The business before the committee this afternoon is as follows: minutes; accounts and financial statements; correspondence; work programme; and any other business.
Before I take the minutes, I understand that Deputy Catherine Murphy has to leave for the Dáil Chamber and wishes to quickly say something.
Yes. This is with regard to the Eversheds Sutherland report on RTÉ. There is of gun to the head of the staff for this Friday. Pension entitlements, maternity leave and all the other issues have not been fully worked out. We should contact the Department of Environment, Climate and Communications as a matter of urgency to say this is not fair. People are being asked to make a decision without there being adequate information on those particular issues, which are the basis of their complaints. We could do that; this is something we have followed right through.
It is a HR issue, but there are issues we raised here around the categorisation of employees. For the Deputy's information, I raised the issue of the RTÉ report and the Department of Environment, Climate and Communications in her absence this morning with the Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. The proposal is that we notify the Department of Environment, Climate and Communications that the committee has done work on this and we are concerned about the fact that workers have to make a decision by Friday and want more time.
They do not have adequate information.
They do not.
RTÉ has not closed off the information on entitlements. It is not fair to ask people to make a decision. Given that this has been one of the issues we have pursued, it would be remiss of us not to point that out.
Is that proposal accepted? I will take it as accepted. We will do that. I thank the Deputy.
The first item then is minutes from the meeting dated 13 October 2022, which have been circulated. Do members wish to raise any matter regarding the minutes?
No. Are the minutes agreed? Agreed. As usual, they will be published on the committee’s web page.
Five sets of financial statements and accounts were laid before the Houses between 10 and 14 October 2022. I will ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to address these before opening the floor to members.
The first set of financial statements relates to the Health and Social Care Professionals Council for 2021. It received a qualified audit opinion. As a health body, 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 I have pointed out in relation to many health bodies.
No. 2 is the Approved Housing Bodies Regulatory Authority. This is a new body and this is the first period of account. It covers the period from 1 February to 31 December 2021. This is an 11-month account. That received a clear audit opinion. No. 3 is the Arts Council for 2021. It was a clear audit opinion. No. 4 is the Credit Institutions Resolution Fund. That received a clear audit opinion. No. 5 is the Environmental Protection Agency for 2021. That received a clear audit opinion.
I thank Mr. McCarthy.
I am happy to hear so many clear audited opinions. The Approved Housing Bodies Regulatory Authority is a new body and the State relies heavily on approved housing bodies, AHBs, to carry out functions that might be more correctly performed by the State. As AHBs are not full State bodies, we should bring in the regulatory authority to work through that and how it will operate, including what the layout of its assets is. Substantial public funds go into AHBs, and I am very supportive of them, but it would be remiss of us not to keep a very close eye on that area and the regulatory body. I propose that this be added to the work programme in some form?
I propose that we add that to the work programme. The AHBs are now major players in the provision of housing and their regulator is important. Is Can we agree, therefore, to note this under the financial statements? Agreed. As usual, this will be published as part of the committee's minutes on the web page.
I propose to move on to correspondence. As previously agreed, items that were 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 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 and Ministers and follow-up to committee meetings. No. R1496B is from Mr. David Moloney, Secretary General, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, dated 5 October 2022. It provides information requested by the committee regarding the catering contract to provide meals for Ukrainian refugees. It is proposed to note and publish this item of correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. Deputy Catherine Murphy and I had flagged this for discussion. There was one particular issue with that. I will bring the Comptroller and Auditor General in on this. The correspondence in response to our letter states:
The awarding of the specific contract as referenced in your letter is a matter for the relevant Accounting Officer. The role of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform includes the provision of guidelines ... [but] does not have a role in evaluating such transactions.
In relation to the tendering process and so on, does Mr. McCarthy wish to comment? What kind of tendering process was used there?
Is that a 2022 issue?
Yes, we would not have sight of it now.
I do not have any general information in relation to it.
The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform says that it "does not have a role in evaluating such transactions". I suggest that we write to the Department to ask for its view of it, as we are 12 months into this, and to see if the Department has a comment to make on it and how it is operating to date. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. R1497B from Mr. Paul O'Connell, on behalf of Mr. David Moloney, Secretary General at the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, dated 6 October 2022, provides information requested by the committee regarding Benefacts. We will note and publish this item. These are internal working documents, and there was a request that they are not published. We had agreed that we were going to deal with it in public. The clerk was speaking with the Department about this and I had a discussion with the clerk yesterday about it. The Department is okay with us discussing it now, so we will discuss it. Deputy Catherine Murphy had it flagged for discussion.
Deputy Murphy is not here. I am aware that she had a particular interest in Benefacts, on which I supported her. I note we are not publishing the correspondence but I can refer to it. Both Deputy Murphy and I were trying to understand why Benefacts was being brought to a close in real terms because we were not funding it any longer and we sought more information about why that might be. I will not read directly from the document but I will refer to it. It seems there is a recognition in the Department that the Benefacts service was worth preserving. It seems the discussion was that it did not have sufficient scope or control over the project and this is why it was unhappy with the grant system. Having read through it all, it is not clear why we have decided to truncate or end that service. It does not seem that what is being proposed is similar or equal. As Deputy Catherine Murphy is not here, perhaps we could roll this discussion on to the next meeting. There is more work to be done here. We are losing an important service in the context of transparency and, reading between the lines here, I believe civil servants recognise that. There is a recognition of that in the correspondence. There is more work to be done here. I do not know what the work should be. If the Department does not want us to publish the correspondence, can we even have this matter on the work programme? I am not sure.
Several different bodies have indicated the service was beneficial. The Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform this morning confirmed that he had referred to and used the service in the past. He said that other Departments and bodies have benefited from it as well. This matter puzzles me because the cost of Benefacts over six or seven years was roughly €6 million. My concern is that the proposal to replace it is through Pobal. Again, I am open to correction on this but Pobal is saying clearly that it does not have the resources or staff to deal with this. In any case, to get a database like Benefacts back up and running again would result in a time lag. What happens in the interim?
That gap will end up costing us money if we are to resource that system. I understand the point about Pobal. I understand it more now that we have seen this correspondence insofar as the Department believes there is a gap in oversight or a gap in the scope of sufficient control. I do not have any serious evidence here to argue with it over that but it is not immediately obvious to me that Pobal would be the organisation to bridge that gap, or that it would assume this role, because I am not aware that it has done this kind of work in the past. We should keep this matter on the books because I am not happy with this answer.
I suggest that we hold this matter over until next week. Is that agreed? Agreed. The funding for Benefacts is a small enough amount of money relative to funding for many other areas. The service was widely used and to lose it like this is a loss to the State. We will put it in the work programme for next week.
The next item of correspondence is No. R1498B from Mr. David Moloney, Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, dated 7 October 2022. It concerns the minute of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform in regard to our report on our examination of Vote 29, the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, programme B, broadcasting, for 2019, and Vote 33, the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media for 2020. The minute of the Minister is the official response to the recommendations of the committee. We raised this matter with the Secretary General this morning and it is clear the minute is not in line with the Department's own circular, which I quoted to him. That circular, which was signed off by Mr. Moloney, provides that the minute should respond to every recommendation, stating whether that recommendation has been accepted or not and the reasons for same. That has not been done in regard to any of the recommendations in our report.
It is open to us to take this matter up with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. We could also write to the Accounting Officer for the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media and request an explanation for the poor quality of the response. In addition to failing to comply with the circular, a number of the committee's requests are not directly addressed. That is the situation and, as I said, I raised it with Mr. Moloney earlier. Do any members wish to comment?
Is this the item we discussed before Deputy Catherine Murphy left?
There was a proposal to hold some discussion back.
Yes. Is this not part of it?
I think so. I understand Deputy Catherine Murphy will be in the Chamber for 15 minutes.
May we hold it over until she returns?
Yes, and if she does not return before the end of the meeting, we will hold it over until next week. Members might reflect on the correspondence and the minute of the Minister, which were circulated, and we will come back to them.
The next item of correspondence is R1501B from Mr. Mark Griffin, Secretary General of the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, dated 10 October 2022, providing further information requested by the committee in regard to the summary report on climate action plan targets. Deputy Catherine Murphy flagged this item for discussion. I also want to raise an issue relating to the estimated cost of the climate action plan, which, according to the report produced by McKinsey & Company, is €119 billion out to 2030, much of which will come from the public purse. We looked for more information on that and what we got was a two-page summary document that gives headline figures. The question that arises for me is whether this is really the only breakdown the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has. It seems to be very scant. We are dealing with expenditure of €119 billion by 2030. If this breakdown is the basis for rolling out the climate action plan that has been adopted by the Oireachtas, I am concerned about the lack of detail and information. There is the question even of how the information has been arrived at.
The document seems very light on detail, facts and specifics, as I said, and I wonder whether we should look for more information on it. Members will see the figures on pages 1 and 2. The €119 billion estimate covers the total investment required for the next nine years across electricity, transport, built environment, industry and agriculture. It also includes investment that is redirected, including spending on electric vehicles and adaptation of internal combustion engine vehicles, as well as incremental investment in retrofits. Does anyone wish to comment on this? What we got is very light on detail.
I agree we need more information because what we have is very scant.
I absolutely agree. A point to note is that there is not a lot of discussion around the impact of land use on the plan, which is a major part of it. When much of this was agreed in the past few months, there was a suggestion the land use aspect would come about in the next 18 months. There definitely is a lack of information. We should, as a committee, be expecting a bit more detail.
There is another issue I noticed regarding the figures we were given. Under electricity and power generation, which is one of the big headings, it looks like a very low figure of €1 billion or less out of the €119 billion is given for backup capacity. I wonder whether we might probe that in the context of energy security to see what the figure is based on, whether it is sufficient and if there is more detail on it. It seems from the graph on page 2 that there is €1 billion for backup capacity, which I presume is what is meant by the reference to dispatchable power.
I propose we write back to the Secretary General seeking more detailed information, specifically in regard to the agriculture aspect. Deputy Hourigan wants more information on land use and I assume members would also like details on afforestation. I propose that we also ask for further information on backup power and capacity in electricity generation, including how much is pencilled in for that, what it is based on and how much of that would come from the private sector and how much from the public purse. Is that agreed?
Regarding all these plans for what needs to be done, one of the issues that is not being dealt with by any Department is the workforce requirements for delivery. If we look at the building industry at the moment, its workforce is way below the numbers we had in the period from 2000 to 2008. We cannot deliver a whole lot of projects without having the workforce in place. I do not see any Department dealing with that issue. We have talked about training more apprentices and so on but I am not clear that enough is being done to respond to this issue, which we will need to do if we want to deliver on the whole area of building, retrofitting and all of that. I have spoken to people who applied to the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, for instance, and it is only two years later that they are getting a response because of the workload the authority has. Departments need to look at that issue. It is grand putting everything that needs to be done in a plan but there is no point in doing so if we know full well it cannot be delivered without a workforce.
The Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, Deputy Harris, would completely disagree with Deputy Burke on this one. However, he makes a fair point. There are 27- and 28-month waiting lists for some of those schemes. It is clear there are workforce pipeline issues and I think there is a policy issue in this regard. I do not have a problem asking in our letter for the view of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform on this matter. As Deputies, we need to raise the issue in the Dáil as well to try to flag its importance. I and many others have raised the need for more apprenticeships, not just in the traditional trades but right across the board, which would be more like the German model. People should be able to learn a trade instead of having to do degrees in third level institutions that might not get them into employment as quickly.
That is not to play one off the other. It is recognised that there has been a shortage of apprenticeships in this State. We missed the opportunity from 2008 to 2019 or 2020 to start doing this in a serious way. I do not know the figures off the top of my head but I know there has been some improvement. We can include that issue and flag it with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. From a public expenditure point of view, we can ask what consideration the Department gives to workforce planning and pipelines in terms of people being trained when it makes decisions to allocate money.
This week, the strategic workforce advisory group published its report for the carers sector. It recommends that carers be added to the eligible group for work permits. The recommendation is that 1,000 work permits be issued. I imagine that strategic group is working across all sectors. We should at least try to find out if that is the case.
I agree with Deputy Colm Burke on workforce planning. Under the Department's approach to section 56 and section 39 organisations, the national pay agreement does not automatically apply to staff in that sector. In the longer term, this poses challenges to recruitment and retention in those areas. Deputy Burke made a valid point that, beyond apprenticeships and such, it is about the broader package of how we retain and attract people to public bodies.
There is a proposal that we write back in the first instance seeking further information regarding land use and afforestation in agriculture and in relation to electricity backup and generation. The figure given looks like €23 billion, with between €9 billion and €13 billion under another heading of electricity generation, with €1 billion for backup generation. It is proposed that we also raise the need for availability of workforce training and a pipeline of people coming through and ask if this is being taken into account. It is also proposed to ask if the Department has had discussions with the relevant Departments that come under the headings of electricity, power generation, transport, buildings and industry and agriculture. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The next item of correspondence is No. 1502B and is also from Mr. David Moloney, Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. It is dated 11 October and provides the information requested by the committee on the proposed building standards regulator and the national building control management project. This arose from our consideration of the minute of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, which responded to the recommendations in the committee's report on its examination of the appropriation accounts for Vote 34, housing, planning and local government. It is proposed to note and publish that correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 4 is the work programme. At last week's meeting, we agreed to proceed with a schedule of engagements to Christmas and the secretariat is working to make the necessary arrangements. We also agreed to schedule a meeting with An Bord Pleanála after Christmas. Next week, we will engage with the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth.
Deputy Hourigan asked that we add a meeting with the regulator of the approved housing sector to the work programme. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Are there any other matters that members wish to raise? No. We will adjourn until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 27 October, when the committee will engage with the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. We look forward to that. Go raibh míle maith agaibh.
