COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate -
Thursday, 2 Feb 2012

Business of Committee

Chairman

We are dealing with the minutes of the meeting of 26 January 2012. Are the minutes of that meeting agreed? Agreed. No matters arise from those minutes.

The next item is correspondence received since Thursday, 26 January 2012. No.3.1 is correspondence received on 26 January 2012 from Mr. Martin Callinan, Commissioner of An Garda Síochána, forwarding updated information on matters to be considered at this meeting, as previously requested by the committee. It is to be noted and published. No. 3.2 is correspondence dated 13 December 2011 from Mr. Bernard McDaniel, Rathcrogue, County Carlow, forwarding correspondence for the Inspector of Taxes. It is to be noted. Correspondence to be forwarded to the Office of the Revenue Commissioners for direct reply. No. 3.3 is correspondence dated 10 December 2011 from Mr. Hugh Lynn, Castlerea, County Roscommon regarding Loughglynn Garda station. It is to be noted and published. Correspondence to be forwarded to the Garda Commissioner for a note. Members may wish to raise issues highlighted in this correspondence at today's meeting.

No. 3.4 is correspondence dated 23 January 2012 from Mr. John Kinsella, New Ross, County Wexford regarding development of the bed and breakfast sector and the closure of Kilrane tourist office. It is to be noted and published. Mr. Kinsella's reply to the committee will be forwarded to the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport for information. No. 3.5 is correspondence dated 13 January 2012 from Mr. Martin Moore, Martin Moore and Company, Tralee, County Kerry. Correspondence previously forwarded by the committee to the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. It is to be noted. We have been advised by Revenue that the investigation is still ongoing and that they will provide correspondence to the committee regarding same. No. 3.6 is correspondence received on 26 January 2012 from an anonymous source. The letter was sent to the Office of the Revenue Commissioners regarding Dún Laoghaire Golf Club. It is to be noted. Correspondence will be forwarded to the Office of the Revenue Commissioners for appropriate follow up. No. 3.7 is correspondence dated 17 January 2012 from Ms Geraldine Gough, Glasnevin, Dublin 9, regarding Dublin Bus. It is to be noted and published. Correspondence to be forwarded to the Joint Committee on the Environment, Transport and the Gaeltacht for appropriate follow up and to the Department. Dublin Bus is outside the remit of this committee. Presumably that will be pointed out to the writer of the correspondence.

No. 3.8 is correspondence dated 21 January 2012 from Mr. Noel Wardick, former head of international department, Irish Red Cross, regarding the appearance of the Irish Red Cross before the committee on 19 January 2012. It is to be noted and published. The correspondence is to be forwarded to the Irish Red Cross-----

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

On the last item of correspondence 3.8, my understanding from the letter is that further correspondence is pending where pieces of the transcript will be highlighted for the committee. It is claimed that those pieces are inaccurate. This issue will stay on our agenda for the foreseeable future because there is going to be an issue with some of the evidence that was given at the hearing when the Irish Red Cross appeared before the committee a couple of weeks ago. I want to note that. When that further correspondence comes in, it should be sent to Irish Red Cross to ask for its comments on the issues raised.

Chairman

That has to do with evidence given, rather than the record of the meeting. Is that correct?

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

That is correct.

Deputy Derek Nolan

Who sent that letter?

Chairman

Mr. Noel Wardick.

Deputy Derek Nolan

That is fine.

Chairman

Is that okay? Agreed.

Deputy Derek Nolan

Are we in a position to continue to challenge the Irish Red Cross or are we at the discretion of its goodwill to come back to the committee? As the Irish Red Cross is not obliged to report to the committee what is the position?

Chairman

Once it has given the evidence and it has been heard and there are issues arising from that, we are obliged to continue with it, and the Irish Red Cross is obliged to answer.

Deputy Derek Nolan

Okay.

Chairman

That is probably the route this will take.

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

I wish to come back in on that issue. Deputy Nolan is correct on one point that we cannot keep on harassing people who have taken the time to appear before the committee and explain themselves. Following the appearance of the Irish Red Cross a number of people, not just Mr. Noel Wardick, have been in touch with me to express their concerns about certain things that were said, and people who were not previously in touch with me and who might have been named at that meeting, might have an issue with things that were said about their role or what knowledge they may or may not have had at the time. For that reason it is important that we continue to address the issue and bring to the Irish Red Cross those elements of the evidence it gave on the day.

Chairman

We can do that but there is a valid point in terms of Deputy Nolan has said. We cannot continue on willy-nilly, we have to draw a line somewhere. Perhaps as we study the correspondence and the crossfire that has taken place, we can bring it to a natural end at some stage.

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

Hopefully.

Chairman

No. 3.9 is correspondence dated 15 January 2012 from Mr. Padraic Carty, Kells, County Meath regarding proposed betting legislation. This issue is outside the remit of the Committee of Public Accounts and correspondence is to be forwarded to the Minister for Justice and Equality and Defence for information purposes. Item 3.10 is correspondence dated 25 January 2012 from Ms Brigid McManus, Secretary General, Department of Education and Skills, providing a note on correspondence previously forwarded by the committee alleging a breach of the Croke Park agreement in Cork College of Commerce. It is to be noted and published. No. 3.11 is correspondence dated 25 January 2012 from Ms Brigid McManus, Secretary General, Department of Education and Skills, providing a note on correspondence previously forwarded by the committee regarding headquarter locations for merging vocational education committees. It is to be noted and published. No. 3.12 is correspondence dated 24 January 2012 from Councillor Mary Fitzpatrick, Dublin City Council, regarding Dublin City Council domestic waste collection. The correspondence is to be forwarded to the Local Government Audit Service for a note on the issues raised and appropriate follow up and the Joint Committee on the Environment, Transport and the Gaeltacht for information. Local authorities remain outside the remit of the Committee of Public Accounts.

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

I understand this matter is outside our competency as a committee but it is a good example of why they should be within our competency. As the councillor pointed out, there is no visibility here as to the commercial element of the deal. Not to dispute the decision taken by Dublin City Council, it is important that the public knows how that decision was taken and what was involved in the awarding of the contract to the waste management company in question because there have been a huge number of difficulties and anger as a result. However, nominated councillors of the people are of the view that there will not be proper, open, public scrutiny of how exactly the decision was taken and the implications of it. There is already a separate investigation taking place under the Data Consumer Act. In line with the reforms we have speaking about, we hope to see this committee have the ability to look into the accounts and affairs of local authorities. This is a good example of why we should be able to do that and the need for that reform to come quickly.

Deputy Shane Ross

I endorse that. I do not know whose responsibility it is in this instance, yet this case merits serious investigation because the company in question - Greyhound - has a record which was not properly investigated on a previous occasion and it had to pay a large compensation of more than €1 million to CIE. That was never properly investigated either. I would like a marker put down with regard to who has the power to look at the situation. Why do we not have it, because there is significant public money involved.

Chairman

Let me introduce another issue which is important in the context of this conversation, namely the Poolbeg incinerator. I watched the "Prime Time" report on this, which stated that €81 million had been spent on the site, €4.3 million of which had been spent on PR, and that 95% of the spend would be carried by taxpayers. Any taxpayers watching that programme would immediately associate an investigation into Poolbeg with the Committee of Public Accounts because they are unaware this committee has no responsibility in the context of local government accountability in that area. I believe the committee should have responsibility. I put it to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, on the day he was here that in terms of reform it was necessary to have one auditor for the country who would audit anything to do with taxpayers' money. It is a scandal that despite a commitment to legislation on that over the years, it has not yet been put in place and we do not have a single, all-powerful auditor and office that would look after local government and all Departments that spend taxpayers' money.

What struck me about the €81 million odd spent on Poolbeg is that despite the "Prime Time" programme and despite the public concern arising from such programmes, the auditor or auditors responsible for local government never said a word after it. No statement was issued to my knowledge and no comment was made on the amount of €81 million. People saw councillors looking on in dismay and critical of the spend, but they were unable to do anything about it. If we are serious about monitoring taxpayers' money, this Committee of Public Accounts must be equipped with the necessary power and staff to undertake investigations across every Department and agency where taxpayers' money is involved.

Members have raised this difficulty this morning in the context of another matter, but it is a difficulty we raise constantly. Governments, not just the current one - the previous one had the same attitude - refuse to acknowledge the necessity to bring the appropriate powers to this committee to allow us to do our work. I find this deeply frustrating. I also find it extraordinary that the other arm of State, the auditors who investigate local government, have made no comment whatsoever at this time when money is scarce and people are frustrated, angry and annoyed by the waste of public money they see being reported on television programmes while the State seems to stand idly by and fails to inform the public.

I am aware that members would like to investigate and that they would like to see the appropriate powers given to us and to see local government come under our remit. It is high time that happened.

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

The Chairman is right. Poolbeg is a major example of the problem and of what is wrong. We saw a similar failure with regard to Greyhound, where €250,000 was paid in consultancy fees to a particular company - Ernst & Young - for its advice on the changeover of the service, which has been a disaster. We have no formal responsibility or power with regard to the local authorities when it comes to these matters currently, but does that preclude us from inviting them to a meeting of the committee for a discussion on an issue such as Poolbeg or Greyhound and the move to that waste management company? Can we invite them to come in and can we ask to investigate the issues?

Chairman

I am in the hands of members of the committee. However, the answer to the Deputy's question is that due to the fact they do not come under the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General, we do not invite them here. There are a number of things I think we should do, but I will be led by committee members. We should write to local government auditors on these issues and ask their opinion of what is going on. The Committee of Public Accounts may not have the power to investigate, but I believe we have the authority to write to the local authorities and ask what they are doing about these issues. It is taxpayers' money and I propose we write and ask for an explanation of the figures and of what they did or did not do and for their view on the issue raised by Deputy Murphy and the "Prime Time" programme.

We do not have the power to investigate but I see nothing wrong - I say this against advice - with inviting them here. However, that is for the committee members to decide.

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

The city manager might welcome the opportunity to attend the committee and defend the spend. If any of that €81 million spend can be defended, he might welcome that opportunity. If he does, we should take it.

Deputy Anne Ferris

I fully agree with the Chairman on the issue of Poolbeg. I watched that "Prime Time" programme and was shocked to hear the amount spent, particularly on consultants and the PR company. Pushing for incineration goes against all good practice. The programme pointed out we should be taking the recycling route, not incineration. The proposal for Poolbeg is being pushed through and goes against good practice and I cannot understand why so many more millions will be spent on it. It is wrong.

I also have serious concerns about the domestic waste situation in the Dublin City Council area. Deputy Ross will remember when the local authority in Wicklow ceased refuse collection in 1999. What happened in that case was that the council ceased collecting and did not even put the service up for tender. There are serious questions to be asked about these issues. I cannot believe that if we are responsible for examining how taxpayers' money is spent, we cannot look at the money spent by local authorities in that regard. We must push for an extension of our remit in this regard.

Deputy Shane Ross

I agree. Greyhound is a can of worms and I am glad Deputy Murphy raised the issue as there are many other issues with regard to Greyhound. However, I wonder if we could approach it in a different way. A subsidy of something in the order of €280 million a year goes to CIE. Two years ago, some of that subsidy, €1.3 million, went to pay off Greyhound in a disputed claim. It remains a mystery as to how or why Greyhound got it and one might have one's theories. Certainly, a settlement was made. There is a case to bring in Greyhound or the Minister for Transport and ask what happened the CIE subsidy. I do not know, but perhaps it could be done from that angle. We could ask if the Minister or CIE are satisfied this taxpayers' money went to a waste company that has not delivered.

I am particularly dissatisfied by what has happened with Greyhound. I made a personal protest to Dublin City Council about the allocation of the contract to Greyhound but was brushed off and told it was done. It is very murky indeed. The idea that nobody seems to have the power or the will to investigate it is completely unsatisfactory. There is a road for us here. I suspect it is possibly through a sideways angle, in that we go through the subsidy, which is State money, and get at them that way. However, the idea that some of these things are impossible to investigate is completely unacceptable and is something about which we should protest at the very least and make quite plain. It is not transparent. Nobody knows what is happening at Greyhound at all.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I agree with much of what has been said, but I think we need to distil it into two different issues. The first issue is a broad one about the relationship between this committee and local authorities and the power we have or do not have. If we are going to extend scrutiny to what has happened on Dublin City Council - I believe that we should - other colleagues also have opinions about what is happening in different local authorities across the State. It would be helpful if we could get clarification about our current role in respect of local authorities and the scope and remit that we have. I do not believe that we have any remit, but I would like it clarified. Once we are clear on that, we should have a discussion about how to extend it, because there is too much money being spent without this committee having a role in it.

Second, I support what has been said about looking at Dublin City Council, Greyhound and Poolbeg. This is all related to the same issue, namely, waste management. It just deals with different ends of it. It is very appropriate that we should do that. There has been an incredible amount of complaints about how it was implemented. However, I would like to make a point to give a sense of balance. There may be good reasons those decisions were made, but that is why it is important they should come in and explain it to us. If Greyhound was the only company in a position to perform that service, that is fine. However, we should be told that in here and it should be put on the public record. Otherwise, we cannot answer the different questions that people have. There is much public concern on this point and I think it is appropriate that it be aired on this committee.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

To whom do the local government auditors report? Who funds them? Is there a mechanism whereby we may be able to bring the local government auditors in here and those to whom they report? Are they within the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government? Are they funded by that Department? Consequently, could our powers extend in that way to enable us to request the local government auditors to come in and talk about a specific issue that relates to a specific Department?

Chairman

Mr. Buckley will answer that in a moment.

Deputy Anne Ferris

A point struck me when watching that programme the other night. Apart from the money that has been spent on Poolbeg and the amount of money that will be spent, the contract for Poolbeg states that Dublin City Council has to supply the waste to Poolbeg. If the council has given the contract to Greyhound to collect the waste, the waste therefore belongs to Greyhound and Dublin City Council does not have the waste to give to Poolbeg under this contract. This is absolute madness so there are many questions to be asked.

Chairman

I raised the matter out of concern that nobody had come in to clarify matters after the programme, yet I am sure the members of this committee were asked questions by the general public about it, especially about the €29 million for consultants and the €4 million for PR companies. There are questions that need to be answered. I accept there may be a perfectly good reason, but we do not know what it is and no clarification has been given to us. After we have heard from Mr. Buckley, we will decide how we should proceed. Perhaps Mr. Buckley would like to clarify some of the questions that have been asked.

Deputy Anne Ferris

We are looking at the issue in respect of land in Greystones, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and Wicklow County Council. Therefore, we are looking at the role of a local authority and the Department in the purchase of that land for €3 million. Perhaps the same thing can be applied in this issue.

Chairman

The Comptroller and Auditor General may clarify some of the questions.

Mr. John Buckley

It is a complicated issue. We do not have the power to follow or audit any money in the local government audit system. The 1993 Act excludes that. The difficulty we have is that when money comes from the State and is administered through the local government system, we cannot follow it because it is behind a veil and is audited at local government level. The issue we have with this is that the interest of an auditor at local government level is in maximising the income of that entity, and he is looking at it with different eyes than an auditor, or the Committee of Public Accounts by extension, who would look at it from the point of view of good use of money that is supplied from the centre. About €5 billion is supplied from the centre every year. The fundamental issue is the capacity to follow, trace, inspect or audit the money that comes from the centre.

Under the Government's reform programme, the idea of merging the local government audit service and the auditor general, or finding some other mechanism, is one of over 30 items which have to be examined this year. The committee has an opportunity to make any representations it wishes on the matter which could feed into that process. In fact, it may even be concerned with how that process is carried out.

Deputy Ross has a point that we could come at the CIE issue either through the Department or through the National Transport Authority, which gives the subsidy to CIE. The kind of money that is disbursed is fully accountable to the centre. There are three categorisations of money which leave the State system, namely, straightforward payments, money that is classified as grants and grants-in-aid. In the case of a grant-in-aid, such as that received by the Irish Red Cross, it is not possible to go behind it. It is a flat sum of money and there is no further accounting for that, provided we satisfy ourselves with corporate governance and the various systems that are in place. That is the nature of a grant-in-aid. There can be more accounting for a grant or a subsidy and there can be a demand to discuss the detail of how it was spent, where it was spent and so on. The same case applies with a straightforward payment. Sometimes we have to go back to the nature of the payment to see what we can do.

The CIE subsidy goes from the Department to an intermediate body, set up in late 2009, which then disburses it to CIE and makes sure that CIE provides the various strategy statements and whatever else goes with that. That kind of stuff can be reviewed by the committee. The committee could call in that intermediate body, which is called the National Transport Authority.

In summary, there are two things. First, the committee can feed into this new reform review that is being done by making sure that its interests are put on the table and heard. Second, committee members should think about the nature of the reform that they might like. Should there be one auditor for the State, or should the State auditor have power to follow central government money only? There is an argument that since we have a local government system and it is actually government at local level, there may be an undermining effect if the centre reviews what is properly local spending, and that there should be a mechanism at local level - almost a local public accounts committee - to look at local issues. However, this must be married to a solution to the problem of how we follow public money - central government money - that is just administered locally. I do not know the answers, but these are the parameters within which it has to be discussed.

Chairman

With regard to what Deputy O'Donnell asked about how they report to-----

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

Who does the local government auditor report to?

Mr. John Buckley

Ultimately, he is funded by the Department-----

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

-----of the Environment, Community and Local Government?

Mr. John Buckley

Yes. I forgot what the Deputy said there; he was wondering if we could bring them in as a mechanism to deal with specific issues. I doubt it. What we would be doing is to bring in the Accounting Officer of the Department to answer for the spending she has done, and part of that spending is to fund the salaries of the local government audit service. At the level of that discussion, the limit of where one could take it is the efficiency of the service itself rather than any specific item on which an audit certificate has been signed. The audit certificate that was signed would have been addressed to the local authority proper, and that would be its true role. Under the Act and, by extension, under the terms of reference of the committee, it probably could not go further. What the committee could do, however, is to discuss how an element of the Department dealing with local government is functioning, and one element of the local government Department is the local government audit service.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

By extension, could we request a local government auditor to come before the Committee of Public Accounts, in view of the fact that he or she is funded by the Department? It seems amazing that the Comptroller and Auditor General has an audit function with regard to local authorities as well as Departments. He reports to a public committee. I find it difficult to understand why there is no mechanism whereby we can bring in the local government audit committee - for example, by making a request to the Accounting Officer of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government that he or she come before this committee accompanied by the local government auditor to deal with the specific issue of Poolbeg.

Mr. John Buckley

The way I look at it is that the Accounting Officer may be answerable for that issue, but maybe not. Can I outline to the committee a bit of history? A few years ago we had a referendum, which most people have forgotten about, which entrenched local government as an arm of government. It follows from this that if we are to have government at local level, the audit reports must go to that layer of government, and the review function for whatever happens locally must be at the level of the local government entity. However, that does not take away from the fact that there is a certain amount of accountability that still rests with the Department. The way I would read this is that the Department sets, for example, housing policy, and sets out its various objectives, which is quite legitimate, and some of those are delivered through the local government system. Where the committee can ask questions is at the level of the Accounting Officer. When she appears before the committee members can ask her how those objectives - in housing policy, sanitary services policy and all the various policies of the local government system - are delivered and how well they are delivered. The committee can look at the top end, which is the objective end, to see where the money is going but it must skip the bit in the middle, and then it can start asking questions about the indicators and measures that are now produced to show how well that is working.

What I am saying is that there are still layers of accountability that rest with the Accounting Officer, and it is legitimate to ask about them. In my opinion - it is only my opinion, and I hope I am not going too far - it can do those things. The committee can look at the two pieces of bread in the sandwich, but not at the filling.

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

I am looking for clarity on what Mr. Buckley was saying. He said that €5 billion of central government money goes to local government every year. The current practice is that each local authority is responsible for auditing itself, and it reports to someone in the Department, but there is no value for money review or public scrutiny. Someone is receiving and reviewing the accounts but not scrutinising them or asking why the local authority spent a certain amount or took a particular action, or how much something cost and whether it was put out to tender. Is that accurate?

Mr. John Buckley

No, that would not be a fair representation. The local government audit service does all the auditing that would happen at the centre. It also does value for money reports across the system, and those reports are sent to the Minister. The issue is, more or less, the destination of this reporting. Second, I am making a distinction between the two types of fund that are administered by local authorities: their own resources, and the money that comes from central government. What this committee has an interest in is where the public money goes - since it cannot now be audited by my office by virtue of the fact that the legislation does not allow it - and, also, how well local government policy is implemented generally and the broad results of this as shown by the measures and indicators that are drawn up.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

So what Mr. Buckley is really saying is that it is possible for this committee, even within the current framework, limited and all as it is, to go from the general to the specific when examining an issue.

Mr. John Buckley

Well.

Chairman

I am conscious that we have witnesses waiting outside.

Deputy Anne Ferris

Dublin City Council could not have got the €80-odd million from its own resources for Poolbeg, so it must have got it from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government.

Chairman

We will come back to that.

Deputy Derek Nolan

As someone who was a member of a local authority, I remember receiving the local government audit report. It would be one item for noting on a 20-item agenda, and it would get through. Given that one was a part-time councillor with so much to do, one never had a chance to read it or go through it. The current system is totally unsatisfactory and needs to be changed.

Chairman

Again, I am conscious that we have witnesses waiting. The clerk and all of us here have heard the debate and maybe we will return to it next week with some proposals. It is fair to say that councillors in their own local areas, as Deputies said, are responsible for scrutinising the accounts, and there is provision under the Local Government Act for them to establish their own local committees to carry out a similar function to ours. We will return to this out of concern and an interest in change and in view of the fact that €5 billion a year of taxpayers' money goes into local government and we cannot investigate it. We will come back with some proposals next week.

We will move on to item 3.13, which is correspondence dated 26 January 2012 from Mr. Joe O'Flynn, general secretary of SIPTU, regarding the HSE skills programme. There are a number of pieces of correspondence on this and, from reading the correspondence, members will see that it has almost turned into a game of pass-the-parcel and finger-pointing, with the HSE and SIPTU exchanging views on this money but no one really accounting for it, which is essentially what we want.

Having read the correspondence, I find it frustrating to deal with this. I would have thought that two big organisations such as SIPTU, with 200,000 members and all the accountability it should have in place, and the HSE, which also has a role in this, would be well prepared for the meeting on 1 March. The way in which both bodies seem to be dealing with this is unsatisfactory, to say the least, as is the fact that these matters have not been finalised or brought to our attention. Furthermore, the clerk has written to the main players in this, the individuals named here previously, and to the HSE and SIPTU in respect of the Grant Thornton report, bank accounts and other information that we seek. Again, we have had no response to those letters. In view of this most unsatisfactory response I suggest we call on the Comptroller and Auditor General to consider the investigation being undertaken by the HSE and all the other matters relative to SIPTU and ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to provide us with an appropriate report to move this matter forward to a conclusion rather than accept what is happening at the moment, which is unsatisfactory. I further propose that we should not hear witnesses from SIPTU or the HSE on 1 March because it seems to me that all we will get is the blame game and passing the issue around. We must bring this to a conclusion and the only way to do so is to ask the Comptroller and Auditor General if it is possible for him to come in at this stage and take all the reports available, finalise matters and bring them before us.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I agree fully with the Chairman's remarks. I have read the various correspondence on the matter as well. However, I note SIPTU has said it will forward the details of the accounts directly to the Comptroller and Auditor General. My understanding of the flow of the conversation here is that with the exception of the Grant Thornton report, which the Chairman has identified, SIPTU now maintains it will forward the information directly to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Those in SIPTU argue that they do not believe that they should forward the information to the HSE because other State agencies are involved as well. It sounds extraordinary even as I say it but that is what they have put down in writing.

The correspondence of 20 December from the HSE lists the information on which it awaits answers. If those in SIPTU can provide answers, I do not mind whether they send it directly to the Comptroller and Auditor General, to us, to the HSE or whoever, as long as the information is supplied. I suggest we clarify this for those in SIPTU and that if they wish to share the information directly with the Comptroller and Auditor General, that is fine, but it must be the information we have requested. We could get a pile of information but it might not answer the questions laid down by the HSE. I suggest that if they decide to share the information directly with the Comptroller and Auditor General it would be acceptable but that information must contain the answers to the questions we have sought and not additional information.

If we decided not to go ahead with the March meeting, would this weaken the incentive for anyone to supply the information to us and bring this to a close? It is evident in all the correspondence that the HSE maintains that it must get answers to this because the Committee of Public Accounts is holding it to account on the matter. If we were not to hold the meeting, would it remove the incentive to try to get this matter resolved?

Chairman

We will come back on those points. I call Deputy Nolan.

Deputy Derek Nolan

There is every possibility that we will never get to the full end of every penny that went into these accounts, given that there are such gaps. With regard to the proposal, serious allegations were made and asserted against people in SIPTU at the meeting, primarily an allegation that they were not co-operating with the investigation. I am not keen to be seen to refuse them a right of reply to the allegations made against them. They should have a right to reply before the committee. They have agreed to come in and we have asked them to come in. It may be worthwhile to give them a right of reply such as that which the Irish Red Cross was given previously.

Deputy Simon Harris

I agree with Deputy Nolan. I think representatives from SIPTU should attend on 1 March. With hindsight, they probably should have attended the original meeting but since they did not it is essential that they attend on 1 March. The meeting provides a timeline to focus the mind. It is important that those in SIPTU understand as a result of this meeting that the list of wanted items provided by the HSE is not only a list of wanted items from the HSE but it is what this committee expects those in SIPTU to produce in so far as it is possible.

I have no wish for the work of this committee to be diluted by SIPTU having a spat with the HSE. The list on the screens before us sought by the HSE is the list that I, as a member of the Committee of Public Accounts, and, presumably, the committee as a whole, expect those in SIPTU to provide. This should be made clear in any communication with SIPTU. The outstanding list does not represent a HSE vendetta against SIPTU; it is the information required by the committee to ascertain what happened.

Chairman

We are all agreed that representatives from SIPTU should come in. My preference is that we should have a substantial report of some sort from the Comptroller and Auditor General which would form the basis of our discussion, rather than escalating the tit-for-tat under way between the HSE and SIPTU, which will continue on 1 March if we do not have a report. We will ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to reply now. I would prefer an overall report, taking in the HSE investigation, everything we have asked for from those in SIPTU and any other information they may be willing to give to the Comptroller and Auditor General and not to the HSE. All of this should be put into a report along with some commentary and presented to the committee. Once that is done, we would have the basis for a discussion with representatives from SIPTU because we would have a report and the information. Otherwise, we will be sent around the houses again between the HSE and SIPTU. I call on the Comptroller and Auditor General to comment on the possibility of such a report and drawing it together with the HSE investigation.

Mr. John Buckley

I have read all the correspondence. I am minded to carry out an audit if they produce the account as they have claimed they will. To put in a caveat, I would need proper access rights and a guarantee upfront from them. The first thing I would need to do is confirm that they will give us the same access rights that we have for other expenditure under section 10 of the relevant Act. If I do not get this, I would have to return to the committee and explain that this would not necessarily be a productive line to pursue. We probably should not go too far down that line. We will explore it and return to the committee.

I wish to put another issue on the table. I gather under the Act I can demand to audit this account anyway. The reason I was holding off up to now is that the HSE internal audit was seized of the position. It is a matter of judgment in respect of what point one should come back into the process. Now is probably the right time given the offer of SIPTU to co-operate and to produce a set of accounts. My only concern is that they clearly state in the letter that they would give us access to bank records. Certainly, we would need access to more than bank records and I must clarify this when I go down this route. Other than that, I believe we can do the audit, produce a report and merge all the existing information from the HSE and SIPTU side. The items in the correspondence would form part of our audit objectives when we set out on this route.

Chairman

That clarifies matters. Is it agreed that we will leave it to the Comptroller and Auditor General? Agreed. That is No. 3.13 dealt with. No. 3.14 relates to the same issue and Nos. 3.14 and 3.16 are matters to be taken up by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

No. 3.17 is correspondence from Mr. Robert Watt, Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform in response to the final report of the Committee of Public Accounts appropriation accounts and annual reports for 2008 and 2009. It is to be noted and published.

I apologise for overlooking No. 3.15, which is correspondence dated 26 January 2012 from Mr. Cathal Guiomard, Commissioner for Aviation Regulation. He forwarded a letter to Mr. Michael O'Leary, chief executive of Ryanair, regarding the 20th annual report of the Commission for Aviation Regulation. It is to be noted and published. We will examine the accounts of the Commission for Aviation Regulation after Easter and the matter highlighted in this correspondence can be raised at that meeting.

No. 3.18 is correspondence re 31 January 2012 from Mr. Mark Callinan, Commissioner of An Garda Síochána, opening statement. It is to be noted and published. Correspondence dated 31 January 2012 is from Mr. Kieran Coughlan, Secretary General and Clerk of the Dáil, Houses of the Oireachtas Services, providing further information requested from the commission at the meeting of 12 January 2012. It is to be noted and published.

No. 3.20 is correspondence dated 31 January 2012 from Mr. Robert Watt, Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, re party leader's allowance. It is to be noted and published.

Number 3.21 is correspondence dated 31 January 2012 from the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, re the compulsory purchase order made by Wicklow County Council affecting lands in Greystones. It is to be noted and published. We can turn to this issue in more detail at a meeting on 15 March.

Reports, statements and accounts received since the meeting of 26 January 2012 are outlined in 4.1 to 4.7. The health services national partnership forum is subject to an ongoing investigation by this committee and it is therefore proposed that we defer noting these accounts until the issue relating to payments to unofficial SIPTU accounts are dealt with.

No. 5, our work programme, is to be noted.

Under any other business, I want to raise the issue of the examination of the public implementation body which was raised last week. Issues related to the overall cost savings arising from the downsizing of the public service and concerns about the delivery of other savings and reforms under the Croke Park agreement have been raised here in recent weeks. The committee should, at an early stage, examine this issue by calling Mr. PJ Fitzpatrick, head of the implementation body set up to monitor the delivery of projects under the agreement. The partnership-type arrangements can no longer be placed outside parliamentary scrutiny.

While the committee has no policy remit, it has a role in evaluating the delivery of services that provide value for money and we should evaluate the implementation of the programme for change at this stage and not wait for the evaluation to be done in the future. I propose, if it is agreeable, that we meet the body on 1 March, depending on witnesses being available and so on.

Can we agree the agenda for 9 February 2012? It is to be section 7, report of County Kildare VEC 2012, City of Cork VEC 2009 and County Cork VEC 2008. The Vote of the Department of Education and Skills, Vote 26 will also be taken at that meeting. Agreed.