COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate -
Friday, 29 Jan 2021

Business of Committee

Chairman

No apologies have been received but Deputy Matt Carthy will be late because he is attending the agriculture committee, which is meeting at the same time, unfortunately. I welcome everyone to our online meeting. Due to the current situation with Covid-19, only the clerk, support staff and I are in the committee room. Members of the committee are attending remotely but, on the basis of legal advice, members must be within the precincts of Leinster House to contribute to the meeting. The Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, is a permanent witness to the committee and he is also attending remotely.

Members are reminded of the provisions within Standing Order 218 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 merits of the objectives of such policies. Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice 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.

The business before us is the minutes of the previous meeting, financial accounts and statements, correspondence and our work programme.

The first item on the agenda is the minutes of the meetings on 21 and 22 January, which have been circulated to members. Are the minutes for 21 January agreed? I need a proposer and seconder. I thank Deputies Hourigan and Devlin. The minutes are agreed. Are the minutes for 22 January agreed? I thank Deputy Verona Murphy. The minutes are agreed. As previously agreed, the minutes will be published.

Six sets of financial statements and accounts were laid before the Dáil between 14 and 22 January 2021. The Comptroller and Auditor General issued a qualified audit opinion for Children's Health Ireland. These are the first accounts of Children's Health Ireland, which was established on 1 January 2019 through the merger of three predecessor hospitals. The Comptroller and Auditor General states the accounts give a true and fair view, except that they account for the costs of retirement benefit entitlements only as they become payable, which is standard for many health bodies. Our attention is also drawn to significant non-compliant procurement. The Comptroller and Auditor General issued clear audit opinions in all other cases, which are the environment fund, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, the Criminal Assets Bureau, Oberstown Children Detention Campus and Laois Offaly Education and Training Board, although the Comptroller and Auditor General also drew attention to non-compliant procurement to the value of €575,727 in the accounts of Laois Offaly Education and Training Board.

I ask the Comptroller and Auditor General if he wishes to comment on the financial accounts and statements before I open the floor to members.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

There are no particular matters to bring to the attention of the committee. The qualified audit opinion is a technical matter. The Minister for Health has issued a direction in regard to how pensions are to be accounted for by health sector bodies. Children's Health Ireland is compliant with that direction and it is doing it the way the Minister has directed, but it does introduce this technical qualification in regard to a true and fair view. In the other cases concerning non-competitive procurement, certainly in the case of Laois Offaly Education and Training Board, I understand the value of non-compliant procurement is declining. It is the first year of operation of the hospital.

It does not seem to be as bad as other health sector bodies in relation to that but we will keep it under review.

Chairman

Does anybody wish to comment?

Deputy Verona Murphy

I have one question. I refer to significant non-compliant procurement. With regard to the recent revelations about one of the main education and training boards, ETBs, in the country, could the Comptroller and Auditor General elaborate on what is happening there? Did he state the value was €575,000 in the Laois and Offaly ETB?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The Chair mentioned that. I do not have the precise figure but it is something of that order.

Chairman

The figure is €575,727.

Deputy Verona Murphy

The brief states that our attention is drawn to significant non-compliance. Has it been taken in hand?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes. There is evidence that the figure is reducing year-on-year. They are very close to the level at which I would not be drawing attention to non-compliant procurement. I use a threshold value of €500,000 for any public body. It comprises a mix of different types of procurement.

Deputy Verona Murphy

I thank Mr. McCarthy.

Chairman

If the committee wishes, we can write to Laois and Offaly ETB to seek further information - it is in the financial statement - and for an update on progress. Is that agreed? Agreed. I will ask the clerk to the committee to write to the CEO and ask for a progress report.

Is it agreed that we note the accounts and statements? Agreed. As usual, we will continue our practice of writing to bodies with significant non-compliant procurement, and to bodies that are late laying their accounts before the Oireachtas.

The next item is correspondence. Members will recall that we agreed at a recent meeting to hold over a number of items for consideration in public session. Two correspondence lists have been circulated to them. The list entitled "Correspondence List HELD OVER" includes items held over from that recent meeting. The list entitled "Correspondence List NEW" includes correspondence received since the latest meeting. As usual, items that are not flagged for discussion for this meeting will be dealt with in accordance with the proposed actions, and decisions taken by the committee on correspondence are recorded in the minutes of the committee's meetings and will be published on the committee's web page.

The first category of correspondence under which members have flagged items for discussion is: correspondence from Accounting Officers and or Ministers and follow-up to Committee of Public Accounts meetings. Members will recall that, at our meeting on 16 December, we agreed to hold over six items of correspondence. These are items that had been flagged for discussion by members, and we will deal with them first. I will generally request agreement to note and publish the items and if members then wish to propose additional actions, we will consider them.

The first correspondence is No. 252B from Ms Anne Graham, CEO, National Transport Authority, dated 26 November 2020, providing further information requested by the committee regarding procurement in respect of rail services on the Maynooth Line. It is proposed to note and publish this item. Deputy Catherine Murphy had a particular interest in this and I ask her to contribute at this point.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I cannot put my hand on it. I had it here a while ago.

Chairman

It is full of good news.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

It is useful to get the information because there have been several announcements on the same matter over a number of years. It is to get some degree of certainty about what, in fact, is ordered, what has already been paid for and what the lead-in time is.

Obviously, the number of companies from which the kind of rolling stock we seek can be procured is limited. As a result, it will be quite difficult to know if we get value for money in respect of this very large and necessary expenditure. The information is useful from that point of view.

Chairman

There is some information in that letter regarding what has been ordered. It states:

There are two types of fleet orders that are in the process of being acquired to address passenger capacity needs on the rail network.

The first order relates to 41 inter-city rail cars and the second order type relates to new DART fleet, potentially both fully electric and battery electric DART fleet.

The letter goes on to set out some information on that. I think the Deputy's was a non-DART one. On page 2 it is stated:

While the initial delivery date of the first vehicle to Iarnród Éireann was targeted for the end of 2021, various delays have occurred in the intervening period, mainly related to the Covid-19 pandemic. Accordingly, the train manufacturer has now advised that the first carriage is likely to arrive in mid-2022, with the full order of 41 carriages to be completed before the end of 2022. Subject to final commissioning by Iarnród Éireann, the new carriages will go into passenger service on a phased basis from mid-2022 onwards, over a six month period.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

If I may make a couple of additional points. There is a DART upgrade on that particular line and work has started on its design. It requires significant changes with things such as bridges.

On procurement, it has been announced several times but the order has not gone in. Even the specification will be important in ensuring it is fully accessible. That was one of the components. If it is already gone, one cannot influence it; if it is not, one can do so. That is why timing is really important on this. I am sure the transport committee will follow up on the details.

Chairman

An order has been placed for the provision of 41 intercity rail cars since September 2019 with a company in Tokyo. On the DART fleet, the letter states that tenders for the fleet framework contract have been received and are being evaluated. I will not read it out, the information is extensive. That is No. 252B.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I have just found it.

Chairman

What does the Deputy propose on that?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

It is straightforward, but we should get periodic updates or monitor the procurement because it is a very sizeable contract. It is fine, we should just publish the information.

Chairman

Okay. We will ask for the committee to receive updates on an ongoing basis.

No. 253 was flagged by Deputies Carthy and Munster. Deputy Carthy is at the agriculture committee meeting and will be a little late. He has asked that we hold this over until he arrives. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 254 is correspondence from Mr. Bernard Gloster, chief executive of Tusla, dated 8 December 2020 and providing information requested by the committee in respect of non-compliant procurement of over €7 million. We will note and publish this. Several Deputies wish to speak to it.

Deputy Imelda Munster

It is clear that Tusla has serious issues with procurement compliance. I understand that the agency is funded through the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth yet it seems to make use of HBS Procurement. Why are we seeing such procurement issues when a dedicated service is used? I just cannot understand. Can we ask Tusla to clarify whether it uses HBS Procurement generally?

Can we ask, just to clarify, whether it uses HBS Procurement generally, whether it is supposed to, or whether it is meant to be working to a different body or framework? If we could write to Tusla and ask those questions, that would be a start. I also suggest we as a committee include Tusla in the work plan.

Chairman

There is an issue there. Looking through non-compliant procurements, one thing that stands out is that a company called CPL seems to come up on a regular basis under the heading of agency staff. There is a sum of €694,000-plus down as being non-compliant. There are two other companies that got contracts that were deemed to be non-compliant, but they are €78,000 and €46,000 respectively. The CPL one is very high at almost €700,000. When we write, I propose that we look for further information on what that is about, what exactly it was sought for and whether that company has any other contracts with Tusla, if the committee agrees.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

That is the company that has been largely used to source people for the track and trace system in the context of Covid. There has been quite a lot of criticism and complaints about the way some of those contracts have been handled. We should have a close look at that one. It is not historical; it is current in terms of the use of that company. We need also to get from Tusla exactly what kind of choices are available in that area in terms of competitor organisations, or if some of this stuff can be done in-house.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I will make a couple of points that may be of assistance to the committee. Tusla emerged from the HSE when it was established and, therefore, many of the legacy systems and organisational structures that were in place were taken over directly from the HSE. Effectively, one sees in Tusla a microcosm of the problems that are also found in the HSE. That probably explains the link with Health Business Services, HBS, which is a procurement unit within the HSE. If you like, the organisational relationship has continued.

On CPL, it certainly is a name that comes up. It is a provider of agency staff and is used in other organisations. There are other suppliers of agency services, so one would expect scope for a competitive procurement.

Chairman

Do any other members wish to come in? Okay, on the basis of that discussion, we will ask the clerk to write to Tusla to seek further information on those issues. Specifically, we will seek the explanation for such a large figure going to CPL, as well as asking how many contracts and engagements that company has had and how many pieces of work it has done for Tusla and the full value of those. That would be useful.

The next item on the agenda is complicated because there is a number of pieces. Nos. 257B, 273B and 274B are related. We will take Nos. 257B and 273B first and they are from Nick Ashmore, CEO of the Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland, SBCI, dated 9 December and 21 December respectively. These are responses requested from the committee on matters raised in correspondence by an individual, which, with the consent of that individual, we forwarded to the SBCI for response. In my opinion, the responses do not sufficiently address the concerns raised.

We also requested the Department of Finance to respond to these matters, which it did in correspondence item No. 274B from Mr. Derek Moran, Secretary General, Department of Finance, dated 21 December 2020.

Although not flagged for discussion, it is related. This response is not in any way illuminating either.

Arising from our consideration of several items of correspondence and related responses, I do not believe the matters raised have been directly or sufficiently addressed. We had previously agreed to include the matter in our work programme, and I propose that we schedule an engagement with representatives of Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland, SBCI, to examine this matter in the context of its latest financial statement. Before I put that proposal to members, I will open the discussion to the floor. Does any member wish to comment on the SBCI correspondence?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

It jarred with me. An issue that has been brought to our attention concerns an incredibly important fund that is very much focused on the SME sector and the availability of finance. I base my judgment on one of the items of correspondence, No. 296C. The person who gave us the information in the first instance states the Act specifically advises against these funds being used to replace existing borrowings and indicates that if they are not used within two years, they are supposed to go back for reuse by others. They have not gone back. Essentially, this may well deny others the opportunity to be resourced to conduct their business because they cannot access funding. The funding was not to refinance but specifically for use by Irish companies. We have been told that there is at least one incident of this not occurring. That is very significant in terms of the functioning of the SBCI. It derives its funding from a source wider than what I believe remained of the pension fund, if I am right, but we really require the body to function in the way envisaged in the legislation. We must be satisfied about that.

Deputy Neasa Hourigan

I completely agree with Deputy Catherine Murphy. I have been reading through the correspondence. The whole issue remains opaque and therefore it would be well worth having a session on the interaction in respect of the fund and how it is being made available to those it should be made available to. Therefore, I support further consideration of this.

Chairman

I have spoken to the correspondent about this on a couple of occasions. The issues he raised on 18 January are certainly interesting in that he comes back to the issue of what exactly the money from SBCI can be used for, how it can be used, how it can be loaned, who it can be loaned to and for what purpose. That is an issue that we need to follow up on. It is proposed that we schedule an engagement with the SBCI. Have we a proposer and seconder?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I propose the engagement.

Deputy Verona Murphy

I second it.

Chairman

Does Deputy Catherine Murphy want to add anything?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

It would be very useful for the committee, in advance of meeting representatives of SBCI, to talk to the person who has been in correspondence with us, even if it is in private session. That would be of benefit to the committee.

Chairman

We will invite the correspondent to a private session of the committee. He indicated to me in the past that he would be willing to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts.

No. 260B, from Mr. Ray Mitchell, assistant national director, HSE, dated 10 December 2020, provides information requested by the committee on the nursing homes support scheme as well as information requested on Autism Initiatives Ireland.

I propose to request further information regarding public private partnership, PPP, contracts for the placement of community nursing units, CNUs, to include information on the public sector benchmark to ensure the committee can assess value for money. Is that agreed? Agreed. I also propose to request that the HSE keep the committee informed of updates regarding Autism Initiatives Ireland. Is that agreed? Agreed. It is flagged for discussion. This benchmark has been a bone of contention with the committee because we have been told that for various commercial reasons, we cannot see it. However, the committee has asked in the past to see it in private session, which is a reasonable request. Deputy Catherine Murphy flagged this issue and wished to make an intervention.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I am satisfied with the action that is proposed.

Chairman

If we do not have sight of the benchmark, we cannot make a judgment on it.

No. 264B is from Mr. Niall Cody, chairman of the Revenue Commissioners. Members will recall we had Mr. Cody before the committee. The correspondence is dated 14 December and provides information requested arising out of his appearance before the committee on 19 November 2020. I propose to note and publish this correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. It was flagged for discussion by Deputies Carthy and Catherine Murphy. Does Deputy Murphy wish to comment?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

No. It is a very comprehensive response, as is often the case when the Revenue appears before the committee. It is fine to publish it.

Deputy Matt Carthy

May I address the correspondence from Revenue?

Chairman

I apologise that I missed the Deputy.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I apologise for being late. On the Revenue correspondence, particularly the report on the use of data access requests to telecommunications companies, we see that in 2017 there were 40 such requests. That dropped to 26 in 2018 and according to the correspondence we received from Revenue, there have been no requests since then. Could the committee write to Revenue seeking clarification as to why that is the case? I have a suspicion it might relate to the introduction of the general data protection regulation, GDPR. Could we get clarification from Revenue on whether these types of requests simply will not be issued in the future and if that is the case, whether that points to a deficiency in the GDPR legislation and a need for it to be updated? Could we ask Revenue if there has been any engagement with the Government in this regard? As I mentioned, 66 requests have been referred. It would be useful if Revenue could inform us as to the amount recouped to date with respect to those 66 requests, if it has any data reflecting how often it would have made similar requests if this option remained open to them, and if it believes its ability to recoup tax owed to the State has been impacted by the GDPR legislation.

Chairman

We will ask for that correspondence to be taken up.

No. 284B refers to an issue the committee has been dealing with. It is from Deputy Matt Shanahan and is dated 11 January. It raises concerns about the recently advertised role of the Secretary General of the Department of Health. At our meeting on 14 January, the committee agreed to write to the acting Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform in relation to the matters raised. This letter issued on 19 January. We also agreed at our private meeting yesterday to proceed to make an application to the committee on remit and oversight - the committee on procedure - to examine the processes by which high level remuneration in the public service is determined.

It is proposed to advise Deputy Shanahan of that. We thrashed out this issue at length and we sent him a lengthy letter. We also sent a lengthy letter to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform in which we asked 14 questions. I think Deputy Shanahan's letter even made a recent appearance in the media. At yesterday's meeting we agreed to write to the acting Secretary General. It is a very serious issue and people are wondering what exactly has happened here. It is four weeks since the matter was first raised publicly and, at this point, we are no clearer as to who made the decision to bump up the pay by €81,000 or why the decision was taken. Was the decision made by civil servants or politicians? We are told it was not the Government. Was it a group of Ministers? The question is who was involved. We are no clearer on the matter.

Lately, there was a suggestion that part of the reason is that given the head of the HSE, Mr. Paul Reid, is on an amount in the region of €360,000 that the Secretary General of the Department supervising him would need to be on a higher salary than €210,000 to do that. I am not sure of the logic of that, because the Secretary General of the Department of Finance is in a supervisory role to some extent over the Garda Commissioner, who is on more than €300,000, and the CEO of the National Treasury Management Agency. Deputies Carthy and Catherine Murphy flagged the issue.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I welcome the decision by the committee to investigate the overall issue of the remuneration of high-paid public servants. This stinks to high heaven. There is no other way of describing it. Essentially, a job is teed up for a former Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, who is now moving into a new Department. There are so many questions regarding the role of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform in the first instance. You mentioned the governmental impact of it, Chairman. It is clearly a source of concern for many that this would lead to a situation whereby other high-level public servants would seek significant pay increases in line with what has been proposed for the Secretary General of the Department of Health. There is no rationale, economic or political, for this decision. The silence has been deafening in the official response to the issue.

Anybody looking at the remit of the Committee of Public Accounts would have to say that we have an obligation, let alone a right, to delve into how this matter was addressed. I ask whether there is a remit to ensure that this decision is reversed, because it sends out all the wrong signals. Public servants are on a two-tier pay scale where newer entrants are operating under worse conditions than their colleagues working alongside them, whether it be in schools or other public services. We must tackle this issue in a robust manner to ensure full transparency in respect of what happened but also so that there is accountability on why the decision was made and whether it can be reversed.

Chairman

I have addressed this matter in previous meetings. We do not, nor should we try, have a role in setting the level of pay for any public servant. The issue being flagged is the process or lack thereof and the unusual nature of the case in terms of the potential knock-on effect on public sector pay.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Obviously, a very comprehensive letter went from the Committee of Public Accounts to the Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. I completely concur that that captured many of the concerns we collectively had, and that letter came about as a consequence of a collaborative effort to make sure the issues we were concerned about were adequately covered. I subsequently read in an article that the intention is to reply to the finance committee, which is investigating this and has a different remit to ourselves, but that the Department will reply to everyone on the same day. The article gave the impression that we were all going to be at loggerheads with each other. The key issue is that we get to the origin of how this decision was made, what the process was, who was involved in it and what the knock-on consequences are likely to be.

As to the piece of work we are going to do, it is important, every time we come up with a constraint in regard to our work, that we name the change that has happened in regard to the Committee of Public Accounts, and that is the standing order the Chairman himself read out at the beginning of the meeting, Standing Order 218. That imposes pretty strict restrictions on what we can do as opposed to what we were able to do before. While it does not look like we will be the committee that will be investigating this particular aspect, there is a wider aspect that we are considering. Obviously, we are looking for an extension of our remit to inquire into such matters, which I think will be very helpful in looking at the broader issues of process and public pay, particularly at the high end.

The Chairman or the clerk might go through exactly what the timeline is for us to get a response from the committee on procedure on that. We will have to put that into our work programme in a timely way because it is a complementary piece of work that we will do alongside the work that is obviously going to be undertaken by the finance committee. The one thing we, as politicians, should not be is to be at loggerheads with each other on this. If the other committee is going to deal with this, I am perfectly happy that it will do that and it will do that job thoroughly. However, I think there is another solid piece of work for us to do, and that is what we are seeking to do and seeking an extension of our remit to do.

This is going to keep coming up over and over again because this constraint on our remit, as it relates to what it was like before, is a significant change to how the Committee of Public Accounts operates.

Deputy Verona Murphy

I concur with the comments of Deputies Catherine Murphy and Carthy. Again, I stress this is about the process going forward and as this is the Committee of Public Accounts, I feel it should be for our committee. I read the same article that Deputy Murphy referenced. It is important this is looked at and, not to prolong matters, I concur with what has been said.

Chairman

The committee on procedure gave us a commitment. I raised it with individual members of that committee and they came back to us formally and said they would respond to any request from the Committee of Public Accounts to that committee, and they would turn it around within a week. We will see what way that works. We should have a reply back for next week in regard to getting its go-ahead on this. I call Deputy Colm Burke.

Deputy Colm Burke

The Chairman has probably answered my question. Have we had any indication as to what is the view coming back? It is an important issue and I do not believe we should be stopped from going ahead and looking at this issue. Has any indication come back as to how it is going to be approached?

Chairman

Okay. The next speaker is Deputy McAuliffe.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

Deputy Catherine Murphy said much of what I wanted to say. There is a clear need for the committee to examine this matter because of the likely questions and lines of questioning we will have in subsequent years on decisions of this nature. Work in this area that does not infringe on the policy issues around pay that the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach will examine is needed. Process and the procedure by which this was adopted is probably key to the work of our committee on this. I echo what other members said. The idea of Members across the House being focused on this issue to hold to account those at a senior level in the permanent government is important and something we should pursue.

Chairman

We will not get into a bun fight with other committees over it but it is important that we pursue the matter. The clerk to the committee informed me that the application has been drafted and needs to be signed off. That will be followed up on straightaway. It is proposed that we advise Deputy Shanahan accordingly. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I will go back to the item of correspondence we held back, No. 253B, correspondence from Mr. John Dollard, chief superintendent, Commissioner's office, An Garda Síochána. Deputy Carthy wished to comment on that.

Deputy Matt Carthy

This relates to the infamous Cabra account and the apparent diversion of EU funds to what was a dubious, potentially fraudulent, account. This is a long-standing issue. Unfortunately, the response from the Garda suggests that it cannot comment on the update in respect of this matter because it is currently the subject of an external investigation. My understanding is that the external investigation comprises the European Anti-Fraud Office, OLAF. A role may also have been undertaken by the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC. I suggest we write to both of those bodies inquiring as to whether they are conducting investigations into the Cabra account and if they could provide us with a timeframe.

There is an issue with regard to a number of these external bodies which allows agencies that should be accountable to say they cannot comment while the other investigations are taking place. I note that previously, according to media reports dating back to 2017, the Garda refused to comment because the Committee of Public Accounts was investigating. Now, it is refusing to comment to the Committee of Public Accounts because another investigation is taking place. That is simply not good enough.

The issues pertaining to the Cabra account were well aired at the time. We still do not have the nuts and bolts, however, in terms of exactly what happened and, as a result, we cannot put in place procedures to ensure such activity does not take place in the future. My proposal is that we write to OLAF and GSOC inquiring as to whether they are conducting investigations and if they can give a timeframe as to when those investigations will be concluded.

Chairman

Did Deputy Verona Murphy indicate that she wants to speak?

Deputy Verona Murphy

Yes. Essentially, this follows on from quite a lengthy inquiry carried out by the previous Committee for Public Accounts. There were two strands to that. The aspect the previous committee looked at was related to the Garda College. The bank accounts and the Cabra account would have been linked to that. The work in this regard was done in a timely and effective way.

Some significant changes happened as a consequence of it and it is one example of the effectiveness of the Committee of Public Accounts.

The second strand related to European funds. I concur with what Deputy Carthy has proposed. My understanding was that GSOC was conducting an investigation into this, but I do not think anything precludes us from inquiring from the commission as to the time it is working to. We debated two items of legislation in the Dáil this week, one of which related to nominating two additional people to the board of GSOC. One issue raised by me and others concerned the timely conclusion of investigations and whether there were adequate resources. The other item of legislation we debated related to European finances and transposing an EU directive. The reason we are doing it as late as we are is we would be fined if we did not do it. There is a bit of an irony that we are discussing this issue today, given that it relates to European funds. We have to pay close attention to it because there are significant consequences for us. My understanding is that is the aspect that GSOC is examining. It may well be we need to ask it what the headline of the issue is. I do not mean the detail, because I understand that an investigation has to happen and GSOC is the competent authority, but we might inquire as to exactly what the investigation is and whether it relates to the two strands of the issue or just one.

Chairman

The proposal is that we publish the item. Deputy Carthy has proposed that we request An Garda Síochána to keep us apprised of developments insofar as it can. We have to be careful in respect of GSOC. Obviously, we cannot get involved if it is involved in an inquiry into the matter, but we can ask it for a timeline if agreed. That is as far as we can go. If it is agreed, we will correspond with the chief superintendent and An Garda Síochána and seek a timeline from GSOC. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The final item of correspondence is from Ms Rachel Downes, CEO of Caranua, dated from 15 January 2021, providing information requested by the committee arising from our meeting with representatives of Caranua in December. At last week's meeting, we agreed that Deputy Munster would request the consent of the two survivors to forward their correspondence to the committee, which would then be sent to Caranua for reply.

I ask members to bear in mind that at the beginning of every public meeting, they are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside of the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. If the discussion on this item moves to criticism of Caranua or its CEO, who is not here to respond, as Chair I must intervene.

I propose that we proceed with the action we have agreed and that we note and publish the correspondence. Is that agreed? Deputy Munster flagged up the matter and Deputies Carthy and Catherine Murphy had proposed that we would hold over this item for discussion until this public meeting.

Deputy Imelda Munster

I wanted to raise the issue of the response we received following the committee's correspondence with Caranua in which we requested further information. It gave us information in response to question No. 5 but I refer in particular to point 11 on the correspondence.

We have discussed the effect that Standing Order 218 has on the work of the committee and how it can be stymied.

Point 11 of the correspondence that we received from Caranua is an apt example of how the committee's work can be stymied. One case in question was raised in the public domain in The Irish Times last August. It related to a survivor who had an issue with the colour of her bathroom tiles being the same colour as the tiles in the institution in which she was held. The correspondence that we received was a direct response to questions about that individual. Ms Downes stated that everything named in that is not the full facts of the case. Looking at the correspondence that we received, she stated that she was not familiar with the specific cases but she acknowledged that she was familiar with that case while at the committee.

The correspondence states that committee members did not contact Caranua in advance of the meeting to discuss individual cases but instead opted to voice allegations as fact without giving Caranua an appropriate or fair right to reply. I am aware that at least one of the two survivors whose cases were brought up in advance of the committee meeting emailed Caranua directly before the meeting to give their permission to Caranua to discuss their cases and for Deputies at the committee to discuss the case in a public forum. I have seen that email. That does not fit with what is in the response and I take issue with it.

Caranua claimed in response to previous correspondence from the Committee of Public Accounts to be unfamiliar with the two cases that we are referring to. That does not hold any weight. It said it did not know who the individuals were, yet it went on to contact one of those individuals in person after the committee meeting to apologise and re-engage with the person. The re-engagement did not fully meet the needs of that survivor. We take issue with this. We had permission from at least one survivor to raise the issues at the last meeting when Caranua was present and it transpired that the survivor had contacted Caranua to make it aware of that, yet this most recent correspondence does not refer to that at all. In fact, it is the opposite and Caranua still says it was not aware. I have seen that email. There are many issues involved. We also flagged up the lack of compassion. For a body set up to help survivors, I was flabbergasted at the lack of compassion shown when we flagged up the two cases that were still outstanding and had not been fully dealt with, and the response was what we received. We are still engaging with those survivors and will send on the details to the secretariat to try to ensure they get their full entitlements.

Caranua indicated that it cannot approve applications for more than €15,000. Can we ask Caranua to outline what underpins that limit? Is it primary legislation? Is it Caranua policy? Was it a direction from the Minister or just a policy decision of Caranua?

Other issues relating to that remain outstanding.

Chairman

I remind members that, since Caranua is not present to defend itself, they should not make charges against officials or others who are not at this meeting.

Regarding consent, perhaps I am wrong, but I recall that committee members saw the correspondence from the two survivors giving their permission. Will Deputy Munster clarify? I was aware of correspondence from them giving Deputies permission to raise these issues with Caranua when it was before the committee. Is that correct?

Deputy Imelda Munster

Yes, and they emailed Caranua in advance of the meeting directly to make it aware that representatives would be raising the issues. That does not tally with the response to us from Caranua that I just read out.

Chairman

Did Deputy Catherine Murphy indicate that she wished to contribute on this matter?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Yes. I concur that several of us got an email in advance of the meeting. The Chairman read out the notice at the beginning of the meeting about not naming people, but that is difficult to do when people actually give us permission to name them. There is a balance to be struck.

Caranua is winding down. It appeared before us after the formal close-off date and is not receiving new applications. The fund was finite to begin with, but anything remaining was to go to, I believe, the children's hospital. It is not likely that there will be funds remaining. The Department of Education will take responsibility for Caranua's documents and so on once they are handed over. However, my understanding is that that legislation has not been published yet. Whatever funds remain will be used for salaries and so forth because of the time lag between Caranua's closing and the formal handing over, which is required to happen by way of legislation. We might write to the Minister for Education and ask for the timeline so that we might be satisfied about the issue.

A lesson should be learned in all of this about how the metric used to show satisfaction with the service provided by Caranua was one of complaint. That was wholly inappropriate, given the cohort of people involved. With the recent publication of the report into mother and baby homes and the discussion of a redress scheme, lessons must be learned about what metrics are employed in evaluating schemes from their users' point of view. This will have to be a consideration. We have all heard complaints about how Caranua operated since its establishment. It is important that Caranua be properly evaluated and that its evaluation not be based exclusively on complaints from people who have been conditioned throughout their lives not to complain. We must contact the Department of Education and find out where the legislation stands.

Chairman

To be helpful, the Deputy will remember how I proposed at yesterday's meeting that we write to the Department about how to learn from the Caranua process.

Obviously, many survivors benefited from the work of Caranua. In some cases there were appeals, where applications failed and so on and people were not happy, but an awful lot of people were satisfied. Deputy Murphy may recall that at yesterday's meeting I asked that in its correspondence and in our dealing with the Department of Education we would highlight the issue of the use of that learning. We are going to have more redress boards etc. in respect of the mother and baby homes, and there are all the issues around adoption as well to come up. The other issue we have highlighted to them is to revert to us on the issue of legislation. I asked yesterday for that to be included when the legislation for the wind-down of Caranua comes before the Houses. I was under the impression that the legislation would arrive straightaway after Christmas, as soon as we came back after the Christmas break, and that it would be before the House. I do not know. Maybe some of the Deputies can advise me as to whether it is due to appear on an Order Paper any time in the near future, but we asked that question directly yesterday and we will seek clarification on that, so we are on it.

Two issues have been flagged up here. One is that there is a question as to where this €15,000 limit came from and whether it is underpinned by legislation. We will ask that question of Caranua. We will also bring to its attention when we correspond back with Caranua that committee members did have the permission of the two survivors to raise the issue with Caranua and that Caranua was aware of the case. Is that agreed?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

May I make just one comment?

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Obviously, regarding the report that was given to us, we always knew that the amount of funding that was available to Caranua was going to be finite. I do not think there is any doubt that the people who were best able to make the applications were those from whom the applications were first received. I think that because the funding was finite, that was an internal decision of Caranua to make sure that there was sufficient funding for people making applications. I think there is some information we already have on that. Again, we certainly got complaints - I did over the years - and they were certainly worse at the beginning. There were people who did benefit from this funding, and there is no doubt about that.

Chairman

The Comptroller and Auditor General has indicated he wishes to come in.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

To come in on what Deputy Murphy said, her recollection is quite correct. The limit of €15,000 was a determination made, I think, around 2015, after about a year and a half of operation. Some of the applicants who were in earlier got significantly more than that amount, but the decision was made by the Caranua board itself that in future payouts would be limited to €15,000.

Chairman

I thank Mr. McCarthy for that clarification. It is an issue that came up all right. There were some figures in the earlier applications whereby there were grants made available that were significantly higher than that. What we will do, then, is proceed with the actions we have already agreed and then note and publish the correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We will move now to new correspondence that has not been previously considered by the committee. The first item that has been flagged up is R0299, from Ms Marguerite Ryan, finance officer, Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, dated 18 January 2021, providing information requested by the committee on the Limerick regeneration framework. I propose to forward this item to the correspondent who raised the matter with the previous committee during the term of the Thirty-second Dáil. I advise that Limerick City and County Council is audited by the Local Government Audit Service and, as such, it is outside the remit of the Committee of Public Accounts.

We can also request the correspondent’s consent to forward his correspondence and the response from the Department to the Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage for any action it deems appropriate. Can we note and publish this correspondence?

Deputy Imelda Munster

Large sums of money are involved. I understand that local authorities are audited by the Local Government Audit Service, but it does not attract the same level of public attention or transparency that would be provided by the Committee of Public Accounts. Given the large amounts of money involved, provided that the correspondent gives permission us to, would it be in order to forward it to the Local Government Audit Service and for the Committee of Public Accounts to request that we be included on any related correspondence on an ongoing basis and the results of any investigation that might take place?

Chairman

It is proposed to forward the item to the correspondent who raised the matter with the previous committee in the Thirty-second Dáil, and advise that as Limerick City and County Council is audited by the Local Government Audit Service, it is outside our remit. We can then request the correspondent’s consent to forward his correspondence and the response from the Department to the Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage for any action it deems appropriate. What is Deputy Munster proposing in addition?

Deputy Imelda Munster

I was suggesting, if the correspondent gives us permission, to forward it to the Local Government Audit Service and for the-----

Chairman

I would advise that we inform the correspondent that the route to do that would be through the local authority or through a local authority member.

Deputy Imelda Munster

Would that be required or would we just need the consent of the correspondent?

Chairman

The Local Government Audit Service is separate from us. It is not that we do not want to be helpful to the correspondent, but it is better that we do not get our wires crossed here. We could create the impression that somehow we have a role in sorting this out. Unfortunately, the local authorities are quite separate from the Committee of Public Accounts. There has been talk in the past of legislation to change that. However, local authorities are audited by the Local Government Audit Service. We should inform him of that in the first place. To be helpful, we can point out to him that he can correspond with them and maybe send him the contact details for the Local Government Audit Service. That would be better than confusing the correspondent.

Deputy Imelda Munster

Okay, if the Chairman thinks it is not-----

Chairman

I think it is more direct.

Deputy Imelda Munster

Right. Can we ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to give us his opinion on that?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The Local Government Audit Service is headquartered in the Department and therefore it may already be aware of this correspondence anyway. It is certainly perfectly open to the original correspondent to communicate with the Local Government Audit Service and see if it wants to take it up. There is obviously a demarcation line between the Department and the local authorities which is constitutionally founded. That is why a separate audit service deals with local government. It reports directly to the relevant council. My only access to this issue would relate to the oversight by the Department. I do not have the original correspondence. I do not have any dispute with what is said by the Department. However, I would need to go back to the original correspondence to see what the issues raised are before making any other comment.

Chairman

Is the Deputy happy that we would provide that option to the correspondent?

Deputy Imelda Munster

That is fine. I thank the Chairman.

Chairman

We agree with that action.

The C list is next - correspondence from and related to private individuals and any other correspondence. The first one flagged is No. 296B. We have dealt with this already. It is correspondence from an individual dated 18 January 2021 providing further information regarding concerns over the use of public funds by the Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland, SBCI. As we have already considered related matters, I propose that we note this correspondence and address this matter when the SBCI is before the committee. We can thrash it out then. He is actually a constituent of mine but if he is willing to come before the committee we can see the information he has. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Next is No. 304B, which is from an individual dated 20 January 2021 raising concerns with regard to NAMA and its adherence to statutory provisions. As I understand that the previous Committee of Public Accounts in the Thirty-second Dáil wrote to NAMA regarding this matter and forwarded NAMA's response to the committee, I propose to advise the correspondent accordingly. I also propose that we advise the correspondent that the committee cannot examine individual cases. Deputy Carthy had flagged this if he wishes to comment on it.

Deputy Matt Carthy

Is the Chairman saying that this correspondence has already been forwarded to NAMA for response by the previous committee?

Chairman

My note states that the previous Committee of Public Accounts dealt with this matter. It wrote to NAMA with regard to it and forwarded the agency's response to the committee. I propose to advise the correspondent accordingly.

Deputy Matt Carthy

Before we do that, could I ask that NAMA's response be furnished to the current members of the committee? It might be useful before we make a final decision on it.

Chairman

We will ask the clerk to the committee to do that and we will have it before the next meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed. That completes the C list.

The next item on the agenda is the work programme, which will be displayed on members' screens. At our meeting yesterday, we agreed to reschedule our meeting with the National Paediatric Hospital Development Board to Tuesday, 9 February. We were to have those witnesses in a lot sooner and people are mindful of what has happened. On the first occasion they had an engagement in their diary that they were not able to move. That is accepted. Tuesday, 9 February is subject to the committee being granted one of the available meeting slots on that day. We are in the hands of the Business Committee on that one.

In the following weeks we have provisionally scheduled engagements with the National Shared Services Office, the SBCI, Horse Racing Ireland and the Higher Education Authority. Is it agreed to proceed with these engagements in the weeks ahead? Agreed.

With regard to other bodies that have been added to the work programme but not scheduled, are there any that members wish to prioritise? I will open the floor to them if they wish to put in one or two others. I have sent two to the clerk to the committee to be put on the list. Does any member wish to come in? If they do not have it to hand they could email it to the clerk following the meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Is there any other business members wish to raise? In that case, I propose that we adjourn the meeting until 11.30 a.m. on Thursday, 4 February, when the committee will meet remotely in private session. Go raibh míle maith agaibh.

The committee adjourned at 2.20 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Thursday, 4 February 2021.