The first item is the minutes of the meeting of 8 March 2012. Are the minutes agreed? Agreed. There are a number of matters arising from the minutes. In regard to the recommendations of the previous Committee of Public Accounts on the procurement of legal services by public bodies and the reply from the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform to each of these recommendations, this matter was raised by Deputy Fleming. We can return to the matter when we have a breakdown of legal costs from the Garda Commissioner.
Business of Committee
It was pointed out in correspondence to the committee that the Dáil cannot discuss matters raised during the previous Dáil unless it passes a motion to that effect. Are we entitled to reopen a matter dealt with in the previous Dáil without passing a motion?
Yes.
A certain committee fell into a trap in this regard, according to this correspondence.
Clerk to the Committee
Committees can fall into that trap but as the Committee of Public Accounts is a standing committee, it is automatically formed again.
Who else is exempt?
Clerk to the Committee
Only the Committee of Public Accounts.
We are very special people.
I learned something new this morning.
The other item of correspondence was received from William Treacy regarding the welfare of racehorses. The secretary is awaiting a note from the Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture, which is dealing with the matter. When we receive the note, we can revisit the issue.
We requested Mr. McCarthy to revert to us today in regard to the SIPTU matter and the unofficial SIPTU account.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
On 6 February the Comptroller and Auditor General confirmed to the secretary general of SIPTU that the office will audit the account and stated that it would require access to all the available accounting records and relevant personnel. He held a meeting with SIPTU representatives on 20 February to discuss arrangements for the audit. We currently expect the accounts and the relevant supporting documentation to be delivered in the week ending 23 March. An audit plan has been prepared but it can only be finalised once we have the accounts and supporting documentation. We will be ready to commence fieldwork shortly thereafter. We have not yet determined when the audit is likely to be completed but we cannot give a definitive view on that question until the material is presented to us. The expectation is that the audit will result in the production of a longer report than the normal audit certificate and in that case the report will be included in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the 2011 accounts, which we expect to publish in September.
I ask Mr. McCarthy to confirm that the general work on the audit will include the Grant Thornton report and the information individuals may have on the details of that account.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
We will be looking for all the relevant accounting records and available information. SIPTU has indicated that it will seek to have the Grant Thornton report made available to us.
While we are waiting for that letter, we will deal with another item of correspondence from last week, namely, the reply to the committee from the Accounting Officer of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform in regard to the estimate of the cost of sick pay in the public service. The cost is enormous, at €63.2 million for uncertified sick leave and €488 million for certified sick leave, which brings the total to €551.2 million. Clearly we have to review this issue and we can raise it in the first instance next Thursday when the chairman of the Croke Park agreement implementation body comes before the committee. Reform of the sick pay regime can be discussed at that stage because we should find out the extent to which the issue is part of the overall reform agenda. The figure of €551 million is significant. Members might like to reflect on the detail of the correspondence in this case.
What is the time period for which these costs arise?
They are annual. The correspondence came to us last week and various tables are attached which explain it.
It is roughly €0.5 billion per annum.
It is broken down into €63.2 million in uncertified leave and €488 million in certified leave, for a total of €0.5 billion in one year.
It would be interesting to compare the figure with previous years. Is it getting worse or better?
We can seek that information. I raise the matter because it is something we can discuss on Thursday.
If the figure for the previous year was €400 million, it would impact on any argument made in respect of reform. We would probably need to retrieve figures for previous years.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
I do not have a copy of the correspondence. My recollection is that the figure for the Civil Service, which is included in the estimate, was taken from the 2009 report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. One of the difficulties is that the information is not calculated on an annual basis. It is probably a compilation of the best available information to provide an estimate for a typical year. I doubt a time series is readily available and the work involved in compiling one would probably be considerable.
It probably would be a good idea if it was compiled annually. Surely that is a fundamental issue with regard to the costs arising.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
I think that is one of the recommendations that was included in the 2009 report on management of sick leave absence. Knowing the cost is an important tool in beginning to manage the problem.
If the Committee of Public Accounts takes this on and starts asking questions of the Department in question, we need those kinds of figures on which to base a case. Making a case based on a number or two numbers is not comprehensive. It would be an idea if we got-----
Mr. McCarthy is indicating this is typical of one year. If it is typical over a number of years obviously it is a huge problem. We do not know that. The Deputy is correct to raise it. We should write back to Mr. Watt and ask him for the data relating to a number of years. If the information is there now, the methodology is there to collect it. We should seek that information with the agreement of the committee and then have it for further consideration.
As the numbers are huge, let us find out the previous years' figures.
I return to the SIPTU issue because there is a further item of correspondence to be of help to Mr. McCarthy. Mr. O'Flynn wrote to us and informed us that it was a privileged report. On 12 March he wrote again and stated: "Regarding the Grant Thornton Report, I have advised the secretary of the PAC as to the position in respect of this report as per my letter dated 26th January 2012." He is again confirming it is a privileged document. The letter further states: "we have requested Matt Merrigan to co-operate fully with the Comptroller and Auditor General, including providing access to the Grant Thornton Report." It is extremely important that we would have access to that report and that those people, who are central to this issue, be interviewed not just about the documentation but obviously about how all of this was put in place and how the money was actually drawn down from the Department of Health and ended up in the various accounts. That would be critical to Mr. McCarthy's report. We need to make it perfectly clear to SIPTU that central to Mr. McCarthy's investigation is that report and access to interview the various players concerned.
Correspondence has been received from Seán Ó Foghlú, the Secretary General at the Department of Education and Skills, providing information requested by the committee at the meeting on 9 February. This is to be noted and published.
Correspondence was received on 8 March 2012 from Ms Geraldine Tallon, Secretary General, Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, providing updated information on matters scheduled for examination at today's meeting, as previously requested by the committee. This is to be noted and published.
Correspondence dated 6 March 2012 was received from Mr. Jim O'Brien, Second Secretary General at the Department of Finance, regarding correspondence previously forwarded by the committee from Senator Fidelma Healy Eames regarding Bank of Ireland and Galway Airport. This is to be noted and published. A copy will be forwarded to Senator Healy Eames.
Correspondence dated 6 March 2012 was received from Deputy Niall Collins, regarding the University of Limerick. This is to be noted and published. The correspondence is to be forwarded to the University of Limerick for a note on the matters raised, and to the Department of Education and Skills and the Comptroller and Auditor General for appropriate follow up.
Correspondence dated 8 March 2012 was received from Bernard P. Cunnane & Co., Solicitors, in Foynes, County Limerick, regarding Foynes Aviation and Maritime Museum. This is to be noted and published. The correspondence is to be forwarded to the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht for a note on the issues raised.
Correspondence dated 8 March 2012 was received from Mr. Michael O'Leary, chief executive, Ryanair, forwarding further correspondence sent to the Commissioner for Aviation Regulation. This is to be noted and published.
Correspondence dated 8 March 2012 was received from Mr. Ray Mitchell, assistant national director, parliamentary and regulatory affairs in the Health Service Executive, regarding ventilators at Waterford Regional Hospital. This is to be noted and published.
Correspondence dated 7 March 2012 was received from Mr. Ray Mitchell, assistant national director, parliamentary and regulatory affairs in the Health Service Executive, regarding the Dublin Fire Brigade Ambulance Service. This is to be noted and published. A copy of the correspondence will be forwarded to the Irish Fire and Emergency Services Association, which made the original complaint.
Correspondence dated 7 March 2012 was received from Mr. Ray Mitchell, assistant national director, parliamentary and regulatory affairs in the Health Service Executive, regarding works carried out at the Mid-Western Regional Hospital, Ennis. This is to be noted and published. A copy of the correspondence will be forwarded to Deputy Niall Collins and PSE Power Systems which made the original complainants.
Correspondence dated 5 March 2012 from Brian Lynch and Associates, Galway, regarding Student Transport Scheme Limited, the applicant, and the Minister for Education and Skills, the respondent. This is to be noted and published. Correspondence is to be forwarded to the Department of Education and Skills for a note on the matters raised.
Correspondence dated 7 March 2012 was received from Mr. John Moriarty of Dublin Waterworld Limited, regarding evidence given at the committee hearing of 16 February 2012. This is to be noted and published. This point needs to be clarified with the Revenue Commissioners and we have to await a reply to this and outstanding replies due from the Department before we finalise our report on this, which should happen in the coming weeks. The clerk will prepare a draft report with findings and recommendations based on our two hearings. We should ask both the Department and Revenue to issue final replies within two weeks. The final pieces of correspondence on this matter are now with Revenue and the Department and we should get a timely response from each. At that stage we can agree our recommendations. Because of the nature of these two hearings, members with any input they wish to make to the recommendations should contact the clerk as it will reduce the time for us to deal with the matter. It is an important issue and the recommendations will need to be pretty direct in terms of the response of this committee and therefore all members' inputs are necessary.
I apologise if what I am about to say was covered last week. When Mr. John Farrell of the Revenue Commissioners attended our last hearing on the matter, I was astonished to hear Revenue's admission that its published guidelines on VAT had been inaccurate for eight years. It is on the record of this committee that from 2002 until the Supreme Court judgment in 2010, Revenue had misinterpreted the Finance Act 2002 and therefore had provided incorrect VAT advice, not just to the people involved in this and the Departments involved, but to every citizen who might have sought VAT advice from Revenue. I suggest we send a note to Revenue, perhaps with the transcription of Mr. Farrell's comments, asking the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners to clarify how this happened. Revenue's most basic task is to implement tax policy passed by the Oireachtas. If it misunderstood tax policy for eight years, it is a very serious issue that goes beyond Campus and Stadium Ireland or any individuals concerned.
I agree Deputy Harris and we will do that immediately because that is central to what was going on here. It is also important for us in our consideration of the recommendations. Within the coming weeks we would hope to have that finalised. I again appeal to members to give their input to those recommendations.
Correspondence dated 9 March 2012 was received from Mr. Ray Mitchell, assistant national director, parliamentary and regulatory affairs in the Health Service Executive, providing information requested by the committee at the meeting of 26 January 2012. This is to be noted and published.
Appendix 1 to that letter provided very useful information on the cost per patient per week of each public nursing home - all 124 of them. On foot of that I suggest we write to the HSE and ask it for a similar schedule outlining the cost per patient per week in private nursing homes so that we can compare the costs in public nursing homes with the costs in private nursing homes. I understand there may be a commercial sensitivity in giving the names. However, it should certainly be able to break down the nursing home costs by region and give us quite some detail. Is there some way we can get it? However, I do not want a massive list.
Clerk to the Committee
I understand it is on the website even for private nursing homes. I will come back to the Deputy after this meeting.
I would like to get it from the HSE because the charge is from it.
Clerk to the Committee
It is on the HSE website. As far as I am aware it is published. I think they gave us two lists. I will come back to the Deputy on it.
We will check it and get the information.
One way or the other. The second matter I want to raise about the letter, and I am sure Chairman is also following this, is with regard recouping money from GPs who over-claimed €1.48 million in capitation payments for deceased medical card holders. I worry when an answer is a page and a half because it means it is not a clear answer, and in this case it is not clear it will get the money back. I do not see any reference to the money being recouped. It mentions a new system being in place since medical cards were centralised. Is it confirming it will walk away from the €1.48 million? It also states that for the first time GPs are actively, transparently and directly involved and committed to list maintenance in the HSE. Knowing what I do about how the HSE works, will GPs be paid extra for this active and direct involvement to ensure they will not over-claim? People do not take on extra duties such as this for no payment. Is an extra payment involved in stopping them from over-claiming? The Chairman and I know how the system works. GPs will probably receive a grant to stop them over-claiming in future.
This correspondence dates back to the committee which sat between 2002 and 2007. The simple question was asked of the HSE as to whether it has recouped the money due to it from GPs. This question has not been answered.
Correct.
The last time the HSE came before the committee an effort was made to avoid answering this question because it did not seem to have followed up on it. Arising from our discussion this morning on the correspondence, we should write back to the HSE and ask it to answer the question on recouping the money. We should also raise the question with it on what Deputy Fleming outlined on how it operates now. It will be a short letter from us which I hope will draw from it a direct reply in answer to the question with no avoidance.
No. 3.13 is from Mr. Hugh Rance, Bantry, County Cork, with regard to County Cork VEC, to be noted. The correspondence will be forwarded to the Department of Education and Skills for a note on the issues raised and to the Comptroller and Auditor General for information.
No. 3.14 is correspondence dated 12 March 2012 from Mr. Joe O'Flynn, general secretary of SIPTU, with regard to the SIPTU health and local authority fund, to be noted and published. We have already dealt with this matter.
No. 3.15 is correspondence dated 12 March 2012 from Mr. John Kinsella, New Ross, County Wexford, with regard to Fáilte Ireland, to be noted. The correspondence will be forwarded to the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and Fáilte Ireland for direct reply.
No. 3.16 is correspondence dated 13 March 2012 from the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, regarding forwarding the report of the independent review of the management by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government of an application by Wicklow County Council for loan approval in respect of the compulsory purchase of land at Charlesland, County Wicklow, to be noted and published. Deputies Ferris and Harris are interested in this issue and any matters arising can be raised today with the Accounting Officer.
No. 3.17 is correspondence dated 14 March 2012 from Mr. Donal Forde, secretary general of the Irish Red Cross, regarding the Committee of Public Accounts hearing of 19 January, to be noted and published. This is the substantive reply to the issues raised by Mr. Noel Wardick. At this stage I think we have also reached end game on the Red Cross. The Clerk will prepare a paper on the issue in the coming weeks with a recommendation for any further action. I am conscious the Irish Red Cross is not accountable to the PAC and therefore the case is not straightforward. Once all the papers have been reviewed, we will make a decision on the matter. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 3.18 is correspondence received 14 March 2012 from Ms Geraldine Tallon, Secretary General of the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, regarding her opening statement, to be noted and published.
No. 4 on the agenda is reports, statements and accounts received since our meeting on 8 March 2012. No. 4.1 is the social insurance fund accounts from 1 January to 31 December 2010 and No. 4.2 is the final report 2010 of the Office of Tobacco Control. These are to be noted. We will defer consideration of the social insurance fund until after Easter when we deal with the Vote of the Department of Social Protection.
No. 5 on the agenda is the work programme. A draft copy of the work programme to the summer recess has been circulated. If members have any comments, please let me know. I suggest we consider the draft and make suggestions at next Thursday's meeting. The work programme will have to be flexible to accommodate other issues, and the availability of Accounting Officers for the specific dates will also have to be finalised. Is that agreed? Agreed.
What progress has been made by the subcommittee which was formed to examine a banking inquiry?
We met the officials yesterday. We have decided to take a mixture of options two and three which we discussed at the meeting last week. A gap analysis has been prepared and further work must be done on this. I imagine in the next two to three weeks we will come back to the committee with recommendations. We are putting together a very comprehensive report for the committee with recommendations. Once considered by the committee, the report can be submitted to the Oireachtas at which stage a decision can be made by the Oireachtas or the Government. If it is decided that a committee of the House will do the work, our body of work will form the basis of it. It will contain our in-house legal opinion and will cover the documents that have been published to date. The information gaps in these documents are being analysed and we are conducting a peer review on the information and documentation we have, which is why it is taking a little longer than expected. We decided a comprehensive document, complete in all respects, is what is necessary for the Houses of the Oireachtas to make a decision. We will complete this body of work in approximately two weeks after which we will bring it back to the committee.
There being no other business, can we agree the agenda for Thursday, 22 March 2012, which is a briefing on the work of the implementation body to date and on the progress to date in implementing the public service agreement from 2010 to 2014? This will be a briefing session and will differ from the normal examination undertaken here on a weekly basis. The implementation body will make a 45 minute presentation on aspects of its work which will be important for our work and our consideration of the issue. There will be no lead questioners and we will follow the same format as was followed when the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, came before the committee. This will give everyone an opportunity to raise any questions they have and will give the implementation body the time to set out its case and describe the work it is undertaking. Is that agreed? Agreed.