COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate -
Thursday, 15 Jun 2023

Business of Committee

An Cathaoirleach

The business before the committee this afternoon is as follows: minutes, accounts of financial statements, correspondence, work programme and any other business. I will move on to the first item.

The minutes of the meeting of 1 June 2023 have been circulated to members. Does any member wish to raise any issue relating to the minutes? Are the minutes agreed? Agreed. As usual, they will be published on the committee's website.

I will move on to accounts and financial statements. Three sets of accounts and financial statements were laid before the Houses between 29 May 2023 and 9 June 2023. Will Mr. McCarthy, the Comptroller and Auditor General, address these before opening to the floor?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The first is the financial statement of the National Gallery of Ireland for 2021 which received a clear audit opinion.

The second is the financial statement of Trinity College Dublin, for the accounting period 2021-22, which received a clear audit opinion.

Finally, the financial statement of the University of Galway 2021-22 received a clear audit opinion, but I draw attention to a material level of non-compliance with procurement rules in that case.

An Cathaoirleach

What was the extent of that?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It was €652,000

An Cathaoirleach

Okay, it was €652000. That is considerable. We need to correspond with them to find out why that is the case.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Indeed.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

It is the university sector again. Was this also identified in previous audits or was it a one-off occurrence?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I do not have detail on that. It has certainly been an issue in the sector, though there has been improvement. The threshold at which I draw attention to it is a flat rate of €500,000. It is a little more than that. I do not have a sense of there being a serious systemic issue in the university. The turnover for the period was €360 million so it is relatively small in that context, but keeping a focus on it helps to ensure it will not become more problematic in the sector.

An Cathaoirleach

Do any other members wish to make a contribution?

I propose that the committee write to the university about the procurement issue, including the fact that the figure is more than the amount we normally accept and ask for an explanation and what corrective action has been taken. Is that agreed? Agreed.

As usual, the accounts and financial statements will be published as part of our minutes.

I will move on to correspondence. As previously agreed, items that were not flagged for discussion at today's meeting will continue to be dealt with in accordance with the proposed actions that have been circulated. Decisions taken about the correspondence are recorded in the minutes of the committee meetings and published on the committee's website.

The first category of correspondence under which members have flagged items for discussion is B, which is correspondence from Accounting Officers or Ministers of the Government or both and follow-up to committee meetings.

The first is No. R1920 B from Mr. Ciarán Breen, director of the State Claims Agency, SCA, dated 31 May 2023. It provides information the committee requested on a matter arising from a meeting with the HSE on 2 March. It is proposed to note and publish this correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Catherine Murphy flagged that she wanted to comment on this.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

In the table on page 2, the claims that jump out are the big ones. There were 389 claims for Mountjoy Prison with an estimated liability of €14 million. There were 102 claims against the Portlaoise Prison campus. It is a lower number of claims but the potential liability is €12.9 million. It would be useful to pick out a few of these and ask the SCA to expand on the nature of the claims and what categories they are in, especially for the big ones. Cork Prison could also be picked out or Castlerea Prison which has 46 claims against it with a liability of €5 million. It would be worthwhile looking for a few of these to be expanded on.

On the following page, claims for Waterways Ireland are listed for the eastern, northern and western regions. We could probably do with a little more breakdown of the geographical areas, particularly for the northern region that may include a cross-Border element. Could we ask for more detail on those claims, focusing on what the claims were for and whether there is a cross-Border issue in the northern region?

With respect to No. 7 on audits, the State Claims Agency carries out audits to ensure the number of claims is reduced. I am concerned about Casement Aerodrome. I have a reply from the Tánaiste about this which I can give to the secretariat. The last time the SCA did an audit was in 2012, but there are more recent claims.

It is to make sure the harm reduction piece is done by making sure it is in compliance. The first of the 11 claims was received by the State Claims Agency in 2013 and the most recent in 2020. I am reading from point 8 on the response. They may be historical claims but it would be useful to know whether they are historical. It would also be worth asking whether it is intended to carry out another audit.

An Cathaoirleach

Okay. We will request that information. I noticed yesterday that the correspondence refers to Portlaoise high security prison but the itemised table therein refers to the Portlaoise campus. The latter would generally be taken as referring to the Midlands Prison, which is adjacent and has approximately 800 prisoners, with slightly fewer in the expanded version of the old Portlaoise prison. When the information is being requested from the Department, clarification should be sought on whether the 102 active claims relate solely to the old Portlaoise prison or also incorporate the Midlands Prison. In terms of the nature of the claims, we should know the number of them that are by staff and the number that are by prisoners. The average claim is approximately €120,000 and there are 102 claims, totalling €12.9 million. We should request that information from the Department. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

We have had good information in the past where one can see whether the trajectory of claims for trips, falls and things like that is downward. If there is something that is standing out, we should see it.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

There was a kind of residue of cell sanitation cases but I do not recall that they were being settled at that level. If members are seeking additional information, it might be useful to distinguish between claims by staff members and those by prisoners. There is a category in the appropriation account that reports prisoner claims arising out of injuries and other actions involving prisoners. That might be a useful way of understanding the nature of the claims.

An Cathaoirleach

We will ask for that breakdown along with clarification on the points raised by Deputy Murphy.

No. 1922B is from Mr. John Kelly, corporate secretary at the University of Limerick. It is dated 31 May and provides an update regarding the request of the committee in respect of the McKenna report. It is proposed to note and publish this item. Is that agreed? Do members wish to comment on it? We wrote to the office of the president seeking a reply. The letter states "We are currently considering this with our legal advisers, and we hope to revert to the Committee in relation to the request to supply the McKenna report within the next week." The letter is dated 31 May. I hope the reply arrives shortly. We are halfway through June and it has not yet arrived. It is sometimes the case that we might not have a late reply in front of us even though the secretariat received it in the previous day or two. That is not the case here. We should not let it run any more than another week. The university stated that it hoped to revert to the committee with regard to the request for the McKenna report within a week but it has gone nearly ten days over that. We do not want the matter to run on and still be looking for the report in the autumn. There is no reason we should not have the report. It has been commissioned. It is a public body and the report should be available. We will pursue that.

No. 1923B is from Mr. John McKeon, Secretary General of the Department of Social Protection. It is dated 1 June 2023. It provides clarification requested by the committee regarding information provided at the meeting with the Department on 1 December 2022 and related information that was provided in the reply to Parliamentary Question No. 18674/23, dated 20 April 2023. It is proposed to note and publish this item of correspondence. Is that agreed? Thank you. Deputy Catherine Murphy wishes to discuss this matter.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

The correspondence states: "I clearly stated that the Department of Social Protection creates a biometric template of each photograph that is taken during the SAFE registration process, for the purpose of comparing that photograph against the other photographs held by the Department." In essence, the correspondence is saying it is not biometrics that are being used but in recent days it was reported that KPMG had done a report that concluded there was no legal basis. The Data Protection Commission has been involved in this as well. We could be back with the State Claims Agency on this. The Passport Office has a legal basis for using biometric data, but it is a very different environment. A legal basis is required and we should be concerned with regard to the Data Protection Commissioner and a KPMG report that was commissioned and states there is no legal basis for the use of biometric data. This only confuses the situation. Maybe we should be writing back looking for the view of the Department on the recent report prepared by KPMG on whether there is a legal basis. This has the potential to cause legal claims.

An Cathaoirleach

Okay. Is it agreed that we will request that information? We will ask for the view of the Department on the report. I thought the Data Protection Commissioner would be more involved than a private consultancy on this matter. Maybe I am missing something.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

The Data Protection Commissioner had a report recently. Mr. Martin McMahon, who has corresponded with the committee, made a complaint to the Data Protection Commission, which found in his favour. The Data Protection Commissioner has not been silent on this. This has been-----

An Cathaoirleach

The point I am making is that the Data Protection Commission, rather than a private consultancy firm, is the final arbiter on this matter.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

The Department of Social Protection counterclaimed within the past few years. The Office of the Data Protection Commissioner made its views on biometric data known. The Department challenged that. I cannot remember how it was finalised but there is no doubt that the Data Protection Commission made findings on the matter.

An Cathaoirleach

We will ask the Department for its take on the report carried out by the consultancy firm.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

It might be useful for us to get the most recent response from the Data Protection Commission to the case that was taken.

An Cathaoirleach

Okay. The next item is No. 1924B. Members will recall that the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine recently appeared before the committee. This item is from Brendan Gleeson, Secretary General of that Department. It is dated 1 June and provides information requested by the committee arising from its meeting with the Department on 4 May. It is proposed to note and publish this item. Is that agreed? Agreed. Deputy Murphy flagged it for discussion.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I will raise my points by way of parliamentary questions. I was just seeking information regarding geographical indication and why it is under-used. It is probably not a matter for the committee.

An Cathaoirleach

The next item is No. R1926 B from Mr. John Callinan, Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach, dated 7 June 2023. It provides an update regarding developments in relation to tribunals of inquiry and commissions of investigation. It is proposed to note and publish this item of correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed.

At our last meeting on 1 June, we considered previous correspondence on the matter from Mr. Callinan and it was agreed to write to the Department to convey the committee’s dissatisfaction with the current means of undertaking tribunals of inquiry and commissions of investigation and to emphasise the importance of a system that will deal with matters in a timely manner while ensuring high standards and fair procedures. And hopefully it would be cheaper. This is an area on which we have been trying to make some headway. Deputy Catherine Murphy flagged this.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Sometimes we end up with inquiries where there has been inadequate investment in oversight. One pays for it one way or another. Sometimes you pay for it more heavily by virtue of reputational damage when something reaches fever pitch and an inquiry is required. Inquiries will always be required. There are recommendations in the most recent report but there are also recommendations in previous reports. Have they amalgamated all those recommendations? One of the suggestions made to this inquiry by the Taoiseach in relation to this was that the judge made the point that there should be a standing commission of inquiry, and he suggested it could be placed in the corporate enforcement agency. There are around 15 members of the Garda, which is an increase in recent years, so it is a fairly small complement. Obviously there are also other staff but there would have to be a commitment to give it the resources if something like that was going to happen.

An Cathaoirleach

He also referred to the final report from Mr. Justice Cregan, which included the suggestion that a more consistent way of doing it be put in place. We have reached a point after a number of investigations, some of which have taken a decade and more and cost tens of millions of euro, that there has to be a better system of doing this.

Is Deputy Murphy happy enough with Mr. Callinan's response? Is there anything else we can do at this point?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I presume he will reply to us further once the Department has considered it. We will have to mark that and watch for that response.

An Cathaoirleach

It says it will consider suggestions on the reform of the commission of investigation process, the closing remarks made by Mr. Justice Cregan. We will see what comes out of that. We need to keep on top of that.

No. 1928 B is from Mr. Robert Watt, Secretary General of the Department of Health, dated 8 June 2023. It provides information requested by the committee regarding the proposed secondment of the former Chief Medical Officer. It is proposed to note and publish this item of correspondence. Is that Agreed? Agreed.

I flagged this because it has been going around for a while. The letter is worded in order that it gives a very generalised answer. It says that there is no single policy on secondments between the Civil Service. The policy is not our direct area but except where there is a public expenditure element involved in it. He went on to say that in some situations, arrangements will be made for individual employees with particular skills and experience to second out by agreement between the Department and the host organisation. But it is a question of what kind of system exists for overseeing that or if there is anything there for that. On research funding for the Health Research Board, Mr. Watt said it was based on the five-year strategic plan and that the Health Research Board awards are then distributed through a variety of funding processes. The letter is very broad. From the committee's perspective, this will need further examination. The finance committee is supposed to be examining it in the next week or so and we need to watch that. It is useful that we highlighted it. From a public expenditure point of view, the reply gives some answers but it is a bit generalised. I propose that we send this correspondence to the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach for its attention and that it be circulated to its members before it considers it. The members are considering it next Thursday, that is, on this day week. It might be sent to that committee's secretary to be brought to members' attention prior to that meeting.

We move on to category C correspondence, which is from and related to private individuals and any other correspondence. No. R1917 is from an individual dated 30 May 2023 and is further correspondence regarding a request to the committee to investigate proposed emergency accommodation in Leixlip, County Kildare, for international protection applicants. Previous correspondence from this correspondent was considered at the meeting of 4 May and it was agreed to advise the correspondent that the matter is not for this committee and advise them to write to the Joint Committee on Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. Further correspondence was considered at the meeting of 25 May and it was agreed to advise the correspondent to write to the Joint Committee on Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. This letter issued after the receipt of No. 1917, which is before us. Deputy Catherine Murphy flagged this item for discussion.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

The correspondent is making it very clear in their letter that their original correspondence did not relate to legislation or public policy in respect of housing of applicants for international protection. This is not really about the individuals that are housed in that location at all. I am familiar with it because it is in my constituency. I will go back to the day the Secretary General appeared before this committee, when I pursued this in a very general way with him. This is not a transparent system. There is no open process for people who are offering to provide accommodation and a lack of checks and balances and any vetting of those offering accommodation. For example, I asked whether it was merely a tax-clearance certificate that was required or was anything else sought. I got a very inconclusive response from the Secretary General. This letter says very clearly that they are raising concerns of unlawful misuse of Exchequer funds. It is not even exclusive to this one facility. It is about what controls that particular Department has and what checks and balances are in operation. It may be worthwhile if we were to write to the Department and ask it to outline to us what due diligence is done on those offering this accommodation. That is the point that this correspondent is trying to get to.

An Cathaoirleach

Okay, we can request that. It is an issue that is coming up.

Obviously a lot of things have happened very quickly and a lot of people have stepped into that space. They are providing accommodation. Some of them are new to it while others were already in the accommodation business and have facilities. There are a lot of entrants. We know from the hearings that some people are operating as middle men and are seeking out these properties. We will request that. It is timely that we do that. I have been contacted by providers and people who are concerned with some of the facilities that are available so we will press that topic on the Department if that is agreed. Agreed. We can inform the person from Kildare who wrote the letter of our decision. I think the person in question is John Dignan.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Yes it is.

An Cathaoirleach

We will inform him of our decision. That concludes our consideration of correspondence.

Moving on to our work programme, at our next meeting on 22 June, we will engage with the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media. I propose that we also add chapter 4 of the Report on the Accounts of the Public Services 2021 on the re-allocation of Voted funding to the agenda as this makes reference to several virements made by the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media during the 2021 financial year. Members will remember that this subject came up some time back. The committee has previously included this chapter for engagements with the Revenue Commissioners; the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, the Department of Health; and the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform. Is that agreed? Agreed. On 29 June, we will engage with the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board. On 6 July, we are planning to engage with Inland Fisheries Ireland subject to its 2021 financial statements being available. We are planning to engage with Uisce Éireann for our last meeting before the summer recess on 13 July pending a decision from the Committee on Remit Oversight. Does any member wish to raise any matters regarding the work programme or the discussion document? I remind members to flag any areas of interest they wish to raise with any of the witnesses for our upcoming meetings with the committee secretariat. That concludes our consideration of the work programme for today.

The last item on the public agenda for today is any other business. Do members wish to raise any other matters? We will now go into private session before adjourning until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 22 June 2023 when we will engage with the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media.

The committee went into private session at 2.03 p.m. and adjourned at 2.45 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Tuesday, 22 June 2023.