COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate -
Thursday, 29 Sep 2011

Business of Committee

Chairman

I wish to deal with a matter that was before the committee last Thursday. We were informed by the director general of FÁS that he would respond to us within one week and give us the information requested by Members last week. We made perfectly clear to him the urgent need to correct the record. Late yesterday evening two items of correspondence were circulated to committee members relating to the issue of incorrect information given by FÁS officials in 2008 and 2009. Members will recall our discussion with the director general of FÁS last week. Greg Craig, who I understand is in litigation with FÁS, his employer, circulated it. In that letter, Mr. Craig proposed that the report by Mazars should be given to the committee.

The Mazars report relates to grievous claims by employees of FÁS against senior officials in FÁS. That case and much of the content we are discussing is before the High Court. As committee members we cannot involve ourselves in any issue to do with it, especially since it is before the court. Our sole business of last week and the outstanding business now relates to the public record and the need to correct it. There is a public duty on FÁS and the director general to ensure this takes place. The communication from FÁS up to now, including the director general having suggested it would take a week to resolve it, has not resolved it. We have been informed more or less that they cannot be of help to us.

That is the position. It is now up to the committee members to decide what we should do next. Since this information arrived late yesterday evening and partly in a discussion with the secretary of the committee this morning, it has not been considered in any great detail. Either we consider it in a discussion now or members can discuss it privately. Since FÁS has been moved from one Department to another perhaps we should have both Accounting Officers here for a discussion to decide on what we will do. As of now there is no resolution in terms of what the committee asked of the director general last week. I take it the committee members have seen the correspondence.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

While the material supplied to us is not high in quantity there is a good deal to consider. It strikes me that we are dealing with two issues: first, the way in which the Committee of Public Accounts was treated and, second, the consistency between what was said at the Committee of Public Accounts and what was contained in the report. Mr. Craig's correspondence contains several points that are germane to how the Committee of Public Accounts was treated.

Notably, he confirms in the correspondence that the FÁS organisation was made fully aware of the report in early April 2011, almost six months ago, but nothing happened with the publication of the report. However, that date is not consistent with another date shared with us. We were informed that those in FÁS accepted the findings of the report in January this year but now we are being told they were informed in April of this year. These are two different dates and we have to understand that.

There is also a point in Mr. Craig's correspondence where he requested that the Committee of Public Accounts be informed of the details of the report on 14 January this year. That gives credence to the point made by colleagues on how long the report has been in the possession of FÁS and why nothing happened across that period. The second last paragraph of Mr. Craig's letter states that he had last Friday agreed with Mazars that the report could be presented to the Committee of Public Accounts by Mazars and that Mazars could make a full presentation of the report to the committee if required. He goes on to state that he sought agreement from the Director General of FÁS to release the report and from the Secretaries General of the Departments of Social Protection and Education and Skills and in all cases the request was refused. It appears that we must consider if we have access to the report given that one of the participants has asked that it be shared with us.

That is my response, that some of our concerns about timing have been verified by the correspondence sent through and Mr. Craig's direction to Mazars might change our ability to gain access to the material of the report. There is not a lot in the report by Mazars that would facilitate us in moving this forward.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

What form has the communication with FÁS taken in the past few days? Was it by phone? What view is FÁS taking? Even the Mazars report states that two of the nine complained against did not participate. Can we ask Mazars to appear before us? Reading this report, it appears the inaccuracies came from a limited number of witnesses who appeared. Two of the nine complainants did not participate in the investigation. There may be a case where even the Mazars report is incomplete. It is vital the Director General of FÁS is asked to come back. What was given to the committee at the past four or five meetings was clearly unsatisfactory. Where do we stand with bringing the Director General of FÁS back in and is it within our powers to request Mazars to appear before the committee?

Chairman

We can ask Mazars to come back. As this letter and the information we now have came late, and has not been considered by me or the officials, and in light of what members have said, we should get on with our business and consider this later, speak to the parties involved and then decide what must be done. If necessary, as Deputy Deasy said last week, we need not wait until next Thursday for a meeting. We need time to look at this and to devise a strategy for making progress.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

There is enough in the material that has been shared with us to indicate the grounds for the concerns the committee raised last week. If we look at the correspondence from Mazars about the cost of the report, the total value of fees invoiced is €181,000 excluding VAT. The cost of the report has already exceeded €200,000.

Chairman

Clearly the information on dates given last week was incorrect. It does not compare with the dates mentioned in correspondence and reports. The figure exclusive of VAT is not where the Director General of FÁS started the day he was with us. It was only the intervention of Deputy Ross that led to the figure going from €150,000 to €250,000.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

Even that starting point was wrong. We were told to date it was €150,000 but to date it is more than €200,000 - €181,000 plus VAT, plus solicitors' fees of €25,000.

Chairman

There are issues with last week's submission, never mind going back to Mazars and the other information. The best we can do this morning is consider what members have said and think about what we need to do as a committee.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

Will the Chairman then make a proposal at our next meeting when this has been considered regarding the best way to move forward?

Chairman

I can do it even before then.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

We can then consider it.

Chairman

I have suggested we should talk to the Accounting Officer and the Director General of FÁS and, if necessary, Mazars and we may need to seek other advice and we will do so immediately.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

In the Joint Committee on Transport in the last Dáil, we went through a cycle like this for an audit process for a report commissioned on procurement practices in Iarnród Éireann. We went through an extensive number of meetings to work out what we could and could not do. There may be points that emerged from that process that might be germane to this that could shorten the process.

Chairman

Having listened to members, read the correspondence and understanding what was said last week, we will have to seek legal advice. We will do that and take into account the Deputy's remarks.

Turning to the agenda for today's meeting, are the minutes of the meeting of 22 September 2010 agreed? Agreed. Are there any matters arising from those minutes? No.

Correspondence has been received since then, on 23 September 2011, from the Department of Finance forwarding briefing papers prepared by the Department for the Accounting Officer for the PAC meeting, 21 July 2011. These are to be noted. For the information of members, the Department contacted the secretariat on Friday of last week to say the briefing papers prepared for the accounting officer were being released under FOI. As a matter of courtesy the Department decided to release them to the committee in advance of their release. A briefing will be organised for committee members within the next two weeks.

There is also correspondence from 23 September 2011 from Mr. Ray Mitchell, parliamentary and regulatory affairs in the Health Service Executive, to provide up to date information on the chapters scheduled for examination at the meeting on 29 September 2011 as previously requested by the committee. That is to be noted and published. This update is relevant to today's discussion with the HSE.

Further correspondence was received on 23 September 2011 from Mr. Ray Mitchell, parliamentary and regulatory affairs in the Health Service Executive, related to updated information on the findings of the Cork University Hospital Foundation internal audit as previously requested by the committee. That is to be noted and published. Correspondence received on 26 September 2011 from Mr. Don Curry, former ISME Chairman and audit signatory, forwarding correspondence regarding a complaint made by Mr. Frank Mulcahy to be noted. This is a matter for the director of corporate enforcement and not this committee. The previous committee had corresponded with Mr. Mulcahy and agreed it had no role in the matter. Correspondence received on 27 September 2011 from John Moriarty, Dublin Waterworld Limited re Campus Stadium Ireland Development limited will also be noted. We have received a large amount of documentation from this individual. This matter is the subject of Chapter 30 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report and we will refer to this documentation again when that meeting is scheduled.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

On that point, I have tried to digest this gigantic document, with claim and counter claim, response and counter response. There appears to be some serious points raised in the documents, which will be dealt with at the appropriate meeting of the committee. Has the Chairman an idea of the timeframe for the meeting?

Chairman

We will try to schedule that meeting early because of the point made by the Deputy. I ask members to make themselves aware of the very detailed and complex issues in this correspondence.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

The net point being made is that a State body acted against the advice of the Attorney General. Allegations have been made about ignoring Revenue Commissioner's advice. There are serious points made inside complex material. When the meeting is set up, we do have to make a response.

Chairman

There is a lot of correspondence.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

A significant amount.

Chairman

We will get an early date for that meeting.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

Will we respond to the person who raised this matter with the committee to let that person know we are dealing with it?

Chairman

We will acknowledge the correspondence. As soon as we get an indication of the date, we will let that person know.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

Thank you.

Chairman

Correspondence was received on 28 September 2011 from Mr. Ray Mitchell, assistant national director, HSE. It is the transcript of HSE proceedings on 15 September 2011 and information provided to the committee following the meeting of 14 July 2011. This is to be noted and published. Members may want to pursue the issue of the performance of emergency departments with the HSE as a follow up to the evidence given on 14 July and the letter of the HSE on 26 July.

Correspondence was received on 28 September 2011 from Mr. Cathal Magee, chief executive of the HSE. It is his opening statement, to be noted and published. Correspondence received 28 September 2011 from Mr. Dera McLoughlin, partner, Mazars investigating into matters raised under FÁS grievance procedure, to be noted and published.

Correspondence received 28 September 2011 from Mr. Paul O'Toole, director general of FÁS re Mazars internal report to be noted and published.

The next item is reports and statements on accounts received since our meeting on 22 September last. They are noted from 4.1. to 4.3.

The NAMA accounts have been scheduled for 3 November 2011, so we will defer notation of these accounts until then. The Department of Finance's financial statements are relevant to Chapter 1 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's 2010 report. We will also defer notation of them until the Department is before the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We have prepared a draft work programme, which members can see on their screens. The principal changes are as follows. It is now proposed that we will examine the accounts of NAMA on 3 November 2011, we will call the Accounting Officer of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform on 8 December 2011, where members will get an opportunity to discuss the comprehensive expenditure review. Does anybody wish to comment on the work programme, with the exception of dealing with Dublin Waterworld Limited, as we will try to get an early date for that hearing?

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

The chairman said NAMA will come before the committee on 3 November. Is the Oireachtas sitting that week?

Chairman

According to the schedule, issued yesterday, it will sit that week.

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

I have heard differently this week, but I have not confirmed it.

Chairman

The Deputy has the inside track. We will find out and adjust the date, if necessary.

What is the procedure for dealing with all these accounts that have come before the committee, particularly the accounts of the VECs? Is there a particular chapter or area relevant to their accountability?

Mr. John Buckley

Chairman, no. There have been three special reports on the VECs in the past year. One could consider calling the three vocational education committees for three short sessions on one day and have the Accounting Officer for the Department here as well and deal with VEC issues generally. Our annual report does not contain those reports. Those reports are separate special reports that are published.

I have signed two of them and another will be done very soon. It is up to the Accounting Officer to lay them in the normal fashion.

Chairman

I was just concerned because the accounts coming in seem to be quite dated in some cases.

Mr. John Buckley

I think we went through this point before the recess. We explained that it was a delay in tabling that was the issue, and not necessarily a delay in finalising the accounts.

Chairman

Is it the case that we should indicate to the Accounting Officer that we would like to have these reports dealt with and that they would in turn do whatever is necessary on their side? We need to move things along because there is a big block of accounts. If the reports are done, we should urge them on so that the reports can be brought before the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We now come to Annual Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and Appropriation Accounts for the Health Service Executive.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

May I make a point on the correspondence received? I note in the document entitled 3000, which is about public private partnerships, that there is quite an amount that has been redacted on the operation of Public Private Partnerships. When one gets this volume of correspondence, I think the people who send it hope members will not read it because there is so much. When they then black out a section of the report and do not explain the reason for doing so, it is unacceptable to me. If they wish to redact parts of a report, I would like to be told the reason the information is redacted.

Chairman

We can only offer a possible explanation that it may be commercially sensitive information. That information is going as a reply to a request under the Freedom of Information, and the Department has copied it to the committee. We can raise it with the Department.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

We should be told that. This has happened quite a few times. There is a section on the settlement costs to the planning tribunal, where we are informed that settlement costs awarded to the planning tribunal in 2010 was €0 and the paragraph underneath it is blanked out. If it is commercially sensitive information, and I understand that it could be, we should be at least given an explanation as to why it is blanked out.

Chairman

We will seek an explanation.