COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate -
Thursday, 7 Jun 2012

Business of Committee

Chairman

We have a suggestion about correspondence. Every week a large volume of correspondence comes through the office which is now at an almost unmanageable level. It is suggested that correspondence be broken into three categories. The important one relates to replies from various Accounting Officers for queries we would have placed with them because they will be published on our website. Then there is correspondence alleging waste of public funds, which we often receive. On those we will ask for notes to send to the Comptroller and Auditor General or the relevant Department. The third category will be individual complaints which we will refer to Departments asking them to deal directly with them.

With the exception of replies, all correspondence will be forwarded to committee members on Thursday, prior to the committee meeting. I am making the point that it is difficult to manage this, and by creating the three categories and prioritising the correspondence it will help us to deal with matters more efficiently. At the moment we seem to be a clearing house for some queries.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

We are getting about five or six e-mails updating us on correspondence coming into the Committee of Public Accounts, which is almost impossible to deal with. When correspondence comes in, is there a deadline for allowing correspondence to be placed on the agenda of a particular meeting? We should get one list during the week with all the correspondence attached. We can scan through the correspondence and identify the matters we want to read ourselves in advance. The problem is that we are getting three or four lists of the same correspondence. Obviously something of extreme urgency would be dealt with differently. We should get one e-mail with the list of all correspondence coming through. Having been reviewed with the Chair, if there are items that need to be considered straightaway, that can be done. However, the routine stuff should be put back to the following week.

Clerk to the Committee

That is what we are going to do.

Chairman

That is what is being suggested. There is only one exception. If a registered letter arrives addressed to me personally, I pass them on the clerk to the committee. Whoever writes the letter may continually follow up with telephone calls to the office, my office and to the ushers in the House. It goes on and on. That is the purpose.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

We should get one e-mail or a maximum of two.

Chairman

We will do that.

Clerk to the Committee

That is what we are going to do.

Chairman

Item 3.1, correspondence dated 15 May 2012 from Ms Ann Hurley regarding County Cork VEC, is to be noted. Item 3.2, correspondence dated 15 May 2012 from Mr. Tom Hayes, secretary of Alliance Victim Support Group, regarding right of place, is to be noted. A copy of the correspondence will be forwarded to the HSE. Item 3.3, correspondence dated 15 May 2012 from Ms Geraldine Tallon, Secretary General of the Department of Environment Community and Local Government, regarding providing information previously requested regarding the online registration system for the household charge, is to be noted. Correspondence dated 15 May 2012 from Mr. Frank Ryan, chief executive of Enterprise Ireland, regarding providing information previously requested regarding offices held abroad by Enterprise Ireland is to be noted and published. Should item 3.3 also be published?

Clerk to the Committee

Yes, it can be published.

Chairman

Item 3.3 from Ms Geraldine Tallon is to be noted and published. Item 3.5, correspondence dated 24 May 2012 from Brian Lynch & Associates regarding the student transport scheme, is to be noted. The Department has advised that a substantive reply cannot issue until legal actions have been dealt with. The Department is responsible for the school transport budget and we will pursue whether it is getting value for money in respect of that spend. Item 3.6, correspondence dated 14 May 2012 from an anonymous source regarding an Irish Examiner report of 8 May 2012 regarding Limerick Greyhound Stadium, is to be noted. A copy of the correspondence is to be forwarded to the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine and to Bord na gCon for a note on the matter. Item 3.7, correspondence dated 18 May 2012 from Mr. Martin Moore of Martin Moore & Company, Tralee, County Kerry, regarding Revenue Commissioners, is to be noted. This is not a matter for the Committee of Public Accounts. Item 3.8, correspondence dated 18 May 2012 from Mr. Enda McDonnell, south-south east regional director of Enterprise Ireland, regarding providing information previously requested by the committee regarding CORD funding is to be noted. A copy of the correspondence is to be forwarded to Dr Edward O’Gorman, who made the original complaint. Item 3.9, correspondence dated 13 January 2012 from Mr. Ray Mitchell of the parliamentary and regulatory affairs of the Health Service Executive regarding KARE, is to be noted. Item 3.10, correspondence dated 21 May 2012 from Ms Joan Russell, CEO of County Cork VEC, regarding correspondence previously forwarded by the committee from an anonymous source, is to be noted. Item 3.11, correspondence dated 22 May 2012 from the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Skills regarding correspondence previously forwarded by the committee from an anonymous source regarding County Cork VEC, is to be noted. Item 3.12, correspondence dated 22 May 2012 from the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Skills regarding correspondence previously forwarded by the committee from Deputy Niall Collins regarding the University of Limerick, is to be noted. A copy is to be sent to Deputy Collins. Item 3.13, correspondence dated 15 May 2012 from Claffey Gannon & Company Solicitors regarding property at 49 South William Street, Dublin 2, is to be noted. A copy of correspondence is to be sent to NAMA for a note on the issues raised. We will be dealing with the substantive issue of NAMA contracts with developers when we examine the Comptroller and Auditor General report 79. When is that due before us?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

In about four weeks.

Clerk to the Committee

It will be on 7 July.

Chairman

Item 3.14, correspondence dated 15 May 2012 from Ms Teresa Gardiner regarding incorrect claiming of subvention, is to be noted. A copy of the correspondence is to be sent to the HSE for the matter to be investigated and to provide a note on the issues raised. Items 3.18 and 3.25 are related to item 3.15, correspondence dated 17 May 2012 from Mr. William Treacy, Portlaoise, County Laois, regarding previous correspondence with the Turf Club and Horse Racing Ireland. Deputy Sean Fleming is unable to attend today and has asked that these items be deferred to next week because he was receiving correspondence and raising it here at the meeting. We will do that with the committee's permission. Item 3.16, correspondence dated 21 May 2012 from Mr. Michael Brosnan regarding Charles Farrell, is to be noted. The committee has received a detailed note from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine on this. We will forward this correspondence to establish whether further clarification is required.

Item 3.17 is correspondence dated 30 May 2012 from Ms Geraldine Tallon, Secretary General of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, on the Poolbeg waste-to-energy project. This is to be noted and published.

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

There has been correspondence back and forth since the Secretary General appeared before the Committee of Public Accounts. I wish to comment on the most recent correspondence in which the Secretary General states that full information on the costs incurred to date on the project is not available in the Department. We know the Hennessy report was commissioned by the Department and Ms Tallon was the Secretary General at that time. I do not accept that she does not have more information now. She has provided further information which she stated she received from the city manager. That raises more questions for reasons that I do not wish to go into at present. In the third paragraph of the first page of her letter, she refers to the compulsory purchase orders, CPOs issued in 2007. However when she appeared before the committee we raised the CPOs issued in 2010 and the price at which they were issued. In responding to item 3.17, I suggest we ask about the CPOs issued in 2010 in order to find out the value at which they were issued. We know from this correspondence that the CPOs issued in 2007 were issued at 2007 prices, even though they have not been paid yet and that values have fallen dramatically since then. My understanding is that the CPOs issued in 2010 were also issued at prices that were not reflective of the market in 2010. We need to ascertain if that is correct.

In regard to the request for further details under the various sub-headings we tried to explore previously, while I acknowledge that we have received further detail, I do not understand why we have not been provided with a responses that goes deeper into the detail, because although the information is more than we had previously, it is not as much as required to answer our questions. There are contradictions, for example in the first paragraph, under the heading client representative costs at €25 million. It states the wish to develop and implement a public consultation and information strategy but in the sixth paragraph, dealing with stakeholder consultation and public relations, it is the same thing, coming in at just over €4 million. I do not understand the reasons for these discrepancies. Under the heading No.2 , other consultancy, it states we have as a consultant, Dublin Waste to Energy Limited at over €1 million. My understanding is that is the actual company that Dublin City Council heads up as part of this project.

I appreciate that Ms Tallon has provided further detail, but the information we are looking for is not yet available. I do not accept that we cannot get it. If it is not sitting on the Secretary General's desk, it is sitting on the desk of the manager in Dublin City Council and that can be provided to us. Ms Tallon raises issues as to why the information cannot be provided, but I do not think we should accept them. We should bear in mind the time factors involved.

Chairman

To add to what Deputy Eoghan Murphy has said, a commitment was given that an audit would be undertaken on the spend to date and we have not received an up-to-date response as to the timeframe of when it is likely to be completed and for the Secretary General to make that information available for discussion by the Committee of Public Accounts. When responding to the Secretary General, we should include the points raised by Deputy Murphy and a reminder of her commitment some time ago to provide us with the outcome of the audit and that we require an urgent response.

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

We should state in writing that we would like that information before the final decision is made on whether the contract goes ahead, because it is useless to us afterwards.

Chairman

We will make a point of that in the correspondence and also attach the transcript from the meeting today and insist on a reply.

Item 3.18 was mentioned earlier and we decided to defer it until Deputy Fleming is present. Item 3.19 is correspondence received on 24 May 2012 from Mr. Ray Conway in regard to Allied Irish Bank. This is to be noted and a copy of the correspondence is to be forwarded to the Financial Ombudsman for direct reply.

Item 3.20 is correspondence dated 23 May 2012 from IDA Ireland and provides information previously requested regarding offices held abroad by IDA Ireland which is to be noted and published. Item 3.21 is correspondence dated 25 May 2012 from the Secretary General of the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation on the expenditure on the Health and Safety Authority. This is to be noted and published. Is that the report?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

No. The report is a later item.

Chairman

Item 3.22 is correspondence dated 29 May 2012 from Mr. Ben Cotton in regard to Youthreach Macroom, which is to be noted

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

May I raise the report that the Chairman queried a moment ago?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The HSA.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

Yes, the HSA. On a related matter of reports, where do we stand with all of the correspondence we initiated on the investigation into the SIPTU fund? We exchanged correspondence with SIPTU and the relevant Department in which we laid out a course of action that we would like them to follow. I do not recall any recent correspondence but I stand to be corrected, about where things stand.

Chairman

I will ask Mr. McCarthy to reply to that but we will take the decision to ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to do it.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

We have received information, a set of accounts from SIPTU with the supporting documentation it had. It is being examined. We will need to make further inquiries with individuals who were the beneficiaries of payments, people who supplied funding and so on. The work is in progress and we are getting the co-operation that we would expect. I expect to make a report on the matter. Previously I mentioned that it should be ready for September for the main report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, but given the progress to date and the number of people we must consult, it may be necessary to issue a special report on it, but I have not made a final decision on that.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

Is September still a realistic deadline for that?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Given the number of people we must consult and to clear it with, that date will be ambitious.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

May I ask a final question? In terms of the co-operation of the parties contacted, is the Comptroller and Auditor General satisfied with the response to date?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes. Anything we have asked for so far, we have got - to the extent that it is available. Availability of records is one of the key problems and if people do not have the information, they are not able to supply documentary evidence. The availability of reliable records will obviously feature as part of the reporting matter.

Chairman

Has the Comptroller and Auditor General got sight of the Grant Thornton report? Will that be made available to the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I do not want to get into individual lines of inquiry. I do not think that is the best way to proceed. Certainly all of the information that was made available to Grant Thornton has been made available to us as well.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

Thank you.

Chairman

Item 3.23 is correspondence dated 29 May 2012 from the HSE on the HSE Skill and the Health National Partnership Forum and is to be noted and published. The committee will return to these issues when we examine the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the SIPTU unauthorised account, the issue we just discussed.

Item 3.24 is correspondence dated 1 June 2012 from the Secretary General of the Department of Finance in regard to forwarding briefing papers on matter to be considered at the meeting of 7 June 2012, which is to be noted and published. Item 3.25 is correspondence dated 1 June 2012 from Mr. William Treacy on the Turf Club and Horse Racing Ireland. That matter has already been dealt with under Item 3.15.

Item 3.26 is correspondence dated 31 May 2012 from Professor Niamh Brennan, chairperson of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority on the forthcoming examination of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report no. 77. This is to be noted and published.

We will review the need to call witnesses after our initial examination of the issues relating to the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the Dublin Docklands Development Authority next Thursday, when the CEO of the Authority will be the main witness. Clearly Professor Brennan, as the outgoing chairperson may be in a position to help in ensuring that there is full accountability for the loss of public funds arising from activities of this State body and we my ask her to attend at a later session.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I support the Chairman on that issue. Given the level of public concern about the Dublin Docklands Development Authority and the amounts of money involved, while I fully accept that Professor Brennan may not be the chairperson be the time the committee comes to deal with the development section, she will have been the chairperson during a crucial period in the history of the DDDA and has done a very fine job. It is important that we stand by our request to have her participate in a future session, even if she is no longer chairperson.

Deputy Simon Harris

I concur with Deputy Donohoe. We could find that the committee would meet on a number of occasions to discuss this investigation. We need to set the ground rules very clearly, that whether people hold office currently is not the issue. Given that Professor Brennan was the chair of the authority at the time we will be looking into, it is absolutely essential that she attends. We need to reject the premise of her correspondence, which is that the fact that she no longer holds the office means she should not come before an Oireachtas committee. We need to be quite strong on that from the start.

Chairman

She was not the chairperson at the beginning of this. She was brought in to do a particular task. I think Deputy Donohoe has recognised the fine work she has undertaken.

Deputy Simon Harris

Absolutely.

Chairman

She is no longer the chairman of the board. Given that she had an involvement, however, she can be brought before the Committee of Public Accounts if that is what members wish. We will make that known in correspondence after today's meeting.

Deputy Simon Harris

Yes. I think that is important.

Chairman

The next set of items of correspondence relates to reports, statements and accounts that have been received since the committee's meeting of 17 May last. Item 4.1 is the 2011 annual report of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces. Item 4.2 is the Pre-Hospital Emergency Care Council's financial statements for the year ending 31 December 2010. Item 4.3 is the accounts of the heritage fund and the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the fund for the year ending 31 December 2011. Item 4.4 is the 2011 annual report of the Central Bank of Ireland. Item 4.5 is the 2011 annual report of the Garda Síochána Complaints Board. Item 4.6 is the National Paediatric Hospital Development Board's financial statements for the year ending 31 December 2010. Item 4.7 is the Dublin Docklands Development Authority's annual report and financial statements for 2011. Item 4.8 is the Health Service Executive's annual report and financial statements for 2011. All of these are to be noted. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Members can view the committee's work programme on the screen. We have dealt with it previously. We can note it now and move on. Do members wish to raise any matters under any other business? No. Is it agreed that the agenda for the committee's meeting of Thursday, 14 June 2012 will be the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the Dublin Docklands Development Authority? Agreed.

I would like to update members on the work of the sub-group of this committee which is drafting a report on the holding of a bank inquiry. At yesterday's meeting of the sub-group, it took legal advice on the legal framework that can underpin an inquiry by the Committee of Public Accounts. At next week's further meeting of the sub-group, it will finalise its report, which will be brought to the main committee for its approval at that stage. The sub-group hopes to meet next Wednesday and bring its report to the committee for its approval on Thursday. I hope to set an hour aside on Thursday morning to go through the report. Allowing for any changes the members of committee might want to make, it is hoped we will be in a position to publish the report the following week. Briefing papers on the contents of the report will be prepared for members to enable them to deal with the media during the launch and afterwards. A considerable amount of work has gone into the report, which runs to more than 200 pages. We will call for a Dáil debate on the report, to take place following its launch. Our initial work on what an inquiry should examine and how it should go about its business is almost at an end. We should be able to complete the report after we have done the work we have to do next week. The sub-group is happy with the work to date and with the outcomes. Some drafting changes will have to be made next week. By Thursday, we should be in a position to make the recommendation that is required.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

Will the members of the full committee get a copy of the report on Tuesday?

Chairman

It is hoped that the sub-group will meet on Wednesday - it is possible that it will be Tuesday - to finalise its work.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

Okay.

Chairman

It depends on when we can organise it. We might have to redraft parts of the report. Some changes could have to be made. We hope the report will be made available to members in advance of next Thursday's meeting.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

It will be ready the next day.

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

How long is the report?

Chairman

It is 200 pages long at present.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I accept that the sub-group has done great work. The Chairman has said that the rest of the members of this committee will be presented with a 200-page report for adoption the next day. The report deals with a matter of substantial importance and sensitivity. Is it realistic to expect us to be able to digest the report and take appropriate action we can all stand by within that timeframe?

Deputy Shane Ross

I support Deputy Donohoe. It is inadequate to expect a 200-page report-----

Chairman

That is why I have suggested we spend an hour thrashing out such issues next Thursday morning, in advance of our regular meeting. We can use that time to determine what sort of timeframe will be required at that stage. If the members of the committee want to make suggestions this morning on how we might handle next week's business, I am quite prepared to facilitate them. It is a question of completing the report and the work of the sub-group. It should be pretty straightforward for the members of the sub-group to do that on Tuesday and Wednesday of next week because they have been on top of this from the beginning. The next step at that stage will be to get the approval of the full committee, while protecting the integrity of the report so that it can be publicly launched, etc., in an appropriate manner. The members of the committee can determine the timeframe for that. They can decide what they want to do in that regard.

Deputy Shane Ross

I do not think an hour is enough time for a discussion on a 200-page report.

Chairman

The hour in question will be spent discussing how we will deal with it. If members wish, we can have that discussion now and be prepared for next week.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

Can we have this discussion in private session?

Chairman

We can.

The committee went into private session at 10.35 a.m. and resumed in public session at 11 a.m.