Skip to main content
Normal View

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate -
Wednesday, 14 Jun 2017

Vote 20 - Garda Síochána - Internal Audit Report on Garda College, Templemore (Resumed)

We are joined by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Séamus McCarthy, who is a permanent witness to the committee.

Because of the votes in the Dáil today, the meeting will run as follows. The Dáil is meeting at noon and we will suspend the sitting at approximately 11.50 a.m. to enable members to attend the chamber for the nomination of the Taoiseach. Following the voting, the sitting of the Dáil will be suspended for the afternoon and the committee meeting will resume as close to 3 p.m. as possible. If the voting is completed in the Dáil much earlier than expected, the meeting will resume half an hour afterwards, but we expect it to be completed by 2.30 p.m. or 3 p.m. I understand there will be a suspension of the Dáil sitting of at least three hours in the afternoon. That is the approximate timescale. The Dáil will reassemble to discuss the election of a Government by which time we will have concluded. The committee meeting will certainly not resume after that because that debate will take a few hours to complete. In other words, we will have a morning session until about 11.50 a.m. and an afternoon session, depending on the number of questions to be asked. Speakers have indicated in the following sequence: Deputies David Cullinane, Catherine Murphy, Alan Kelly and Catherine Connolly.

We are continuing to look at the 2015 appropriation accounts, Vote 20 - An Garda Síochána, specifically the interim internal audit report on financial procedures at the Garda College. We discussed the matter on 4 and 31 May and will today engage with Garda senior management and the former chief administrative officer. The Commissioner will appear before the committee next Tuesday, 20 June, to answer further questions. Next Tuesday evening in a separate meeting the committee will meet representatives of the Policing Authority and the Department of Justice and Equality. The focus today is on what has happened since 2015, the interim internal audit report and its implementation. As at our last meeting, I again ask members co-operate fully. We are joined from An Garda Síochána by the deputy commissioner, Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin; the assistant commissioner, Ms Anne Marie McMahon; chief superintendent Margaret Nugent; superintendent Pat McCabe; Mr. Barry McGee, author of the 2008 report; Mr. Joe Nugent, chief administrative officer; and Mr. Cyril Dunne, the former chief administrative officer who left the position in October 2015 and who has indicated his availability until lunchtime.

I remind members, witnesses and those in the Visitors Gallery that all mobile phones must be switched off fully or left in airplane mode. It is not adequate to leave them in silent mode because they will still interfere with the recording system.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Members of the committee are reminded of the provisions of Standing Order 186 that the committee shall refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or a Minister of the Government or the objectives of such policies. They are also reminded of the long-standing ruling of the Chair to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

As we did not ask for a formal opening statement, we will commence with the first speaker, Deputy David Cullinane, who will have 20 minutes. The second will have 15 minutes, while everyone else will have ten. We need to keep to the timetable because of the tightness of time. Members will have an opportunity to come back in a second time, but we are keeping to the timescale outlined.

I welcome all of the witnesses. Have they been following the proceedings of the Committee on Public Accounts at previous meetings when we had the Garda Commissioner and some of the civilian heads before us? Have they been briefed on what has gone before? Has anyone been briefed by his or her superiors or given briefing notes?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I have not been briefed at all. I have not followed the committee's proceedings, although, to be clear, I have seen numerous things on television, news bulletins and the Vincent Browne programme-----

Has anyone been formally briefed by his or her superiors?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

No.

I assume the members of An Garda Síochána will be aware of what has gone before at previous hearings.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

I have seen some but not all of the hearings.

I will begin with Mr. Dunne who may not be aware because he may not have picked up on it in the media coverage he mentioned that at the last meeting of the committee at which we discussed this issue, the head of internal audit, Mr. Niall Kelly, stated in his opening statement that there had been instances of interference, non-co-operation and the withholding of information from the internal audit unit. Is Mr. Dunne aware of that claim?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

No.

Mr. Kelly talked about the period from 2008 to 2011 and cited the executive director of finance, Mr. Culhane, as one of the individuals who had not co-operated and withheld information from him. He also cited the chief superintendent at the training college at the time, as well as the administrator and the chief administrative officer. Who would have been the chief administrative officer from 2008 to 2011?

Mr. Pat McCabe

I am not specifically sure; it certainly was not me. I think for part of that period Mr. Leamy might have been, but I am not sure when he started or finished. He certainly finished before I-----

Mr. Kelly claimed that it was the office of the chief administrative officer which had either withheld information from him, interfered with his work or did not co-operate with him in it. Who was the chief superintendent at the training college at the time, in the period from 2008 to 2011? Was it Mr. McCabe?

Mr. Pat McCabe

No, I am the superintendent.

Who was the chief superintendent at the time?

Mr. Pat McCabe

The chief superintendent in 2008 would have been Mr. McGann. Between 2009 and 2010 it would have been the recently retired assistant commissioner, Mr. Nolan.

Who would have had responsibility for the day-to-day management of the training college in the period from 2008 to 2016? Specifically within that structure, who had operational command?

Mr. Pat McCabe

The chief superintendent would have been in overall charge, while the superintendents would have had responsibility for performing various functions.

Therefore, Mr. McCabe would have had obvious responsibilities.

Mr. Pat McCabe

Yes.

As the assistant commissioner, Ms McMahon, would have had.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

Yes. Between March 2011 and August 2016, I had responsibility for the Garda College. Between March 2011 and August 2015, it was an additional responsibility I held. I was the chief superintendent in charge of the Garda community relations bureau at Harcourt Square; it was, therefore, an additional responsibility during that time. I was there on a full-time basis from August 2015 until August 2016.

Are Ms McMahon, Mr. McCabe and Mr. Dunne of the view that none of them withheld information or did not co-operate with or frustrated the work of Mr. Kelly and the internal audit unit? Is that their view?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

No, absolutely not.

That is Mr. Dunne's view. What about Mr. McCabe?

Mr. Pat McCabe

Absolutely not.

What is Ms McMahon's view?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

Likewise.

Mr. Kelly says he sought a copy of the McGee report in 2008 but never got it. Who would have had responsibility to make sure he received it?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I understand that happened before my time.

Everybody has a view that it happened before his or her time. I am interested in the process.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

If the Deputy tells me when, I could give him-----

Mr. Cyril Dunne

In 2008 I was nowhere near An Garda Síochána.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

On what went on at that point in time and who was responsible for what, I cannot possibly-----

Mr. Dunne will understand-----

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I cannot possibly respond to questions like that one.

Mr. Dunne can. In terms of the process involved, if the internal auditor sought from the finance directorate a copy of a report carried out by Mr. McGee and Mr. Kelly says he never got it, I want to know who was responsible for giving it to him. When Mr. Culhane came before the committee, he said the CAO at the time would have had to make that call. We are trying to establish what happened, but a call was made. Mr. Kelly said he was frustrated in his work. He was trying to get a copy of Mr. McGee's report but never got it and he wrote to Mr. Culhane several times. He wrote to the CAO but never got a response. Who in the organisation would have had responsibility to give the internal auditor the 2008 report?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I have no knowledge of what was going on at that point in time.

Does anybody in the room have any knowledge of who-----

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I cannot possibly speculate.

With respect, Mr. Dunne can. Does anybody in the room know who should have had that responsibility?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I will give the Deputy the information I have, but I will not speculate.

With respect, I am not asking Mr. Dunne to speculate. The witnesses in the room have worked for or are still working for An Garda Síochána. I am asking about the process involved and who was responsible for what. If people who formerly worked in very senior positions in An Garda Síochána cannot answer questions about who was responsible for what, that concerns me. If Mr. Dunne cannot answer the question, perhaps somebody else might. Can Mr. Ó Cualáin answer the question?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Mr. Kelly reports to me. That is the reporting line. In terms of any issue Mr. Kelly has in the provision of documentation related to any of his work or difficulties he might have in obtaining information, I have made it quite clear to him that he is to let me know in order that I can ensure-----

With respect, we are talking about 2008.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Yes.

A copy of the report was sought. We heard Mr. Kelly's testimony. He did not get a copy of the report. He received a summary of a 2010 report in 2011, but he sought a copy the 2008 McGee report several times but never got it. I am asking a very straightforward, simple question. When he sought a copy of the report, who had responsibility to make sure he got it?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Whoever Mr. Kelly asked should have given him a copy of the report.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Whoever he asked should have given him a copy of the report.

Mr. Ó Cualáin is saying Mr. Culhane had that responsibility.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Mr. Kelly, as the internal auditor, can seek and is entitled to get any information he needs to pursue his work.

Mr. Ó Cualáin might be able to stick with me. In 2008 Mr. Culhane said the Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality and the Comptroller and Auditor General should be informed of the 2008 report. We now know that the Secretary General of the Department and the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General were not informed at the time. When Mr. Culhane said the Secretary General of the Department and the Comptroller and Auditor General should be informed and that he would have informed his superiors of this, whose responsibility was it to ensure the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General was informed?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Again, we have an audit committee on which someone of my rank always sits. That has been the case since the committee was established I believe in 2006. If Mr. Kelly made such recommendations, they would have passed through-----

It was not Mr. Kelly who stated it should happen but rather the head of the finance directorate who at the time was Mr. Culhane. He put it in writing to his superior that the Department and the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General should be made aware of the situation but that did not happen. Who was responsible for making sure the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General was informed?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Mr. Culhane would have written to his line manager who at the time would have been the chief administrative officer.

Would it be the understanding of Mr. Dunne that it would have been the responsibility of the chief administrative officer to inform the Comptroller and Auditor General if Mr. Culhane, as he did, had written to the CAO at the time?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I do not know what Mr. Culhane wrote to the Comptroller and Auditor General. If Mr. Culhane wrote to the Comptroller and Auditor General recommending that he do something, I expect that it was a decision of the CAO. It is not for the line manager, in any circumstance, to take instruction from a subordinate. I cannot see how it is anybody else's responsibility, given the recommendation made. I assume that is-----

Did Mr. Dunne read the internal audit report?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

No, I did not.

That is incredible. Mr. Dunne has not read Mr. Kelly's internal audit report.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Mr. Kelly only supplied me with two pages.

Did Mr. Dunne ask for a copy of the report in advance of this meeting?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

No, I did not.

Mr. Dunne is answering questions about his role and that of his predecessors in the office and has not even read the report we are discussing.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I was not asked to come to account for the role of my predecessor.

He is accountable for himself and the office he held.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Correct.

We are going to get to his role but Mr. Dunne has not read the interim audit report.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

No.

Mr. Dunne did not ask for a copy before this meeting.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I got two pages from Mr. Kelly. He wrote to tell me that they were the only two pages that made reference to me. That is-----

I find that unacceptable.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

It may be unacceptable, but it is true.

I am not saying it is not true. I am putting questions to Mr. Dunne fairly and when I put questions fairly, I expect to be given fair responses. All I am saying is I believe it is reasonable for a witness coming before the Committee of Public Accounts to at least have read the report which is the substance of what we are discussing. If he has not read it, it is reasonable for me to be concerned. Mr. Dunne can have his own view, which is his entitlement, but I have given mine. It is unacceptable. Can Mr. McCarthy help me out on who should have been informed-----

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Can I respond to that question? What I was referring to was an email to me from Mr. Niall Kelly, dated 27 September 2016. It stated: "In regard to providing you with more than the extracts provided [the two pages] I am not sure whether you are requesting a full copy of the report. Other than the extracts provided there are no other sections of the report relevant to yourself. Perhaps we could also discuss this at our meeting". I have been informed very clearly that there are two extracts relevant to me. I have come to the committee to help it and give an account, but to be then expected to account for something in an internal audit report which the internal auditor has said does not refer to me is not reasonable. That is-----

I am not asking Mr. Dunne to do that. I am saying that, in my view, he should have read the report. We can disagree on that point.

What date was on it?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I subsequently received a letter, dated February 2017, which stated: "In response to our telephone conversation and other correspondence related to the Garda College audit report and taking on board the points raised by you I have made the attached changes to the section of the report that concerns your actions in relation to the issues". Again, that refers to two paragraphs in the report.

I thank Mr. Dunne.

To be helpful, we are not in possession of the document from which Mr. Dunne is reading. If he has a moment, we will ask somebody to take a photocopy in order that it can be circulated. I am trying to understand the sequence. There was a draft report produced and Mr. Dunne was asked for his comments on aspects of the section relevant to him before it was finalised.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Correct.

I want to understand the process. Perhaps somebody might take the correspondence and photocopy it. Would that be in order?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Absolutely.

We have not seen it. I thank Mr. Dunne.

I will turn to Mr. McCarthy. We are at the stage in 2008 where Mr. Culhane has notified his superior that the Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality should be informed and that Mr. McCarthy's office should be informed. He will have heard his testimony in the past. We now know that did not happen. Mr. McCarthy has heard from Mr. Dunne as well. I am trying to establish what the process should have been and who was responsible for actioning that call for Mr. Culhane to make sure the Comptroller and Auditor General's office was informed. What is Mr. McCarthy's understanding? What would he have expected?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

My understanding is that the recommendation was submitted up the line in An Garda Síochána and that it went to the Commissioner and that the Commissioner agreed to my office being informed. I cannot remember if he agreed to the Secretary General being informed, but it did not happen thereafter.

This was a letter from the CAO to the Commissioner and the Commissioner at the time knew of the issues. He notes the areas of concern in the former CAO's letter and then says the Comptroller and Auditor General should be informed. Who then had responsibility for informing Mr. McCarthy's office at that point?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It is not clear to me who would have had responsibility but there would have been a direction of the Commissioner I assume. A number of persons could have informed-----

Can Mr. Ó Cualáin enlighten us?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

There might not have been a specific direction from the Commissioner. I know it was Commissioner Murphy who directed that certain things be done at that time. I am not sure of the exact date of it but Commissioner Murphy at the time directed that back out to one of the deputy Commissioners or the CAO to have that matter looked after.

Who had responsibility for informing the Comptroller and Auditor General's office specifically? Is Mr. Ó Cualáin saying a direction was given by the Commissioner to the CAO? Would that have been the chain of command if that happened?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

It could have gone to either the CAO or the deputy Commissioner of strategy and change management at the time.

So the deputy commissioner of strategy and change management possibly was the office that would have been informed.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Yes.

"We have made a decision to inform the Comptroller and Auditor General and this needs to be done".

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Yes, because that deputy commissioner would have sat on the internal audit committee.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Obviously not.

Why in Mr. Ó Cualáin's view was it not done?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

I have no idea; I cannot answer that question.

That is a pattern that has emerged. Nobody seems to know why all of these things did not happen but we will get to that another day. With regard to process, Mr. Ó Cualáin is saying the Commissioner made a decision, and the executive director of change management possibly had responsibility or the CAO, although he is not sure.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

The deputy commissioner on my side of the house, which was called strategy and change management then, sat on the internal audit committee and I would-----

But it did not happen.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

It is clear that it did not.

Mr. Kelly said that in 2011 he got a summary of Mr. Nolan's 2010 report and he did not get the full report. He received a letter from the CAO at the time with a handwritten footnote from the Commissioner. He was given certain assurances that changes would be made, recommendations would be implemented and he removed a vital paragraph from his 2011 report. Is Mr. Ó Cualáin aware of that?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Yes, the interim audit report outlines that.

Is Mr. Ó Cualáin aware that when Mr. Kelly appeared before the committee he stated that he regretted the fact that he removed that paragraph?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

That is what he stated.

Is Mr. Ó Cualáin also aware that he said that he felt duped about that paragraph? He took assurances at face value and he felt duped.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

I am aware of that being stated.

Given what Mr. Ó Cualáin now knows, does he agree that Mr. Kelly was duped?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

It is a matter of interpretation for Mr. Kelly. I cannot get into the mindset of the people who were then in office and who were making those decisions. What is clear to me having studied the historical aspect of what has developed is that there was lots of work and many reports being carried out and certain interpretations were being taken of-----

Does Mr. Ó Cualáin agree that in any organisation, especially An Garda Síochána, one would not expect the head of internal audit to feel duped at any time and that would be a red line issue? Internal audit staff should not at any time feel duped and they should get full co-operation. Would he accept at least that if that was the view of the head of internal audit, that was a problem?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

I would absolutely, yes.

Assurances were given in the Commissioner's footnote in 2011. Those recommendations were not implemented. Who had responsibility for implementing them?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Again, it would depend on what type of recommendation it was.

With respect, Mr. Ó Cualáin has read the report and he understands the issues intimately. He knows exactly what letter I am talking about. This was sent to Mr. Kelly by the CAO with a footnote from the Commissioner. Mr. Ó Cualáin is intimately aware of the letter and of the report in which recommendations were made. We discussed this with the Commissioner and she was unable to tell us why the recommendations were not implemented. Further examination is being undertaken. I am not asking about why there were not implemented; I am asking who was responsible.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

The deputy commissioner of strategy and change management. That was the side of the house that would have been given that-----

Would it have been only the deputy commissioner or would other people in the organisation have been responsible?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

At that level of the organisation, all the other functions fall out. Each deputy commissioner has responsibility for a number of issues, as has the CAO. On the operational front, which is headed by Deputy Commissioner Twomey at the moment, that is purely operational and operational issues go in there to be dealt with.

I imagine Mr. McCabe and Ms McMahon who were responsible for the day-to-day management of the Garda Training College would have had a role in implementing the recommendations.

Mr. Pat McCabe

No. I was in the college at the time but I did not see that report and I had no involvement in its implementation.

Mr. McCabe was in the training college at the time but he did not even see the report. What was his position?

Mr. Pat McCabe

I had responsibility for crime investigation training and administration.

Turning to Mr. Dunne, we got a note, which I gave to the secretariat, of the second meeting of the steering group. It came from the head of legal, Mr. Ruane. It says that on 6 July 2015 the executive director of human resources, Mr. Barrett, delivered a report to the CAO and that the report was to be given to the audit committee in July of that year. Why was that report commissioned?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I asked Mr. Barrett to prepare a summary of the issues as he knew them at that point in time for me.

For what purpose?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

So that I could understand what the issues were. I also considered whether it was appropriate at that point to bring the audit committee into play. I decided that it was not at that point in July and that it was more appropriate to wait until the September meeting. The reason for that was, as I read the report, it was clear to me that an awful lot of information was missing. Second, I would not have been in a position to answer the simplest question about the report and there was no corroborating evidence at that point in time so-----

What we know from the internal audit reports, which Mr. Dunne has not read, is that internal audit is quite critical of him in that regard. When Mr. Barrett was before the committee, he was also quite critical because his view is that Mr. Dunne should have informed the audit committee in July. Mr. Dunne briefed the committee at the September meeting under any other business.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Correct.

A copy of the report was not circulated to members in advance. When Mr. Ó Cualáin appeared before the committee previously, I asked him about that and he said that it was his understanding that the comprehensive briefing was given at the September internal audit committee meeting. That was his view of the minutes. He was not at the meeting but that was his view. Mr. Howard, who was subsequently before the committee said:

There was a very busy agenda that day and at the end of the meeting, this was raised verbally as an AOB item. There was no briefing given to us. I have reflected on how I will phrase this. Neither I nor any of the other outside members of the committee took from that briefing any sense of importance of this issue as it subsequently emerged. Ultimately, this issue was so serious that the Accounting Officer had to amend a statement of internal financial control. I do not believe that has happened before on the Garda Vote so, objectively speaking, this was a very serious issue. It was raised, we discussed it a bit and we were asked if we would include it in the 2016 programme of work, which was done. That was Mr. Kelly's report at that time but no indication was given to us that this was different.

He went to say that he got no understanding of the seriousness of the issues.

That does not chime with Mr. Ó Cualáin's reading of the minutes, or does it? I refer to Mr. Howard's statement to the committee.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

All I can say is I was not at that meeting.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

In preparation to take up my position on that committee I would have read over all of the minutes and notes.

Mr. Ó Cualáin was not at the meeting.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

No. I would have spoken to Mr.-----

But Mr. Ó Cualáin has now heard from Mr. Howard who was at the meeting.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Yes.

Mr. Howard is chairman of the committee.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Yes.

That is his view and Mr. Ó Cualáin has heard it.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

From my reading of the minutes-----

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I can come back to that matter.

I will get to Mr. Dunne.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I can help.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Having looked at the minutes and sat on the committee for over 12 months and from the detailed notes in the minutes, it appears to me that a very comprehensive briefing was given by Mr. Dunne on that day because that is what is reflected in the minutes and what was agreed at the following meeting. That is my interpretation of what he said.

Before I get to Mr. Ó Cualáin about the matter, I have one last question for Mr. Dunne because it mirrors very much what happened at the internal audit committee meeting. Further down the note that can be viewed on the screen there is an account of what he said. It reads: "The CAO wished to make it very clear that there is no basis to suggest any misappropriation or mishandling, fraud or otherwise or any suggestion of inappropriate activity." Mr. Dunne said at the steering group that he could not see if the notes had been corrected, but he has said he could not see "any suggestion of inappropriate activity," yet when she was here the Garda Commissioner accepted the findings made in the report and that there had been financial irregularities. At the second meeting of the steering group the CAO stated, if the note is correct, that he saw "no basis to suggest any misappropriation or mishandling, fraud or otherwise," even though Mr. Kelly has said he could not give those assurances and had to keep an open mind. The note further stated, "or any suggestion of inappropriate activity," which I find staggering. Will Mr. Dunne explain to the committee how he felt at the time, given what he knew that he could not see "any inappropriate activity"?

Once Mr. Dunne concludes, it will be the turn of Deputy Catherine Murphy. Deputy Cullinane can come back in again later.

I thank the Chairman.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Going back to the first point about which Deputy David Cullinane talked - the meeting of the audit committee and whether there was an appropriate briefing - I actually have the minute which I can read:

The CAO, Mr. Cyril Dunne raised an ... issue in relation to the administration at the Garda College and numerous bank accounts set up in its name.

The CAO has been charged with putting an internal working group together to look at issues of administration in the Garda College. Some previous actions identified haven’t yet been completed. All sections will be involved; Strategy and Change Management; Finance etc. A representative from the Department of Justice and Equality has been invited to ensure visibility. The Attorney General’s office has been consulted in relation to possible legal issues.

Issues could potentially go back as far as the 1960’s to the foundation of the college. It is important to ensure that any accounting issues get regularised in this financial year. This will also put a demand on the resources of GIAS [the group internal audit] and needs to be factored into the 2016 Audit Plan.

There was a general discussion among the committee members and the following matters were raised:

. Is the Garda College a legal entity?

. What is the legal status of the college restaurant?

. Is the Garda College a limited company?

. The Commissioner’s right to own property

The CAO stressed the importance that any legal issues need to be clarified before GIAS can conduct an audit or review. The following areas need to be examined:

. Accounts

. Land owned by OPW

. Title of the land

. Leases

. Employee contracts – legal advice needed

. The Sportsfield Company – does it come under the direction / control of the Garda College?

It was agreed that this is a very complex matter and there are sensitivities surrounding this issue; reputation is important and timeframes, security of employment are very sensitive areas.

The Committee noted the demands that are likely to be placed on Internal Audit during 2016 and asked to be kept informed of developments in this matter.

No, Deputy; we are moving on.

I wish to make a final point.

No; we have gone five minutes over time. Have we got the document?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

You do, yes.

It was in September.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Yes.

We have the document. I thank Mr. Dunne.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

It is dated 30 September.

Deputy David Cullinane can come back in later, but he has gone way over time.

I will start with Mr. McGee who jointly authored a report in 2008. Is that correct?

Mr. Barry McGee

Yes.

Has Mr. McGee read the most recent internal audit report?

Mr. Barry McGee

Yes, I have.

Did he see much of what he identified in 2008 represented in the report?

Mr. Barry McGee

The same type of structure is there in terms of the issues involved. There have been some recommendations in the intervening period.

After Mr. McGee wrote the report in 2008, what did he expect to occur? Did he expect all of his recommendations to be taken on board? His report contained serious stuff about the Sportsfield account and the restaurant and all of the things that have subsequently emerged. He talked about the Companies Act. He flagged a number of things that have subsequently brought the college in Templemore into significant disrepute, which is a fair representation.

Mr. Barry McGee

I wish to be clear and the following is my thinking on the matter. First, it is not my report, although I know that it has been referenced as the McGee report.

That is fair.

Mr. Barry McGee

It has been used in the media as a reference. I am not even sure how the report came to be a reference because straight off I was a member of staff in the finance directorate. I was an assistant accountant at HEO level. Obviously, I was tasked to do this work by the executive director, Mr. Michael Culhane. The start of the report came from the CAO. It was the CAO who had requested the review to be undertaken based on his observations. Essentially, in my mind, this was a report for the CAO and that was the purpose.

Mr. Barry McGee

It was a review to be undertaken of general financial structures.

To whom was the report delivered?

Mr. Barry McGee

To my line manager.

Mr. Barry McGee

The executive director, Mr. Michael Culhane. I was part of a team also and there was also supervision. Obviously, I finalised the report.

I wanted to establish these facts first.

I will move on to discuss two items of correspondence, the first of which is dated 24 October 2015 from Mr. Michael Culhane to the deputy commissioner of operations. I presume it is the deputy commissioner of strategy and change management, SCM, and the chief administrative officer. The second document is from Mr. Dunne. It is a file note on the one-to-one meeting with John Barrett re the finances at Templemore. Very serious matters were identified in the report of 2008, restated in 2010 and are now the subject of the internal audit report we have received, which is what we are discussing. I refer to the two particular documents. Mr. Barrett was the subject of both the minute and the letter.

Some of the references in the note are quite shocking and show a mindset of containment. It reads: "I had got feedback that he had told Barry that he was not happy with the way I was approaching the issue." That refers to Cyril Dunne and John Barrett. The note continueds: "Barry had told him he was feeling under pressure over the report he had produced in 2008". That refers to Mr. McGee.

Is there a reference number on the document?

Yes. It is DE0103GCT, pages 1 and 2.

I ask everyone referring to a document to give us its reference number so we can get it on screen.

In fact, it might be PAC 32R575.

We will see if we can get that on screen.

I might be wrong in my reading of it. If I am, the witness might help us. It seems to me to be about having a real problem with Mr. Barrett in relation to his approach to the report. Can Mr. Dunne expand on that first?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

The context of that file note is important to understand. This was a letter written from Mr. Culhane to the Commissioner, each of the acting deputy commissioners and myself. He was making what seemed to be a complaint about Mr. Barrett. I think that letter is available to the committee.

That is the one I wanted to refer to. I might do that now. That is PAC 32R575. Within that report, it asks whether in collecting all of this confidential material and posting it to his own home address "JB" is guilty of a criminal offence under the Official Secrets Act and suggests the Commissioner might wish to initiate a formal investigation of "JB's" activities under the Act as his intent may appear to be to cause damage to An Garda Síochána either through unauthorised disclosures or leaks to the press. This was written by Mr. Culhane to the Commissioner, the deputy commissioner in charge of operations, the deputy commissioner in charge of change management and the chief administrative officer. Mr. Dunne is responding to that. It seems to imply that the real problem was not what was happening in Templemore but was rather Mr. Barrett. That is how I read that. I will leave Mr. Dunne to come back to me on that. That context makes it very serious.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I agree with Deputy Murphy that that was the sentiment in that letter from Mr. Culhane. In that letter to me, it was clear that he had issues with Mr. Barrett. The relationship between Mr. Culhane and Mr. Barrett - and it was probably evident even at this committee - has not been strong. That letter was sent to me, the Commissioner and the deputy commissioners, separately. When I got it, my first reaction was actually to talk to John Barrett, which I did. That is the note to which Deputy Murphy is referring. I did not tell him I got a letter because I felt that would pour fuel on the fire of a relationship that was not good but I told him, as is basically set out in the note, that I had got what I called "feedback". I referred to what Mr. Culhane had said about meeting with Mr. McGee. I say it here, which is what happened. I reminded John that we, John and I, had always been open with each other that we had different approaches to trying to solve this problem. We were quite open about that between us.

Can I stop Mr. Dunne there? He said they had different approaches to solving this problem. Mr. Barrett's approach and that of others was that it should be referred to the Comptroller and Auditor General, that it should be a section 41 matter and that it should not be maintained in house. What was Mr. Dunne's view?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

The exact same except my view was that we needed to get a lot more information than we had at that point in time. The differences would have been-----

It was "Report it but not just yet".

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Correct, if the Deputy sees what I actually did. Mr. Barrett's view was that with the level of information we had we should go straight to the audit committee on 15 July. My view was that it was obvious to me that there was a whole load of information that we did not have. We had two reports at that stage. There was the report generated through Mr. McGee's work and then a subsequent review of that. There were two pieces of documentation that we had. It was clear to me that there were reams of documentation that must be there. I wanted to find yet more information before we elevated it up.

Does Mr. Dunne regret taking that approach at this stage?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Not at all, actually, because when I look at the outcome, it is exactly as we would have wanted it to be. The issues got aired, the information has been established, we have had an internal audit and we are having a review by the PAC. That is exactly as I laid it out in the minute to the audit committee in September. The only difference is whether we went on 15 July, which was John's view and with which I did not agree, or whether we initiated engagement with the audit committee in September.

Did Mr. Dunne not feel he had an obligation immediately when he identified something as serious as the issues identified? Did he not think there was an obligation to make sure the relevant people like the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Minister were immediately told of the information?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Actually no, because there is a responsibility to give a complete account. What was clear to me was that it was far from complete. My view, which I still believe to be the correct view, was that we needed to get a lot more information before we would be able to report in particular to the Department. That is what we did. We immediately set out to do two things. One was what I describe as the "No regret" move, which would be implementing the recommendations that had been made back in 2008. It was to start to do those because there was no reason we would not.

I have very limited time.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I beg the Deputy's pardon, but she needs to understand how my decisioning happened.

I ask the Comptroller what the legal obligation is in relation to disclosure when things are discovered. Was that an appropriate approach? Is that how it should have occurred?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I think I would take a different view to Mr. Dunne. In my view, a matter of this nature and this seriousness should be raised immediately with the audit committee in the first instance and the audit committee should have been involved in the decision making and in advising the Commissioner on an approach and the provision of information to my office. I would have expected to know quite soon, but the first step, given the seriousness of the matters which I think was evident around July, was that the audit committee should definitely have been involved at that stage.

The internal audit reports to Mr. Ó Cualáin.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

That is correct.

I know he was not in the position continuously from 2008 on. He is recent enough.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Absolutely not. I was put into that position in an interim capacity in July 2014. I was also in charge of the western region at that time so I was doing two jobs. A colleague of mine, Assistant Commissioner Kieran Kenny, shared the deputy commissioner portfolio with me, which was split. He took some matters and I took others.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

That remained the position until October 2015 when I was promoted and formally appointed into that position.

One of the things that is jumping out at me was asked of the Commissioner at one point also about any kind of a breach of law.

Does Mr. Ó Cualáin have concerns that there have been offences committed?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

I first heard about this matter in July 2015 when all members of the executive were being briefed by Mr. Dunne in the Garda College. All of us were immediately concerned that there might be criminality in that regard and we wanted to find out whether that was the case, but nothing was found to suggest it was. When Mr. Kelly published his interim audit report, he could not state there was criminality.

Is that still the case?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Yes.

Further audits are taking place.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

I cannot predict what that work will uncover.

Does Mr. Ó Cualáin have fears about it?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Of course. One always has concerns.

Other than the internal audit, are investigations into any of these matters taking place?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Mr. Kelly has continued with his interim audit. He wants to pursue a number of lines for the timeline previous to the one at which that he looked. He also wants to go into more detail on some of the aspects he found.

Can I be very specific with Mr. Ó Cualáin?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Yes.

I asked last week if funds had been transferred to a Dublin account under the control of a former senior garda. Mr. Kelly said he would prefer not to comment on that matter because internal audits were ongoing.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Yes.

Is anything in that arena - I will be that specific about it - the subject of further inquiries other than the internal audit?

That is the Deputy's final question.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Mr. Kelly is making all of those inquiries. As soon as he can report back to the Commissioner on progress in that regard, that will dictate the next stages of whatever emerges.

Every time I sit here, I have more questions. I probably have hundreds of questions that we will not get through. Therefore, I will have to prioritise. I might have to write to some witnesses through the Chair at a later stage because there is no way I will get through all of the contradictions. I remind witnesses that this is the Committee of Public Accounts. They should bear this in mind when giving their answers. A report will be produced as a consequence of this process and it is highly likely that this issue will be dealt with in another forum afterwards. I ask the witnesses to bear that in mind. Will Mr. Dunne clarify whether he will be here for the full hearing today?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I will be here this morning.

We should have discussed that issue beforehand. Why will Mr. Dunne not be present this afternoon?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

When I was contacted on 26 May, I was asked to be here from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. today.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I received a note yesterday stating things had changed.

A new Taoiseach is being elected today.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Unfortunately, I am not available this afternoon.

Why is Mr. Dunne not available?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Just because it is late notice and I have other commitments.

This is the Committee of Public Accounts and this is one of the biggest controversies in Ireland in which Mr. Dunne is a central figure. He is probably one of the most important figures. As such I ask him to reconsider his commitments and rearrange his diary as otherwise, we will probably have to bring him in again. I ask him to reconsider immediately as there is no way we are going to get through all of the questions to him in one sitting.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Yes.

I ask Mr. Dunne to consider carefully.

I ask Mr. Dunne to respond. Is it possible for him to make a telephone call to postpone his commitment this afternoon? Today's Dáil business has changed without-----

Unfortunately, we have no control over the election of the next Taoiseach.

I ask Mr. Dunne to make arrangements to assist our efforts to complete our work.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I will see if I can.

That would be appreciated.

We are asking Mr. Dunne to try to do so as it would be better if we could conclude the issue today.

I find it fascinating that Mr. Dunne has not read the audit report, to which he is central because of his role in the organisation. He has had a very interesting career. I have looked it all up and, frankly, find it unbelievable that he has not looked through the audit report. I will ask a few questions to kick off. I have a lot of questions for everyone but particularly Mr. Dunne.

I will begin with a standard question that I asked at our last meeting. The witnesses probably know it is coming. As Mr. Nugent has already answered it, he can avoid doing so again. It does not apply to the officials from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. Mr. Dunne can escape it too, but I will put it to him in a different context. Given the evidence we have heard, do all of those currently in the organisation have 100% full confidence in every member of the management team across the board at the highest level of the organisation? If anyone has a conditional answer, I ask him or her to set it out now. It is a very important question for each and every witness.

I would like to ask about the role of senior Garda management. The witnesses will be aware that we all have to adhere diligently to the standards in public office procedures. Have they all met their requirements under the Standards in Public Office Act since its introduction? If any of them has not done so, or if any of them has issues, I ask him or her to mention it now.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

Can I speak at this point?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

I remain a director of the Garda College Sportsfield Company. I took up that role in 2011 when I had management of the Garda College as an additional responsibility. The Garda College Sportsfield Company is not a trading company and does not have share capital. I am a director of the company by virtue of my role in An Garda Síochána, not as Anne Marie McMahon. My role in the company-----

Ms McMahon is a director as "Anne Marie McMahon". There has to be a name.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

Yes, I am but not as an individual. I am there by virtue of my role as a chief superintendent.

I understand that, but Ms McMahon is listed as a director in her own name.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

Correct. The role-----

Directors do not go by titles but by name.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

It is important to say for the record to I am a director because of my role.

I understand that.

Ms McMahon is making a statement.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

My role as a director of the company does not have a material impact on my role as a member of An Garda Síochána at chief superintendent rank, or any other rank. As it happens, my role is at chief superintendent rank. On that basis, I did not submit a return to the standards in public office committee. However, I took on board what Mr. Niall Kelly had recommended in his report, which was that each director should retrospectively make a declaration. I have done so.

Let us be clear. Everyone here has met his or her standards in public office requirements during the years, with the exception of Ms McMahon. Was she not meant to meet requirements in her position?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

Only if I had something to declare.

Should Ms McMahon not have made a null declaration?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

No.

Fine. As a director, Ms McMahon did not make any standards in public office submission.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

No, I did not and I have outlined the reason to the committee. My role as a director did not have a material impact on my role as a chief superintendent of An Garda Síochána.

Did Ms McMahon seek legal clarification?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

Yes, informally.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

From an assistant commissioner, Mr. Eugene Corcoran, who is a qualified barrister.

Was it in writing?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

No.

On what date?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

I had a couple of conversations with him, the most recent of which was in the past week.

Ms McMahon can come back to us on the issue. I do not expect her to know the date off the top of her head. I ask her to write to the committee to tell us when she received this advice.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

Yes, certainly.

For the purposes of clarity, do I understand correctly that, as a director of Garda College Sportsfield Company Limited, Ms McMahon did not submit standards in public office documentation because she had received informal legal advice that she did not need to do so?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

Yes.

That is fair enough.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

I have done it retrospectively.

I wish we could all receive that advice but we cannot.

We are different.

We are always very different. We know that. It is amazing, is it not?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

It is very important for me to emphasise that I acted as a director of the company solely in the context of my role and station at that time.

I understand.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

I had no personal interest in it. I had not invested in it in any way. I gained no benefit from it - good, bad or indifferent. In fact, I have no interest in continuing as a director of the company.

I have a limited amount of time and would appreciate it if Ms McMahon answered my questions.

Is Ms McMahon okay with the answer she has given?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

I think it is important that I clarify my position in relation to the directorship. I am still a director; I want to get out of it but I cannot-----

If Ms McMahon wants to resign, she should write to the CRO and tell it, "I'm gone". I do not know but-----

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

I have been asked by Mr. Nugent to remain as a director until such time as the company is wound up. This is a process that I started in 2013 but from my point of view, I do not want to be a director of the Sportsfield company.

Ms McMahon is caught in a bind, basically.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

Yes.

I can appreciate that. To be fair though, it is slightly irrelevant. I accept that Ms McMahon had no material interest in the company but there are lots of people who are directors of companies who have no material interest in them but they still have to abide by what is legal. Obviously, in Ms McMahon's situation, she does not have a material interest but she did not adhere to the requirements of the law because she got informal legal advice. I am not legally qualified but I do know about the standards in public office legislation. For me, it does not stand up that a director of a company at the level of Ms McMahon would not meet those legal requirements. I know that Ms McMahon is in a bind and I appreciate the situation in which she finds herself. I appreciate that there must be a director and I understand Mr. Nugent wrote to her in that capacity because somebody has to be a director, or at least the organisation believes that somebody has to be a director. However, there are requirements that must be met under law and they have not been met.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

With respect Deputy, I outlined that my role as a director did not materially influence my role-----

I am sorry, but that is irrelevant-----

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

-----as a member of An Garda Síochána.

That is absolutely irrelevant. We could all be directors of a company and have no material interest in it but we would still have to meet the requirements of law. Ms McMahon is an assistant commissioner.

Did Mr. Dunne meet all of the requirements in his role as CEO?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Yes.

I know Mr. Nugent is going to get back to us by Friday regarding the scan of the organisation in the context of the standards in public office legislation. I presume that the witnesses are aware that as senior members of An Garda Síochána they are not allowed to be company directors and are not allowed to own lands. In that context, why did Ms McMahon agree to become a director?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

If I can go backwards before I-----

I accept that there were lots of others before Ms McMahon but unfortunately for her, she is the person who is currently in situ. That is the only reason she is being asked these questions.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

I appreciate that.

It is nothing personal.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

The company was set up in 1993. The purpose of setting up the company was to develop sports facilities for student gardaí in particular, following the recommendations of the Walsh report. I cannot second guess the rationale of those people who set up the company. The first directors were a deputy commissioner, an assistant commissioner and a representative of all of the ranks in An Garda Síochána. The rationale for setting up the company was to develop sports facilities. When the 2005 Act came into being, there were some questions around the Commissioner owning land and so forth. The organisation's legal advisor at the time, Ms Marie-Claire Maney, gave advice to the effect that the Sportsfield company was in existence prior to the enactment of the 2005 Act and that the legislation did not retrospectively apply. That was the position and the company remained in being.

As I have already outlined, I went to the Garda college in 2011. During my initial period of time at the college I was focused on a wind-down or de-scaling of the operation and there were several iterations of that as the country went deeper into recession. In or around the middle of 2013, I began examining the Sportsfield company and related matters. I was concerned, very much in line with the Deputy's question, as to the role members of An Garda Síochána were playing in terms of being directors of the company and so forth. I initiated a process, the aim of which was to wind up the Sportsfield company and to bring the lands into the ownership of the OPW and I called a meeting in relation to that. I believe the committee has documentation relating to various meetings-----

I am short on time, so I would ask Ms McMahon to-----

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

The Deputy asked why I am a director. It is a role that I was-----

When did the company last file a tax return?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

In 2015. That is my understanding and the returns are being compiled at the moment for the intervening years. The Deputy must remember-----

Hold on a moment, I am sorry to interrupt but we are under particular time constraints today and I still have about 17,000 questions to put to Mr. Dunne. What does Ms McMahon mean by "intervening years"? Is she saying that there were no tax returns filed for many years?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

No, just for two years.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

2015 and 2016.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

If I can just explain to the committee - and this is not an excuse, by the way, but the reality of the situation - that of the current directors of the company, all but one are no longer in the Garda college. They have been transferred to various locations. That is something that has impacted on the very question that the Deputy has raised. It is not an excuse but it is the reality of the situation.

So, the company has not filed tax returns for a number of years.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

They are being compiled currently.

So they were not done on time.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

They were not done on time, no.

This is An Garda Síochána we are talking about.

When does Ms McMahon expect that will be completed?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

In a number of weeks.

Mr. Nugent wrote to us on that issue last week, regarding five tax numbers. I am just putting that on the record. I invite Mr. Nugent to say publicly that he is not in a position to confirm compliance, as per that letter. I ask Mr. Nugent to clarify the contents of that letter because it might not be on the public record yet.

Mr. Joseph Nugent

There are five tax numbers for the purposes of administration. At the outset we included the main Garda tax number, not because of any concerns in relation to compliance but to ensure that in our dealings with the Revenue Commissioners they could see that we were taking responsibility for the other four tax entities. I just want to say that up front. The discussions we are having with the Revenue Commissioners relate to the other four tax entities and whether tax liability applies in each of those circumstances. We have engaged a tax expert to work with us on that and are in discussions with the Revenue Commissioners at present. I am not trying to be evasive with the committee. We will clearly reach a conclusion and a determination with the Revenue Commissioners which will be brought to the attention of the Comptroller and Auditor General forthwith. We are literally in the process of discussions. I am conscious of saying something that might prejudice or jeopardise those discussions but no more than that. I am more than happy to provide details to the committee at the appropriate point.

Can Mr. Nugent say today whether An Garda Síochána-----

Mr. Joseph Nugent

An Garda Síochána, as an organisation, is tax compliant.

It is tax compliant.

Mr. Joseph Nugent

Yes.

I apologise to Deputy Kelly for cutting across him.

I hope the Chairman stopped the clock.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

Could I make a point please? In terms of the Sportsfield company, while the accounts are currently being compiled for 2015 and 2016, the Garda Sportsfield company as an entity has charitable status, so no tax liability applies.

I appreciate that. My next question is directed at Ms McMahon, Mr. McCabe, Ms Nugent and Mr. Ó Cualáin, four serving gardaí. To their knowledge, were funds from the laundry, restaurant or bar accounts ever used by any garda for personal purposes?

Mr. Joseph Nugent

I am not aware of that, Deputy.

I am not asking Mr. Nugent.

Mr. Joseph Nugent

Apologies, I thought that question was for me.

No, I meant it for Ms Nugent and the other three witnesses.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

I am not aware of that; certainly not for personal use.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

No, neither am I.

Mr. Pat McCabe

No.

Ms Margaret Nugent

No.

Were any payments of expenses - possibly even legitimate expenses - made from the revenue generated from the restaurant or bar facilities? Were any expenses ever paid from those funds rather than from the Garda Vote?

I direct that question to the same four people.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

I am not aware of that.

Ms Margaret Nugent

I am not-----

Can the witness speak up?

Ms Margaret Nugent

I am not aware of that. I took up my position on 4 August 2016.

I know that. Okay, fine. Mr. McCabe might answer that question.

Mr. Pat McCabe

No.

Just for the purposes of clarity because there is a huge amount of information on this, millions of euro were generated in revenue and what we are hearing today is that no expenses were ever paid from that revenue, which, to me, is incredible. I direct the following question to the same four people. Are they aware if any garda ever gained personally from funds through the Garda College, EU or CPOL accounts? I presume the answer they will all give is "No". Is it?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

No.

Okay. I hope Mr. Dunne will be here with us in the afternoon as I will not get through all my questions.

We will be moving on.

I know but, in fairness, the Chairman took up a lot of my time.

I know. The Deputy is still well over his time.

I want to move to some very specific questions.

I hope we will all get the same latitude.

A meeting took place on 2 July which Mr. Dunne called, the purpose of which was to discuss the issues in relation to what was happening in the Garda College. There were a number of people in attendance at that meeting and I believe Ms McMahon was in attendance. We have heard from Mr. Barrett and Mr. Culhane, who agreed on evidence, that this was the committee that was set up to discuss what was happening in Templemore. We also heard in evidence from Mr. Ruane and Mr. Barrett that Mr. Dunne had briefed the Commissioner on 30 June of the issues in regard to Templemore. Is that not correct?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Going back to the number of points the Deputy made, there was a meeting, and I think there may have been even more than one meeting during July. That was not a meeting of the working group.

What was it so?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

That was a meeting that I asked to be set up after Mr. John Barrett had briefed me about the 2008-----

Mr. Dunne is aware that two members who were in attendance at that meeting said it was a meeting of the working group.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I am not actually.

If Mr. Dunne had followed the proceedings from two weeks ago, he would have known that.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

As I said earlier, I have not been following-----

That is incredible. I am not kidding Mr. Dunne in saying that he is the fulcrum around which much of this has happened. The fact that he has not been following the proceedings does not stand up to any "believability", if that is even a word.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I have a full-time job, to which-----

I know Mr. Dunne has a full-time job.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

-----I am fully committed.

I know Mr. Dunne's organisation well. I used to be a-----

Mr. Cyril Dunne

If the Deputy knows the organisation, he will know it has been dealing with some significant challenges.

I am well aware of that.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

My focus has been on that, not on the proceedings here.

The interim audit report covers the time period from 2006 to 2016. It directly critiques Mr. Dunne's work. He was mentioned specifically in relation to actions that he did not carry out. He is appearing before this committee and he has not only not gone through the transcripts of previous sittings but he has not even read the report in which he is critiqued. We have a responsibility to put questions to him. The fact that he has not read that report shows that he is treating us with contempt. Quite frankly-----

We are not going to draw conclusions. The witness was asked a question and that was Deputy Kelly's last question. I will get back to the Deputy Cullinane before we suspend for the break.

I have to finish this question and I have one further question. A committee was set up at which two witnesses, the head of finance and the head of human resource, HR, were in attendance on 2 July and Mr. Dunne is now saying that committee was not the one that was set up to look into the issues in Templemore.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Let me be very clear. In the last week of June, from memory, the issue was raised with me by Mr. John Barrett. The issue being the report that had been produced back in 2008. He had had various discussions with people in the college and had identified that the actions had not been completed at that stage, and he reported that to me.

Mr. Dunne asked him to write the report.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

No. This was before the report, his report.

I know that, but Mr. Dunne did ask him to write it.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Okay. One of the things I did was I said that I needed to understand this and I said let us get down to the college, which we did, and we brought Mr. Michael Culhane down as well. We met and, from my memory, it was myself, Mr. John Barrett, and I think the assistant commissioner and Superintendent McCabe was there.

No. He was not. I have the notes here and, to be fair to him, he was not there.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Okay. I beg your pardon.

It does not matter-----

Mr. Cyril Dunne

The membership of that meeting is important because later that month the Commissioner asked that a working group be set up and specifically we were asked to include-----

When did Mr. Dunne inform the Commissioner of the issues in Templemore?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

In detail it was actually in-----

No. That is not what I asked. When did Mr. Dunne inform her that there were issues in Templemore?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I was thinking back through this morning before I came in here. Around the first week in July I told the Commissioner that Mr. John Barrett had raised issues with me. I did not detail any of those issues-----

He said it was on 30 June.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

-----and in the first week of July, what I am saying to the Deputy is that-----

There is a note on the 6th and a letter on 8th and that letter of the 8th was received by Mr. Dunne on the 9th.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Sorry, what?

There is a letter from Mr. John Barrett that Mr. Dunne received on 9th that he wrote on the 8th.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Right.

There is a note on 6 July-----

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Right.

-----and also a note on 30 June.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Right.

Mr. Dunne is saying now that he told the Commissioner of this on the first week in July.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

That is my recollection of it.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

That is my recollection. Just to be clear as to what I said to the Commissioner at that time, and this was in a context of a late evening discussion, around about the first week in July I told her that Mr. John Barrett had identified issues in Templemore and that I needed to get a lot more information. I told her that I would be going down to the college myself-----

Mr. Cyril Dunne

-----and that I would brief her when I had more detail. That was my recollection.

Just to point out, that is a direct contradiction of the evidence given by two witnesses here on the last day, but the time is still before the Commissioner said she first found out about it from the letter on 24 July that was discussed on 27 July. That was Mr. Culhane, and I will come back to that. There is a direct contradiction in the evidence there with respect to that given by the other two people, but it still is evidence that indicates it was before the Commissioner said she knew. It is just it is a different date.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I think it is a different level of detail because I know the level of-----

No. In fairness, if the Commissioner comes in here and says one thing, and that is contradicted now three times-----

I am moving on. This is the Deputy's last question.

This is my last question. On 30 September they were these famous minutes. I am very interested in them. I ask Mr. Ó Cualáin who wrote them?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Ó Cualáin is my name.

Yes, but who wrote those minutes?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

The minutes for-----

Yes, for 30 September. What Garda was in the room who wrote them?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

I was not there.

You were not-----

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

No. I did not attend that meeting. I was not on the internal audit------

Can Mr. Ó Cualáin find out who actually-----

To which document is the Deputy referring?

I am talking about the minutes of 30 September. Does Mr. Dunne know who wrote these minutes?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I think the secretary is probably listed on the attendance.

It does not indicate who is the secretary - yes, Garda Geraldine Greene. I wish to ask Mr. Dunne one question regarding these minutes and Mr. Ó Cualáin might want to reflect on these. Mr. Howard and Mr. Kelly, who were both at the meeting, said in evidence that with respect to the minutes of 30 September - we must remember that the internal auditor still did not know about this, he was told about it six months later in March 2016 - that there was a very brief discussion about Templemore, and we went through it in detail here. However, from the minutes of the meeting under the heading "any other business" it goes into quite a level of detail. How could that have been a brief discussion? Second, the font changes in the documentation. The font is changed. I want to know when these minutes were written and were they subsequently changed?

I ask Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin to find out that for this committee and subsequently come back to us. It is a complete contradiction. Mr. Howard and Mr. Kelly, the head of external audit and the internal auditor, who were both at the meeting, said there was a very brief discussion - we are talking about a couple of minutes - yet there are quite detailed notes in these minutes about what went on. That does not add up at all.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

I was not on the internal audit committee at that time but all minutes of previous meetings are agreed at the following meeting, so the following meeting would have referred back to that set of minutes and it would have been agreed that they were accurate.

As I said, the internal and external auditors both said it was a very brief discussion. That is not what the minutes demonstrate.

I call Deputy Catherine Connolly.

It is very difficult for all of us in this environment. We are here as a public accounts committee. I just want to go back to the kernel. There is an internal audit carried out and no assurance that the financial controls of the Garda Síochána are compliant with the public financial procedures. Second, there is no assurance that the financial controls at the Garda college are compliant with the Garda finance code. Third, there is limited assurance that the financial controls at the Garda college are compliant. The fourth point concerns reasonable assurance regarding the staff cost. That is why we are here in relation to this. It is not possible to go into all the minutiae. This is not a court of law; it is a public accounts committee. I am looking at that and at various things. When did Mr. Dunne come into the organisation?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

In 2013.

From 2013 until 2015.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

It was April 2013 to the end of 2015.

We are here then in different rooms about the same committee, and we are looking at aspects. The Commissioner came out prematurely to say there were historical issues. It turns out they are not historical issues but ongoing issues. Is that not right? Does Mr. Dunne agree there are ongoing issues in relation to Templemore?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

There certainly were at the point in time in question, and I believe that there are still issues to be sorted out. At the point in time in question, in 2015, they were current issues and there were issues or recommendations that seem to have been accepted and which had not been implemented. They were current, therefore.

We have a situation where there are ongoing issues with Templemore. I have read where it was debated whether the Assistant Commissioner should be a director or not. I understand he is caught but what I am trying to get at is that there are ongoing issues. When the Commissioner talked about legacy issues, she jumped the gun. That is for the Commissioner to answer the next day when she is before us. We are here dealing with issues. A committee was set up, and then a steering group to implement the recommendations, so we should have been able to relax. Is that not right? On the basis of problems being identified, we should have been able to relax. Instead of that, Mr. Barrett told us on the last occasion he was before us that, only for him, there would be no investigation. I put a specific question to him. Would Mr. Dunne accept that, only for Mr. Barrett's persistence and note taking, this would not have come out in the manner it did?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I absolutely accept that if Mr. Barrett had not raised it, it would not have because it had gone invisible but I actually do not agree that it would not have been followed up. That was not my experience. If one looks at what was going on after Mr. Barrett's raising of the issue - I give him credit for it - one sees that we, An Garda Síochána, engaged with the Department to make sure that there was visibility there.

After Mr. Barrett raised it?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Absolutely.

Is Mr. Dunne accepting that, as a result of Mr. Barrett, this whole thing went forward?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Absolutely.

Mr. Barrett is of the opinion that he lost faith at some stage. He admits he had a good relationship. I have read the minutes and noted Mr. Dunne had an open relationship with him. He lost faith and started taking detailed notes. Is that not right?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Yes.

So he lost faith, somewhere in the system, that his concerns were being taken seriously. Does Mr. Dunne accept that?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I do, and I think I know why.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

It was because one of the things that became apparent during this process was that Mr. Barrett had not been aware, or was not aware until, I believe, a number of weeks ago, that the audit committee had actually been briefed in September. What he knew was that he had an expectation it was going to be briefed in July. He knew that that did not happen. What seems clear to me now is that he did not realise - I am not putting this on Mr. Barrett; he had not been told - that the audit committee had been briefed in September and that there was visibility. I think he lost trust in me, actually, at that point in time. That is my sense of it.

I think he had lost trust before that because he was sending letters to Mr. Dunne in July 2015 raising matters, well before it went to the audit committee.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Going back to July, I had actually asked him------

Mr. Dunne asked him for a report following-----

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Correct, I did.

But following his initiation, following his coming forward.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Correct. Absolutely, yes.

I seek to reassure the public. Mr. McGee carried out a report in 2008 and has clarified that he did so under supervision and was reporting back. Subsequently, there was a detailed note in relation to Mr. Dunne and himself and a conversation. Will I refer to that and help his memory, or can he help me out? Does he remember it?

Mr. Barry McGee

Yes, please. Go ahead.

Apparently Mr. McGee was sitting minding his own business. Mr. Barrett approached him and asked him to talk to him in private.

Mr. Barry McGee

That is correct, yes.

Mr. McGee had a conversation with Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Barry McGee

That is correct.

Mr. McGee was worried and Mr. Barrett reassured him that his job was not at stake and that he appreciated Mr. McGee coming forward. He looked on Mr. McGee more as a whistleblower.

Mr. Barry McGee

To a degree, that is correct, but I did not have any worries in relation to my position.

Was Mr. McGee happy with Mr. Barrett when he spoke to him?

Mr. Barry McGee

Absolutely, yes.

With his bona fides.

Mr. Barry McGee

Sorry?

With Mr. Barrett's bona fides in raising matters. Was Mr. McGee happy when Mr. Barrett spoke to him that he was doing-----

Mr. Barry McGee

Absolutely.

Let me go to Mr. Dunne. I hate this but this is what is here. We have two documents from Mr. Dunne that have been referred to by one of my colleagues already. Mr. Dunne talked to Mr. Barrett and Mr. Culhane and he made a note of the two conversations.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Correct, after the letter-----

Did Mr. Dunne talk to Mr. McGee at all?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

No, I did not.

Mr. Dunne put down things that Mr. Culhane has said about Mr. McGee but he did not talk to Mr. McGee.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

There was a letter, if the Deputy remembers, from-----

I do, yes. That is the background. Mr. Culhane wrote to the Commissioner-----

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Because of-----

-----who sent it to a lot of other people.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

And to myself.

Yes. A lot of people got a copy of that. Could Mr. Dunne explain that to us? He talked to Mr. Culhane.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I spoke to Mr. Culhane. I actually spoke to Mr. Barrett first because-----

I know all that and have the note. Mr. Dunne did not talk to Mr. McGee. That is what I am asking about.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

No, I did not.

There was a complete conflict between what Mr. Culhane was saying about Mr. McGee and what Mr. Barrett was saying about Mr. McGee.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

What I did was ask Mr. Culhane what he wanted to do. There is a formal process to go through-----

No, there is no-----

Mr. Cyril Dunne

-----if it were to be taken further. Let me just put it that way. I accepted what Mr. Barrett said and I asked Mr. Culhane whether he was raising a grievance against Mr. Barrett, in which case a grievance procedure would kick in. He did not-----

Just one second. With regard to 2 November 2015, Mr. Dunne said he told Mr. Barrett that he got feedback. Feedback was code for a serious letter that had gone to the Commissioner.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Correct. I did not tell Mr. Barrett that-----

It was not feedback; it was a letter.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Yes.

Mr. Dunne did not make Mr. Barrett aware of that very serious letter. He referred to it as feedback.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Correct

Mr. Dunne stated he told Mr. Barrett he got feedback over a meeting he had had with Barry McGee that he was concerned about and that he wanted to get his observations. Mr. Dunne stated he did not say the source or the nature of the feedback and so on.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Correct.

Mr. Dunne outlined what Mr. Barrett asked. Mr. Dunne stated he reminded Mr. Barrett of their differing views. We referred to all that already. He said that there had been a meeting between himself and Mr. McGee at Mr. McGee's request. Mr. Dunne stated Mr. McGee had told him he was feeling under pressure over the report he had produced in 2008.

Mr. Dunne stated that Mr. Barrett had told him that he had reassured Mr. McGee his job was safe. Mr. Dunne went on to caution Mr. Barrett about his documents and where he might be keeping them, such as in the car.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Yes, because there was an assertion in the letter that Mr. Barrett had been taking documents off site.

The secrecy breach. This has already been out in the open. The letter was written by Mr. Culhane to say that Mr. Barrett should be examined or that the Commissioner should consider an examination. That is the background. Mr. Dunne goes to Mr. Barrett but does not tell him about any of that. He relays some feedback from an unknown source to Mr. Barrett. Mr. Dunne then talks to Mr. Culhane on 3 November and reports that. This is a completely different version concerning Mr. McGee. The account was that he told him that Mr. McGee had come to him with concerns about what had transpired from the meeting with Mr. Barrett. They were all sitting down having something to eat when Mr. Barrett came along and asked Mr. McGee to go to a meeting. What Mr. Dunne records here is Mr. Culhane's version of that, which is that Mr. McGee was under pressure with regard to his meeting with Mr. Barrett. According to the account, Mr. Culhane was asked whether he wanted to raise a grievance against Mr. Barrett but he said "No". The account states that Mr. Culhane said he was mistrustful of Mr. Barrett, would not meet him on his own in the future and would be cautious regarding how he interacted with him. Here we are in 2015. There is a serious crisis in An Garda Síochána - an historical crisis, as the Commissioner puts it. We have people together and there are two entirely different versions. I have not even reached the other reports such as the 2010 report or the 2006 report which remained on someone's desk. We are talking about what, unfortunately, has been called Mr. McGee's report. Does Mr. Dunne understand the point I am making?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I do. I think I said earlier in the meeting that the relationship between Mr. Culhane and Mr. Barrett is not good. They both reported to me. The challenge I had was to get them to work together in order that we could make things happen and implement things. That was the challenge I had. The view I had was that it would not be at all helpful to start trying to figure one versus the other.

I want to come back to Mr. McGee briefly. I must put it to Mr. Dunne that he failed utterly to grasp the significance of what was happening. We have a director of finance writing a letter to the Commissioner asking for the Official Secrets Act to be invoked about a man who is raising issues. Is that not right? Mr. Dunne is talking about a difference of personality between the two of them as opposed to realising that Mr. Barrett is raising a serious issue.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

That issue was being dealt with.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

That issue was actually being dealt with.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

From memory, I think it was November.

Mr. Dunne's note is from November.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

At the end of July, we set up a working group which was implementing the recommendations in so far as it could from 2008. We had engaged the Department to make sure it was aware of the issues that had been raised and what was happening. That was the second thing we did. I briefed the audit committee. It was not as if this was being ignored.

I do not entirely agree with Mr. Dunne but I see where he is coming from. However, it was not being dealt with. It was mentioned under any other business. Subsequently, we see from the record of the minute that it is longer. Certainly, I agree with the point made by Deputy Kelly. It is in a different font. Certain questions must be asked. If that is the meeting, I accept it, but at the moment, there is a question around that meeting. When we go forward to December, it recorded that the audit committee would look at it at some future date. That is what the minutes of the December meeting of the audit committee said, so number one, there is no sense of seriousness or urgency here. Mr. Barrett, without whom all the witnesses accept this would not have come to light, is totally unhappy and someone writes that he should be investigated under the Official Secrets Act. We have Mr. McGee inadvertently coming into this with two men giving two different versions. I will return to Mr. McGee. He produced a report in 2008. Did he have any difficulty with Mr. Barrett?

Mr. Barry McGee

Absolutely not.

Did he have trust in Mr. Barrett?

Mr. Barry McGee

Absolutely.

Did Mr. McGee have any say when his report was not acted on?

Mr. Barry McGee

When?

His 2008 report. I understand that it was partially acted on and then even those-----

Mr. Barry McGee

Is Deputy Connolly referring to the 2008 period?

Mr. Barry McGee

I would not have had any input in terms of it. I did the review and sent it up.

Was Mr. McGee aware that there was a report from 2006?

Mr. Barry McGee

No.

When was that drawn to Mr. McGee's attention?

Mr. Barry McGee

Just recently.

Mr. Barry McGee

Just recently in terms of the 2006 internal audit report.

Does Mr. Dunne not think it would have been better to have referred the whole matter to the Comptroller and Auditor General and, at the very least, to have notified the audit committee in a more substantial way?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I accept the point made earlier by the Comptroller and Auditor General so I accept the view that I should have reported it at the July meeting. The only difference here is six weeks between one committee meeting and another because that is when I forwarded it.

I do not agree with Mr. Dunne. Am I being unfair to him when I say that he believed that it just needed to be regularised and that nothing improper was done in the past?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I believed that two things needed to be done and that there were twin tracks. It is important. The finances needed to be regularised in 2015. My view was that we needed to get everything from that financial perspective cleared and regularised in 2015. That is one thread. The second thread was that having done that, we needed to make sure a full audit of everything that had happened was done. That is why I briefed the audit committee to say there would be a demand on internal audit during 2016 to do that audit. I was very clear that both of those things needed to happen.

Did Mr. Dunne ask himself why nothing had happened about the 2008 report?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Yes.

And the 2006 report?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Yes.

What answers did he come up with?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I did not know why. I could not come to a conclusion on that but what I did decide was that we needed to make sure we did not repeat the same mistakes. I made sure we made all the information visible, which is very important. We made what we were doing visible to the Department in order that there was no question that this could be swept under the carpet. That was what I was trying to do. It bears that scrutiny.

May I ask the chief superintendents, the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioners a question? The witnesses can tell me if I am wrong but this is what happened in 2009. On 18 September 2009, Deputy Commissioner Ignatius Rice wrote regarding the Garda Training College and financial regulation. He clearly said that it was important to point out that all the named companies and committees were formed at a time when there was no money made available by the State to develop and improve welfare, sporting facilities and so on. He wrote that the only means at the time to develop and improve these facilities was the formation of the said companies. He went on to write that when the public money came and was channelled through the restaurants and a profit was made, it was okay to use that money because the Government was not funding the facilities properly and he saw absolutely nothing wrong with the use of that money.

That, in my opinion, is the problem. Do the witnesses disagree with that? I am particularly talking to the members of An Garda Síochána.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Do we disagree with what, Deputy?

That there was a mentality that public money going into An Garda Síochána to pay for gardaí then goes into the restaurant, a profit is made and the money is channelled into various groups for sporting facilities because, in the opinion of that commissioner, there was not enough money coming from the Government. If there was money left over at the end of the year, it was certainly not going back to the public coffers.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

From my reading of that piece of correspondence it is clear to me that the deputy commissioner at that time believed that money was not State money. He clearly states that.

He said that he believed that any surplus money did not belong to the State.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Yes.

That is surplus money that was generated from public funds.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Yes.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

That was his view at the time. I do not hold with that view.

The witness does not hold with that view.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

No.

Mr. Pat McCabe

Being on the ground, there was a view, and the understanding in terms of where the money was coming from, that the money, paid clearly from the Garda Vote, belonged to the individual members and trainees. It is as result of that belief that view was held in the college over the years.

I want to come back to that view and lack of candour. Right up to this year the head of the audit committee was speaking to Deputy Commissioner Ó Cualáin. I am very bad on the titles, gabh mo leithscéal. Níl sé scríobhtha. Bheadh sé i bhfad níos eascaí dá mba rud é go raibh sé scríobhtha. They are talking about lack of candour the whole way up, right up to this year. Mr. Howard has it on record. In fairness, he does not attribute it to the witnesses or to the Commissioner, but he talks about the difficulty of giving out about the messenger and about the lack of candour right the way up. That is our difficulty at this committee. Would this witnesses like to comment on that?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

Can I comment? The Garda training college was set up in 1964 when training moved from Garda Headquarters to Templemore. A financial architecture was put in place with the full knowledge of the Department of Justice at the time. That evolved over the years until the Walsh report was implemented. Even going back as far as 1986-----

Can I just interrupt the witness? All of that has repeatedly been said by the Commissioner and others and that has all been accepted. It has not been accepted, however, by the people who carried out the various reports including the McGee report, the Nolan report and the internal audit, which said that all this was off the balance sheet, irregular and outside of financial control. Giving me the historical aspect again is not helpful. What we are looking at was completely outside of acceptable standards, not looking back now, but in 2006, 2008 and 2010. That is the difficulty that we have. It does not inspire confidence when the witnesses keep going back to that narrative. It would be more inspiring for us to hear the witnesses say that they are dealing with the lack of candour. Where does the lack of candour come from? Mr. Howard, as chairman of the audit committee, says that there is still a lack of candour. That is the question for the witnesses to answer, not the historical legacy justifying something that cannot be justified because various experts have said that it is outside. The Comptroller and Auditor General has said this. These are the questions.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

Sorry Deputy, the recommendations of the audit report are accepted and are in the process of being implemented. An Garda Síochána absolutely has to comply with public sector controls, regulations and governance. The historical perspective is important because this was the situation in which An Garda Síochána found itself. There is evidence on file going back as far as 1986 - in fact, Mr. Niall Kelly came across it when he was doing his audit - that there was an investment of £200,000 directly from the Department of Justice into the Garda college. It is not as if An Garda Síochána were dreaming up these things on its own. We had oversight from our parent organisation and there is plenty of evidence of that. Mr. Gay Harris is the person in that particular one that I am referencing. I am not saying that it is right or that was the funding model that should have been put in place. It is clear now that it should not have been. That, however, is the backdrop to this. We are trying to regularise this in every way that we can.

I will respond to Mr. Barrett's question as to whether or not anything would have happened had he not brought this issue to light. As I mentioned earlier, I have been endeavouring to unravel this since 2013, together with the executive director of finance and, to a lesser extent, Mr. Ruane who, as the Commissioner's legal representative, could not really be involved in the sports field company business. In addition to that, and again in conjunction with the executive director of finance, any surpluses were wound down and used for the day-to-day running of the college so that when the new students came into Templemore in September 2014 there was no drawdown on the Garda Vote. It was on a net profit basis so that in the future, that situation would never again arise. There was a lot of work going on to bring the situation into 2017 governance standards and financial controls.

The elephant in the room was the issue of the Garda college restaurant staff and whether or not they were public employees. They clearly were not. At one point in the 2000s they set about going on strike and threatening to jeopardise the implementation of the new training programme, because the restaurant is an integral part of the Garda college. The Department rejected that suggestion at the time so the process continued. While efforts were being made to regularise the situation then, as long as the restaurant staff remained outside the public sector pay roll money was always going to have to be found to pay them. Whether that was right, wrong or otherwise, that was the factual position of the situation in which the Garda college found itself.

I have a question for Mr. Dunne and Mr. Nugent. Both of them will be able to help me with this one and it will also be of interest to the Comptroller and Auditor General. When the audit was being completed for 2015 there was an amendment made in September to the statement of internal financial control. This was in September-----

Mr. Joseph Nugent

September 2016.

Do the witnesses recall that? September 2016 for the year end-----

Mr. Joseph Nugent

For the appropriate year ending 2015.

Mr. Dunne was very aware of the issues in the summer of 2015, in June, July, August and September. Those facts that existed in 2015 had an impact on what had been happening with the internal financial control reporting for 2014. Given that it was considered necessary in September 2016 to make an amendment on the statement of internal financial control by the Commissioner for the year 2015, should that same correction not have been made for 2014? The witnesses had so much information that they were able to brief the internal audit committee and they have, to a major extent, all told us about this here today and in the minutes. It was well known to the witnesses at that stage. Before signing off the appropriation accounts for 2014, which they would have done at some point during 2015, they would have had to know of this major difficulty in internal financial control. Should the witnesses not have brought that to the attention of the Comptroller and Auditor General a year earlier? What was the difference between signing off the 2014 and the 2015 accounts when the same difficulties pertained? Why did the witnesses not bring this to the Comptroller and Auditor General's attention 12 months earlier when they had the information for 2014 by the middle of 2015?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I am trying to remember back. I cannot even remember it coming up as a consideration, Chairman.

Okay. Mr. Dunne has read out the detailed presentation that he made to the internal audit committee in September 2015.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Correct.

It is detailed. Mr. Dunne is fully aware of it and thus able to prepare this report for the internal audit committee. Somebody else said that it is only a small report but according to Mr. Dunne it is quite extensive.

That related to events that had been happening prior to him coming to the college.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Over the years.

At which point over the summer of 2015, when Mr. Dunne was preparing this, the audit was not yet signed off for the previous year. On the one hand, he considered this to be very serious and he gave a detailed report to his internal audit committee and subsequently required an amendment to the statement of financial control. Why did he not come to that conclusion when he came across this information during 2015 for the same correction to be made to 2014?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

It simply was not something that I considered at the time. Possibly I should have but the signing off of the appropriation accounts is not actually part of my brief. It was not something that came through my office.

Who dealt with that? Was that the director of finance?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

It would be the director of finance.

Would he have been aware of these concerns at that stage?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Yes, he would have been aware of it.

I will ask the Comptroller and Auditor General. Given that the change happened when he was completing his 2016 audit, it is clear to me that before the audit from the previous year was completed the substance of this issue was well-known within the ranks of the Garda. Was he made aware of this at that early stage?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

No, we were not made aware of it in 2015.

And should the Comptroller and Auditor General's office have been made aware, in the light of what is now known?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I consider that we should have been.

When the Comptroller and Auditor General became aware of this in his audit last year, he insisted that a correction be made to the statement.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

And that is the case. It was we who suggested we could not complete the audit without something being referenced in the statements of internal financial control.

Given that this information was in the possession of the senior people involved a year earlier, even if they had not done their internal audit report at that stage, what is Mr. McCarthy's view of his not being notified of this a year earlier?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

My view is that it should have been brought to our attention during 2015, in the context of signing off for the 2014 accounts.

From the Comptroller and Auditor General's point of view, is there any mechanism where the audited account that he signed can be dealt with? We are now reaching agreement that the 2014 accounts, which were signed off towards the end of 2015 when all this was very much on the Comptroller and Auditor General's agenda, did not include this. Is there anything that can be done about it? We can make reference to it.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

No, the fact is that an appropriation account is indelible. The account is the account. That is what was reported and cannot be changed.

We cannot change the report.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

No.

It would be up to the Committee of Public Accounts to highlight that issue if we are making a report. Okay. I call Deputy McDonald.

Can Ms McMahon confirm on what date she made her retrospective declaration regarding SIPO?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

I cannot say exactly the date. I think that for 2015 and 2016, I made it in February. For the remainder of the years, I did it in the last two weeks.

So Ms McMahon made a retrospective declaration, one in February 2017?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

Yes.

And the other a week ago.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

About two weeks ago.

About two weeks ago. Okay.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

I can check the date for that if the Deputy wishes.

It would be helpful, for the purposes of accuracy.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

Yes.

So it was very late in the day that the declarations were made and coincided with the hearings here. I state that as an observation.

Mr. Dunne first came to the Garda Síochána in 2012, it that correct? Or was it 2013? When did he come into the position?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

It was 2013.

Okay. What was the tenure of his appointment? Was it a permanent role?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

No.

Was it a fixed term contract?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

It was a fixed term contract.

For how many years?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

The contract was five years and non-renewable.

Five years. And Mr. Dunne did not complete those five years.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

No, I did not.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I was approached. Another opportunity was ------

I have looked at Mr. Dunne's CV. He is quite the professional mover and shaker, would he agree?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I do not know to what the Deputy is referring.

I am just admiring his list of achievements. Could Mr. Dunne tell me the salary that was payable in the role of chief administrative officer?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I do not remember specifically.

He does not remember his own salary.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

It was the same as -----

No, I would like a figure please.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I actually do not have it. It was around €160,000.

Around €160,000.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

It is the same as a deputy secretary.

Okay. That is nice work. It is astonishing that he would not know his own salary, but how and ever. Mr. Dunne came into the position in 2013. He states as a matter of evidence to this committee that he did not have any sight or knowledge of the 2008 report until much later.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Correct.

When did he first read Mr. McGee's report? With due deference, that is how I will refer to it.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I do not know the specific date. It was the end of June when John Barrett brought it to my attention.

John Barrett brought the McGee report to Mr. Dunne's attention.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Correct.

And he read it, I have no doubt, and was alarmed by it.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

That is reasonable.

How long is Mr. McGee in position with An Garda Síochána?

Mr. Barry McGee

Since mid-2007.

And what position is he in now?

Mr. Barry McGee

I was recently promoted to assistant principal, so I am on probation at the moment.

Congratulations for that. Would it be fair to say that among the stellar line up before us, that Mr. McGee would be the least senior person appearing today?

Mr. Barry McGee

Possibly.

I say that with all due respect. Is it not astonishing that back in 2008, Mr. McGee, and Mr. McGee alone, knew and had full surveillance and a sense of what was going on in Templemore?

Mr. Barry McGee

That is correct but it is because I was tasked by the CAO at the time.

I know how it happened but is that not astonishing? Imagine the person with the least seniority, and I will not ask but I would wager he is not earning €160,000 per annum. "I wish I was", says you. I hope he does some day. So Mr. McGee knew about this report. It must have been odd for him to have compiled this report and to have submitted it. If I had compiled such a report, I would have wondered what happened on foot of it. I would have wondered what were the consequences of my work. Mr. McGee gave it to Mr. Culhane who was his superior.

Mr. Barry McGee

Correct.

Okay. And did Mr. Culhane come back at any stage to brief him or were there any subsequent conversations in respect of what was happening in respect of the report?

Mr. Barry McGee

To be honest, no.

Prior to Mr. Barrett approaching him, did any other person within management approach Mr. McGee to discuss that report at any stage?

Mr. Barry McGee

No.

No. So seven years later, Mr. Barrett approaches him.

Mr. Barry McGee

No. To give context to it -----

I do not need context, with respect. We have limited time for context. No one approached Mr. McGee regarding his 2008 report until Mr. Barrett came and had a conversation with him, is that correct?

Mr. Barry McGee

He did not have a conversation with me regarding that. I was asked down to the college as part of a working group. There were other issues in throughput and so on. On questions that were being asked such as how assets were being -----

So that I have not misunderstood, can Mr. McGee clarify when and where did Mr. Barrett have the conversation with him about the 2008 report?

Mr. Barry McGee

Roughly, it was 2015. I cannot remember when but maybe around June.

Is Mr. McGee anxious here today?

Mr. Barry McGee

No.

I ask Mr. McGee not to be. Mr. McGee is here to give us the full value of his knowledge. He has to be fully frank. I am sure he understands in that regard.

Mr. Barry McGee

Yes. I can only give what I can recall.

Of course, I absolutely appreciate that. Seven years later, as I was saying, Mr. McGee has a conversation with Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Barry McGee

Okay.

Mr. Barrett asks Mr. McGee for the report. Mr. McGee supplies him with the report.

Mr. Barry McGee

No. He did not ask me for the report. I suppose he had questions about how-----

Mr. Barry McGee

And other questions, say, on finances within the college.

Okay. So Mr. McGee talked to him about that.

Mr. Barry McGee

Correct, but I never mentioned any report to him at the time. So I was back in Garda headquarters and I asked Michael and he directed me then to send it.

So Mr. McGee sent the report.

Mr. Barry McGee

Yes, with permission. Obviously, I had to clear it with the executive director.

Was Mr. McGee at any stage concerned about his own position or credibility, or his job?

Mr. Barry McGee

No.

So that was a misconstrued worry.

Mr. Barry McGee

It is misconstrued. I might have felt uncomfortable between the two but, absolutely not, there was no-----

What was the source of Mr. McGee's discomfort? Was it the clash between Culhane and Barrett?

Mr. Barry McGee

No, just in terms of how the report was probably being presented to Mr. Barrett. I just felt personal discomfort on it.

Was it in terms of how Mr. McGee's report was being presented to Mr. Barrett or by Mr. Barrett?

Mr. Barry McGee

No, the whole process to present to him. Basically, I was directed by Mr. Michael Culhane to present the report. Sorry, Mr. John Barrett had taken up a position as an executive director of-----

Mr. Barry McGee

-----HR, and of course, the Garda college is under his remit, so we felt it would be remiss not to give him this overview of how the structures were in place.

Was it remiss for Mr. McGee and Mr. Culhane not to take the same view of Cyril Dunne when he came into position as chief administrative officer to furnish him with the report?

Mr. Barry McGee

I suppose in terms of this, this came because I had a direct working relationship with John Barrett on it and he was asking for it.

I am not trying to be smart here or walk Mr. McGee into difficulties-----

Mr. Barry McGee

I accept that.

-----but Mr. McGee needs to tell us what happened, never mind anybody else or what they might think, say or do. Mr. McGee just needs to tell us what happened. Is it fair to say, or was it Mr. McGee's impression or experience, that Mr. Barrett sort of unlocked the whole thing and brought matters to a head in terms of dealing with the issues that Mr. McGee had identified in 2008?

Mr. Barry McGee

Yes. That would be a fair comment.

What is the climate like in the division in which Mr. McGee works? Mr. McGee works for Mr. Culhane.

Mr. Barry McGee

Yes.

Mr. McGee works within that division. Is it a hostile working environment-----

Mr. Barry McGee

No.

-----or is it collegiate?

Mr. Barry McGee

No, no. It is not a hostile working environment, no.

So Mr. McGee never would have felt anxious for his position and Mr. Barrett's concerns. At one stage, the term "whistleblower" is used, as regards Mr. McGee.

Mr. Barry McGee

Yes, that was an opinion. That was not stated. That-----

Okay, so Mr. McGee never felt under pressure.

Mr. Barry McGee

No, no. I mean, Mr. Barrett did say, "Look, your position is safe."

Why would he have said that to Mr. McGee?

Mr. Barry McGee

I do not know, to be honest. As I say, I went in and presented the report. Basically, maybe because of discomfort, that is, my own personal discomfort. There was no issue. Like, I had no fear for my position or anything like that.

Okay. I thank Mr. McGee. To return to Mr. Dunne's tenure, he started in 2013, he told us, and then he took his leave at the end of 2015. Is that right?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Correct.

Had Mr. Dunne's leaving position anything to do with the matters in respect of the Garda college and how all of that was shaping up?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

No, not at all.

How was Mr. Dunne recruited into the job in 2013?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Open competition.

Would Mr. Dunne explain this to me? He states that when he discovered the full scope of what was going on, he decided that he needed further information. How or why would he have had that discretion? Let me remind Mr. Dunne when he is answering that he is, as my colleagues have stated, criticised very sharply in the internal audit in terms of decisions that he made, what he did and what he did not do, and with all due respect to him, he really needs to read that report. One of the criticisms, the core of it is that Mr. Dunne kept information from internal audit. That is the sum of it. Mr. Dunne stated earlier on that he did not accept that and yet he states that he took the view that he was in need of further information, in other words, that he should have some investigative role. How would that have been appropriate?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

No, not investigative role. It was about gathering the information. It was clear to me-----

What is that, other than investigative?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

It is actually sourcing the information that is available in the organisation.

I will not get into the semantics of it with Mr. Dunne.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

It was very clear to me that the information that we had was only partial. When I went down to the college and we had the meetings, round about the beginning of July, it-----

Why, does Mr. Dunne imagine, is there an internal audit function in the organisation?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Internal audit is very clearly to review the processes and the accounts-----

Mr. Cyril Dunne

-----within the organisation, yes, absolutely, but to-----

How would Mr. Dunne have thought it appropriate to keep matters from internal audit, which Mr. Dunne disputes, or to usurp the function of internal audit?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

There is no question of usurping the function of internal audit. What I explained earlier was that there were two things that needed to be done, two tracks that needed to be followed and I want to comment then in relation to internal audit's role as we go on.

No, no. I want Mr. Dunne to be succinct.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

On those two tracks, one was to implement the management decision and actions that ought to be taken. For example, it was clear from the information we had that there were numerous bank accounts which had been recommended to be closed and it was important, in my view, that we close those accounts. So that was one. Then the second thread is a full review by internal audit of everything that had gone on. Okay, so those two threads.

It is most important that you do not have contagion between those two because as soon as you involve internal audit in management actions, they are potentially conflicted. If they are involved at all in management decisions they are not in a position to objectively review those decisions and that is why I did not involve internal audit in the working group or the-----

Mr. Cyril Dunne

-----or the actions.

That, to my ear, sounds like you are spoofing. That is what that sounds like to me.

How it looks, from where I am sitting, is that Mr. Dunne presided for the best part of three years over this situation where it must have been clear to him, even late in the day, that there had been a deliberate strategy to manage things internally to keep matters - a clear decision - from the purview of the Comptroller and Auditor General, from this committee and from internal audit. I put it to Mr. Dunne, in his stewardship in the role that he held, that he was part of that strategy.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I absolutely reject that. The documentation shows differently. What it actually shows is that, in the meeting in September, I briefed the audit committee very clearly.

I want to refer Mr. Dunne back to this meeting on 6 August 2015. It started at 11.15 a.m. and finished at 1.15 p.m. It was stated that Mr. Dunne, "wished to make it very clear that there is no basis to suggest any misappropriation or mishandling, fraud or otherwise or any suggestion of inappropriate activity". Try as I might, I cannot for the life of me understand how Mr. Dunne would have been in a position to make an assertion like that.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

The reason I was making that assertion, again, if the Deputy goes back to what I describe as the two threads that need to flow through this-----

I am aware of the two threads. That does not answer my question. How could Mr. Dunne have arrived at that position?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

It is very important that the Deputy separates out the internal audit review that did have-----

I am going to help-----

Mr. Cyril Dunne

-----who would make those determinations-----

I am going to help Mr. Dunne because the clue might be later on in an account. Superintendent McCabe-----

That document was referenced.

Sorry, it was referenced earlier by-----

It was in Mr. Ruane's notes.

Superintendent McCabe, at that same meeting, welcomed Mr. Dunne's comments that there was no suggestion of inappropriate conduct. He goes on to say then that it was even hard to take that Mr. Dunne had to make that statement. He then goes on to say, as regards the 2008 report, that, "The issues raised therein could have been career ending for him [that is, for Superintendent McCabe] and notes that the issue is now being discussed at a high level with the possibility of advice being sought from the Attorney General". Is that right?

Mr. Pat McCabe

If there was wrongdoing in-----

Does Superintendent McCabe recall that that is what he said at that meeting? I have a detailed note of it here, provided to us by Mr. Ruane.

Mr. Pat McCabe

Yes, that is acceptable.

So the matters within the 2008 report were really serious. We understand that from the work Mr. McGee did. They would have been career ending for Superintendent McCabe, would they not, if there was any suggestion of misappropriation.

Mr. Pat McCabe

Absolutely, and I had not seen that report at the time.

Superintendent McCabe had sight of it thereafter, did he not?

Mr. Pat McCabe

It was later that I got it. Mr. Barrett actually gave me a copy of it.

So, again, all roads lead to Mr. Barrett, who provided Superintendent McCabe with that.

I put it to Mr. Dunne that it was his consideration of perhaps the standing, the careers, the credibility and the integrity, which I am not questioning, by the way, of others that actually led him to make that statement, because he was not in any factual, objective way in a position to make that statement. He did not know at that stage. As a matter of fact, we still do not firmly know whether there was misappropriation, mishandling, fraud or otherwise. I am not suggesting there was; I am simply saying that we do not know and the jury is out on that. Certainly, going back to August 2015, he was not in a position to make that statement. The statement, I believe, was more driven by this strategy I referred to earlier of minimisation, dealing with things internally and protecting people.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

As I said, I absolutely reject that. If I could suggest to the Deputy-----

I suggest to Mr. Dunne that he tells me how it is that he arrived at this conclusion which meant he could say without doubt that there was no misappropriation, mishandling, fraud or otherwise. How was he in a position to make that claim?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

No, I was in a position to say "I had no basis", which is very different to saying "there had not been". As discussed earlier, there is still work ongoing on that by internal audit and, potentially, there may be findings that come out. However, at that point in time, there was no basis and there is still, as I understand it, no basis.

In the time that Mr. Dunne was in position, was there any interaction between Mr. McGee and Mr. Dunne?

Mr. Barry McGee

Any interaction at all?

Just interaction generally. What would the dynamic be? Would Mr. McGee see him?

Mr. Barry McGee

I had some interaction on other issues.

I must ask the Deputy to ask her last question.

This is my last question. On what kind of issues would Mr. McGee have been interacting with Mr. Dunne?

Mr. Barry McGee

They were just regular issues to do with European funding.

It was on European funding streams but he never had any interaction with Mr. Dunne on his 2008 report.

Mr. Barry McGee

From memory, no.

Mr. McGee had regular interactions on things that were standard and routine but no interaction on something as scandalous as this.

Mr. Barry McGee

Pretty infrequent interaction.

In terms of Mr. Dunne accruing the information that he could, unlike Mr. Barrett, he never came and had a conversation with Mr. McGee.

Mr. Barry McGee

No, he did not.

Thank you. I call Deputy Cullinane.

While I do not say this in any trite or cliched way, I want to say that we, as members of this committee, prepare for these meetings. As people can see, an awful lot of work goes into preparing the documentation and I would expect witnesses to prepare for the meeting as well. I will reserve judgment on whether or not Mr. Dunne should come back before us again. I hope he stays for the afternoon. Maybe we should have some discussion ourselves, as members, as to whether he should return but I will reserve judgment and we will wait and see what happens in the afternoon.

I ask both Mr. Dunne and Mr. Ó Cualáin whether they understand the role and function of the Committee of Public Accounts.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I believe I do.

What is Mr. Dunne's understanding of our role and function?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

It is to review the Votes of all of the various Departments.

It is more than that. Does Mr. Ó Cualáin understand the role and function of the Committee of Public Accounts?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

I believe I do, yes.

Does Mr. Dunne understand the role and function of the Comptroller and Auditor General's office?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

My understanding is that it is the equivalent of the external auditor.

Exactly. Does Mr. Ó Cualain understand the role and function of the Comptroller and Auditor General's office?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Yes, I do.

There are the internal dynamics within An Garda Síochána that would have dealt with the issues in the Garda training college. We know it would have moved from the Commissioner down to the assistant commissioners, the assistant commissioner for change management, the finance directorate, the head of human resources, the CAO's office, internal audit, or GIAS, and the audit committee. All would have had a role and there would have been a very specific role for internal audit which was quite different to all the others. Externally, there would be the Committee of Public Accounts, the Comptroller and Auditor General's office, the Attorney General's office, Revenue and lots of other external organisations, yet none of those external organisations was informed of any of these issues until 2016, I understand.

An account was given by the Commissioner when she was before us that she first became aware of these issues in, I think, July 2015. Subsequently, Mr. Ruane said it was June 2015 but that could have been a mistake. Whenever it was, she became aware in mid-2015. My understanding is that, following this, a steering group was established and Mr. Dunne played a central role in that steering group. Is that correct?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Yes.

How is it that the Commissioner was informed of the extent of the problems, a high level steering group was established and a process was put in place to examine these issues, yet the Comptroller and Auditor General's office was not at any point notified? Can Mr. Dunne explain that?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I can explain what that working group was doing.

No, I know what the working group was doing. I want Mr. Dunne to be very direct because, as the Chair said, we have very limited time. I am concerned about process and procedures. I have dealt with the internal elements and dynamics of this but we have the external elements. The external bodies were not given the information. One of the central charges made by Mr. Barrett and Mr. Kelly in his internal audit report is that information was kept from internal audit and kept from the purview of the Comptroller and Auditor General, the PAC and, potentially, others.

I am saying that the Commissioner was made aware in mid-2015. There was a high-level steering group. Discussions were going on. Yet, the Comptroller and Auditor General was not informed of that process. Why was that the case? I am asking Mr. Dunne. I want Mr. Dunne to answer that question rather than answer in terms of context or what the committee was doing. Why was the Comptroller and Auditor General's office not informed?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I cannot answer for something that did not happen. It was clear that the various bodies would need to be informed. I have heard from the Comptroller and Auditor General earlier this morning and I accept that the office should have been informed earlier. We just did not-----

We had a steering committee of senior individuals dealing with all these issues. Yet, no one in the room thought to inform the Comptroller and Auditor General's office, not even of the establishment of a steering group.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

That was the position at that point in time. That is correct.

The relevant note is on the screen. Page 2 states that the chief administrative office noted that the work had progressed on the matter for a number of years. The note continues, stating that the CAO, Mr. Dunne, pointed out that the group would consider whether external involvement was warranted, but was not required at that point in time.

When Mr. Dunne spoke of external involvement, what was he referring to?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I was thinking of basically anything outside.

Would that include the Comptroller and Auditor General?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

It would. What would have been, in my view, the bodies that would have needed to be notified at a point in time included the Department. I would even include our internal audit as an external body in that context because it is independent and, certainly, the Comptroller and Auditor General as well.

What it says in black and white is that there was consideration about whether there should be external involvement and whether it was warranted. However, Mr. Dunne said it was not required at that point in time. Is that an accurate reflection of what he said?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

It is, absolutely, at that point in time.

Does Mr. McCarthy see it as acceptable that the Commissioner would have been made aware in the middle of 2015, whatever the date, that a high-level steering group was established? I put this question to the Comptroller and Auditor General at the previous meeting. My recollection is that he said once the process was put in place to deal with these issues, his office should have been informed.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

That would be my view as to the correct action.

Would the Comptroller and Auditor General have expected that the steering group, when it was considering these matters, should have given not only consideration to but acted upon a decision to inform the Comptroller and Auditor General's office at that point?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I think it is very difficult to put myself in the minds of the individuals who were involved in the steering committee or the directions they were given.

I am asking the question only in process terms.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

In process terms, I am quite clear that my office should have been informed in mid-2015 about this.

I asked Mr. Dunne earlier whether he was aware of the function of the Comptroller and Auditor General. One of the central charges being made by some people within the organisation is that all of this was kept in-house. Mr. Dunne might be aware that Mr. Kelly referred to a circling of the wagons and keeping it internal. Mr. Barrett made similar accusations as well. Let us bear in mind that we have gone from 2006 to 2015 and a steering group was set up with the support of the Commissioner. Yet, a decision was made not to inform the Comptroller and Auditor General's office.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

At that point in time, yes.

I find that incredible.

Let us go back to the July meeting in 2015. Mr. Dunne was due to brief the audit committee but that did not happen. This goes back to my criticism of Mr. Dunne not reading the report. Mr. Dunne has gone through this with An Teachta McDonald. Mr. Dunne said that he believed he should gather more information, which is the reason he did not bring this to the attention of the July meetings. Is that not correct?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

That is correct.

Mr. Dunne did not have the right, at that point in time, in my view, to make that call. The document I have before me states that the report was compiled so that the chief administrative officer would brief the audit committee in June. This did not happen. Page 15 of the interim audit report states that in progressing the issues internal audit concluded that GIAS should have been informed immediately and that the report should have been on the agenda of the audit committee meeting in July 2015. The report went on to state that GIAS, with the backing of the audit committee, was better placed to do the investigative work and the information gathering. What I take from that is similar to what the internal audit people took from it, that is to say, Mr. Dunne assumed the role of internal audit for that period.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

The role of internal audit is actually looking at and identifying what has gone on and making recommendations. The steering committee at the time was doing two things. It was trying to find out the scope of the issue. Second, it was trying to implement what I would describe as the no-regret decisions that needed to be implemented. It was always my view that internal audit-----

Sorry, Mr. Dunne. I accept all of that. What I am saying is that there is a strong criticism in the internal audit report which suggests that internal audit was the body best placed to do that investigative work. This goes back to what I said earlier. There was a sense that those involved would deal with it in-house and would not allow internal audit, the audit committee or the Comptroller and Auditor General to deal with it. Internal audit said that. If internal audit says that in a report, does that not concern Mr. Dunne?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I do not accept it.

Mr. Dunne does not accept the internal audit finding in that regard. Is that correct?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I think that is a point of view. Let me explain my mindset at the time, because Deputy Cullinane is challenging the mindset I had. The fact is that the approaches by internal audit prior to 2015 had not been successful for whatever reason. We have heard that those involved did not get access to information. We have heard a series of reasons why they were not able to progress it to the point that they would have liked to progress it.

I was in a position where I could ensure that internal audit eventually would be able to get traction in this matter. I needed to get the information that was available within the organisation from, for example, the Commissioner's office, the office of the deputy commissioners and from the college. That was the mindset that I had at that point in time. This was to put internal audit in a position where it could conduct an audit and be successful.

I will come back to Mr. Dunne because-----

Mr. Cyril Dunne

That is actually then what happened.

We will move on.

I believe there is an irreconcilable difference between what internal audit is saying and what Mr. Dunne has said. I will come back to that later.

I have one final question for Mr. McCabe. Deputy McDonald put this to Mr. McCabe earlier. I have before me a note with an account of Mr. McCabe's contribution in which he says this could have been career-ending for him because of the irregularities. When the Commissioner was before the committee she accepted that there were financial irregularities. When the Commissioner was before the committee she said that the findings of the interim audit report were absolutely and totally unacceptable. Does that not raise serious issues for people who held managerial positions in An Garda Síochána in the time period these irregularities were happening? Does Mr. McCabe believe that there is culpability on his part and on the part of others who had responsibility in respect of those irregularities? Was that at the foremost of his mind when he said that this could have been career-ending for him?

Mr. Pat McCabe

No, what I was referring to was those funds that would have gone missing or something to that effect. We were left with a situation we had to manage. It was in place and we were managing it as best we could. We were trying to bring it, surface it and change it. It has changed to a degree. In terms of my concerns about the career-ending aspect of it, if there was any criminal activity-----

The Commissioner accepted that there were financial irregularities. Internal audit says there were financial irregularities. Yet, Mr. McCabe was in a very senior management position at the time in the Garda training college. Surely, Mr. McCabe must take some responsibility for the fact that these irregularities existed under his watch. Would he at least accept that today?

Mr. Pat McCabe

The question is in terms of irregularities. The whole thing is a bizarre set-up. I have to accept that completely.

The Commissioner accepted financial irregularities. We will have the Commissioner before the committee next week. I will put those questions to her. I will put to her the responses of Ms McMahon, Mr. McCabe, Ms Nugent, Mr. Dunne, Mr. Nugent, Mr. Ó Cualáin and Mr. McGee.

Mr. McCabe was in a very senior position. The Commissioner accepts that there were financial irregularities which happened on Mr. McCabe's watch. He is one of the people in the room who have to take responsibility and I ask him to take responsibility for-----

Mr. Pat McCabe

I certainly take-----

If there were financial irregularities, they happened on Mr. McCabe's watch.

Mr. Pat McCabe

I certainly take responsibility for actions I took but any criminal wrongdoing or anything like it-----

I am not talking about criminal wrongdoing but about financial irregularities.

I am calling Deputy Catherine Murphy. Deputy David Cullinane has asked his question. We will have to specify precisely what we mean by "financial irregularities" in case some people misinterpret them to mean misappropriation. Others might have a different view.

I will come back to the matter in the afternoon.

We will come back to what exactly we mean by that phrase which could mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

For the purposes of clarity-----

No; Deputy Catherine Murphy is next.

I am not trying to take her time. I just want to know whether Mr. Dunne will be here in the afternoon.

He has not had an opportunity to use his phone while he has been here. I suggest he make a phone call the minute the meeting is suspended which I expect to happen before noon. If he lets the clerk know the outcome of that call, he will be able to send us a text or an email. We ask Mr. Dunne to postpone his engagement this afternoon if he is in a position to do so.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I understand that and will endeavour to do so.

I ask Mr. Dunne to liaise immediately with the clerk who will have to text us.

There seems to be a very clear separation between criminal and other breaches, including civil and corporate and financial breaches, as well as breaches of codes. That came across to me the last day and it has come across to me again today. The reality is that money allocated to the Garda college for a particular purpose was taken and put into an account. Some of it ended up in the boat club, for example. Some of it was taken at a time when there was inadequate-----

Let me clarify what the Deputy is saying. Is she suggesting money from the Vote ended up in the boat club?

No; it ended up in the restaurant, from where it went into the sports field account.

The funds were raised in the restaurant.

It then went from the sports field account into the boat club.

That is the essence of why we are here. The sports field account was not part-----

The reason we are here is that all of this activity was not part of the Vote. In normal circumstances the income should have been recorded as appropriations-in-aid to be offset against the net Vote.

It should have been returned.

It was not part of the Vote. I want to be clear and ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to help me. Did money from the Vote go to the boat club?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

There were payments from the Vote to the restaurant account in respect of allowances for students.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

They were fully charged to subhead A1.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I think there were transfers from the surplus funds from the restaurant to the sports field company and for the-----

Was the surplus generated from voted funds?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It was explained that it had been transferred for use in the development of sports facilities for members and particularly students. My recollection is that between 2000 and 2003 there was a transfer to the boat club in Islandbridge.

From the Vote.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Not from the Vote; from the sports field company's funds.

Was there another source of income into the sports field company's account or the restaurant's account other than voted funds?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I do not know. Perhaps you could-----

That is the essence of the matter. The Garda college is stating it collected money from the students and that was put into this account which was separate from the money included in the Vote. That is my understanding. Essentially, the restaurant received funds from two sources. Some of its money came from the Vote and some from the funds the Garda college collected from the students.

Mr. Pat McCabe

No. There was no money collected from the students-----

The laundry money.

Mr. Pat McCabe

-----other than the money that was paid in the form of the allowance. That was established in 1989 or 1990. Prior to that, people were attested when they joined the Garda and a deduction was made from their pay. An allowance paid in respect of each individual member was given to the restaurant to provide gardaí with food. If the numbers were sufficiently high for a surplus to be generated, it was disbursed across. It can be seen in the documentation that all of this happened around 1989 when the original investment of €200,000 by the Department came to fruition. It can also be seen that the refurbishment of the college and the activities associated with the provision of the facilities commenced at that point.

I apologise for cutting across Deputy Catherine Murphy.

The Chairman has taken a big chunk of my time.

I am sorry.

My essential problem is that the focus of attention or concern seems to be on the criminal code only. I think we have a responsibility in the area where the Commissioner is the Accounting Officer. There are other laws that can be broken, including corporate and civil laws. When we are asking questions about breaches of the law, we mean the law in the full sense, not just in the criminal sense. I am concerned that the questions we are asking are being taken as different questions. Members have to give notification to the Standards in Public Office Commission and I do not separate my personal self from my professional self. The idea of recording notifications is to show where conflicts of interest might arise. That is why particular tiers of the public service, the Civil Service and An Garda Síochána are required to make such notifications. I do not understand why there has been such a lax approach to these issues. Was there any risk management in relation to reputational damage? An Garda Síochána is required to have the trust of the public. The range of things that have come out undermines that trust. Was there a risk analysis of any of this at any point within anyone's remit? I am reminded that the original letter suggested that if something was going to get out, the Official Secrets Act could be used to try to keep it in-house and resolve it.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Yes. A formal risk management system was introduced in An Garda Síochána around 2010 or 2011. It was the responsibility of every manager down to district officer level - a superintendent for a district - to prepare a risk register for his or her respective area. When all of the sub-registers of risk were combined at the end of that process, information would have been gleaned on what the corporate risk register would look like, but it was not a very successful process. It was hit and miss and not fit for purpose as an approach. In March 2017 we introduced a brand new framework which called out the reputational, financial and other risks, starting at a corporate level. We have asked all assistant commissioners, chief superintendents and superintendents, with the assistance of a team of people well trained in this area, to ensure all of the risks will surface, be identified early and end up at corporate level where they need to be dealt with.

Can I move on to something else?

Ms Margaret Nugent

I would like to add to what has been said. After I caught sight of the first draft of the audit report, I put the need to implement its recommendations on the risk register in the Garda College for the last quarter of 2016.

Ms Margaret Nugent

It is included for the last quarter.

I thank Ms Nugent.

Mr. Barry McGee

Let me interject at this point. When the 2008 report was submitted to the chief administrative officer, Mr. Michael Culhane wrote a full advice note on notifying the Comptroller and Auditor General. It would have been construed as a risk.

On what approximate date did this happen?

Mr. Barry McGee

I think he gave us advice in May 2008.

Does Mr. McGee know why it did not go any further?

Mr. Barry McGee

I do not know.

He sent the report, as far as I know, to the chief administrative officer at the time, so the 2008 report is the CAO's report. Recommendations were put into the 2008 report, and as part of those recommendations it was mentioned-----

This was therefore seen as a risk and something that should be addressed. That was 2008.

Mr. Barry McGee

Absolutely. The advice was to disclose this to the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality. As to whether the CAO had the report subsequently, it would have been in the CAO's office. The 2008 report is the CAO's report because, essentially, while it was carried out by the finance directorate and a review was carried out, it was requested by the CAO at the time.

Does Mr. McGee know whether the recommendation was to go to the Minister? Was it sent to the Department of Justice and Equality?

Mr. Barry McGee

That I do not know.

We will have to suspend now because a vote-----

May I contribute further afterwards?

Yes, Deputy Murphy will be in possession when we return. I propose to suspend the meeting now. I wish to get members' agreement on this. We either come back at 3 p.m., which is a few hours away, or, if the voting finishes at 2 p.m., 30 minutes after the voting will be - let us just say 3 p.m. It is a neater time. Deputy Murphy-----

What will it be then? 3 p.m. to 5.50 p.m.?

3 p.m. until ten minutes before the new Taoiseach is expected to announce his Cabinet, and we do not yet know as we speak what time that will be. It is likely to be about 6 p.m.

Is there any way we can pull it back from 3 p.m.?

This is what we can agree: we will meet here at 3 p.m. or 30 minutes after the conclusion of the vote for the nomination of a new Taoiseach if that is earlier. In other words, if the vote for the Taoiseach concludes at 2 p.m., we will be back at 2.30 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Nugent

Is the Chairman asking us to be here for 2.30 p.m.?

It is more realistic-----

It may be 2.30 p.m., but at the latest-----

Mr. Joseph Nugent

We will be here for 2.30 p.m.

Realistically, it is more likely to be 3 p.m.-----

I am just giving the option. Deputy Kelly asked if we could come back earlier. It may well be 3 p.m. We will return at 3 p.m. or 30 minutes after the vote concludes if that is substantially earlier.

Sitting suspended at 11.53 a.m. and resumed at 3.09 p.m.
The committee met in private session until 3.20 p.m.

We are joined by Mr. Andy Harkness from the Comptroller and Auditor General's office for this afternoon's meeting. I forgot to mention this morning that we are also joined by Ms Anne Barry and Mr. Paul McDonnell from the Department of Justice and Equality. Before we broke, Deputy Catherine Murphy was in possession. She has five minutes left.

Just do not interrupt me. To move onto another aspect, we got a document marked PAC32-R-584 for the meeting of 15 June 2017. It was an interim audit report and it is about bank accounts. It said that those accounts have been now closed or are private club accounts. Were private club accounts counted as any of the 40-odd accounts? They were counted as some of those. How many of those that still remain are private accounts and what are they for?

Mr. Joseph Nugent

I will answer that question, if possible. My understanding is that the only accounts in existence that we are aware of are the five we provided information on there; in other words, the imprest, restaurant, shop, CEPOL and central Garda fund accounts. To the best of my knowledge, all other accounts were closed and there are no interests left in that. The reason for the delay in providing the material to the committee to confirm that is that I had asked Mr. Niall Kelly if he would confirm that he is satisfied that is the case. He is at the moment. In relation to the private accounts, they were listed in the original audit report. That is the list of 50 accounts, or whatever the number was, that are there. All of those accounts have been reduced to the numbers that the committee is seeing at this point.

To be sure, are credit union accounts and post office accounts regarded in the same way as bank accounts?

Mr. Joseph Nugent

Yes. Again, I wanted confirmation that two specific credit union accounts had been closed. That was the last two. They had been closed but we were waiting for confirmation that is the case. We have included those in the context of what is there.

On St. Raphael's Garda Credit Union, it seems money was moved backwards and forwards to that credit union. It is a Garda credit union and I presume guards sit on the board. Is that the case?

Mr. Joseph Nugent

I do not know who runs the credit union. I do not know that offhand.

Okay. I am just wondering where there might be conflicts.

Mr. Joseph Nugent

To confirm, the important point is that we have looked at all of the accounts and are satisfied that they have all been closed with the exception of the list that we have provided to the committee. They are the ones that we know of.

There are no overseas accounts.

Mr. Joseph Nugent

No overseas accounts.

Okay. I just wanted to be sure about that particular aspect. To go back to the risk register, I take that Margaret Nugent's point was actually noted on the risk register in the last quarter of 2016. How was that referenced?

Ms Margaret Nugent

I did not bring an extract of it. However, what I did was I essentially put it down - currently we are operating outside the Government's financial procedures because of the complexity of trying to unwind the different entities that are there and the practices that existed traditionally - as a risk. In other words, the recommendations need to be actioned to ensure that we move forward in a proactive manner. I have it there so that it is constantly there to make sure that whatever needs to happen happens. It is still a risk because there has been a number of years trying to unwind these various entities and we do not know how long that will continue for. It is a risk for the organisation given that we are still operating outside the Government's financial procedures. That is why it is there.

Ms Margaret Nugent

The risk is not implementing them in a timely manner.

Thank you. Mr. Ó Cualáin said that it did not work very well but that new systems have been put in place since earlier this year. Has he identified why it did not work and why this would not have made its way, given the significant risk that it posed to the reputation of the college and given that the college is supposed to be the centre of excellence for training guards?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

The risk management framework in its formal sense was not in place until approximately 2010 or 2011; it was rolled out across the organisation down to district level. It takes some time for people to get used to a way of thinking and of doing business and of identifying risks, recording them and grading them at a proper level. There is a lot of learning in that process. On that basis, the first iteration did embed the thought process that we needed a risk register but it was not surfacing the risks quickly enough. That is our assessment of it. The new system is not just a top-down approach; it is also a bottom-up approach. We would get people at the front line who see some risk emerging and who would be raising it at district level. It would appear at a district level. It may be confined to that district and may not go outside it. If it is sufficiently widespread, it would eventually make it to the corporate risks register.

The first iteration of our current new framework for sure has "Financial" as one of the headings. A sub-heading would be the way the Garda college funds currently operate. That will remain on our risk register until such time, as the chief superintendent has explained, as all the recommendations are in place to unwind the current systems that are in place and are fully implemented.

To go back again on another general aspect, many courses are run in Templemore. They are mainly around the criminal code. One area in which people probably feel there is a real risk to the public is that of white-collar crime. I have to say that the way this has been handled in Templemore is not an exemplar from that point of view. We were told that people did not have the skill sets, were not experienced and all that kind of stuff. That was put in as a reason so many of these practices were in place. It does not appear to me that there is the same seriousness around issues that would be in the civil or corporate area. We were told that the Institute of Public Administration, IPA, will come in and do some training courses and things like that. However, in terms of the culture around what has happened here, it is very much in that white-collar area. In addition to the IPA doing training courses, is there anything else in terms of training in the college that is embedded in how that particular side of offence, if one likes, is captured?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

White-collar crime is also criminal, Deputy. Much of our training in the area for detectives and senior investigating officers certainly has modules on the investigation of white-collar crime.

The approach taken to financial management in An Garda Síochána is essentially confined to an imprest account at district level. That caters for most of how the Vote is managed in An Garda Síochána. There was a need in the college to address an issue which did not replicate itself in any other area of the organisation. This was a unique set-up at the Garda college. There was of course an imprest account to run the normal day-to-day expenses of gardaí who were working there and so forth It is the add-on piece that has caused the problems. When one applies what the auditor referred to as "the blue book", or the bible of public management procedures, the Garda Síochána financial code, which is what all of us as officers were trained in coming up through the ranks, was and remains very adequate for managing the normal imprest account. When it comes to something that was uncovered during the process over the last ten years in the college, however, there is obviously a broader matter here which goes to the broader public financial management systems. This raises the question as to whether or not our Garda finance code is sufficiently fit for purpose in that context. My colleagues might prove more instructive in this regard and give the committee more detail, but when it comes to the training received by our officers all of the promotion courses include modules on the management of finance and imprest accounts. These are the same in every district in the country. They are run in the same way with the same processes, procedures and checks and balances built in around them. What happened in the college was unique and outside the normal way of doing business.

I want to return to the point on the money that went into the restaurant account. What was voted money? I want to be clear on that. The money was voted and went to the college for the purpose of maintaining the recruits. The restaurant was one part of that. There would have been some income in the restaurant over and above that. I imagine quite a small amount. My reading of the report is that not all of the money put into the restaurant account for the recruits was used due to larger numbers, economies of scale and so forth. Some of that money was then moved from that account, where it was not required, into the sports field account. Am I correct in that?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

That appears to be what happened, yes.

It was not used for the purpose for which it was provided then. It went to the sports field account and other things are paid out of that.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

To be fair, Deputy, one interpretation of this was that the stipend received by students was for their upkeep and meals, but also for the development of facilities in the college on their behalf.

But that was not what is was voted for. It was very specifically voted for meals. Is that not the case?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

I am not sure of the details.

It was a per head payment.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

There was a per head payment for the students, yes. The challenge was that part of the basis on which the college was set up was that there would be development of these facilities on behalf of the students, such as playing pitches, running tracks, etc. All of this has happened in the college environs, to some extent. My colleagues here who were in the college can give more detail as to how that stipend was meant to be spent.

Ms Margaret Nugent

There was a blueprint for Garda training known as the Walsh Garda training committee. This was a Government publication - I see that Assistant Commissioner McMahon has it with her - and it was designed to enhance training. It included a number of requirements and one was that facilities be improved, that pitches be bought, and that the land adjacent to the college be bought and enhanced so that students could interact with the community and the community could be involved in the Garda college clubs. That was the catalyst for changing the culture in Templemore and bringing us to the forefront in police training at the time. It is a renowned report.

The funding structure at the time appears to have been one that was agreed through the Department of Justice and Equality. I do not have the full details on it but that appears to be the case. The money that we were given was to pay not just for the food but also for the restaurant staff and other ancillary facilities. That appears to be the historic position, as we understand it. The sports field company and so forth was set up as a result of that, all with the purpose of enhancing Garda training. It is accepted that the structures that worked years ago are no longer appropriate today and that is what today's meeting is about.

Furthermore, the people in the restaurant procured the food locally. They did not comply and were not State employees. Approximately €20,000 a week currently goes towards purchasing food from the local community, such as meat, vegetables and whatever is needed. We accept that this does not comply with the standards of today but this is a practice that has existed since 1964. I think it is important that this be highlighted.

I would like to ask Mr. McGee about his report in which he looked at the restaurant account and identified some of these issues. Is that how he understands what the money was provided for? Was it used in the way that it was intended to be used? Was it intended as a mechanism for funding sports fields?

Mr. Barry McGee

In terms of the funding model already described, there was, as previously mentioned, a per head payment to the restaurant. I am working from memory here. After that then, it paid for its finances. There were transfers then into the sports field company.

Mr. McGee made many references to that sports field company in terms of compliance with a whole range of things.

Mr. Barry McGee

That is correct. Assets were developed through the sports field company.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

I will read the line Deputy, just to be helpful. The Walsh report recommended that a network of sporting, social, cultural, educational and recreational facilities be provided and actively encouraged in order to enable trainees to come together during off-duty hours, thereby developing them in the source of community spirit which would be helpful to them in the course of their duty. It was on the basis of this principle that the stipend was enabled, to the best of my understanding.

I would like to make two further points. The Garda college is not established by statute as other third level institutes are. There is no stream of funding other than the stipend for the students. The starting or stopping of the recruitment of students is a Government decision, usually coinciding with a downturn or an upturn in the economy. Neither Garda college nor the Garda organisation decides when that happens, or indeed what the numbers are. My understanding is that the stipend and the investments made by the Department of Justice and Equality were to cater for peaks and valleys in the recruitment process and in the funding of the college.

I suspect that, when it comes to priorities, the Garda fleet and the cars with 300,000 km on them might be a bigger priority than money going to facilities in the college.

What is the name of that book and in what year was it published?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

It is the Walsh report.

What year was it published?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

It was 1986.

Ms Margaret Nugent

It was written in 1985.

It was 1985. That is kind of the blueprint. Will the witnesses clarify one thing for me? People get confused about the word stipend. Who paid the stipend?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

It came from the Garda Vote. It was a per capita payment. If the student was in the Garda training college, the payment was made, but if the student was sick or it was a bank holiday or whatever else, it was not.

I saw a report as a result of the first meeting. Some gardaí were looking for their money back. That gave the impression that the gardaí were paying something into it out of their weekly allowance. The witnesses saw that report. It must have confused the public.

Mr. Pat McCabe

When they were in the Garda training college it was a five-phase programme. On phases 1 and 3, students were in the Garda training college. They were not attested members. They got an allowance which was paid to the Garda training college restaurant.

They got an allowance for their own wages.

Mr. Pat McCabe

It was an allowance paid on their behalf. In other words, it was identifiable to each individual member. On phase 2 they were assigned to a station. They still were not attested but they got that allowance and another living-out allowance to supplement their----

They got the allowance for Templemore and the living-out allowance, even though they were not in Templemore.

Mr. Pat McCabe

They got an allowance to feed themselves and get accommodation in the station to which they had been assigned on phase 2.

Mr. McCabe said there were five phases, what were the others?

Mr. Pat McCabe

At the end of phase 3 they were attested and became fully-fledged members of the organisation. On phase 4 they were assigned to a station. On phase 5 they were back in the Garda Training College.

In the case of a recruit going through the system now, what will the payment - Mr. McCabe called it a stipend-----

Mr. Pat McCabe

It is a different system completely now. The new training regime-----

When Mr. McCabe says "new", since when has this regime been in place?

Mr. Pat McCabe

It commenced in September 2014. There is a new form of training where recruits arrive at the Garda training college and spend 32 weeks there. They are trainees at that point. They are funded centrally. The funding still goes to the restaurant, as the chief superintendent alluded to.

There is a weekly stipend.

Mr. Pat McCabe

No. It is based on the imprest account approach. There is no generation of funds, there is no excess. It is just to cover the costs associated with provision of food and employment of the staff.

Is Mr. McCabe saying that at the end of a month or a quarter there is-----

Mr. Pat McCabe

It is rebalanced.

The cheque comes back to pay what was paid out in the previous quarter.

Mr. Pat McCabe

Yes.

Ms Margaret Nugent

That changed as a result of the director of finance's intervention with-----

Perhaps I have missed something here. I am not aware of the change in the system. Somebody will have to send the committee on a note on the old system and the new system because we do not want to write a report on a system that does not currently exist.

Mr. Pat McCabe

Since 2010-----

When did the old system stop?

Mr. Pat McCabe

The last recruits who came in under the old system were in 2010. They went through that system. There was no recruitment in the intervening period up until September 2014. There were no moneys coming into the Garda training college during that period of time. The new training regime commenced in September 2014. The new funding model, although it highlighted these issues, does not generate excess funds. It is just purely to sustain-----

Does the audit report at which we are looking cover both of these systems, or some part of them? Did they fully distinguish between-----

Mr. Joseph Nugent

I would like to come back with the exact dates of when the funding regime moved from a per capita payment to funding on that cost basis. I cannot be certain, but I think it was relatively recently. I just want to confirm that.

To what period does the audit report cover?

Mr. Joseph Nugent

It goes into 2016.

Does the audit report distinguish between the two types of funding? I read it a while ago.

Mr. Joseph Nugent

It primarily focuses on-----

The old regime.

Mr. Joseph Nugent

-----the old regime which was associated with this accumulation of surpluses, as Deputy Murphy has referred to.

I will very briefly ask the representative from the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I do not want to put Mr. Nugent on the spot. I know Mr. McCarthy is here. It sounds to me as if the newer system is probably more appropriate; in other words, a straight imprest system to cover the restaurant's running costs. If the bill was €100,000 or whatever, the receipt or the bills go up and the cheque comes down. It is not possible to generate a surplus. Does that sound like an easier system? Perhaps somebody else can answer.

Mr. Joseph Nugent

The system avoids the accumulation of surpluses. That is different as a process. It looks at the cost of running the restaurant.

Does the system that allowed the generation of surpluses over the extended period not exist as we speak?

Mr. Joseph Nugent

That is correct but if I can----

Mr. Nugent can understand, we have been going into so much detail that we got lost in the change in system. Is Mr. Nugent saying that, essentially, everything we are speaking about is a result of the surpluses that were generated under the old system, which stopped in 2011?

Mr. Joseph Nugent

I would like to come back to confirm, because I am not-----

Mr. Nugent can see how this is significant to our understanding.

Mr. Joseph Nugent

Absolutely.

If the funding regime into Templemore has changed, we need clear notes on the old and new systems.

Mr. Joseph Nugent

I can absolutely-----

Can I just close off the point I was making?

I was confused about the funding system.

The very fact it has changed means that it was seen as problematic. The witnesses' replies to my questions seem to suggest that they agree with what Deputy Commissioner Rice said in respect of the money being for the use of the college. Some people are saying that is not their understanding or that they do not agree with it, but that is certainly my understanding of what the witnesses are saying - that this is the only place they got money and that it was the only way they could carry out the Walsh report. It was not, however, intended for that purpose. That has been a point of conflict at the last meeting and again today. Either the witnesses agree that was a stipend for more than the restaurant, or that it was not. Which was it?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

To the best of my knowledge and understanding it was for more than the restaurant. It was for the sporting and cultural facilities and amenities for the students.

Does Ms McMahon agree with Deputy Commissioner Rice on that?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

Yes, I do.

Mr. Pat McCabe

That would have been my understanding, yes.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

In addition to the surpluses that built up, income generated was also generated from courses in the college, separate and totally apart from the student population. There was income in the restaurant and the shop. In any modern-day look at that, one would have to say that is public money. If the original seed money was public money, then anything that came from it would be public money. I think that is the point the auditor made in his report. We are trying to resolve that and ensure that we get to a space where that will be the case. If money is required - and it will be because we still have to provide all these facilities which are part of any modern training facility - we have to find ways of doing that which are completely captured within the public financial framework and that are voted and accountable.

Does the report clearly distinguish the money that went through the system that came from the Vote and the extra income that was generated from the other activities Mr. Nugent mentioned?

Mr. Joseph Nugent

It is not distinguishable in that way because it was a block amount of money. It was something like €70 or more per person.

Mr. Dunne would know this from his previous experience. Is it possible for the internal audit function to specify, in the summaries in this report on the income that went through each year, which income was based on the stipend, the voted amount, and which was the additional surplus income?

Mr. Joseph Nugent

Deputy Murphy is correct. The vast majority of the income that received----

It came from the Vote.

Mr. Joseph Nugent

-----was the per capita payment, the stipend.

I would like to know the proportion. Was it 70%, 80%, 90%?

Mr. Joseph Nugent

The Chairman is asking me to guess off the top of my head but it is-----

Will Mr. Nugent ask somebody to come back to the committee with a note?

Mr. Joseph Nugent

I will ask somebody to come back on that, but it is important that I would like to come back to the committee to confirm the date on which that funding model changed because I believe it was later than has been suggested. I would like to confirm that and revert on it.

That is okay. Mr. Nugent will give us a note on the breakdown of the rest of the finances.

To recap, we have a situation with the evidence given by the Commissioner previously about acting promptly on 27 July. We have evidence given from two witnesses, Mr. John Barrett and Mr. Michael Culhane, that the committee was set up on 2 July. That has been countered here. There was evidence of a note on 30 June. There was a letter which was sent to Mr. Cyril Dunne from Mr. John Barrett on 8 July and received on 9 July. There was also a note on 6 July which shows multiple contradictions across the team and also with the Commissioner as to who knew what and when.

I want to go back to the meeting on 27 July. Will Mr. Cyril Dunne remind the committee who was at the meeting?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

From memory, it was myself, the Commissioner, two acting deputy commissioners and Mr. John Barrett. I think that was it.

How long did the meeting last? We have heard a range of times from five minutes to over two hours.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I genuinely cannot remember specifically how long it was. I certainly think it was longer than five minutes. That is from going back-----

I am not asking for it to be nailed down to a minute. Was it half an hour, an hour or two hours?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I genuinely do not know. I would be speculating but it was probably half an hour to an hour. I cannot tell the Deputy specifically, however. How I am trying to reconcile it is through the content of the meeting. I briefed at that point the two acting deputy commissioners and the Commissioner on the background. That is why I think it was-----

For the public this is a critical and important point.

Has Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin's memory improved since the last day and has he checked out how long this meeting lasted? The last time he could not remember. We have durations of five minutes, up to an hour and over two hours.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

I do not know who suggested five minutes.

The Commissioner did.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

I do not think the Commissioner said that.

The Commissioner said-----

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

She said it was a brief meeting. From my recollection, she did not say five minutes.

We will check the record.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

It may have been suggested it was five minutes by a committee member.

We will check the record. It was a very brief meeting.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

I have no notes and I took no notes at the time. I usually do not put down how long a meeting lasted. I would be more interested in what was discussed at the meeting and what decisions were made. There is nothing I can say, apart from the fact that it was definitely longer than five minutes. The initial purpose of that meeting was to debrief after the original intention of that day in the college, namely the transformation agenda. We would always meet as an executive after each of those and have a debrief. That was one of the purposes.

So it was not a very brief meeting.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

No, it was not a very brief meeting.

Was it a substantial meeting?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

The debrief of our transformation had to be discussed. Mr. Cyril Dunne briefed us on the issues around the college which had been brought to his knowledge by Mr. John Barrett. We also discussed the section 41 report.

In fairness, Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin has given much evidence and listed a comprehensive amount of areas and topics which had to be covered as part of the meeting. That would suggest it had to be a pretty comprehensive meeting if it was going through all of that. Mr. Cyril Dunne feels it was half an hour to an hour. The Commissioner - we will check the record - says it was a very brief meeting. I understand minutes from memory. Mr. John Barrett said it was over two hours.

I am glad we did not clear that one up. It is bloody well incredible that there is such a range of views coming from the same meeting. What a pivotal meeting that was. It is a meeting that will go down in history, yet we have such a range of views as to the length of time it took. I thank the witnesses for confirming the topics discussed.

I was not going to ask Mr. Cyril Dunne the following question but I will now because of the way he spoke. There is a concern he left the Garda at the time because, obviously, the cat was out of the bag as to what was going on in the Garda college. This is just surmising and not my opinion. There is a view he left because these issues were going to be so huge. In reply to a question from Deputy McDonald, he said he was approached regarding another job and ended up in CIE. Who approached him? Was it members of the board or the chairperson of CIE?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

It was what would colloquially be called a head-hunting firm.

So Mr. Cyril Dunne had no conversations with the chair or any members of the CIE board?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

No, I was interviewed by the chair.

Did Mr. Cyril Dunne speak to him beforehand?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

No.

In fairness to Mr. Cyril Dunne, we are not here to talk about his personal career outside of the Garda Síochána. He is not obliged to answer personal questions.

Evidence was given. All I want to know is his motivation for leaving. Was it due to the issues in Templemore? Will the Chairman appreciate from where I am coming?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I will repeat what I said this morning. Absolutely not. It had no bearing on it.

Fine.

When Mr. Cyril Dunne asked for the report from Mr. John Barrett, he spent all weekend preparing the report. It was on the basis that he was to inform the audit committee. Why did Mr. Cyril Dunne not do so?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I did not look to get that report on the basis of providing it to the audit committee. I asked Mr. John Barrett for the report. My decision not to bring it to the next meeting of the audit committee, which, from memory, was on 15 July, was because it was obvious to me that there was a lot more information that must be in the organisation that was not available to me. That was the decision I took at the time. I said this morning, based on the view of the Comptroller and Auditor General-----

It was an error.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

-----I think differently.

If Mr. Cyril Dunne had to go back to it again, would he have notified the committee?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Based on what I have been told now, yes.

That is fair. Mr. Cyril Dunne met Mr. John Barrett in September. In the middle of all of this the Fennelly report happened. The interim report talked clearly about effective communication, obligations to inform the Minister, etc. I cannot understand why the audit committee and the internal auditor still were not told subsequent to that. Given what we found out through Fennelly, its interim report and its recommendations on effective communication, why did Mr. Cyril Dunne feel it was not necessary to inform the internal auditor or go through the external audit committee?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I did not bring it to the meeting on 15 July. However, actually on 30 September, at the next meeting, I did bring it. I raised it with-----

That was on 30 September. We have the minutes here. Two witnesses who were at the meeting said it was a brief discussion.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Again, this morning we went through what that discussion was.

Yes. Does Mr. Cyril Dunne realise that is completely contrary to the evidence given by the chair of the external audit committee and the internal audit?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I did not realise that.

It is.

To be fair, I know Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin was not at the meeting. However, will he ask Garda Geraldine Greene, who was the secretary, when these minutes were written up and in what order? Were they written up twice? Were they redone and forensically checked?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

I will do that. Over lunch I made contact with her so I can confirm the following, but I will do a deeper trawl for the Deputy.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

On 10 November, Geraldine Greene forwarded draft minutes to the chair of the committee and the chair returned them to her on 13 November.

It was three days later.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

The chair returned the minutes to her on 13 November and she circulated the final draft to all the committee members on 26 November. I have established that.

I thank Mr. Ó Cualáin, although I would appreciate it if he would do what I asked him to do. I thank my colleague, Deputy Cullinane. Mr. Howard, in his contribution relating to 30 September, said the following:

There was a very busy agenda that day and at the end of this meeting this was raised verbally as an AOB item. There was no briefing given to us.

This is the external auditor saying there was no briefing given. He is directly contradicting the witness:

I have reflected on how I will phrase this: neither I nor any of the other outside members of the committee took from that briefing any sense of the importance of this issue as it subsequently emerged. Ultimately, this issue was so serious that the accounting officer had to amend the statement of internal financial control. I do not believe that this happened before on a Garda Vote so, objectively speaking, this was a very serious issue. It was raised, we discussed it a bit and we were asked if we would include it in the 2006 work programme which was done.

That is totally contrary to the evidence the witness is giving here.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

The evidence I have given - I went through it this morning - is the detail of what was said at that meeting. What more can I say?

The facts speak for themselves.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

I do not want to go back to reading out-----

The facts speak for themselves.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

-----but perhaps I can just close out. When the chair of the audit committee talks about what was subsequently discovered he is talking about it being after the audit that was conducted. The Deputy has referred to the fact that I had pointed out to the audit committee that an audit would be required, so he is talking about his information after the interim audit report has been produced.

I understand the point the witness is trying to make, although I do not accept it. However, the witness was at the meeting of the audit committee and he was aware of Mr. McGee's report - we call it that - and he was aware of what Mr. Barrett had brought to his attention, yet he did not feel it necessary to go into detail at that meeting. The Fennelly interim report has been produced but it is March, six months later, before the internal auditor is brought in.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

I need to return to what was actually said, rather then interpreting what I said or somebody's else's point of view as to what was said.

Please do it quickly.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

I told the committee that I had been charged with putting an internal working group together to examine the issue.

Excuse me, but we can put that up on the screen. You do not need to read it as we all have it before us. It will be on the screen shortly.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

I am saying that is the record of what was said. Somebody has a different view, after the audit is completed, as to what should have been known at that point in time. That is an unreasonable position.

I do not consider it unreasonable because the two people are the chair of the external audit and the internal auditor. That is kind of incredible.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Absolutely, but they were speaking at a point after all of the items-----

No, they were not.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

They were.

With respect, they were not.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

The internal audit and the interim report had been produced at the point in time-----

The chair in evidence said that basically this was not given a level of importance that subsequently he would have thought it would have been given.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

I am saying that the Deputy should look at what was actually laid out and what was briefed to that committee.

We will have to agree to disagree, because I do not accept it.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

I wish to understand what part of my briefing the Deputy does not accept. That is an unreasonable position in which to leave me.

It is not. I can draw my own conclusions. I am entitled to do that, and that is why I am on the Committee of Public Accounts.

To be fair to the witness, that is an individual member's conclusion. It is not a conclusion of the committee.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Thank you, Chairman.

A witness should be conscious of that when a member says "I disagree", "I reject" or "I find the statement unbelievable". I wish to help the witnesses. They will be the views of individual members. The full committee will consider all of this shortly when it is doing its report, but personal views are not necessarily the views of the committee.

Perhaps I can be helpful to Deputy Kelly.

I am not disagreeing with his view.

I will be very surprised after that.

Mr. Dunne, it was not just relating to what was said. The criticism from internal audit was that in the first instance a copy of the report, which should have been given in July but then was given verbally in September, was not circulated prior to that and was raised under "any other business". That, coupled with what the internal auditor is saying, leads us to believe that it was not given sufficient weight. Any other business is certainly not the place to deal with issues of that calibre. Mr. Dunne is telling us that he gave the members all the information they needed at that meeting and that they had a full picture of what was happening. That does not chime with how it was raised and what was their understanding. They were in the room.

We know that the witness did not brief the audit committee in July, that there was an oral briefing under AOB in September and that the external auditor and the internal auditor have expressed contrary views to the evidence the witness has given today. The witness is entitled to his views and his recollection, but those are the facts.

I wish to move on. When the witness notified the Garda Commissioner of what was happening in Templemore, how did she react?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

There were a number of us at that meeting.

I am not talking about 27 July. When did the witness first inform the Garda Commissioner?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

As I said this morning, the first time I informed her-----

It was the first week in July.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

No, the first time I informed her in any detail was on the 27th.

I know, but the witness first informed her in the first week in July. How did she react then?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

In the first week in July I told the Garda Commissioner that John Barrett had raised issues with me around Templemore. I told her that I needed to get much more information. I think I said to her that I would be going down to the college, which is what I did. I told her I would brief her when I had more detail. She was fine with that.

She just said, "that's fine".

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Yes, absolutely.

She did not say that she used to be in charge of Templemore or that there were issues there when she was in charge of it.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

No.

She had no knowledge whatsoever.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

No, we did not discuss-----

Basically, it was a two word reply of "that's fine".

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I am not saying it was two words. She was happy with the approach I was taking. There was no discussion about her time in the college.

During Mr. Dunne's period there did he find that the chief financial officer and the department over the finance area were competent and doing their job well?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Yes.

Looking back on it now, does he still believe that to be the case?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I have not had any particular reason to change my mind.

Would Mr. Dunne have signed off on contracts worth over €100,000 frequently? Were there any cases where contracts were not tendered?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I am sure there were. I would not have had significant numbers of contracts over that amount.

Were any of them not tendered?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I honestly cannot remember. Most of the-----

The witness probably would remember if they were not tendered.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I cannot remember a contract.

Would the chief financial officer or the Garda Commissioner have been a co-signatory on any large scale contracts involving such figures?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I do not know.

Perhaps we can ask Mr. Nugent. He is just the conduit for getting information rather than this having anything to do with him. Perhaps he will go back to the period of time when Mr. Dunne was there and look for all contracts of €100,000 or more and supply the committee with a list.

Mr. Joseph Nugent

Could the Deputy clarify the information he is looking for?

I am looking for any contracts involving six-figure sums, the signatories and whether they were all tendered.

Mr. Joseph Nugent

Does the Deputy want to know who they were with and the purpose of the contract?

Yes, exactly.

Mr. Joseph Nugent

That is fine.

I want to focus on any contracts during the last number of months of Mr. Dunne's tenure.

Mr. Joseph Nugent

Returning to the period of Mr. Dunne's tenure-----

The period of Mr. Dunne's tenure will do fine. In respect of the volume of cash that was being generated, and I have questions for Mr. McCabe, Mr. Ó Cualáin and Mr. McGee later on, Mr. Dunne is obviously familiar with An Garda Síochána's requirements under the blue book and Civil Service rules. Did it not strike him that he had an obligation as the chief administrative officer to ensure that any excess moneys that were generated would be paid back to the Exchequer?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Yes.

Why did it not happen?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

What I have stated is that in 2015, when I became aware of it, I sought to make it happen.

Did it happen?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I do not know whether that was completed in that year because the accounts would not have been finalised-----

Surely Mr. Dunne would have known whether his actions were being followed. At the end of the day, he is the chief administrative officer - the most senior civilian in An Garda Síochána.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

My understanding is that my actions and the actions that were agreed were being followed. For example, I understand that my recommendations concerning the closure of accounts were followed.

We have heard evidence from Mr. Ken Ruane, who was a very good witness. He informed us that when he wrote to seek legal advice, the Department of Justice and Equality was informed of the issues relating to the Garda training college because it was "CCed" on the request for legal advice. When Mr. Dunne found out about the issues through Mr. Barrett, did he not feel an obligation not alone to tell the internal auditor and the external auditor, and we have been down that road, but to ensure the Department was informed?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

The Department was informed.

It was informed in a "CCed" fashion by Mr. Ruane. We have established that as fact through this committee.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Mr. Ruane was actually operating on foot of an action out of the steering group that was set up by me.

I know but did Mr. Dunne not-----

Mr. Cyril Dunne

So that is why I said-----

I know but the Department has told us that it was informed in September. Did Mr. Dunne not feel, once he became aware of these issues in early July, that the Department should have been informed?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I actually mentioned to one of the officials in the Department in August - this would have been on the periphery of another meeting - that we did have issues. What we-----

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Yes. I mentioned August.

Who was the official?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

What we did then-----

Who was the official?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

John O'Callaghan.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I mentioned it to him in August.

I thank Mr. Dunne for that very important information because witnesses here from the Department have consistently told us that they were only aware of it from September. We will come back to that.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

What we did, which was at the behest of the Commissioner going back to that July meeting, was to engage the Department in the steering group. We sought to-----

Does Mr. Dunne know the date in August? He can write to us and tell us the date.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

No, I do not know the date.

He can write to us. It is fine. I do not expect him to know it.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I know it was on the periphery of a meeting on a different matter in the Attorney General's office. In particular, out of the meeting on 27 July and the setting up of the steering group, the Commissioner wanted to ensure the Department was engaged in that steering group. To bring that about, we needed to formally brief the Department. By "we", I mean the steering group. We looked to collate all the information and documentation we had internally within An Garda Síochána. That was from the chief administrative officer's office, the Commissioner's office, the offices of the two deputy commissioners and the college itself, so that we could fully brief the Department on everything we knew about the situation and ask the Department. It was when we got that all collated that-----

To be fair, Mr. Dunne has given new information, which is critically important, given the day that is in it in as well. I have one last question for Mr. Ó Cualáin. He is in charge of risk. He told us earlier that he is not big into taking notes, times or minutes of meetings.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Sorry, I did not hear the Deputy.

Mr. Ó Cualáin is in charge of risk.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Yes, I am in charge of-----

Presumably, he has qualifications and has been trained in the areas of managing corporate risk. However, he told us earlier that he does not takes notes of minutes but rather is into the actions of-----

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

I do take notes of meetings. I do not note the time the meeting lasted. That is my point.

I presume Mr. Ó Cualáin has been trained in risk management, given that it is probably the most important organisation in the State when it comes to risk. When it came to the situation that was raised through Mr. Ruane's famous letter on 24 July that we supposedly will not see because of legal privilege, although I suspect this will have to change, was Mr. Ó Cualáin not concerned as head of risk that a section 41 was not going to be delivered and that the Minister was not going to be notified? In fairness, risk is about percentages. It is about corporate identity, corporate knowledge, brand and people's view of an organisation in which we must have not 95% confidence but 100% confidence. Consequently, was Mr. Ó Cualáin not concerned about that?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Of course, I was concerned about the risk. Having heard the detail of what had been uncovered, I was concerned that there were many aspects of risk pertaining to it. It is purely the Commissioner's prerogative with regard to whether a section 41 would-----

Did Mr. Ó Cualáin not advise her?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

She sought legal advice from the legal adviser. I would have put a covering minute on that going to the Commissioner but based on the fact that she has claimed privilege on that, I cannot discuss it.

I am not asking Mr. Ó Cualáin to discuss it. I would not put him in that position even though I think the issue of the Commissioner claiming privilege on this needs to be checked out. What I am really asking Mr. Ó Cualáin is what advice, and this is not privilege, as the head of risk did he give the Commissioner with regard to providing or not providing a section 41? For all I know, and in fairness to Mr. Ó Cualáin, he could have been in favour of it. What advice did he give the Commissioner because it is only the document that is privileged? Supposedly, the advice is privileged, not Mr. Ó Cualáin's opinion on what he gave her, so I ask him to be very clear.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

As I said, I saw huge risk around the whole area that had been uncovered from a financial and reputational point of view etc. It was important that we got a complete picture and my advice to the Commissioner was that we should get a complete picture of what exactly we were dealing with.

Did Mr. Ó Cualáin feel the Commissioner should make a disclosure under section 41?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

I felt that she should wait and get a more complete picture before she made-----

That was Mr. Ó Cualáin's advice to her?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

That is what my feelings were at the time.

As head of risk.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

That was one of my duties.

We will move on to Deputy Connolly. Deputy Kelly will get another opportunity.

Ms McMahon and Mr. McCabe have been very clear. They have said that Deputy Commissioner Rice's viewpoint was right. They accept that the money belonged to An Garda Síochána. Is that not what they are saying? I want to be fair. I asked them this question this morning. I read out the deputy commissioner's words. He said the money belonged to An Garda Síochána. My colleague asked Ms McMahon and Mr. McCabe about it and they both said that it was right.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

Yes, what we are saying is that the stipend was for more than meals.

I understand that. Ms McMahon has been very clear. I do not understand how An Garda Síochána can have an investigation with an open mind if that is its belief because it is clearly against what Mr. McGee, Mr. Nolan and the internal audit said. For my simple mind, money came through a Vote to pay for the gardaí who were training. That money went into the restaurant. Surplus money was made in the restaurant through extra people coming in.

A profit was made. There was a co-mingling of public and private funds and a company was formed. The profit generated was then used to purchase Aviva shares. Is that right?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

With the ultimate aim of developing and maintaining the facilities at the Garda College.

I understand what Ms McMahon has told me, but I ask her to listen to my point of view. I am no expert but we are learning quickly from the Comptroller and Auditor General. Clearly, even back in 2008, the Garda was not complying with the regulations that existed at that time. We will come to Mr. McGee's report in 2008 which set out the difficulties then. I have difficulty understanding how the Garda maintains its position.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

The position in terms of the stipend is that is what it was. I know I am repeating myself now but-----

That is Ms McMahon's understanding of what it was.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

That is my understanding.

We are going to go back to the Department of Justice and Equality, because all along the Garda has been consistent in stating the Department was fully aware of this, tolerated it and not just tolerated but fully encouraged it as a way of generating funds.

Mr. Pat McCabe

That is my understanding, certainly from the time I worked there. I want to clarify that I am not saying I am right or wrong. I am just saying that is my understanding. I am in the committee's hands in terms of adjudicating on it.

The Department of Justice and Equality has to answer something here, because the message coming all the time from the Garda, through correspondence and testimony, is that the Department sanctioned all this one way or another. Perhaps "sanctioned" is too strong a word. Did the Department sanction it?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

It was coming from the Garda Vote. Certainly, I am aware Mr. Gay Harris was the financial adviser and the auditor at one point. He was certainly aware as I understand it

Who is Mr. Gay Harris?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

He is from the Department of Justice and Equality.

We will come to the Department of Justice and Equality. For us, the money is going in and generating a profit. That profit is allowed to purchase shares and Aviva stands out. It allows the Garda to make contributions to everyone from the GAA to the local church to the boat club in Dublin. Is that right?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

I am not saying those contributions were correct. What I am saying is the surpluses that were generated were utilised for the development of the college through the Sportsfield company to a golf club. It was not that the surpluses were used for any private gain in any way, shape or form.

I am not even going down that road. I will let the internal audit complete its business. At this point I am just trying to clarify. I wish we were looking at the implementation of the recommendations and that we could deal with this and get it out of the way, but the more we try to do that, the more items of conflict come up. The two obvious ones are the divergent views of Mr. Barrett and Mr. Culhane. Mr. Dunne is somewhere in the middle of this and we also have Mr. McGee's report not being acted on, to which I will come back. It is hard to move to implementation when there is such a conflict between witnesses before the committee.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

I agree with the Deputy. It is very important that we get to the implementation. While we are on conflicts and versions of events, I would like to place on the record that on 22 January 2015, I submitted a report to Mr. John Barrett. The title of the report was a briefing document for the Garda Commissioner.

That was 27 January 2015.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

Yes, 2015. That document gave an overview of the work I was doing and proposing to do in terms of winding up the Garda College Sportsfield Company. It also alluded to the highly unusual situation that existed in terms of the Sportsfield company and associated matters. That document was forwarded to Mr. Barrett for his information and that of the Garda Commissioner. That was six months before-----

What Ms McMahon is saying is she was carrying out her job at that time.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

No, what I am saying is I notified it to Mr. Barrett in January 2015. That was six months before Mr. Barrett highlighted it.

In relation to the company.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

Yes, and also in that document was the fact the fund that funded the Sportsfield company transferred from the Garda College restaurant. I am also aware that document was not forwarded by Mr. Barrett to the Garda Commissioner. It was forwarded to the director of finance in March asking the director of finance-----

Is that Mr. Culhane?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

Yes. It asked the director of finance to take the lead on it, that the matters appeared to be financial in nature and that Mr. Barrett was able to assist as required.

What is the point Ms McMahon is making?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

The point I am trying to make here is as the work I was doing, which I commenced in 2014, rolled on, a briefing document was developed, which I submitted to Mr. Barrett. I am putting this on the record because I am aware of other matters that are in the media and in this committee which suggest otherwise.

I accept that and I see it, and I think Mr. Barrett accepts it. There comes a point where he loses trust in the process. That is the difficulty as we see it. That is just his viewpoint from what we see coming across.

If we go back again, I am concerned that the message was this was historical. Mr. Dunne said in one of the two notes he wrote that he had no concerns about the past, that it was to get it right now, and that different governance rules were applicable before, but it was now different and he had no doubt that we could not look backwards and apply 2015 standards. The point, which I have put repeatedly, is that in 2008, when the report was done, the way the Garda College was performing or functioning was against the rules.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

To be clear, my view was always that we needed to have a full audit done of what had gone on, so I was not taking a position in relation to the audit.

Let me explain where I got this from. I got this from minutes, or a note, which have already been referred to, from 6 August, "Meeting Office of the Chief Administrative Officer" at 11.15 a.m.. On the second page, the CEO outlined that his only concern relating to the college was the obligation that at the end of a financial year, if a public body had a surplus, which Mr. Dunne has said there was, there was a duty to reimburse. He stated he had no major issues with what went before.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Let me put that into context. This was the working group. The working group was not charged with doing an audit of what had gone before. What the working group was charged with was getting recommendations implemented. That was what I was trying to do there, keeping the working group focused on implementing, making decisions and taking action. That is what it was charged to do.

There was no report at this point. There was no interim audit report at this time. This was August 2015.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Absolutely, but as I have made clear always, my view was there needed to be an audit, which is separate-----

I understand that. Mr. Dunne was clearly saying in 2015 that there was no major issue with what went before.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

It is important this is taken in context, because it was in the context of that working group. The focus of that working group was to make decisions and implement actions. I spoke about no regret decisions earlier on, such as closing bank accounts. I was always of the view that we needed to have a look back, which was an audit, which should not be conducted by that group.

I hear what Mr. Dunne is telling me. Is Mr. McCabe listed in the minutes as PMcC?

Mr. Pat McCabe

I would imagine so.

It states "Superintendent Garda College, Patrick McCabe", noted as "PMcC", pointed out the 2008 finance report does not put into context the previous 40 years and the fact the college is 50 years old. It states he said the Department is fully aware of the arrangements relating to the college restaurant and referenced certain decisions. Mr. McCabe said context was not taken into account and the Department of Justice and Equality was fully aware.

I have Mr. McCabe's report in front of me. It is a detailed report. I put the question to him again: what were the essential facts that he highlighted at that point?

Mr. Barry McGee

Obviously, there was a really complex-----

Am I being unfair when I say it was not in compliance, even in 2008?

Mr. Barry McGee

No, it would not have been in compliance with strict corporate governance and practice. That would be my view. However, to be fair, my report was taken at a certain point in time. In my view, there was no intention that I could see - it almost looked like these structures evolved. As of now, when one does the report based on financial procedure-----

Mr. McGee has stated: "The amount of organisations, sub-committees and bank accounts being operated from the Garda college creates an environment whereby it is difficult to implement proper internal controls."

Mr. Barry McGee

Yes, that is correct.

He also stated: "It is also difficult to ascertain the legal nature of these organisations."

Mr. Barry McGee

That is correct.

Mr. McGee goes on then to look specifically at the company and he highlights serious issues, including legal issues, surrounding the company-----

Mr. Barry McGee

That is correct.

-----in terms of implications for staff-----

Mr. Barry McGee

Yes, that is correct.

-----employed in the restaurant and so on. That was 2008. When Mr. Dunne became aware of all of this - there was a previous 2006 report and then a 2010 report, which were all before his time - in terms of openness and accountability, would it not have made sense to say, "God, there is a whole history here, with nothing acted on, or else acted on and then un-acted on. This should be sent off to the Comptroller and Auditor General".

Mr. Cyril Dunne

As I said earlier this morning, I decided differently at the time. I took from the Comptroller and Auditor General his view that it would have been better to have informed them then, and I accept that, but I did not-----

Two last things, Chairman.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

-----so that is my position-----

Mr. Cyril Dunne

-----but I want it to be understood by the committee that it was always my view that there should be an internal audit conducted.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

That was always my view.

When Mr. Dunne thought the time was right.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

That was my view. Internal audit can do an audit any time it wants to do it. It is its right to do it any time it wants to do it. My view was that it certainly needed to be done-----

Mr. Dunne is on record as repeatedly saying, "Yes, but not now."

Mr. Cyril Dunne

That was my view-----

That is okay but it is-----

Mr. Cyril Dunne

-----but I just want the committee to be-----

I understand that. I wish to raise two final matters with Mr. McGee-----

Mr. Cyril Dunne

If I may close out on that point, on 30 September, I said to the audit committee that my view was that there needed to be an internal audit conducted and that there needed to be resources put aside for internal audit in the plan for-----

Mr. Cyril Dunne

In 2016, yes, absolutely. That was my view.

I understand that. That was raised at the September meeting under "any other business".

Mr. Cyril Dunne

That was the September meeting.

The matter was raised under "any other business". There was no written presentation. It comes up under "any other business". If we go forward to December, at that audit committee, the note states the committee will discuss the matter at some future date. That is what is noted in the record of the December meeting. There is no sense-----

Mr. Cyril Dunne

No.

I have made this point already, but I do not think there was any sense of urgency. Before my time is up, Mr. McGee, I wish to go back to these two men. There are very serious letters on file about a meeting with Mr. McGee and things that were said, and I have asked him this morning whether he has trust in Mr. Barrett. "Absolutely," he said. He has no issues at all with Mr. Barrett. It seems from Mr. Culhane's point of view that Mr. McGee had serious issues with Mr. Barrett in the sense that Mr. McGee felt his job was in jeopardy.

Mr. Barry McGee

No.

Did Mr. McGee never feel that? There is a letter here on file from Mr. Culhane, dated 24 October 2015, in which he writes to the Commissioner and copies a number of deputy commissioners, which I will come back to him on. In that, among other things, he refers, "I find the record of the meeting and the statements made by [John Barrett] very disturbing and alarming". This does not refer to what was happening in the Garda college. The statements made by Mr. John Barrett were "disturbing and alarming", and a statement by Mr. John Barrett to Mr. McGee that his position in the finance directorate was under some threat-----

Mr. Barry McGee

No, that was not said. That was an opinion-----

I ask Mr. McGee to let me finish the sentence first. This is what was being said.

Mr. Barry McGee

Yes, I know.

It was said to Mr. McGee that his position was under some threat. Mr. Culhane refers to that as particularly insidious and goes on to point out that he is a very honest and hardworking individual and so on. Is there any substance to that?

Mr. Barry McGee

In essence, partly, because I did say with Mr. John Barrett that I felt uncomfortable, but that was a personal discomfort because I was-----

Was there no threat from Mr. Barrett to you?

Mr. Barry McGee

God, no, absolutely no threat.

Absolutely nothing. Therefore, that interpretation is not correct.

Mr. Barry McGee

It is not, but I think I saw a note of another meeting in which Mr. Barrett did say he reassured me that my job was safe-----

Mr. Barry McGee

-----so the words are correct.

Let us go back to candour and trust in the system going forward then. Deputy Commissioner Ó Cualáin had got this report, this letter, had he not?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Mr. Culhane sent it to all the executive members.

He did. He sent it to the Commissioner. What did Mr. Ó Cualáin do about this letter and its very serious content?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

There was a meeting of the executive, I would say, probably the day after we received it, or very shortly after-----

That was 24 October.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

I am not sure of the exact date.

That is okay, but-----

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

At our next meeting, it was brought up and was seen for what it was: a very serious letter in which very serious issues were raised. Mr. Dunne, being the line manager of both, took the action away from the meeting to see how the matter could be resolved-----

That was the end of it.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

-----and raise issues. No, it was not the end of it. He came back and said that he had made that intervention, and my feeling at the end of 2015 was that that matter had been resolved by Mr. Dunne with both Mr. Michael Culhane and Mr. Barrett.

Does Mr. Ó Cualáin not think that this goes to the very heart of trust - one member writing to the Commissioner, copying the letter to all the deputy commissioners and stating what was stated? First, what was said about Mr. McGee is completely wrong - we know that now. Second, it was stated Mr. Barrett should be examined under the secrecy Act. Did that not trouble Mr. Ó Cualáin? How could the executive go forward with that level of distrust on a committee?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

What committee is the Deputy talking about?

Mr. Culhane and Mr. Barrett were on the same committee, were they not?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

The steering group, yes.

How could the executive go forward with that level of distrust?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

There were two key people. They held down two key positions in resolving the issue in that one was the head of finance and the other was the head of the Garda college.

However, one is asking that the other be investigated under the secrecy Act. One is making statements that are not true about the gentleman-----

Mr. Barry McGee

May I clarify that? The statements were quite factual in one sense. They were not actually statements. I did not see the letter at all after this was written and I never saw any of the statements that were put in. However, even from memory, it was just the case that yes, he had said these things, but there was no threat to my position. Nonetheless, it was the case that I said I felt discomfort.

The witnesses can imagine us reading this stuff and we see not alone is there a history, a legacy and ongoing problems, but then we see the committee, or steering group, that is set up to look at this. This is what is happening. I will finish with this. Is my time up?

Right up until this year, we have Mr. Michael Howard outlining the lack of candour. There are a number of notes here, and I referred to this aspect this morning and I want to ask about it again. Mr. Michael Howard refers to emails from Mr. Culhane, which I do not need to go into here. He takes serious issue with Mr. Culhane regarding what he said in various letters. He goes on to say: "The audit report must fully reflect the fact that there has been a major failure in the financial control environment and that the failure continued for years although senior management was aware of the problem and of its unfulfilled duty to disclose it to the Audit Committee."

That was in March 2017. It took Mr. Culhane to task for the way he wrote and so on, something I will not address at this point, but he refers to a lack of candour. Will Mr. Ó Cualáin explain the lack of candour to me? Did he inquire into it? On 3 November 2016 there was a reference to the emphasising of concern about the lack of candour and the need to take action immediately and to stop shooting the messenger. Therefore, the chairperson of the audit committee was seriously concerned about the ongoing lack of candour. What did the witnesses understand this to mean? Who were the people who were not being upfront in giving answers and what inquiries did they make?

Mr. Donal Ó Cualáin

I have to answer the question in the context of the missed opportunity which was Mr. McGee's report and what happened ten years ago. It was a major missed opportunity on the part of the organisation in dealing with the problem.

Will Mr Ó Cualáin come back to the question I am asking about the lack of candour that persisted up until this year?

Mr. Donal Ó Cualáin

On the lack of candour, I can assure the Deputy that it did not come from me. I was completely upfront with-----

I understand that. He refers to the fact that it was not Mr. Ó Cualáin or the Commissioner. Being of major concern to him, the lack of candour was drawn to their attention in November 2016. What did Mr. Ó Cualáin understand by it? With whom did he check and how did he resolve the matter?

Mr. Donal Ó Cualáin

There are critical people holding down critical positions who had and still have responsibility to fix these issues. One of them, critically, is Mr Culhane because he was finance executive director. The other is the executive director of the Garda College. Clearly, as shown at the last meeting, there was a clash between the two and a lack of trust between them. That posed a challenge for Garda management in making sure the urgency that needed to be attached to all of these matters was being attached to it and that we were getting into the space where we would have resolutions rather than having people with perhaps differing views.

Is Mr. Ó Cualáin saying that when Mr. Michael Howard, chairperson of the audit committee, talks about a lack of candour, he is referring to two individuals? I am asking a very specific question because it is very serious for the chairperson of an audit committee to refer to a lack of candour at such a late stage.

Mr. Donal Ó Cualáin

I am sure he is probably referring to the fact that he felt that he or his committee were not being briefed properly.

Mr. Donal Ó Cualáin

By whoever was supposed to do it. From the time this matter came to our attention in July 2015 the people who were on the committee included Mr. Cyril Dunne until he left at the end of that year. When he left, I took over his position and did two jobs for about eight months until Mr. Nugent arrived.

He wrote on 3 November to emphasise his concern about the lack of candour. He was not referring to historical matters. At that time he was expressing his concern. He said he had met the executive board, Mr. Ó Cualáin and the new CEO, Mr. Joe Nugent, the day before and stuck pretty much to the script, as previously notified, emphasising their concern about the lack of candour, the need to take action immediately and the need to stop shooting the messenger. He went on to say the response had been open and constructive. Where was the lack of candour at that point?

Mr. Joe Nugent

I took it that he had meant the criticisms would have been sent to Mr. Kelly in respect of the responses to the interim audit report.

Was that from various people or one person?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I cannot remember. I took it that they were from various people at the time. That was my view of what he was saying.

Mr Dunne took it that they were from various people.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Yes.

He has no idea who the people were.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

No.

I am way over my time. I wanted to come to the Department of Justice and Equality, but I will come back to it.

I will call the officials from the Department of Justice and Equality next. We have received the letter from Mr. Culhane and have the response from Mr. Nugent about the draft audit report. Is it possible to get copies of the letters sent to Mr. Kelly when he sent out the draft report for comments?

Mr. Joe Nugent

I can certainly talk to Mr. Kelly about that matter.

I am concerned that we are now aware that Mr. Dunne received two extracts. At a previous meeting we saw the full reply from Mr. Culhane on the draft audit report. Unless there is more information of equal or less significance, we do not have the full picture on the responses to the report. Were others involved? That information would help to identify-----

Mr. Joe Nugent

I will certainly take that issue back. Obviously, Mr. Kelly is independent, by which I mean I would not have direct access to the material.

We are requesting the information and do not mind who passes it on. Mr. Nugent can appreciate that we are now aware of two responses to the internal audit report. We are in possession of some information and do not know whether it is complete or partial. We need the full picture on the responses to the internal audit report. It would be unfair of us to draw a conclusion if there are other responses indicating something or other of which we are not aware.

Mr. Joe Nugent

I will talk to-----

While we are on that point, this might be a little difficult, but there has been some confusion today about the extent of the discussion at the audit committee meeting on 30 September about how extensive the briefing was. Mr. Howard has indicated that it was a short briefing, but the minutes indicate to me that there was quite an extensive discussion.

Mr. Kelly said it had been a very brief meeting.

Yes. The minutes do not stack up. If the briefing was very brief, the garda who is the secretary did tremendous work in the set of minutes produced. They are so precise that great notes must have been taken or the person must have been given a document. Was any document presented? From what did the garda prepare the minutes? Would they have had contemporaneous notes? They were very extensive and I would love to know if there is more behind them. It would help to clarify for us how extensive or narrow the actual briefing was as there are conflicting views.

Mr. Donal Ó Cualáin

I will take that job away.

The reason I am asking is that some people are saying the briefing was very short. Mr. Dunne has said it was quite extensive and that is what the minutes show. We cannot know which view is right or where it falls in between. We know that at the subsequent meeting, on which Mr. Ó Cualáin said we needed to follow up, there was a brief discussion as there is a short paragraph on the December meeting. When we receive the information, we might have to double check it with Mr. Howard.

I have a couple of very quick questions. Can somebody give us an indication of how many audit reports would be produced in each of the years? I am sure the audit committee has produced other reports. From the sequence, I understand this issue arose in the second half of 2015. I am sure there was an audit programme or work on an ongoing report to be completed that year. In early 2016 the audit committee would have set out that it wanted one, two, three, four or five reports and that is probably why. I want to understand why it was the spring before that request had worked its way into the audit work programme for 2016. Are there many audit reports? Could the request gazump everything already included in the work programme of the audit committee?

Mr. Donal Ó Cualáin

To assist the Chairman, when I took over from Mr. Dunne in the capacity of CAO for the duration I was there, it was clear to me that an internal audit report would have to be produced. I informed Mr. Kelly straightaway and told him to make room for it in his annual plan.

For 2016.

Mr. Donal Ó Cualáin

Yes.

When would Mr. Ó Cualáin have said this to him?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

In January. He answered to me and still does. When I took up my position in October 2015, I would have gone to all of the different sections to introduce myself, get to know the staff and ask them about their issues, staffing levels and so on. It would have been one of the items I would have discussed with Mr. Kelly, with the volume of work in hand, what would be expected of him the following year and the fact that he needed space in his annual plan to look after the college.

At that point-----

Would that not be a decision for the audit committee?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

The audit committee approves the proposal. At that point, the advice was that the legal advice had to be sought and obtained before Mr. Kelly could commence his work, all the bank accounts had to be closed, and all the moneys and investments had to be brought into one account. All that work was ongoing. However, in the first quarter of that year in discussions I had with our legal adviser, Mr. Ken Ruane, it became clear to me that that advice was not going to be forthcoming any time soon. I then put it in writing to Mr. Kelly that he should start the audit because I felt that until such time as he had completed his audit, the sum of the solutions to the issues would not be clear to me or the Commissioner. We needed his professional view on what the issues were and what we needed to do to fix them. By March, I had asked Mr. Kelly to do that.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Yes.

The report states that in regard to the deputy commissioner strategy on changed management on 29 March 2016, it was requested that an audit be conducted into the Garda College to examine various issues. Was that Mr. Ó Cualáin's request?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Yes, but that was in addition to my having asked Mr. Kelly much earlier in the year to include it in his annual programme of work. This was by way of emphasising the urgency because I felt we could not wait any longer for the legal advice and there were too many other very serious issues that would be left waiting. Mr. Kelly started his initial scoping in, I think, some time in April. He also went to the college for some weeks some time in June. The process continued from there.

Did Mr. Ó Cualáin run that by the audit committee? Who approved the worked programme? Did Mr. Ó Cualáin or the audit committee approve Mr. Kelly's work programme for the year?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

The audit committee approves the work programme.

It was approved at the March meeting.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

I am not sure at what meeting it was approved.

The committee only meets once per quarter, so if it was not approved in December, it was approved in March.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

That is correct. I would have updated the audit committee at each meeting.

In order that we have a feel for what happens in the audit committee, approximately how many reports would be done in a year?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Approximately six or seven, of different Garda divisions.

This was only one of a number of reports done that year.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

The general reports are fairly straightforward in that there is an approach taken going into a division or district as to what issues need to be examined. Mr. Kelly had two teams that he could send out. It is now proposed to increase that to three teams. They have an approach and a template that they use to produce a report on each of the divisions. If issues are identified about which we would have had a concern, we would ask Mr. Kelly to put them on his work programme as well. That request can come from any of the executive.

By way of information to be obtained, whether through the finance or audit section, in regard to the report, what we need is more information on the issue than what is in this document. The main chart, which is contained on page 8 of the internal report, is the only financial summary in the report. The final sentence on page 7 of the internal audit report states that the total expenditure in the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 March 2016 from the Garda Vote relating to the Garda College was €112 million. As the Committee of Public Accounts, we need to have a better understanding of the flow of the income. It is stated on page 8 that expenditure varied considerably from €24 million in 2009 down to €11 million in 2013. There seems to have been a base line of approximately €11 million available. Was that processed through the restaurant account or the college? Given there were not recruits at the college for a few years, why was there a base line of €11 million every year?

Mr. Joseph Nugent

That is primarily related to staff costs and the day-to-day running costs of the college. It is not just about the restaurant. It is about all components of payments of the college.

The figures for 2016 relate to a three-month period. According to the chart, there was a base line cost of €11 million per annum even though there was no training going on in the college.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

There would have been training going on.

Explain.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

While there were no recruits coming through, there would be ongoing training for specialist units, retirement courses, promotion courses and driving courses. That training was ongoing even when the college had no recruits.

It is stated at the bottom of the page that of the €112 million over that period, 80% or €90 million related to salary costs and the remaining 20% to non-pay costs. There is a breakdown of those costs on the next page. As I said, it is important the committee has the information it needs. It is clear now that €112 million was the voted expenditure through the college over that period. Nowhere do I see in this report information on the non-voted income. I am sure the witnesses understand the point I am making. We are only shown the voted expenditure in this report and so I have no knowledge of how much other income went through that account in each of the years in question. We do not have the full picture.

Mr. Joseph Nugent

I take the Chairman's point. The charts relate to expenditure. They do not relate to the income at all. We need to give the committee the income the college was getting and the sources of that income. I have taken that point on board.

As I said, I do not have a complete picture of what happened. There is a list of expenditure headings on page 9 but no information on the total income and no breakdown of the income between the voted income, which we know about, and other income. Does Mr. Nugent understand what I am looking for?

Mr. Joseph Nugent

I do.

We have only half of the picture. We need a clear picture of the overall situation.

We know that the restaurant account is one particular aspect of this, but are there others, for example, the garage.

Mr. Joseph Nugent

On the other costs, taking 2013, which was mentioned by the Chairman, as an example, the figures provided include the routine costs associated with the garage-driving school in the college. These would be the staff costs, fuel costs and all other costs associated with it as an entity. The Chairman's comment is a fair one. What the committee needs is a breakdown of the income and ancillary costs associated with these areas. I will come back to the committee with the information.

On page 11 of the report, paragraph 1 states that the weekly capitation grant fee was calculated for the provision of food and lodgings, including laundry for each student in the college. This was calculated in the late 1980s and it has been index-linked since then. The capitation grant per student in the period audited was €77.92 per student per week. This did not change from 2009 onward. These payments came from the subhead, living allowance, within the Garda Síochána Vote, totalling €2.8 million in the period audited in table 1.

The only breakdown we have of the voted expenditure of €112 million is that €2.8 million related to this living allowance and the capitation grant about which we have been speaking. Is it possible to provide us with a breakdown of the remainder of the €112 million?

Mr. Joseph Nugent

I will take that away. We will get as much information as possible.

Mr. Nugent will understand because we had a big discussion on this capitation fee, and now we realise it is not even 3% of what went through.

Mr. Joseph Nugent

I agree with that, and equally - I think Superintendent McCabe referenced this earlier - part of the funding of these services through the periods when the college was at its low point was coming out of the surpluses that had been generated in that period.

Mr. Nugent mentioned the cash earlier-----

Mr. Joseph Nugent

Exactly. Some of the funding was there in that period of time. We can provide the committee with material on that as well.

Mr. Nugent will try to get that to us as soon as possible next week to give us a complete picture because we do not have it from this.

Mr. Joseph Nugent

I will.

I will say to the witnesses that we, as members of the Committee of Public Accounts, have no axe to grind. We are dealing with an internal audit report which was presented to us. In fact, it came from a leak. We may have got it anyway over the course of time, but we are dealing with an internal audit report which was not done by us. It was done by internal audit in An Garda Síochána. We have responsibility to ask questions about that internal audit report. That is why we are here and why the witnesses are here.

I mentioned earlier today - and the Cathaoirleach was looking for clarification - that the Garda Commissioner had accepted that there were financial irregularities. The irregularities are set out in the interim audit report. It talks about non-compliance with public financial procedures, non-compliance with the Garda finance code, irregular presentation of accounts, irregular transfer of cash from accounts, irregular opening of accounts, irregular opening or setting up of companies, and so on. Those are the irregularities which the Garda Commissioner accepts. I think everybody accepts that there were unacceptable practices and irregularities, or at least most people who have appeared before the Committee of Public Accounts have. That is what we are dealing with.

What we are also seeing - and this is most troubling for us - is that we can see what was done or maybe not done internally, and we can also see what was not done externally. So from 2006 to 2016, the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General was either shut out or not informed. Right through 2006, we had the incomplete report. There was the McGee report in 2008. In 2010, there was the Nolan report. In 2011, we had a report sent from the internal audit to the Commissioner, which had the paragraph that was removed, which the internal auditor says he removed. In 2015, we had information and correspondence as well. From 2006, right up to the establishment of the steering group, the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General was still not informed. The Committee of Public Accounts was not informed. That is the reality and what we are dealing with.

We had the heads of departments, who are mainly civilian heads, in a number of weeks ago. Mr. Barrett and Mr. Kelly were of the view that the internal audit was frustrated in this work and that all of this was about dealing with these issues internally, keeping issues from the purview of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Committee of Public Accounts, an internal audit being frustrated in seeking documentation and being able to do its work. That is what they said, and it chimes with the fact that these bodies were not informed. That is where we are and that is the reality. We are now at the stage where we have middle management in the Garda training college, and people who had roles there, and also others who still cannot help us. They still cannot help me, and I do not know about the Cathaoirleach, but they still cannot help us to establish why the information was not given to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Not one person in the room today has been able to say to me, "This is why there was a blockage and why it never happened". We know information went up as far as the Commissioner in 2008 and in 2010, twice, where a Commissioner said information should be given to the Comptroller and Auditor General, and it was not done.

Can Mr. Ó Cualáin understand my frustration with all of that? Can he understand that is where we are, and would he accept that is where we are as a starting point?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

We are not there now because we have moved on. I would go back to the point that I made a few minutes ago. All of those are missed opportunities. It should have happened. That is my firm belief.

It is more than that. We know they were missed opportunities. This is not just about moving on. We have to understand why it did not happen, because one of the things that the Garda Commissioner was clear about when she was in was that there has to be accountability and transparency. When there were breakdowns in communication, if people did not do their jobs, it had to be noted, accepted and acknowledged. My point is that not one single person, from any of the heads of departments who were in to anybody sitting across from me today, has acknowledged a failure on their part. I stand corrected if anybody in the room is prepared to accept any failure, but so far, nobody has. We will have the Commissioner in next week. We may have to bring former Commissioners in at some point, but nobody has accepted, up to this point, that any of the mistakes that were made were on their watch or under the auspices of the offices they held. Does Mr. Ó Cualáin accept that, and does he understand how that is difficult for me?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Can I intervene on one specific there?

When Mr. Ó Cualáin answers, certainly, Mr. Dunne can speak. I put the question to Mr. Ó Cualáin.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Could the Deputy repeat the final part again?

It was obvious that nobody has accepted any responsibility. Mr. Ó Cualáin is saying that these were past mistakes, but not one single individual in the room has acknowledged any mistake on his or her part.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

That is the point that I wanted to intervene on before an answer is given. I think I said, more than once today, that - and this is based on what the Comptroller and Auditor General said this morning - I accept the Comptroller and Auditor General's view that it would have been better to inform the audit committee on 15 July.

Mr. Dunne accepts that, and we should note that and that will be accepted. That is the first acknowledgement-----

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Just to be clear-----

-----and possibly the only acknowledgement. While Mr. Dunne is on that subject, he was presented with a report from Mr. Barrett on 6 July 2015. Is he familiar with that?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I am aware of it.

Is Mr. Dunne aware of what Mr. Barrett would have said? It was a very extensive report, with much in it. Is that correct?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

It was what I would describe as a distillation of the 2008 and 2010 reports.

On page 2 of that report, Mr. Barrett says that annual published accounts, signed off by Accounting Officers since 2005, stand compromised, in his view. That was his view. Mr. Dunne received a note from the head of human resources stating that, from his perspective, he believed, potentially or otherwise, that accounts were compromised. Surely Mr. Dunne would have had a responsibility then to bring that information to the internal audit committee. Surely the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General should have been informed of that view. Why was that not done?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

That was a view that an individual, Mr. John Barrett, had. I think I stated earlier this morning that it was very clear to me that there was totally incomplete information at that time, and that we needed to get more information. That was my view.

This goes to the heart of the problem. It is a view of Mr. Barrett, but every single time that somebody flags that something should be done, that there are either compromised accounts, or that the Comptroller and Auditor General should be informed, or that the Department of Justice and Equality should be informed, and it is not done, people point to somebody else. I am putting it to Mr. Dunne that Mr. Barrett presented him with a report, and Mr. Dunne is the chief administration officer, and he is well-paid to do his job - as we heard this morning - and he has responsibilities in his role. He was made aware by the head of human resources that, in his view, accounts were potentially compromised. Is Mr. Dunne aware of the Garda Síochána Act 2005? When he was in his role, he would obviously have understood-----

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I am aware of it.

-----that the Commissioner was the chief Accounting Officer.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Yes.

Can we look at the Garda Síochána Act 2005, and specifically section 45 of that Act? This is important for both Mr. Ó Cualáin and Mr. Dunne, and we are going to come to Mr. McCabe and Ms McMahon in a moment as well. Is Mr. Dunne aware of the Garda Síochána Act 2005?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Absolutely. I am aware of it.

In his role, Mr. Dunne would have had to read it to understand his responsibilities and what the role of the various different functions within An Garda Síochána was with relation to financial controls, governance and so on. He would have to be aware of that. I assume that Mr. Ó Cualáin would certainly be aware of the law and the Act.

Sorry, do we have it?

Which section?

It is section 45. It states:

(1) The audit committee shall-

(a) advise the Garda Commissioner on financial matters relating to his or her functions...

(2) The audit committee’s duties under subsection (1)(a) include advising on the following matters:

(a) the proper implementation of Government guidelines on financial issues;

(b) compliance with section 22 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866 , section 19 of the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993...

(c) the appropriateness, efficiency and effectiveness of the Garda Síochána’s procedures relating to...

(ii) seeking sanction for expenditure and complying with that sanction,

(iii) acquiring, keeping custody of and disposing of assets,

(iv) risk management,

(v) financial reporting, and

That makes it very clear that internal audit in An Garda Síochána has a very specific duty. The section goes on to say there should be a report to the Commissioner. For internal audit to be able to report to the Commissioner, it needs to get information. That makes it all the more troubling, with respect to Mr. Dunne, that internal audit would not have got information when it should have got information. It is also troubling because internal audit would then have had a responsibility to pass on information to the Comptroller and Auditor General's office, which we also know did not happen until 2016.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I am aware from what has been said in the meeting that internal audit were frustrated that they were not able to get information they asked for. Let me categorically say that they never looked for information from me that I did not provide. Just to be very clear on that.

Also to be very clear, and I was very clear with Mr. Dunne this morning, they were very critical of him for not in the first instance presenting the information to the July audit committee meeting, which Mr. Dunne accepts on reflection he should have done-----

Mr. Cyril Dunne

That was six weeks later.

-----but also the manner in which the information was presented in the September meeting. We will get clarity on that when we get the substance of the notes. Therefore, they were critical.

My point is that there is a responsibility under the Garda Síochána Act for information to go to internal audit to allow them to brief the Commissioner and to comply with the Comptroller and Auditor General Act. Internal audit themselves have told us they felt they were not in a position to be able to do their job because information was not given to them in time and because the information was withheld.

Would Mr. Ó Cualáin accept it is absolutely unacceptable that, right up to 2016, there were all of those flags and nobody, from the Commissioner right down, informed the Comptroller and Auditor General's office? Would he accept that, in terms of governance and compliance with the law and the Act, it is unacceptable?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

It is unacceptable. I agree with the point made by the Comptroller this morning that it would have been preferable if he was informed.

At least that is accepted. In order that the witnesses will know, I have asked that the Comptroller and Auditor General's office would furnish this committee with a report on what exactly the obligations of An Garda Síochána were in regard to compliance with the Act and also with reporting to its office. I am also asking Mr. Ó Cualáin, on behalf of the organisation, to furnish this committee with a report on the roles and responsibilities of individuals within An Garda Síochána to report to the Comptroller and Auditor General's office or up to the Commissioner, and then of the Commissioner in regard to reporting to the Comptroller and Auditor General's office. That does not seem to be clear. I can see clear breakdowns either in communication or with people deliberately not doing what they were meant to do, and we will deal with all of that. I would ask for a brief report on that.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

As is currently is the case?

And previously - from 2008 right up to now, if possible.

With regard to the minutes of the steering group meeting of 6 August 2015, page 2 states, "The CAO then referred to tensions between various parties that may have built up prior to the meeting, and he [Mr. Dunne] felt that the meeting was a good opportunity for those tensions to be aired and dealt with appropriately". What tensions was Mr. Dunne talking about?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I was talking about tensions particularly between Mr. Barrett and Mr. Culhane. I think those tensions continue up to today. That was a factor we-----

Were there tensions in the room that day when people came in?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

There were consistent tensions, yes.

There was also a very serious disagreement, was there not, between Mr. Culhane and Ken Ruane of audit, when Mr. Ruane was indicating he should contact the Attorney General. It is stated on page 3:

MC [Mr. Culhane] said he was shocked by what had just been said by KR [Ken Ruane] in that there was nothing complex or difficult about this issue and why would the issue have to be elevated to the Attorney General's Office without all the relevant documents and facts being in KR's possession ... He finds it extraordinary that without being in possession of the full documents or facts that KR is already concluding that it will be necessary to bring in the Attorney General's Office...

Whose call would it have been to bring that to the attention of the Attorney General's office?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I am sorry, I am reading the minute.

Would it have been Mr. Culhane or Mr. Ruane? Would it be Mr. Ruane's judgment call?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

The typical link between An Garda Síochána anywhere and the Attorney General's office is through the office of legal affairs. That is typically how it happens. I do not really know in this specific case, to be honest, but that is the general process.

Is Mr. Dunne saying he does not know?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

What I am saying is that the interaction with the Attorney General's office and, in fact, any external legal issue is typically through the head of legal affairs.

That is the point.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I have no reason to believe it would be different in this case.

All I want to put on the record is that, again, we have a dynamic in a room where there is a meeting of the steering group. I have already raised with Mr. Dunne the question of how a decision was made at that point not to brief any external players, which would have included the Comptroller and Auditor General's office. We have Mr. Ruane signalling that, from his point of view as head of legal, the Attorney General's office should be advised, and we have Mr. Culhane saying he finds that astonishing. Again, here is another external organisation, this time the Attorney General's office, and the view again seems to be, "Let us not give it the information, let us not raise this as there is no need". There was a lack of urgency and a lack of understanding of roles right through this process, right up to the point when the steering group was in place. Would Mr. Dunne agree?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I did not interpret this issue in that way. I can also say that I would not have seen a general tension between Mr. Culhane-----

On page 3, on the same issue, to bookend this-----

Mr. Cyril Dunne

If I can finish, please-----

I will say this to Mr. Dunne because it is important, and he can then finish. The note states in the second last paragraph:

...he [Mr. Ruane] would be concerned if there was any suggestion that he should be constrained in so doing. KR said that any issues brought to the attention of the Attorney General's Office would be done...

He is making it very clear, "I won't be told what to do here by anybody else. This is my call". Would that be Mr. Dunne's understanding?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

That is reasonable, yes. I can say that I did not see any general tension between Mr. Culhane and Mr. Ruane. That is the first thing. The second thing is that I would have promoted a difference of view, not just in that steering committee but in any group I would have been involved in - any team around a table. I have been regularly on the record internally in An Garda Síochána as saying that if I have two people around the table who have the same view, I only need to have one of them present. So I am not concerned about differences of views in the room. I was concerned about tensions but not about differences of view. Mr. Ruane is absolutely right that it is within his purview. I do not see that as an issue.

Fine. I am moving on. Ms Barry from the Department of Justice and Equality indicated she wanted to come in.

Ms Anne Barry

I wanted to go back to one aspect of Mr. Dunne's evidence. He referred to a discussion with Mr. O'Callaghan, the assistant secretary over policing division, in respect of these matters during August 2015. I want to make to clear that our recollection is that both Mr. O'Callaghan and I had a discussion with Mr. Dunne on the fringes of a meeting in the Attorney General's office but it was on 1 October. It, therefore, remains our position that the fact that there were issues in respect of the arrangements in the college was brought to our attention on 1 September by Mr. Ruane who copied a request for legal advices to us. That is our recollection.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

My apologies if I got that date wrong.

Is Mr. Dunne okay with that correction of the date?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Absolutely. I was going from recollection.

I do not wish to come in but at some stage the Chairman needs to come back to this. The case being made is the Department was aware at all times and sanctioned the structures in Templemore and we need to return to that issue, as it has not been addressed at all by the Department. In fairness, the question has not been put to the officials yet.

The system was set up with the Secretary General of the Department as the Accounting Officer. The Accounting Officer only moved to-----

It is not credible to say that the Department did not know.

I am confirming that. The system was set up under the Department when the-----

Even under the new system, it is still not credible to say that officials did not know about it.

I agree they knew because they set it up. We are now only hearing about the funding model change in 2014. Why did that change happen? That must have affected the Vote. People must have felt they had to move on. They must have aware of some of these issues at that stage if they changed the structure of the funding model, which would have had an impact on the Vote.

Mr. Joseph Nugent

In reference to the note that I said we would provide, it will include that as well.

I will not delay but Mr. Nugent gets where I am coming from.

Mr. Joseph Nugent

I hear what the Chairman is saying.

Ms Anne Barry

We have given evidence on a number of occasions regarding our role. While we have not identified any records within the Department relating to the establishment of Sports Field Company Limited or the financial arrangements in the college in the early 1990s, we have said, based on the fact that the Secretary General was the Accounting Officer for the Garda Vote at that point and given our involvement in the Walsh committee, which assistant Commissioner McMahon referenced earlier, and working groups subsequent to the committee to implement that report, we would have been aware of the arrangements as they were established in the college at that time. Mr. Gay Harris has also been referenced today. We have mentioned him previously. An Garda Síochána has supplied us with a document from 1989, which suggests that Mr. Harris, who was the professional accountant in the Department at the time, advised the Garda on investments around surplus funds arising from what was the mess committee at the time, which subsequently morphed into the restaurant. That is the evidence we have given and-----

This is the second time Ms Barry has said no records are available. She mentioned this during her previous appearance. Were the records destroyed or misplaced? What is the Department's policy on records? Are these not State papers?

Ms Anne Barry

We have not identified any records. We have done an extensive trawl going back to the 1980s and we have not identified any records. It is not that we have a record saying records were destroyed that would be of relevance; we have not identified any records that would be of relevance to this.

However, Ms Barry said Sports Field Company Limited was set up in the 1990s when the Secretary General of the Department was the Accounting Officer.

Ms Anne Barry

Our assumption based on the fact that the Secretary General of the Department would have been the Accounting Officer until July 2006 is we would have been involved in the setting up of the arrangements in the college-----

With regard to the Sports Field issue-----

Are they not in next week?

We have an hour left with these folks.

I want to be clear. The setting up of Sports Field Company Limited happened under the Department's watch and Ms Barry said it does not have any records about that.

Ms Anne Barry

Yes, we have carried out extensive trawls and we have written to the committee setting that out.

We will try to finish by 6.15 p.m. Each member will have ten to 12 minutes.

I have a question for all the witnesses. Did anybody derive individual benefit from the college-based activities such as trips, payments, gifts, going away gifts, benefits-in-kind, overtime payments and so on?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

In so far as I am concerned, I certainly did not. I am aware of what is in the audit report. There may be 12 or 13 items listed in terms of presentations. I am aware of them because they------

I am not referring to the audit report. Was Ms McMahon aware of any of them?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

No, only what is contained in the audit report.

The witnesses can skip the audit report because we all know what is in it. If they read about this issue because of the report, they can take it that does not matter. Were they aware of the trips, payments, gifts, going away gifts, benefits-in-kind, or overtime payments?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

No.

Ms Margaret Nugent

I would like to clarify what the Deputy means by overtime payments.

Earlier, I asked was any of the non-Vote money, that is, revenues raised by the college, used for overtime or expenses and the answer was "No".

Ms Margaret Nugent

Is the Deputy referring to overtime for people outside of the restaurant?

Ms Margaret Nugent

The restaurant staff have to work in the evening for events. I will ask if they get overtime or something else for that so we are clear on that.

Mr. Pat McCabe

I am interpreting the question to mean payments other than normal transactions. The staff in the college restaurant were paid their wages from the restaurant account and if they worked overtime, they would have been paid from that account.

Other than the restaurant staff, was anybody paid?

Mr. Pat McCabe

No.

I thank Mr. McCabe for clarifying that.

Ms Margaret Nugent

I am not aware.

Is Mr. McGee aware of any payments or other items I listed?

Mr. Barry McGee

No.

There were going away events and gifts were given to different people. I presume none of the witnesses was aware of that. Has any effort been made to reclaim moneys in the recent past for payments relating to the items I listed? Are they aware of attempts by anyone who used to be a member of the organisation to make repayments?

Mr. Pat McCabe

No.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

On a point of clarity, there are social clubs in every Garda division. People pay money into those-----

That is separate.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

-----and they get if they get a presentation on promotion or retirement or whatever.

As long as it was not money from the Vote or money raised by the college from its activities that went into the social clubs to make those presentations. Is Mr. Ó Cualáin clear about that?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

I understand.

None of that money was ever used.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Absolutely. I am not aware of that. The only gifts or presentations I am aware of came from a social club fund.

None of the social clubs' funding came from the taxpayer. Did anybody get a cheque for cash out of the revenues generated by activities in the college's activities? The internal auditor said during the previous meeting that there were hundreds of these cheques. I ask each witness whether they are aware of cheques paid to members of the force out of revenues generated by activities in the college. Mr. Kelly has given evidence that there were hundreds of these cheques.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

I am not aware.

Fine, I wanted to get that on the record. When did Mr. Ó Cualáin first find about the financial irregularities in the Garda college?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Mid-July 2015.

What was the specific date?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

It would have been a telephone conversation with Mr. Ken Ruane. He told me that he had some meetings with Mr. Barrett.

Was this before he sent the letter on 24 July?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

It was. He told me he would write to me.

Will Mr. Ó Cualáin confirm that date in writing to the committee?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

From memory, I think it was 16 July.

Was that the first Mr. Ó Cualáin knew of any issues in Templemore?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

That is correct.

That is pretty clear. Mr Kelly reports to Mr. Ó Cualáin even though he is independent. Mr. Ó Cualáin instructed him to undertake an audit of the last day of March 2016. Is that right?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Yes.

Why was there such systematic stalling for eight months?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

I explained it earlier. It was not stalling on my part. I took over this portfolio on 1 January 2016. On that day I had been briefed by Mr. Dunne before he left and I had met with Mr Howard, the chair of the audit committee. I was to be appointed later that month as a member of the audit committee. I have briefed Mr. Kelly on his work plan for 2016 and the urgent requirement to put some time into it.

It is incredible.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

It was January 2016 within days of taking up the position. I had no authority to do anything in that regard before then.

Under Mr. Ó Cualáin's stewardship, were all the materials Mr. Kelly requested delivered promptly?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

Yes. I told Mr. Kelly on numerous occasions at my PAF meetings and over the phone. In general conversations about how things were going, I always said to him he should make sure to contact me if he had any issues about getting access to any records he needed.

It did not meet the C&AG requirements on the reporting structure for that year because of the length of time it took, which is unfortunate. Did the Commissioner ever raise any issues of company or ethics law in relation to the witnesses' activities? I will start with Ms McMahon. Did any Commissioner ever raise issues of company or ethics law in any way with any of the witnesses?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

The Commissioner did not but the executive director of finance circulates a document on ethics in public office on an annual basis.

Deputy Alan Kelly: We have addressed SIPO.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

Yes.

No Commissioner ever raised company law issues, the fact the Garda should not be directors, should not own land and that there should be SIPO declarations. Were those issues ever raised with anyone by any Commissioner?

Ms Margaret Nugent

No.

Mr. Pat McCabe

No.

Mr. Joseph Nugent

In the context of the implementation of the recommendations, yes.

I understand that. Mr. McGee was in the C&AG's office before he went to the Garda. Is that correct?

Mr. Barry McGee

That is correct.

We do our research at this end. Mr. Barrett told the committee he regards Mr. McGee as a good accountant and that he did his work well. The report he did is a good report and we all accept that. Nine years have passed since. Did Mr. McGee not feel obliged in the interim, before this came to the internal auditor in March 2016, under a Civil Service code of ethics, for want of a better phrase, to inform the internal auditor, the external auditor, the C&AG or somebody? Mr. McGee did his job. I am not blaming him because he did his job. This is not personal but nothing happened. We had Mr. Culhane here a couple of weeks ago and he said he did his job, he reported up the line and nothing happened. I am asking Mr. McGee whether he felt obliged to do something. The last time he appeared before the committee, Mr. Ruane informed us that the law succeeds everything else as the right thing to do. As a public servant, that is also how I feel. Did Mr. McGee not feel obliged under the law and ethics legislation to inform somebody because, as somebody from an accountancy background who was aware of the blue book, he had done this work but nothing had happened? He was in his position for eight years. Did he not feel obliged to report it to the C&AG, where he used to work, or to the internal auditor or external audit committee?

Mr. Barry McGee

As I said-----

It was a good piece of work.

Mr. Barry McGee

I am repeating myself. It was for the CAO initially and the report went up to the CAO.

I understand that.

Mr. Barry McGee

In terms of opinion, I feel it was a failing on my behalf.

That is very honest. This is nothing personal.

Mr. Barry McGee

This is from a technical point of view.

I appreciate Mr. McGee's answer. He is a person who did his work diligently and well.

Mr. Barry McGee

Having said that, the report went up to the CAO.

If Mr. McGee had his time again and nothing had happened, would he have acted differently?

Mr. Barry McGee

I am not sure. I find it as a personal failing but I am not sure if I would go myself-----

Does Mr. McGee not feel it was an organisation within an organisation? Essentially, Mr. McGee did a report, which is a very good report. He pushed it up the line to Mr. Culhane and nothing transpired for years. Did he not feel, given his role and under the legislation that he should do something? Mr. McGee is well aware of all the issues because there is huge similarity between his report and what Mr. Kelly outlined to this committee all these years later. Did he not feel that because nothing happened he was obliged, perhaps morally, to push it up the line through the organisation he used to work for, which is the C&AG, or the internal or external auditor?

Mr. Barry McGee

From a technical point of view but one has to go through management.

I understand but did Mr. McGee ever suggest it to Mr. Culhane?

Mr. Barry McGee

No. It was suggested. Michael Culhane suggested it and has written it down as advice in documentation.

My point is very simple. If Mr. McGee had his time again, does he feel he would have acted differently? Six, seven and eight years passed and nothing happened. Mr. McGee knew what was going on here. He knew the structures that were in place. He wrote the report. He was working in an organisation where the structures around accountancy procedures and management of funds simply did not meet the requirements of the time. Did Mr. McGee not feel obliged to get it out there to the powers that be, either internally or externally, that should know about it? Did he feel the culture of the organisation he was in meant it would be detrimental to him?

Mr. Barry McGee

I felt I did not have the authority to make that decision.

Everyone has the authority to make a decision on disclosure. Everyone has the authority. I have the authority myself. It is a decision for me. No one could stop Mr. McGee taking an action; it is up to him to do it. Was it just he felt it would be extremely difficult for him to do it within An Garda Síochána?

Mr. Barry McGee

Ultimately, that responsibility lies with the CAO.

The CAO did not deal with it either.

Mr. Barry McGee

I cannot take his role or responsibility from him.

I appreciate that. I am not having a go at Mr. McGee.

Mr. Barry McGee

I appreciate that.

I respect Mr. McGee. He did a good report.

Deputy Kelly has two minutes left.

I know that. There comes a time when if something does not happen, with the best will in the world, one has to go further. I was hoping Mr. McGee would say that if he had the time back again, he would have done something different but obviously he will not say that.

Mr. Barry McGee

I would compromise myself if I said something like that.

Why? I do not understand that. Why would it compromise Mr. McGee?

Mr. Barry McGee

At the end of the day, one can only advise and it is not my decision to make. There might be other factors.

I do not accept that. Mr. McCabe is the man on the ground in Templemore. I meet him wandering around the place from time to time. I also meet Ms McMahon because I am from Tipperary. Mr. McCabe had to open a number of bank accounts.

Mr. Pat McCabe

I opened one bank account. The bank accounts were in situ when I took over.

Has Mr. McCabe had a couple of stints in Templemore?

Mr. Pat McCabe

No, I have been in Templemore since 2005.

I know that. Was he there briefly before that?

Mr. Pat McCabe

No.

Did Mr. McCabe seek sanction from the Department of Justice to open that bank account?

Mr. Pat McCabe

No.

Was he aware he had to?

Mr. Pat McCabe

No.

That is fair enough. Mr. McCabe was not aware.

Mr. Pat McCabe

No.

Okay. I do not expect Mr. McCabe to answer my question now but he might reply with an answer because it is a comprehensive question. Mr. McCabe is the person who manages this whole process of multiple accounts and the complexity of it since 2005.

Will he respond to us in writing with a list of all those who were aware of the issues relating to the complexity of those accounts and the management process since 2005? I do not expect him to answer now. There are many assistant commissioners and lots of different staff. Who was aware of the situation in Templemore since he took office in 2005?

Let Mr. McCabe respond.

My final question-----

Mr. Pat McCabe

Can I just make a point in terms of my role? From 2005 up until 2008, I had responsibility for the administration section. After that, I had responsibility for crime training and the specialists. In 2012, again, I-----

I apologise. I knew that there was a break between Mr. McCabe's administration roles. That is what happened. He worked on the crime side in the interim. Apologies for that. Will he answer that question for me in the context of those two periods and, perhaps, liaise through Mr. Nugent, who acts as the conduit?

Mr. Barrett informed us that Mr. McCabe advised him that there was a €2.3 million "in cash and near cash" in equities in the college. When did the Garda College start buying shares? What shares did it buy? Who made the selection and how was it made? What advice did Mr. McCabe get? Were companies whose shares the Garda College purchased ever investigated by the Garda Síochána?

Mr. Pat McCabe

A lot of those investments and shares were in place when I took up office.

Mr. Pat McCabe

The first evidence or indication of any investment that I am aware of goes back to 1986. There is documentation that there was £200,000.

I take it Mr. McCabe did not commence any investments.

Mr. Pat McCabe

In about 2007, there was some, yes.

What was that?

Mr. Pat McCabe

It was in Bank of Ireland.

Did Mr. McCabe get advice on that? I presume there were more people than him involved, to be fair. Did he get advice on it?

Mr. Pat McCabe

There was advice from brokers.

Was it to invest in shares in Bank of Ireland?

Mr. Pat McCabe

No, it was through Bank of Ireland.

There would be some craic if Mr. McCabe did. Sorry. Basically, there was a legacy investment-----

Mr. Pat McCabe

Yes, there was a number. Yes, there was significant-----

-----Mr. McCabe got advice-----

Mr. Pat McCabe

Yes.

-----and reinvested it.

Mr. Pat McCabe

No. There was some other funds invested.

Mr. McCabe has to send us a note on that.

This is an important point. This is a genuine question; I am not trying to catch Mr. McCabe. Was Mr. McCabe aware that it was not appropriate for the Garda to be investing funds in shares on behalf of the organisation?

Mr. Pat McCabe

Again, it goes to the point I made earlier to Deputy Cullinane in terms of the interpretation of what the funds were. It was very different from what we will call the normal financial code regulations. This was a very different space we found ourselves in. At the time, money was there. Something needed to be done with it.

It was taxpayers' money. The taxpayer did not know whether this was a good or a bad investment, or whether the person advising Mr. McCabe - nothing to do with Mr. McCabe - was even qualified.

Mr. Pat McCabe

I accept what the Deputy is saying there.

We have to move on because we are against the clock.

I thank Mr. McCabe for his answers.

I want to go back again to the internal audit report and the progress report on the financial procedures in the Garda College, which comes out of this. We know Mr. Dunne has not read it, but has everybody else read this? I take it everybody accepts the findings.

We had the head of internal audit in here with us two weeks ago and he surprised us with his opening statement's strength and candour.

He stated:

I started work in An Garda Síochána as head of internal audit ten years ago in June 2007. At that time and for the next two years approximately, I reported to Deputy Commissioner Fitzgerald, who is mentioned in the report in the context of the Garda Boat Club issue. From 2009 until his retirement in 2014, I reported to Deputy Commissioner Rice. It was Deputy Commissioner Rice who stated in a note to the Commissioner on 18 September 2009, "I strongly believe that any surplus money does not belong to the State but rather is owned by the members of An Garda Síochána from whom they were collected and I equally hold that any money cannot be used except for the welfare and development of the facilities for members [of the Garda College]".

He went on to state:

Deputy Commissioner Rice did not seek my advice in regarding this issue prior to sending his note to the Commissioner in 2009. Had he done so, I would have pointed out that this was contrary to section C5.19 of the Public Financial Procedures [DPER] – the blue book - which, under the heading "Exchequer Extra Receipts", states, "These are receipts that the Department of Finance directs must be credited directly to the Exchequer and cannot be retained by Departments for their own use".

That is completely at odds with what the witnesses have said in respect of their understanding of what those moneys were for. They state now that they accept the report and its findings and it is completely the opposite of their viewpoint. That viewpoint is important in terms of whether they see those moneys as being appropriately used and moved from the restaurant account into the Sportsfield account. Do the witnesses understand the point I am making?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

Yes. If I can just clarify, the recommendations in the interim audit report are absolutely accepted. This was a situation that, certainly, I inherited in 2011, and that was the belief. I am not saying that was right, but it was the belief. The reality of this situation is that it is extremely unfortunate that these anomalies have arisen in terms of how the money was managed but I suppose the belief was that it was for the entirety of the Garda College experience, if I can put it that way, as opposed to just meals in the restaurant.

I have very limited time here. Expanding on it will not change that significantly. Assistant Commissioner McMahon stated that nobody personally gained.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

Absolutely.

If I go down to the post office tomorrow morning because my neighbour has problems paying his mortgage and I rob the post office to pay my next-door neighbour's mortgage, I will not personally gain from that, but it does not mean it is right, does it? Would Ms McMahon accept that there was funding provided by Vote of the Dáil to the Garda College for a particular purpose and it was not used for that purpose, irrespective of whether nobody personally gained?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

I accept that. I suppose, to expand on that point a little bit, it would be far better in hindsight if there was another model of funding available to the Garda College. At this point in time, and certainly in 2017, it is absolutely accepted that better financial controls and better governance should be in place and we are absolutely committed to that.

A point Mr. Barrett made in his report to which Deputy Cullinane also drew attention is that, "As a consequence, accounts signed by the Commissioner since 2005 [we have got to remember that the Commissioner is the Accounting Officer] are apparently compromised as the practice of retaining funds originating from the vote in private accounts has prevailed." We know that there have been some changes. Would Mr. Dunne accept that the accounts are compromised for any of the years that he was CEO?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I do not know about compromised. I certainly accept that there were moneys flowing through An Garda Síochána, particularly in the college, which were not contained in accounts as signed off. If that amounts to compromise, I accept that.

We were told earlier that the accounts cannot be amended, that the accounts are the accounts. If those accounts are found not to have been correct, then they are compromised.

In the report he co-authored, Mr. McGee referred to the Garda Sportsfield account. Mr. Culhane came before the committee last week and it relates to this. I accept the point Mr. McGee makes that he picked it up at a particular time. In his report he states, "The method of setting up a company to develop such facilities means that the ability to apply Governmental financial practice is negated." Last week, when I asked Mr. Culhane something relating about this matter he said that it was the Sportsfield account, it was a company, and that he did not have control over it. That is exactly the point. In his report, Mr. McGee said, "There is no evidence of sanction obtained to set up the company and there are potential negative issues to members from the administration section of the Garda College becoming directors and the regulations and legal obligations that is inferred on directors under the relevant companies' acts". There is a significant issue in respect of the Companies Act. The report goes on to say:

The decision to transfer such monies would have been sanctioned by management who are acting as administrators for the College Restaurant and also are acting as directors of the Garda Sportsfield Company Ltd. This is definitely a breach in the financial control ...

This was known in 2008. There were recommendations that would have happened following this report. Am I correct that Deputy Commissioner McMahon would have been in the college as the former chief superintendent there?

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

No, I arrived in the Garda College in March 2011. As I told the committee earlier, I had a dual role. I was stationed in Harcourt Square and I was working in the college as well.

Would the person who had responsibility for the college, I presume at chief superintendent level, have been informed of this report or would it have stayed with Mr. Culhane? Can anyone-----

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

I think that report went to Mr. Culhane. It then went to the CAO. Arising out of that, the Commissioner was informed and accepted that certain things had to happen. On that basis it went back down to the college. The chief superintendent in the college was Mr. Jack Nolan, now retired. He did his own report. That is the second report. He would definitely have been aware of that because it went around. It went up to the Commissioner and back down again.

So the Commissioner wanted something done about it. It went back down to an assistant commissioner and nothing happened. Has there been any follow through?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

It appears what happened was that some few of those recommendations were implemented but then another report was commissioned to look at other aspects and that is what resulted in the Nolan report.

On the transition from 2005, in circumstances where the Commissioner took over responsibility as the Accounting Officer - this is probably as much to do with the Department and Garda or the Commissioner - if one were to take over something and take responsibility for it, one would want to go through what was in place at that time and identify any possible risks. One would want to know what one was taking over. Was any work done prior to the changeover from the Department to the Garda Commissioner - this would probably have been done in the Department - whereby these issues would have been examined in any detail? We have just heard that the Garda could not even find documentation. It is probably on a floppy disc somewhere and inaccessible without the relevant machine available to open it. Was any work done? If one is being asked to take over responsibility, one would imagine that some hand-over of those responsibilities would have gone through some of these issues.

Ms Anne Barry

I am aware that there was a steering group that was managing the transition generally and had responsibility for implementing the 2005 Act. I think that group had an external chair. I am not aware of any particular details around the hand-over of the Accounting Officer role. We can see if we can identify any records in relation to that. We have not identified any so far.

That would be important because then we can see if any of this was captured at that stage. It is very clear that the Commissioner cannot own land and cannot be a director. There are things that should have been identified in terms of that changeover.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

What did happen, and it was all part of the 2005 Act, is that a number of appointments were made in support of that function. The most senior would have been the CAO, that arose out of that Act, as did the director of finance and the internal audit section. All of those were put in to support the then Commissioner in the role and function as Accounting Officer. I am not aware of the steering group part but, legislatively, a support structure was put in place. From my reading of the whole file, it was Mr. Leamy, in his role as chief administrative officer, the first that we had, who was the first to point to the issues and that was probably as part of the transition that those things were picked up.

Is that document available? I do not know if we got it.

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

I am not sure. There should be some correspondence from Mr. Leamy. It was Mr. Leamy, the CAO at the time, who had the initial report commissioned, I would say.

I had a reply from the Department of Justice and Equality regarding bank accounts which indicates that, with the commencement of section 29 of the 2005 Act, no requests for ministerial consent regarding opening accounts were received in the Department and no consents have issued. Can Mr. Ó Cualáin remind us if accounts were opened after that?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

I cannot say straight off. After 2005?

Mr. Dónall Ó Cualáin

I cannot assist the Deputy.

Mr. Joseph Nugent

Mr. Kelly referenced one in his internal audit report.

They were prior to that.

Mr. Joseph Nugent

If the Deputy's question is whether any accounts have been opened since Mr. Kelly presented his report, the answer is "No". However, I believe Mr. Kelly referenced one bank account that was opened without sanction over the period of the audit. That is my understanding.

I call Deputy McDonald.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

I might be able to assist.

Go ahead.

Ms Anne Marie McMahon

That account was opened during my tenure at the college. It is the Garda student sports account. It is not a public account. It is an account that the students use to deposit fund-raising, contributions from the credit unions and for things such as when they take part in colleges competitions. It is not a public account.

I have limited time if people could assist. So that I have it straight, can Mr. Dunne say when the steering group was established?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

It was 27 July.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

It was decided on 27 July. The Commissioner caused me to establish it.

The Commissioner caused Mr. Dunne to establish it.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

The decision was in that meeting.

When did she ask him?

Mr. Cyril Dunne

It was decided in that meeting of 27 July.

What is very strange is that there is correspondence from Mr. John Barrett to Mr. Dunne written on 8 July, received and stamped by Mr. Dunne on 9 July, in which he states: "I await your directions in relation to my role on the Steering Committee ...".

Mr. Cyril Dunne

He is referring to a meeting that I had put together. There are actually two. "Working group" and "steering group" are common terms.

No. He refers to steering committee.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

"Steering group" is a common term used in-----

I am familiar with the English language.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Sorry. I am not-----

I want Mr. Dunne to stop messing.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

There are two groups.

There were two groups established. Mr. Dunne might reply quickly because we are on the clock.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

If the Deputy could let me explain, I think I will be able to get it through to her.

No, I do not want a long explanation.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

At the end of June, John Barrett raised the whole issue with me.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I decided that I needed to get more information.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

I put together a group, which met a couple of times.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Let us call that the steering group or at least a steering group.

That is as distinct from the Commissioner's steering group-----

Mr. Cyril Dunne

It is.

-----which Mr. Dunne contends was established at the end of July-----

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Absolutely.

-----which has the same membership as Mr. Dunne's steering group, which was established at the beginning of July.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

No. It does not have the same membership. Clearly, the Commissioner asked in the meeting that we-----

The correspondence also thanks Mr. Dunne for briefing the Commissioner.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Can I finish the point I am trying to make?

Only if Mr. Dunne is very brief. I do not want filibustering. Hurry up.

Mr. Cyril Dunne

Chairman, I do not want to allow the committee to be misled here.

No. Mr. Dunne will be able to supply the names of the people on the two different groups.

Please do that. That is the handiest way out of it.

The membership of the two different steering groups should be sent in to us so we can distinguish between them. We do not need to go through all the names now once we get the information.

Excuse my impatience, but long-winded replies are not helping us. We are contexted out. Mr. Dunne's contention is that his group established at the beginning of July was separate from and distinct to the group he still maintains the Commissioner established at the end of July. I ask him to furnish us with the details, remit and membership of his committee, if he can. I thank Mr. Dunne.

I do not believe Mr. McGee has been fully forthcoming with us today so I want him to help me out. I am looking at an email from him dated 25 July to Mr. John Barrett. In this email he sets out very clearly two things I want him to address. Is Mr. McGee looking at the email? Is he aware of the email to which I refer?

Mr. Barry McGee

Yes.

In this email it is clear that Mr. McGee understands the breaches of the law and the legal minefield An Garda Síochána is in. Is that fair to say?

Mr. Barry McGee

That is correct, yes.

He refers to no right to open bank accounts. He highlights the legal issues around property and so on. Whatever about everybody else and their state of knowledge, Mr. McGee was in no doubt that the law was being broken.

Mr. Barry McGee

Yes, correct.

That is clear from the email.

Mr. Barry McGee

Yes.

Deputy, what is the reference number on that document so we can all know what you are talking about?

I see it is part of Mr. Barrett's dossier.

It is part of Mr. Barrett's dossier.

We will not be able to find that document.

It is a genuine email.

There are no pages-----

I do not believe its authenticity is contested, is it?

Mr. Barry McGee

No.

In this email, Mr. McGee writes to Mr. Barrett. He has sent him the report and he states: "[It] was very coincidental that I sent [the] report, but is has been on my mind for a number of weeks, particularly when you start to look at building a balance sheet for the Garda College because in essence a lot of assets have been built up off records by using these entities." He goes on to detail the use of the living allowance and so on and in fairness to Mr. McGee, he registers his concerns on all of that. Is that not so?

Mr. Barry McGee

I do, yes.

What is really interesting is the third paragraph. He states: "I think the problem in approaching the solving of this, is that because of the potential negative reputational risk for the organisation - in that once this starts to be sorted it hits the public media either through audit etc. it could have very big ramifications - like the accounting officer appearing before the PAC". The question, as Mr. McGee puts it, is how to solve this quietly without risking exposure.

Mr. Barry McGee

Yes.

Will Mr. McGee explain that to me?

Mr. Barry McGee

First of all, it was an opinion. I am sending on an opinion. It does not represent a strategy or anything like that. It is just an opinion.

It represents that Mr. McGee was very conscious of the prospect of these matters coming to the attention of the Comptroller and Auditor General, more particularly the Committee of Public Accounts. Was it just Mr. McGee's view that this should be sorted quietly? Was that his view?

Mr. Barry McGee

It is just my opinion.

Mr. McGee was of the view that these matters should be sorted out quietly.

Mr. Barry McGee

It was my opinion, yes, and I wrote the sentence.

That was Mr. McGee's preference - to sort it out quietly.

Mr. Barry McGee

Not necessarily my preference or anything. It was just a sentence I put in.

Why did Mr. McGee put in the sentence? Was it because he believed that the disposition of the organisation was to sort it out quietly?

Mr. Barry McGee

No, not necessarily. In terms of "quietly", it was without fanfare. There also was an element of how do you manage to put-----

Mr. McGee is a professional. Of what professional body is Mr. McGee a member?

Mr. Barry McGee

I am ACCA.

I ask Mr. McGee to remind the committee of the standards that apply in the practice of his profession in terms of reporting-----

Mr. Barry McGee

Yes, that is correct.

-----meeting professional standards and-----

Mr. Barry McGee

Openness and transparency, yes.

Does Mr. McGee believe that in circumstances where he has identified breaches of the law, keeping things quiet, as he says in the email, is a professional, ethical or acceptable approach by him?

Mr. Barry McGee

No. It is an incorrect opinion that I wrote down.

With all due respect, I think Mr. McGee is being a wee bit disingenuous, and I am struggling to know the reason. That email suggests to me that he had had a conversation with Mr. Barrett and because he is clearly a person of some critical skills he had figured out that the game here was to deal with this quietly. For the purposes of the record, this email was written in 2015. Mr. McGee had produced his report in 2008. He had joined the dots because he is smart. He had figured that the game here was to keep this quiet - no reputational damage, no Comptroller and Auditor General, no Committee of Public Accounts, no hassle, no aggro, keep quiet. That is what this says to me.

Mr. Barry McGee

With respect, I would disagree. I retract that statement but again, it is an email. It was an open email and I regret that sentence.

It was not an open email. It is marked "Strictly Private and Confidential".

Mr. Barry McGee

What I mean is that I was giving an opinion in respect of-----

Mr. McGee was giving an opinion so, professionally, it was his view and strategy that the trick was to keep this quiet.

Mr. Barry McGee

It is an incorrect opinion, but it-----

I am not asking a question. I was trying to establish the facts. It was Mr. McGee's idea, as expressed here, to keep this quiet.

Mr. Barry McGee

I wrote it down.

Mr. McGee should be mindful of what is required and expected of Mr. McGee under his own professional code. Is he telling me that it was his idea to keep this quiet?

Mr. Barry McGee

I wrote that sentence but it is not my idea. It was just an opinion.

Whose idea was it?

Mr. Barry McGee

It is no-one's idea. It is my opinion.

Did Mr. Culhane at any stage tell, instruct or insinuate to Mr. McGee to keep this quiet?

Mr. Barry McGee

Absolutely not.

Mr. Barry McGee

Absolutely not.

Did anybody within management?

Mr. Barry McGee

No.

So it was Mr. McGee's idea.

Mr. Barry McGee

It is a phrase I just put in-----

I ask the Cathaoirleach that the committee might be furnished at some stage with the standards of regulation for the ACCA. I believe that would be helpful to-----

Fine, but I just want to make it clear as well-----

I am not finished yet with my line of questioning.

No, but the Deputy has referred to professional standards. We are in important territory. The advice the witness is giving is not professional accounting advice and it is not financial advice in respect of his professional qualification. He is addressing the issue of reputational risk to the organisation in public media-----

He is very clearly giving advice or a view-----

His opinion.

By the way, in my view, I do not think this was the witness's idea. I could be wrong. The witness is telling me I am wrong. He is clearly giving a view in terms of disclosure of information that he came across in the discharge of his duties in the compilation of a report and in the manner in which that report is processed or not processed over a period of seven years. I do not accept his interpretation, but fair enough if the witness wants to put it on the record. In the email to Mr. Barrett, he went on to say that the report was quite sensitive. There is a typo there, by the way. It reads "quiet sensitive". I am terrible for typos. The witness wrote in the email that Mr. Culhane had said "that if you [Mr. Barrett] wish to meet to discuss this etc might be useful". What did Mr. Culhane wish Mr. Barrett to come and discuss with him? Was it the report or the keeping quiet of the report?

Mr. Barry McGee

Just the report. To be truthful, Mr. Culhane never saw the email and had no-----

But did Mr. Culhane say to the witness to tell Mr. Barrett that they could get together to discuss the report?

Mr. Barry McGee

He asked to arrange a meeting.

So he asked for a meeting.

Mr. Barry McGee

I suggested that we should have a meeting.

So that was the witness's suggestion. Did Mr. Culhane also say to the witness to be sure to tell Mr. Barrett that the report was sensitive and that he wanted to keep things quiet?

Mr. Barry McGee

No, he did not.

So it was entirely the witness's idea to give all of that information.

Mr. Barry McGee

The narrative is entirely mine. Completely mine.

At the beginning of the email, the witness wrote that it "has been on my mind for a number of weeks".

Mr. Barry McGee

Absolutely. That is in terms of context. I should not use the word "context" but initially, I was assisting Mr. John Barrett as part of the group with the Garda College. Essentially-----

Okay. The witness is not moving off that position. That is grand. I hear what he is saying.

Did Mr. Culhane know that the witness had sent this email in July?

Mr. Barry McGee

He had not seen it, to be fair, or was not aware of it.

Let us fast forward then to October. Mr. Culhane wrote to the Garda Commissioner, the deputy commissioners and the CAO. This is the letter in which the Official Secrets Act was quoted. In it, he recounted the events of 21 October when the witness, Mr. Michael Dodd and Mr. PJ Leonard were having lunch in the restaurant and were joined by Mr. John Barrett and Mr. Alan Mulligan. During lunch, Mr. Barrett pointedly stated that he wanted a private meeting with Mr. McGee, which was held in his office for about 15 minutes. I have no doubt that all of that happened. What is also clear is that Mr. McGee went back to Mr. Culhane and faithfully rehearsed everything that Mr. Barrett had raised with him. How do I know this? I know this because Mr. Culhane very helpfully itemises it Nos. 1 to 6 in this correspondence. It seems very clear that the witness said that he had a particular kind of conversation. According to the letter, he told Mr. Culhane at this point that Mr. Barrett had told him that his job was safe and that Mr. Barrett regarded him almost as a whistleblower etc. It is in the correspondence.

What is the correspondence number for that correspondence? We need it for the screen.

It is dated 24 October 2015. It is the letter that references the Official Secrets Act. So what happened? This was three months after the witness's email. He and Mr. Barrett had had contact.

Mr. Barry McGee

Correct.

The witness had shared his view.

Mr. Barry McGee

Yes.

Mr. McGee shared his view that things should be kept quiet, which is astonishing. However, he is willing to take that one on the chin. Did anyone else suggest it to him or did he pick it up in the atmosphere? He thought it was wise to keep it quiet.

Mr. Barry McGee

It is my phrase. I wrote it and-----

The witness certainly did.

Mr. Barry McGee

Yes.

Let me repeat. I do not think the witness is being frank in terms of why he wrote that. However, if that is what he is telling me, that is what he is telling me. Fast forward three months later, Mr. Barrett looked for the witness and had a meeting with him. The witness then ran back to Mr. Culhane and rehearsed for him the contents of that conversation.

Mr. Barry McGee

I did not report to Mr. Culhane. I will give the Deputy complete disclosure on this. One of the persons in that list reported to Mr. Culhane. I was then asked about the meeting.

Somebody else told Mr. Culhane that the witness had a meeting with Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Barry McGee

Correct.

Mr. Culhane then pulled the witness in and asked him what it was all about. The witness then told him.

Mr. Barry McGee

Correct.

What was going on within the witness's division that that was the kind of dynamic between him and Mr. Culhane? Was he bullying the witness?

Mr. Barry McGee

Who?

Was Mr. McGee being bullied?

Mr. Barry McGee

Absolutely not.

Did he have an open and harmonious relationship with Mr. Culhane?

Mr. Barry McGee

I have, absolutely.

Mr. Barry McGee

And had, yes.

Did the witness feel in any way on edge?

Mr. Barry McGee

No.

Did he feel in any way forced to comply with all of this?

Mr. Barry McGee

No. Absolutely not. I did say that I was uncomfortable with the position between the two men in terms of the report-----

That is kind of irrelevant. So what? The guys did not like each other. There was a tension. Big deal. I am not remotely interested in that.

Mr. Barry McGee

There was no sense of bullying.

There was no sense of bullying. The synopsis-----

Mr. Barry McGee

Sorry. Because I still work in the finance directorate-----

Mr. Barry McGee

-----and I still report-----

And the witness has just recently gotten a promotion.

Mr. Barry McGee

Correct.

Mr. Barry McGee

Probably February.

In February. The summation of the witness's position, if I understand him correctly, is that he produced this report in 2008-----

Mr. Barry McGee

Correct.

He was well aware, though no one else was, even though all of this happened in plain sight, of everything that was wrong. He was clearly alarmed by it.

Mr. Barry McGee

Yes.

Nothing happened. He had worked previously in the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General so he knew the gig in terms of disclosure, oversight and the public purse. He could probably write the book on it. Nothing happened and nothing happened. The witness had an exchange with Mr. Barrett, who was provided with the report. Was that on the instruction of Mr. Culhane?

Mr. Barry McGee

Yes. On the permission of Mr. Culhane, I asked-----

Why did the witness say in the email, "John, how are you doing - Just to reiterate, was very coincidental that I sent report, but has been on my mind for a number of weeks"?

Mr. Barry McGee

Because that related to a meeting previously down in the Garda College, where Mr. John Barrett was legitimately asking questions about how the college finances were run in terms of assets-----

Is the witness absolutely sure that he did not provide the report to Mr. Barrett without the consent or knowledge of Mr. Culhane?

Mr. Barry McGee

Absolutely not. I sought-----

Can Mr. McGee provide in written format, in his own hand and in his own recollection, the precise sequence and dates and of his providing the report and his interactions with Mr. Barrett and so on?

Mr. Barry McGee

I will try it from memory now. I do not have-----

I am sure the witness keeps a diary. Does he? He is an accountant, he is bound to be meticulous.

Mr. Barry McGee

Unfortunately, I did not keep notes.

He did not keep notes on that.

The Deputy has one minute left.

Okay. So Mr. McGee produced his report and nothing happened. He had the interaction with Mr. Barrett. He is reiterating to us that it was his idea that these things be kept quiet and kept away from the Committee of Public Accounts.

Mr. Barry McGee

It is a completely incorrect opinion-----

It is not incorrect. The witness has it written in an email-----

Mr. Barry McGee

I wrote it down, but it is-----

Does the witness think that is an acceptable thing for someone like him who is paid through the public purse to say?

Mr. Barry McGee

On reflection, no. It is written and if I could retract it, I would.

It is not so much that it was written, it is the fact that it was the strategy at play to keep it quiet.

Actually, this answers the question as to the conundrum of what was going on. That is what was going on. Despite his more junior rank, Mr. McGee claims that it was all his idea. He concocted this approach.

Mr. Barry McGee

No; I concocted that email, which was written. There was absolutely no input from anybody else into it. I regret the statement, for which I have to take responsibility.

We might have to have Mr. McGee back again as we navigate through these things more.

Are we happy to conclude? We have to meet in ten or 15 minutes for the announcement of the new Government, although I have been given a message that it could be postponed for an hour. We have covered sufficient ground today. During the course of the meeting I received an email from someone who has been watching the proceedings closely. It touched on a question I asked earlier but on which I am still not clear. It asked what the stipend was for and why the trainees were charged an additional amount for canteen and laundry services from their weekly allowance. I asked if some of the money had come from students, but I was told "No". However, there seems to be a view which I picked up in the media somewhere that they were paying some contribution out of their salary or wages for laundry services. Is that true or false? I am referring to the students.

Mr. Pat McCabe

Not the students, no. There was a period of time-----

How far back?

Mr. Pat McCabe

It was in the 1980s and 1990s when people taking courses were charged for laundry services. Their laundry was collected.

Trainees.

Mr. Pat McCabe

No. Established members taking-----

Mr. McCabe can understand why I mention this. It is in the public ether that students were handing over money for laundry services each week. I have seen it and there is that impression. Therefore, that view is misplaced. It sounds like a small point, but it is one onto which the public has latched. That is why I want to discount it if it is not true.

Mr. Pat McCabe

Not to my knowledge, but we can certainly check.

There was no mechanism in recent years, if ever, for the trainees in the college to pay 20 cent a week for laundry services.

Mr. Pat McCabe

Not now.

I am happy to knock it on the head because it has been said to me on several occasions.

Was there not a period in which the students were paying extra?

Mr. Pat McCabe

Not the students. It was all part-----

Not trainee gardaí.

Mr. Pat McCabe

No.

Mr. Pat McCabe

No.

I understood there was.

Mr. Pat McCabe

No.

The email to which Deputy Mary Lou McDonald jreferred states something that causes me confusion.

The bells are about to start ringing.

It is on this very point. It asked if the allowance type payment had been described correctly. It states that when students are on holiday, the allowance is paid directly to them and that when they are stationed in stations, it is paid to the imprest account to cover things. There is great confusion about this.

Mr. Nugent will have to send us another letter to clarify the position.

Mr. Joseph Nugent

I will add it to my list.

It has been a long day. On behalf of the Committee of Public Accounts, I thank the witnesses for being here. If there is anything they needed to say but did not get out because of time pressures, I ask them to communicate with the secretariat. I thank the officials from the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Department of Justice and Equality. I also thank Mr. Dunne for staying on with us for the afternoon. I acknowledge that he no longer works in An Garda Síochána.

There were a number of requests for documentation.

Mr. Nugent has the list, on which the secretariat will liaise. Tomorrow morning the committee will meet representatives of the HSE.

The committee adjourned at 6.25 p.m. until 9 a.m. on Thursday, 15 June 2017.
Top
Share