COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 26 Apr 2012

Business of Committee

Chairman

Are the minutes of the meeting of 19 April 2012 agreed? Agreed. Are there any matters arising? No.

The next item is correspondence received since our meeting on Thursday, 29 March 2012. No. 4.1 is correspondence received on 20 April 2012 from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade re forwarding a briefing paper on matters to be considered at the meeting of 26 April 2012, to be noted and published. No. 4.2 is correspondence, dated 21 February 2012, from Mr. John Moriarty, Dublin Waterworld Limited, re our meeting of 16 February 2012, to be noted and published. No. 4.3 is correspondence, dated 18 April 2012, from Mr. John Moriarty, Dublin Waterworld Limited, re Campus and Stadium Ireland Development Limited, invalid VAT charge 2002-2011, to be noted and published. I presume the latter correspondence and the further information from the Department will be considered before the draft for our next meeting is completed.

No. 4.4 is correspondence, dated 28 March 2012, from an anonymous source re Meath County Council, and this is to be noted. As it stands, this matter is outside the remit of the committee.

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

We currently publish correspondence from anonymous sources. Has that always been the case?

Clerk to the Committee

It is only being noted; it is not being published.

Chairman

We bring such correspondence to the attention of members in the first instance.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

However, it is not published.

Chairman

Some of it is published.

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

I am not sure whether I agree with correspondence from anonymous sources being given the same weight as that received from people who make their identities known. Any person could write to the committee and claim anonymity and he or she could just be intent on wasting our time.

Chairman

We accept all correspondence, including that sent in by individuals who wish to remain anonymous. We do so because in some instances there may be an issue that arises. If the committee decides it does not want to accept such correspondence, the clerk will follow its direction. Up to now we have just been accepting all correspondence and making it available to members.

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

If someone writes to the committee and even if he or she wishes to remain anonymous, members should be made aware of his or her correspondence. I am concerned about the kind of weight we might be attributing to certain correspondence by formally accepting it or whatever.

Chairman

We are not doing that. What we do is note the correspondence and send it to the relevant Department or whatever.

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

Is such correspondence sent with our backing? When Departments receive correspondence from this committee, we want them to treat it seriously.

Chairman

I will ask the clerk to the committee to outline the position.

Clerk to the Committee

In this case we are just putting the local government auditor on notice in order that the latter might, if so desired, follow up on the correspondence. The issue to which the correspondence in question relates has been well publicised so there is no real element of controversy.

To return to the Deputy's first point regarding the publication of documentation, this matter was raised last week in the context of the Red Cross. It was decided at that point to obtain a note on the issue from the parliamentary legal adviser. In general, the type of correspondence we publish emanates from circumstances where members ask questions of witnesses and where the latter supply further, and often more detailed, information at a later date. One sees such information in the newspapers all the time. This is a very good way of dealing with correspondence and it is for this purpose our website should be used. We to not tend to publish unsolicited letters, etc. When the parliamentary legal adviser replies to our request for advice, she will probably indicate that it is not good practice to publish such correspondence. A situation might arise whereby someone might be defamed in correspondence of this nature and we would be facilitating that.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

Perhaps the parliamentary legal adviser might give a direction to the committee in respect of that overall area.

Clerk to the Committee

That is what we have requested.

Chairman

No. 4.4 will be noted and we will forward it to the director of the local government audit service. The letter in question highlights the need to have local authorities fall within the remit of this committee.

No. 4.5 is correspondence, dated 11 April 2012, again from an anonymous source, re the Irish Red Cross, to be noted and forwarded to Michael Howard at the Department of Defence for a note on the issues raised. No. 4.6 is correspondence, received 20 April 2012, from Dr. Edward O'Gorman re CORD funding, to be noted and forwarded to John Murphy at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and to the CEO of Enterprise Ireland for a note on the issues raised. No. 4.7 is correspondence, dated 8 February 2012, from Mr. Martin Nolan, chief executive of Bus Éireann, re the school transport scheme, to be noted and forwarded to Seán Ó Foghlú at the Department of Education and Skills for a note on the issues raised.

No. 4.8 is correspondence, received 20 April 2012, from Mr. Michael McMahon re the nursing home refund scheme, to be noted and forwarded to the Accounting Officer at the Department of Health for a note on the issues raised. No. 4.9 is correspondence, dated 29 March 2012, from Councillor Paul McAuliffe re the X-ray machine at the HSE centre in Ballymun, to be noted and forwarded to the CEO of the HSE for a note on the issues raised. No. 4.10 is correspondence, received 20 April 2012, from Mr. Frank Delaney, Manlift Hire Limited, re forwarding documentation obtained under the Freedom of Information Act regarding the Health and Safety Authority, to be noted and forwarded to the Secretary General at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, so as to be associated with the original material sent by the committee. We are awaiting a substantive report on this matter from the Department.

No. 4.11 is correspondence, dated 18 April 2012, from Seán Ó Foghlú, Secretary General, Department of Education and Skills, re the school transport scheme, to be noted and a copy of which is to be forwarded to Mr. Brian Lynch and Associates in respect of the original complaint. No. 4.12 is correspondence, received 20 and 23 April 2012, from the International Small Business Alliance re CRH and the Competition Authority, to be noted and a copy of which is to be forwarded to the Secretary General of the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation for a note on the issues raised. No. 4.13 is correspondence, received 24 April 2012, from Ms Geraldine Tallon, Secretary General at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, re forwarding further information requested at the meeting of 15 March 2012, to be noted. Some of this correspondence is confidential but the remainder can be published.

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

On that matter, we received information in respect of the proposed Poolbeg incinerator plant. The Chairman and I had a robust exchange with the Secretary General on that occasion and we were expecting information to be supplied. Unfortunately, we have not received anything new. What we have received is confirmation that because of financing issues, the contract has been extended to the end of August 2012. The correspondence states it is hoped the matter will be brought to finality at that stage. It goes on to state, however, that the local government audit service is to carry out a review in respect of Poolbeg but that it will not be reporting until the end of the summer. The committee will, therefore, receive an information update after the decision has been made.

The report to which I refer is littered with things which are described as being matters for the city council. When we had our exchange with the Secretary General, I made the point that many of the issues of concern to me were investigated in the context of the Hennessy report. I refer, in particular, to the financing of this project and the €80 million that has already been spent. I want to discover where the latter money went because the headline figures provided to us do not explain everything and neither do they address the fact that the compulsory purchase orders that were recently made in respect of the land involved were made at 2007 prices. None of the matters we raised during our discussion with the Secretary General has been addressed. The Department has kicked to touch again. What is going to happen is that a decision will be made and the committee will only obtain the results of the local government audit after this has happened.

I am not sure what we can do in respect of this matter. I am confident the Department has the information we are seeking, particularly as the Hennessy report was conducted quite recently and all of these matters would have been discussed at that time. The correspondence we received from the Department makes repeated use of the phrase "is a matter for the city council". This is despite that we indicated we wanted to be provided with certain information because public money is involved.

Chairman

We can write to the Secretary General, provide a transcript of that part of the proceedings in question and insist the information requested - in respect of which a commitment was made - be given to the committee. We can also suggest we are not happy with regard to the timeframe in respect of the audit itself. It was made clear on the day in question that the audit was required as a matter of urgency. The reply we received does not indicate the matter is being dealt with in an urgent way. In accordance with the Secretary General's contribution to the debate and our request of the Department, we can ask that she insist the audit be carried out now and be made available to us. We will also highlight the other issues to which the Deputy refers.

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

We wrote to the Secretary General on two occasions in respect of the information we are seeking and we stressed that, in view of the timeframe involved, it was important that matters should be expedited. The approach outlined by the Chairman is probably the right one to take.

Chairman

If the Deputy is agreeable, we can forward a copy of the part of the transcript that relates to the specific issues to which he refers, ask specific questions in respect of it and demand a reply within a tighter timeframe.

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

Might I see that correspondence before it issues?

Chairman

The Deputy can liaise with the clerk in respect of that matter. No. 4.14 is correspondence, received 25 April 2012, from Mr. David Cooney, Secretary General at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, re forwarding further information requested at the meeting of 15 March 2012, to be noted and published.

No. 5 on the agenda is statements and accounts received since the meeting on 19 April last. No. 5.1 relates to the National Treatment Purchase Fund financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2010. No. 5.2 is the annual report and financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2010 of Eastern Community Works Limited. No. 5.3 is Eastern Vocational Enterprises Limited, reports and financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2010. No. 5.4 is Talco Limited, financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2010. Is it agreed that these be all noted? Agreed.

Some minor changes have been made to our work programme that affect the HSE and the Dublin Docklands Development Authority. The meeting with the aviation and energy regulators had to be changed to accommodate the HSE and the docklands authority and these meetings are now likely to go ahead in September. We will look at the slot on 12 July in due course. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Have members any other business they wish to raise?

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

I have two quick questions. The OPW was before us a number of weeks ago and it was to come back to us on specific queries about sites. Have we an update on that?

Chairman

We got a letter last week providing an update.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

Can that be forwarded to us?

Chairman

Yes. It was circulated last week, but I will get a copy for the Deputy.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

We were also to follow up on the report from the Department of Finance. Where do we stand on that?

Clerk to the Committee

I have been in touch with the Department, but it still has to finalise matters. It hopes to get back to us in the next week or so. The Department is due before the committee in May, approximately four weeks time, but if we can get it in before that we will. I will follow up on that today.

Chairman

What was the date of that hearing?

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

It was 24 May.

Clerk to the Committee

The meeting with the Department of Finance was sometime in September or October.

Chairman

So, we had the Department here in September of last year to deal with the question of the €3.6 billion, yet to date we have received no response from it except to say that it is dealing with the report and that it had to be checked with the legal advisers because of the inclusion of some names. The length of time the Department has taken to deal with this issue is unsatisfactory. It is a straightforward question. On the morning of the hearing here, it was pretty clear the Department had the information. While something must be tested legally and things must be checked with advisers, it should still not take that length of time. I was going to raise this issue myself, but Deputy O'Donnell has raised it. We should write to the Department of Finance expressing our dissatisfaction with the timeframe.

Deputy Murphy raised the issue of the last piece of correspondence. We need to set down some sort of timeframe within which Departments should respond. The report on the €3.7 billion is not a mystery. It is quite clear, yet we have been waiting this length of time. This is unsatisfactory and I will ask the clerk to write again to remind the Department of it.

Deputy Eoghan Murphy

The Chair is correct on that. If we had had a full day for our meeting then, we could have discovered everything we needed. We predicted at the time that this is what would happen, due to changes in personnel and other matters. We predicted the report would be kicked down the road until people did not care about it anymore. I think it was October or November when we had the meeting and now here we are just as May begins.

Chairman

We must send a clear signal that we do care about it. It is an unfinished piece of work and as far as the Committee of Public Accounts is concerned, it remains unfinished until we deal with the report. The Department should recognise that a significant period of time has passed. That is unsatisfactory and we should get the report immediately. We will write again looking for it.

Is the agenda for 3 May 2012, the 2010 annual report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and Appropriation Accounts agreed? At 10 a.m. we will have Vote 4 - Central Statistics Office, Chapter 19 - data management system - and at 11.30 a.m, Vote 2 - Department of the Taoiseach. Is that agreed? Agreed.