COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate -
Thursday, 15 Nov 2018

Business of Committee

Chairman

We are joined today by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, who is a permanent witness to the committee. He is joined by Ms Mahin Fitzpatrick, senior auditor. We will meet the Revenue Commissioners today and a number of chapters in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General relate to Revenue. We will also have a private meeting in the afternoon. I suggest, therefore, that for reasons of time we confine our discussion on the business of the committee to one hour. We will go as far as we can and commence our meeting with the Revenue at 10 a.m. That is agreed.

Apologies have been received from Deputies Pat Deering and Peter Burke. I will hold over the minutes of the previous meeting for the moment. Arising from the previous meeting, the clerk will circulate wording tomorrow, for consideration next week, regarding our recommendation for a Dáil debate on the winding down of the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA. We agreed last week that there should be a Dáil debate on the issue but we have to table a formal motion, which must be circulated to members for their consideration in advance before it can be agreed. We can agree the motion for a Dáil debate on NAMA's expected surplus next week.

No. 3 is correspondence. The first category is category A, briefing documents and the opening statement for today's meeting. No. 1709A is from Mr. Niall Cody and encloses a briefing document. No. 1723A is the opening statement for today's meeting. We will note and publish these documents.

The next category of correspondence is category B, correspondence from Accounting Officers and Ministers in follow-up to meetings of the Committee of Public Accounts and other correspondence for publishing. We will hold over a number of matters from the previous meeting. We got through a significant number of items last week. I hope we will deal with all of them next week.

No. 1677B is from Chief Superintendent Dermot Mann of An Garda Síochána and is dated 31 October 2018. It provides information requested by the committee on the operation of CCTV by local authorities. It sets out the relevant legislation and statutory instruments and refers to the CCTV advisory committee and community CCTV schemes. I know of a number of local authorities where CCTV schemes have not yet been finalised. Given that the letter will be of interest to many people, we will note and publish it.

No. 1693B is from Ms Orlaith McBride, director of the Arts Council, dated 1 November 2018, enclosing an information note requested by the committee providing details in respect of matters raised in the audit opinion of the Comptroller and Auditor General regarding the 2017 financial statements. Significant issues arise in this regard and the one which attracted our attention in the first instance was the circumstances that gave rise to €196,000 in funding being provided to an outside agency that went into liquidation. The Arts Council has provided a detailed and comprehensive response. I note that it dealt with the organisation in question, Filmbase, for 30 years. We can understand, therefore, why the money continued to be paid each year. The council did not get the audited accounts it sought for 2016. It wanted the matter examined by its internal auditors but shortly afterwards Filmbase into liquidation. The Arts Council is dealing with the liquidator to try to recover the moneys but it is listed as a trade creditor. It made payments to some of those who should have been paid by Filmbase to avoid them being left high and dry. It is doing all it can at this stage to recover the money. When dealing with liquidators, people have to wait and see, as we all know.

No. 1698B is from Ms Katherine Licken, Secretary General of the Department of Culture, Heritage and Gaeltacht, dated 6 November 2018, providing details requested by the committee on the performance delivery agreement between the Department and Galway 2020. I propose we note and publish that correspondence.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I welcome that because it has taken some time to get this information. I would like an opportunity to come back to it.

Chairman

We can hold over discussion on it until next week.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

The Chairman can publish it now.

Chairman

We will publish it and hold over the discussion.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I acknowledge the correspondence.

Chairman

That is fine. We will discuss it next week.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

We may not need to discuss it.

Chairman

No. 1700B is from Mr. Maurice Buckley, chairman of the Office of Public Works, OPW, providing a breakdown requested by the committee of the costs incurred by the OPW in respect of the recent visit by Pope Francis. We will note and publish this.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I would like to come back to that again. We can publish it and I will raise it again next week if that is all right.

Chairman

We will publish it and hold over discussion until the next meeting. We will place it in the public arena, rather than sitting on it, in order that people can see the significant costs involved.

No. 1703B is from Mr. Paul Dunne, CEO of the Local Government Management Agency, LGMA, dated 2 November 2018 in respect of a request from the committee for a copy of a report arising from a value for money review of Irish Public Bodies, IPB, insurance. Mr. Dunne advises that the report is subject to a non-disclosure agreement between the LGMA, Irish Public Bodies and PricewaterhouseCoopers, PwC, dated 2 September 2015. Mr Dunne has written to IPB and PwC to request their consent for the LGMA to release the report to the committee and is waiting for a response. It is important to point out that this was a report on insurance claims. It became clear during our discussion with the State Claims Agency that the section 38 organisations come under the State Claims Agency and account for between €3 billion and €4 billion of activity each year. I asked whether the local authorities could come within the remit of the State Claims Agency. The local authorities currently obtain cover through IPB insurance and we asked for a copy of the value for money report. We have been told it is very difficult to obtain a copy. In addition, Mr. Dunne of the LGMA confirms that "there are currently legal proceedings in being in relation to the release of the Report bearing Reference - High Court Record No. 2017 /321MCA." In addition, he notes that the case "is an appeal by IPB of a decision of the Information Commissioner with regard to the release of the Report under the Freedom of Information Act, 2014."

The Information Commissioner has said that this is to be released but Irish Public Bodies has gone to the High Court to prevent it. As Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, I will watch this closely but the proper procedure is that, if the report has been carried out on the question of public bodies, which are funded substantially by a Vote of the Oireachtas even if they are not directly accountable to this Oireachtas, having insurance policies for claims made against them by members of the public, it should be published. It is very disappointing to hear that Irish Public Bodies is going to the High Court to prevent such an important report being published when the Information Commissioner has said it should be published. We will come back to this because there is a big insurance issue here. We are also dealing with matters relating to the State Claims Agency. Claims to local authorities might not specifically be under our remit but they are in the same space as far as the public are concerned. It is disappointing that IPB is trying to block the release of this report.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

There is a cost associated with doing it too, in the form of legal costs at High Court level. Different arms of the State are doing different things. There is supposed to be an open Government approach which, in theory, would give a much clearer view of how decisions are made and should reduce the need for freedom of information requests, as well as the costs of administration and other things. However, this approach does not seem to have permeated some arms of the State. Its building on Usher's Quay is called Local Government House but the Local Government Management Agency seems to have an enclosed mindset, even in the context of engaging with us as we saw last week.

Chairman

There is also a building on Conyngham Road.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Is there anything we can do? Do we have any idea of the timeline?

Chairman

The LGMA said it has written to PricewaterhouseCcoopers and Irish Public Bodies and that, if they consent, it might obviate the need to go to court.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Is there anything relating to non-disclosure agreements which is inconsistent with the freedom of information legislation?

Chairman

The Information Commissioner has ruled on it.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

This goes back further than that.

Chairman

I suspect there is commercial sensitivity, though I do not know for sure, rather than non-disclosure. The non-disclosure agreement is probably there because of commercial sensitivity.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

One cannot contract one's way out of a legal obligation to provide information.

Chairman

There is a statutory obligation. I will say something on behalf of the public. We all talk about joined-up Government and this is an example of the issues. Local government is seen as the local arm of the Government and if local governments go to the High Court to prevent the release of information they are preventing the release of information to other public bodies. People can make multiple claims against different local authorities and State bodies and it is not in the public interest when people make sure that information is not shared. There should be some information relating to the total number of claims against all State bodies. People need to know because it involves billions of euro in liabilities.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The committee might want to note that the education and training boards, ETBs, all use Irish Public Bodies as their insurer so they are within the committee's remit. There is a question as to whether value for money is being achieved and how these bodies ensure that is the case.

Chairman

We might ask the ETBs to demonstrate to us what actions have been taken to ensure they are getting value for money.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It is a legitimate avenue to go down.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

We have to separate the management side of local government from the elected representatives.

Chairman

Members of local authorities would be in Irish Public Bodies, however.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Yes, but it is the Local Government Management Agency that is blocking this. The same distinction will apply to the ETBs so we will need to hear from both sides.

Chairman

Who is the chairperson of Irish Public Bodies? Perhaps we should write to that person.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

According to the letter, it is IPB which has taken the appeal to the High Court, not the LGMA.

Chairman

As of now the LGMA says it has written to PwC and IPB to get their consent. We will make a note to come back to this in December. We will keep an eye on it and we will note and publish the reply. It is a bigger issue than people appreciate.

No. 1704B from Mr. Maurice Buckley, chairman of the OPW, is dated 7 November and provides follow-up information requested by the committee at the meeting of 11 October. Correspondence No. 1722, dated 13 November and which was received yesterday, is related and provides a copy of an internal report on the acquisition of Miesian Plaza on Baggot Street, which is the headquarters of the Department of Health. There is an amount of documentation in both items and I propose to note and publish them. There is a lot in them, much of which is technical, with one document of 204 pages.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

In total there are nearly 300 pages.

Chairman

All our printers worked overtime to produce them. There is a large amount of documentation on the agreement by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to proceed on the basis of value for money. There is a valuation report from Jones Lang LaSalle, dated 31 March, which looked at the Central Bank complex on Dame Street, which we also inquired about. There is also an appendix on rents and comparable lettings. We have correspondence from a former valuer of the OPW, whom we will meet in due course and we will include this in the items of correspondence for that day. There is no need for us to get into the specifics of these detailed reports at this stage, though I wish to highlight one item.

No. 1704B includes a chronological note from the OPW relating to the Eyre Square building and on the 50 flood protection schemes under CFRAM. It also gave us a report on arbitration and a historical breakdown of the proportion of leased versus owned office accommodation. In 2009, 51% of its overall portfolio was leased and 49% owned but in 2015 44% was leased versus 56% owned, so the office has been in a position to let go of some of its leased buildings over a period of time. This is on page 12 of the document, if members want to have a look at it.

Finally, No. 1704(xvi) is a letter with 17 or 18 appendices about the national children's science museum, which is an issue nobody had really heard of. There is a detailed briefing note on that scheme and a three-page document. It seems to be an orphan project and no Department seems to want to own it.

The last sentence states:

The Chairman [that is obviously of ICML, the organisation involved in this] believes that the relationship between the State and the ICML requires [further] redefinition, taking guidance from the views of the current Government. In what might prove to be a positive development, the promoters have now indicated that they would be prepared to transfer the project to full State ownership on completion.

That is a little step in the right direction because the matter had been bogged down in terms of the ownership and management of it. We will certainly note and publish that because most other capital cities have a children's science museum and we should have one. Perhaps there has been some progress in that regard. We will note and publish it and if anyone wants to come back to it at a later do, they may do so.

The next item is 1705B from Ms Pamela Carter, parliamentary affairs division, Department of Health, responding to the following matters raised at our meeting last week: CervicalCheck helpline; and terms of reference of the expert group on tort and management of clinical negligence claims. We will note and publish that, but hold it over. I am sure we will come back to the clinical negligence issue because of the State Claims Agency, and also, in due course, the CervicalCheck issue.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I want to make two points about that. First, I think we have conflated the issue we are trying to deal with in respect of the State Claims Agency and CervicalCheck.

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I do not believe we have adequately dealt with the issue of the contingent liability as a consequence of that, and it is something we will have to return to in time.

Chairman

The contingent liability for CervicalCheck.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

The contingent liability for the HSE.

Chairman

All medical negligence.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Yes. I have had contact, as I am sure have other members, with people following the meeting last week about other strands of liability. A broad range of issues make up that liability and we almost have to decouple them from where the liability lies if we are to get to an approach that involves a different system. Despite what the State Claims Agency says, one has to go legal. What we heard about the way claims occur nearly always has to be legal. It is not about mediation in the way we understand mediation. If a couple are getting divorced, the two parties sit in different rooms with another person to try to work things out, and they never end up anywhere near the court. That is now how it is in this case; one almost has to make a statement of claim. We will never get beyond that to a different system unless the system itself is challenged. That is not to say that the State Claims Agency should not robustly go through claims. Obviously, people will make claims that are overstated and so on but I do not believe we have got to the point where we are looking at the process in the kind of detail necessary to address that.

On the second issue, CervicalCheck, we were spun a yarn last week about the length of time it is taking to release the slides. I continue to have conversations with seven families and a solicitor on the practical side of things. I restate that people are waiting for slides from April, May and June, which are not being released. We were told that the average waiting time was 22 weeks but that is a fib, and we should not accept that from the HSE.

Chairman

Does the Deputy want us to follow up on that this morning?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I most certainly do because we are not being told the truth. In terms of the lived experience of people, they would not be contacting us if everything was working out fine. They are categorical in stating that they cannot proceed even to the next stage. We were told that only 38 signed up to the-----

Chairman

The Royal College of Surgeons, the London-----

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Yes. The reason that is occurring is because people have not been able to get their slides to make a judgment call as to whether they will sign up. The release of the slides is an impediment to a range of different aspects. We are being told certain points that do not match with the experience of people who have had a failure on the State side in terms of the way information was relayed to them, at the very least.

Chairman

On the last point, we will write to the HSE today specifically requesting the number of slides that have not been released to date. We will request the figure per month in terms of when the requests started, from October going back to March. We need to find out the number still outstanding from last April, May, June and so on and if they do not know it, that says it all. They should be able to give that information promptly.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

My understanding from the evidence presented last week was that they were speaking about the time that elapses between the applicant for the slides issuing instructions, that these are the persons who are to receive the slides. They may be measuring two different things. An approach may have been made in April or May but, in clarifying the information the applicant needed to supply, they were not in a position to supply the slides until they got all the information. It may be down to a definition of what is being measured that may be the explanation. I understand the difficulty. If somebody makes a request, that should be the starting point of the clock. That would be my argument.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Yes, but we should not allow people in this situation to be tied up in figuring out what way a State agency has decided to define something. For example, one of the solicitors involved told me that Quest Diagnostics had been releasing the slides in June and July but it was told to cease releasing them until a protocol was put in place. That was put in place in August. I accept there needs to be security around the slides-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

And chain of evidence.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

-----and all of that, but the HSE appears to have become very legalistic. It is tying this up in a hugely administrative approach. I do not believe any of us expected that releasing slides to 221 individuals or families would be tied up in that. It is certainly not the message the public are getting. There is a war going on here.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I am not disagreeing with the point the Deputy is making. It is just that when the committee is writing to the HSE, it needs-----

Chairman

We should ask for information on the first point of contact by them.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes, and if it has measures already in place and it is providing information, that it would give a definition of what it is measuring and reporting.

Chairman

Yes.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

That can often bedevil an engagement where the definition of what is measured is not what one would normally expect it to mean. It is to watch for that.

Chairman

We will ask them for information on the first point of contact. If they want to provide additional information on the number of people, of the 221, they have written to seeking clarification, they can give us that as well.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes, because that is part of the story.

Chairman

On the Deputy's point about the overall clinical negligence issue on the other claims, the last meeting was the first time we got beyond the €2 billion figure that is out in cyberspace, so to speak. We have begun to break it down and we asked for very detailed specific information, not down to identifying people. Quite a bit of information will come to us, more than anybody in the public arena has seen previously, which is very important. That is an issue to which we will certainly return and deal with in depth.

The next item is 1706B from Mr. Paddy O'Keeffe, Tax Appeals Commission, dated 7 November 2018, providing an update requested by the committee on high value appeals. We mentioned the large number of high value appeals. If people want to raise it with the Revenue witnesses today, they are free to do so. We will note and publish that.

No. 1707B is from Mr. Ray Mitchell, dated 8 November 2018, providing a briefing note in regard to circulars in the context of the regularisation process provided for in a HSE circular regarding the regularisation of acting posts in conjunction with the new arrangements for the filling of short-term posts and the reintroduction of senior staff nurse positions. Essentially, some people felt that while the HSE said it sent out the circular and the information to the different heads of the organisation, many people on the ground are saying that it never worked its way down to that level. This letter makes that clear and we note and publish this and send it back to the correspondent who raised this matter with us in the first place and to let staff who are still aggrieved in relation to the process know that there is no cost to putting in a claim and there is a grievance procedure in this matter which is outlined in section 4 of that briefing note.

No. 1711B is from Ms Mary Lawlor, communications and public affairs manager with NAMA, providing further details requested by the committee on Project Nantes. I propose we send a copy of this to Deputy Wallace who raised the matter and on whose suggestion I also raised the matter here. I will read that letter because it is interesting and gives a broader perspective on the matter. I will skip a sentence or two because it is so big but because of the amount of money involved and the controversy I will respond on this because there was an article on this issue in the Sunday newspapers as well. The letter reads as follows:

I refer to your letter dated 23 October 2018 in which you requested additional information regarding Project Nantes.

As regards the first and second queries raised in the letter, NAMA wishes to point out that Project Nantes was only one of a number of separate transactions involving the debtor connection. Overall, the connection’s par debt was €489 million on acquisition by NAMA. This included some €260 million of debt categorised as equity-backed loans which had been advanced to the connection by the participating institutions i.e. these loans were secured not by property collateral but by intangible assets (such as personal guarantees) which had no tangible value. NAMA did not pay the participating institutions any consideration for these €260 million equity-backed loans. Thus, only €229 million of the €489 million par debt acquired was secured by tangible property assets with a realisable market value.

That is important because it means that in relation to this particular person, the amount of loans that NAMA took over was €489 million - €229 million of that amount was secured by property and the other €260 million was only secured by way of a personal guarantee and because the personal guarantee was not tangible, NAMA paid zero for that €260 million. It is important to put it out there that NAMA did not pay for a considerable amount of the €489 million because it only effectively paid for a portion of the €229 million. That said, the taxpayer was caught in the hoop for all of it because we bailed out the banks for the shortfall. NAMA might say that its side of it is clear but the taxpayer was caught for 100% of that unsecured loan because the banks had to receive funding as a result of that. The letter continues with the following:

The debtor connection agreed to initiate a programme of asset sales and debt refinancing so as to maximise recovery for NAMA ... Ultimately, total proceeds of approximately €200 million were realised from loan, property and other loan security realisations. As part of the disposal programme, a loan sale of debt with a par value of €352 million, designated Project Nantes, realised proceeds of €26.6 million. This transaction included €241 million (€260 million at acquisition) in equity-backed loans (for which NAMA had not paid consideration) and €111 million par debt secured by assets. Therefore, the €26.6 million realised for Project Nantes related to par debt loans of €111 million (part of the original acquired property-secured par debt of €229 million).

Thus, in total, proceeds of approximately €200 million were realised from the asset sales and loan sale/refinancing, equating to a recovery of 87% of the original acquired property-secured par debt of €229 million. The proceeds realised were well in excess of the recovery target set by NAMA for the connection and the acquisition value paid by NAMA to the participating institutions.

As regards the third query raised in the Committee’s letter, I can advise that NAMA has been investigating this matter. As part of this, NAMA undertook a review of the written confirmations and warranties in respect of section 172(3) of the NAMA Act 2009, which were provided by the borrowers and purchaser at the time of the loan sale in 2012. These confirm that the borrower and purchaser were compliant with the requirements of section 172(3) of the NAMA Act 2009. Following enquiries raised by NAMA, it has been established that the party who has been identified as a director of the purchaser entity was not a NAMA debtor.

Maybe there was another connection with a NAMA debtor but the letter says that the person was not a NAMA debtor so there is wiggle room there. The letter continues with the following:

NAMA wishes to be helpful to the Committee but is required by law to operate by reference to the prohibitions on disclosure of confidential debtor information.

Essentially it cannot say more. There is some information there but there is still some wiggle room in there. Some people are interested in that and I read it into the record because it is big money, it is a matter people are concerned about and it has attracted much public comment.

We note and publish that letter. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I want to say something on that. Note and publish it and I would like to come back to that.

Chairman

We will be coming back to it.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

The Chair has done the right thing reading it and highlighting it. We are sitting here now, notwithstanding much commentary in the newspapers lately. Three of us here are looking at this as ordinary Deputies trying to make sense of it as one item of correspondence-----

Chairman

One of about 50 items of correspondence today.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

We are talking about wiggle room and the effort to pursue the €173 million and then we were told it was not a NAMA debtor and so on. We have to go back and look at that but how long will that take to check that, make sense out of it and talk to the people who have raised concerns about it? It is one item of correspondence. What the Chair has put on the record is important but it is equally important to put on record what we are faced with on the Committee of Public Accounts, not to mention what is before us today. We have to try to understand that as ordinary Deputies to try to hold a system to account.

Chairman

We will write back to NAMA arising from that letter to say that it has established that the person identified as a director of the purchaser entity was not a NAMA debtor. We will write back straight up asking if there was any connection between that person and a NAMA debtor. Maybe that person was not a NAMA debtor but we want to know if there was any connection and NAMA should know that and the nicely-----

Deputy Catherine Connolly

Not alone should NAMA know that but it has a duty to explain to us. We are not here to go through something minutely to try to find details. The onus is on every organisation that comes in here to disclose to us that everything has been done properly. It is being pushed the other way.

Chairman

NAMA does say in the last paragraph that it is constrained by the legislation from disclosing details. However, what we are asking is not an unreasonable question. The Deputy is right. We could have just noted and published it and moved on. Serious issues are raised and people feel that we should follow matters through and of course we do so we will go back and ask for further clarification of that.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I have asked for further information on this transaction. I have not received all of the information that I require yet. When I have that information I will consider whether I need to do further investigation of the matter with the potential of making a report but I have not made that decision as of yet.

Chairman

The big question we asked here that day was about what level of verification has been made of the section 172 declarations and I gathered that they had not done that. That is a bit like Revenue saying it is a self assessment system but that there is no audit in place.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

We raised that in the second section 226 report which the Chair already discussed with NAMA. We said that it was a concern that it was taking assurances at face value. The same discussion can be had with Revenue. That creates a significant declaration and it is a legally important declaration. It is a control process that is not insignificant but verification or standing up of matters is obviously important.

Chairman

Do these declarations have any legal standing outside of the State because this is a sale transacted in Europe?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

That may be where there is a greater difficulty. I could not answer that.

Chairman

See? It is wide open.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

It certainly shows the kind of underpinning there was, if I can use that term, for some of the banks' transactions. The banks went out and-----

Chairman

We are not finished with it.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

There is something to note. While there is a prohibition on the disclosure of information under section 202, it is important that the committee note that subsection (5) reads: "Nothing in subsection (2) prevents the disclosure of information ... in the course of giving evidence before a House of the Oireachtas or a Committee of either or both such Houses". There is an onus on NAMA to present information and to provide the assurances to which Deputy Connolly referred.

Chairman

We will ensure that NAMA is made aware of that point in our reply. We are not legal experts. We cannot be expected to know the subsections of section 202. I thank Mr. McCarthy for highlighting it. How could we be expected to know the full details of that? We will revert to NAMA on that basis. We will note and publish the correspondence but will follow up on it.

Next is No. 1714 B from Dr. Des Fitzgerald, president of the University of Limerick, UL, providing an update on steps taken by him to ensure the conclusions of the Thorn report are fully and swiftly implemented. Dr. Fitzgerald states that there is a sharp focus on ensuring that matters are dealt with fully and finally to restore the reputation of the university.

I will make a remark once we put the letter on screen. There are multiple pages to it and I do not have the relevant part to hand. The issue I wish to refer to is on page 3, step No. 8. It reads: "At a hearing of the PAC, in the press and in communications to UL staff, I apologised on behalf of the university to the regulatory bodies, to current and former employees and to the people of the Mid West for what was revealed in the Thorn Reports." It is all well and good apologising to staff and former staff, but what is the current position? Saying "I am sorry" is fine, but has anything been done in practice? I want to know the current status of the staff to which Dr. Fitzgerald referred. They may have been whistleblowers. Without identifying them by name, we need a note on their current employment status and how that apology was given practical effect. If it has not been given proper legal effect, it is only words.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Asking Dr. Fitzgerald to do that is one thing, but I want to hear how the whistleblowers felt.

Chairman

We will not preclude that.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I know. An apology does not necessarily reflect how they feel about the situation. We should deal with that.

Chairman

I am testing Dr. Fitzgerald by asking that question.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

When this report was laid before us, there was an expectation that we would re-engage with the whistleblowers, but we have pushed that out and have still not done it.

Chairman

I will ask that the reply, when it is sent to us, meets a level of candour and openness and provides the full details about the people concerned in our questions. We will judge Dr. Fitzgerald's words then. Let us hope that everything he said measures up. When we see the reply, we will examine it, and if we have to take the matter further, we will. I am asking the question.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

At the end of that page, he also refers to an additional report on UL by me. It is a special report that is with the Department and has to be published by the end of the month.

Chairman

So we could have it next week.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It will provide further context for the letter.

Chairman

Great.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

We can take the two together and make a decision.

Chairman

Absolutely. It is on our work programme.

Next, we held over No. 1595 C from our previous meeting. We will revert to it.

Correspondence Nos. 1674 C, dated 22 October, and 1716 C, dated 7 November, are from an individual who made a submission to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform regarding the OPW in terms of "Strengthening Civil Service Accountability and Performance". We requested the relevant report at our meeting with the OPW. Members will recall that the report reviewed five specific properties. The individual also provides the details of other properties on which he believes value for money was not achieved, namely, the former Passport Office and the Garda offices on Harcourt Street. The individual believes that an independent report should be commissioned by the OPW.

We have dealt with the correspondence from Mr. Maurice Buckley, chairman of the OPW, which provided considerable information, including background information, regarding recent developments in the property management division. While we might have to return to this topic in the new year, I propose that we ask the chairman to provide a further update on developments to ensure effective property management and that we advise the correspondent accordingly. We have agreed to invite in the former employee who wrote the report. This is on our work programme. We will deal with the matter as soon as we set a date.

The next correspondence is No. 1697 C from an individual, forwarded to the committee, regarding a value for money query relating to the Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland, SBCI. The bank is audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and I propose that, with the correspondent's permission and appropriate redactions, we forward the correspondence to the SBCI. I understand that the clerk to the Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach has been in correspondence with that organisation. I propose that the two clerks liaise and seek an update on any intended action. Is that agreed? Agreed. This correspondence has gone to two committees.

No. 1710 C from an individual dated 8 November relates to property leases undertaken on behalf of the State by the OPW. We will note this correspondence and take it into consideration during our meeting with the former OPW employee.

Nos. 1712 C and 1713 C, dated 7 November, are from an individual who has been in correspondence with us regarding Cork Education and Training Board, ETB. The board has advised the committee that the individual agreed a full and final settlement with it of all outstanding complaints, including a provision that the individual would not apply for any further position within the ETB. The Department of Education and Skills provided advice to the effect that the individual was free to accept or reject any or all of the settlement, and encouraging the individual to engage with the ETB, through the individual's legal advisers, to reach a settlement. The responses from the ETB and the Department were forwarded to the correspondent. I propose that we advise the correspondent that our consideration of the matter is now closed. Has anyone a comment on this? I think we taken it as far as we can? While it sounds severe, the person, with the individual's legal advisers, signed the agreement. We are not going to unravel an agreement into which someone entered freely, full stop. That is all I can say.

That marks the end of today's correspondence.

Deputy David Cullinane

I wish to raise two issues quickly. Has the Comptroller and Auditor General's report into Waterford IT been noted?

Chairman

No.

Deputy David Cullinane

Can we note it and place it on our work programme?

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy David Cullinane

Can we write to RTÉ for an update on the Eversheds Sutherland report and its implementation? It identified a number of staff who possibly were on bogus self-employment contracts. A commitment given in the report was that each of those staff members would be contacted individually to ascertain the status of his or her contract. My understanding is that has not happened in the majority of cases. There was a clear commitment in the independent report. Can we write to RTÉ seeking an update?

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy David Cullinane

Specifically, have the people who were identified been contacted, and if not, why?

Chairman

We will do that. We will include the WIT report in our work programme. We can certainly deal with that matter.

No statements or accounts have been received since our previous meeting. That is extraordinary. It has been a quiet week for someone.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes.

Chairman

The next item is our work programme, which we will put on screen. Today we have the Revenue Commissioners and, in the afternoon, a private session. Next Thursday, we will deal with a special chapter on hepatitis C treatment. Was the ultimate cost in the order of €1.5 billion?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The compensation schemes were put in place.

Chairman

We are asking the people from the HSE because that was as a result of medical negligence. We do not need to go back over CervicalCheck. We pencilled it in for next week, but we had it last week. We will come back to it through correspondence. We do not need to deal with CervicalCheck every second week.

Next week we hope to have a draft of our fourth periodic report. That will be prepared by the secretariat with no input from the members. It is not a members' report, but a committee report. Those who seek to print or publish a leaked version of it should be aware that it is not a Committee of Public Accounts-approved document - the committee had no input. They may publish it at their peril. That is all I say.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Can we send an email to all people who are not present?

Chairman

The secretariat will give us a draft for our first consideration of the matter. I ask members to take some time out before the meeting to go through it. I would like to clear that with a view to publishing it early in December. It is essential that we do that. I want to try to clear the first reading of that report and then we might have a final one after that.

On 29 November, we will have officials from the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection before us. We will discuss several chapters of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, the Social Insurance Fund and the Vote, which is one of the largest Votes. There is quite a lot and we probably will not get to complete all that work on that day and we might have to hold some of it over. I have listed everything related to that Department for the first day and we might have to come back to it.

Deputy David Cullinane

This is a very good example of something we were discussing last week. We will try to ask an Accounting Officer questions on many different issues. I am thinking about JobPath and some of the others. We had those officials in previously and we did not get information. They said they were not in a position to give us information. This is one of those meetings where we need to signal well in advance what we want from them so that we do not find next week that they do not have what we are looking for and we get frustrated. I would certainly take it upon myself to contact the secretariat outlining specifically the types of questions and issues I will raise and the type of information I want. I can foresee problems. It is a large Department, and there are many issues and chapters in the report.

Chairman

We will send a memorandum to all members asking them to ensure they do that because of the volume. We will not get to clear everything in that Department that day. I have listed the full programme for that Department but we will not get it all done.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I envisage part of the problem lying with JobPath. The financial relationship between the particular companies and the Department is not something they will share with us because they will tell us it is commercially sensitive. That is at the heart of this. We are told we are almost at zero unemployment and large amounts are being expended on companies and may continue to be. If we cannot explore that, are we really getting under the bonnet at all?

Chairman

We want the up-to-date position to the end of September, the end of the most recent quarter.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

We were trying to do with the chapter to bring relevant performance information to the committee. Essentially in reaction to the committee's inquiries earlier in the year or at the end of last year, I decided to do this chapter to try to focus on the relevant performance issues. We had to be careful about certain commercial information. I think we have been and the Department was happy with that.

The committee's Standing Orders provide the option to hear certain information that is commercially sensitive in closed session.

Chairman

Private session.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes. That might be a possible avenue, if the committee wanted to pursue specific other points. That is a matter for the committee.

Deputy David Cullinane

That is a good option if we need it. When they appeared last time and the JobPath issue was raised, my recollection is that we got the figure for the overall spend. Two companies roll this service out. We got the overall figure but then we were told they could not give the breakdown for each company because then the other company would know. However, the other company would have known because the overall figure is the overall figure. Each company knows what it spent. We were in a kind of bizarre-----

Chairman

They could work out the balance; it is simple.

Deputy David Cullinane

It was ridiculous. Those are the types of issues. Do we want to be in that space again next week?

Chairman

We might suggest-----

Deputy David Cullinane

If it is necessary to go into private session, that is fine.

Chairman

We should put the officials on notice that to assist the committee deal with issues that may be commercially sensitive, we may use the procedure to go into private session for a short period.

There is one other aspect that doubles up. One of the significant payments by this Department relates to the rent supplement and the issue of HAP. Does the HAP come through the housing Vote or-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Housing, but obviously there is rent supplement, which is also a very big programme.

Chairman

The rent supplement is easing up because HAP has been taken up. Because we are dealing with rent supplement which relates to housing, I will ask an official from the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government - not the Secretary General, but the appropriate senior person with responsibility for the rent supplement-HAP issue - to be present. That will not be finished in the morning session, maybe we will just say to be here for the after-----

Deputy Catherine Connolly

Is that the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection?

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I thought the Chairman said "housing".

Chairman

We do not want them saying that a particular issue relates to the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government. We need somebody from that Department here on that day. That person does not need to be here for the entire meeting. I suggest to assist the witnesses that we will hold off discussing anything relating to rent supplement, housing and HAP until the 2.30 session. It is not possible to clear all that in the morning session. We will be here well into the afternoon. There is no point in having Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government officials sitting there from 10 a.m. I am trying to facilitate witnesses, rather than-----

Deputy Catherine Connolly

Rent supplement comes under the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection.

Chairman

Yes, but because that is connected with housing, I also want an official from the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government to be present on that day.

Deputy David Cullinane

There is crossover.

Chairman

There will be crossover. Apart from having the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection officials, I also want to have an official from the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government to deal with anything that they can answer that the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection officials cannot answer relating to numbers and-----

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I was confused because the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government is down anyway.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I think it has changed.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

The one I am looking at-----

Chairman

The Deputy is looking at the old one. We have changed. We are dealing with the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection. They cannot make it on that day.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I understand. So it is just the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection.

Chairman

Yes, and we will discuss everything relating to all the chapters. It will be a big day because that Department has a very big expenditure.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I point out that in Chapter 20, PRSI contributions by the self-employed,-----

Chairman

We will need someone from Revenue.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

----- there are very big issues there. They crossover between Revenue and the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection.

Chairman

Under Chapter 20, PRSI contributions by the self-employed are collected by Revenue.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Correct.

Chairman

To address issues relating to rent supplement, which affects the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government, we will ask for officials from those two areas to be here for the afternoon session.

Deputy David Cullinane

The Chairman made the point that we might not get through all of these because there are five chapters.

Chairman

And the Vote.

Deputy David Cullinane

The point is that we will all come in and touch on bits and pieces of it. How do we know if we have covered them or not? If we are to have two sessions, why would we not break it up and deal with certain chapters on day one? Otherwise we will just touch on stuff and how can we judge whether we have covered it?

Chairman

That is fine. Sometimes there are three or four chapters, as could happen today with Revenue. Members might concentrate 99% of their time on one or two and very little-----

Deputy David Cullinane

However, if we decide to concentrate on specific chapters on one day and do the due diligence on those chapters, and then deal with the other chapters in the next meeting-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I believe the committee has provisionally allocated a second day for the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection on 13-----

Chairman

No date is finalised yet. I want to put everything up for discussion. I do not want to stop a member speaking on a particular matter. The Vote has to be there as the first issue. If somebody wants to ask about the Vote and that might go into overpayments, it will be hard to stop discussion on the Vote and some of the chapters but it will be our job to ensure we touch on every chapter. Some chapters will get more attention than others. That is why I am signalling-----

Deputy David Cullinane

Okay; we will get a second run to pick up on issues we might not-----

Chairman

We might decide on the day to hold over some of it for the second day.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I have a small issue.

Rent assistance and the rental accommodation scheme, RAS, are under the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection. I do not know which Department pays for leasing.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

My understanding is that the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government is responsible for RAS. It was established under the former Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government.

Chairman

We will ask the secretariat to investigate the RAS payment, and if that Department is responsible, it should be represented at the afternoon session of that meeting to deal with housing implications.

Deputy David Cullinane

Does RAS come through local authorities?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

No, the housing assistance payment, HAP, comes through local authorities.

Chairman

HAP comes through local authorities. Rent supplement is through the Department.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

My understanding is that rent supplement is the original support and RAS was then put in place by the former Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. HAP was then developed on the housing side.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

RAS is still in operation and a different set of protections operates in that regard.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

We get a quarterly report in Galway regarding long-term leasing, short-term leasing, RAS, HAP and rent supplement. The last is delivered under the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection and is being phased out, while all of the other schemes are under the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Housing, yes.

Chairman

RAS is under the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government. That is why we need an official from that Department to appear along with officials from the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection and the Revenue Commissioners on that day to deal with the collection of self-employed taxes. We will see how much progress we make. I do not want to exclude some chapters in case people queried that.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

We have done a piece on housing and will do another and a report.

Chairman

We will.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Although some supports are channelled through local authorities, the fragmentation in this area is causing a great deal of confusion in regard to understanding what is being spent on housing, for example, and what will be the long-term obligations. It will be very difficult for the committee to get the total picture if we do not find a way to pull that together. We may have to compile two periodic reports, for example.

Chairman

We will hold the issues over. We will not split a topic across two reports because of our timetable. We can agree to hold one issue over until we complete the project. That happened once before. There is much to consider, such as approved housing bodies and so on, before we complete this issue.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

It is becoming clearer because all of the schemes are under local authorities except rent supplement, which is being phased out. All of the other schemes such as HAP, RAS, long-term and short-term leasing are under local authorities.

Chairman

Capital assistance schemes.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

Yes. It is confusing but at least we are getting an overall picture. We know from the Comptroller and Auditor General that the HAP payment doubled to €300 million from one year to another and will increase to €431 million or €451 million next year. The voluntary housing associations and the number of schemes that are in operation are very confusing, as is dealing with the amount of money being allocated to each scheme. That is where the difficulty is. Another difficulty is the amount of money being sent through these schemes to the private market.

Chairman

We will revert to that issue because we did not deal with the approved housing bodies at the first meeting on this issue. We are scheduled to deal with payments to approved housing bodies. We were always going to have a second-----

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I agree with the Chair in that regard. I was never interested in the approved housing bodies, but rather what the Department is doing, the amount of money and the governance issues.

Chairman

Yes, and the outcome in terms of the number of houses being delivered. On that day representatives from the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government and the Revenue Commissioners will be present for the afternoon session.

Is there anything in the work programme for 13 December? On 6 December we will deal with the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment and its Vote. The Comptroller and Auditor General has a chapter on cybersecurity and the energy efficiency fund and we will also deal with the national broadband plan on that day. The issue of cybersecurity is under that Department. However, I ask the officials to check whether the Army or the Department of Defence also has a role in cybersecurity. I understand that they do. We want that to be clarified. Am I correct in that regard?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

They do have a role, yes.

Chairman

They do. The Army has a role in terms of cybersecurity and we need to have the appropriate people from the Department or the Army or the Defence Forces here for that discussion of cybersecurity, which is not confined to the Department.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Can we get an indication of what the representatives will be able to discuss in that regard? I have seen a reply to a parliamentary question which stated that the-----

Chairman

On which topic?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

The budget for the secret service cannot be revealed because it is a secret.

Chairman

The Deputy was referring to cybersecurity.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Some elements of cybersecurity will not be discussed by the representatives because they will not want to give away secrets. The committee will be examining finance and the process.

Chairman

The governance process, yes.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

However, there is no point in representatives attending to tell us that they cannot discuss certain issues.

Chairman

There is a chapter on the matter in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

There is a chapter on the governance structure of our cybersecurity, which is the critical element. Are the elements in place, what are they and who is responsible for them? I do not think that anybody could argue that the committee could not be given answers to those questions.

Chairman

Those broad issues, yes.

Deputy David Cullinane

On the University of Limerick and Waterford Institute of Technology reports, might there be an opportunity to deal with those reports on the same day?

Chairman

It might be 13 December either.

Deputy David Cullinane

Before we make a decision on how to approach it, on the report on Waterford IT by the Comptroller and Auditor General, it would be of benefit if we had a sense of the status of the more substantial report to be compiled by the Higher Education Authority, HEA, and the Department. They were awaiting legal advice from the Attorney General in that regard. If the report is months or a year from completion, we could deal with the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General alone. However, if the substantial report is expected sooner, the committee could wait and address both reports on the same day. I asked about the status of that report at our most recent meeting. Was a response received in that regard?

Chairman

Not yet. We will follow up on it this week.

Deputy David Cullinane

Was it followed up?

Chairman

It will be dealt with this week. We have concluded the discussion on the work programme. There being no other business, we will suspend while the witnesses take their seats.

Sitting suspended at 10.17 a.m. and resumed at 10.25 a.m.