COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate -
Thursday, 6 Feb 2014

Business of Committee

Vice Chairman

Are the minutes of the meetings of 28 January and 30 January 2014 agreed? Agreed. The minutes of our private meeting on 30 January will be considered at next week's meeting. No. 2 relates to matters arising from minutes. I am advised that late yesterday evening, the committee received a submission from SOLAS on funding allocated to Rehab, and we are now in a position to undertake an analysis of the information received. This will be discussed at next week's meeting, when a decision can be made on taking evidence from Rehab. Is that okay? Agreed.

No. 3 is correspondence received since the meeting of Thursday, 30 January 2014. No. 3A is correspondence from Accounting Officers and Ministers. Nos. 3A.1 to 3A.3 relate to correspondence requested by the committee from the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, DDDA, on credit card payments and foreign travel. These are to be noted and published.

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

There are a couple of points in this regard which relate to the investigation into the Irish Glass Bottle site. No. 3A.1 is information which came in relating to the shareholders' agreement, and members will recall from previous meetings that there was a disagreement on the interpretation of what the authority believed it was entering into and what it entered into. We have information from the authority's financial adviser but has the Comptroller and Auditor General an opinion? There was a disagreement between me and Mr. Paul Maloney at the previous meeting about the issue and perhaps we need to investigate it later this morning.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I was going to refer to that in the opening statement for the meeting if the Deputy wants to leave it until then.

Vice Chairman

Was there something else to which the Deputy wanted to draw attention?

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

There is the matter of the credit card expenses. The Chairman, Deputy McGuinness, raised the matter at the last meeting before Christmas, and the witness indicated he did not recall having a credit card. It had been a long meeting but he subsequently wrote to us and stated that he had a credit card but had forgotten about it at the meeting. He indicated that he was happy to write to us with regard to the content of the statements. We received a number of statements and the witness had a card which he signed off every month. The notes are kept in quite some detail. Could we write to him to request information about certain issues? Going through the detail of the credit card statements, there are a lot of travel and hotel expenses, although there are also food expenses as well as entertainment. Significant amounts are spent in places like Lillie's Bordello and Town Bar & Grill for Christmas parties. There is approximately €3,600 in total in 2005. In fairness, in September 2008 there is only €331 spent. There is also a record of a second credit card from Mr. David Higgins which also has entertainment in it. For example, drinks were purchased in Ely in 2007 amounting to €1,400, and something for staff only in Ely again amounting to €2,500 in October 2006. A staff dinner in Odessa amounts either to €370 or €3,700 - I cannot tell which - and this is one of many expenses. I was surprised by that because Mr. Maloney was so adamant that he could not remember having a credit card. Clearly there have been a few held within the authority. Could we afford him the opportunity to write to us about that?

Vice Chairman

We will ask the clerk to write to him.

No. 3A.4 is correspondence, dated 29 January 2014, from the Secretary General of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine regarding an extension of contract for the CEO of Bord na gCon. This is to be noted and published and a copy forwarded to Mr. Dillon who raised concerns about this issue.

No. 3A.5 is correspondence, dated 31 January 2014, from Mr. John Moran, Secretary General, Department of Finance, regarding an update on missing documentation requested at the meeting of 16 January 2014. This is to be noted and published.

No. 3A.6 is correspondence, dated 31 January 2014, from Seán Costello & Co. solicitors regarding their client Sergeant Maurice McCabe. I will ask the clerk to update us on this matter.

Clerk to the Committee

My advice is that the publication of the transcript of a meeting is a procedural rather than a legal matter. The appropriate rules which apply, therefore, are the Standing Orders of the Dáil. I have consulted senior colleagues within the office who have informed me that publishing the proceedings of a private meeting would constitute a fundamental change in procedure for Oireachtas committees and that this could have implications for the future not just of the PAC, but also for other committees to which evidence might be given in private session. The advice I received is that in accordance with Standing Order 99, the matter should be reserved to CPP if the PAC decides that it wants to accede to the request of Sergeant McCabe.

Vice Chairman

I would like to hear members views on this matter. When issues of this nature arose in the past, we always took advice from Ms Mellissa English, the parliamentary legal adviser. Perhaps we might request that she come before us early next week to outline her views on this matter.

Deputy Shane Ross

I do not agree with the course of action outlined. Sergeant McCabe has made a reasonable request and surely he is entitled to a copy of the transcript. We do not need to procure copious amounts of advice in respect of an issue of this nature. We would not be releasing the transcript to the public, we were requested to release it to Sergeant McCabe. He can then do what he likes with it. I really do not understand why there should be any delay and I am of the view that the transcript should be released to him. Sergeant McCabe made a reasonable request for the transcript of the meeting at which he was the chief witness to be supplied to him. I thought we agreed last week that we would give it to him. However, I do not know what the minutes have to say in that regard. I was of the view that we agreed that if he requested the transcript, we would supply it.

Vice Chairman

What was agreed at last week's meeting was that if the witness wished to seek the transcript he would write to the committee and that the committee would consider his request. The initial feedback we have received is that any such request must be referred to the CPP and that the Editor of Debates will not provide a transcript without a direction from the latter.

Deputy John Deasy

We should make a decision on the matter rather than referring it to the CPP. It was a private meeting and the committee agreed that it would be private. The clerk referred to legal advice received, which stated that publication of the transcript would constitute a fundamental change in the way the Oireachtas and its committees do their business. The reality is that there was not a great deal of substance to what was said at that meeting. In the past five minutes, the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. McCarthy, debunked quite an amount of what was said in the context of the number of penalty points that were written off. The theory posited by Sergeant McCabe was that tens of thousands of penalty points were written off. The Comptroller and Auditor General made a definitive case to the effect that only hundreds of penalty points were written off.

Outside of that, the committee did not learn a great deal as a result of what was said at the meeting in question. It might be stated that the latter is a good reason to allow publication but I do not believe that to be the case. I return to the fact that publishing the transcript would give rise to a fundamental change in the way Oireachtas committees operate. If someone were to appear before one of the committees in the future to discuss security or privacy issues, there could be a danger that a transcript of the proceedings could be made public in certain circumstances. That is a step too far for the Oireachtas and its committees. I stated at last week's meeting that the committee had, to an extent, entered the twilight zone. We have crossed over into the realm of the politically paranormal where a private meeting becomes a public meeting. Perhaps we should hold a public meeting and ensure that everyone swears on the Bible that he or she will not repeat what was said. It is just absurd. We must be clear and definitive with regard to how we treat private meetings. We must clarify the position completely. Beyond that, we are entering the arena of the nonsensical.

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

I agree with what Deputy Deasy said. My recollection is that at last week's meeting we agreed that if Sergeant McCabe - for legal reasons - sought a redacted transcript of the proceedings, we would consider his request and make a decision. The first thing to say is that he does not appear to be requesting the transcript for legal reasons.

Vice Chairman

I understand from the clerk that it is not possible to produce redacted transcripts.

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

Then we cannot publish a transcript at all, particularly in view of what transpired at that meeting. The letter received from Sergeant McCabe's lawyers is clearly not a request because the phrase "He has asked that we would write to you" is used. I agree with Deputy Deasy to the effect that we can settle this matter now, we do not need to refer it to CPP and we do not need to publish a transcript.

Deputy Paul J. Connaughton

It cannot be redacted. Is that the case?

Clerk to the Committee

That is correct.

Vice Chairman

Then we cannot release it because there were times during that meeting when both members and Sergeant McCabe were pulled up in respect of what was being said. We cannot go down that road and the transcript simply cannot be released.

Deputy Simon Harris

I largely agree with the point made by Deputy Deasy. We were given very clear legal advice at that private meeting to the effect that if a transcript were to be released under any circumstances, elements of it would be required to be redacted as a result of comments that were made by both the witness and members. It would be absurd to release the transcript without at the very least seeking further legal advice. I agree that if we start publishing transcripts of private meetings, questions will arise as to why those meetings were not held in public.

Deputy Robert Dowds

I am pretty much in agreement with the previous two or three speakers. If I recall correctly, however, Ms English stated that if the transcript were to be published, it would have to be tidied up to some degree. I would be interested in discovering what is the legal position in that regard. If the CPP is the correct body from which to seek advice, then we should refer the matter to it.

Vice Chairman

The initial advice we received came from the Editor of Debates, who is in charge of the section within the office which publishes transcripts of proceedings and who indicated that they cannot be redacted. Any request for a transcript must be referred to the CPP. Clearly, therefore, an issue arises in the context of legalities. In order that it might proceed with the work it is due to carry out today, perhaps the committee might agree to request that Ms Mellissa English provide legal advice on the matter next week.

Deputy Gerald Nash

We must proceed with caution. There are potential implications in the context of how this and other committees might operate in the future. With respect, this issue is much larger than Sergeant McCabe. I expressed some concerns in respect of the unintended consequences to which remarks made at last week's meeting could potentially give rise. We will no longer have control over the transcript - I do not mean that we should seek such control - if it is released. We must be extremely careful and prudent in the context of how we proceed. We would be remiss, in terms of our responsibility to the House and the citizenry, if we did not seek legal advice in the first instance. When such advice is received, we can then make a decision one way or the other.

Vice Chairman

New whistleblower legislation is before the Houses, so it is obvious that there are wider implications as to how this committee and others will function in the future.

There are obviously wider legal implications for how this committee and other committees will function in future. I propose that we ask the clerk to the committee to invite Ms Mellissa English, the legal adviser to the committee, to come before us early next week to give legal advice on how we should deal with this matter. Is that agreed?

Deputy Paul J. Connaughton

Do we not know where we stand on this issue? I do not know what Ms English will tell us next week that would change the position.

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

I would be interested to hear what Ms English has to say in the context of whistleblower legislation and how it might change the role of committees in future. As matters stand, however, we will not produce the transcript. We do not need to drag this matter out week after week. We can make a decision now.

Vice Chairman

As of now, the committee will not produce a transcript because we cannot do so under the rules of the House.

Deputy John Deasy

I agree with Deputy Connaughton. Enough is enough; the committee must make a decision.

Vice Chairman

Is it the general view of members that we should make a decision today?

Deputy Shane Ross

I agree with other Deputies that there is no reason to refer the matter to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

Vice Chairman

One of the rules of the House is that if the committee is minded to publish the transcript, the matter must be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Those are the Standing Orders.

Deputy Shane Ross

By giving the transcript to Sergeant McCabe, the committee would not be releasing it publicly. Whether Sergeant McCabe releases it is-----

Deputy Robert Dowds

We do not know that.

Deputy Shane Ross

May I continue without interruption, please? It would be absurd if the committee were to refuse to provide Sergeant McCabe with a transcript. I am happy to have Ms Mellissa English come before us next week to give the committee advice. However, the idea that we could bury this by refusing to release the transcript is unthinkable. There is great interest in what is in the transcript. The reason we held the meeting in private was in case something irresponsible was said or allegations were made against individuals. No such allegations were made and once that reason has been dispensed with, there is no reason not to make and release a transcript.

Vice Chairman

I ask the clerk to the committee to go back over the procedure for releasing transcripts.

Clerk to the Committee

The official debate of the Oireachtas is undertaken by the Editor of Debate's office under the responsibility of the Ceann Comhairle. It is a matter for the Ceann Comhairle, ultimately, to direct the Editor of Debate's office. Given that what we are doing now is a change in procedure, under Standing Order 99(1)(b), the Committee on Procedure and Privileges has oversight in respect of all the procedures that are adopted by all committees, whether it is requested or not. That is why there is a safeguard in Standing Orders which provides that if a committee was minded to publish a report, the matter would have to go before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. It is in Standing Orders.

Deputy John Deasy

We have not made any decision to change procedure. Let us be clear in this regard, the committee has not made a decision on publishing the transcript. As such, there has not been any change to procedure and from what I have heard, such a change will not be entertained.

Vice Chairman

If we consider publishing the transcript, the matter must, under the rules of the House, be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The decision we must take is whether the matter should be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

Deputy Simon Harris

The meeting was held in private at the request of the whistleblower. Sergeant McCabe asked to meet us in a private forum. If, as Deputy Murphy stated, he and his legal team wish to check aspects of the transcript, that would be a different matter and I would be interested in finding out if there is a facility for his legal team to listen to what was said. That is not exactly what we are being asked, however. We met Sergeant McCabe in private at his request.

Vice Chairman

We must also decide whether we are referring to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges the question of whether the transcript could be published or if we will seek further legal advice. That is a decision for the committee.

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

We should be careful about the terms we used in this discussion. Words such as "bury" are value-laden and imply that we are trying to cover up something. That is not the case. In my opinion and on proper recollection of the private meeting we had, we are protecting Sergeant McCabe's interests by not producing the transcript. If people have a full recollection of the meeting, they will know exactly what I mean.

On the two questions raised by the Vice Chairman, we are not referring anything to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges because we do not need to do so. We do not need to obtain legal advice on the matter either, although I would be interested in hearing a legal interpretation once the Bill before the Houses has been enacted. The issue has been resolved.

Vice Chairman

Do other members have any further comments to make?

Deputy Shane Ross

I propose that we release the transcript to Sergeant Maurice McCabe.

Deputy Simon Harris

The Deputy cannot make that proposal.

Deputy Shane Ross

I can make that proposal.

Deputy Simon Harris

With respect, it is not a valid proposal because the committee does not have the power, under the rules of the House, to produce the transcript.

Vice Chairman

Under the rules of the House, the committee cannot make that proposal because procedurally the Editor of Debates, who is responsible for the transcripts of debate in the House, will not release any transcript without a request from the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Furthermore, any transcripts that are released will not be redacted. This issue has many legal and other implications.

Deputy Robert Dowds

I would be interested in hearing Ms English's legal opinion, although I would also be happy if we were to decide not to do anything.

Deputy Gerald Nash

We are re-entering the twilight zone, stepping in and stepping out again as time passes. I resent the claim that the committee is attempting to bury something. That is an objectionable slur on members which should be withdrawn. I am concerned that someone who purports to be interested in protecting whistleblowers would decide to promote this type of agenda by handing over the transcript to the point where nobody, with all due respect to Sergeant McCabe and his team, knows where it will land. That is a questionable position which I will not support. I am also concerned about the view of any such action that other whistleblowers or potential whistleblowers could take in terms of future interaction with the committee. We should proceed with caution. I have made my position clear.

Deputy John Deasy

Deputy Harris made the key point and one worth repeating, namely, that Sergeant McCabe requested a private meeting. There is a little game being played here and we are in danger of taking Deputy Ross too seriously. This is less about transparency and the fullness of truth and more about getting on the six o'clock news. Every journalist in this city knows the content of the meeting that took place last week. If anything earth-shattering had been said at that meeting, it would have been reported already. This is not about the content of the meeting but about political individuals and their insatiable thirst for publicity.

Vice Chairman

This committee operates on the basis of consensus. We have always operated in a non-partisan manner and members have always dealt with issues in the public interest. I ask Deputy Ross to respond to the observations and comments made by his colleagues.

In the interests of consensus, may we assume that it is the committee's view that the matter should not be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges? Is that correct? Correct. Are members minded to invite Ms Mellissa English before us to discuss the general issue of whistleblowers? That is a decision for the committee.

Deputy John Deasy

Yes.

Vice Chairman

Are members minded to invite Ms Mellissa English to attend before us next week to discuss the general issue of whistleblowers? That is a decision for the committee. Perhaps Deputy Ross's objections to the matter could be noted in the minutes of the committee, on this particular issue.

Deputy Shane Ross

I thank the Vice Chairman for that. No, I think that if the advice that we are getting is correct, that it has to go to CPP first, then we should ask CPP for permission to release the transcript to Maurice McCabe.

Vice Chairman

Deputy Ross is aware that the legal advice we got is that, in terms of any transcript, one would expect that there would probably be redactions needed, and we are being told by the Editor of Debates of the Houses of the Oireachtas that no transcript can be redacted in any way. If the Deputy is taking into account the best interests of all concerned - and I want to move onto the main body of the work today - we need to make the decision as a committee. I ask the Deputy, in the interest of the workings of the committee, that he takes the bona fides of everyone that works on the committee - which is very important in terms of it being very much in the public interest - and that he would take it that we could move on from the issue and that his objections on this matter would be noted in the minutes. Then we could move onto the main body of work.

Deputy Shane Ross

I do not accept that. Of course I accept everybody's bona fides. There is no doubt about that. The reason they say these things are obviously genuine and they obviously do not have any wish to be on the 6 o'clock news. That is fair enough.

Vice Chairman

I thought that the workings of this committee, Deputy Ross-----

Deputy Shane Ross

I think it is-----

Vice Chairman

-----were about dealing with the public interest.

Deputy Shane Ross

Yes, this is in the interests of the public and it is very, very important. I am not suggesting that this is released to the public immediately. I am saying that the idea that we could refuse - which is what we are doing - Sergeant McCabe permission to look at his own transcript, of his own evidence, is absurd. If it has to go to the CPP - which I was not aware of so this is a new development - so be it. Let us ask the CPP for permission to do that, certainly.

Deputy Paul J. Connaughton

We have discussed the matter ad nauseum. The Vice Chairman is not going to get consensus on the matter now. Let us do what we have to do to make a decision and move on.

Deputy Áine Collins

Yes, I confirm that.

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

The view of the committee is clear - we are not referring it to the CPP. If someone wants to push the committee to a vote I can propose one and if they have seconder then we will vote.

Deputy Shane Ross

What is the proposal at the moment?

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

There is no proposal.

Deputy Shane Ross

What are we doing about it?

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

If the Deputy wants to make a proposal, and he has a seconder, then we will move to a vote.

Deputy Shane Ross

The Deputy is not the Chairman.

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

Come on.

Vice Chairman

Can I take it, Deputy Ross,-----

Deputy Shane Ross

Yes.

Vice Chairman

-----that the issue here is as follows. The Committee of Public Accounts, as a committee, has always operated on a consensus. I believe members are making this point in the best interests of all concerned, and there are issues of concern. Anything that is referred to the CPP will involve a transcript that is unredacted. It was a private meeting. Can we take it, at this moment in time, that the committee is of the view here today that the issue would not be referred to the CPP, the Deputy can note his own concerns on the issue and that we would move on from that point?

Deputy Shane Ross

No. It is not a matter of noting it. I vehemently oppose it.

Vice Chairman

We can note it in the minutes that the Deputy opposes it and then we can move on from this point.

Deputy Shane Ross

You do not want to vote. Is that what the Vice Chairman is saying?

Vice Chairman

I believe, in the interests of the committee-----

Deputy Shane Ross

What is the decision then? What is the decision of the committee?

Vice Chairman

The decision of the committee at this time from the deliberations of the members here today is that, taking all factors into account - the fact that it was a private a meeting, the fact that it would involve an unredacted transcript being provided - the view of the committee is that it would not, at this time, be referred to the CPP for decision.

Deputy Shane Ross

For the reasons that I have already given, I totally dissent from that decision.

Vice Chairman

We note the Deputy's dissension.

Deputy Shane Ross

Okay.

(Interruptions)

Vice Chairman

We note the Deputy's dissension.

Deputy Shane Ross

That is fine.

Vice Chairman

Item 3B.1 is correspondence dated 4 January received from an anonymous source re mismanagement at St. Vincent's Healthcare Group. It is to be noted and a copy forwarded to St. Vincent's Healthcare Group for a note on the issues raised.

Deputy Simon Harris

I wish to comment, without referring to the specifics of the letter, considering it is an issue about St. Vincent's Healthcare Group. I am sure that many members are continuing to receive - as I am - anonymous letters relating to the St. Vincent's Healthcare Group. I would ask that it not just be referred to the St. Vincent's Healthcare Group but also referred to the HSE.

St. Vincent's Healthcare Group was possibly lucky - for want of a better term - in the sense that a delegation came here on the same day as the CRC. As a result, after a lengthy, explosive, shocking and upsetting meeting with the CRC, St. Vincent's attended here in the afternoon when, I suppose, members and possibly the public were jaded from revelations. There were very serious issues raised about St. Vincent's at that meeting and in the aftermath of that meeting. The one that most particularly sticks in my mind is the issue of the consultants' contract and the potential loss of income to the public hospital as a result. I do not feel that the matter has been satisfactorily addressed.

I shall make the broader point now, the one that I had asked permission from the Vice Chairman to make later. The HSE told us very clearly that the deadline for the 44 section 38 bodies - of which St. Vincent's is one - to sign up to be compliant with public sector pay policy was Friday, 31 January. There was an internal audit, based on which we were working, published on 15 March last year and sent to this committee on 14 November. This committee has done some very valuable work regarding some of those 44 organisations. Possibly as a result of the CRC situation becoming so dominant, many of the 44 section 38 bodies were not in compliance and serious issues were raised. We received an update from the HSE on 6 November which said that at least 27 of the organisation either were not compliant, had only issued a holding letter or had indicated that they were seeking legal advice. There has been a dearth of information from the HSE in the time that has passed. I have serious concerns about a number - we did not even reach the issues in the National Maternity Hospital - and want to know whether they are going to be resolved.

Vice Chairman

I want a question, Deputy.

Deputy Simon Harris

My proposal is that the HSE provides us with a very urgent update on each of the 44 section 38 bodies, as it has previously done in November. I want to know if they are compliant and if they are not compliant then what is happening. I presume that the HSE will be back in with us soon.

Vice Chairman

I suggest that the clerk to the committee writes to the HSE requesting the information to be provided before next Thursday's meeting. Is that acceptable to the Deputy?

Deputy Simon Harris

Yes.

Deputy John Deasy

Notwithstanding everything that Deputy Harris has said, I wish to raise an issue regarding this entire area and one which is slightly overdue. We need to exercise some caution as to how we do our business when it comes to these charitable organisations or organisations that are in the charities sector. I have been contacted, over the past couple of weeks, by a number of CEOs as well as by people who work at a senior level in umbrella organisations for charities in this country. To say that donations and fund-raising efforts - an issue that the Vice Chairman has raised again and again - has diminished is putting it lightly. They are under severe pressure and have seen huge reductions in their fund-raising efforts. As we do our business on the committee - and there are legitimate questions for some of these organisations that have been raised by individuals on the committee - we need to strike a balance. We need to understand the effect that our deliberations have on the charities sector in Ireland, which has been very damaging and considerable. I am not surmising that but have got that information from people who are at the coalface of charities here. Whether we like it or not, people are watching us and are horrified by some of the revelations that have come from the committee. At the same time we need to be conscious of the effect it is having. As we look at Rehab and these other organisations, we need to be more aware of that. I am referring here to the huge amounts of money being lost to the sector through donations compared with what they were taking in hitherto.

Vice Chairman

I agree with the Deputy. That is why it is imperative that the issue is dealt with as quickly as possible and also that the message goes out that the great majority of organisations in the area do outstanding work. The Deputy's points have been duly noted, well made and stated at the appropriate time.

Item 3B.2 is correspondence dated 24 January 2014, from Mr. Michael Wall, sector organiser, SIPTU, regarding public private partnerships in the Irish Water service. It is to be noted that the use of PPPs is a matter considered by this committee in the context of value for money. I propose that we seek a note from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform on the issue raised. It is a matter we can deal with when both Departments are before the committee in the months ahead. The clerk to the committee will follow up on the matter.

Item 3B.3 is correspondence dated 27 January 2014, from Mr. Patrick Condon, regarding the transfer of Waterford's HSE south cataract waiting lists to private hospitals. It is to be noted and a copy will be forwarded to the HSE for a note on the matter raised. Mr. Condon is raising a value for money issue and it may be that the Comptroller and Auditor General will examine this in the context of his audit of the 2013 accounts of the HSE. The Comptroller and Auditor General will note that point.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Absolutely.

Vice Chairman

Item 3B.4 is correspondence dated 23 January 2014, from Mr. Alan O’Reilly, regarding mobile phone interference at PAC meetings. It is to be noted. This is typical of the complaints we are now receiving and I will be drawing attention to it again when we deal with the DDDA. The secretariat has received a large amount of correspondence on the matter. In the interests of publicity and public interest for the committee, given that we live in that world in terms of the media, we want to speak and we also want to ensure we are heard. Telephones should be on airplane mode at all times. Item 3B.5 is correspondence dated 29 January 2014, from Mr. William Treacy, regarding an appearance before the committee. This is to be noted.

Documents relating to today’s committee meeting include 3C.1, correspondence dated 31 January 2014 from Mr. John Crawley of the DDDA, regarding a briefing paper for matters to be considered at the meeting of 6 February 2014. This is to be noted and published. Item 3C.2 is correspondence dated 16 January 2014 from Professor Niamh Brennan, former chairman of the DDDA, regarding issues raised at meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts of 12 December 2013. This is to be noted and published. We will come back to this next week when we have taken the evidence today.

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

From Professor Brennan's correspondence, it seems that she will not be available until September.

Vice Chairman

August.

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

She will be back at her desk in late August. It would be very disappointing if our investigation into the DDDA had to go on until the end of the year.

Vice Chairman

Can I make a suggestion? The clerk to the committee will write to Professor Brennan to say that, in view of trying to bring a conclusion to the issue, she might examine her diary to see if she is available at an earlier date.

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

Can we also make the point that it is no longer the view of the committee that she will be the last person to attend? From previous meetings, we know that people may want to respond. Has Mr. Moylan been invited to appear before the committee? He was the person who drafted the first report. Some members were critical. Perhaps we can speak about the witness list.

The second point concerns what Professor Brennan says in a letter referring to the Comptroller and Auditor General special report about how the committee had not looked at the North Quay Investments Limited, NQIL, and Mountbrook issue. I am not sure the committee intends to do so in so far as the special report is concerned. In our meetings to date, we have not looked at it in detail.

Vice Chairman

Did the Comptroller and Auditor General consider the issue raised in his special report?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

A chapter deals with planning matters and the NQIL project and the court case the DDDA lost was a significant contributor to its ultimate financial position. The DDDA undertook a process of changing its planning process because there were issues. It is significant and as far as I recall the committee has not focused on the issues that arise from it.

Vice Chairman

Perhaps Deputy Murphy can pursue this with the clerk in terms of bringing Mr. Moylan before the committee. We will ask Professor Brennan to come in earlier and the matter can be looked at in that context. Perhaps Deputy Murphy can raise it today.

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

It is something to be cognisant of because, to date, we have only been looking at the Irish Glass Bottle site. We must be clear on the focus of the report the committee will issue.

Vice Chairman

What is Deputy Murphy's request?

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

We need to decide if we will look into this chapter of the special report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. If so, there are people we need to talk to again. Unfortunately, that will delay our final report.

Deputy Gerald Nash

Excuse me for jumping ahead but, in anticipation of what the Comptroller and Auditor General may say in his opening remarks, there is a clear issue in respect of the decision taken in two weeks to increase the financial exposure of the organisation in terms of the joint venture from €9 million to over €61 million. It may be intimated that members of the board who were in situ at that time may assist us in our examination of the issue. I support what Deputy Murphy says. We should have a discussion about the remaining individuals we need to talk to in the interest of completeness.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The NQIL case was heard before the High Court and a determination on the events that led up to that particular planning permission and its unfolding at a later stage. Matters have been ventilated in the High Court.

Vice Chairman

When did it come to a conclusion in the High Court?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

October 2008. The report draws attention to the fact that there was a court case and it was lost by the DDDA. The court case explains why it was lost. The focus of the chapter was on what the DDDA did subsequently to mend the defects in its systems. We need to be careful about going back into issues and actions of individuals that have already been dealt with by the court.

Vice Chairman

Will Deputy Murphy pursue it with the clerk?

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

We can clarify it now. The Comptroller and Auditor General is referring exactly to what I want to focus on. Reading the chapter of the special report dealing with the North Quay Investments Limited site, it is very different to the Irish Glass Bottle site. We had to do investigative work to find out how things unfolded. If we do not have to look into the chapter of the special report and if we are focusing on the Irish Glass Bottle site, Professor Brennan needs to be told that. From her correspondence, she is waiting for us to investigate that chapter as well. If we are not going to do that, there is no need to wait.

Vice Chairman

We will converse on that point with the clerk to the committee.

Item 3C.3 is correspondence dated 5 February 2014, from Eileen Quinlivan of the DDDA. It is her opening statement and is to be noted and published. Item 4 is the reports, statements and accounts received since the meeting of 30 January. The accounts are to be noted.

Item 5 is the work programme and it is now on the screen. Do members have comments? No. Is there any other business? No.

Can we agree the agenda for Thursday, 13 February 2014? Agreed. We will deal with the 2012 annual report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, Chapter 2, Government debt, Chapter 28, accounts of the National Treasury Management Agency, Chapter 29, clinical indemnity scheme, the annual report of the National Pensions Reserve Fund and its accounts for 2012.

We will now call the witnesses into the room.