Who are those individuals?
Business of Committee
Chairman: Are the minutes of our meeting of 2 May 2013 agreed? Agreed. No. 2 is matters arising from the minutes. The clerk has circulated a note with proposals for the resumed examination of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the SIPTU national health and local authority levy fund. It is proposed to have a meeting on 20 June about this. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Last week we spoke about another matter and decided to invite in other witnesses related to the Dublin Docklands Development Authority. There are other witnesses mentioned in the SIPTU report who are no longer in their jobs, who have perhaps retired or left. The question arises from the first hearing on 20 June if it should be the case that witnesses are identified, such as the people who have been named and associated with this report. There are three in all. Can we write and advise them that it would be of interest to us as members of the Public Accounts Committee that they would be given the opportunity to state their case because we will be speaking about people who are not here? We can send the transcripts later, but we should advise them of our interest in bringing them forward as witnesses.
Mr. Matt Merrigan, Mr. Jack Kelly and Mr. Alan Smith. That gives them a reasonable opportunity to state their case. Is that agreed? Agreed. On the issue of the invitations from our last meeting, we were to write to the witnesses relevant to the Dublin Docklands Development Authority. Are we with that?
Clerk to the Committee
Yes, they are issuing today.
No. 3 is correspondence from the accounting officers. No. 3B is individual correspondence. No. 3B.1 is correspondence dated 7 April 2013 from Ms Naomi Byass, Kildare Town, County Kildare regarding Newbridge Educate Together National School, the Curragh, County Kildare. This correspondence is to be noted and forwarded to the Department of Education and Skills for a note on the issues raised. No. 3B.2 is correspondence dated 29 April 2013, from Ms Bernie Lloyd, PRO, Davitt Road-Windmill Residents Group, County Wexford, regarding the Wexford Courthouse Project. This correspondence is to be noted. We have had previous correspondence on the decision to locate the Wexford Courthouse on a site owned by Wexford County Council. While the residents' group objects to the use of this site, that is not a matter for the committee. On the issue of the price paid for the site, while this is a circular transaction between State bodies, we would ask for a note on how the sale price was negotiated and any other details relevant to the purchase of the site and issues raised by the residents. We should seek a note on that. Regarding the previous piece of correspondence, while we have sent it to the Department of Education and Skills, we should also send it to the agency that deals with complaints regarding racism to be complete regarding that query.
No. 3B.3 is correspondence dated 1 May 2013 from Mr. Bev Cotton regarding Youthreach Macroom. This correspondence is to be noted and a copy forwarded to the Department of Education and Skills for a note on the issue. No. 3B.4 is correspondence dated 2 May 2013 from Ms Anne M. Nolan, honorary secretary of Montenotte Park Residents Association regarding the use of funds allocated for school buildings. This correspondence is to be noted and forwarded to the Department of Education and Skills for a note on the matters raised.
No. 3C is documents relating to the committee meeting 2 May 2013. No. 3C.1 is correspondence received on 1 May 2013 from Ms Josephine Feehily, chairman of the Office of the Revenue Commissioners regarding briefing papers on mattes to be considered at today's meeting. This correspondence is to be noted and published. No. 3C.2 is correspondence received on 8 May 2013 from Ms Josephine Feehily, chairman of the Office of the Revenue Commissioners regarding the opening statement. This correspondence is to be noted and published.
No. 4 is report statements and accounts received since 2 May 2013. No. 4.1 is the carbon revenue levy account for the period 1 July to 31 December 2010. Is there a reason why that is just 2010?
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
No. 4.2 is also the carbon revenue levy account, for the full year of 1 January to 31 December 2011.
Why would 2010 only come in now?
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
It was because it was the first year of account. There was a difficulty with the regulator providing sufficient audit information. The information had to be got from the electricity generators so that led to a delay in the completion of the first account.
No. 4.3 is Carlow County Enterprise Board's annual report 2011. While it has a clear audit, there is a note regarding the implementation of provision of FRS17 retirement benefits. Is that standard?
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
Yes, as the Chairman can see, they refer to all the County Enterprise Boards which were submitted by the Department as a batch. They all had clear audit opinions but all the certificates draw attention to the fact that they do not include a note in compliance with FRS17 on retirement benefits.
All of those accounts are 2011 except South Dublin County Enterprise Board and Galway County and City Enterprise Board. They are only submitting their 2010 accounts now.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
It could be that they were with the Department. I do not know when they would have gone to the Department but they were both certified in 2011. It may be that they were part of an earlier batch.
Can we ask the Department when the accounts were submitted? We are only now receiving 2010 accounts. They should be submitted with an explanation and if they were held up in the Department we should be told why.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
Okay.
The work programme is now on the screen.
What special report was published last week?
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
The SIPTU national health and local authority levy fund report.
I am curious. Normally most Ministers wait three months before submitting their reports. We have almost never seen the situation where the Minister did not go to the 89th or 90th day and I gather this one was issued by the Minister within a fortnight of receiving it. I know it is not Mr. McCarthy's call but has he any observations in it? I am delighted to see it being issued so promptly and other Ministers should be requested to do so. It is the first time we have seen a Minister not sitting on a report for three months.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
Because the committee was so interested in that report, we spoke to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and drew its attention to the fact that the committee was interested in it and wanted to dispose of it. We suggested that the Department might consider laying it before the committee very quickly after we had provided it, and the Department agreed.
It was very prompt.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
It is.
It is positive. Let us just hope it is setting a new trend-----
Yes, that is the reason I raised it.
-----but I doubt it. No. 5 is our work programme. Today we are dealing with VAT on intra-community trade. Next week we have the accounts of the Garda Síochána. Have we a schedule after that?
Clerk to the Committee
Yes, we have the Office of Public Works and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.
Our work programme is well set out for June. Is that agreed? Agreed? Is there any other business? We can agree the agenda for Thursday 16 May at 10 a.m. when we meet with the Garda Síochána, a representative of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. The agenda for the meeting will be the 2011 appropriation accounts and the annual report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, Vote 20 the Garda Síochána, Chapter 26 the collection of motor tax.
Are there two separate meetings? Are they connected? What is the plan?
They are connected because of the collection of motor tax, I presume. There is an input from the Garda Síochána and the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government.
Is it mainly about the Garda? This motor tax thing is the second part.
It overlaps tourism, the environment and the Garda, so there are three bodies involved.
Will we have three Accounting Officers here?
We will have representatives of the particular sections in the Department.
This is very interesting and I ask the Chairman to indulge me for a minute. The Garda Commissioner will be involved. Often in our work we find that other peripheral bodies are involved. Will we be at a disadvantage if the Accounting Officers are not present? Witnesses may tell us an issue is above their pay grade.
We dealt with the Accounting Officer at the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and we will deal directly with the officials responsible in the Department to get specific answers to questions that may arise from the discussion with the Garda Síochána.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
The final part will be dealt with when the Accounting Officer for the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government comes before the committee at the end of June.
That is agreed. We will now invite the witnesses to attend.