Skip to main content
Normal View

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate -
Thursday, 22 Nov 2012

Business of Committee

The first item is the minutes of the meetings of 15 and 20 November. Are the minutes agreed? Agreed. As there are no matters arising therefrom, we will move to correspondence received from Accounting Officers and Ministers since our meeting of Thursday, 15 November 2012.

No. 3A.1 is correspondence dated 15 and 19 November 2012 from Mr. Kieran Coughlan, Secretary General, Houses of the Oireachtas service, providing information requested by the committee at its meeting of 23 October 2012. The correspondence is to be noted and published.

No. 3A.2 is correspondence dated 12 October 2012 from the Health Service Executive with information regarding the Government review of allowances. The correspondence is to be noted and published.

No. 3A.3 is correspondence dated 15 November 2012 from Mr. Ray Mitchell, parliamentary and regulatory affairs division of the Health Service Executive, forwarding observations regarding the committee's draft report on the Health Service Executive. The correspondence is to be noted. Work will proceed on finalising this report prior to launching it in early December.

No. 3A.4 is correspondence dated 19 November 2012 from Mr. Ray Mitchell, parliamentary and regulatory affairs division of the Health Service Executive, providing further information requested by the committee at its meeting of 9 October 2012. The correspondence is to be noted and published.

No. 3A.5 is correspondence dated 19 November 2012 from Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú re providing further information requested by the committee at its meeting of 24 October 2012. The correspondence is to be noted and published.

No. 3A.6 is correspondence dated 20 November 2012 from Mr. John Moran, Secretary General of the Department of Finance, providing further information requested by the committee at its meeting of 7 June 2012 regarding selection of auditors in the Irish banks. The correspondence is to be noted and published.

There is further correspondence entered into between the Chairman and Mr. Robert Watt, Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. There are two letters and, for completeness, I intend to publish them. I will make them available to members first.

No. 3B is individual correspondence and-or complaints. No. 3B.1 is correspondence dated 23 October 2012 from Mr. Bernie Lloyd, Windmill Residents Group, County Wexford, re proposed courthouse complex. The correspondence is to be noted. We will get a note on the issue raised from the Office of Public Works, OPW, and from the Courts Service. This is correspondence that came directly to me and it contained a video of photographs and so forth. Is only the OPW involved?

Clerk to the Committee

The Courts Service is also involved.

Would the Department be involved?

Clerk to the Committee

The Department of Justice and Equality might be, but it is probably primarily a delegated function to the Courts Service, which would get the OPW involved.

Will we get a response from it?

Clerk to the Committee

Yes, Chairman.

Other correspondence received was No. 3C.1 dated 23 July 2012 from Mr. Tony McDonnell, Irish Fire & Emergency Services Association re Dublin ambulance service. The correspondence is to be noted. We will ask the HSE for an update on the issue raised by the Irish Fire & Emergency Services Association as a first step to reviewing this issue. Was this issue reviewed by a previous Committee of Public Accounts?

Clerk to the Committee

Yes, Chairman, there was a chapter in one of the previous reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General. That was in 2009.

Can the information on that be circulated to the members in order that they have a background to this?

Clerk to the Committee

Yes.

I intend to meet representatives of the Irish Fire & Emergency Services Association. They have asked for a meeting, so all members should be briefed. For completeness, perhaps the clerk will send out the report.

Clerk to the Committee

Yes, Chairman.

No. 3C.2 is correspondence dated 18 August 2012 from Mr. Don Curry, MEC Springs Limited, re Mr. Frank Mulcahy. The correspondence is to be noted. This is a difficult and protracted issue that has been ongoing since 1994. In the previous Committee of Public Accounts, the then Comptroller and Auditor General outlined how he had no remit under investigations of complaints to investigate the complaints of Mr. Mulcahy and, arising from that, there does not appear to be a role for the Committee of Public Accounts. I do not want to dismiss the complaint so I will ask the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation for a note on the matter.

No. 3C.3 is correspondence dated 13 November 2012 from Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú, Secretary General of the Department of Education and Skills, re Mrs. Barbara Bradley. This is to be noted. Was there further correspondence on that?

Clerk to the Committee

I believe there was. We will note the correspondence.

No. 3C.4 is correspondence dated 15 November 2012 from Mr. Eoin Corrigan, local government division, Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, re correspondence previously forwarded by the committee regarding Ms Julia O'Shea. The correspondence is to be noted.

No. 3C.5 is correspondence dated 19 November 2012 from Mr. Eamon O'Neill re An Garda Síochána. The correspondence is to be noted. As there are allegations against the Garda and there are review mechanisms to deal with this, I do not believe the Committee of Public Accounts can intervene in that case.

No. 3D is documents related to the committee meeting of 22 November 2012. No. 3D.1 is correspondence dated 15 November 2012 from National Treasury Management Agency re briefing papers on matters to be considered at the meeting of 22 November 2012.

No. 3D.2 is correspondence received 20 November 2012 from Mr. John Corrigan, chief executive, National Treasury Management Agency, re the opening statement. The correspondence is to be noted and published.

No. 4 is reports, statements and accounts received since meeting of 15 November 2012. No. 4.1 is Waterford Institute of Technology financial statements for the year ended 31 August 2010. No. 4.2 is the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2011.

Regarding the Waterford Institute of Technology, WIT, and its financial statements for 2010, is it in order?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

No, it is not in order. They were signed off on 8 August 2012. It was in the context of the 2009-10 accounts that the issues in respect of the president's office arose. We were preparing the report and we needed clarification on a number of issues before we signed off on the accounts.

Is there anything specific to the issues we are covering in the accounts of WIT for 2010? They may have been noted in a note to the account in terms of qualification of the accounts.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It is not qualified. The certificate refers to the matters included in the special report in January. Any matter arising from it was included in special report.

Was there any response from the Department of Education and Skills in respect of matters raised last week?

Clerk to the Committee

Not yet. It is under review.

I think we should pursue it.

It is of grave concern to those in Waterford that this is dealt with as quickly as possible because it leaves a cloud over the institute. It is unfair of us to stand back and allow time to pass with regard to the issues raised on expenditure at the institute. We need to close off that business and tie it into the examination under way at present. We should ask the Department of Education and Skills to assist us. We should also remind WIT that it should have its presentation complete in order to be called in as early as possible so that there is no delay. The institute, the Higher Education Authority and the Department of Education and Skills appeared before us and one of them should take a lead role in presenting the overall submission from WIT.

What are they expected to present?

We made it clear to them when they appeared that many questions remained unanswered. Members felt it would be better if the representatives from WIT were asked in again and that one of the three parties involved would take up the explanation on expenditure, giving a clear picture of how money was spent and managed. That work was to be undertaken by them and they were to be asked to return. In the meantime, Mr. Quigley was appointed to investigate the companies associated with WIT and we are trying to link the two as quickly as possible to get the work out of the way. It can be damaging to the reputation of those involved and needs to be dealt with.

Mr. Quigley is investigating the matter and the relationships between people who had contracts with WIT. Surely we should leave him some time to do his work.

That is what we are doing. We are getting a brief on his terms of reference and the timeframe involved in order that we can complete the other part of our work before us.

WIT will not be in a position to answer questions if the investigation is ongoing in the college.

There are two different matters, linked somewhat through our exchange on the previous occasion. We are trying to clear the air, find out our position and proceed in order that we can complete our work. We are trying to be helpful to the Department of Education and Skills and WIT in respect of the issues raised. Regarding correspondence and the work programme, I received correspondence about the National Aquatic Centre. The information, which I just received, will be circulated and contradicts some of the information we received in our hearings. We have the minutes on that from the Minister and we should set out an agenda for a meeting before Christmas to tidy up the outstanding matters, such as WIT, the aquatic centre, that report and other issues. I will prioritise those on the agenda without interfering with the work programme we have. They will not take a great deal of time. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Is there any other business?

We are not launching a report today but giving a further overview on what is in the public domain. It undermines the integrity of our process in terms of making reports. Invariably, they end up in the public domain before we launch the report.

The report is much more extensive than what I read in the newspapers today. We should proceed at 3 p.m.

I am not saying we should not. I am just making a comment.

There is no way around it if it gets into the public domain. It is important to have the launch.

I am just making a comment.

I agree but I have no control over it. The launch will go ahead at 3 p.m. Is the agenda for the meeting at 10 a.m. Thursday, 6 December, when we will meet representatives of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government to deal with chapters 6 and 16 concerning financial commitments under public private partnerships and central Government funding of local authorities, agreed? Agreed. The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government was to revert to the committee about the balance of allowances being paid. We also asked about the Poolbeg issues. Some of the Deputies raised this and we were to get issue information. We should flag it as outstanding business from previous meetings which will be dealt with before dealing with the two chapters.

Top
Share