Skip to main content
Normal View

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate -
Thursday, 24 Mar 2022

Business of Committee

The business before us is as follows: minutes of previous meetings, accounts and financial statements, correspondence, work programme and any other business. We will then go into private session before adjourning. The minutes of the meeting of 10 March have been circulated to members. Are the minutes agreed? Agreed. As usual, they will be published on the committee's web page.

The second item is accounts and financial statements. Five sets of financial statements and accounts were laid before the Houses between 7 and 18 March 2022. I will ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to address these before opening the floor to members.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

As you said, Chairman, there are five sets of financial statements. Three of them relate to education and training boards. No. 1 is the 2020 annual financial statements for Tipperary Education and Training Board. It received a clear audit opinion, but I draw attention to its disclosure of non-compliance with procurement rules.

No. 2 is the accounts of the University of Limerick, UL, for 2019-20. Again, it is a clear audit opinion on its financial statements. However, I am drawing attention to an emphasis of matter paragraph that I have included in the certificate with regard to the recognition of a deferred pension funding asset for one of the university's pension schemes. This is a standard inclusion in the audit certificate so it does not result in a qualification. However, I am also drawing attention to four other matters and some of these were responsible for some of the delay in completion of the audit process in respect of these financial statements. The first is a significant level of procurement non-compliance and detail in that regard is given in the statement of governance. The second one, and the committee is aware of this, is that I am drawing attention to the ongoing investigation of concerns raised about the purchase in 2019 of a site for a city centre campus. When I signed off in December on these financial statements that process was ongoing and, as we have heard more recently, the process is still in train and has not yet completed. Third, I am drawing attention to a disclosure by the university in the statement of governance with regard to the findings of an investigation that there was an override of internal controls by a senior manager of the university in respect of HR and procurement issues. The members, if they wish, will get the information relating to that by clicking on the link in the schedule. Finally, I am drawing attention to the existence of an agreement with the former president in respect of his resignation. In my view, this had the typical characteristics of a severance agreement, but it was not submitted for sanction to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, as is required for any severance agreement with a departing chief officer of a public body.

Financial statement No. 3 relates to the Insolvency Service of Ireland 2020. It is a clear audit opinion-----

Can I come back to that?

We will let the Comptroller and Auditor General continue for now.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

No. 4 is the financial statements for Kildare and Wicklow Education and Training Board for 2020. It is a clear audit opinion, but I am drawing attention to non-compliance with procurement rules.

No. 5 is the Dublin and Dún Laoghaire Education and Training Board financial statements for 2020. It is a clear audit opinion but, again, attention is drawn to non-compliance with procurement rules.

Thank you. I also wish to bring it to members' attention that representatives of UL have confirmed attendance for 12 May, as can be seen in the work programme. They will be here seven or eight weeks hence. I do not intend to have a full discussion of any of those issues now, but do any members have a question for the Comptroller and Auditor General?

It is highly unusual to see accounts and financial statements like this and the fact that there are a number of issues. The previous Committee of Public Accounts did a piece of work on some of the universities, and UL was one of them. If I recall correctly, there were issues with people terminating an employment and being taken on as consultants afterwards. Some of that had to do with severance agreements. We did quite a solid piece of work on that. Having done that, one would have hoped that lessons would be learned. Does this fall into the same type of category? That is my question on that particular one.

With regard to the city centre campus on the Dunnes Stores site, is that complete at this stage and not available for publication?

What do we know about that?

On the significant level of procurement non-compliance, is that on one item or on multiple items? How would the Comptroller and Auditor General categorise "significant"? Perhaps Mr. McCarthy will enlighten us a little bit on the categorisation of that.

There are two questions there.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

On the severance, I do not believe that the circumstances I am drawing attention to here are as significant as the previous case. More issues were raised in the previous case. The specific aspect I draw attention to here is that there is a process that requires the approval of the Department and the approval of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform in relation to any severance deal it is proposed to make with a departing chief officer. I do not want to downplay it. It is a significant matter. Where there is a process, a public body should adhere to that, seek the approval, and explain the circumstances in relation to it.

There was slight hitch in connection from the Deputy. I believe the Deputy was asking about the KPMG report and whether it is completed.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The latest correspondence the committee received from the university is indicating that the process is not complete. There is a draft, which was circulated, but there are issues that are holding up the completion of the matter. The Deputy asked if there was any advance on that. It is about a month now since the university wrote to the committee on that. It may have moved on since then, but that was certainly the last position.

With regard to the non-compliant procurement, I draw attention to non-compliant procurement where the total value of it is in excess of €500,000. In one of these cases with one education and training board, ETB, the amount in total was some €850,000, just from memory. It other cases it was €1 million or several million euro. It is of the same order in the University of Limerick. Typically, it will involve multiple suppliers rather than single suppliers. More detail certainly is given in the ETB financial statements in relation to that. It is more aggregated for the university, but there is a good explanation there of what is the type of non-compliant procurement and the circumstances that gave rise to it.

On the severance agreement, it strikes me that the Department of Education would have a role here. Does that Department pick up on this or is it notified? Or is it something we need to do in addition to the Comptroller and Auditor General drawing attention to it?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It is the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science. They are aware of it and we were in touch with them when we were completing the audit. They are certainly aware of it as an issue.

I thank Mr. McCarthy.

Can we agree to note the accounts and statements? Agreed. As usual, the listing of accounts and financial statements will be published as part of our minutes.

We will move on now to correspondence. As previously agreed, items that are not flagged for discussion for 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 relation to correspondence are recorded in the minutes of the committee’s meetings and 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 or Ministers or both, and follow-up to meetings of the Committee of Public Accounts.

No. 1116 B from Marie Mulvany on behalf of Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, dated 4 March 2022, provides information requested by the committee at our meeting with TII on 3 February 2022. It provides responses to 18 questions across a range of areas. It is proposed to note and publish this item. Is that agreed? Agreed. It has been flagged for discussion by Deputies Catherine Murphy and Carthy.

It is a very useful response, which obviously follows on from our hearing and some issues that we had asked to follow up. That is always very helpful. Page 5 gives information with regard to tolls and the M50 e-Flow system, with figures for 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021. These are very similar to some of the figures I got back by way of parliamentary questions. I believe, however, that they are exclusive of legal costs relating to debt recovery and private investigation costs. Can we just double-check with TII that this is the case? If it is, can we amend the figures and show those particular aspects separately also? That would be useful.

My second point is about the M7 bypass. It is 36 years since there was an initial project. These projects have a very long lifespan and we have had a number of them in Kildare. After 20 years or so, they will strip out the pavement and do a substantial four or five inches of tarmac, or even more, to give it some extra longevity. TII have said that it does not have the original data on costs and so on. It would be quite useful to ask TII how long it holds on to material. There can be a validity to this, and institutional memory can be lost. Holding on to some records is quite important. It would be useful if we could establish with TII the length of time it holds on to records.

My final point is on the metro and the Luas green line. There is a huge amount of development happening in the Cherrywood, Sandyford and Dundrum area. They are saying that they have no plans for any expansions there and they may well elongate it. It would be useful to ask TII if it is aware of the extent of the work that is happening there - it is actually breathtaking how much it changes even over a 12-month period - and why TII would not take into consideration the extent of the development. What we tend to get here, and we all complain about it, is infrastructure in retrospect rather than in parallel. It can be a real source of frustration because people have an expectation when there is a lot of housing that there will be the services and facilities to go along with that. A lot of that development is intended to be low-car or no-car use. It is deliberately built along the public transport corridor there. It is important that we do not have a short-term view on that, given the magnitude of the development happening there. We should go back to TII to ask it what the rationale is.

One area of the correspondence I am concerned about is the forecasted costs for completion of the projects under the national development plan. TII has indicated various reasons as to why it is difficult to give estimates but the cost ranges that have been provided are quite broad. That is being generous.

Prices range from €250 million to 1 €billion, which is as broad as one can get. Another project has a cost range of between €1 billion and €3 billion, which again is very unspecific and makes it very difficult, I would argue, to plan accordingly for what are considered essential infrastructure projects.

During the discussion with TII, it will be recalled I asked the question as to whether a political intervention could reverse the decisions in regard to funding allocations for this year. In fairness, TII was quite honest about it and indicated that this would be the case. Since then, some of the projects that had been denied funding this year have had that funding restored. Unfortunately, the specific case I raised regarding the N2 Clontibret to the Border road scheme has not been included among those projects, which is disappointing because this is a vital infrastructural project. It services and goes through my county, but it is essential for the economic and regionally balanced development of the central Border region and the broader north west. It has been part of numerous discussions and negotiations on the peace process and it has formed part of several key Government policy initiatives, including the national development plan as well as Our Rural Future and a number of others.

The timeframe given for the completion of this project is now set at 2033. I ask that we write to TII to get a detailed breakdown of the phases from now to completion, the dates by which those phases are expected to be met, considering the next stage has essentially been stalled, and if the TII could be more specific in terms of the estimated costs of each of those phases. As well as the infrastructural need for this project, there is also the other issue that hundreds of landowners and communities are essentially sterilised because this projected route has been earmarked. If we are saying to them they cannot develop until 2033, that is something of great concern. I ask we write in regard to that specific project, if that is in order.

The former CEO of TII was paid in excess of €29,000 in accrued leave, representing 41 days. Assuming the holiday year runs from April to March, even accounting for no holidays taken since the onset of the pandemic, it seems to be a large amount of accrued leave and would be out of line with holiday pay policy in most places of employment. Will the Comptroller and Auditor General comment on that or should we seek guidance or clarification from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform in that regard?

Mr. McCarthy can come in on that question on holiday pay.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I know it is permitted by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform in certain circumstances. Sometimes when somebody comes to the end of his or her expected employment, there may be circumstances that give rise to a higher level than usual accrual of untaken leave. I do not want to give a definitive view on this because I have not looked at it in detail, but I am happy consider that and perhaps come back to the committee and advise on how it might be brought forward.

That is fair. I thank Mr. McCarthy for that.

We will ask for information on the Clontibret project. On the Portlaoise-Cullahill M7-M8 scheme, we received detailed figures from the TII in regard to the costs to the agency to date and the projected costs by the end of the contract. TII has paid €83 million to the company to date, and €173 million has been collected in tolls. The figure we do not have is what the construction cost for that phase of the motorway was. I ask the secretariat to include that in the list of questions to the TII. We have fairly good information on the M7-M8 project, but what we do not have and which is the missing piece is the construction costs to the company that built it. What were the overall costs?

The next item is correspondence No. 1121, which was flagged for discussion by Deputies Munster and Catherine Murphy, from Mr. John McKeon, Secretary General, Department of Social Protection, dated 8 March 2022. It provides further information requested by the committee regarding the steps and timeline of the Department’s investigation into contractors engaged by RTÉ.

Before I speak to this, will we be coming back to No. 1119? On this item, I am unsure about the S class contributions. My understanding is the scope section would have identified issues and RTÉ paid all the PRSI at the A class rate and paid its share of the employee class. Can RTÉ clarify the position in regard to the S class contributions, which it appears to be retaining? I know that, with pension entitlements, a person can opt for an S or A class. Did RTÉ retain the S class because it paid the A class? I am unsure about it. It is probably just a matter of clarification. A letter to RTÉ requesting clarification would be sufficient.

We will ask the clerk to follow up on that piece of information. It is proposed to note and publish that correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Can I come in on that point? The correspondence makes great play on the fact that each case is assessed on its own merits. It then refers to the scale of the RTÉ investigation, the significant period of time being reviewed and the number of workers involved, which is fair enough. It essentially says that the investigation will conclude in 2023, at some stage. If cases are to be decided on their merits, and acknowledging that the entire process might take until 2023, surely some individual decisions will be made in advance of that. I very much doubt that all investigations are progressing simultaneously with no decision made on any case until the end, or that may be the case. I ask that we seek clarification as to whether the Department can provide interim reports as to the number of decisions relating to RTÉ that have been made to date, whether results have been confirmed, and whether any of them have been appealed.

We will look for that clarification. It has been agreed to note and publish that correspondence. I refer to No. 1119, from Mr. Robert Watt, Secretary General, Department of Health, dated 7 March 2022. It provides information requested by the committee on the national paediatric hospital, which arises from our consideration of previous correspondence from the Department on 20 January. It is proposed to note and publish this item. Is that agreed? Agreed. I flagged this for discussion, along with Deputies Catherine Murphy and Carthy.

The letter of 7 March from Robert Watt has six bullet points on the first page.

The question regarding the number of staff on-site and whether staff levels are impacting on construction targets was not answered in the letter. The fourth bullet point provided clarification regarding the discrepancy in the number of design changes previously provided by the board at the meeting of 9 February and the corresponding number provided in this correspondence. That query was not answered either and the clarification was not given. The aspect I wish to highlight is the fifth bullet point concerning further information regarding the two-stage procurement process, why that was chosen and where it was used before. No information was given about that in the letter, unfortunately. It does give the total approved final cost as being €1.73 billion. It will be recalled that when Mr. Watt was here he was not in a position to confirm if that figure would go over €2 billion.

We asked specifically about staff numbers on-site and what impact low levels of staff on-site would have on construction inflation; the number of design changes; and why the two-stage procurement process was chosen and where it might have been used before. I will ask for a further response with more information on those specific questions that we asked. Deputy Murphy also flagged this issue.

We are all acutely aware of the number of claims. I am sure the National Paediatric Hospital Development Board is doing its best to adjudicate on and reduce those claims. They are over and above the €1.73 billion estimate we have been talking about. There are a substantial number of those claims. I agree entirely with the Chair on the points we raised. We made a specific effort to identify some issues, including whether insufficient numbers of staff are working on the site. That was the case at times during this contract and it is part of the reason this contract has run as long as it has, with construction inflation now a real issue. That is built into the contract. It is entirely valid for us to satisfy ourselves about whether sufficient numbers of staff are on the site.

The price of the national children's hospital is almost like the third secret of Fatima. It is being guarded. I can understand why a bad situation should not be made worse. It is valid of us to ensure we do not make a bad situation worse. That includes, for example, ensuring sufficient numbers of staff are on the site and this project does not run longer than it needs to, not least because we require this hospital. It also means we have a significant problem with inflation. I do not see why this question has not been properly answered, in addition to some of the other points we made. Care was taken to put this letter together to ensure it would specify exactly what information we were looking for.

I thank the Deputy for that contribution. She is correct that the concerns we raised were specific. I refer to whether there is a shortfall in the numbers of staff on the site and if progress has slowed. The most recent information we had referred to a date of 2025 for delivery. Each month this project is prolonged impacts on the cost. Inflation in the costs of construction, especially in the prices of timber, steel and other such materials, is skyrocketing. The reply falls very short, I am afraid, on the three questions we asked. They are not addressed at all in the response. Deputy Carthy indicated he wished to speak on this issue.

This committee and the Irish public generally are being insulted, quite frankly, by the Department and the board regarding this project. We are now being told that the project approval cost is €1.73 billion. The response from the Secretary General, however, indicates that several items are not included in this investment figure, including construction inflation, which we know, unfortunately, is substantial now. I refer as well to the impact of Covid-19, statutory changes and any changes in scope resulting in healthcare policy changes and employment orders. Regarding those last three points, those are matters that will be decided by the Government and the Department. Therefore, they are matters over which we would have some control. Also mentioned as not being included are risks such as Brexit, local supply chains and shortages of construction raw materials.

Is the Secretary General telling us that the Department has not factored in or assessed what the completed cost will be in the context of the combined impact of all those factors? We have not asked for, and no one is suggesting that we get, a definitive final price. We know that fluctuations in costs and factors outside the control of everyone involved in this project will affect the final price. There must be an assessment of how much that will be. It is unacceptable that information on the specific questions raised by the Chair, as well as the wider implications, is not being shared with the committee, which has a job to do on behalf of the Irish public concerning public finances.

There is no reference in the letter that I can see, unless I missed it, to the KPMG report that has formed the backdrop to many other items of correspondence and responses we have seen previously. There has been a refusal to publish that report or even to provide it to the committee. If we are writing back to the Department, we should again ask for a copy of that report, even on a confidential basis, if that is what is required. There must be clarity on this matter. As I said, this is a scenario where no one believes the final cost of this project is going to fall below €2 billion. I fear the final prices could be significantly above the €2 billion mark. All of us involved in future planning have a right to have a sense of what the final cost of this project will be.

I wish to raise a second issue concerning the Department in question. Can I do that now?

The Deputy can, but briefly.

It concerns correspondence. My understanding is that the committee had also written to the Secretary General of the Department asking for clarification as to when he ceased waiving the additional portion of his salary. It will be known and recalled that the waiving of that portion of his salary was announced by the Secretary General on his permanent appointment to the post. I would like clarification as to whether that letter was sent by the committee and if a response has been forthcoming yet. If not, I suggest we write again to request that information.

Regarding the Deputy's last point, that letter was issued and that question was put to the Department. There has been no response and no answer to the question, but we will request that information again. Is that okay?

I thank the Chair.

Regarding the question of staffing, I keep saying that a contract is a two-way thing. There is an obligation on the contractor's side to carry out the project as it was outlined. That would have meant having sufficient staff working on the site. I would like us to ask specifically if a counterclaim is being taken, or considered, in respect of non-compliance on the contractor's side.

The committee is at a big disadvantage here because we have not seen the KPMG report, which we have requested sight of on several occasions. More than a year ago, we sought information on what timelines were indicated in that report and what had been agreed with the contractor. We do not have that information. All we have is the statement that the project will now be completed in 2025. The completion date has moved out several years again. That is the disadvantage we are working under. We will ask if a counterclaim is being considered if the project has gone beyond the timeline for the contract, if that exists.

That is another question. It is proposed to note and publish the item.

If members online wish to speak, I ask them to indicate using the "raise hand" signal. With regard to No. 1116 B, the TII has requested that its answer to question No. 9 not be published and there is a briefing note on this. The question is on the unforeseen costs and losses of income borne by private entities in public private partnership, PPP, schemes broken down as far as possible. There is a briefing note attached on costs and losses. I want to point out this request in the information provided.

Item No. 1123 B is from Ms Bernie McNally, who has succeeded Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú as Secretary General of the Department of Education. It is dated 8 March 2022 and provides information requested by the committee regarding outstanding Caranua cases and issues. It is proposed to note and publish this item. Is that agreed? Agreed. Deputy Munster and I have flagged this. It sets out that the amount of money remaining in the funds is just over €160,000. The letter states the committee may wish to note that a significant proportion of the remaining funds will be required to discharge the legal costs and other outgoings. The legislation on dissolving Caranua has not yet appeared. This is something that members on both sides of the House could try to push. It has been sitting there for a long time. We will note and publish it.

Have we dealt with No. 1127? I have not flagged it but I have read the correspondence and the Department has given a huge amount of information in it. I suspect the Committee on Disability Matters would like to see the information. Is it possible to forward it to that committee? There was a long discussion with the Department of Social Protection at its session this morning on this very issue. Is it possible to formally send it to the committee, which is charged with implementing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNCRPD?

We can. Is that agreed? Agreed.

That is great. I thank the Chair.

No. 1128 B is from Mr. Ray Mitchell, assistant national director of the HSE, dated 11 March 2022. It provides information requested by the committee regarding additional nursing home charges. It is proposed to note and publish this item. Is that agreed?

I propose that we keep it on the agenda for the next meeting. Deputy Munster has a particular interest in the issue.

If it is agreed to hold back this item, we can do so. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 1132 B is from Ms Katherine Licken, Secretary General of the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, dated 10 March 2022. It provides information requested by the committee regarding the national collection of arts and antiquities, its storage and plans for digitising records. It is proposed to note and publish this item. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I know people get excited about things but this is something I watch very closely. I have a particular interest in it. It is very useful to have the response.

Is there a piece somewhere with a connection to you?

No, I like going through the records. I am one of these nerds. Something that jumped out at me is the statement that there is a significant appetite for high quality online cultural material. There definitely is. The pilot cultural digitisation scheme from 2017 to 2022 will be continued. There is also the digitisation of the 1926 census, which several of us have raised over the years. It is good there is funding for it and it is in train. There is another issue on which perhaps the committee will write back to the Department. It is with regard to records held in a different location, namely, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. These are the records of the Land Commission. Money was made available and there was an announcement on these. They are a real treasure trove.

There has been resistance. They exist North and South and the records prior to 1922 are open in the North but closed in the South. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine hold the records but they are of significant cultural value. Money was made available specifically for this but when we drill into it we see it will not deliver anything in the short term. It would be useful if we could write and ask about it. There is a set of working records. Can we ask the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media to liaise with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine on the Land Commission records and a timeline for their digitisation? These records get down to a granular level whereby individual families can be tracked. They are of great historical importance. I would like the Departments with responsibility for culture and agriculture to speak to each other to try to get a decent timeline that does not mean it will be 30 years in the future.

I found the Land Commission records to be very important because the folios attached for a small farm or cottage include turf banks for domestic turf cutting. The only way to trace them is through the old Land Commission records. It would be great if they were digitised. Are they digitised in the North?

There was a huge digitisation project when they were moved to the new public records office. There was downtime for a couple of years. It has transformed things in the North. There is a good relationship between the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland and the National Archives. There was an announcement but when you start to look at the timelines, you see they are not very clear. The Department with responsibility for culture places a different value on the records because of their cultural value. They are also important from the point of view of being a working set of records.

Some are held in Cavan and others in Portlaoise.

There are a good few of them in Portlaoise.

They could have been divided up within the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

We will ask for this information.

No. 1135 B from Ms Oonagh McPhillips, Secretary General of Department of Justice, dated 15 March 2022. It provides information requested by the committee regarding the workload of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, complaints referred by it to An Garda Síochána and vice versa, and an update regarding the meeting with regard to senior members of the Garda facilitated by the Workplace Relations Commission that was scheduled for 26 January. It appears a mechanism has been found to address the industrial relations dispute which will see An Garda Síochána carrying out relevant GSOC investigations once again.

It is proposed to note and publish this item. Is that agreed? Agreed. It was flagged for discussion by Deputy Catherine Murphy.

It is very welcome the dispute has been resolved because it was a serious impediment and led to delays. On the section 102 referrals that relate to the death of or serious harm to a person, we are given figures there in the final section of the table. It tells us there were 43 referrals in 2020 and 59 in 2021. It would useful for us to get some additional information on that. It would also be useful to ask GSOC if there are international comparisons. We need a breakdown of the circumstances in which the referrals arose. Was it in custody, during an arrest or a warrant search or was the officer on duty? A breakdown along those specific lines would be useful. The number has gone up significantly - from 43 to 59 - in 12 months, so it would be useful if we could get that information.

Representatives of GSOC will be before us in a few weeks' time. Maybe we will ask them to bring that information with them on the day.

I thank the Chairman.

The number of complaints in 2021 was 2,189. Of those, 1,332 were determined as admissible and requiring investigation. That is a high number. Is the Deputy happy enough to wait until our meeting to get that information?

Yes.

Did we get a response about Benefacts? It came up in correspondence several weeks ago. I think we were to write to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform on that. If we have not had a reply, we might go back after it because many people are very upset that this database is no longer functioning. It was well used and very much appreciated.

The secretary has just confirmed that we wrote a letter in relation to that database. We will ask that it be followed up to try to get an answer.

I thank the Chairman.

The next category is C, correspondence from and related to private individuals and any other correspondence. The first is from committee member, Deputy Dillon, and is dated 21 February. He requests the committee consider scheduling a meeting with Eir. I open the floor to anyone who wants to contribute. Deputy Dillon flagged it but I do not think he is online. He may indicate if he is. Does Deputy Catherine Murphy wish to comment?

There are obviously issues with Eir, for example, the size of the company, and the implications it has for the roll-out of the national broadband plan, NBP, not to mention ordinary telecommunications. However, as a private company, Eir is not accountable to the committee. I advise that the topic of Eir's current and future investment strategy on the telecommunications industry and market in Ireland might be more appropriate to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport and Communications. Another option would be for this committee to cover Eir’s investment strategy and its engagement with National Broadband Ireland, NBI, and the Department on the NBP in correspondence with Eir. That said, the committee’s related draft report is before the committee this afternoon so the material would not be of benefit to it in that regard. We can take either approach to the issue. We can refer it to the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications or cover Eir's investment strategy, engagement and relationship with NBI and the Department on the NBP in correspondence with Eir. We deferred discussion of this matter because Deputy Dillon was not with us the last day. We can defer it until he is here. It is up to members. Does anyone have a strong view on it?

What I am sure the Deputy is trying to do is look at where there is competition to deliver the same services. Maybe getting a response from Eir directly on what its strategy is and how that aligns with the NBP would be useful.

Okay. It is proposed we take the second option of trying to deal with this matter by way of correspondence. That is agreed.

No. 1129, dated 11 March 2022, is from an individual and is further correspondence to the committee regarding Screen Ireland. It is proposed to refer the correspondent to the committee's last letter to Screen Ireland, which was circulated to members for today’s meeting. Therein we addressed the matters raised, including the matter of loans to the company referenced, which are detailed in Screen Ireland’s annual reports. This was flagged for discussion by Deputy Munster. Members may recall that at the committee's request, the Comptroller and Auditor General reviewed the correspondence concerned. Does he wish to comment on that?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I thank the Chairman. I looked at this latest letter and I think the correspondent is misunderstanding the letter from Screen Ireland. I do not see that there is any matter that needs to be reconciled or that there is a discrepancy.

Okay. Deputy Munster is not with us. It is proposed we note that correspondence.

No. 1134, dated 11 March 2022, is from an individual requesting the committee to make inquiries regarding the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman. It is proposed to advise the correspondent that while we can examine the audited accounts of the Office of the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman, our role does not extend to investigating individual cases or reviewing decisions of the ombudsman. That was flagged for discussion by Deputy Carthy. I advise against involving the committee in this because doing so would mean the committee is interceding on behalf of a consulting firm and its client in relation to a decision of a statutory body about an individual. It could give rise to an expectation that the committee can assist in resolving this issue. Such an expectation has led to significant difficulties with other correspondents. It would also be at odds with the general approach to dealing with correspondence from individuals, which was agreed in December. Deputy Carthy flagged this matter. Does he wish to comment?

I do not recall flagging it. I do not know what happened there. It might have been an error on my part with the email that was sent.

Is the Deputy okay with that?

Yes. I am okay with the approach the Chairman outlined.

We will note that item.

The next matter on the agenda is the work programme. Next week, we will commence a series of justice-related meetings. Engagements are confirmed with An Garda Síochána on 31 March, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission on the morning of 7 April and the Policing Authority that same afternoon. It is proposed to have separate speaking rotations for the morning and afternoon of 7 April. Is that agreed? Agreed. We will try to manage that as best we can. It does mean tightening things up a bit but I will try to ensure everybody gets a fair crack. The speaking rota and work programme will be updated next week to reflect that.

There are two non-sitting weeks over Easter, which means our next meeting will be on 28 April with the Department of Justice and the Prison Service. Following that, on 5 May, the meeting with the Department of Finance has been confirmed. As I pointed out earlier, a meeting with the University of Limerick is confirmed for 12 May and I understand the chancellor, as requested, and the president will be in attendance. We await confirmation from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform on its availability for a meeting on 19 May. The Department of Health and the HSE have confirmed their availability to appear on 26 May to address a number of issues that are in the public domain.

We had looked to schedule that engagement on 5 May but the earliest date we have free on which both bodies are available is 26 May.

As usual, if there are any specific areas of interest to members that you wish to raise with the bodies on the work programme, please let the clerk know in order that briefing material can be requested in advance and the bodies can bring the relevant information and prepare for the meeting. Unless there are any other matters that members wish to raise in relation to the work programme, that concludes our consideration of the work programme for today.

We now turn to any other business, which is the last item on the public agenda. Do members wish to raise any other matters?

I am sure the Chair is aware of the commentary and public discourse arising from last night's "RTÉ Investigates" programme about activities, for want of a better term, on local authorities. The Dáil's lack of ability to hold to account the substantial Exchequer expenditure that goes into our local authorities is something that arises regularly. This committee does not have a remit. The Comptroller and Auditor General does not audit the accounts of local authorities. That is something that needs to be addressed. I would welcome an opportunity for this committee to have an engagement with the local government auditors, the Department responsible and representatives of the local authorities themselves to assess how we might ensure there is proper transparency and accountability in respect of the Exchequer funding of local authorities. We do not have real local government in this country. I say that as someone who was a proud member of a local authority for many years. Essentially, we have local administration of national policies and very limited powers for elected representatives at a local level. Where power does reside in local authorities it is generally in the hands of unelected officials. In that context, there is a need for full accountability and transparency in this sector as in all public sectors. I am raising this issue to try to initiate a debate in the first instance but we should look at arranging an engagement, which could be informal if needs be, with the local government auditor, the Department and representatives of the local authorities to see whether we can bring forward proposals that this committee would play a role in ensuring that accountability and transparency.

I only saw the last 20 minutes of the programme because the Dáil adjourned late last night. Some of what was highlighted was scandalous. It shows a major fall-down. The thinking to date has been that local government is local government; it is separate. There is a local government auditor and there are audit committees on each local authority that are charged with overseeing these. The abuses highlighted in the programme by officials and former officials do a disservice to local government. It is very unfair to the officials in the local authorities who are there working every day. The councillors have to deal with the public on these matters and the vast majority stand for election and are elected to do their best in their own local area and county. The committee can schedule a discussion with the local authorities. I suggest that a representative of the County and City Management Association be present and a representative from the Association of Irish Local Government, AILG, which is the new body representing local authorities. It would be very important for it to be represented, if it is agreed.

I support Deputy Carthy's comments on the work undertaken by RTÉ and commend it on that. I strongly believe that the Committee of Public Accounts should look into the particular area of local authorities and their expenditure and management. There is another Oireachtas committee but it is similar to what we do with the HSE and the Department of Health and we should be looking at local authorities. From my own experience of working as a councillor and coming through here to the Oireachtas, looking back, there are many things that we need to highlight, including, quite frankly, the amount of power that civil servants have within senior management of local authorities across the country. In some cases the budgets they control are astronomical. They are much larger than many people realise. The scrutiny they deserve should be applied to them by this committee. I fully support any mechanism by which we would undertake work on this area. It is definitely something that the Committee on Public Accounts should look into. I support that if that is the view of the room.

At the moment we cannot do it, obviously, because it must come under the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General but the discussion needs to happen about the possibility and the viability of it.

I have not yet watched the programme. I did not get a chance. Hopefully I will see it later. I share the view that we have a system of local administration, rather than one of local government. As I spent decades on the council, it is an area I know very well. I would say to Deputy O'Connor that the officials in the local authorities did not assume power; they were given it. That has been the case for decades. Some of us yearn for the reform of local government that would really democratise it and give a greater level of functions more akin to those in other European jurisdictions.

I know the Comptroller and Auditor General has a relationship with the local government auditor or that they share information as appropriate. Will he explain what kind of relationship is there? It seems there is a very clear distinction between local government and the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Why were they separated in the first place? I know local government has been included in the Constitution in its own right in recent years and we must be aware of that too.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Historically, it was always understood that there was an accountability of local administration to elected councils. That goes back very many years. In all the jurisdictions in these islands, you will see there are separate arrangements for audit of local authorities as from central government Departments and agencies. The amendment recognising local government in the Constitution some years ago has probably copper-fastened that. It creates an obligation that there would be separate arrangements. We have very little overlap with the Local Government Audit Service. I do not have the power to seek information, receive records or to go into a local authority to examine issues. I do not have power to follow money there. It is specifically precluded from me under the 1993 Act under which I operate. We basically do similar things but in completely different jurisdictions.

Everyone has spoken so far, including myself, is a former councillor. I have always felt that councillors can be busy. They are not full-time people. Spending is something that needs to be scrutinised and not when the thing is cooked and the budget is prepared and ready to go but rather during the budget process when it is being put together.

Greater care also needs to be taken in the budget process in terms of passing it and following the codes. Everyone can see there is a code number beside everything on local authority budgets. It is a case of following that, questioning that, and following the expenditure over the years. The surest way of putting the brakes on some of the stuff we saw is councillors raising those questions. They may be counted as awkward at times for raising these and they may not be thanked for it sometimes in council chambers, either by some other councillors or indeed by the executive of the council. However, it is very important they do so because they have the mechanism of a public forum and they have the audit committee, which is another mechanism they can use. There are supposed to be at least two councillors on those audit committees and they have to bring a report before the council each year. That is another mechanism they can use.

It would be worthwhile seeking a meeting with representatives of the County and City Management Association, CCMA, and the Association of Irish Local Government, AILG. Deputy Carthy had other suggestions with regard to who else should attend that meeting.

The local government auditor.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The National Oversight and Audit Commission, which was set up a number of years ago and tries to provide an overview, drive an agenda and keep a focus on performance and so on, would be relevant to the committee's consideration of the arrangements that are in place to ensure there is proper accountability for spending at local level.

Can I come back in briefly?

Briefly.

I thank Deputy O'Connor, Deputy Catherine Murphy and the Chairman for agreeing to the suggestion. It is helpful that all of us are former members of local authorities because it will send out a signal that this is not about putting additional pressure on local authorities. This is about ensuring there is full accountability and transparency.

I understand what the Chairman has said. I was a member of an audit committee on a county council. It is a very different experience from being a member of this committee because, as the Chairman mentioned, councillors are essentially full-time people operating on a part-time basis in terms of remuneration. They do not have staff, advice or access to independent research and guidance as we do on this committee. In some cases, councillors deal with elaborate multi-annual budgets where funding streams come from several different sources. If they are dealing with, in some cases - it is a minority of cases but it does happen - officials who are reluctant or resistant to providing the information, local authority members simply do not have the wherewithal to get to the type of answers we would have on this committee.

We should operate on this and if we can agree to have an engagement, we should do so on an informal basis and on the basis of a constructive approach from this committee to ensure we can assist councillors and those staff and officials within local authorities in providing the public with the confidence, in this regard and in every other respect, that when taxpayers' money is spent, it is spent with full due diligence and the public interest at its heart.

The wish from the committee, which I want to try to reflect, is that we have a meeting of the committee with the local government auditor and the representatives of the Local Authority Members Association, LAMA, the AILG and the association of city and county managers, who are now referred to as chief executives. What we are talking about is an informal discussion in the first instance. Does that accurately reflect what the committee is looking for? Okay, that is agreed so we will seek that.

The committee went into private session at 2.44 p.m. and adjourned at 3.56 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 31 March 2022.
Top
Share