It was agreed at the previous meeting that the director general of FÁS would attend this week. I welcome Mr. Paul O'Toole, director general, FÁS. I remind members and those in the Gallery to turn off their mobile telephones because they interfere with the transmission of the meeting. Mr. O'Toole was asked to come before us today because in recent weeks the media reported that inaccurate information was given to the committee by FÁS in 2008 and 2009. It is important that any incorrect information given to the Oireachtas be corrected at the first available opportunity. That is the sole purpose of Mr. O'Toole's appearance at today's meeting. I ask him and the members present to confine their contributions to that specific issue. I am conscious that a more substantive matter relating to the issue is currently before the High Court. I should also put Mr. O'Toole on notice that as part of our work programme we will examine the 2010 accounts of FÁS in the coming months and members will have an opportunity to question FÁS on its performance in areas such as the delivery of training to the unemployed, its purpose and use of resources. I invite Mr. O'Toole to make his opening statement.
Evidence Given to Committee: Discussion with FÁS
Mr. Paul O’Toole
I refer to recent media coverage to the effect that FÁS misled the Committee of Public Accounts through evidence given by it at previous hearings. At the outset, I would like to state that FÁS fully accepts its obligations to ensure that evidence it gives to the committee is accurate and that any such evidence, if inaccurate and which could mislead the committee, is brought to its attention and corrected on the public record as necessary. I believe the background to this matter is a report into an investigation commissioned by me in respect of certain complaints made by a member of staff. Mazars, which carried out this investigation and subsequently reported to me on its findings, concluded that there were 18 inaccuracies contained in 86 references which they examined. The firm reported that there were partial inaccuracies in a further two references.
Mazars did not state that inaccurate evidence by FÁS misled the committee in the five appearances during 2008 which the firm examined. Mazars has written to me confirming that fact and has provided further context and background on this matter. I have forwarded this letter to the committee. Specifically, Mazars has indicated that it is not in a position to provide me with details of these inaccuracies because of the agreed investigation approach, the restrictions of use clauses it contains and the commitments it gave to the people it approached for co-operation. This approach to confidentiality, which Mazars confirms is typical in investigations of this nature, is necessary to secure the full and open engagement by the complainant, those complained against and witnesses to enable findings to be determined. Without it, it is very difficult to reach conclusions as those complained against and witnesses cannot be compelled to co-operate.
Given the importance of ensuring that the public record is corrected as necessary in respect of these issues, I have considered what other measures could be used to deal with this matter. I have written to Mazars asking it to communicate with the people involved to seek their permission to have the relevant details released to me so the public record can be corrected as appropriate. Additionally, we are examining the transcripts of the relevant hearings to ascertain whether these inaccuracies can be identified. As these hearings occurred in 2008, I am not familiar with their content but on an initial reading of some transcripts, I believe the inaccuracies are not immediately obvious. I will have them further reviewed in conjunction with other documentation which was copied to me by the complainant and which, until recently, was not open to me to consider. This will help ascertain whether they can be identified and corrected, as necessary. This exercise will be completed as soon as possible and I will write to the committee on its conclusion.
Are there any questions?
I thank Mr. O'Toole for his statement. With regard to evidence Mazars has gathered, if the people Mr. O'Toole has sought permission from to hear their evidence decide not to give permission, is there a point at which Mazars can give the information about the inaccuracies?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
It has indicated to me it is not in a position to do that and we will have to use whatever other methods are available, such as the review of transcripts, to see whether we can get to the bottom of this issue.
If the review of the transcripts does not help get to the bottom of the issue, what then?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
We would be in untested waters. We will endeavour as best we can to get to the bottom of it and correct it. As I said, I had an initial look at some of the transcripts and the inaccuracies are not immediately obvious. I understand from Mazars it is not simply a matter of what was said; it has to be connected to the documentary review of procedures, etc. We will do our best to get to the bottom of it. However, Mazars has told me that, as a firm, in terms of its own code of practice, it cannot, without permission, release the information to me.
It is entirely possible, then, that these inaccuracies may stand on the record and that we may never have them corrected or know exactly what was wrong.
Mr. Paul O’Toole
I suppose it is possible but we will endeavour as best we can to prevent that.
I thank Mr. O'Toole for attending. We have established that there are inaccuracies and that, as a result, FÁS misled this committee. Is that right?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
I cannot say the extent to which the committee was misled because I do not have the details of what was contained in the transcripts in which the inaccuracies were found. I would have to review that to determine the extent to which the committee was misled-----
It was misled but we just do not know the extent. Is that correct?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
Again, the report did not make a finding that the committee was misled. It made a finding that, in evidence given over five meetings towards the end of 2008, there were inaccuracies. The firm clearly stated it did not make a finding that the PAC was misled. To get to the bottom of that, we will have to see the details, bring them forward to the committee and make a judgment on the extent to which they impacted on the committee's consideration of what was presented to it at that time.
What is Mr. O'Toole's view?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
Mazars has been very careful about what it said to me because it is adamant it needs to protect the confidentiality of information given to it. It said that, in its view, a lot of these are minor issues, and it has outlined the context of that in a letter I have presented to the committee.
What is Mr. O'Toole's own view?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
My own view on that is that I should not make a judgment on that without seeing it. I personally should not make a judgment and should bring it to the committee rather than conclude on that point.
Mr. O'Toole will be coming back to us with a view.
Mr. Paul O’Toole
That is my intention.
Could Mr. O'Toole explain something to me? I just read his statement. It states he commissioned the report. Is that correct?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
Yes.
How much did it cost?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
To date, we have paid approximately €140,000, including VAT, on the report.
One hundred and forty thousand euro for a report?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
Yes, including the VAT. It is not the Mazars fee but the VAT charge on that which we pay over. We have an outstanding amount - I do not know what it is - to be paid before concluding the payment.
Could it be up to €200,000?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
With the VAT included, it could be.
What use is this report if Mr. O'Toole does not get the information he wants from Mazars?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
This particular point was put by the complainant. As the Chairman has indicated, I am restricted in what I can say. These matters are being heard in the High Court this morning so I am restricted in what I can say. The individual came to me soon after I joined the organisation and indicated a set of complaints. There was a process to identify the specific nature of those complaints, the individuals who were being complained against and the witnesses that were being asked to corroborate or give evidence to Mazars in that respect. It was part of an ongoing process at that time. Clearly, at that time, FÁS had to deal with the issues raised and was very much present in this committee following reports by our own internal audit team and the Comptroller and Auditor General. We had an enormous range of issues to try to get to the bottom of. We knew at that time broadly what had happened but we had an inadequate understanding of why it happened and how to fix that. We have been on a very aggressive programme since, tackling a host of issues in the organisation. We are tackling them on all fronts. It has been the determination of myself and our board to do that. To me, at that time and since, these exercises are an important investment in trying to understand what happened FÁS. It is a question of obtaining a true understanding so that as we move forward into the new arrangements the Government is putting in place - the disbandment of FÁS, the emergence of a new co-ordinating body, SOLAS, the emergence of new bodies for local training and the emergence of the national employment entitlements service - we will have rooted out those issues and will be able to bring froward a very credible contribution to the new arrangements.
Okay. I do not understand the following. Mr. O'Toole commissioned a report on the basis of a complaint.
Mr. Paul O’Toole
Yes.
Does Mr. O'Toole agree it will cost €250,000 plus?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
I do not have a final figure but agree it will certainly be more than €140,000. The Deputy indicated €200,000, including the VAT. I suspect it will be between €200,000 and €250,000, including the VAT.
It is an enormous sum of money for a report.
Mr. Paul O’Toole
It is, indeed, yes.
Did that go out to tender?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
We have a list of firms that have pre-tendered for investigations of this sort. The firm was selected from the pre-tender list.
Are there any other reports of this sort commissioned at the moment?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
We have a range of reports that have been under way. On the scale in question, we do not have one on a grievance or complaint process, but we have been separately investigating a range of matters that were discussed in front of this committee on foot of various reports and internal audit reports that were carried out by the organisation.
So these are independent, outside people.
Mr. Paul O’Toole
Yes.
Are they all from Mazars or are there others?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
No, Mazars dealt with this specific issue, which is in relation to specific complaints, and one particular company is carrying out an investigation into the outcome of the various internal audit reports.
How much is being budgeted for reports of this nature per year?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
Over the period, but not per year, this one will have cost around €200,000, or whatever the ultimate figure is. The investigation on the internal audit reports will probably be in excess of €250,000 when it is finished and then we will have to account for the advice and support around those efforts.
It is getting into big money.
Mr. Paul O’Toole
It is, but I will try to put it into context for the Deputy. FÁS, as an organisation, had in the past budgets in excess of €1 billion. The bulk of expenditure is being carried out properly but there have been expenditures within that which have been the subject of public scrutiny and attention and have impacted massively on the organisation. The organisation has been going through a massive change programme over the past two years, perhaps unseen in some regards. We have downsized very considerably. Our management is down by over 30%, our budgets are down by €150 million and we have made €39 million in savings on our operating costs over the last two years. We will make further savings this year. We are preparing for dissolution. We have been repairing our quality systems, our contracted training systems, our governance arrangements and our financial stewardship. I regard this as an important investment in that area. I agree it is significant and we are clear it is taxpayers' money and have no intention of wasting it. However, the alternative was to sit back, let it slide away and hope it would never surface again. What we have done, difficult and painful as it has been, has been to try to get to the bottom of these issues and to try to bring forward that learning in order that whatever mistakes were made in the past are not repeated.
I hear what Mr. O'Toole has said but I do not agree with it. The spending of money on consultants of this sort is utterly excessive and probably unnecessary. Perhaps Mr. O'Toole will respond on a point I do not understand. FÁS has commissioned these reports. I do not know how much it is spending on them all, because Mr. O'Toole does not have a final or cumulative figure in this regard. However, there are matters in these reports which are confidential and about which FÁS also cannot find out. This is crackers.
Mr. Paul O’Toole
It is important to state the purpose behind this pertained to an industrial relations matter, that is, to a grievance by a person. The Mazars approach to getting to the bottom of this involved bringing in people, who could not be compelled to attend or to contribute, to deal with those issues. The firm has reported to me in this regard and there are consequences that must arise from that report. I am constrained today because they are part of High Court proceedings that are under way today in respect of what I can say. We are injuncted in that regard. However, it is part of getting to the bottom, as I stated, of all the issues that have happened in FÁS and to ensure that whatever errors, approaches, attitude, culture, problems processes or systems may require repair, that we do so.
I have a final question, because this appears quite bizarre. FÁS paid Mazars this money, which was more than €200,000.
Mr. Paul O’Toole
Yes.
But the firm will not tell Mr. O'Toole about a lot of the inaccuracies that are in the report .
Mr. Paul O’Toole
I beg the Deputy's pardon?
Mazars will not tell Mr. O'Toole some of this confidential information. Is that right?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
That is correct.
That is crazy. People carry out an investigation and prepare a report but the person who commissioned it is not told some of the results and cannot command-----
Mr. Paul O’Toole
They have told me the results in respect of the specific complaint made by the individual concerned. They have reported in that regard. What they are saying is to get to the bottom of that issue, they were obliged to engage with a lot of people in a detailed way and to form a view in respect of it. I have stated in my evidence to the committee that I will try to get behind that and to ascertain whether I can get further information. I assure the Deputy we do not want any part of the record of this committee or any of our contributions to any Oireachtas committee to be inaccurate. We want to correct that and repair that where necessary.
Okay. Did FÁS agree to these terms beforehand?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
Yes, we did.
I thank Mr. O'Toole for his attendance. As Deputy Ross has observed, the word "bizarre" sums this up. Up to one quarter of a million euro of public taxpayers' money has been spent on a report. While the report might have looked into one issue, it potentially has found up to 20 other inaccuracies, errors or instances of potential misinformation that was given to the Oireachtas through this committee. However, Mr. O'Toole, as the director general who commissioned the report, is not in a position to access it. Although the report has found one issue it potentially also has found 20 other things about which the director general cannot tell members and about which he does not know himself. Does he agree there certainly is a lesson to be learned with regard to the terms of reference of any report that is commissioned out of public money? To have spent at least €200,000 and potentially €250,000 on a report and to be not told about 20 of its findings really boggles the mind.
Mr. O'Toole's opening statement contains the line "Mazars did not state that inaccurate evidence by FÁS misled the committee". That probably is a technicality in the sense that while the firm may not have stated it, as director general Mr. O'Toole cannot be confident that FÁS did not mislead this committee, can he?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
I cannot assert to the committee today that the committee was not misled without having the opportunity to examine that. I want to be clear on that point. The reason I was specific in that regard in my opening statement is because the media reporting asserted that the committee was misled and I wished to draw that distinction. My point is that we were not on notice that the committee was misled but clearly we must get behind these issues to determine that. This is the reason I am saying I will not make an assertion over which I cannot stand today.
Mr. O'Toole cannot tell members the committee was not misled.
Mr. Paul O’Toole
I cannot and I am not saying that.
Okay. At another point in his opening statement, Mr. O'Toole stated "the inaccuracies are not immediately obvious". Again, one can take that for granted because if they were, one would not need to spend €200,000. What efforts are being put into trying to establish the inaccuracies, in terms of resources within FÁS? Mr. O'Toole should provide me with a timeline by which he hopes to get to the bottom of it-----
Mr. Paul O’Toole
Okay.
-----parking the issue of those who gave evidence giving their consent, but in terms of reading transcripts, reviewing documents and reporting back to the committee.
Mr. Paul O’Toole
We have begun the process of reading those transcripts. Several hundred pages of transcripts are involved over the five hearings. Their nature is that they are a literal reiteration of everything that is and was said in this room. There is a lot of cross-examination by committee members, etc. We must go through that to ascertain whether we ourselves can determine what are the inaccuracies. The exercise has commenced, I have begun to do a small part of it myself, and I will engage colleagues on this over the next few days. Perhaps we can report to the clerk on where we get to within a week. We can come back to say either we are on the way to getting to the bottom of this or otherwise and will follow through thereafter.
Before calling in Deputy McDonald, I note FÁS has a report, which is costing between €200,000 and €250,000, in which attempts are made to identify 20-odd inaccuracies or instances of misinformation or whatever but Mr. O'Toole cannot clarify this matter for us today. Moreover, because of the permission Mr. O'Toole must seek, the report may not be able to give us the information either. There is then the added issue of those who appeared before the committee or who were employed by FÁS prior to the hearings and who may have retired.
Mr. Paul O’Toole
Yes.
My concern is this is an attempt to park the issue in spite of Mr. O'Toole's seemingly genuine attempt to get to the bottom of this. In itself, this is not satisfactory because of the question of value for money for taxpayers with regard to the €200,000 that has been spent. No one can reveal the content of the report, even to the person who is paying the cheque. Ultimately, however, the taxpayer is paying the cheque. Given the negative reputation that has built up around FÁS, it is of great importance that members will get this information. Examining the transcripts and interviewing those who have retired will be absolutely critical in the work to clarify the position to enable the members of this committee to decide whether they or this committee were misled or otherwise.
The overarching importance of this issue is that Accounting Officers must understand the members of the Committee of Public Accounts must hear the evidence, warts and all. They must understand that no attempt should ever be tolerated to prevent this committee from establishing the full facts. There are two issues here, namely, the report and the attempt to conceal the information and the fact that some of the people are now retired. Mr. O'Toole must overcome this in as short a timeframe as possible, despite the number of pages in the transcripts, because members need to know. Moreover, the need for the truth to come out, warts and all, is not only for us because he is dealing with both the taxpayers we represent and the Oireachtas.
What timeframe does Mr. O'Toole have in mind? He mentioned a week. At the end of that week or two weeks, is that to give him a time? That is, it would not be for us to put a timeframe on it but rather for him to say he would come back to us. I ask because there are other major issues within FÁS that recently have come to light and which must be examined by this committee. We now will seek to get into that inquiry as quickly as possible. We need to deal with this issue and then get to the other matters. What is Mr. O'Toole's timeframe for the conclusion of the work, as he sees it, relevant to Mazars and those involved and then of FÁS staff examining the transcripts and getting the information to us?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
I have written to Mazars seeking the firm's co-operation to seek the co-operation of the individuals concerned. As the Chairman rightly stated, some of them have left the organisation. I will be on to them straight away to see what is the state of play in this regard. We will read the transcripts ourselves and will see if the issues are readily identifiable within the next week. I will provide an update to the clerk of the committee in that regard.
I want to assure you, Chairman, that it is clear that this issue has to be dealt with. There is no part of the current culture within FÁS that would seek to mislead an Oireachtas committee in any way. Given our history, recent and otherwise, it serves no purpose to the organisation, including colleagues who are doing their best every day of the week. Neither does it serve any purpose in terms of open, transparent accountability to this committee or to the Oireachtas generally. Everything I can do to assure the committee of that, and to act on that matter, I will do. It serves nothing to have further reputational damage to this organisation on this or any other issue.
I will be brief. This committee was misled by FÁS and by Mr. O'Toole's own opening statement on 20 different counts. I would respectfully say to him that the play on words as to whether or not this committee was misled served no good purpose, either for FÁS or for us on this committee. I am glad that he understands, and I hope his organisation at a senior corporate level also understands, the seriousness of misleading an Oireachtas committee. This committee has been misled. The nature and extent of that misleading is known to Mazars and is contained in a report. It is now Mr. O'Toole's job, responsibility and duty to establish for us concretely the nature of the inaccuracies that were presented to this committee and the motivation for that. I hope that Mr. O'Toole can do that within a week. It strikes me that the information is there. It also strikes me that there are people who know precisely what happened and, I dare say, why.
It is utterly unacceptable for Mr. O'Toole to present himself here in his capacity as the head of FÁS and tell this committee that his organisation has wilfully or otherwise misled it. There is this labyrinthine structure with an omerta descending on the full facts. We wish to know the nature, extent and motivation of the inaccuracies. Mr. O’Toole should have that information for us at the earliest possible opportunity. I hope he can do it within one week. I will not labour the issue of cost as the Chairman has covered that adequately. It certainly adds insult to injury that, yet again, substantial sums of taxpayers’ money have to be shelled out for this type of behaviour.
I will not repeat what has been said because I think Mr. O'Toole has clearly got the message from members of the committee today. I hope I am quoting him accurately, but when asked if he had put the report out to tender, Mr. O'Toole said that a number of companies pre-tendered for investigations of this sort. What does that say about an organisation, that a number of companies would pre-tender for investigations? That fairly sums up the public's and this committee's feelings about FÁS. I completely understand and accept that Mr. O'Toole was not around in 2008 and I am heartened by his sincerity and honesty, which shows very clearly. However, his own words show that that is the feeling people have about FÁS. The sooner it is all sorted out and we get answers to our questions, the better. It is totally unacceptable otherwise. Deputy Harris mentioned the word "bizarre", but I would say it is absolutely scandalous.
Mr. O'Toole is correct when he says that there was an attempt to park this. We talked last week about our meeting schedule. We have the opportunity sometimes to have meetings outside the weekly schedule. We are a new committee and we need to start as we mean to go on, in this case demonstrating that when something like this arises, people in a State entity must understand that we will ask Mr. O'Toole back here on a number of occasions, if necessary, to get to the end of this. From the taxpayers' standpoint, we cannot allow this kind of thing to be put on the long finger. We need to deal with it effectively. If that means having impromptu meetings to ask Mr. O'Toole back on a number of occasions so that this committee is satisfied with regard to taxpayers' money being spent in this regard, then that is what this committee should do. We should see this out to the end, as opposed to coming back to it in two months and putting it on the long finger and have it drift away. The committee should act like that.
Before we leave that point, I think it is generally agreed by members that we can undertake to call meetings apart from those on Thursdays to deal with such issues, even if it means disrupting our own schedule.
I thank Mr. O'Toole for attending the committee and for his attitude to the questions that have been posed. I have some questions concerning his statement. In one of the opening paragraphs, he stated that there were 18 inaccuracies contained in 86 references which they examined. Can he explain what that refers to?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
The complainant made quite a number of complaints, grievances against individuals associated with FÁS - an awful lot of them. Within that, Mazars clarified that in the complainant's view 86 references had inaccuracies.
That refers to the complainant as opposed to the statement in front of this committee.
Mr. Paul O’Toole
Exactly. Ultimately they reviewed 86 references put forward by the complainant in relation to evidence given by FÁS at this committee over five hearings in 2008.
Can Mr. O'Toole repeat that please?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
During 2008, between October and December, the FÁS senior management team that were there then met this committee on five occasions and there was an extensive review of a range of issues in relation to that. The complainant believed that ultimately 86 references within the context of those hearings were inaccurate and were damaging to that person. Following that, Mazars reviewed all 86 references in some depth. They took the utterance from the transcript and checked that against a range of other material to establish whether or not there was an inaccuracy. They determined that in 18 cases, in their view - taking not just the evidence here but other material that they reviewed - there were inaccuracies in relation to that.
So it does refer to the submissions that were made at the Committee of Public Accounts. If I can, I will paraphrase Mr. O'Toole to make sure that I understand this. His predecessors came in here, had five different appearances and generated a quantity of material. The complainant made 86 allegations in reference to that and of those 86, Mazars then concluded that 18 of them were substantiated.
Mr. Paul O’Toole
Yes.
In the media coverage of this matter, it states - I am referring to a statement on the RTE website on 9 September - "On January 4th, confirmed in writing to Mr. Craig and his union SIPTU, that it accepted the findings of the report". Is that correct?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
Yes.
Could Mr. O'Toole explain, if he has a report that is now saying there are 18 inaccuracies in here, and he accepted that report in January, surely then by his own words there is no doubt that the committee was misled on 18 occasions?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
I want to be careful. I do not want to play with words or to appear disingenuous in relation to it.
I am not looking to put words in Mr. O'Toole's mouth or to play with them either. However, I want to emphasise that, according to coverage, FÁS accepted the report and, according to Mr. O'Toole's submission, the report says that 18 inaccuracies were upheld. Is it not a matter of fact, therefore, that it has been established that the committee was misled?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
Again, that is why I am being careful in my language. I do not want to split hairs in relation to this issue. I do not know the degree of what it was. It could be a simple thing that they got a wrong date. I am not saying that but it could be as simple as a wrong date. We will have to judge on the facts whether a wrong date could be construed as misleading the committee and bring it to the committee. It could take a view in relation to that and because I do not know what is there, I do not want to make any presumption one way or the other. That is the just the point I am trying to make in relation to it.
That is a reasonable view to take but it is also reasonable to assert if the report says there were 18 inaccuracies and Mr. O'Toole said FÁS accepted the report in January, it has been established that the committee was misled. Otherwise, why would FÁS accept the report?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
We accepted the report and I suppose I am trying to put this in the context of what was happening here. These were complaints, some of a serious nature, made by an individual. We were dealing with this as a staff relations matter. We accepted the findings of the report on the basis that the complainant had made a series of complaints. This was one item of 24. There were findings in respect of each of those 24 items.
One item of 24?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
What I mean by that is there were 24 summary complaints made by the individual concerned. One of those complaints related to this matter. There are 23 others. What I am trying to say is this is not-----
Were any issues raised regarding the other 23 complaints?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
Of the 24 complaints, 11 were upheld or partially upheld and the balance was not upheld. Of the 17 people complained against, there were findings in respect of six of those people and FÁS as an organisation and nothing in respect of the other 11. The point I am drawing here is this was a long, complicated, broad process, the outcome of which we are still dealing with and partly today within the High Court. It is part of what happened in FÁS that we are trying to get to the bottom of and resolve and ensure it does not happen again.
The point Mr. O'Toole made is about another 23 allegations investigated by the report. This is a report the committee cannot see but other people have seen. It emphasises the need for a prompt return to this matter. I emphasise that the report said there were 18 inaccuracies and it was accepted by FÁS in January. We have to be clear on this. It is troubling that there are processes laid out here to investigate these matters when FÁS has accepted the veracity of the report.
Mr. Paul O’Toole
I suppose what we have accepted the findings on the staff matters - the complaints made - in their entirety. This is a 125-page report and this is one item within it.
Mr. O'Toole has also accepted that there were 18 inaccuracies.
Mr. Paul O’Toole
Certainly, I have accepted Mazars' finding and I am not asserting other than that.
We are clear on that. The public coverage on this says the report was accepted in January and that a public statement would be made on the findings against FÁS but that never happened. Why not?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
With respect, a lot of those issues are being ventilated in the High Court and I have be very careful on what I can say on that. When the proceedings are over, I will happily come in and explain.
I accept that. In the process we put in place, that is a point the committee has to return to because, based on the evidence I have heard, we have a report that said there were 18 inaccuracies in a submission made to the committee, according to a report in the possession of FÁS for nine months and nothing was said about it.
Deputy Donohoe has asked most of the questions I wanted to ask. I echo Deputy Deasy's comment about the severity of the issue. Perhaps in my naivety, when I heard this exchange was taking place today, I thought it would clarify the issue. However, it has confused it even more. At 10.30 a.m. we started with one price and it went up five minutes later to what it would cost. After half an hour, I am afraid to ask what will be the cost of the report. I cannot understand why a figure cannot be put on what the report will cost. If we could establish what happened, why the committee was misled, the consequences of the report and what will be done to address this, the price of this or any report could be justified to some extent. However, the price went from €140,000 to €200,000 to almost €250,000 in a few minutes and we find that after all the questioning, we may never get to the bottom of this.
Considering the scepticism faced by the organisation, Mr. O'Toole will fully understand why the committee, as a matter for priority, must follow up on this because this cannot be allowed to continue.
Mr. Paul O’Toole
What I indicated - if I was less than clear about it, I apologise for that - is we have paid approximately €140,000 to date. We expect the final bill to be between €200,000 and €250,000. I am sorry if I was not clear before in relation to that matter.
This was not a report to investigate FÁS's testimony to the Committee of Public Accounts. One issue was whether any of the evidence given was damaging to the particular person who made the complaint. That was the nature of the complaint and that was the nature of the report. A product of that has been the finding that taking what was said here with other facts that there are 18 inaccuracies and I absolutely accept that we try to get to the bottom of that. I do not want this committee to believe that FÁS is continuing a practice of trying to mislead it or anybody else. We have been through enough that we know that that is a folly and we have made no effort or attempt to do that.
However, I have tried to explain to the committee that this is one of a huge range of issues that we are dealing with. It is important; it is before the Oireachtas. We know that but the alternative to perhaps the confidentiality is that one has the investigation and the 18 or otherwise would not have emerged because one would not have been able to get to the bottom of it. I just need to make that point. That is the trade off that one does if one is to get the bottom of things. We are not operating a court system. People are not compelled to participate or co-operate and if one restricts that, the chance of getting to the bottom, even making the difficult finding on the difficult issues here today, could be compromised and that is the balance we were trying to achieve over a particularly difficult time for the organisation.
I thank Mr. O'Toole for attending. It is clear that the report deals with evidence given to the committee and I take his point regarding the distinction between misleading information and inaccurate information very much on board. Mr. O'Toole accepted the Mazars report in January. When did he receive the report?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
I received the report, I think, on 8 December 2010.
Was that the first report or had a draft report been produced in the meantime?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
No, I got the report. It was issued simultaneously to the complainant and myself at that time.
On 8 December, Mr. O'Toole was aware that inaccurate information had been given to the committee.
Mr. Paul O’Toole
I read the report. It took me a little while to get through the report but certainly over the December period I was aware that in that particular finding that this was an issue.
Mr. O'Toole accepted the report. Did he not feel there was an onus on him in January to inform the committee inaccurate information had been given in 2008?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
Certainly that is a legitimate question. Why have we waited until we read about it in the media? I accept that. The considerations at the time were that we were pursuing a further investigation and other matters all within the same space about corporate FÁS handling. They were ongoing. We were dealing with the complainant and were dealing with a range of other issues. What I had decided at the time - rightly or wrongly - was that I wanted to get to the bottom of all issues because there are issues for FÁS in respect of what we are discussing today, but there is a range of other issues as well that we have to deal with. My decision at the time, as I said rightly or wrongly, was to get to the bottom of everything and try and resolve all of the issues together. That is why we did not bring it forward earlier than this. It was not in an attempt to obfuscate, mislead or hide, but to try to get to the bottom of everything we were dealing with.
Mr. O'Toole said he wrote to Mazars "asking it to communicate with the people involved to seek their permission to have the relevant details released". When did he write that letter?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
I have had two letters over the last week with Mazars in relation to it. Following the media comment in relation to it I wrote to it on the 16th, I think. I wrote to it on the 16th seeking the details. It wrote to me and I have copied the letter in relation to that to the committee - the committee has that within its record. Then I wrote again yesterday on foot of the earlier letter and its earlier response.
Mr. O'Toole's reasoning for not informing the Committee of Public Accounts that he had the report was that he wanted to get to the bottom of all the issues as he mentioned a moment ago. However, it was only when the matter appeared in the media and it became evident to us that we had been misled and that inaccurate information had been furnished that he then wrote to Mazars. Clearly between January and 16 September he had not tried to get to the bottom of the issue of the inaccurate information provided.
Mr. Paul O’Toole
That is an accurate summary of what happened. I would say again in relation to that the media reporting was, I suppose, happening contemporaneously with other actions that are now the subject of proceedings. Therefore the intent to bring everything together, I suppose, has moved on to a different level and hence we are here today.
It could be said that by knowing the information was inaccurate and not investigating it further, Mr. O'Toole was withholding information that ought to be given to the Committee of Public Accounts on an investigation that was performed in good faith in 2008.
Mr. Paul O’Toole
I suppose one could have that conclusion. There is no effort, attempt or will on our behalf to do that. I accept-----
Mr. O'Toole has admitted he withheld information. He just said he made a conscious decision not to inform the committee. Mr. O'Toole should just accept that he withheld information.
Mr. Paul O’Toole
I suppose what I would say on that is that I did not make a conscious decision to withhold information from the Committee of Public Accounts.
Mr. O'Toole just said he did.
Mr. Paul O’Toole
I took a decision to try and get all of the matters and deal with them at once. I am not trying to split hairs with the Deputy, but that is what we did.
While I take the point about having to deal with them all at once, it was only when it came to the media's attention that this committee was misled that Mr. O'Toole then wrote to Mazars to try to clarify the issues. So he did not try to deal with them all at once. It was only when the pressure of the events came on board this month that further steps were taken. There is a slight contradiction in what he is saying.
Mr. Paul O’Toole
I can see how it appears as a contradiction, but to conclude that we were trying to hide this away or not deal with it I think is not the case. Could we have been more timely in it? Perhaps we should have made a more clear communication with the Committee of Public Accounts in respect of it earlier.
If the media had not reported on the Mazars report and it had not been brought to our attention, when would Mr. O'Toole have brought the information to the Committee of Public Accounts?
Mr. Paul O’Toole
What I had indicated in relation to this, I had indicated to my board. The board was not aware of the details of the content of Mazars, but I did tell it there was a whole host of issues which had a variety of impacts on the organisation and that when I had completed the investigation process on the set of other matters together with this, I would report to the board and deal with any issues that came out around that. I suppose our aim would have been to have had all that concluded this year, but obviously events have now accelerated and we are here trying to deal with them now.
There may be a need for greater respect for the Committee of Public Accounts and the Oireachtas in those proceedings as opposed to other issues of investigation and corporate governance. Perhaps the Committee of Public Accounts should be given greater priority in when information should be shared.
I call Deputy Harris before we conclude on this matter.
Thank you, Chairman, for allowing me back in.
I must say bluntly that I do not believe we ever would have heard about this issue had it not been reported in the media. From the exchanges around this table, I have no confidence that FÁS had any intention of ever coming back to the committee to correct the record. The facts are simple. Mr. O'Toole knew 11 months ago on 8 December 2010 that 86 utterances in this room to our predecessors on the Committee of Public Accounts were inaccurate.
Mr. Paul O’Toole
It is not 86, it is-----
I apologise. Of those 86 utterances in this room at least 18 were inaccurate and two were partially inaccurate - I do not want to split hairs. According to FÁS's independent report which cost the taxpayer up to €250,000 at least 20 things of the 86 that were said in this room were wrong. I accept Mr. O'Toole's bona fides. I accept that he is genuine and has inherited a difficult situation, but I find it difficult to accept that the culture in FÁS has changed if that is the case. If Mr. O'Toole wants members of the committee to believe the culture has changed and if we are to start with a good relationship the best thing he could do - I will not put words in his mouth - would be to concede, admit and acknowledge the 18 inaccurate things that were said in this room. Nobody believes they were all incorrect dates. If they were 18 incorrect dates we have a bigger problem with the quality of people delivering information to the committee. Mr. O'Toole should acknowledge that 18 pieces of information were inaccurate and he should set about determining the extent to which they were inaccurate. Otherwise we are splitting hairs in trying to say that the committee was not misled. I accept that he does not know the extent to which the committee was misled and I accept that he does not know what the inaccuracies are - I find it bizarre, but I accept it. If we are to have any confidence in having a constructive working relationship with FÁS it would be helpful for him to acknowledge that.
Mr. Paul O’Toole
Again if I have not made that clear, I completely acknowledge that, because we have accepted the findings by Mazars which concluded that in respect of 18 and partially in respect of two. Equally I regret that entirely for a whole range of reasons, but principally the reason that we have been attempting to rehabilitate ourselves in the organisation. We have been attempting to deal with a vast range of problems that are there and we have been attempting to re-establish confidence in the organisation. It is proving very difficult because there is a side to FÁS that nobody gets to see and hear about because the automatic assumption is that we are doing everything wrong. It is not the case.
I have, today, almost 1,900 colleagues doing their level best to provide a service in very different circumstances and we are trying to achieve that culture. It does not serve the purpose of FÁS to have a lack of confidence within this committee or any part of the Oireachtas. I will do everything in my power to demonstrate that is not our intent - I truly will. There is a difficulty here for me. I have outlined it as best I can. What I said was I will report back to the clerk within a week on where we are and I will continue the endeavours to get to the bottom of this. That will be our effort to try to deal with it. We will put the work into this to try and resolve it. I do not want, and FÁS does not want, to get off on a wrong footing where the members of the committee do not believe the words coming out of our mouths and we seem to be dissembling on every issue. That is not the case. I have a particularly difficult set of circumstances to deal with here that we are trying to deal with in the best way possible. I would love to come in and give the 18 and let the committee take a view. As soon as I am in a position to do that, I will do that and I will take it from there.
Mr. O'Toole has again agreed to come back to the committee within a week.
Mr. Paul O’Toole
Within a week, yes.
He has heard the contributions from members and he understands their frustration and determination to get to the end of this. I suggest that we review things this day next week. We should have a comprehensive statement from Mr. O'Toole on this matter covering all the issues raised today. We are scheduled to meet some time in November to discuss the 2010 report. Apart from this issue, Mr. O'Toole now has ample time to reflect on all the other issues he is dealing with. He should bring the detail of those issues to this committee and his opening statement should be clear, precise, accurate and relevant. It is not right and not acceptable that we read about these issues in the papers or hear about them through the media. That is not the way in which we should do business. He should understand, as every other Accounting Officer should, that it will not be business as usual and that there is a renewed determination in this committee to deal with all these issues. I therefore suggest that he use his opening statement at the next meeting to clarify anything and everything that he thinks is of interest to the committee. I ask him to remember the exchange he had with Deputy Ross this morning. He started by saying the report cost €140,000. It was not he who brought the figure to €200,000 or €250,000. It was Deputy Ross who led him along the way to explaining to the committee that the cost could be €200,000 or €250,000. We need to be a bit more accurate. The public out there will be aghast at the fact that €140,000 was spent on the report and that FÁS continues to spend money, possibly not knowing the end of it. The cost went up by €110,000 in a short space of time this morning. I ask Mr. O'Toole to remember the environment we are now working in and to have respect for the Oireachtas. He is committed to getting the truth out there on all these matters and he should avail of the opportunity at the next meeting to ensure that anything he needs to put into the public domain is put there accurately and openly.
Mr. Paul O’Toole
I accept that, Chairman.
I thank Mr O'Toole for attending.
The witness withdrew.