COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht

Chairman

While Members enjoy absolute privilege, the same does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. The committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it.

I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. They are also reminded of the provisions within Standing Order 158 that the committee shall refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or of a Minister, or the merits of the objectives of such policy or policies.

I welcome Mr. David Doyle, Secretary General of the Department of Finance, and call on him to introduce his officials.

Mr. David Doyle

I am accompanied by Mr. Kevin Cardiff, second secretary, financial services division, Mr. Jim O'Brien, second secretary, budget, taxation and economic division, Mr. John McCarthy, senior economist, budget, taxation and economic division, and Mr. Patrick Brennan, assistant principal.

Chairman

Before I ask the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Buckley, to deal with these chapters, I want to deal with an outstanding issue relating to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Prison Service Votes.

The use of a drawdown contract where €97 million, excluding VAT, of public contracts was given to one firm, namely, Glenbeigh Construction, raises alarming issues, particularly with value for money. It also appears EU regulations may have been ignored by the Prison Service and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

In view of the seriousness of the issues raised, the Committee of Public Accounts has asked the Comptroller and Auditor General to undertake a detailed review of the use of this drawdown contract. I admit long before it was raised at the committee, the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General was already carrying out a review of this contract.

The report will be available to the committee in the autumn when it will recall the Accounting Officers of the Prison Service and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. As the committee will not be recalling these witnesses in respect of this year's account, is it agreed the committee notes Votes 19 and 21 and disposes of chapters 6.1 and 6.2? Agreed.

The committee will forward the replies it received from the Accounting Officers of the Prison Service and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to the Department of Finance. The committee's next hearing on this issue will require an input from the Department of Finance on the appropriateness of the contract and adherence to EU contract requirements. Previously, when the Department's officials were asked about the transparency issues involved and compliance with EU procurement, the committee did not receive a validation of the procedures adopted or pursued by the Prison Service with these contracts, worth over €100 million which started at approximately €4 million and which all went to one company. The committee will also publish the response from the Prison Service and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and it will be in the public domain.

Mr. David Doyle

Does the Chairman want me to make some preliminary comments in advance of the process he has just outlined?

Chairman

Yes, please.

Mr. David Doyle

I noted the committee's meeting with the Prison Service. Since then I have had a communication from the committee requesting the Department of Finance's views. While the committee heard some of the facts from the Accounting Officer concerned at the time, I do not believe it got the full information. That will be supplied to the committee. We will need to see that and the review by the Comptroller and Auditor General to ensure the procedures followed are consistent with government contract procedures as set out in the Green Book and in accordance with EU directives.

To the best of my understanding, the EU directives make provision for drawdown contracts. Normally, they would relate to routine supplies such as computers, paper, pencils, biros etc; cases in which there would be a major purchase and drawdown would be used. It is not mutually exclusive to that context. My understanding is that the contract in question was advertised as a drawdown contract and specifically provided that there was an initial contract from which others could be drawn down. It has been portrayed to me that it was an open and transparent process. The trade knew that a particular contract would be covered and others would be drawn down under it.

We shall have to await the assessment of the material and the Comptroller and Auditor General's conclusions as regards where the balance of the pros and cons lie. The fundamental principle underlying Government contract procedures is that they should be open and transparent. We would seek to avoid any exclusive set of contracts going to a particular contractor. There will be situations where there is a unique contractor for some very specialised product or construction, possibly, but whether the best value for money was, in fact, secured under this particular suite of contracts placed within the overall contract, as advertised openly, is a matter of judgment when we see all the facts.

Chairman

During our discussion we discovered and subsequently confirmed by letter that the subsequent contracts exceeded €100 million, arising from an initial contract of about €4 million. One particular contract was worth something like €21 million. We also questioned on the day the advice that the Prison Service was getting from its independent consulting advisers, and we asked for information on that too, which we have not received to date. I believe that those advisers were on a roll-over contract also. We will make the document available to Mr. Doyle. It is with the Comptroller and Auditor General now and the committee has decided to publish it.

Deputy Jim O’Keeffe

Before we come back to this issue will we get a more detailed response on it from the Department of Finance? With all due respects, it appears from the circumstances of this case that it was not just a provision for additional papers and pencils. The figures are enormous compared to the price of the original contract.

Mr. David Doyle

I did not suggest that it was a contract of such a nature. My understanding is that the advertisement was quite explicit, to the effect that a contract and further series of contracts would be awarded on foot of the tendering procedure. In terms of the communication I have from the committee, it will be getting a response along the lines it has outlined. However, to try to reach a conclusion as to whether best value for money was secured, we should have to evaluate the material with the Accounting Officer and the assessment of the Comptroller and Auditor General and in due course that of the Committee of Public Accounts and its report to the Minister for Finance in that context.

Chairman

We shall be coming back to this when the Comptroller and Auditor General has issued his report and will require Mr. Doyle's officials to be here also along with those from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Prison Service.

Having dealt with that I call on Mr. Buckley to introduce chapters 1.1 and 2.1 of the 2007 annual report and Votes 1, 6, 7 and 12. The full text of chapters 1 and 2 can be found in the annual report of the Comptroller and Auditor General or on the website of the Comptroller and Auditor General at www.audgen.gov.ie.

Mr. John Buckley

The finance accounts and the accounts of four Votes are administered by the Department of Finance and are before the committee. I shall confine my remarks to those accounts with material spends.

The Department of Finance is the State's central steering Department in financial matters. It has functions relating to the co-ordination of the Civil Service and the setting of public financial procedures. Overall it spent €99.8 million in 2007 across seven programmes that are outlined in its output statement. Its main programmes relate to economic and budgetary policy, taxation, sectoral policy — which deals with the effectiveness of public expenditure — income and pensions policy, financial regulation, public service efficiency and effectiveness and quality customer service.

Obviously its appropriation accounts show the specific items on which the money was spent while the output statement gives an indication of what sectors and policy areas the Department was working on. Turning to superannuation payments to civil servants, these cost €314 million in 2007. However, €73 million in receipts by way of contributions and other recoveries brought the net outlay on Civil Service pensions to €242 million. It is important to point out that the charge to the superannuation and retired allowance Vote does not cover the pensions of a number of other classes of public servants, including gardaí, teachers, employees of State bodies, local authorities, and the health sector as well as staff in the third level education sector. No current estimate exists of the State's liability for pensions. However, I am currently finalising a special report which will include that information. The facts and figures will be cleared with the Department of Finance in the coming month.

The other major account before the committee is the finance accounts. This is akin to a whole of Government account. It records the receipts and payments from the Exchequer. It amalgamates the overall voted activity with those payments which are directly charged to the Central Fund, including payments to service the debt, pay the contribution to the EU budget and make a payment to the National Pensions Reserve Fund. The net outturn for 2007, overall, was a deficit of €1.6 billion and Part 2 of the finance accounts deals with the State borrowing activity and then explains how the net deficit was financed.

Another source is chapter 1.1 of my annual report, which summarises this account as it is a rather long document. It shows how the outturn for the year was financed. Turning to the chapter on election expenses, the report outlines that the State was not positioned to take advantage of discounts which other customers can avail of for bulk postage. Somewhere between €1.5 million and an upper limit of €3.3 million — if the maximum discount for letter post was available — could have been saved if Government was treated on equal terms with other customers. However, the legislation setting up An Post in 1983 provided that it must be recouped for any loss of postage that it incurred by making facilities available free of charge in connection with elections or referendums. This has been interpreted as allowing it to recover the postage it would have got rather than the actual cost of the service provided.

While accepting that An Post's entitlement is underpinned in the 1983 Act, the trend in the interim since 1983 is towards the encouragement of more competitive service provision and delivery, even by monopolies. Overall, there is a need to review the cost effectiveness of service provision in this instance. Any review could seek to determine whether the State can agree a range of discounts analogous to those provided to private customers or, failing that, whether there are cheaper alternative distribution channels for some or all of the election material that would be acceptable to the political system.

Ultimately, while the legislative provisions are a matter of policy for the Government and Dáil Éireann, I believed it appropriate to point out the effect of the statutory policy so as to provide feedback on the cost of providing this service.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Buckley and call on Mr. Doyle to make his opening statement.

Mr. David Doyle

As regards the last item mentioned by the Comptroller and Auditor General, the cost of the postal service, those expenses are recouped from the Central Fund under various legislative headings, particularly the Electoral Act 1992. An Post is entitled to recoupment for the loss of postage. The entitlement of persons presenting themselves to the electorate to free postage goes back to 1923, I believe, or 1922. Under the 1992 Act it is a matter for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, with the consent of the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources to vary the section of the 1992 legislation by order, which then requires the resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas. That obviously is a policy matter for the relevant Ministers.

It is clear Government policy, as enacted in legislation by the Oireachtas that for elections and referendums the entire electorate is individually supplied with polling cards and communications from those presenting for election. That service, it seems to me, is fundamental to the election and referendum process and cannot be considered to be in the same class as business post. I know the Comptroller and Auditor General is not suggesting that. Members of the committee will be much more expert than I am as regards the actual manner in which the postal system operates for elections, but my understanding is that while the political parties do a good deal of work in preparing the material, An Post has much work to do in affixing names and addresses, for instance.

Apart from the political relationships between intending public representatives and the electorate, the political parties have set preferences that are related to the manner in which postal communications are delivered, especially the material that presents their case to the electorate in a formal way. The material is not all delivered to each house on the same day. My understanding is that there is a specified daylight between delivery for the various parties to ensure that the material receives unique attention.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

We like to get a later slot to allow for maximum impact.

Mr. David Doyle

The key point is that they are not all delivered on the same day. If they were delivered like that, maybe some of the points made by the Comptroller and Auditor General about delivering on the same basis as a publicity drop would come into play. It is not a straightforward issue of simply making a comparison with commercial postal rates. There are subtle political issues as well as practical issues from An Post. I heard An Post argue that it cost the company more to do this work than ordinary postal work.

While the Department of Finance has explored the question of a discount a number of times, the response from An Post was that it was providing a full postal service under unique direction of the Oireachtas and was entitled by law to full recoupment for lost postage. This entitlement is confirmed by legal advice from the Attorney General. Any amendment to legislation to change the current position would be a policy matter to be proposed in the first instance by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, endorsed by the Cabinet and passed by the Oireachtas. It is not a matter for the Accounting Officer of the Department to comment on whether such changes in policies or legislation should be made.

We had a discussion about the report of the tax forecasting methodology review group. The key point in that report was that performance of taxes in any given year reflects the state of the economy. If the economy is performing well, this is reflected in the tax outturn, as is the reverse case. Looking at the years immediately prior to 2007, taxes were originally forecast on budget day to grow at an average annual rate of 5.5%, while national output was forecast to grow at an average nominal rate of 7.8%. The suggestion of the report was that over time, we would expect to see a unitary relationship between nominal tax growth and output. The actual performance in those years was that nominal output grew significantly faster than was projected at budget time, and that the tax performance reflected that with much higher levels of growth.

We forecast that tax revenues would increase by 7.8% in 2007 and that the economy would grow by a nominal 8.5%. However, year-on-year growth in taxes came in at a nominal 4%, while the economy grew at a nominal 6%. The vast bulk of that difference between the tax forecast and outturn was due to the shortfall in capital taxes, reflecting, amongst other things, the beginning of the slowdown in activity in the property market. We are anxious to provide the best forecasts we can to the Government in its review of taxation and fiscal policy, in terms of public service development, the levels of borrowing and so on. The review group to which I previously referred comprised experts from the Department of Finance, the ESRI, the Revenue Commissioners, the Central Bank and the EU Commission.

The group concluded that the Department of Finance displayed a prudent bias in tax forecasting, and that the performance on taxes up until 2006 was ahead of the Department's forecasts. As I intimated last year, that did not inhibit the Government action on taxation or spending on the whole. The group did not really recommend any adjustments, although it touched on a number of minor changes. The findings were that our report was in line with international best practice. The 2007 budget assumed that taxes would grow at 8%. That was framed on the expectation that property-related taxes would not increase at the rates they had in the past. Others, including the ESRI, were more bullish and in its winter quarterly economic report in December 2006, the ESRI forecast stamp duties to increase by 26% and capital taxes by 20%. The outcome as we now know was that taxes were much weaker. We adopted a cautious approach, even though we were still somewhat over-optimistic and there were many external issues that influenced the outcome. Thank you, Chairman.

Chairman

May we publish your statement?

Mr. David Doyle

Yes.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

I welcome the Secretary General and his colleagues to the committee. The bottom line on the election postage costs, as highlighted by the Comptroller and Auditor General, is that the Department and the State must pay between an additional €1.5 million and €3.3 million for each candidate's postal drop. If there had been changes in the legislation between the Department of Finance and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, it would have also had to pay. Effectively, there was a net loss to the Exchequer.

Mr. David Doyle

The total postal bill does not extend to posters for candidates. There are also polling cards which represent another significant cost heading. I do not disagree with the assessment of the Comptroller and Auditor General, but I do not necessarily agree with it either. For a start, the legislation is the legislation. An Post has expressed views on this to the Department. It has to do a lot of extra work but, on the other hand, others have suggested political parties do a lot of work in sorting the specific material for candidates and putting it in a particular order to facilitate An Post which must then do more work with it. The material has to be delivered to each household and elector. The one point I agree with is that this service, like every public service, should be handled in the most cost-effective way. There appears to be a legal constraint in this regard. I will not comment on whether the sum of €3 million is lost to the taxpayer. If one was examining the accounts of An Post, it would be part of its income and, to the extent that it is a transfer to An Post, would be shown in its reserves but it would still belong to the Exchequer. However, on the narrow issue of the transparency of these costs, I agree that the service should be provided in the most cost-effective way.

It is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the relevant Department for An Post — the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. I understand from that Department that An Post may be reflecting on its stance and anticipating forward developments, whether with regard to policy or de facto market changes when postal services are liberalised post-2011. As services will be liberalised, depending on what the policy makers decide, this may become a commercial contract which would go to the market. One could find there is a radical change.

Chairman

Members should know there is a vote in the Dáil. We will adopt the usual arrangement.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

Mr. Doyle referred to 2011 but my understanding, given that I used to be the Labour Party spokesperson on communications, is that it was to happen this year. Letters under 50g were supposed to be dealt with in an open market this year but deregulation was postponed until 2011 by a decision of the European Commission and the European Parliament.

Mr. Doyle is effectively suggesting this matter will not arise. We will all be candidates at the time and, as a candidate, I recognise that this is a very valuable service. It is very important for our democracy that every candidate, no matter how new or senior, has one opportunity to put his or her case to voters. It is a valuable service. Nonetheless, from what Mr. Doyle said, it is likely that this will not recur because, clearly, we will either need an amendment of the legislation or, if an open market develops, it will simply be the case that the State will receive the most efficient discount, as it sees it, for the delivery of this essential information on the next occasion, which of course will be after 2011.

Mr. David Doyle

I would like to think that, to the extent it is possible for policy makers and those who bring forward legislation to change the approach, we would have a better outcome. However, I am not suggesting one will automatically achieve the level of savings the Comptroller and Auditor General has identified because there are arguments to be presented from both sides to my officials. On the one hand, An Post states the care and attention that must be devoted to this issue to ensure proper delivery indicate a particular nature of service and, on the other, the political parties seem to require as a matter of custom and practice that the election material be delivered in separate tranches to each household which would miligate against securing a full commercial discount.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

The experience in my own case is that I sent just one piece of literature to each house and my friends and supporters put the labels on this literature which An Post was highly efficient in delivering. This is the way some would do it but others would try to target every single voter. Obviously, it is an issue on which the Comptroller and Auditor General considers it is important we get the best outcome.

With regard to the 2006 accounts, one of the issues that arose the last time we met Mr. Doyle was that the Departments of which Mr. Doyle was overseer in financial terms were not using suspense accounts in regard to OPW works and the Department of Finance. Was that issue been finally remedied in the 2007 period?

Mr. David Doyle

My understanding is that some of the practices that grew over time have, by and large, been sorted out at this stage. There may be some heritage issues but we have encouraged the OPW to bill appropriately to seek recoupment as costs are incurred rather than allow large suspense account balances to build up. I am not aware the Comptroller and Auditor General identified a similar large-scale issue in 2007 but, to the extent suspense accounts are opaque and non-transparent instruments, they are not desirable. However, they are fully accessible to the Comptroller and Auditor General in terms of the accountability aspect. My preference would be to try to avoid suspense accounts, where possible.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

I will move to Vote 7. On subhead A.1, salaries, wages and allowances, what is the total number of staff in the Department? This was a subject of interest to the committee and the media. I am delighted to see our chief economist present. How many economists or trained graduates with a postgraduate economics degree and how many accountants does the Department have?

Mr. David Doyle

In reply to the Deputy's first question, there are approximately 600 staff in the Department. On the second question, an eminent former Member of the House wrote an article in the national media suggesting there were almost no economists in the Department. This issue has been dealt with in a recent parliamentary question. My understanding is that there are over 80 officers in the Department with economics qualifications. Whether that is a problem depends on where one is coming from but it is a fact and we are proud to have these staff in the Department. They are not all working on narrow economic issues; they are allocated throughout the Department where their analytical skills are utilised across all the areas referred to by the Comptroller and Auditor General in terms of our functions. Approximately 60 of them hold basic degrees in economics and related disciplines and approximately 40 have a masters qualification in economics and related disciplines. I understand there are upwards of four staff at PhD level in economics. We certainly do not lack economic expertise in the Department. We also have available to us the considerable economic expertise available in the Central Bank to supplement these resources. Moreover, we donate about €3.5 million a year to the Economic and Social Research Institute, the resources of which are available as a matter of public service but they are also available to the Department in particular areas. There is much interaction between the Department and the ESRI on annual forecasts for the economy, the international economic context and other background work that would not normally come into the public domain.

The Department has 12 staff with professional accountancy qualifications and another seven with degrees in accounting or accounting-related disciplines. A significant proportion of the remainder have business qualifications. For example, 38 have business studies qualifications, ten have commerce qualifications, 18 have finance qualifications and so on. Of the 600 staff employed in the Department as a whole, some 500 have qualifications in a range of relevant fields.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

The public is interested in these matters because there is a strong perception that the Department has let us down badly in the past six to eight months. In several major areas within its remit, there is general agreement that it simply has not done its job.

The annual output statements for 2007 and 2008 are divided around the Department's main functions and programmes, as outlined by the Comptroller and Auditor General. These include economic and budgetary policy, taxation and sectoral policy, European Union development, the programme for financial regulation, and income policy development and implementation. It is fair to say that the Department's record for some of 2007, throughout 2008 and up to the present time in the administration of these functions has been disastrous.

In the case of financial regulation, for example, the Department's strategy is to promote the effective regulation of the financial service, with a strong focus on consumer rights, financial stability generally, appropriate consultation with the European Union, best practice across the industry, the financial service regulatory structure and so on. Does the Secretary General agree this is meaningless guff about financial regulation, given that our two leading financial institutions are effectively zombie banks — dead men walking — with their assets covered by the people of this State and with major issues in regard to their regulation? In recent days, the International Monetary Fund stated that the recapitalisation of the banks will cost taxpayers a minimum of €24 billion. In other words, almost the equivalent of two annual budgets for the Department of Health and Children will be required to save these institutions.

Does Mr. Doyle agree that the core problem is that the Department did not do its job in regard to regulation and invigilation of the Central Bank and the Financial Regulator? It is taxpayers who will pay the price of that failure. This morning, some 60,000 people discovered they will no longer be entitled to mortgage interest relief on their family homes. I do not wish to get into politics but we are all aware there has been an attack on welfare benefits, with further cutbacks expected in the autumn budget. In addition, the Department has been incredibly remiss in regard to budgetary and taxation forecasting given that we have had fundamental structural problems in taxation for up to seven years. However, nothing was done about this.

What does the Department estimate will be the cost of the banking and financial disaster and of its own failure to regulate the banking system?

Mr. David Doyle

The Deputy posed some questions but also made a significant speech about policy matters to which it would not be appropriate for me to respond. However, I will take some of the points in sequence——

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

I dispute that. I have before me the global financial stability report for April 2009, which includes international economic and financial surveys. In particular, I am looking at the capital ratios of our banks vis-à-vis those of other jurisdictions. Our ratios, for tiers one and two, were quite low. The reality is that the banks with which 95% of people deal, including households and small business, and the investment or casino banks were allowed, under the Department’s watch, virtually to merge and become the same type of institution. Does this report not show that under programme four, the Department did not do its job?

Mr. David Doyle

I would like to respond to that. With the greatest respect to the Deputy, I do not believe the work of the Department amounts to guff. I do not accept his statement at the outset that the Department has let down the Government, the Oireachtas and the people. The Department has a significantly strong position in regard to the work it does on behalf of the Minister for Finance, the Government and the public.

The Deputy is extrapolating performance in the economy in regard to the performance of the Department. As I said at the outset, the relationship between tax performance and the economy is inextricable. To have a solid discourse with the Deputy in regard to the manner in which the economy has evolved in the past ten years and the relationship between its performance and domestic policy measures that were adopted in regard to public services, public pay levels, social security levels and taxation in the context of developments on the international front on interest rates and so on would bring me into the realm of comment on policy, in which I am unable to become involved.

In regard to the specifics of the performance on taxes in 2007, the 2007 Estimates were prepared at the end of 2006. In the course of 2007, the year in which the last general election took place, we saw interest rates increase significantly. Commodity prices also increased and escalated further in the early part of 2008. The construction sector peaked and overshot the runway in terms of the delivery of products, although there was a significant tail-off in activity. It is not for me to comment on the reasons for that and its relationship with policies. These were relevant domestic factors.

From August 2007, the international financial markets changed fundamentally. Developments in the United Kingdom and in the United States in regard to sub-prime markets emerged in that year, the impact of which accelerated in 2008. This impacted on flows in the economy in 2007. Therefore, as far as 2007 is concerned, the analysis undertaken by the Department at the end of 2006 took account of all the known factors at that time. No more than the ESRI, the Central Bank, the European Union or any other commentators, the Department was not clairvoyant in regard to the manner in which oil prices, interest rates, exchange rates, commodity prices and the financial markets would evolve in the course of the year. In my opinion it is inappropriate to suggest in that context that the Department was doing a bad job.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

Is the record not clear? For example——

Chairman

Deputy Broughan should allow Mr. Doyle to finish.

Mr. David Doyle

As for the various banking issues raised by the Deputy, we probably could spend a week before another committee of the House that is charged with examining matters under the brief of the Minister for Finance, namely, the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. Moreover, the Joint Committee on Economic Regulatory Affairs has been engaged in examining many of those issues. Without commenting on the policy issues, the Irish financial system is not independent from what is going on in the rest of the world. The domestic circumstances in which the Irish financial system found itself reflected a cumulation of an evolution of consumer and business activity over the previous decade and an enthusiasm on the part of individuals and businesses to accumulate debt to speculate for capital accumulation. For many of those years, that seemed to be a prudent approach.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

Not to me and not to a lot of people who knew it was neither prudent nor sustainable when 100,000 houses were built in 2006 and 2007. Who will live in them?

Chairman

The Deputy should please allow the Secretary General to conclude his response to the Deputy's other questions.

Mr. David Doyle

It seemed that for many of those years, particularly in the early years of that decade, the development potential in the economy was real and we saw huge growth in employment, export levels and inward foreign direct investment to back up much of that investment.

The domestic economic conditions, if one considers the domestic factors that affect the performance of the economy in respect of the mix of the policy measures, private sector decisions, enthusiasm for incurring debt and so on, were reflected in the financial performance of the banks. I refer to developments in the international financial markets, starting in the United States and to an extent in the United Kingdom at the time, if members recall the case of Northern Rock. There were dramatic developments in the United States in respect of the sub-prime markets, in which there probably was some of the most gross mis-selling in all history of mortgages to people who had very little visible or prospective means. Many of those loans then were wrapped up into so-called tradeable commodities and there were lots of other, more bizarre, financial products marketed and sold on the world market. We know that all of those——

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

Everyone knows this.

Chairman

Deputy, please.

Mr. David Doyle

As the Deputy stated that the Department's work amounts to a whole pile of guff, if he allows me to——

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

The Department failed in the strategic task set for it by the Oireachtas——

Mr. David Doyle

The Deputy referred to guff and I found that perturbing.

The Irish banking system has been hugely affected by the international financial crisis. This has affected the overall financial performance of the banks and indeed of the economy. A complex confluence of events has taken place. There was a whole set of domestic economic conditions, in which there was a very rapid increase in the labour force, wages and prices, a significant undermining of competitiveness, too much money chasing too few products and, particularly in the housing sector, an overheating in the economy. All of this is related to the domestic conditions. We have a fundamental issue in the domestic economy in respect of uncompetitiveness.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

The bottom line now is that a distinguished economist in the United States can state that Ireland is broke, can compare us to Iceland and can state that our people are facing a huge burden of debt for one or two generations. That is the other side. Is it not therefore the case that Mr. Doyle is the dog that did not bark? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The Department did not fulfil that function——

Chairman

The Deputy is repeating his earlier comments.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

No, I am stating that——

Chairman

Please allow Mr. Doyle to respond to all the issues raised.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

——in two areas, he is——

Chairman

Deputy, let Mr. Doyle have the courtesy of being allowed to respond to the issues raised.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

He stated that Ireland was in an international storm. However, we had our problems.

Mr. David Doyle

For a start, we are present to discuss the 2007 accounts and——

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

That is what I am talking about. Two of the Department's key programmes——

Mr. David Doyle

The Deputy is not. With respect, Chairman——

Chairman

Deputy, please.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

I refer to the programme on financial regulation.

Mr. David Doyle

With respect, the Deputy has been making statements regarding last year and the current year.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

Only three people employed.

Chairman

Deputy, please allow Mr. Doyle to respond to your questions.

Mr. David Doyle

As to being a dog that never barked, that would not be my reputation. I have something of a reputation as a dog that both barks and bites and perhaps that is inappropriate.

As for the international situation, the money supplies in the world economy have been greatly disrupted and given the present external economic environment, many countries are exhibiting extreme difficulties. They are not exhibiting the degree of difficulties that Ireland has because, as I stated, we are facing the current international meltdown at a time of domestic economic difficulties. Consequently, the combination of those two events is reflected in the state of the economy and our tax performance. I am unsure whether it is appropriate or pertinent to get into the position of the banks.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

May I——

Chairman

Deputy, the Minister for Finance is not before the committee today. The Secretary General of the Department of Finance is before the committee.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

That is not the issue.

Chairman

It is the issue. Mr. Doyle is not responsible for policy and much of this refers to policy. Some of the questions are more appropriate to the Dáil Chamber than to this meeting.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

I am merely stating that I have to hand a document entitled, Finance Vote Group — Annual Output Statements for 2007. It seems that in a number of areas, such as tax and budgeting, forecasting and financial regulation, the Department did not do what it stated it did during 2007. It did not deliver what is stated in this output statement. The net result is that Members were called in urgently in late September and were obliged to pass legislation, presumably to save the banking system with the guarantees.

Has the Department made estimates? For example, in respect of the Finance Vote, €4.5 billion of the pension fund will flow out to the two major banks. Moreover, I understand the amount that will be set aside this year also will go to them. What will be the impact this year of the financial crisis of the last seven months on the pension fund and what will be the total cost to the people of the disastrous last seven or eight months? Is the IMF correct? Will it cost €24 billion or will the cost be higher?

Chairman

I must bring in the next questioner after this question.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

I simply wish to make the point that this committee will spend many years into the future, probably long after both the Chairman and I have departed, analysing how we were obliged to spend so much money rescuing the financial system year after year.

Chairman

Deputy, we already have agreed privately that we will indeed be obliged to spend much time on this issue and that many members will no longer be here. Everyone has agreed on that.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

May I ask for an estimate of the cost thus far and what Mr. Doyle reckons the final cost in respect of the financial system might be?

Chairman

That will be the Deputy's final question, but he can come in again.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

This is far more important than other, lesser matters. It relates to big money and we are only in the middle of it, not the end. Our guests played a central role in getting us into this situation. On behalf of the people whom I represent——

Chairman

Will the Deputy ask a question and not make a statement? It will be his final question.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

What are the cost figures?

Mr. David Doyle

I would like to think that I had a central policy role. Unfortunately, I have not been elected by the electorate or appointed to the Cabinet. It is one view that I had a role as the Accounting Officer in the Department of Finance, with the Department's input.

Concerning the banking sector costs, I will ask my colleague, Mr. Cardiff, who has been in charge of a reorganised division devoted to the financial services sector, to supplement my comments. The Government has made investments in the banking sector. We introduced a guarantee scheme as a statement of the Government's confidence and to ensure a viable banking system that will continue to provide the funds required for investment in the economy. The guarantee scheme and the policy circumstances have been debated in the House, but it was a fundamental prerequisite for keeping the funds in the banks and for keeping the economy going. An annual charge of €500 million is levied on the banks, amounting to €1 billion over the two years of the guarantee. The costs incurred——

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

Is the guarantee not worth approximately €450 billion?

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. Cardiff will comment on that. The investments being made by the National Pensions Reserve Fund, NPRF, amount to €7 billion currently. Some €3.5 billion for Bank of Ireland has already been invested and €3.5 billion will, subject to approval by an EGM, be invested in AIB in the near future. The Government decided the investments to be appropriate, as did the House by passing the legislation. An appropriate further investment in the banking system will be made by the NPRF and to which a significant coupon with an 8% rate will be attached. I am subject to correction by Mr. Cardiff. There will be a significant income flow through the NPRF. The long-term returns are expected to be positive. Mr. Cardiff can comment in more general terms.

It would have been a mistake for the Government not to have made these investments. They are regarded as critical for the successful performance, not just of the banking system, but of the entire economy. In being critical of the investments, one must stand back and reflect on what would have occurred had they not been made. They are an attestation to the Government's confidence and desire in policy terms to ensure the banks contribute positively towards the economy and are stable and secure places in which people can put their money.

Mr. Kevin Cardiff

It is important to see the IMF's costings. As we understand it, they are estimates calculated on a common basis for every major economy. They do not reflect a micro-examination of the Irish banks. Rather, they reflect a generalised methodology applied across the world to devise a global estimate.

Regarding the meaning of the costings, Ireland's relatively large number reflects the fact that we have a broad bank guarantee. So far as we can understand the methodology, the IMF adds the cost of capital contributions to the cost of some sort of notional insurance premium on a broad guarantee. Therefore, it does not compare our explicit legal guarantee with, for example, the explicitly stated but non-legal guarantee of the French, Germans and so on. On a comparative basis, we have considerable doubts about the costings. This is not to say the figures are wrong. I am sure they are correct.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

Were we the worst in the developed world?

Mr. Kevin Cardiff

We were because we have the largest legal guarantee. I am sure that Mr. Sarkozy of France will forgive me if I misquote him, but he solemnly stated that he, as the French President, would guarantee that not a single depositor in a single French bank would lose a single euro. In effect, we have given a statutory guarantee. We went to the Oireachtas with something appropriate, but President Sarkozy has given a solemn guarantee on behalf of the French state. His guarantee of the entire French banking system is not calculated by the IMF because it is not a legal one, whereas ours is.

The number is large and reflects the breadth of our guarantee. The IMF would state that, the more capital injected into banks, the less potential there is for the guarantee to be called upon. One should counteract the other. As far as we can see, though, the IMF has added the costs together. There are methodological difficulties.

Forgetting them for a moment, though, it is clear that the Government has taken on board many of the banking system's risks. It is also clear that, as in every country, the system's risks resided within the economy anyway, but we have transferred them formally. Unless one can estimate the notional likelihood of a guarantee being called upon, it is not possible to say what the exact costs are except that it is the express intention of every European government not to let systemically important institutions fail. Therefore, guarantees should not be called upon.

The question is to what extent will a capital injection of a European government not be remunerated sufficiently to cover the cost. This is not estimable in a real way except to say that one can choose and apply a risk factor to arrive at a wide range of numbers. The Government's injection of €7 billion into two banks, one already and another in preparation, is to be remunerated at an 8% rate. Obviously, this depends on the banks continuing. The Government gets a warrant that is a right to buy shares in the future at what are relatively low rates today. When the banks improve their position and the economy improves, the State will get some recompense. There are pros and cons, but it is difficult to say. A cost to the State would only occur where a bank fails to perform and needs to be closed.

Regarding the guarantee's cost, the intention is to recoup €1 billion over a period of two years in terms of a sort of premium payment for the guarantee. One could argue that this is not a market cost, but there is no market for such a thing and it is difficult to say what the market cost would be. It would probably have been unobtainable.

I do not believe the IMF stated that the number was the minimum of €24 billion to which the Deputy referred. It never intended for this to be read in a purely Irish context as opposed to a generalised comparative feature. There are also figures in the IMF document that are probably accurate but mislabelled and caused a certain amount of confusion. I can speak with members afterwards about that.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

If the cost is anywhere remotely in this territory, it will dwarf the work of this committee for many years.

Mr. Kevin Cardiff

That is true but the costs of banking system dislocation are felt in the economy. It is impossible to say that this would be costless. The question is whether it should be felt directly through Exchequer involvement to ensure the banking system can survive and contribute to the economy or whether it would be felt through the economy more generally without State support. It is a question of the pros and cons of how one supports the economy.

Deputy Michael McGrath

I welcome Mr. Doyle and his colleagues. I will ask general questions before questions on the issues in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report.

It amazes me that when the Department of Finance publishes the monthly Exchequer return figures it compares the actual returns with the previous year figures. There is no comparison with the target or the budget. Why is that? Is it because the projections for tax revenue are not profiled on a monthly basis? The figures published make for a meaningless comparison because it shows this year's figures versus last year's figures. People want to know how we are doing vis-à-vis where we thought we would be. The figures should include the budget, the year to date and a comparison with the actual figure.

Mr. David Doyle

I thank the Deputy. It may be that we are not drawing these documents together as we should. Separately we publish profiles for projected tax revenue and expenditure on a monthly basis over the course of the year. These are normally published shortly after the budget. This year, with the fluid budgetary situation, we only published the monthly forecast for this year. This should be available on the Internet today, showing the projected cash flow over the course of the year under the tax heading generally and under the spending heading generally. It is possible to compare monthly Exchequer returns with those figures to get a feel for this. We will profile only from May onwards. The extent of this will give a probable outcome over the course of a year. This is one factor.

Other factors depend on what happens in the domestic economic situation and the international economic and financial market position. There is a measure that allows one to assess the year to date projection and outturn and what the trends are suggesting. The Department comments on these trends at the end of each quarter. While the monthly material is published we do not offer a commentary every month but we issue an end of quarter assessment. Our next assessment of the performance against the expectations for the year to date and the remainder of the year will not be until the beginning of July.

To make a point of correction, the April figures will be projections for April through to December.

Deputy Michael McGrath

Why do we not publish the projection against the actual figure? The Department publishes a meaningless comparison every month. Comparing where we are now with where we were last year is of no relevance; it is another world. From a cursory glance at the Exchequer statements, we need to know what was said in the budget, what the income was and the difference. One cannot see that from looking at the Exchequer statements. Any audit I have done or any set of accounts I have seen prepared compared the actual figure to what it was said it was going to be. Mr. Doyle says the data are there but we must go digging for it. Why is it not presented in an understandable format?

Mr. David Doyle

I acknowledged that we publish these separately and that this may not be the best way. Deputy McGrath's suggestion is sensible and we will examine incorporating it. I am not familiar with the statutory history but there may be a statutory format. If it is possible to incorporate performance against profile in that, we will do so. We could not do so at the microscopic level of each spending and taxation head but it is a good suggestion and more transparent.

Deputy Michael McGrath

I suggest doing this and hope the Department will take it up. In the interests of transparency it is important. There may be concern that the reason the Department will not publish the budget target figures next to the actual figures is that it would highlight significant differences. In the interests of transparency they should be there and it is also good practice in financial reporting. The Department should lead the way and I propose examining this.

On fiscal projections and the projection for economic growth or contraction, as it is this year, what will be the final figure for the contraction of the economy? The ESRI report during the week predicted a contraction of 9.2%. Where have we moved from the budget and what do we now expect? Given the level of co-ordination between the Central Bank and the ESRI, why are there differences in where this is going in the short term? Should the figures not be the same, given the level of co-ordination?

Mr. David Doyle

While I intimated that there was a great deal of contact, I did not mean to suggest we would always agree with the ESRI. The divergence between the Department and the ESRI is not huge. Both projections indicate a serious downturn. We have not moved away from the forecast published with the supplementary budget on 7 April. I invite Mr. O'Brien and Mr. McCarthy to comment.

Mr. John McCarthy

The GDP contraction we projected was 7.75%, whereas the ESRI projected 8.25%, a trivial difference. The difference is small——

Deputy Darragh O’Brien

It is not trivial.

Mr. John McCarthy

The difference is a half percentage point; maybe it is a reasonable difference. The ESRI is a little more pessimistic than we are. The Central Bank is closer to 7% so we are more pessimistic than the Central Bank. We are also more pessimistic than the market consensus, which is the consensus in the private sector. The situation is fluid and it is changing rapidly. We incorporated several graphs to show how rapidly matters have changed over the past six or eight months. The IMF has hundreds of PhD-level economists working for it and has revised downwards its forecasts on four or five occasions since we published the October budget.

Our figures on the external environment were based on the initial view, which has since changed dramatically. The situation is very fluid at present. Finance ministries, central banks and private sector forecasters throughout the world are finding it difficult to get a full handle on the implications for the real economy of the developments in the financial markets. I would stress, however, that we are probably at the more pessimistic end. While I acknowledge that the difference with the ESRI forecast may not be trivial, we have embedded numbers for a very pessimistic scenario this year in respect of the economy and the labour market. We forecast unemployment rising to 12.5% this year and 15.5% next year, which represents the loss of more than 250,000 jobs. I think our numbers capture the bleakness of the outlook. Our forecast of -3% growth next year is more pessimistic than the ESRI's -1%. The respective sets of figures will balance each other out over the two years in question.

Deputy Michael McGrath

My key question for Mr. Doyle is whether the Department has the skills to lead us through the current fiscal and economic crisis. As this recession came from the private sector, the Department needs people who have cutting edge experience in that sector. I mean no slight against current departmental staff but career civil servants who have come through the system do not necessarily possess the diverse set of skills required. Is the number of staff in the Department with private sector experience sufficient to provide practical advice?

Chairman

I think the Deputy is asking whether barriers exist to experts coming in from outside.

Deputy Michael McGrath

Yes.

Chairman

Where are the barriers?

Mr. David Doyle

The Department's traditional recruitment policy on expertise has always been at administrative officer level or through other Civil Service routes. The administrative officers and other graduate professionals in the Department possess have outstanding skills and commitment to the public. Even if they are career civil servants, they are a very lively bunch.

Deputy Michael McGrath

That is not in doubt but I was making a different point.

Mr. David Doyle

I understand the Deputy's point and am doing my best to address it. They change with the times and keep up to date with their skills. The Department works closely with all the representative bodies for the business community. It does not lock itself away in an ivory tower.

In regard to whether we have sufficient private sector experience, I do not accept that career civil servants are not appreciative of what is happening in the private sector. More than most Departments, we pay attention to the messages communicated on behalf of the business community through these Houses. Members will be glad to know that the Department takes a close interest in what goes on in the Oireachtas and the private sector. We have a strong relationship with the private sector. As to whether enough of the staff within the Department have private sector experience, even though I have been employed there for too many decades, I began my career with five years in the private sector. I had a very modest role in the oil industry.

We have in recent times advertised a number of posts at assistant secretary and second secretary level through the open market. Mr. Cardiff is a product of that recruitment method, although as it happens he was already in the Department. To be frank, the interest from the private sector in that particular appointment was not huge. No barriers were erected to stop the top performers in the private sector from competing for this key post and a number of good candidates applied but they were not successful because of the skills Mr. Cardiff was able to offer. In the past 12 months, we recruited an assistant secretary general, Mr. Robert Watt, who had previously been employed by the Department ten years ago before going to work in the private sector. Mr. Watt works in the sectoral policy division on co-ordination of general investment policies and budget expenditure.

The result of our efforts over the past two years to recruit top management from the private sector was somewhat disappointing because the number of applicants was limited. This may be due to the transparency standards of Civil Service recruitment. In the private sector, rather than advertising a job in the newspapers and waiting for key people to apply, executive searches and contacts are used to identify potential applicants. That is not our approach at present but it is an area worthy of exploration.

It may also be the case that the public service does not project a sufficiently interesting and dynamic working environment to encourage people from the private sector to apply. Notwithstanding what was said earlier by one of the members of the committee, however, the Department of Finance is a highly interesting and motivating place to work. I do not believe barriers exist at management level but further recruitment is needed on an open basis to senior posts. My preference would be to see that done on a more extensive basis, perhaps including the specific identification of potential employees. However, if an accountant in Cork called Mr. McGrath was invited to apply for a job, he may think his appointment was guaranteed. The public service has a long-standing ethos of guaranteeing every candidate a fair and open process. People are reluctant to move away from that.

Chairman

After Deputy Michael McGrath's suggestion earlier he might get the job with Mr. Doyle's help. Arising from Deputy McGrath's question, there are 56 principal officers in the Department and the majority, if not all of them, have come up through the ranks. Is there a barrier there? Without any reflection on the people there, would it be far healthier if the Department had an entry at that stage from outside?

Mr. David Doyle

It would be healthier if we had more people with private sector experience at all levels.

Deputy Michael McGrath

Are there further examples in recent years of people being recruited directly, beyond the one Mr. Doyle gave of somebody at assistant secretary level?

Mr. David Doyle

I was talking about the Department of Finance. Yes, we recruited a specialised economist from the private sector in recent years who has so impressed by her performance in the Department that she has been recruited by the European Commission. In other areas of the Department, in the public purchasing unit on which the Chairman commented at the outset in terms of contract procedures and standards, we brought in a project officer and legal expert to advise us. We touched on banking earlier and we specifically brought in private sector accountants and solicitors, both directly and in partnership with our colleagues in the NTMA, to help us on an expert level. We are charging the banks for those services.

Deputy Michael McGrath

Is it on a consultancy basis?

Mr. David Doyle

Yes. It is effectively a consultancy basis. In the mix of staffing across the public service and Civil Service, I would like to see far more interchange between the private and public sectors. That would be beneficial.

Deputy Michael McGrath

Based on the response it is clear that the balance of experience in the Department across the public and private sector is not where it should be. There are very few examples of people being brought in at a senior level, particularly when we are trying to work our way through a very severe economic recession. People who have proven themselves in the private sector would have a significant contribution to make and should be given that opportunity, at no disadvantage to any internal candidate. Procedures must be fair, open and transparent but the key issue of the deficit of private sector experience must be addressed.

On Vote 7, superannuation and retired allowances, the outturn in 2007 was €315 million and the appropriations-in-aid was €73 million. The Comptroller and Auditor General in his comment mentioned that this did not cover all pension schemes in the civil and public service. Perhaps Mr. Doyle might outline the make up of that and what type of people are covered by that pension scheme. Are certain former employees of the public sector not covered? What impact does Mr. Doyle see the initiative announced by the Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, in the budget of the early retirement scheme option for civil and public servants over 50 years of age having on the public sector pay bill and the pension bill, which is particularly relevant to this Vote? He might indicate the level of uptake he foresees among staff within the Department.

Mr. David Doyle

The pensions Vote relates to the pure Civil Service per se only. There are some 100,000 public service pensioners. That covers the entire spectrum of teachers, health service workers, etc. The overall cost of that is €2.5 billion, only a small proportion of which is shown in that Vote. That pensions burden works out at approximately 1.25% of national output. Because of the age profile that will gradually increase to 2.5% by approximately 2045. There is a similar demographic on a much bigger issue related to social security pensions where the proportion of output consumed by social security pensions is set to escalate very rapidly because of the ageing of the population. Public sector, social security and the health costs of ageing are all part of the pensions bulge, and it is set to reach approximately 10% of output versus the current budget. Ignoring the current imbalance, the long-term challenge on the fiscal front is very serious and will pose major challenges for the future.

On the voluntary early retirement scheme, I missed some of the Deputy's questions. I heard the last one which was what I expect the impact on the Department to be.

Deputy Michael McGrath

Does Mr. Doyle foresee a strong uptake and what would be the impact on the pensions bill and the reduction in the pay bill? It all depends on the uptake.

Mr. David Doyle

The objective of the scheme is to encourage people to retire early but not to replace them. The annual cost for a person would go from 100% of the salary to a lower percentage of the salary on his or her pension. The maximum would be 50% but people will go on this between the ages of 50 and 60, so the pension cost will be lower than 50%. The objective is to secure a net reduction between salaries and pensions, and that is the basis on which it will operate. We do not see it as impacting on the pay and pensions bill.

It is impossible to forecast the uptake. A significant proportion of the staff of the Department are over 50, maybe 30%. The age in the Civil Service is quite biased towards the more mature end of the spectrum, of which I am well and truly representative. Massive expansion of public service employment took place in the late 1970s as part of an economic initiative, as members will recall from their history books, and that age profile is reflected in the current mix. Many people between the ages of 50 and 60 will be thinking about it. Many of them will still have family commitments. Our family commitments go on longer than they used to, as children stay at home, are out of a job and stay in education for longer periods. Their requirements for a deontas for housing are greater than they used to be in my day and, from personal experience, the enthusiasm for large weddings is also significant. There are many reasons why people may or may not opt for it. The process has not really begun, but so far I have heard anecdotally that ten people in the Department might go. The circular setting out the parameters is just issuing. The closing period will be the end of August so it will be the autumn before we know the outcome. It will not be possible to let everybody go who has applied. Although Mr. Cardiff is not old enough, even if he did apply we would have to say, "Sorry, we cannot let you go."

Chairman

Anecdotally, one of the elements that will have people running out the door is the threat of taxation on the lump sum. That is the biggest fear people have and it will guarantee a mass exodus.

Mr. David Doyle

It has been mentioned.

Chairman

The sooner the current uncertainty is cleared up, the better it will be for people.

Mr. David Doyle

One of the certainties is that people who apply for and are approved under the scheme are warranted that the lump sum will not be taxed. To an extent that there are certainties, that is one.

Chairman

Deputy Shortall will be next but before her contribution I would like to ask one question on tax relief for private pensions. The relief is essentially a loss of public expenditure. I note the only informed value put on tax relief is a computed figure of about €3 billion. Has the Department any accurate figures on the cost of the relief to the taxpayer? We saw only yesterday a well-known building society involving itself in €28 million for an individual, which has implications for the taxpayer again. Has the Department any real figures other than a computed figure? I am not aware of any existing real figure for tax relief on private pensions.

Mr. David Doyle

With regard to the issue mentioned by the Chairman, words almost escape me. The Minister has asked for a report from the board of that institution about that matter.

Chairman

Fair enough.

Mr. David Doyle

Words escape me.

Chairman

I will save them.

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht - Thursday, 30 Apr 2009

Finance Accounts 2007.

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. John Buckley

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. Kevin Cardiff

Mr. Kevin Cardiff

Mr. Kevin Cardiff

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. John McCarthy

Mr. John McCarthy

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

Mr. David Doyle

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 30 Apr 2009