Are the minutes of the meeting of 15 March 2012 agreed?
Business of Committee
I wish to note points seven and 11 in the minutes, arising from our useful discussion on the Poolbeg incinerator. I note a full report is to come from the Local Government Audit Service on the Poolbeg incinerator in respect of the cost exposure for the State for referral to the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. It also states that a copy of the transcript is to be provided to the Department detailing the list of questions. I ask if this has been done.
Clerk to the Committee
Yes.
The individual questions or just the transcript?
Clerk to the Committee
We sent them this list of questions but we also sent the transcript and advised them to read it. This is to help the Department to prepare replies. They are provided with the list of questions and the transcript and they are advised to read the transcript to ensure any question asked by committee members has been dealt with.
The agenda will therefore not be confined to discussion of the cost exposure for the State.
Clerk to the Committee
No.
I thank the clerk for that clarification.
Now that Deputy Murphy has raised this issue, I know the transcript will be provided and the clerk will be in correspondence with them. However, they must have concerns and I am sure there are other questions that perhaps should be addressed by them. It should not be confined to the debate in this committee and they should go further with it if they think this is necessary. It is not a question and answer session.
One would hope the Secretary General would take that view following the questions we raised with him, that he would then be concerned and would go looking for full answers and provide them to us.
Yes. Arising from today's meeting we may make that point clear to the Secretary General, namely, that it is an investigation of the questions raised but it is more in order to satisfy the Department that matters are in order relative to what has been spent or the issues that were raised by the members. I ask that we make that clear to them from today's meeting. I would not want the discussion to have a narrow focus and we would expect a response in a timely fashion.
I suggest a second piece of correspondence making that clear would perhaps help the Department to get back to us in a quicker timeframe.
If that could be stated in the correspondence.
Clerk to the Committee
Certainly.
I refer to correspondence received since the meeting of Thursday, 15 March 2012. Mr. PJ Fitzpatrick, chairman of the implementation body re progress report on the implementation of the public service agreement 2010 - 2014, to be noted and published. Correspondence received 16 March 2012 from PJ Fitzpatrick re the presentations to the committee, to be noted and published. Correspondence dated 16 March 2012 received from PJ Fitzpatrick re a briefing paper for the Committee of Public Accounts, to be noted and published. Correspondence dated 13 March 2012 from Mr. Ray Mitchell, assistant national director, parliamentary and regulatory affairs, Health Service Executive, re correspondence previously forwarded by the committee regarding SIPTU, to be noted and published. A copy will be forwarded to the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General in connection with its audit of the unofficial SIPTU account. Correspondence dated 14 March 2012 from Mr. Michael Killane, principal officer, Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service, re persons seeking asylum, to be noted and published. Correspondence dated 15 March 2012 from Mr. Martin Callanan, Commissioner of An Garda Síochána, re an update regarding industrial action at Burgh Quay immigration office, to be noted and published. Correspondence dated 15 March 2012 from Mr. Tom O'Mahony, Secretary General, Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, providing information requested by the committee at the meeting of 16 February 2012, to be noted and published. Correspondence dated 16 March 2012 from Deputy Andrew Doyle, Chairman of the Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture, re correspondence previously forwarded by the committee from Mr. William Treacy, regarding the welfare of horses, to be noted and published. The item No. 3.9 is related. It is clear from the paper supplied by the Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture, which includes correspondence from the Minister, Horseracing Ireland and the Turf Club, that other than taking Mr. Treacy's concerns into account in the upcoming animal welfare legislation, there is no matter arising for public authorities and that investigations into Mr. Treacy's complaint have not shown a failure by a public body. As outlined, it is a matter for Mr. Treacy to either make a complaint to the Garda Síochána or to take a civil case re his complaints. I do not see an issue for the committee in the matters raised and Mr. Treacy will be informed accordingly. The item of correspondence No. 3.9 is dated 21 March 2012, Mr. William Treacy of Port Laoise, County Laois, re Horseracing Ireland, and this matter has been dealt with as part of No. 3.8. No. 3.10 is correspondence dated 20 March 2012 from Mr. John Moriarty, Dublin Waterworld Limited, national aquatic centre, incorrect bank charge, to be noted and published. In order to finalise this issue, the matter to be referred to the Department for a note on the issue raised in the correspondence. The Department needs to give the committee an assurance that the initial advice given to CSID on the VAT issue, as raised in this letter, is consistent with the subsequent legal strategy. We will make recommendations on that issue. No. 3.11 is correspondence dated 20 March 2012, from Mr. Ray Mitchell, assistant national director, parliamentary and regulatory affairs, Health Service Executive, re correspondence previously forwarded by the committee from the IHCA, to be noted and published and a copy to be forwarded to Mr. Duffy. Correspondence received 20 March 2012, anonymous, re ventilators at Waterford Regional Hospital, to be noted and published and correspondence to be forwarded to the HSE for a note on the issues raised. Correspondence dated 20 March 2012, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, director of audit, Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, re the Mahon tribunal costs projections, to be noted and published. We have received further correspondence from our meeting of last week regarding the list of third party costs paid by the Mahon tribunal and these will be noted and published.
On that topic, a suggestion was made last week based on the previous report of the Comptroller and Auditor General that costs could be in the order of €230 million. In the briefing note we received today, it is assumed, based on the tribunal's plans at the time, that the Mahon tribunal would be completed by the end of April 2010. It is now clear that since that report, the tribunal has carried on for two years beyond that point. Logically, it is clear that the costs will be far in excess of the figures we discussed here last week, which were in the order of €240 million or €250 million because an extra two years have been added on to that. Today we have received some of the third party claims that have been settled. I presume that is only in respect of module one to date.
In light of the Mahon report having now been published, it is an issue we will have to come back to as a separate item on our agenda. We must try to get an accurate fix on the costs even though it will be some years before they are all fully adjudicated upon. At this stage we should perhaps seek the help of the Comptroller and Auditor General or the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, as the case may be, to provide a full list of all those who were awarded representation, and to see what bills have been submitted so that we can start getting an estimate. It is clear that the figures we discussed last week were based on the tribunal finishing its work two years ago.
We should put the costs of the tribunal down as an agenda item for a meeting as soon as possible. I am not stating a specific date. We will discuss how to handle it but we need to put it down as an item on the agenda for discussion at a meeting next week or the week after.
I understand that until such time as third party costs are awarded, it would be hard for anyone to assess the costs involved. For example, we are waiting for the Department to provide the obvious costs of the three tribunal members and the other costs that are known to the Department. Until such time as the chairman decides and the invoices come in, however, there is not much work we can do on it.
Now that the tribunal's report is completed, it might be within our power to ask whoever is over the administration and financial arrangements of the tribunal to be brought in to give this committee a run down on costs. I am not talking about the judge dealing with the matters of the tribunal but the person who is responsible for the financial administration of the tribunal. There must be such a person. These costs have been incurred and the work is now done, but the only thing that has not been settled and which we are awaiting is the finalisation of the bill. These are not costs that will arise in the future - the costs are now behind us. The only issue to be dealt with at this point is the finalisation of bills in respect of the work that has already been completed. The liability exists but we do not know precisely how much it is.
I do not disagree with the Deputy. At last week's meeting, it was said that until such time as the chairman of the tribunal awards costs-----
We cannot have a definite figure.
-----there is no definite figure.
Correct.
The other matter that was questioned at last week's meeting was whether there is a person or persons in the tribunal who are monitoring costs, and there is not.
We do not know that.
We were told it last week.
At the last meeting the evidence was clear that there was very little knowledge in the Department of this massive liability. That was the only thing that was clear the last day. However, there has to be somebody in the tribunal who is responsible for its financial administration. Now that the tribunal is out of the way, this committee is safe to invite that person in to explain the accounting system, be it large or small, good or bad. We might not have to get details at this stage, but that person will know the numbers of witnesses who appeared and the people who were granted legal representation. It was a matter of public record down there every day. They will also know what law firms were granted representation. In addition, from cross-examination and defence in public session, they will know what senior and junior counsel were awarded in respect of each of them. Those matters are on the public record and they had to be collated at the time. All I am asking therefore is that we examine the system. We might not get to the bottom of the costs until they are adjudicated upon by the chairman and then sent for taxing, but at least we should know the system that is in place to capture the total costs.
That answer is "Yes".
I thank the Chairman.
We can contact the Accounting Officer. I will ask Mr. McCarthy to comment on what Deputy Fleming has said.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
I think Deputy Fleming is right. As I recall it, last week's discussion was around whether the Department has somebody there monitoring the costs for the Department. The answer was that the Department is not doing that. However, in the exercise that the Comptroller and Auditor General carried out a number of years ago, we relied on information that was collated by the registrar of the tribunal. There is a record of who was turning up each day and what their level of representation was. That kind of information was fed into the cost estimation that we did. There is scope for the tribunal itself to prepare projections of its expected settlements in third-party costs, based on that kind of information. Any kind of projection is obviously subject to the outturn perhaps being somewhat different.
Of course.
We will pursue that matter this week.
I would like to make two points related to that. First, my recollection of the meeting is that in respect of third-party costs that have already been determined, there is a difference between what the tribunal awarded and what the person is actually paid. The Secretary General said that where a cost was determined by the tribunal it was then investigated by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. They referred to the fact that they had achieved savings of 30% for the period between 1995 and 2002 or 2003. I hope, therefore, that there will be a difference between the figure upon which the tribunal makes an adjudication and the figure the Department ends up paying.
Second, in the meeting with the Secretary General, I requested that the Department would share with us the actual determinations it made on individual claims. It only gave us the average saving as opposed to what figures made up that saving. The Department has not yet shared that with us but it has shared the other piece of information that was requested. It would be in the public interest for people to know if claims went in that were reduced by more than 30%. I would be grateful, therefore, if we could request that of the Department again.
I fully agree with Deputy Donohoe. It is important that we can check and verify independently the Department's assertion that it has obtained on average a 30% reduction in the legal costs sought and paid out from the taxpayer. It would be useful, therefore, if we could get that update.
I also agree with what Deputy Fleming is trying to achieve. It would be useful at this stage if we could ask the Comptroller and Auditor General for a revised estimate, considering that his office was in a position to provide a "guesstimate", as the Chairman called it, before. Perhaps such a guesstimate could be provided based on the fact that the tribunal ran two years longer than the last estimate. That would be helpful in terms of informing the public debate.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
A piece of work like that can certainly be done. The difficulty would be that the Comptroller and Auditor General would have to formally report, which creates a process of clearance and checking. I would suggest asking the tribunal to present its own estimate.
Okay.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
That might be a quicker way of doing it. We could look at it when it is prepared. It may be a speedier solution.
That is agreed, yes.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
At the time we looked at third-party costs, the reduction relative to claims submitted that was achieved in claims settled was of the order of 25%. That was on the initial set of claims. I could be incorrect in suggesting this but my understanding would be that the tribunal would determine that costs should be awarded to somebody but that they then go to be submitted and taxed. As I understand it, there is not a determination by the tribunal of the quantum; it is the principle that the tribunal would determine.
We will write to the Chairman of the tribunal.
I wish to be quite clear. I do not think it would be right for this committee to involve the Chairman of the tribunal personally. We should find out who is appropriate, the registrar or person over administration. We do not want to be accused of straying into the tribunal's work, but we certainly want to go into its administration and financial accounting.
We will write to the appropriate person.
Item No. 4 is reports, statements and accounts received since the meeting of 15 March last. Items Nos. 4.1 to 4.6, inclusive, mainly dealing with HSE matters and the State Examinations Commission, are to be noted.
Why are there accounts from 2008 coming up now?
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
My information on the donations fund is that the account was certified on 29 June 2010, the 2009 account was certified at the end of 2010 and the 2010 account was certified in November of 2011. As I understand it, the procedure for submission of the accounts is that the HSE submits it to the Minister who presents it to Parliament. I do not have information as to where the hold-up was. As I understand it, the donations fund involves very small amounts of funding.
The accounts are still three years old.
On the work programme, the draft work programme was circulated at last Thursday's meeting. Do members have any comment or do they wish to make any changes?
I am not sure whether NAMA is due to come in at a specific time. If this is the work programme until the summer recess, is there a benefit in having NAMA in at some stage before we break for the summer? NAMA was in with us in October of last year. Is it due to come in on a regular basis?
We can invite NAMA in before the summer. The work programme will be flexible. There is a report.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
There is a report of the Comptroller and Auditor General which was sent to the Minister for Finance at the beginning of March and which is due to be presented to the Dáil before 5 June.
What is the name of that special report?
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
It is a special report on NAMA.
Following the publication of that report-----
Bring them in?
Yes.
Can I make a point that the Chairman might consider in the context of the work programme if a slot becomes available? The committee could do a good piece of work on disability funding. The issue in trying to examine it is that each Accounting Officer who comes in has an element of responsibility for it but we have never had an opportunity to get the overall picture. I tabled a number of parliamentary questions, the replies to which showed the amount of money taxpayers are giving to for-profit companies under the disability heading without a service level agreement or without audited accounts being produced, and there have also been media reports of the salaries being paid to the chief executives of so-called charities, voluntary groups and disability groups. The Chairman has attended, as have I and others, a number of meetings with groups in this House who are concerned about cuts to the front line of disability. I accept it is a large body of work and there is a large programme in front of us, but if the Chairman could keep it in mind, it could be an interesting piece of work for the committee to do.
We will consider it. I take the point.
It would require cross-representation from different Departments, such as Social Protection and Health, and the HSE. It would not involve merely any one Accounting Officer.
We will determine how we can plan that out and maybe make it happen.
We had the OPW in here recently about sites and it was to come back. Have we scheduled the OPW to come back in because it was a relevant point at the time?
Clerk to the Committee
If they are not on the system, we will have a part-meeting where we will split a meeting because that would not take up a full meeting.
My understanding was that OPW was to come back to us with details. Have they come back to us since?
Clerk to the Committee
The timeline we have given them is not up but we will be following up on it this week.
Once they come back, maybe we can schedule them to come in relatively quickly. Otherwise, it will be stale.
On item No. 6, any other business, have members any matters to raise? As they do not, is it agreed that the following will be the agenda for Thursday, 29 March 2012: the 2010 Annual Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and Appropriation Accounts: Vote 34 - Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, Chapter 28: Employment Support and Enterprise Stabilisation, and Chapter 29: County and City Enterprise Boards? How will we deal with the county and city enterprise boards?
Clerk to the Committee
The Accounting Officer will be here. There is a chapter in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report and the Accounting Officer is responsible to the committee in respect of the funding.
Is that agreed? Agreed.