting that. We will set a date to suit Members to attend that briefing, possibly, within the next two weeks.
Item 3.25 is correspondence received on 18 August from Deputy John Deasy re forwarding correspondence on behalf of Mr. Gerard Donovan, Lismore, County Waterford, seeking to bring the management of Coillte before the Committee of Public Accounts, to be noted. As Coillte does not come within the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General, I propose that this correspondence be referred to the Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture for appropriate action.
Reports and statements and accounts have been received since our meeting on 21 July 2011. While I will not go through each one, they range from Nos. 4.1 to 4.29, and I suggest they be noted. As the National Treatment Purchase Fund and the National Treasury Management Agency are due before the committee on 6 October 2011, we will hold off noting their accounts. If Members hold the view that any public body on the list should be subject to further scrutiny by the committee, he or she can raise the matter with the clerk and at the next meeting we will see how he or she can be accommodated. I ask Members to examine the list of accounts before the committee and if they consider any one of them should be invited to appear before the committee, I ask him or her to inform the clerk.
The work programme agreed at our meeting on 21 July is now on the screen. I have been informed that the 2010 annual report of the Comptroller and Auditor General will be published on Monday next. That report will underpin the work programme of this committee and, therefore, we will consider a draft of our work programme at next week's meeting which will take effect from Thursday, 13 October. If Members wish to raise specific matters arising from next week's report, they will have the opportunity to do so at next week's meeting. As the Comptroller and Auditor General's report will be published next week, there will be an overlap on the issue that this committee will examine on Thursday next with Revenue. Therefore, we will take some of the chapters from the 2010 report, which update the chapters on the 2009 report, and deal with them on Thursday. This is a practical way to do our business. There is a willingness on the part of Revenue to be as up to date as possible and they are agreeable to examine the current report also.
On our work programme, Members will recall that we agreed we would get a briefing from the Department of Finance. That will take place in the coming weeks and the clerk will arrange it. We dealt with the FÁS issue. Do Members wish to comment on the work programme?
When is it envisaged that FÁS will appear before the committee and where does it slot into the work programme? My view is that FÁS should appear next week. It is coming in to clarify the provision of misinformation. It should be simple and straightforward for it to produce the actual information and it should appear before the committee as soon as possible.
We are working on that issue and the clerk has been in touch. FÁS will appear as quickly as possible in terms of our work programme and its availability. I see it as a matter of priority and the sooner it appears before the committee the better. I take Deputy Deasy's point that it may have to go beyond Thursday but we need to react. If possible we will seek to get FÁS to appear at the beginning of the meeting next week and then proceed to take Revenue on the same day. The bigger question of FÁS accounts can be scheduled in because we will need briefing on those accounts, that is, two different meetings.