Skip to main content
Normal View

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate -
Thursday, 23 Feb 2012

Business of Committee.

The first item is the minutes of the meeting of 16 February 2012. Are the minutes agreed? Agreed.

I refer to correspondence received since that meeting. No. 3.1 is correspondence received on 8 February 2012 from the Office of Public Works providing updated information on matters scheduled for examination at the meeting of 23 February 2012, as previously requested by the committee, to be noted and published.

No. 3.2 is correspondence, dated 9 February 2012, from Ms. Jenny Bulbulia regarding the Irish Red Cross appearance at the meeting of 19 January 2012 to be noted and published. The correspondence will be forwarded to the Department of Defence for a note on the matters raised

No. 3.3, which responds to Ms Bulbulia's correspondence, is correspondence, dated 14 February 2012, from Mr. Donal Forde, Secretary General, Irish Red Cross, to be noted and published.

No. 3.4 is correspondence, dated 7 February 2012, from Mr. Myles Duffy regarding GOAL and Irish Aid funding to be noted and published. The correspondence will be forwarded to the Department of Justice and Equality, which has responsibility for charities, for a detailed note on the matters raised and the Accounting Officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for appropriate follow up. We can return to this when we examine the issues relative to GOAL when the Accounting Officer appears before the committee after Easter.

No. 35 is correspondence, dated 15 February 2012, from Senator Paddy Burke, Chairman, Seanad Committee on Procedure and Privileges, providing a note on the Callely appeal to the Supreme Court, as previously requested by the committee, to be noted and published.

No. 3.6 is correspondence, received 17 February 2012, from an anonymous source regarding the United Nations. The matters raised do not fall under remit of the committee but we will note them.

Is it acceptable for people to write anonymously to the committee? Is the correspondence acted on?

The question is how we deal with it.

Clerk to the Committee

Sometimes there is an issue. We would not throw the correspondence in the bin. The person may be a whistleblower working in a public body. One has to make a call on each item of correspondence. Sometimes we will look for notes if there is an issue we think is genuine. In this case, it is just a rant. However, we are required to bring everything that comes in to the attention of the committee.

Some of the correspondence comes directly to me and I pass it on. I like to share it.

Sharing the burden.

No. 3.7 is correspondence, dated 17 February 2012, from Mr. P.J. Fitzpatrick, chairman of the Croke Park agreement implementation body, regarding a proposed meeting with the committee. I suggest we postpone the meeting scheduled for 22 March with the CSO until after Easter and invite the chairman in on that date instead. Are members agreeable to this?

Why are we doing that?

Clerk to the Committee

Mr. Fitzpatrick is not available on 1 March but we were anxious to get him in the next few weeks. It is just a question of rescheduling his appearance and getting him in before Easter because that is what the members had requested.

The sooner we get him, the better.

Clerk to the Committee

We will get him that day.

No. 3.8 is correspondence, dated 17 February 2012, from Mr. Cathal Guiomard, Commissioner for Aviation Regulation, forwarding a reply sent to Mr. Michael O'Leary, chief executive officer of Ryanair, regarding the 2010 Annual Report of the Commission for Aviation Regulation, to be noted and published. Members will have an opportunity to raise issues relating to this correspondence after Easter.

No. 3.9 is correspondence, dated 17 February 2012, from Mr. Bernard P. Cunnane & Co. solicitors, Foynes, Co. Limerick, forwarding correspondence with the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht regarding Foynes Aviation and Maritime Museum Limited., to be noted and published. Mr. Hamill's letter of 30 January published on the committee's website addressed the issues originally raised by Mr. Cunnane. The issues raised in this correspondence seem to be of the same nature. As far as I am concerned, the matter is dealt with and Mr. Cunnane will be informed accordingly.

No. 3.10 is correspondence, dated 21 February 2012, from Ms Geraldine Tallon, Secretary General, Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, regarding funding of Dublin City Council's waste collection business and the Poolbeg incinerator project to be noted and published. Members will note that the waste collection issue did not get Exchequer funding and, therefore, there is no opportunity to follow up on that matter. The Poolbeg incinerator got funding, including some EU cohesion funding, and we can take up that matter with the Accounting Officer on 15 March 2012.

No. 3.11 is correspondence, received 22 February 2012, from Ms Clare McGrath, Chairman, Office of Public Works. This is her opening statement, which is to be noted and published.

No. 3.12 is correspondence, received 22 February 2012, from Mr. John McMahon, commissioner, Office of Public Works, which is a note regarding fire certificates for buildings in the Leinster House complex, as previously requested by the committee, to be noted and published.

No. 4 is reports, statements and accounts received since meeting of 16 February 2012. They are as follows: 4.1. Private Residential Tenancies Board, annual report and accounts 2010; 4.2, Road Safety Authority, financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2010; and 4.3, County Meath Vocational Education Committee, annual financial statement for the year ended 31 December 2010. These are all to be noted.

No. 5 is the work programme. As the Croke Park agreement implementation body meeting has been postponed until 22 March, I suggest that we have a private meeting of the subgroup next week dealing with the banking inquiry. The clerk to the committee will circulate documentation prepared for the subgroup later today as this will assist our consideration of this topic next week. At next week's meeting, we will be assisted by Mr. Peter Finnegan, assistant secretary in the Houses of the Oireachtas Service, the parliamentary legal adviser and the consultant who reviewed the official reports into the banking crisis, who will also be in attendance. That will give the subgroup of this committee the opportunity to view all the documents and make a recommendation for the full committee to consider the following week. That will bring our considerations on the matter to a conclusion one way or another. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Do members have any other issues they wish to raise?

At our last meeting we had a discussion on the relationship of the committee with the oversight of local authorities. I believe the clerk to the committee was to prepare a paper on how the role of this committee might change? Where does that stand?

Some months ago I raised some concerns I had regarding the payment of rent supplement. I acknowledge the work of and thank the Comptroller and Auditor General. The staff involved contacted me and I met them this week at which point I passed on my views on that payment in order to help inform the work going on there. I thank Mr. Buckley for setting that up.

Clerk to the Committee

We are preparing a note on the local authority issues. The Deputy will recall that the Chairman also asked that if any member wanted an input into that note, he or she should get it to me. At our next scheduled meeting of the full committee on Thursday week, we will have that note, but I will contact members in the meantime because it is only fair that they should have an input into it also.

I wish to follow up on a point made with the Garda Commissioner when he was here to discuss the Burgh Quay immigration office and the industrial action. He gave an undertaking that he would pursue the matter rather vigorously to rectify the fact that more than 60% of immigrants coming into the country are not having their fingerprints taken. The committee should correspond with him so that we can receive an update. I know he mentioned a timeframe of the end of this month. I would like to receive an update on that.

Clerk to the Committee

As far as I am aware, there has been movement because I think he threatened those people that they would lose their jobs. However, I will get an update.

As €23 million was spent on it, we might as well find out if the system is finally working. He did say he would be taking action at the end of this month.

The other two outstanding matters from last week were the report from the Department of Finance regarding the €3.6 billion and the centralised medical card application office. Two reports are due back, one from the Department of Health and one from the Department of Finance.

Clerk to the Committee

I am corresponding with the Department of Finance on the €3.6 billion. They still do not have that report cleared. I think we will probably have a meeting, probably immediately after Easter, where we will deal with that issue. On the issue of the medical cards, I was looking afterwards at what we said at the meeting. What we insisted on was that some senior official would go in and review the actual thing. Representatives from the HSE are due in with us just after Easter, probably, and they can bring a report back. I will certainly get an update from them in the meantime.

Deputy Donohoe raised the whole issue of investigating local authorities. The two issues indicate that unless the relevant Departments are due to appear before us, they do not respond in a timely fashion to most of the issues we raise at the committee, which is very unsatisfactory. They are raised either out of concern or because there is inefficiency somewhere affecting the public or affecting systems. When it is brought to the attention of Accounting Officers or their staff it is important that they would reply in a timely fashion. We need to pursue the matter given the reform that is necessary in terms of the work that is undertaken. Otherwise we will keep going back to old issues, or issues that are raised but never finalised or dealt with.

The medical card issue has moved on in the past week or so. While I take the Chairman's point, in practical terms what do we do? How do we resolve that?

The medical card issue has moved on. Last night in the House the Minister of State outlined all the actions she had taken to remove the obstacles and problems there, giving greater efficiencies in the system and greater service to the applicant. I would have thought that arising from our interest in it and the fact that it was raised here, even out of courtesy, Mr. Magee should have written back to us to tell us that was the case. I would have thought because of the public concern regarding the €3.6 billion and the fact that issue has also moved on and that the Accounting Officer has got a different job in Europe, at least we should have been given the courtesy of an early reply as we requested. The matter continues to be spoken about. As far as I am concerned it is unfinished business for the committee even if it just means receiving a report that ends the matter. However, it is necessary to complete the circuit and it is poor performance for a Department not even to write back.

The Chairman has heard me talk here about the VECs. What he has just said is right and he needs to put it like that continually. In fairness to him he came to the meeting to deal with services in the south east. He would not have shown up as we wanted if we had not raised it twice after he appeared at the committee. We need to be vocal. If we do not get a letter within a reasonable and specified period of time, we need to be vocal about what effectively is inefficiency.

I agree with the Chairman's sentiments on the issue. If individuals are going to fail to correspond by writing, it is time for the committee to invoke the ability it has and have them come in here. I will sit here all day any day and we can have a discussion on the medical card situation. If Mr. Magee or any other Accounting Officer does not want to correspond with the committee, let us have a specific hearing on nothing other than the centralisation of medical card applications, which has been a fiasco.

I wish to deal with the missing billions and the debate we had on whether it made a difference. Given that so much of that was unearthed at this committee, will we have an opportunity to follow it up with the Department or will the Accounting Officer go on to bigger and better things and we will be left with a report?

He has gone on to bigger and better things and we are left with no report because we have not got it. Arising from the concern members have expressed not just at this meeting, but also at other meetings, the Deputy may be correct that we need to define a particular timeframe and if it does not happen within that timeframe, we should again invite the Accounting Officer, who set it in motion in the first place, to return. Perhaps we should write to both the HSE and the Department of Finance setting a date on which they will be invited here to discuss the report or the status of the report. After today's meeting we should set those dates with the clerk to the committee and notify those concerned. We need to impose a date.

The Chairman will have to excuse my ignorance, but where is this report about the missing billions?

I understand it has been referred for legal advice because a number of people may have been named in it. However, that should not go on forever. Arising from today's discussion on that report, we should ask them to come in next Thursday, perhaps, even for an hour to bring forward the report.

Is the Chairman proposing to specify a date on which the CEO of the HSE should come here again to outline what it is doing on the administration of medical card applications?

I think so.

I believe the Chairman is right.

I am only being led by members. It certainly frustrates me that people who are well paid to do a job do not do it as efficiently as I believe they should.

The question is whether the issue is of sufficient import to the committee to consider doing that. My perspective as a Deputy is that it is. It has gone on too long. What I deal with in my constituency offices is unacceptable and, therefore, I agree.

We can apply the same rule of thumb to the €3.6 billion. The sub-committee will meet next week and I suggest we set it as the date for this, and we begin to exercise what I think is our right to invite them back to deal with the matters. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Last week, I mentioned I am drafting a Private Members' Bill and I am quite open to any suggestions people may have on it, and not necessarily members of the committee. Any individual with an interest in it is welcome to see the draft of the Bill.

What was proposed with regard to the topic we discussed last week? Is the issue closed?

I can see the discussion continuing for a long time unless a conclusion is brought to it.

I should have mentioned it earlier. At the end of the meeting last week we decided not to close off the issue. The reason was that so much had been said at both meetings that there was a need for members to consider it further in terms of further questions that need to be asked not directly to the witnesses, but for clarification. Arising from this it was decided we would bring forward specific recommendations on the matter. I meant to mention it earlier. At our next full meeting we will consider it, perhaps in private session, and then reach recommendations at that meeting or later. Deputy Nolan is right that we need to close it off.

Clerk to the Committee

That is fair enough.

As there are no other matters we will ask the witnesses to attend.

Top
Share