COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate -
Thursday, 17 Feb 2022

Business of Committee

Chairman

The business before us includes minutes of previous meetings, accounts and financial statements, correspondence, the work programme and any other business. The first business is the minutes of our meetings of 3 February and 10 February, which have been circulated to members. Do members wish to raise any matters related to the minutes? No. Are the minutes agreed? Agreed. As usual, the minutes will be published on the committee's website.

The second item is accounts and financial statements. Nine financial statements and accounts were laid before the House between 31 January 2022 and 11 February 2022. I will ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to address these before opening the floor to members.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Nine sets of financial statements have been presented. No. 1 is the statement for Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology for 2019-2020, which gets a clear audit opinion. No. 2 is the statement for the Health Research Board for 2020. It received a qualified audit opinion. The accounts give a true and fair view, except that they account for the costs of retirement benefit entitlements of staff only as they become payable. That is a standard issue for many health bodies. It is a direction of the Minister for Health that they do it in that way. It is, if you like, a technical qualified audit opinion.

No. 3 is the statement for Laois and Offaly Education and Training Board for 2020, which received a clear audit opinion. No. 4 is the statement for the National Economic and Social Development Office for 2020, which received a clear audit opinion. No. 5 is the statement for Sport Ireland for 2020, which received a clear audit opinion. No. 6 is the statement for the Environment Fund for 2020, which received a clear audit opinion. No. 7 is the statement for the Climate Action Fund for 2020, which received a clear audit opinion. Members may wish to note that this is the first year of account for the Climate Action Fund.

No. 8 is the statement for Fís Éireann or Screen Ireland for 2020, which receives a clear audit opinion. No. 9 is the National Gallery of Ireland, which receives a clear audit opinion.

Chairman

Do members wish to comment? No. Is it agreed that we note the accounts and statements? Agreed. As usual, the listing of accounts and financial statements will be published as part of our minutes.

Moving to correspondence, as previously agreed, matters not flagged for discussion at this meeting will continue to be dealt with in accordance with the proposed actions that have been circulated, and decisions taken by the committee in respect of correspondence are recorded in the minutes of our meetings and published on the web page. The first category of correspondence under which members have flagged items for discussion is B, correspondence from Accounting Officers and-or Ministers following up on meetings of the committee.

No. 1046B is correspondence from Mr. Robert Watt, Secretary General of the Department of Health, dated 2 February 2022. It provides further information requested by the committee arising from our meeting with the Department on 16 December 2021. It provides responses to 15 questions across a range of issues raised at the meeting, including charges at nursing homes, the National Paediatric Hospital, and the roll-out of Covid-19 vaccines. It is proposed to note and publish the correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. It has been flagged for discussion by Deputies Matt Carthy and Catherine Murphy.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I wish to raise three points on this correspondence, the first of which concerns point 5, relating to the legal firm that worked with the National Paediatric Hospital Development Board, or even its predecessor - it may well have been the Department - on the tender. The tender has been subject to significant additional costs. We know that around 1,000 claims were made. If a firm is reviewing its own work, should we be concerned? Is it appropriate for the firm to do this work because it is familiar with the tender and the basis of it, given that it was involved in the process? I am wondering if that is an issue that we should flag or be concerned about.

Chairman

What is the number of the point to which the Deputy is referring?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

It is point No. 5. The second point I wanted to make is on point No. 10, which relates to the completion date. We should go back and ask what sanctions are available for that slippage. There is significant inflation in the construction sector and there is almost a benefit to not completing on time. I want to know would they outline what sanctions are available in that context.

Chairman

In relation to point No. 5, there is a short reply that those matters that the Deputy is referring to are before the High Court. It states:

The decisions to issue these proceedings, rests with the [children's hospital board] and the contractor. A moratorium applying to conciliations and adjudications and High Court proceedings was agreed between [the two parties] and is ongoing.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

My point is there was a particular legal firm that provided the main people who advised on the tender and the same legal firm are assisting the National Paediatric Hospital Development Board in dealing with the claims. I am asking whether that is robust enough. Is there a conflict of interest, in that they would be defending their own work but they also have the benefit of knowing the tender process? I have a question mark in my mind about whether that achieves the optimum. It may well do.

Chairman

Is the Deputy proposing that we ask the Secretary General for a response on that?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I would like that, please.

Chairman

And on point No. 10?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

The second issue is specifically around the completion date. We were not supposed to be able to talk about that, according to the Secretary General of the Department when he wrote to us some time ago, but I want to know what controls are there in terms of sanctions for the constant slippage.

Chairman

Okay. I call Deputy Carthy.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I support Deputy Catherine Murphy on that final point.

On point No. 6, we asked who had decided not to provide us with the most up-to-date national children's hospital report indicating the status of that particular project. The response is essentially that no single organisation chose not to furnish it to us. It was a collective decision of the board and the Department. This is crucially important. It sets a worrying precedent in terms of the ability of this committee to do its job if Departments are essentially refusing to provide us with pertinent information.

The Standing Orders of the Houses indicate that committees are entitled to request and handle confidential documents. I seek clarification as to whether there is recourse for this committee via the Ceann Comhairle to pursue this matter further. We should not accept that there is a refusal on the part of the Department to provide the Committee of Public Accounts with documentation that the committee has sought clearly related to its work programme.

Chairman

Okay.

Deputy Matt Carthy

Separately, on the claims, as I say, I cannot find where this is in the document but as I see it, the claims that are now lodged-----

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Point No. 9.

Deputy Matt Carthy

-----number 984 and are valued at €542 million. The last estimate in terms of the value of claims that I saw was in November and they were valued at €514 million at that point. There is an increase already of €30 million in the value of the claims that have been submitted by the contractor. It would be useful for us to get clarification as to whether those claims are inflation-related or otherwise and to get more detail in respect of that.

I reinforce Deputy Catherine Murphy's final point with regard to the timeframe. We see all these claims being submitted. We have no sense yet of any confidence that a failure to deliver the latest timeframe for the completion and delivery of this project will result in any penalties being imposed. I agree that we need to get that clarification.

Chairman

At present, there are 818 claims where there is a claimed value of €432.9 million. There are 688 of them where there are notices of dissatisfaction. They are still in dispute. That figure, we have to assume, can only go upwards. It would seem to be a substantial sum. We will look for replies on that.

In relation to the issue of the confirmation as to who is responsible for the decision not to give this committee the information, at point No. 6, I read that yesterday. It varies from the answer that we were given here in this room by the Secretary General. As I recall it, the Secretary General said that he had made the decision. I am open to correction on that. Here, sitting in this room at the final meeting before Christmas, the Secretary General said that to us. Here, it looks like it has been pushed out that maybe everyone is responsible and no one is responsible - that type of an answer. I would not be happy with that.

It also stands out that even if we accept the reasons that have been given for not furnishing this committee with it, and I do not accept those reasons, this committee has not even been furnished with any kind of estimates or parameters in terms of where this will finish up or the timelines. The last timeline we heard was probably 2025. The way this issue has been handled for over a year is not treating the Houses of the Oireachtas, this committee and the public properly. I could use words to describe that but everyone will know what I mean by this.

I suggest we bring to the attention of the Secretary General that the answer in point No. 6 is at odds with what was stated. As I said, I am open to correction. The rest of you were in the room here that day as well. Things get said at meetings, back and forth. When you are chairing, in particular, you can miss something that is going on between a member and the witnesses. As I recall it, that day the Secretary General said they took the decision. The Secretary General was pressed on that a number of times and, at one particular instance, said that. I ask that we would clarify that, maybe, if it can be, from the recordings, point out to the Secretary General there seems to be a discrepancy in what happened in the room here and what is in that, and ask if that is the case. I am open to correction. If I am wrong on it, I am wrong on it.

The other point, that is raised by Deputy Catherine Murphy in relation to point No. 5, is about there being the same legal team. I propose we raise that issue. There is also the issue at point No. 10, in relation to the sanctions. Does that cover everything that Deputy Carthy had?

Deputy Matt Carthy

Yes.

Chairman

We will look for that.

The next item of correspondence is No. R1049. That is a letter from Mr. Brendan Gleeson, Secretary General of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine dated 4 February 2022, providing information requested by the committee in relation to the awarding of a construction contract for Horse Sport Ireland. We also wrote to Sport Ireland in relation to this matter and agreed to note and publish the response, No. R0992, which was circulated for our meeting on 20 January. It is proposed that we note and publish the item as well. Is that agreed? Agreed. It is flagged for discussion by Deputy Catherine Murphy.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Horse Sport Ireland receives somewhere between €6 million and €7 million through the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. My query relates to the relocation to Greenogue of a facility. Aspects of this were controversial in that Horse Sport Ireland covers a range of different activities.

Horse Sport Ireland has publicly said it is going ahead with this. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine called for legal review in 2021 of this particular proposal. Can we ask the Department for the terms of reference and what timeline they are working to for that legal review just to get an update on it? It would be very odd if Horse Sport Ireland were to press ahead with this, when the Department had a legal review under way into it. I want to satisfy myself on that. This has not been without controversy. The process around determining the location has been called into question.

Chairman

We will request that. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 1054B is from Judge Rory McCabe, the chairman of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, dated 8 February 2022. It provides the information that was requested by the committee regarding the impact of industrial relations issues in An Garda Síochána on GSOC’s investigations and aspects of its work that have been affected by that dispute. The chairperson states that no criminal investigations are impacted, but that the dispute has impacted on the completion of some disciplinary investigations within the statutory timelines. The chairperson goes on to say that GSOC was advised on 8 February that An Garda Síochána had put in place measures to alleviate the backlog. Members will recall that in our meeting on 3 February, we agreed to write to the Department of Justice to request further information on this matter. As set out in the work programme documents circulated for today’s meeting, GSOC has confirmed its availability to engage with the committee on 7 April. It is proposed to note and publish that item. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is flagged for discussion by Deputy Carthy, although he might bear in mind that they will come in on 7 April.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I will wait until then.

Chairman

That is fine. No. 1061B is next. It is a copy of correspondence to the Ceann Comhairle from the president of the European Court of Auditors, dated 3 February, regarding the consultation on its 2023 work programmes. The body concerned is not accountable to the committee, nor has its consent been obtained to publish the correspondence. This was flagged by Deputy Catherine Murphy.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I just want to understand what role we might have in this. Is there a role for the Committee of Public Accounts in this?

Chairman

I will put that question to the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I do not think that there is formally. The European Court of Auditors audits the institutions of the EU. I think that this is correspondence is a courtesy and that the European Court of Auditors is opening a line to committees, such as the Committee on Public Accounts, probably across the EU, to see if they have any views on their work programme and if they think that there is anything else that they should examining that should be within their scope. I do not think that there is a necessity to go back with a list of a suggestions, but the option is there.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

We might have some very good suggestions.

Chairman

It is proposed to note the item, although the body is not accountable to the committee, nor has consent been obtained to publish the correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Next is 1064B, from Ms Vivienne Flood, head of public affairs, RTÉ, dated 9 February, which provides information requested by the committee arising from a meeting with RTÉ on 20 January. It includes information on how RTÉ funds its remuneration of its employees, "Operation Transformation" and on RTÉ’s advertising charges. It is proposed to note and publish the correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed.

This was flagged by Deputies Munster and Catherine Murphy.

Deputy Imelda Munster

I wanted to flag a couple of aspects of the correspondence. The first was the inability of the RTÉ representatives to provide us with the information on the percentage of their income that is being spent on their top earners, despite the fact that they had given an undertaking to us to do precisely that. This illustrates RTÉ’s typical approach to this committee over the past 17 months. In light of that, would it be possible to ask RTÉ to provide figures as to the amount earned by their top ten earners in the years from 2019 to date? I understand that the latest figures still have not been published. Could we also ask them for the number of people who are earning in excess of €150,000 annually, as well as the total outlay for these, from 2019 to date? We might be able to try and get ourselves, given that they are reluctant to furnish us with it, despite giving an undertaking to do so.

Second, can we seek clarity on whether the RTÉ Player is developed or maintained internally or it is an off-the-shelf product, as well as on how much the organisation has spent on either purchasing the player, or development and maintenance per year since its inception? The other question is whether they could provide any information regarding viewership figures, in particular during the times of the maximum level of strain that the RTÉ Player might come under, such as during sports events. What is that, in times of high viewership? It might not be a bad idea if we could also write to TG4, looking for similar information for comparative purposes.

Chairman

There has been a reply, in which they say that it is not possible for them to identify separately the cost of employees that are funded exclusively by the licence fee.

Deputy Imelda Munster

That is why I ask those particular questions. Surely they can tell us the amount earned by their top ten earners from 2019 to date and the number of people who are earning in excess of €150,000, from 2019 to date.

Chairman

Certainly, they should be able to answer those two questions. We will put them to them.

Deputy Imelda Munster

And the questions about the RTÉ Player. I thank the Chair.

Deputy Neasa Hourigan

Based on that session, would it be possible to ask the Revenue Commissioners for an update on whether they are considering getting involved in collecting the licence fee?

Chairman

I thank the Deputy. We can write to the Revenue Commissioners.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

There are also questions about the RTÉ Player, which I raised with Ms Forbes when she was before us. I asked her how much had been invested and how much it was necessary to invest to bring it up to a standard. We are being told here that it is an investment of a significant capital funding to the level of tens of millions. When they say, “tens of millions”, do they mean €20 million, €50 million or €80 million? To be honest, that is a not a response. Do they know? Have they scoped it out? Have they costed it? What are they using for it? What kinds of examples are they using? This is because the nature of media has changed. People live flexible lives and they consume their media in a different way. Other players work really well, for example, All4. Are they doing something off the shelf? Does it have to be bespoke? I want to see way more information about what investment is required here, rather than just being told a significant capital investment of tens of millions is required. That is not a reply.

Chairman

Part of the reply also states that, conservatively, it is estimated to be several million euro of capital investment as a minimum requirement. Again, that is totally vague.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Yes. Surely, they have scoped it out.

Chairman

It is wide open. We will say to them that answer to the question on the RTÉ Player is not satisfactory. It is not answer, basically.

It does not give us any parameters at all.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

It is great if you want to watch ads.

Chairman

We will ask for a more specific answer on that.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

It does not speak to a specific point in the letter and that is because I do not believe the letter addresses the specific point I raised regarding geo-tagging content in the North of Ireland where it is not possible for people to access certain content through the RTÉ Player. This can often include really important cultural events like GAA matches and entertainment content. Justin McNulty, MLA, raised it with me, which is why I asked RTÉ the question at the time. I would like RTÉ to come back to us on this matter. I notice that the GAA negotiated all-Ireland rights in a recent contract with RTÉ. The difficulty is the technology will not allow it to be viewed because of issues around IP addresses and geo-tagging or whatever the correct term is. It is not dealt with in the letter and I would like us to get more responses on it.

Chairman

The Deputy is saying the RTÉ Player is not available at all.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

Certain content is not available in the Six Counties because of rights issues. RTÉ needs to do more to get to the bottom of finding ways of making that happen. More importantly, I raised it in the session and it is not addressed in the letter.

Chairman

There are lots more specific questions around that. No. 1078 B is correspondence from Mr. Robert Watt, Secretary General of the Department of Health, dated 16 February 2022, providing information requested by the committee regarding the temporary assistance payment scheme and the 2020 Supplementary Estimate for Vote 38 - Health. The Secretary General states that two Supplementary Estimates were approved in 2020, amounting to over €2 billion. These primarily related to Covid-19 expenditure and the 2020-21 winter plan. The funding was mainly allocated to the HSE.

The governance and oversight arrangements are set out in the correspondence as well as a breakdown of the expenditure, although there are inconsistencies between the Department's cash-based system and the HSE's accruals based financial performance report. In respect of the temporary assistance payment scheme, which was established to support private and voluntary nursing homes with additional costs due to Covid-19, the Department states that "a robust control framework was put in place". This included thresholds on claims, a review of claims by an external accountancy firm and provision for any misallocated funds to be clawed back for a period of up to six years. It is proposed to note and publish this correspondence. Is that agreed?

No. 1080 B is correspondence from Mr. David Maloney, Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, dated 16 February 2022, providing information requested by the committee concerning the decision of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to terminate funding of the Benefacts database. The database concerned the non-profit sector, which is reported to receive about €7 billion in public funds each year. While the response sets out a clear rationale for the termination of the database, I think there is a strong argument that it is in the public interest to maintain this database. Members will recall that Deputy Catherine Murphy raised this time-sensitive matter at our meeting of 3 February. She also submitted the proposal in writing, which is also before the committee today - No. R1041 C. I propose that we note and publish the item from the Department and take both together. Deputies Catherine Murphy and Imelda Munster raised this matter.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

When you go looking for the website now, you are told it is now offline. It was a very useful database that was open source and widely used. This was terminated at very short notice. It has been reported that the people operating it basically found out by way of an FOI request that was subsequently published in one of the newspapers. According to the Department's response, it was a Pathfinder project. What does that mean? I think we need to go back to the Department and find out exactly what it means.

There are something like 12,000 charities in the country, some of which are schools, sports clubs and charities in the traditional meaning of the word. Some of it is for tax purposes but some of those sports clubs would not be charities. This database would have gathered a significant amount of information and was very open and transparent. If anything, it provided a level playing pitch in terms of the not-for-profits in that the information was available and they did not have to buy-in expensive consultants to do pieces of work but could do some of the work themselves based on the information that was available. I think it is a significant loss. There was significant public investment in it.

It does not appear as if any successor initiative is ready to go so this database will be lost. Every day, you lose a database you are not populating means your database is out of date or you must go back and fill it. I cannot understand why there was no successor initiative that would pick up where the database left off. Do we know how much it is going to cost to develop a similar database? Do we know the timeline involved in that? I cannot get over the range of individuals and entities that use this database. Since I started raising the matter, I have received quite a lot of communication relating to it. The Benefacts people were treated deplorably. If something can be cut off at very short notice, it does nothing to build confidence in sectors.

There appears to be an absence of any kind of dialogue. Maybe I am misunderstanding that. Maybe we should ask the Department whether dialogue took place or whether that was a misrepresentation in the papers. I would like to know what dialogue took place with the Department in advance of that and what engagement the Department had with the Department of Rural and Community Development, which I understand is the Department that will be required to develop an alternative option. My understanding is that there is a very elaborate oversight funding agreement. I think we should ask if this was the case.

I also understand that there was a concern that there was a procurement risk through having this database. There are other entities such as the ESRI that have an exemption and there is no procurement risk. I also have concerns about a large firm that must be brought in to do work having a view on a not-for-profit. There is something very odd about this. The biggest loss is the fact that there was a big investment of taxpayers' money in a database that was heavily used by a cross section of the community and heavily relied on and it has just been dispensed with without any replacement. That is the ultimate waste of public money and I want to know where the value for money was in this.

Chairman

Did one of the replies from the Department not state, whether we accept it or not, that an alternative was being developed?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

When?

Chairman

I call Deputy Hourigan.

Deputy Neasa Hourigan

I agree that a database on this is very important. I am aware of an Irish non-profit knowledge exchange that ran from 2009 to 2012. It was a similar organisation run by the same group, I believe. If we are looking at the cost of setting up something like this, the fact we had it in 2009 running up to 2012 and then reconstituted it not long afterwards might be of interest. I would also like to understand exactly why it existed, then did not exist, existed again and is now being curtailed or ended.

Chairman

Was it the same group, to the Deputy's knowledge?

Deputy Neasa Hourigan

Yes.

Chairman

What is Deputy Catherine Murphy proposing?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I want to know a whole lot of things. What will be the successor organisation or database? What is the timeline? What will this cost? The reply from the Department indicated it was a pathfinder project. I ask it to describe to us what a pathfinder project is. Where is the value for money in investing in the region of €6.5 million of public money in a database, which is heavily used, before essentially dispensing with it? On the procurement risk, there are organisations like the ESRI that would have an exemption in terms of their output. There was a way of dealing with the procurement risk. Did the Department consider that? Maybe that is the question to ask. What dialogue was or was not had with Benefacts? What dialogue is taking place with the Department that is to sponsor a new database? What can be retrieved from this database? There are many questions on this. Can the database be retrieved, even on a temporary basis until there is a replacement? A valuable resource has been lost. This database was used by many people and benefited not-for-profits in particular. If the Charities Regulator is going to deal with it, the regulator will not be dealing with entities that are not charities but are at the same time not-for-profits.

Chairman

Okay. We will put those questions. The correspondence I was referring to was an earlier one. Last week or the week before, we received correspondence on this issue and, as I recall, the alternative. That is what I was referring to.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Yes. It would be useful to hear if the Comptroller and Auditor General has a role in looking at things that are started and then ceased, from a value-for-money perspective.

Chairman

I ask Mr. McCarthy to comment.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The Benefacts system is something we have used ourselves from time to time because it has useful information but this is really a policy decision made by the Department. It is really for the committee to question whether there is value for money or has been value for money from it. The Department represents here that it has done a review that found there might be more efficient outcomes but I have not looked at it.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Okay.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Certainly, it is a question the committee may wish to take up with the Department.

Chairman

There are a number of questions there. We will put those to the Department.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

We can come back to it then.

Chairman

Yes. It is just to get that clear.

Deputy Imelda Munster

I do not think the Department's response, in fairness, brings any additional clarity. In fact, it raises even more questions. There are many questions to be asked but with the committee's permission, I ask that members submit questions we could send on to the Department for answers.

Chairman

That is fine. That can be done. If members have further questions, they should send them to the clerk to the committee by Tuesday of next week or thereabouts. Members will then have two or three days to furnish those.

Category C which is correspondence from and related to private individuals and any other correspondence. No. 1033C from Deputy Jennifer Carroll McNeill, dated 27 January 2022, forwards correspondence on behalf of Neurodiversity Sandymount. It concerns HSE structures and funding for autistic children and related Department of Education expenditure for transporting children to avail of services. The correspondence states that transporting children on buses and taxis is costing in the region of €72,000 per day. Deputies Andrews and Dillon have also forwarded this correspondence to the committee, which is numbered R1037 and R1045, respectively. The correspondent calls on the committee to engage with the relevant Ministers but as the Ministers are not accountable to this committee, it is proposed to advise the correspondent that she might also wish to bring the matter to the attention of the committee on education as the Ministers referenced are accountable to that committee. I also suggest we write to the HSE and the Department of Education to query whether value for money is being achieved here and ask what steps are being taken to address the issues raised in the correspondence. Subject to that response, it is also a matter we could add to the agenda for our meeting with the HSE on 10 March. I would appreciate Members' input here. Deputy Munster has raised this matter.

Deputy Imelda Munster

I thank the Chairman. This also has to do with value for money. Imagine a spend of over €72,000 per day on transport for children in south Dublin. I suggest we write to the HSE and ask why early intervention services are not being provided in south Dublin and other areas. Surely to goodness with that amount of money being spent on transport every day, it would be more cost-effective to provide the services in the community. We might ask the HSE about that and also why that area in particular is so badly underfunded.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

I welcome the suggestions made but there is also a role here for the Department of Education. I have discussed this matter with my colleague Deputy Jim O'Callaghan. We all have this in our own areas. Children are being transported because there are not autism spectrum disorder, ASD, classes or units in a locality. Alternatively, there may be a mismatch between the placement of children from one locality with facilities that are in another. I believe the Department of Education has an even greater role in this than the HSE. For this reason, I would like the Department of Education to be consulted as well so it can respond to the use of this public money by the HSE, albeit as a result of the way the Department administers education.

Chairman

We will do that.

No. 1035C from Councillor Liam Quaide, dated 30 January 2022, relates to the closure of the Owenacurra Centre in Midleton, County Cork. We have received a number of representations from individuals regarding this matter, including Deputy Pat Buckley, those being Nos. R1036, R1039, R1043, R1058 and R1065. Following receipt of previous correspondence from Councillor Quaide last year, we wrote to the HSE and requested a detailed response to seven specific issues. The response was received on 18 October last and is published on our web page, to which No. R0834 refers. We agreed to forward it to the Joint Committee on Health for its information and to ask whether it intended to pursue this matter. The committee responded on 25 November, stating that at that point, the Joint Sub-Committee on Mental Health had held two meetings on the matter and the Joint Committee on Health would continue to examine the matter. I understand members of the committee will visit the centre.

There is an issue with that because my understanding is that today there is a problem with Covid in that location and I think that that had to be deferred. That is my information.

Deputy Neasa Hourigan

It is now scheduled for 7 March, I believe, following the deferral.

Chairman

Yes. I think it was held up due to Covid.

Deputy Neasa Hourigan

Yes.

Chairman

To avoid duplication, and because the decision to close the centre is a policy decision within the remit of the health committee, it is proposed to advise the correspondents that this committee does not intent to examine the matter further at this point. I will open that proposal to the floor before seeking agreement on it. Deputy Munster had flagged the Owenacurra Centre.

Deputy Imelda Munster

I was querying whether we had got a further update or whether there were any developments on it in general.

Deputy Neasa Hourigan

I think the reason there has been so much correspondence on the matter with the Committee of Public Accounts is that there has been so much back-and-forth with the HSE in east Cork and the spending decisions are still completely opaque. Ultimately, east Cork will end up with no 24-hour supported bed. It might be a policy decision but it is definitely not in line with Government policy. We still do not really understand, because the HSE simply has not provided the information, what the spending decisions have been along the way in respect of those buildings. I think the hope was that the HSE might answer the Committee of Public Accounts if it would not answer anybody else.

Chairman

May I make a suggestion to you, Deputy? We can ask the HSE that question or you can hold it. We will be discussing mental health on 10 March. Are you happy enough to hold the question until then?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

There is value in having the HSE's response before then because then the response can be teased out if it is unsatisfactory. There is a net point about the HSE giving a timeline and a spend and accounting for that. I think that would be useful.

Deputy Neasa Hourigan

I could provide some specific questions that have not really been answered. If we had them before that session, I would be happy to leave it until then.

Chairman

Are you proposing that we correspond with the HSE first?

Deputy Neasa Hourigan

Yes.

Chairman

Are members happy enough with that? That is agreed.

The next item of correspondence is No. 1060 C, from Deputy Carthy, dated 2 February. It is a request to the committee regarding funding of An Taisce. The committee will recall that at our meeting of 3 February, it was agreed to proceed as proposed by Deputy Carthy. Regarding No. 1060 C, dated 2 February, regarding funding of An Taisce-----

Deputy Matt Carthy

I am satisfied that we dealt with that last week.

Chairman

You are happy enough with No. 1060 C. Deputy Catherine Murphy, you are happy with that as well.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Nothing in it jumped out at me.

Chairman

Thank you both for your co-operation with that.

Regarding the work programme, we will continue our series of housing-related meetings next week with the Residential Tenancies Board. On 3 March we will engage with Home Building Finance Ireland. I ask members to let the clerk know if there are any areas of particular interest to them arising from the Residential Tenancies Board's and Home Building Finance Ireland's respective financial statements in order that a briefing can be requested in advance of the meeting and that the witnesses can be prepared to engage on and, importantly, have answers to questions about those areas of interest. I ask members to flag those areas of interest in good time.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

There is another issue, which we may well timetable-----

Chairman

Yes, we will.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

-----in an additional session, regarding the Department of Health and the HSE.

Chairman

We will come to that.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

There are also issues the Comptroller and Auditor General may wish to refer to-----

Chairman

I will come to that. I just want to get through these other items first.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Sorry. I thought we were-----

Chairman

That is okay.

On 10 March we will engage with the HSE on expenditure on mental health services, with a focus on child and adolescent mental health services, CAMHS, expenditure. The HSE's mental health services expenditure for 2020 was just over €1 billion. However, the expenditure is listed at a very high level. With the agreement of the committee, we will request a detailed breakdown of the expenditure as well as the associated governance and oversight arrangements. Is that agreed? Agreed.

At our meeting of 3 February it was agreed we would schedule a meeting with the University of Limerick. While the president of the university is available on 24 March, the chancellor is not, and I am anxious, as I think other members might be, to engage with the latter. We will therefore look to schedule that meeting for a later date on which the chancellor will be available.

I now turn to issues raised publicly in the media regarding the Department of Health and funding matters. Information in this regard was allegedly leaked to the media and there have been some discussions on the matter. Members may wish to come in on this. I will ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to come in first because I know that his office was referred to in some of the newspaper reports and public reports on what have been termed protected disclosures.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I think the references to my office and the audit related to a potential prior year adjustment that may be proposed in the HSE's 2021 annual financial statements. Obviously, I and my office are taking this very seriously. I wish to inform the committee that, as yet, we have only preliminary information about what adjustment may be proposed by the HSE. The draft annual financial statements for 2021 are currently being prepared by the HSE and, as is required, will in due course be considered by the HSE's audit and risk committee. We expect to receive the draft financial statements by 28 February, which is the normal date we receive them. If a prior year adjustment is proposed by the HSE, we will expect to receive detailed backup information from the HSE to support that adjustment. We will then complete the final audit, including a full review of the proposed adjustment, within the statutory timeframe. The HSE's financial statements have to be certified by 21 May. We will look to see that any adjustment required is properly accounted for and, particularly, that the reasons for it are adequately explained in the notes to the financial statements. We would expect such notes to explain why the errors occurred, why the existing controls did not pick them up and prevent them and what the HSE has done to ensure they do not recur. Until the audit is completed, it would not be appropriate for me to express an opinion on the matter.

In the public interest, however, I do want to make one observation on information that has been reported in the media. I understand the context in which the Department of Health officials were raising concerns, which is in trying to plan and to control the rate at which Exchequer funding flows to the HSE in order that it has sufficient funds to operate but does not hold excess funds. I do not see anything in what has been reported about the potential prior year adjustment to suggest that it is related to any material loss of public funds. I will, of course, keep an open mind on this and all the other matters alleged. If any material loss is in fact identified, the committee can be assured I will report on it in the normal way.

Chairman

Mr. McCarthy, you said you are not in a position to comment until the audit is completed. When do you expect that to be?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

As I said, I normally sign off on the audit by 21 May. I expect that that is what we will do again this year.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Obviously, we will deal with the audit when Mr. McCarthy signs off on it. Does it go to the Department first?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Then it takes time to come back to us, so that could be at the far end of the year.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Typically, the annual report and the audit of financial statements are published in June, so it will be the third week of June or around the end of June.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

If there were to be a prior year adjustment, for example, would that be something Mr. McCarthy would flag to us outside of the audit or would it be contained in the audit?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The audit certificate might draw attention to it if it is a significant matter, particularly if there is any failure of controls.

It will be clear in the financial statements. If it is making a prior year adjustment, it must explain in the financial statements the nature and reason for this. It must show the impact on the prior year, and if there were adjustments relating to years even before the prior year, 2020, it would have to explain that.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

There was quite a sizeable article in the Business Post and the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General was referred to in that. Would Mr. McCarthy be looking at anything over and above what he would be seeing in that audit on prior adjustments?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Does the Deputy mean on the issues that were discussed?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Yes.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

We will certainly consider any issue that is brought to our attention and if there is something to be followed up in the audit. We cannot ignore something like that that is in the public domain. It may be it turns out there is not an issue for me to report, and in that case I will not be referring to it any further. I will not be specifically auditing to the agenda that is set out in that discussion that was held in the Department of Health.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Other issues were raised in that article that are in the public domain at the moment and are the kind of issues we also need to be putting on the agenda as well. The Comptroller and Auditor General has set out we are agreeable to have another session.

Chairman

I thank the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Deputy for that. I call Deputy Carthy to speak now, please.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I thank the Chairman. I believe the Comptroller and Auditor General’s approach is the correct one. It is in the public interest and is a matter of public concern that warrants a hearing of this committee with both the HSE and the Department of Health officials in place. There have been long-standing concerns with regard to the effectiveness of health spending and whether it delivers the type of services that would be warranted for the amount that is invested by taxpayers.

The matters that arose from the media reports at the weekend were of sufficient public concern to warrant the remarks of the Comptroller and Auditor General at the outset and a firm commitment from this committee that we will be pursuing them. I agree it would be appropriate that we wait until the Comptroller and Auditor General has the full information so that we can be confident about any questions we may want to put to either body before we arrange that meeting. In the shorter term I suggest we write to both bodies seeking their responses to the issues that have been raised at this point in order that they can put their own reflections on all of this to the committee and we can start assessing our responses to that. I do not know if the Chairman has mentioned doing this. I welcome the clarification from the Comptroller and Auditor General. It is very useful for us to have an understanding of how this process works from his perspective.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

Following directly on Deputies Carthy and Murphy, there is very significant public concern about the issues raised in that newspaper article and these are at the core of what the Committee of Public Accounts is about. I fully accept the comments of the Comptroller and Auditor General that there is no perceived loss of money at this point, although he reserves the right to examine that. There is also the concern that while money should be made available, it should not be tied up within one particular stream of funding where it cannot be spent and is unavailable for other uses.

The concern I have, and it is very serious one for every Member of the Oireachtas, is that there may be an attempt here to undermine the very democratic will of this Oireachtas to allocate funding and to set a priority on this particular issue of mental health. This is reporting by the media so I cannot yet say if this is true or untrue but the Department of Health has an obligation to follow through on the political decisions taken by Oireachtas. If a Minister or Minister of State of the Government allocates funding that can be spent in that one year, the public and the people who use mental health services would expect every effort to be made to ensure that money is spent along the lines the Government has outlined. How decisions are made in this place, administered and implemented is very important for everybody in the Oireachtas. If there is a suggestion there is an unwillingness to do that or it is being frustrated in any way, that is something the Committee of Public Accounts needs to get to the bottom of. I have heard the Minister of State, Deputy Butler, speak very passionately in the media about this issue and she is very clear that all the money she sought was money the HSE could spend. I know the Deputy very well and know she champions this issue of mental health. She has her sleeves rolled up on this. We must ensure that if funds are secured, they are spent. That is an issue I certainly want to get to the bottom of in any session we have with the Department of Health and the HSE.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I wish ask the Chairman if he believes the issue of recruitment is a particular aspect-----

Chairman

Five or six issues have been raised publicly across this when you look at it. Mental health is one aspect of it. I am concerned that where some of us have argued for more money for health, the Oireachtas decides on a Vote for this and the Minister allocates the money, if that money goes to the Department of Health and there is an issue that means the money cannot be put to into effect by the HSE for some reason or other or due to whatever blockage is there, and we can speculate as to the reasons for this, that is not acceptable. If there are barriers, that is a different thing. Is it a barrier or is it a blockage?

There are a number of areas in regard to enhanced community care, nursing homes, the reconciliation of pay, budget numbers and recruitment, and serious issues have been raised around that. We have mentioned public nursing homes. At this point we are in the position to ask the secretariat to put these matters to both the HSE and the Department of Health to get their responses to the articles and issues we have raised at the committee. As to how that happens is another day’s work, but we are concerned about the issues.

This cuts right to the middle of what this committee is about, and the Comptroller and Auditor General’s advice and information is useful in that when he is in a position, we can organise a hearing on this. This is something we need to get to the bottom of. The members have heard me giving out on many occasions about the fact we have €22 billion of a health budget and, for whatever reason, we cannot get services. This cuts to the heart of whatever is going on in respect of these issues. Perhaps there are steps that have been taken to address these issues. I hate to report it but we have gone into a number of issues such as dental health, the school dental schemes and audiology services. I can rattle these off, as I am sure can other members. A good budget has been allocated, and if we had more funding, we would put it in because of the importance of health. We allocate the budgets and argue back and forth about that in this House, which is democracy. At the end of the day, however, we all recognise there has been a good budget this year but we have not been able to translate that into services at the other end. We do not know the full extent in respect of the issues raised, which is why we need to get replies from both bodies on this issue.

This cuts to the heart of this issue and I look forward to the Secretary General of the Department of Health addressing this issue directly. In fairness, I believe it has been reported that he may have suggested some of these resources have been diverted into waiting lists. One person I believe suggested that would happen. That is fair enough but this shows we can allocate money but the service does not happen at the other end. Recruitment is a problem. Is there a problem on workforce planning and training? Certainly, some of the issues that have come up at this committee and which came up again when we had Tusla before the committee concern the question whether we are training people for these positions.

What is the problem? Are they emigrating? Are they not being offered proper contracts? Are they being offered short-term contracts, maybe for six months or 12 months, but can go to Australia or Canada and get a permanent post? I do not know the answers to those questions. It would be worthwhile to raise those questions publicly with both Departments to see whether they can reply to the committee.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

For clarity in respect of how we proceed on this, we know we are waiting for the accounts to be signed off and, realistically, it will be mid-year or maybe quarter 3. It is a distinct piece of work and will take time. There are other issues, however, on which we are writing to the Department and they are part of another work stream, if you like. We are talking about dealing with those issues earlier than the issue in respect of the accounts and the prospect of there being a prior adjustment. That is later in the year. We are talking about hopefully having a second session in addition to the piece on mental health we will be doing in a few weeks. We hope to have the Department or the HSE, or both, at an earlier stage than the issue that relates to the account. That is what we are saying.

Chairman

On 10 March we have mental health and CAMHS. There is a slot on 24 March. We need to decide whether, in light of the information and the discussion, we will await the information and clarification from the Comptroller and Auditor General when those accounts and the report are ready, or we proceed in the meantime, on 24 March. Are we in a position to proceed? I am not sure that we are. I have no problem with us proceeding if there is other information we have or other issues with which we want to deal.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Can we get letters out to both organisations and then review the responses and hold onto slots rather than filling them?

Chairman

We can hold onto the slot on 24 March but we need to fill it next week because we need to give public and other bodies that appear before us at least four weeks' notice. We know they spend a significant amount of time preparing to come before us. In fairness to many of them, they supply us with a substantial amount of information before and during the meeting. We have to be fair. There is no point in bringing in a body that is ill-prepared or doing so if we do not have our part of it together. I am mindful of the fact that we are dependent on the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General to a large extent. What we need to do immediately is to get a response in respect of that basket of issues that has been raised.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

It is not that long ago that €10 million was allocated to mental health and then re-allocated to something else and not spent on that. As the Chairman stated, some of this has to do with workforce planning, training and possibly the type of contracts on offer and so on. Every year when we look at the accounts, one can see the full amount that was allocated in respect of workforce, for example, is not taken up. The announcement is made in the budget but then it takes time to recruit staff. Although you could account for the full amount from January to December, realistically they do not all get employed immediately. I refer to that particular aspect about what is the capacity and what are the issues in respect of spending money. Value for money is not just about the decision to spend a particular amount and it all being properly accounted for; it is about what we get for it. That comes down to the services, the postcode lottery and many other things that come into play. To my mind, that particular aspect keeps coming up every year. The problem with the HSE is you could have it in here every week for the next year and we still would not get through the issues. It is a very big amount of money and sometimes one has to do fairly distinctive pieces. I hope we will be able to do that well in advance of the work the Comptroller and Auditor General is doing.

Chairman

The Deputy is suggesting the committee have a session on that issue on its own, possibly on 24 March.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Yes, or on another date. Let us see what responses we get and what we can meaningfully do at an earlier stage.

Chairman

Okay. I call Deputy McAuliffe.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

My view is similar. We need to seek responses on the media reports.

Chairman

I agree.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

That is the first action. The second item is we need to mark our intention to have a meeting on this matter on 24 March or another date that we set. We can discuss that within the work programme while we are in private session. We need to indicate at this point that we intend to have a hearing on it.

Chairman

I agree with the Deputy. I would love to have had such a meeting yesterday, to be honest. The only thing we need to be mindful of is that if the secretariat sends the correspondence tomorrow at the earliest, then, realistically, it may be a week or more before we get a reply. We will have to decide on this next week because today is 17 February. We need to give bodies a minimum of one month's notice. We cannot let it run on until the following week.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

I think that at this point we are indicating we will hold a hearing. Next week, we will decide on the date.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

We may have to reconfigure things.

Chairman

We will request the secretariat to issue that correspondence as a matter of priority to the Department of Health and the HSE in respect of the matters raised. We will see what comes back and we will make a final decision next week regarding 24 March.

On 31 March, we will commence a series of justice-related meetings. The secretariat has established availability as follows: An Garda Síochána on 31 March and the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission on 7 April. We discussed engaging with the Policing Authority as well, so I propose that the secretariat seek to schedule the Policing Authority on the afternoon of 31 March, the same date on which we will be engaging with An Garda Síochána. Is that agreed? Agreed. Alternatively, we could schedule it for 7 April.

There are then two non-sitting weeks scheduled for Easter which means the next meeting will be on 28 April, with the Department of Justice. There will be a run of justice issues together. We will then look to engage with the Department of Finance, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, and the University of Limerick. I know the committee is anxious to get the university back before us. Fairly early on, we may look to ascertain the availability of the chancellor. We should do that in good time. Is it agreed that the secretariat will work to make these arrangements? Agreed.

Are there any other matters members wish to raise relating to the work programme? That concludes consideration of the work programme for today.

The last item is any other business. Apologies were received from Deputy Verona Murphy. Unfortunately, she had a bereavement in the family. I convey the condolences of the committee and the staff to Verona on the loss of her mother. I know she had been ill in recent weeks. We pass on our sympathies to Verona.

The meeting is adjourned until 24 February, when we will engage with the Residential Tenancies Board on its 2020 financial statements.

The committee adjourned at 3.59 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 24 February 2022.