COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 13 Mar 2014

Chapter 9 - State Pathology Building Project

Mr. Brian Purcell(Secretary General, Department of Justice and Equality) called and examined.

Chairman

Before we begin I remind witnesses, members and those in the Gallery to turn off their mobile telephones and I particularly ask the members and witnesses to move their mobile telephones away from the microphones.

I advise witnesses that they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give to this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they will be entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against a Member of either House, a person outside the Houses, or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I remind Members of the provision within Standing Order 163 that the committee should also refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or a Minister of the Government or the merits of the objectives of such policies.

I welcome Mr. Brian Purcell, Secretary General at the Department of Justice and Equality, and I ask him to introduce his officials.

Mr. Brian Purcell

With me are Mr. John Roycroft, Ms Deirdre O'Keeffe, Mr. Seamus Clifford, Mr. Michael Kirrane and Ms Bernadette Phelan.

Chairman

I ask the staff from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to introduce themselves.

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

I am a principal officer in the Department and I am accompanied by Ms Patricia Ballantine.

Chairman

All are very welcome. I ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to make his opening statement.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The appropriations account for the Vote for Justice and Equality recorded a gross expenditure of just over €357 million in 2012. Salaries accounted for 37% of gross expenditure. At the end of the year just under 2,300 whole-time equivalent staff were employed in the Department and its related offices.

As well as the administrative costs of the Department, expenditure was incurred on a wide range of services, including legal aid, immigration and asylum, the Probation Service, equality, integration and disability, charities regulation, the Irish youth justice service, the State pathology service, and the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Vote also includes funding for a range of statutory services operating under the aegis of the Department, including the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner, the Criminal Assets Bureau and the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission.

The committee is also considering today a report which concerns an ongoing project to provide new facilities for the State pathology service and the Dublin coroner's office, which operates under the aegis of Dublin City Council. The State pathology service has operated since the 1990s from prefabricated accommodation in Marino on a site owned by the city council. In embarking on the project, the Department acknowledged that the current accommodation lacks the range of facilities required for a modern pathology service. There were also concerns about the security of the current accommodation, given the sensitivity of the work undertaken by the service and the critical dependence of certain prosecutions on the results of the service's work. The location and physical condition of the coroner's mortuary and morgue were also considered unsuitable.

The Department and the council decided in 2006 that the two services could be accommodated in one new building on the site at Marino. Jointly, they developed plans for a new medico-legal centre project which included the construction of a new autopsy facility, body storage facility, a mortuary and other related accommodation. It was agreed that the Department would fund two thirds of the cost of the new centre, with the council to provide the site and the balance of the construction costs. The council took the lead role in project management, including procurement of the necessary professional services, contractor and so on.

In March 2007, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government raised a planning objection relating to the location of the proposed project site adjacent to an important national monument, the 18th century casino at Marino. It took around a year for the parties to resolve the planning concerns. A tender competition for the construction project was launched in August 2008 and a contractor identified. The proposed contract had been based on what was called the Government Departments and local authorities or GDLA form of contract. However, the Department of Finance had issued new forms of construction contracts in February 2007 which all Government Departments and agencies, including local authorities, were required to use. The project was re-tendered to use the new form of contract.

Following the second public procurement competition, a contract between the council and a builder was signed in June 2010. Work started on the site in July 2010 on what was expected to be a 13 month build. The building contractor went into receivership in November 2010, however, leaving a partially completed structure. Following legal advice, a decision was taken to tender again, this time for completion of the project. The Department informed the city council in 2012 that it would not have the funding to proceed. As a result, the project was deferred indefinitely. The partially constructed premises was demolished in 2013 after deterioration in its physical condition which resulted in it becoming a health and safety hazard.

When my report was being completed, the Department, in conjunction with the city council, was examining the feasibility of pursuing a significantly scaled down project using the vacated Whitehall Garda station which is owned by the Office of Public Works. The net expenditure by the Department and the council on the abandoned project, after recoupment of money under a bond, was €3.3 million with no material benefit from the expenditure accruing to the State. The State pathology office and Dublin coroner's facilities remain in their existing prefabricated accommodation. While lack of availability of funding was a key factor in the abandonment of the project, we noted that ample provision was made in the Vote over the life of the project to cover the Department's contribution had the project proceeded in a timely fashion.

In light of these findings, and those of an examination of the bridge project which I reported on in the 2011 report, I recommended that the Department should review its project risk assessment procedures to ensure adequate steps are taken to secure necessary planning permissions, and to ensure the prevailing procurement and contracting rules are complied with. The Accounting Officer will be in a position to update the committee on developments regarding the currently planned relocation of the service's facilities to Whitehall.

Chairman

I thank Mr. McCarthy and invite Mr. Purcell to make his opening statement.

Mr. Brian Purcell

I propose to keep my opening remarks brief in the interest of making best use of members' time.

The Justice and Equality Vote covers a wide remit, encompassing both the administrative divisions of the Department and a broad range of offices and agencies across the justice sector. These areas include immigration, disability and equality services, the Criminal Assets Bureau and newer organisations such as the Insolvency Service of Ireland. In line with the new programmatic approach, the various strands of the Justice and Equality Vote have been grouped into six separate programmes and details of the breakdown have been provided in briefing to the committee.

It is important, given the number of different offices and agencies and the range and breadth of functions carried out, that strong governance arrangements are in place across the Department. From my perspective, as Accounting Officer, strong oversight is vital to ensure the highest standards of financial control apply and that value for money is obtained from all the expenditure in the Justice and Equality Vote. It is also important to acknowledge that a number of the Department's offices and agencies have been established on a statutory basis with independent functions, and with specific governance relationships with the Department. A key feature of the governance structure within the Department is that each office and agency attached to the Justice and Equality Vote, while operating according to its legislative status and its own business plan and objectives, is accountable to the central Department in terms of budgets and expenditure.

As far as the financial aspects in particular are concerned, most of these, including financial, payroll and accounting services, are dealt with by the Department's financial shared services centre in Killarney. The expertise in the centre is supplemented by a financial management unit in the Department located in Dublin. Representatives from both these areas sit on the justice sector financial management committee. It meets every month and is chaired by the relevant assistant secretary to oversee financial developments across the justice sector.

In my role as Accounting Officer for both the Justice and Equality Vote and the Prisons Vote, I am supported in my task of ensuring there is a strong system of internal controls in place by the Department's audit committee.

The committee comprises four external members and one departmental representative. The chairperson is external to and independent of the Department. The committee is supported in its work by an internal audit unit which is headed up by the internal auditor, a professional accountant at principal officer level. The internal auditor works closely with the Department's risk unit in identifying and managing risk. The internal audit unit comprises four persons, being a combination of both internal and external resources. The unit, through its audit work programme, provides assurance that there are effective financial and other controls in place. In 2013 there were 29 audit reports completed and the corresponding figure in 2012 was 26.

Turning specifically to the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General for 2012, chapter 9 outlines the position in relation to the State Pathology building project in Marino, Dublin. This project was a joint venture with Dublin City Council, the aim of which was to develop new facilities at a site in Marino for the Office of the State Pathologist and the Coroner Service in Dublin. The objective was to relocate these two related operations in one building at a site owned by Dublin City Council. While it was agreed that the costs of the project would be shared between the Department of Justice and Equality and Dublin City Council - with the Department funding two thirds of the cost and the council funding one third - the council took the lead role in managing the project, including the procurement of contractors, etc. While the project experienced delays in the early stages due to unforeseen planning and form of contract issues, the build began in July 2010. Unfortunately, the main contractor went into receivership in November 2010, which halted work on the building. The receivership gave rise to a number of legal and procurement difficulties, culminating in legal advice to re-tender the project with a view to completing the partially built structure on the Marino site.

However, in 2011, and following a reduction of up to 30% in the capital budget for the justice Vote group, it became necessary to defer the project again, due to a lack of funding to complete it. The Department then examined various other options to bring the project to completion, including the use of a public private partnership, PPP, funding model. However, following professional advice, it was concluded that this was not a viable option, given the specialised and complex nature of the building. The Department then considered, with Dublin City Council and the Office of Public Works, OPW, whether the State Pathology Office and the Dublin Coroner Service could be jointly relocated to the former Whitehall Garda Station. Initial examination indicated that this was a viable option, and the Department, the Council and the OPW agreed to progress the project. The OPW, which is the owner of the Whitehall premises, has agreed to make the building available and to undertake the necessary refurbishment work.

A project oversight team, chaired by the Department, and comprising senior personnel from Dublin City Council and the OPW, is overseeing the project. The primary task for the team is to take matters forward to a successful conclusion as efficiently and cost effectively as possible. Plans have been developed to meet the relevant requirements and they are being taken forward by the OPW. The costs incurred will be shared by the Department and Dublin City Council.

I must inform the committee that legal proceedings are ongoing by the Chief State Solicitors Office on behalf of the Department in relation to the lease of accommodation for a Probation Service project in Wolfe Tone Street, Dublin 1. Therefore, as was the case at my last appearance before the committee, my legal advice remains that any further discussion of or comment on the facts of this matter could prejudice the State's case in the legal proceedings currently under way. I can confirm that I will, obviously, be happy to discuss this matter at a future date when the case has been concluded. Aside from this matter, I will go into further detail as the Members require.

Chairman

Thank you, Mr. Purcell. May we publish your statement?

Mr. Brian Purcell

Yes.

Deputy Gerald Nash

I welcome Mr. Purcell and his colleagues, and also the officials from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, to the committee. As the witnesses will the aware, this committee has been examining the issue of penalty points and fixed-charge penalty notice cancellations for some time. I think it is fair to say from our own examination of the issue that confidence in the justice system has been badly affected by the administration of the fixed-charge penalty notice system, highlighted by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his examination of the issues, and further confirmed, if I may say that, by the report from the Garda Síochána Inspectorate yesterday. The reason I want to ask the Accounting Officer questions about it is that it was reiterated yesterday in the report from the Garda inspectorate that legitimate revenue has been lost to the State. Does he accept the criticisms inherent in the Garda inspectorate's report in respect of the operation of the system and the recommendations in their entirety, and how is it proposed, essentially, to fix the system?

Mr. Brian Purcell

As the Minister announced yesterday, we accept all of the recommendations made in the Garda inspectorate's report. There are 37 recommendations across a range of areas. Work has already been undertaken by An Garda Síochána on a number of them and it will continue going forward on those on which it has not commenced. Yesterday, the Minister issued with his statement the action plan that covers the actions to be taken. The first element, one of the key recommendations, was that the Minister would set up a working group to carry forward the implementation of the various recommendations in the report. That has been done. The first meeting of that group, which is scheduled to take place this afternoon, is being jointly chaired by the Department of Justice and Equality and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. Its aim is to oversee and facilitate the implementation of the recommendations contained in the report.

Deputy Gerald Nash

What is the timeframe involved given, that there is an urgency in respect of this issue on foot of the reports by the Comptroller and Auditor General's report and the Garda Síochána Inspectorate? There is a need to restore the confidence that has lost in the system recently due to the consistent breaches of policy uncovered by the Garda inspectorate, which is detailed in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. What is the timeline?

Mr. Brian Purcell

A number of actions on the recommendations are already under way.

Deputy Gerald Nash

Can you be specific? Which recommendations are already under way?

Mr. Brian Purcell

I can be specific. The following recommendations are being dealt with: 2.4 - the fixed-charge processing office has been given full responsibility for the administration of the national tracking allocation system; 2.5 - a new and robust process for managing send-backs has been introduced; 2.3(a) - monthly audits are undertaken in relation to the operation of the fixed charge processing system; 2.7 - a review of the summons serving process has commenced; 2.8 - the necessary equipment for an electronic document scanning and management system in the fixed-charge processing office has been procured; 3.1 - the PULSE access registered number of a member of the Garda Síochána is now deactivated when he or she retires or leaves the force; 3.6 - previous cancellations are now considered when a new petition for cancellation in relation to the same driver and vehicle is made; 3.4 and 3.5 - work has commenced on new procedures to notify district officers of the detection of relevant road traffic offences by members of An Garda Síochána, and this will be provided for in the new consolidated manual.

A further group of recommendations will be undertaken by An Garda Síochána within an eight-week timeframe. Subject to consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions, they will produce the recommended consolidated manual on the fixed charge processing system, reflecting recommendation 2.1. They will ensure full compliance with the timeframes laid down in the manual, as provided for in recommendation 2.6. They will provide in the manual for cancellation petitions to be accompanied by factual third party evidence, as provided for in recommendation 3.9. They will make available information to the public on the Garda website in relation to the policy on the cancellation of fixed charge notices, as provided for in recommendation 3.10. They will provide for cancellation requests to be made on a cancellation form which will be publicly available, as provided for in recommendation 3.11. They will commence arrangements for the centralisation in the fixed notice processing office of authority to cancel fixed-charge notices, as provided for in recommendation 3.8. They will amend the HQ directive issued on 30 August 2013 to reflect the centralisation of the authority to cancel fixed-charge notices, as provided for in one of the key recommendations in the report, recommendation 3.12.

It will commence an assessment of training requirements in relation to the operation of the fixed-charge processing system - recommendations 2.2 and 3.7.

There is action to be taken in the medium term. The criminal justice working group which, as I mentioned, has its first meeting scheduled for this afternoon will identify the measures necessary to ensure all penalty points are applied to driving licences - recommendation 2.10. It will examine options for the online payment of fixed-charge fines - recommendation 2.14. It will consider alternative measures for collecting unpaid fixed-charged fines - recommendation 2.15. It will consider how legislative proposals could address difficulties in collecting fines and applying penalty points in respect of company rental or unregistered vehicles - recommendation 2.9. It will also consider the provision of clear statutory parameters for the discretionary cancellation of fixed-charge notices - recommendation 3.2.

Deputy Gerald Nash

I will stop the Secretary General. Clearly, there are significant developments in the offing. The first meeting of the review group is taking place today, which is to be welcomed.

There is urgency about issues surrounding the appropriate serving of summons. According to the Garda Inspectorate's report, €7.5 million in fines revenue was forgone. The matter should be pursued urgently by the group and acted on quickly. I thank Mr. Purcell for his response to that line of questions.

I will move on to the Vote for the Insolvency Service of Ireland. I note that 87 staff were in place with the service in 2013 and that there was a budget of €7.5 million set aside in that year. That budget would have covered the establishment of the operation last year. How many inquiries have been received by the service and is it ahead of the anticipated number of inquiries that it envisaged?

Mr. Brian Purcell

I do not have precise figures for the numbers of inquiries.

Deputy Gerald Nash

Perhaps Mr. Purcell has figures for the numbers of cases taken on by the Insolvency Service of Ireland.

Mr. Brian Purcell

The insolvency service, as the Deputy will be aware, has only recently commenced. It has stated that what it will do, commencing from the second quarter in 2014, is produce quarterly statistical reports on the numbers of cases it is processing. It expects to be into four figures this year for the numbers of applications, but it is a little early at this stage to be precise. The initial estimates were that the number would be around the 15,000 mark, with, possibly, up to 3,000 bankruptcies. The figures will only become apparent as it rolls out. One of the things it has noticed - there has been some comment on this in the media and among financial journalists - is that there has been significant movement by some of the financial institutions in trying to resolve debt issues, in particular, mortgage debt. It is our belief that the establishment of the insolvency service and the work under way have certainly been contributory factors in that movement by the financial institutions.

Deputy Gerald Nash

There is quite a significant figure of €2.7 million allocated under a non-pay heading for the establishment of the Insolvency Service of Ireland. Is Mr. Purcell in a position to inform the committee, for example, of the level of external consultancies taken on by the Department or the insolvency service when it was being set up? A sum of €2.7 million under a non-pay heading seems high in the context of a total budget of €7.5 million last year to cover the establishment of the service and pay. I accept that there would have been once-off establishment costs, but can Mr. Purcell be clear on how that funding was spent on external consultancies engaged by the service or the Department in setting up the organisation?

Mr. Brian Purcell

A lot of the initial amounts in setting up and fitting out the premises for the insolvency service, including the installation of the necessary IT systems, would have been once-off costs. They would have accounted for a considerable element.

Deputy Gerald Nash

I will move on to the Magdalen fund which was established to facilitate the making of ex-gratia payments to those who were in those institutions some time ago. How many applications have been made to date to the fund to access ex-gratia payments? How many formal offers have been accepted and how many payments have issued to date to the women concerned?

Mr. Brian Purcell

To date, 724 applications have been received, which broadly would be in line with expectations. When the group chaired former Senator McAleese reported, we would have estimated that it would have been around that number. Some 327 formal offers have issued. Of these, 250 have been accepted. Up until now, 224 payments have issued, at a cost of approximately €8.2 million.

Deputy Gerald Nash

Can Mr. Purcell remind me what was set aside for this ex-gratia payment scheme?

Mr. Brian Purcell

The figure is €23 million.

Deputy Gerald Nash

Of which more than €8 million has been accessed at this stage.

Mr. Brian Purcell

Some €8 million has been paid so far. We have made a good deal of progress since the report of Mr. Justice Quirke was presented and the 12 recommendations he made were accepted by the Government.

Deputy Gerald Nash

At one stage, there were discussions on setting up a dedicated unit and having a hotline for those who wished to find out information on how to access the scheme. Has this been instituted at this stage?

Mr. Brian Purcell

Yes. A total of nine staff in the Department are engaged full time in dealing with the Magdalen scheme. Obviously, the position will remain under review as we move forward. I imagine a significant amount of work has been involved from the time the fund was set up and there will be a significant amount of work to be done as long as the initial payments are being made. There was urgency attached to making the initial payments. There will be ongoing issues in relation to ongoing payments and health care issues, but we imagine that once the initial payments are made, the workload will go down somewhat. However, we will be maintaining a dedicated unit as long as the scheme is in place and payments are being issued. The unit is in place to support the women concerned and give them advice, if they have difficulties with any aspect of the scheme.

Deputy Gerald Nash

Mr. Purcell has mentioned ongoing issues in relation to health care. Can he be more explicit about what this involves and what the concerns are?

Mr. Brian Purcell

On the provision of medical services, Mr. Justice Quirke recommended that the women concerned should have access to the same range of services enjoyed by the holders of the card under the Health (Amendment) Act 1996. He also specifically recommended that legislation be introduced to give effect to this recommendation. While this is a health issue, it was agreed that the Department of Justice and Equality, because of our role in this regard, would co-ordinate the introduction of legislation to implement Mr. Justice Quirke's recommendations. The necessary legislation has been included in the priority list of the Government's legislative programme for the spring-summer of 2014. Details of the exact services to be provided, where they will be provided and how they will be provided are obviously primarily matters for the Department of Health which I understand has completed its initial assessment and will be forwarding details to the Department. In fact, that will happen in the next few days.

Once we have those details, we can finalise the drafting of the necessary provisions and then that will be put in place.

Deputy Gerald Nash

I am led to understand there may be issues for women who were in these institutions and who are living abroad. They may not be able to access the same kind of health care supports as would be available to women who currently reside in this country. Is this an issue the Secretary General has encountered and, if so, how will it be addressed to ensure the scheme is applied consistently and that no individual is disadvantaged in any way?

Mr. Brian Purcell

Again, we are waiting to get back these details from the Department of Health on exactly how this will apply to women living abroad. Hopefully, once we get those details we will be in a position to inform the women involved as to how this will apply. We believe the Department of Health will be able to come up with a solution to any problem that may exist but as I stated, we expect to get a response from that Department within the next few days, probably at some point next week.

Deputy Gerald Nash

I will move on to the State Pathology Service for which the development of a new facility was first mooted in 2006. However, the State remains without an adequate building in which to house the State Pathology Service and the Dublin coroner's facility. I note that in his opening statement, Mr. Purcell consistently reiterated the Department's commitment to strong oversight and the highest standards of financial control. He referred to the Department's risk assessment mechanisms and audit facilities and essentially spoke on how good is the Department with regard to oversight, managing projects and managing its budgets. However, in the case of the State Pathology Service farrago, this comedy of errors, there is no evidence to suggest, at least between 2006 and 2011 or 2012, that any of these traits were in evidence. In his contribution earlier, the Comptroller and Auditor General went through in chronological order the series of events that led to this impasse and to a point at which considerable sums of taxpayers' money were spent on a project from which no benefit is being derived and that has lost well in excess of €3 million for the taxpayer, notwithstanding the fact that in each year from 2006 to 2011 or 2012, the Estimates of the Department provided resources for this facility to be developed.

I am seriously concerned about the lack of oversight the Department had in respect of this project. It is clearly that from an investment point of view, Dublin City Council managed the project and invested one third of the resources into it, with the Department investing two thirds. From the documentation I read arising from the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, it appears there was no single overarching document that detailed clearly who was responsible for what in respect of managing this project. In itself, that constitutes a serious indictment of the Department and of Dublin City Council and may have led to the current situation, whereby the service now will be developed at the vacated Whitehall Garda station. I simply am not convinced that any proper oversight was involved in this particular project and there is no evidence to suggest it was. The project first moved from concept, that is, from the page to the stage as such in 2006. It went out for public tender in 2007 at one stage but then had to go out for public tender again because the Department was not conforming with the 2007 framework instituted by the Department of Finance. The Department claims it was not foreseeable that an objection might arise from anyone, even though this particular site was located right next to a national monument, namely, the Casino at Marino. One would not need to be an expert to anticipate that the then Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, as the line Department, would have had a view in this regard. This clearly delayed the project, as did the fact that the original developer went into receivership at that point. I accept this could not have been foreseen but why, for example, was the second firm on the panel not engaged to complete this project? This has been a complete waste of money, there still is no facility, and this highly sensitive operation, the State Pathology Service, still is being carried out in prefabs in Marino.

Mr. Brian Purcell

The Deputy has covered a wide range of issues and I dare say that other members of the committee may have similar questions. Consequently, it might be helpful were I to run through the process here. By so doing, I may be able to answer some, if not all of the questions. At the outset, I must state this has been a very difficult-----

Deputy Gerald Nash

Would the Secretary General agree it has not been the Department's finest hour?

Mr. Brian Purcell

In many ways, in respect of some of the things that happened, it is the case that as the Deputy noted himself, this all would have proceeded, had the original company that was contracted to carry out the building not gone into receivership. I suppose that was an unfortunate consequence of the downturn in the economy. Had that not happened, we would not have found ourselves in the position we were in. A confluence of events created the situation with which we found ourselves dealing and we certainly hope this will not happen again. As I stated, there are four issues, namely, the lengthy delay, the issues regarding the form of contract used, the issues regarding the receivership of the main contractor and then the present position.

First, in preparing detailed documentation for the project, Dublin City Council also engaged in consultation with relevant bodies, including the Office of Public Works as custodians of the Casino at Marino. It consulted with An Taisce and the Irish Georgian Society. It also considered in detail the entire site on which the fire brigade training centre was located, taking into account the proximity of the national monument, with which it was very familiar as the planning authority and the former owners of the monument. The new construction was to be approximately 120 m from the Casino. As the Deputy may be aware, there already are two much larger buildings in close proximity to it, namely, the O'Brien Institute, which is a three-storey structure, and Nazareth House, both of which are considered to be far less sensitive to the environs of the Casino than the design of the medico-legal centre. By contrast, the design of the proposed new build, which was designed by award-winning architects, was specifically chosen with sensitivity to the environment of the Casino in mind. As part of the preparation, an impartial and independent site study also was commissioned from a conservation architect and his report informed the entire approach, both to the design and the sites.

All this was overseen by the body with statutory authority with regard to planning matters, namely, Dublin City Council, which is intimately familiar with the planning and conservation matters associated both with the site and the adjacent national monument. In January 2007, a Part 8 planning application was submitted to Dublin City Council with permission being anticipated. However, in March 2007, an objection was raised by the then Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, which effectively halted the granting of a Part 8 permission and the objection was based on proximity to the Casino.

Deputy Gerald Nash

How was that not anticipated? It is right next door to a well-known national monument. This would have come within the purview of someone in the Department of Justice and Equality but either was ignored or someone was negligent and simply decided it was not an issue and it would proceed anyway. In fairness, Dublin City Council would have been aware of this as well.

Mr. Brian Purcell

We were in partnership with Dublin City Council and effectively, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government was the parent body for the city council. The city council was expert in respect of the issues and as I stated, it once owned the monument.

Deputy Gerald Nash

Is it the case it never came up in discussions with the Department of Justice and Equality? Did Dublin City Council not ever state its belief that its line Department might have an issue with this project, because it is responsible for national monuments? The council is a planning authority that gave the Part 8 permission but it never anticipated this. It really is an unfortunate comedy of errors.

Mr. Brian Purcell

It may be interesting to note that at the end of the process and on foot of the planning objections under the planning process, the only recommendation made related to some planting issues, in other words, issues pertaining to landscaping.

Deputy Gerald Nash

It was held up by a bunch of trees and the locations in which trees and shrubs might go.

Mr. Brian Purcell

I believe I am correct that in respect of the build itself, all we had to do was put in some additional planting.

It took approximately a year for the objection to be resolved. The issues did not relate so much to the project but the broader historic and archaeological landscape around the casino. They could only be resolved between Dublin City Council and the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government as they raised issues concerning planning and development for the entire area and not only the site of the new build. This led to archaeological reports and excavations as well as the development of an archaeological conservation area under section 81 of the planning Act. The issues went far beyond the nature of the proposed project and, with the benefit of hindsight, it seems the project was the trigger that may have been used to resolve long outstanding issues related to the national monument and its situation in the broader surrounding landscape.

Deputy Gerald Nash

What does Mr. Purcell mean by that? Was that used as leverage by someone to-----

Mr. Brian Purcell

No. I think it may well have been the case that there were probably issues around the environs of the monument. It may only have been the fact that this project was being undertaken that triggered that those issues were there and that they needed to be looked at. The question can reasonably be asked, and has been asked by the Deputy, whether it could have been avoided if there was consultation in advance of that. The OPW was consulted in advance, other bodies were consulted and the city council was the expert in this regard. Bearing in mind what transpired, even if detailed consultations had taken place prior to the planning application being lodged, a lengthy delay would have arisen in any event given the complexity of the broader nature of the issues involved, issues which, as I said, went far beyond the design and the nature of the building. In a nutshell, once the bigger issues were rolled out, it was inevitable that they would have to be dealt with.

Deputy Gerald Nash

I appreciate what Mr. Purcell is saying.

Mr. Brian Purcell

As the Deputy will appreciate, if objections are raised in relation to planning applications, one simply has to deal with them and, unfortunately, often very complex issues are involved.

Deputy Gerald Nash

Given what we know from the Comptroller and Auditor General's report and from Mr. Purcell's submission, I cannot accept that a proper risk assessment was done. This should be identified by Dublin City Council as well. In fact, one would expect Dublin City Council to-----

Mr. Brian Purcell

I am not seeking to blame Dublin City Council for this.

Deputy Gerald Nash

I understand that. It is not represented here but it is clearly the case that it has some responsibility for this.

Chairman

I remind the Deputy of his time allocation.

Deputy Gerald Nash

I will conclude in a moment or two and I appreciate Deputy Harris wishes to contribute.

Ultimately the building was demolished and significant security costs were racked up over a two or three year period in securing the site, and I imagine the site was patrolled by a private security company. How much in total was spent on security on the site?

Mr. Brian Purcell

About €300,000, I believe.

Deputy Gerald Nash

Over a period of how many years?

Mr. Brian Purcell

Two and a half years.

Deputy Gerald Nash

This was in the middle of a decision being taken as to whether this would be proceeded with. There was a vacuum, as such. A decision was not taken. No one took the decision to bury this project until 2012, to take the wrecking ball to it and to move on.

Mr. Brian Purcell

There were complex legal issues involved once the construction company that was given the contract went into receivership. We examined the options, in consultation with our legal advisers, as to whether it could be given to someone else who had been an underbidder for the original contract, or whether it would be a suitable for a public private partnership. We got legal advice that we could not go with either of those options. The site had to be secured. The Deputy knows where it is. It is in the middle of quite a large residential area. Young children and young teenagers were accessing the site and there was a substantial risk. That was the reason we had to contract for the securing of the site and, ultimately, it was the reason a decision was taken that we would have to demolish it because it was an ongoing risk and it was deteriorating.

Deputy Gerald Nash

The Department has moved on from that to locating the State pathology building project in the vacated premises at Whitehall that once belonged to An Garda Síochána, and obviously it is managed by the OPW. What is the cost of fitting out that building, making sure it is fit for purpose? We are talking about a building that will store sensitive material, have a mortuary, an autopsy facility and storage for evidence that may be used in court proceedings, and it needs to be essentially hermetically sealed, controlled properly and all that goes with that. How much will that cost and when will this facility be open? Is that building fit for purpose or will it need to be extended in future? What other sites had the Department looked at that would have allowed it to develop something cost effectively, or was this the only site that recommended itself?

Mr. Brian Purcell

The proposed project we are going to undertake in Whitehall is substantially scaled down in comparison with what was previously proposed in Marino, but nevertheless a significant amount of work is involved in the refitting due to the very demanding technical nature of the facilities that have to be installed there and we obviously have to make adequate arrangements for staff and visitors to the new building. We have been working on that and by the end of 2013, plans were sufficiently developed to meet the relevant requirements and they are now being taken forward by the OPW. They include architectural design, drawings and technical specifications for both floors of the building, which also incorporate relevant input by structural, mechanical and electrical engineers. The key item that has to be addressed is securing planning permission to change the use of building. The OPW is dealing with this, we hope, under-----

Deputy Gerald Nash

Has the Department seen any planning objections?

Mr. Brian Purcell

We have not. They have not actually moved that far forward. While one can never be absolutely certain, given the fact that the Garda station has been closed, we would hope the decision to move ahead with the State pathology building and coroner's facilities will give the people in the immediate area some certainty over what is going to be the long-term future of the building.

In terms of the costs, which is the principal question the Deputy asked, we will have to go out to tender. We have an estimate of the costs but I cannot divulge those estimates in advance of a formal competitive tender, but I can say that they will be significantly less than the cost which would have arisen had we proceeded with the Marino project. In that estimate, I am also allowing for the costs that have been expended on the Marino project.

Deputy Gerald Nash

The €3 million loss.

Mr. Brian Purcell

It will still come out considerably less than what the cost of the original project would have been. In the current circumstances in relation to the budgets we have available to us, that is good for us and it is also good for the Exchequer.

Deputy Gerald Nash

I thank Mr. Purcell.

Chairman

I call Deputy Harris.

Deputy Simon Harris

I thank Mr. Purcell and his team for being here today. Obviously, we are talking about the casino in the meaning of Italian word as opposed to a place one would go to gamble, but it seems the Department might have been better taking the €3.3 million and going to a casino with it because, as the Comptroller and Auditor General's report has clearly stated, €3.3 million was spent and there is no material benefit from that for the taxpayer. My colleague, Deputy Nash, touched on the issue of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government lodging an objection or a planning concern because of the location beside a national monument. However, the problems did not end there because after that difficulty was dealt with, when the tender competition was launched in August 2008, another problem arose with another Department raising concerns, and this time it was the Department of Finance objecting to the form of contract used. Mr. Purcell might explain that.

Mr. Brian Purcell

The form of contract used gave rise to some delays, as mentioned in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. Planning permission was secured by Dublin City Council in 2008, and in August that year a tender issued under the Government Department and local authorities contract, the so-called GDLA.

A contractor was selected in September and permission to proceed was sought from the Department of Finance. However, in October 2008 that Department objected to the use of the GDLA form of contract and directed that a new form of contract drawn up by the Government construction contracts committee, GCCC, be used. The new form of contract is focused on fixed price lump sum bids, with risks transferred to the contractor. This decision obliged the project board to completely revise the tender documentation to comply with the new GCCC contract and required a painstaking and detailed upgrading of all tender documentation and specifications.

The project board used the GDLA form of contract because the relevant paragraph of the circular on construction procurement reform provided that where detailed development tender documentation had already commenced, the GDLA contract could be used. The project board decided in January 2008 to use that form of contract to avoid incurring considerable additional costs and delay. The contract notice was placed in the Official Journal of the European Union in April 2008 and in August 2008 tenders were invited from eight pre-qualifying contractors. However, in February 2008 the Department of Finance issued a new circular on construction procurement reform and the facility to use the GDLA form of contract was withdrawn from early March 2008. The April contract notice thus missed the deadline by a number of weeks.

As it would not have been possible for the project board to foresee that the provisions of circular 33/06 would change so radically and that permission to use the GDLA form of contract would not be forthcoming, it proceeded as planned. Having considered the matter, I can understand the decision of the project board to use the GDLA form of contract. The decision was taken in good faith based on a desire to avoid spending additional money on reworking the project documentation and further expensive delays, and in the belief that it was permissible to do so given that the documentation was in place prior to the introduction of the new contract. As we now know, this did not prove possible due to the decision taken.

Deputy Simon Harris

Who were the members of the project board?

Mr. Brian Purcell

It comprised representatives of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform at principal officer level, the heads of finance and financial accounting and an architect from Dublin City Council, and representatives from the relevant professionals, such as architects and quantity surveyors. The State pathologist and the Dublin city coroner also participated on the board on design aspects of the brief as it related to their areas. From time to time, as required, other persons participated in respect of particular issues, such as legal advisers from Dublin City Council.

Deputy Simon Harris

I would like to examine the costs of the project. The developer was McNamara. The construction costs amounted to €1,061,878.

Mr. Brian Purcell

The total cost for the original build, including detailed and specialised fit out, was approximately €13.8 million, but the actual spend was €4.162 million, less €862,000 received from the bondsman, for a net total of approximately €3.3 million. Of this sum, the Department allocated €2.778 million, of which €2.408 million was spent at the time of receivership, leaving a retained sum held by Dublin City Council on our behalf of €369,000. Of the sum of €862,000 received from the bondsman, €549,000 was spent on post-receivership costs. This left a sum of €312,828 unspent, of which €208,000 is due to the Department. Dublin City Council therefore holds €578,000 on behalf of the Department. The net expenditure on the project by the Department is approximately €2.2 million.

Deputy Simon Harris

The construction costs were €1,061,878.

Mr. Brian Purcell

Consultancy costs amounted to €1.87 million.

Deputy Simon Harris

To whom was that paid?

Mr. Brian Purcell

The word "consultancy" is used but they were not consultancy costs in the sense that people might understand. That is just the way Dublin City Council categorised the data for the Department. We did not change the terminology when providing the data to the Comptroller and Auditor General. The overwhelming majority of the costs designated as consultancy were not consultancy services. They were contracts for services provided by architects and structural, mechanical and electrical engineers. Essentially they were external service providers, as distinct from consultants.

Deputy Simon Harris

The next category is professional services, totalling €425,413. To what does that relate?

Mr. Brian Purcell

We have a list of the providers in appendix two. I do not know if the Deputy has the appendix to hand.

Deputy Simon Harris

I ask Mr. Purcell to name them.

Mr. Brian Purcell

They are BruceShaw safety management for a total of €1,215; Cunnane Stratton Reynolds; Cyril Sweett; Boyd Creed Sweet; Howley Hayes Architects; JV Tierney and Company; McCullough Mulvin Architects; and O'Connor Sutton Cronin and Associates. Many of these companies would be quantity surveyors, engineers, architects and other professional service providers.

Deputy Simon Harris

The previous category of consultancy is similar.

Mr. Brian Purcell

Yes, they are similar. They relate to different elements of the job. That was the breakdown of services presented to us by Dublin City Council. We used the same categories when we forwarded the information to the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Deputy Simon Harris

The council's professional staff costs amounted to €120,865. Is that more of the same?

Mr. Brian Purcell

I think that related to the architect engaged by the council.

Deputy Simon Harris

The cost for site investigation amounted to €36,682.

Mr. Brian Purcell

That is the standard site investigation prior to construction.

Deputy Simon Harris

Miscellaneous costs amounted to €81,000. Can Mr. Purcell give an overview of that?

Mr. Brian Purcell

I do not have that information at present but I can revert to the committee with the details.

Deputy Simon Harris

I thank Mr. Purcell. These were the costs when the Department was planning to proceed with the project. Additional costs would have been incurred in securing the site. The cost for security amounted to €303,779. The word "consultancy" appears again in this category at a cost of €123,364.

Mr. Brian Purcell

That was for Cyril Sweett, JV Tierney and Company, McCullough Mulvin Architects, O'Connor Sutton Cronin and Associates and Todd Architects. These were similar professional services.

Deputy Simon Harris

What was their role at that stage?

Mr. Brian Purcell

They may have been involved in the design for the re-tender if we were to go ahead on that basis.

Deputy Simon Harris

Demolition costs were €52,062. There are also costs for other professional services amounting to €41,000, plant hire amounting to €13,000 and miscellaneous costs amounting to €15,000. All I can take from the information provided is that architects did very well out of this project. Perhaps Mr. Purcell can provide a breakdown of the two sets of miscellaneous costs.

Mr. Brian Purcell

I will certainly do so.

Deputy Simon Harris

The Comptroller and Auditor General referred to the recommendation that the Department should review its project risk assessment procedures. Can Mr. Purcell update us on that?

Mr. Brian Purcell

We agreed in our response to the Comptroller and Auditor General that we accepted the recommendation. That is being put in place.

Deputy Simon Harris

I would like to move on to the Justice Vote. There is a note in the accounts - note 5.2 - on 13 retired civil servants rehired at a cost of €105,298. For what were they rehired?

Mr. Brian Purcell

They carried out a range of services across the Department and its agencies, including acting as commissioner of the Independent Commission for Victims Remains, chairperson of the National Traveller Monitoring Committee and a range of other services, including, for example, membership of the Department's audit committee.

Deputy Simon Harris

Does Mr. Purcell think it was necessary to rehire retired civil servants for those roles?

Mr. Brian Purcell

They would have been chosen because of the level of experience they would have had in regard to the specific tasks involved. We also take on people who are not retired civil servants. It is not that we take on only retired civil servants.

Deputy Simon Harris

That is reassuring. Six former members of the Judiciary were hired at a cost of €404,451. Will Mr. Purcell give us a breakdown of the six former Judiciary members?

Mr. Brian Purcell

They related to tribunals of inquiry, chairing the Mental Health Review Board, the Inspector of Prisons, who is Judge Michael Reilly, etc. They would have all been appointed to posts where their experience, as serving judges, would have been very relevant.

Deputy Simon Harris

In the accounts, a saving of €113,000 was achieved on the disability awareness initiative. This concerns me because when it comes to the area of disability, Mr. Purcell's Department has quite an important role in terms of public awareness of, understanding of and education about the equality agenda. The budget had already been slashed from €865,000 to €307,000 between 2011 and 2012 because of the economic situation in which the country found itself. Considering there has been such a drop in the budget from €865,000 to €307,000, I am concerned how the Department managed to save €113,000 and was not able to spend that.

Mr. Brian Purcell

As the Deputy said, this all occurred during a period when we had to make significant cuts to the level of expenditure across the full remit of the Department's spending areas. Funding of €200,000 was earmarked to cover potential legal costs arising during that year but the actual cost of €103,000 was lower than anticipated. The fact that it was not possible to commit money for disability awareness projects into the following financial year meant that projects which could have been commenced in quarter four could not be initiated because they would have incurred a cost in 2013. This resulted in some savings being made in the budget in 2012. That is how it arose.

Deputy Simon Harris

Does Mr. Purcell see my point that even though the budget for disability was so sharply reduced, which was regrettable, the full amount was not spent? People with disabilities depending on such disabilities awareness initiatives did not get the full bang for their buck which they should have got. It is a concern of mine, which I have noted.

Mr. Brian Purcell

It is a valid concern but, as I said, we were left in a situation where we had to make cuts for the following year and, accordingly, we could not have incurred costs there because we simply would not have been able to carry those costs on in 2013. However, we spent approximately €90,000 on awareness raising. We spent €23,000 in association with CARA, the National Adapted Physical Activity Centre, and €15,000 in association with the FAI on the Football for All programme, with opportunities for players with disabilities, in particular young players with disabilities and aged between six and 14. We spent approximately €9,500 in association with Cavan County Council on funding its hosting of a fleadh cheoil on disability awareness and accessibility.

Deputy Simon Harris

Has the Department appointed a replacement deputy State pathologist?

Mr. Brian Purcell

We have not appointed one yet. I think we are at the point where a competition has been sanctioned by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and it is under way. An advertisement has been placed and the closing date of 31 March has been set in the context of what has been an extensive campaign by the Public Appointments Service to recruit someone to that highly specialised area.

Deputy Simon Harris

We seem to have a pretty restrictive asylum regime with 10% of applicants granted permission in 2012 compared with a European average of 27%. The former Irish Ombudsman and now the European Ombudsman, Emily O'Reilly, raised concerns about the safety of children living in direct provision, and she noted the very unsuitable conditions in which they were living. Considering direct provision has no legislative basis, can Mr. Purcell provide us with an update on the number of people living in direct provision and the cost to the State of that each year?

Mr. Brian Purcell

The Deputy mentioned the level of acceptance as being an issue. In 2013, the level of acceptance of asylum applications increased to 14.8%, which is a fairly significant increase on what it was previously. That would put us in a position where we are at the average level in the European Union.

On the question of whether the direct provision is unsuitable for children, in addition to the standard accommodation services and supports we provide through direct provision, both the Reception and Integration Agency and other State service providers, in particular the HSE, link in with those centres to provide on-site services and monitoring of children and families through public health nurses, GP services, social work teams and mental health specialists and through the positive engagement of its accommodation centre management teams. In addition, the community welfare service of the Department of Social Protection holds clinics in many of our centres to assist families with needs which may fall to be assisted under the exceptional needs payments structures and other relevant structures that Department administers. These services link closely with RIA in terms of the needs assessments, case conferencing and follow-up services.

On the education of children of asylum seekers, they are linked into the local mainstream primary and post-primary schools in the same way as the general population, and the role of the accommodation centre manager is central to this process. In addition, asylum seeker children can avail of the free early childhood care and education preschool placements funded through the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. Some centres have managed to organise on-site preschools for residents. Centre managers at family centres are proactive in reaching out to local service providers to link children in the centres and their families to the facilities available in the local community.

Children of asylum seekers in the direct provision system can also access recreational facilities available in the locality in which they are staying. Some direct provision centres have on-site playgrounds and many individual centres will provide other facilities and will facilitate NGOs which organise outings and other activities for the children. In addition, homework clubs are a very popular service provided at a number of the family centres.

It should be noted that we have designated liaison persons and management and they are always available to assist families and children. As I said, public health nurses, GPs and community and ethnic liaison gardaí link in with the system. We try to provide a rounded service to the children of asylum seekers while, at the same time, we realise it is not ideal.

Our aim is not to keep anyone in direct provision for any longer than we have to.

Deputy Simon Harris

I accept that and I welcome Mr. Purcell's comments in that regard but the original idea was that this would be a short-term solution with people staying six months on average. We now have an average stay of three years and eight months with many spending more than seven years in the system, which is the equivalent of a childhood. In the meantime, we, as taxpayers, paid €62 million in 2012 to private operators for direct provision. The firm behind Mosney received €4.1 million and it received €101 million over the ten years between 2002 and 2012. I welcome a number of initiatives the Department has taken to reduce waiting times through the INIS and improvements to the citizenship process but there needs to be a sense of urgency about this.

Mr. Brian Purcell

I agree and the Minister certainly has strong and clear views in this regard. The Deputy is probably aware that the number in direct provision has been dropping. It is down now to 4,360. There has been a significant reduction. It is not the aim of the Department or the Minister to keep people in direct provision any longer than we have to. Both ourselves and the Minister have repeatedly emphasised that we would like the system to be streamlined in a way that people will not have to. It is probably fair to make the general point that a substantial number of those residing for long periods within the direct provision system are adults living with their children who have at various stages challenged in the courts, as is their right, by way of the judicial review process, decisions refusing their applications. Approximately 1,000 such cases are pending before the courts and we spent approximately €5.8 million on legal costs last year to deal with these challenges. They are perfectly entitled to bring judicial reviews but it is absolutely and undoubtedly a factor in the lengthy periods that some people have to spend in the system.

Deputy Simon Harris

I welcome the progress the Department is making on the charity regulatory structures and I note Mr. Purcell's comments earlier. I hope he can allay my concerns. The committee opened a can of worms that needed to be opened in our examination of a number of sections 38 and 39 charitable organisations, although many charities do not fall under these sections. Will the new structure be able to cope? I am sure the Chairman and other members are taking inquiries from small charities up and down the country wanting to know how the new structure will work and seeking reassurance that supporting structures will be in place as well. How many departmental staff will be allocated? What will be the cost? What happens if they are overwhelmed?

Mr. Brian Purcell

Obviously, in the early days to some extent there will be an element of playing it by ear in terms of exactly what is required. We hope we are putting in the initial number of staff that will enable us to proceed along the lines we believe we should. We received sanction in December from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform for an initial staff complement of 11 to be provided from within our existing resources. One of the issues delaying this moving forward was the fact that we had to do it within our existing resources. Arrangements are being made and those staff are coming into place now. In practice, it involves the reassignment of seven staff from the office of the commissioners of charitable donations and bequests and three staff from the charities regulation unit in the Department and a chief executive officer was appointed in the last couple of weeks, again from existing resources in the Department. We believe that the staffing level will need to be increased going forward to allow the authority to introduce its full range of functions and services but the initial staffing level is what we believe to be sufficient to get things on the road and we will make available the necessary staffing resources as things get up and running. We certainly hope that the new unit will prove to be effective in dealing with the issues of the type the Deputy described.

Deputy Simon Harris

Are we still on track to have the board appointed after Easter?

Mr. Brian Purcell

Yes. The target date the Minister set will be met.

Chairman

How many people will be on that board?

Mr. Brian Purcell

Between nine and 20 members will be appointed by the Minister. The Act stipulates that no fewer than three of the members must be either current or former judges of the superior courts or be barristers or solicitors of not less than ten years standing. Arrangements are being made in line with what the Minister indicated to make the appointments by Easter. A call for expressions of interest was put out and suitably qualified persons have put their names in. A short-listing process is under way and this is being facilitated by the Public Appointments Service. We expect-----

Chairman

How many responded?

Mr. Brian Purcell

More than 300 people replied, virtually all of whom fulfil the requirements. We were a little surprised by the level of interest.

Chairman

Has a figure of between nine and 20 been agreed for the number of board members?

Mr. Brian Purcell

No, not yet.

Chairman

How much will each member of the board and the chairman be paid?

Mr. Brian Purcell

I am not entirely sure but payments would be in line with the fees to board members of other-----

Chairman

What are they? Would it be €10,000?

Mr. Brian Purcell

I think it is under €10,000. It is around €9,000 or €9,500 but we will get the Chairman precise figures

Chairman

There is a board comprising a number of yet to be decided with each member costing €9,500 approximately. How much is the chairman of a board normally paid?

Mr. Brian Purcell

About €12,500.

Chairman

Where will the initial staff of 11 be drawn from?

Mr. Brian Purcell

They are from within the Department's existing resources and, therefore, there is no additional cost.

Chairman

Do they have particular qualifications?

Mr. Brian Purcell

No, they are general administrative staff apart from the interim chief executive officer who has been appointed.

Chairman

When will the interim chief executive officer begin to engage with the charity sector?

Mr. Brian Purcell

Very soon. She was appointed on 1 March. That engagement will take place almost immediately.

Chairman

As we examine sections 38 and 39 organisations, there is increasing concern, particularly among smaller charities, about their income and funding. We must allay fears they have about what will be required of them under the regulations in the context of their ongoing work in order that those that are generally compliant within the charity sector are promoted and acknowledged just like those that are non-compliant will appear before the committee. I encourage the charity regulator to at least engage with the small charities that are expressing concerns with some speed. It is hugely important from the public's perspective that we would be seen to support those that are compliant.

Mr. Brian Purcell

The Chairman is absolutely right and that is what will happen. There will be an extensive engagement with these charities. I believe that a number of them have been in contact and meetings will be set up. We had a public consultation last year and a number of them put forward their views about how regulation should proceed. The intention is that there will be an ongoing extensive consultation process.

Chairman

The Department has handled the charity sector generally up to now. Has it information that might assist us in respect of the analysis we are carrying out in respect of sections 38 and 39 organisations?

Mr. Brian Purcell

I do not think so. We can certainly have a look. If there is anything that the chairman wants-----

Chairman

Has the Department expressed a view to the HSE, SOLAS or other agencies regarding the remunerations level in this sector, particularly in the charities we have examined so far?

Would you have had any engagement?

Mr. Brian Purcell

No, not in relation to salaries-----

Chairman

For example, we are examining the CRC and we are examining the Rehab Group. As you are dealing with those charities, would you ever have expressed a concern that their salaries were getting to be a little out of kilter with the sector?

Mr. Brian Purcell

No, not that I am aware of.

Chairman

Why?

Mr. Brian Purcell

We have not had this particular responsibility for all that long.

Chairman

How long?

Mr. Brian Purcell

Two years.

Chairman

That is enough time to get your head around the fact that they might be getting paid a bit too much, and to express a concern about it. Is it not?

Mr. Brian Purcell

We did not start going after charities to find out what they were paying members of their staff.

Chairman

How many people within your Department work in the task related to charities?

Mr. Brian Purcell

I think there were 11-----

Chairman

They are the 11 that are going to the regulator.

Mr. Brian Purcell

We had three people working and four all told.

Chairman

What were they doing? Ms O'Keeffe may answer if it helps.

Ms Deirdre O'Keeffe

Thank you. They were mainly engaged in preparations for the implementation of the Charities Act, as well as the implementation of the charitable lotteries fund. It was mainly in those two areas.

Chairman

To go back to the Minister's statement, he raised the question about the low level of profitability. Did that concern those four people? Did they raise the issue within the Department? What was their concern and what was their engagement with the charities sector? Or were they just-----

Mr. Brian Purcell

The Department of Finance was responsible for the charitable lotteries fund until around the middle of 2011. We were assigned responsibility for it. It was a new line of expenditure in the Department and it was something with which we were unfamiliar. At that particular time, all Departments and agencies were dealing with the issue of reduced budgets, as the comprehensive review of expenditure was being carried out, so it was felt to be appropriate that we look at all lines of expenditure in the Department. An audit was undertaken, but we were also looking, in a policy context, at what we were paying out the money for, because this was something that was entirely new to us. The amounts that had originally been paid were reduced prior to their coming over to us.

Chairman

If that element of it was with the Department of Finance, how many staff were engaged within the Department of Finance on the charities end of it?

Mr. Brian Purcell

I do not know.

Chairman

Did they not come over to you?

Mr. Brian Purcell

No.

Chairman

Did you ever ask them about their engagement on the lottery end of it and the charity end of it? Did you get a file on it?

Mr. Brian Purcell

Yes; we would have got whatever details were there.

Chairman

It is not as if that structure went from one country to another. It went between two Departments. You are all civil servants. Surely the background to the charities structure and any issues that might have been there would have been given from the Department of Finance to your Department. Did anyone have any engagement with the charities sector prior to the investigation of section 39 and section 38 organisations? Did the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform have anything to do with it? Have you any comment to make on the charity end of it?

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

With respect to the pay rates?

Chairman

No, with respect to the information that the Department of Finance would have had relative to the charities sector and the handing over of that information to the Department of Justice and Equality.

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

Between the two Departments, I can find out the details of what went over-----

Chairman

Were you responsible for this area in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform?

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

No.

Ms Deirdre O'Keeffe

Perhaps I can clarify. There were two elements here. The charitable lotteries fund was the responsibility of the Department of Finance, and that came across. The charities regulatory function - the charities function, as such - came from the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. They both came over to the Department of Justice and Equality at more or less the same time.

Chairman

So there was no real regulation prior to that.

Ms Deirdre O'Keeffe

The function sat in the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs before that, and the function in respect of the charitable lotteries fund sat in the Department of Finance before the transfer.

Chairman

Did they sit on their hands, or were they actually doing something about what was going on within the charities sector? What were they doing? Why did this issue just arise now? Did nobody engage with the charities sector? I just want to get an idea of the structure that was there prior to the enactment of the new legislation. Was the structure effective? Did it gather information on the charities sector in terms of how it had developed over the last ten or 15 years?

Mr. Brian Purcell

I do not know what happened while the two other Departments had responsibility for this.

Chairman

Did you ask them when you got the responsibility? Where can I pick up the thread? What have you been doing? Can I have the files? To whom do I talk?

Ms Deirdre O'Keeffe

When the unit came across to the Department of Justice and Equality from the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, one of the first functions we examined was how best to move forward with the regulation of the charities sector. That is the work we have been engaged in which has recently led to the establishment of the charities regulator and to the appointment of the regulator herself.

Chairman

I understand that, but prior to that, what were they doing in the two different Departments before it was handed to you? Were they doing anything?

Mr. Brian Purcell

I am not aware that they were looking at things such as salaries.

Chairman

Did you not ask them? I am interested in the process. What were you told?

Mr. Brian Purcell

As far as I am aware, that question was not asked of the other Departments, but I do not know.

Chairman

Did anyone from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform ask that question?

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

My understanding of the role with respect to the fund was that it was connected to the national lottery and the sharing out of funds to the charitable sectors was not a regulatory function. It was a payment of funds, in the same way that expenditure allocations are made. That is the nature of it, but I can follow up with a bit more detail.

Chairman

You might give us a bit of detail on the history of what the people within the two Departments were actually doing in terms of their jobs and functions relative to the charities sector.

With regard to the charities regulatory authority, the chairman will get €8,978 and members will get €5,985, as a general figure. That may be the figure, but it probably has not been decided on yet.

I would like to ask one more question in respect of the various tribunals. At how much did the Smithwick tribunal start?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Page 24 of the Vote provides the cumulative expenditure to date on the individual commissions and inquiries.

Mr. Brian Purcell

The figure has now gone up to €12.532 million.

Chairman

The planning tribunal in 2005 started by spending €1.5 million per year. In 2012 it went to €2.1 million, and the cumulative figure in 2012 was €11.4 million. What is it now?

Mr. Brian Purcell

It is €12.5 million.

Chairman

Is any further cost outstanding in respect of that tribunal?

Mr. Brian Purcell

There will be some further costs.

Chairman

Has Mr. Purcell an estimate of those costs?

Mr. Brian Purcell

They are difficult to estimate with complete accuracy, as the chairman is independent in carrying out the inquiries. The costs depend on the number of public and private hearings. The chairman will have to certify the third party legal costs. We do not have finality on those figures at the moment.

Chairman

The Smithwick tribunal's costs are ongoing. The chairman is still in place.

Mr. Brian Purcell

No, the tribunal has finished, but there will be some payment of-----

Chairman

I understand that, but is its attached secretariat in place?

Mr. Brian Purcell

No.

Chairman

The chairman continues to get paid, or the-----

Mr. Brian Purcell

No, that has finished. There may still be some outstanding legal costs that must be paid, but no further payments are going to the chairman or the secretariat.

Chairman

The amount is €12.5 million plus third party costs.

Mr. Brian Purcell

There may be some third party legal costs still to be paid, but I do not have a figure for them.

Chairman

Up until 31 December 2012, the Morris tribunal costs €64 million.

Mr. Brian Purcell

It is now up to €66.2 million.

Chairman

What is the forecast of its costs?

Mr. Brian Purcell

I understand that it should not go much higher. There will be a few outstanding legal costs to be paid, but they should not be-----

Chairman

In or around €70 million.

Mr. Brian Purcell

If it goes that high, it will go no higher.

Chairman

Is the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal the criminal injuries compensation board?

Mr. Brian Purcell

Yes.

Chairman

Has the Department appointed a new tribunal? Do these figures for the tribunal relate to cases? I presume that the figures of €76,000 and €88,000 describe what was awarded in 2011 and 2012, respectively.

Mr. Brian Purcell

They are not the awards.

Chairman

What are they?

Mr. Brian Purcell

I will provide the figure for the awards.

Chairman

Are they administration? Will Mr. Purcell provide a list of the awards?

Mr. Brian Purcell

They are the tribunal fees.

Chairman

To whom were they paid?

Mr. Brian Purcell

The members of the tribunal.

Chairman

Who were they?

Mr. Brian Purcell

I can pass those names along.

Chairman

Can we get a list of the names and the amounts paid to them?

Mr. Brian Purcell

Sure.

Chairman

Are those who received compensation also listed or is that a private matter?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Subhead E9 of the Vote deals with compensation for personal injuries criminally inflicted. It amounted to approximately €4.2 million in 2012. Note 6.9 of the accounts indicates that there were 107 accepted compensation awards, totalling approximately €8.6 million unpaid at 31 December 2012. Those were the ones yet to be determined at that date.

Chairman

Were those awards to be determined by the same tribunal or are we awaiting a new membership?

Mr. Brian Purcell

No. We had a budget of €4.23 million for 2013. That provision was increased to €11.534 million in November 2013 by means of a technical Supplementary Estimate amounting to €7.3 million. This enabled us to clear all outstanding accepted awards by the end of last December. The outturn for that subhead was €11.52 million, but all outstanding accepted awards were cleared.

Chairman

Will the tribunal entertain further applications? Has a tribunal been appointed or when will one be appointed and when will it accept applications?

Mr. Brian Purcell

There are 51 appeal applications outstanding. A chairman has been appointed.

Chairman

Who is that?

Mr. Brian Purcell

Mr. John Cheatle. He has been dealing with applications. We expect the vacant positions on the board to be advertised within the next fortnight.

Chairman

Will Mr. Purcell provide a note on the make-up of the tribunal,-----

Mr. Brian Purcell

Yes, as soon as the work has been-----

Chairman

-----contact details and so on as soon as it has been set up? I just want to see its structure.

I do not know whether Mr. Purcell is the Accounting Officer responsible, but is it correct that the returning officers of each county - their other title might be the sheriff offices, but I am unsure - have been appointed as judges? They were given that title.

Mr. Brian Purcell

The county registrars.

Chairman

Yes.

Mr. Brian Purcell

Six county registrars were appointed as specialist judges.

Chairman

They are specialists for-----

Mr. Brian Purcell

They deal with insolvency-----

Chairman

When were they appointed?

Mr. Brian Purcell

July 2013.

Chairman

Did they receive an increase in their salaries? Do they have the same salaries?

Mr. Brian Purcell

I believe they have the same salaries.

Chairman

How can one find out how many times they have sat since July? How many cases have they handled?

Mr. Brian Purcell

They were appointed to deal with insolvency cases. The Minister's intention is that they will also be given jurisdiction to deal with applications to the Circuit Court under the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013. We are still preparing for Committee Stage of that legislation. The scheduling of court cases and the allocation of court business is a matter for the President of the Circuit Court in this particular instance.

Chairman

Mr. Purcell does not know how many times those six judges sat since July. We would need to get that information from the President of the Circuit Court.

Mr. Brian Purcell

I am not aware of the number of times they have sat.

Chairman

If Mr. Purcell's Department was asked a parliamentary question on this matter, would he answer or would someone else?

Mr. Brian Purcell

The allocation of judges and court business is a matter for the President, who is independent in exercising that function. That is the answer we would give.

Chairman

The Department is a tough crowd where information is concerned. We would have to find out by other means.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

I will touch on a couple of points. How did the charitable lotteries scheme end up going from the Department of Finance to the Department of Justice and Equality?

Mr. Brian Purcell

It was a transfer of functions order. We took responsibility for charities in their entirety. We ended up with the charitable lotteries fund as part of that.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

The scheme is being wound down. In 2013, the figure was €4 million. In 2014, it is €2 million. There will be €1 million in the final year. When is that money paid and how?

Mr. Brian Purcell

Generally, the payment to charities is made in a lump sum towards the end of the year.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

Have the 2013 amounts been paid?

Mr. Brian Purcell

Yes.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

How much was paid to individual organisations?

Mr. Brian Purcell

I can provide a breakdown of that information. Twenty applications for funding were received, of which 19 qualified. Each of those 19 also received funding in 2012. The scheme is only open to organisations that were already running charitable lotteries in 1997. Over the years, the beneficiaries of the scheme have remained relatively constant. Some €4 million was dispersed in 2013.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

Which organisation received the most?

Mr. Brian Purcell

Rehab received the highest amount

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

How much did it receive?

Mr. Brian Purcell

It received €2.58 million. I can get the other figures for the Deputy.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

Effectively, Rehab received two thirds of the fund.

Mr. Brian Purcell

Throughout the history of the scheme it would have received two thirds of whatever funding was available, based on its sales.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

What type of due diligence is carried out prior to funding being paid out? What is the procedure in terms of bodies apply for funding? What type of checks are undertaken by the Department?

Ms Deirdre O'Keeffe

A check is made every year to ensure the funding allocated was used for the purpose for which it was intended. The allocation is based on the proportion of sales.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

Is an audit of sales carried out?

Ms Deirdre O'Keeffe

The Deputy will be aware that we have carried out an audit of the entire scheme.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

So for 2013, the Department would carry out an audit of the turnover figure provided.

Ms Deirdre O'Keeffe

We would not do an audit of the fund every year but we do some checking.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

What form would that take?

Ms Deirdre O'Keeffe

I do not have full details of that with me but I can get them for the Deputy if he wishes.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

Ms O'Keeffe might forward them to me.

Ms Deirdre O'Keeffe

Yes.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

Some €4 million in taxpayers' money is being paid out under this scheme. On the State pathology project, it was stated earlier that a little less than €4.3 million was spent on the original project. What is the anticipated spend on the new project and the combined cost of the original and new projects?

Mr. Brian Purcell

The Deputy may not have been present earlier when I responded to a question on this issue from Deputy Nash. We have an estimate of the cost but because the project will be going to tender in the relatively near future, I cannot say what that is.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

Is it more or less than €4.3 million?

Mr. Brian Purcell

I cannot say. We expect that even allowing for the moneys expended on the project thus far on the Marino site, the cost will still be a great deal lower than the targeted spend for the original project. It will be cheaper even allowing for the money already spent.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

What was the original targeted spend?

Mr. Brian Purcell

I think it was €13.8 million.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

A different site is now being used.

Mr. Brian Purcell

Yes.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

It is like comparing applies and oranges in that a smaller building is being provided for the lower amount.

Mr. Brian Purcell

It is not as extensive a project as the original one but it is a product of the times we are in now. It is considered to be appropriate for the needs that exist in terms of the resources available to spend on it.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

The point is that €4.3 million was spent on the original project.

Mr. Brian Purcell

Yes.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

An issue that arises continually in the context of Government bodies which appear before the committee is that of overspend of taxpayers' money. The money we are talking about today is effectively money down the drain. Mr. Purcell said the project is a product of the time we are in. Equally, €4 million of taxpayers' money forgone is a product of a time when issues such as this arose owing to a lack of due diligence. Of the €4.3 million spend, €2.5 million was for consultancy and professional fees. How did that happen? Mr. Purcell might elaborate on the spend between 2006 and 2010 of €1.9 million on consultancy fees and €425,000 on professional fees and, in 2011, €123,000 and €41,000, respectively.

Mr. Brian Purcell

Deputy Harris asked a similar question earlier. While the service provided is referred to as consultancy services, they are not consultancy services in the context of that with which one would normally associate the word "consultancy". They were professional services such as architect, quantity surveyor, mechanical and electrical engineering services and so on. The expenditure was in respect of the type of professional services that would be paid out in any building project. They are not consultancies of the type provided by PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

In hindsight, what should have been done differently to avoid the wastage of €4.3 million in taxpayers' money?

Mr. Brian Purcell

To be fair, there were a number of issues involved. If, for example, the construction firm awarded the contract had not gone into receivership, which was an unfortunate consequence of that particular time, the project would have proceeded and been completed at a cost of €13.8 million. As it happened, the project had to be stopped, and for legal reasons, we were not able to go down the route of appointing another firm of contractors.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

Why?

Mr. Brian Purcell

The legal advice we received was that in accordance with the procurement legislation in place, we could not do so.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

I know of a school building project in Limerick in respect of which the building contractor went into receivership, the contract was retendered and the school was effectively completed, and at better cost. When did the contractor concerned go into receivership?

Mr. Brian Purcell

In November 2010.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

Prices would have been falling at that stage. When was the contract awarded?

Mr. Brian Purcell

Earlier in the same year.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

Why was the contract not retendered? What percentage of the project was completed?

Mr. Brian Purcell

The shell of the building had not been completed.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

What was the basis of the legal advice? Am I correct the part of the building that had been completed had to be knocked down?

Mr. John Roycroft

We received an offer from the bondsman to appoint a new contractor to complete the project. In this regard, John Sisk was recommended, for whom the bondsman was to pick up the tab, which was almost €2 million. It would not have cost us anything extra to have the building completed. We looked at the original contract and it actually provided for this. When we raised the matter with the Attorney General, we were told that it would be unlawful under the EU directive to allow someone else to nominate a contractor to complete a public project where that had not been formally procured through the public procurement process. In other words, we could not spend public funds on another contractor that had not been formally procured through the EU directive.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

Could the Department have gone through the public procurement process again to have the project completed?

Mr. John Roycroft

Yes.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

Why did it not do so?

Mr. John Roycroft

When we received the offer from the initial contractor, we were considering that when a number of difficulties arose. The original design and build had changed, the foundation had been laid and the ground floor structure had been partly completed. We had to decide how this would be reflected in tender documentation to the extent that there would not be an unacceptable risk for the State. For example, if another contractor was appointed to complete the build, how could we avoid a situation whereby if something subsequently went wrong, that contractor could point to the cause of the problem being the foundations laid by the previous contractor? We teased out that issue and eventually came up with a solution that would allow us to go to market again and retender. We then became aware - this was in late 2011 - that difficulties were emerging in the capital budget, that further cuts were likely and if we went to retendering, our project would extend into 2012, so we held off at that stage because of the uncertainty. There was then a 30% cut in the budget and we could not proceed owing to a lack of available funds.

We had a solution in place that would have allowed us to complete the build on two separate occasions, the first being the offer by the bondsman to complete the build, which we could not avail of even though there would have been a public benefit to doing so, and the second being when we found ourselves with a restricted capital envelope and the knowledge that further cuts were likely, the level of which we were not sure of.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

The Department has opted for a scaled-back project because of that.

Mr. John Roycroft

We have opted for a scaled-back project that will deliver some of the benefits of the former project but will not, for example, deliver leading edge technology such as video recording of post mortems and will not include an MRI scanner on site.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

That would have been in the original building.

Mr. John Roycroft

Yes.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

How much did it cost to demolish the original building?

Mr. John Roycroft

It was approximately €50,000.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

Advice was received from the Attorney General that if the Department proceeded to allow the bondsman to appoint Sisk to finish out the contract, it would be unlawful.

Mr. John Roycroft

Yes.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

Who would have sued? What would have been the legal implications?

Mr. John Roycroft

We had approaches from other contractors which bid for the contract won by Michael McNamara and Company Limited. They were waiting in the wings and had contacted Dublin City Council and various professionals to say they were interested in completing the build. Our advice in that regard was that once the contract was awarded to McNamara, the tender competition was concluded and we could not go to the second bidder, which was John Paul Construction.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

Was that because of the contract signed with McNamara?

Mr. John Roycroft

Once the formal contract is signed, the tender competition is finished and to award the contract to anyone else, a new tender competition would have to be held. This is very much the letter of the procurement law, not the spirit. Although there was a direct public benefit to going to completion of contract - we wanted to and we tried every avenue, including all opt-out clauses - we were told in no uncertain terms that this was not on.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

Could the Department not have gone through public procurement, allowing Sisk to be one of the parties tendering in the public domain? The company was clearly willing to do it for a value for the bondsman. Surely it would have been a no-lose position as any company getting the contract would have had to come in at a lower value than Sisk was doing it for the bondsman? If the Department could not lose, why did it not go through public procurement?

Mr. John Roycroft

In approximately the middle of 2011 there was a procurement solution in place but it was clear there were difficulties with the capital budget going to 2012. We knew if there was a tender-----

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

The €13.8 million had already been secured to construct the original building.

Mr. Brian Purcell

No, there was a 30% cut in our capital budget.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

If the building continued once McNamara started work, surely it would have been there to completion.

Mr. Brian Purcell

It would have been finished in 2011. By the time-----

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

Is the witness saying the money was not allocated to the project?

Mr. Brian Purcell

No, the money was allocated and if the project had gone ahead, it would have been finished. By the time we would have proceeded with a new procurement process, contracted a builder and found ourselves in a position to have to pay for the building, our capital budget had been cut to the point that we did not have the money.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

It seems an extraordinary way of doing business.

Mr. Brian Purcell

It is as simple as that.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

Considering this from the outside, it seems the Department got funding for a project that was half-built. Effectively, the company went into receivership and the rules of the game changed. It seems that if the project could not be completed in that year, the money falls away from the project. Is that correct?

Mr. Brian Purcell

The issue is the capital budget. We would have had the money to pay for this because it would have been completed.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

I understand that.

Mr. Brian Purcell

By the time we would have awarded a contract and engaged the builder to proceed with the project, we would not have had the money in the capital budget to pay for it.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

Normal business would not function that way and this is clearly an example of the way the Department functions. This is something that comes up repeatedly.

Mr. Brian Purcell

I presume in a normal business the same would apply. If something went down the tubes, a business could look at going ahead with a similar project but decide that there is no money to pay for it.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

The problem is €4 million in taxpayers' money is being written off and the Department is getting a yellow pack version of what could have been achieved with the €13.8 million. These are two different buildings. Mr. Roycroft referenced the state-of-the-art elements that will not be in the new building.

Mr. Brian Purcell

We will not have them initially but our hope is that we will be able to make available necessary funding, so over a period we can add to this building. It will, unintentionally, have a level of expenditure to the Exchequer below the original cost but the facility will still be fit for purpose. It may not be a state-of-the-art medico-legal centre that we had hoped to proceed with in Marino, but nevertheless it will allow us to take the offices of the State pathologist and the coroner from the existing accommodation, which is completely unsuitable for purpose.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

I will make a comment or observation. There must be a change in strategic thinking within Departments so there is not so much emphasis on cash. They seem to operate on the cash available in a year. There should have been a way to consider that project strategically. This was an unusual issue and there should have been a process that would not involve the waste of €4 million in taxpayers' money. The witnesses have indicated the project could not be completed so the funding was not made available. However, the Department put €4 million of taxpayers' money down the drain. There should be strategic commercial and financial decision making within Departments, particularly with capital projects. I can understand the issue with revenue projects. Capital projects should be considered on a multi-annual basis as distinct from a yearly basis.

Chairman

There was a process that arrived at a decision not to go ahead with a structure and rather to demolish it. How did that work in the Department? Who takes the final decision and who makes the recommendation?

Mr. Brian Purcell

The decision to demolish the structure was taken because we had no option because it was becoming dangerous.

Chairman

I did not ask that. On whose recommendation was the decision made to stop the process of seeking the money for these partially commenced building? Someone made the decision in the Department not to go ahead and to knock the building.

Mr. Brian Purcell

The decision to demolish would have been made in a normal way. I would have been informed that this was something that had to be done on safety grounds.

Chairman

Who informed you of that?

Mr. Brian Purcell

I would have been informed by the project board.

Chairman

Who made up the board?

Mr. Brian Purcell

We had a communication from Dublin City Council in January 2013 that it intended to proceed with demolition unless we had some reason for not going ahead with it. There was a demolition order.

Chairman

Who makes up the project board?

Mr. Brian Purcell

Dublin City Council informed us we would effectively have to make the demolition on safety grounds.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

What date was that?

Mr. Brian Purcell

It was January 2013.

Chairman

Before getting to that, someone had to decide on the issue. The Department was 30% down on funding and the project would not be realised. Is that correct? Who in the Department looked at the building because there was no money to complete it? Who made the decision not to cut anywhere else other than the building and to demolish the building?

Mr. Brian Purcell

Is the question who made the decision?

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

Had the decision been made by the time the letter came from Dublin City Council or did it precipitate the final decision?

Mr. Brian Purcell

No. The decision to abandon the project was taken when it became clear when there were no other options.

Chairman

Who takes the decision about the money the Department receives, in terms of the Department of Finance giving it funding for the year and the Accounting Officer deciding that because the funding has been cut by 30%, he will have to cut somewhere else?

Mr. Brian Purcell

I have to. As Accounting Officer I had to make the decision that I simply did not have the money to proceed with this.

Chairman

Was there no place Mr. Purcell could have got money-----

Mr. Brian Purcell

Not from with our own capital budget.

Chairman

-----to move on the development of the building? What did the Department of Finance say to the Department of Justice and Equality about it?

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

Our role is to allocate the overall capital allocation. The individual decisions made about how it is apportioned is a matter for the Department.

Chairman

What did the Department think of the Department of Justice and Equality writing off €4 million, €3 million or whatever?

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

It was €3.3 million with the bondsman.

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

It is not a matter under delegated sanction that they would have had to consult with us about it, so it would not have been part of the conversation.

Chairman

Was the Department of Finance not concerned that another Department was about to write off €3 million? Did that not concern the Department?

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

It is not something of which we would have been aware. It is a decision in which we are not involved and we delegate it.

Chairman

Does Mr. Gallagher's Department hold the purse?

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

Yes.

Chairman

The Department of Justice and Equality is about to get rid of a €3 million project but his Department is not aware of it.

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

We would be aware of the overall allocation for capital. We would have been aware of the context within which that capital allocation was being reduced in line with the overall agreed capital allocations across the Civil Service because of the circumstances that pertained.

Chairman

Did Mr. Purcell have to notify the Department of Finance that he was going to do this?

Mr. Brian Purcell

No.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform?

Mr. Brian Purcell

We had our capital budget. We have to live within our capital budget and we simply could not have proceeded. Following on from the decision after the receivership, we did not have the money within our capital budget because of the cuts that had been made to the capital budget. We simply did not have the money to proceed with the project as it had been originally planned. We had no option.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

Could the Department have gone back to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and made a case for a derogation or something for this project in order to fund it into 2013?

Mr. Brian Purcell

By the time we got to the stage of pulling out, the structure that was in place had deteriorated quite badly.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

When did the Department make the decision to pull the plug?

Mr. Brian Purcell

The decision was taken in 2012.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

When in 2012?

Mr. Brian Purcell

Late 2012. We were already engaged in various discussions with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform in relation to our ongoing budgetary situation. We were aware that what we had been given was the absolute limit of what we were going to get. There was no question of them giving us more money to do this. We had a budget.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

When did McNamara go into receivership?

Mr. Brian Purcell

In November 2010.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

Two years elapsed before the Department made the decision to pull the plug. Would that have been sufficient time for the Department to go back to the public procurement rule and retender? There was a two year period.

Mr. John Roycroft

Let me give the Deputy the timeline. The answer is "No" because the capital budget was cut in 2011 so we knew we would not have sufficient funds. We then looked at the public private partnership process as a mechanism for completing the project. It became quite clear after detailed discussions that this was an outlier, in terms of its technical sophistication, and did not fit in with anything else that we could bundle it with. It was too small in itself to be a viable PPP package and, in addition, because of its technical sophistication as laboratory environment, it did not fit so we were told it was not a suitable candidate for PPP. It was only at that stage that we decided we could not proceed with the project.

That is why we did not want to proceed with the demolition of the existing structure on site even though we were aware it was dangerous. That is why we were prepared to pay a security cost to try to maintain it so at least we would have some viable structure to work on if the project was successful and we procured funding. We did not manage to do that either via the capital envelope or the PPP process. Only then, when all options had failed and we said we were never going to complete this for the foreseeable future, did we take a decision to go to Whitehall, to cut the funding for security and demolish what was left on site.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

As I am a Limerick Deputy, I ask Mr. Purcell to update me on the new courts complex and buildings to be located at Mulgrave Street and Costello's Yard.

Mr. Brian Purcell

At the moment there are two bundles in the justice sector that are being considered as part of the Government's stimulus package. There is one on the Garda side which effectively comprises three Garda divisional headquarters and one on the Courts Service side which is seven courthouses that are either being built and are new courthouses or are being refurbished. The courthouse in Limerick, which is on the Costello's Yard site, is one of those.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

On Mulgrave Street.

Mr. Brian Purcell

Yes, it is at the junction of Mulgrave Street - and I do not need to tell the Deputy where it is - but that is part of the Courts Service bundle.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

What is the timeframe?

Mr. Brian Purcell

We expect, if this all proceeds according to plan - the National Development Finance Agency is involved in the PPP element - that contracts will be awarded probably sometime in 2015.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

When does the Accounting Officer anticipate construction will get under way and the project will be completed?

Mr. Brian Purcell

Once the contract is awarded construction will get under way pretty immediately.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

What is the building time, roughly?

Mr. Brian Purcell

One is probably looking at between 12 and 18 months.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

Will it be opened at some time in late 2015-early 2016?

Mr. Brian Purcell

One would be looking at 2016, probably towards the tail end of 2016.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

Is that for completion?

Mr. Brian Purcell

For it to be completed, I would think.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

It is a very welcome project for Limerick. Is the project out for tender at the moment? What has happened physically?

Mr. Brian Purcell

No. There is a process involved. It has not gone out to tender. The projects will go out to tender in either a single bundle or as part of another bundle.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

Does the Accounting Officer anticipate that contractors will be appointed at some time in 2015?

Mr. Brian Purcell

That is probably a fair estimate of where it will be.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

With a completion date at some time in 2016.

Mr. Brian Purcell

I would think so, yes.

Chairman

The Deputy wants the project done very quickly in order to prepare his press release.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

We do not all march to the same tune, Chairman.

Deputy John Deasy

Most of us do.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

Not all. As Mr. Purcell will be well aware, the project is significant for Limerick because of its proximity and location within the city. I welcome the project and thank the Department.

I wish to make a final observation. Perhaps the committee will look at the way capital projects are appraised within Departments. Clearly this project included advanced technology. I ask the Departments to look at these projects on a multiannual basis as distinct from a yearly basis. The project may have become hostage to the way public finances are apportioned and allocated on an annual basis and operated within Departments.

Mr. Brian Purcell

We assess on a multiannual basis. One of the big difficulties here, and we were not unique in any way as this was right across the board, was our capital budget decreased from about €150 million in 2008 to about €80 million in 2011 and has since dropped to about €56 million. The levels of reduction in the capital spend were very significant. As the committee will know, given the nature of major capital projects, they are not necessarily completed in one calendar year and may span two or three calendar years. In some instances, given the way funding is, it is nearly an advantage to spread the cost over maybe three years.

In terms of timing, it can be advantageous to commence a project at the tail end of one year and operate on the basis of spending 20% in the first year, 60% in the second and the balance in the third year. That can enable one to be as flexible as possible with a diminishing capital budget. A significant level of planning goes into it and the bigger projects, of their nature, must be completed using a multi-annual plan. The points made by the Deputy are very valid and we will certainly try to take them on board as far as we can.

Chairman

They are relevant in the context of the recommendations that we make arising from this discussion. I now call Deputy Deasy.

Deputy John Deasy

We have been here for a long time so I will be as brief as possible. I apologise if this has come up previously, but I have a question about the company car and penalty points issue. The Comptroller and Auditor General examined this issue and his investigation found that the State was losing approximately €1.12 million every year because drivers using company cars were evading their penalties. The report showed that one company alone had more than 200 unresolved cases. Many companies responded to the effect that they did not know who was driving the car at the time of the offence. Almost one quarter of road traffic offences involving a company car during 2011 and 2012 were quashed and almost half were not pursued. I raised this issue with the Garda Commissioner when he came before this committee recently and asked him why, after ten years, it has still not been resolved. The problem was first noted in 2002 or 2003 and it has still not been resolved.

I understand that the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport is obviously key in this matter. I heard a report on radio yesterday which was based on what the Garda inspectorate had reported. What kind of input does the Department of Justice and Equality have in this situation, where a problem has gone on for so long? When I asked the question of the Garda Commissioner I found his answer to be unsatisfactory. I asked him if the legislation that was passed in 2003 was ineffective and if new legislation was needed. I now understand that further legislation was passed but was not acted upon. The relevant elements within the legislation have not been dealt with by the responsible Departments. What role does the Department of Justice and Equality have in this? Whose has the lead responsibility for this within Government? In my opinion, there has been a real dearth of leadership on what is a very simple issue. A problem has been identified, legislated for but not resolved. We are talking about sizeable amounts of money and I want to know why somebody has not taken this by the scruff of the neck and dealt with it, once and for all. What role does the Department of Justice and Equality have here? What does the Department intend to do about it?

Mr. Brian Purcell

It certainly is a very valid criticism of the system that is in place at the moment. To answer the final question first, one of the recommendations in the report of the Garda inspectorate is that the Minister would immediately task the Department with chairing a group of the relevant stakeholders in all of this ---

Deputy John Deasy

I am going to stop Mr. Purcell there. Why did it take the Garda inspectorate issuing a recommendation for that to happen? This has been obvious for ten years. It has been legislated for twice. Why does the Department need the Garda inspectorate to tell it something that is already evident? It is evident to anyone who has looked at it.

Mr. Brian Purcell

Deputy Deasy is right; it has been going on for a considerable period of time. Legislation is in place, namely, the 2010 Road Traffic Act, a section of which would address this problem but that section is in Part 3 of the Act which is awaiting commencement. One of the issues that has held up the commencement of the Act is what is called the "third payment option". It is our intention, in the context of the new group that has been set up and which is having its first meeting this afternoon, to recommend that the legislation is amended in such a way as to allow for the commencement of the provision that relates to the company car issue, separately from the rest of Part 3, so that it can proceed without being held up, pending the introduction of the third payment option.

Deputy John Deasy

The legislation is deficient as is and needs to be amended. Is that correct?

Mr. Brian Purcell

To be fair, the legislation itself is not deficient. In order for the relevant section that applies to the company car issue to proceed, the Act would have to be amended to enable that element to proceed, separate from the other elements in that particular part of the legislation. I think that is how we will proceed but I do not want to pre-empt the group's discussions. The group will be jointly chaired by my Department and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and I think that the best and quickest way of enabling us to deal with this problem would be to go down that route. Maybe when the group meets I will be told that there are other options but I believe that this is the way we will move it on. I can assure Deputy Deasy that the Minister, my Department and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport are committed to resolving the outstanding issues as quickly as possible.

Deputy John Deasy

That is fair enough, but a punter might ask Mr. Purcell why it is taking so long to deal with this. The Comptroller and Auditor General has conducted his investigation and found that very significant amounts of money are being lost to the Exchequer. Why does it take so long for two Departments and An Garda Síochána to get around a table? Why does it take a Garda inspectorate report to precipitate that? That question must be asked. The Public Accounts Committee has to ask that question. We are now potentially talking about a third tranche of legislation, assuming we amend the 2010 Act, to get this right. The question must be asked as to how efficient problem solving within our Departments really is, in the face of the company car issue. Mr. Purcell has answered my question - he has a road map and the group is meeting. However, even a cursory look at the history of the company car issue would lead one to assert that the Government has failed dismally to deal with it in a reasonable time period. I do not know if the Comptroller and Auditor General has anything to say on the issue, given that he is the person who came up with these recommendations.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It is disappointing that something which was first raised in 2003 and presented in a relatively straightforward way as an obvious problem has not been resolved ten years on. While there have been attempts to solve the problem and there seems to be a way to do so, the lack of a resolution thus far is disappointing.

Mr. Brian Purcell

I would not disagree with Deputy Deasy or the Comptroller and Auditor General on that. It should have been moved on before now. It was dependent on dealing with the third payment option which is something that is complicated and will be quite costly to implement, particularly in terms of the investment in IT that will be required. The solution to move this along as quickly as possible is the one I have indicated and I will certainly be pressing ---

Deputy John Deasy

Is the Department of Justice and Equality taking the lead on this or the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport?

Mr. Brian Purcell

The group is jointly chaired by ourselves and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. An amendment to the Road Traffic Act is required. I must point out, by the way, that I am not blaming the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport but---

Deputy John Deasy

Exactly. The Commission said that he was not blaming the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport.

Mr. Brian Purcell

We must ensure that both Departments push this measure through. The group has not been set up to deal with this issue solely, but with a range of issues that have been covered in previous reports in addition to the latest report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and by the inspectors' report. The issues range across the core services in the Garda Síochána and other related agencies. We have been given clear instructions by the Government and the Minister that problems areas must be progressed as expeditiously as they can. That is the direction in which we are going.

Deputy John Deasy

Fair enough. On foot of Mr. Purcell's response to the question, I must address the issue of penalty points in the broad sense. I have reflected on what has happened in the past couple of years and the processes that have evolved as the penalty points became an issue in the media, the Oireachtas, the Garda Síochána, the Department and among the public. Let me list the reports: we now have a Garda inspectorate's report; we are looking forward to a Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission report; Assistant Commissioner O'Mahoney's report; countless reports by the Comptroller and Auditor General; and other reviews. Why has nobody in the Department taken a leadership role and with PULSE technology dealt with infractions that were easy to identify? The Garda inspectorate has obviously done this. Why has it taken so long for Government to deal with this issue? Why was it a case of pushing the problem from desk to desk and passing the buck? We have ten reports. The question I pose may not be for the Secretary General directly or the Department of Justice and Equality, but they are involved, but what is the reason for the myriad of reports on an issue that should be reasonably simple to address? Should there not have been an easier way to deal with this issue? Why are elements of government in turmoil over something that should have been nipped in the bud if problems, such as those identified by the Comptroller and Auditor General years ago, were addressed? Why are we now waiting for another report from the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission? Does the Secretary General have a response?

Mr. Brian Purcell

It depends on which aspect of the problem is under focus. The fixed charge processing system has worked by and large in a particular way. In broad terms in a three-year period one will have 1.5 million fixed charge process tickets issued. In the context of the complaints made about PULSE, which Assistant Commissioner John O'Mahoney investigated, he examined the 1.46 million fixed charged notices issued, of which 66,000 were cancelled. Of the 66,000 cancelled fixed charged notices, some 37,000 were discretionary cancellations. Over a period of three and a half years that worked out at 10,000 a year, which was two per Garda district per week. On average, there are five Garda stations in a district, so that in every Garda station one ticket was cancelled every two and a half weeks. The vast majority of fixed charge notice fines are paid. The Comptroller and Auditor General has identified issues with summonses but in terms of the overall numbers, the system works reasonably well. The Garda inspectorate's report highlights particular issues. Given the commentary on the issue, may I point out the Minister for Justice and Equality referred the two Garda reports to the independent Garda inspectorate who provided an independent report, which has been accepted.

The issues that the Comptroller and Auditor General has rightly pointed out as needing to be addressed, such as the issue of summons, has been a problem for some time. There are difficulties with summons, such as the operational difficulty of serving summons. The changing nature of how we live, with the significant increase in the numbers living in apartments, complicates the serving of summonses. We need to take a very close look at this, but it will not necessarily be that easy to deal with. This is a problem that has bedevilled the system down through the years. We will have to come up with some sort of solution that works better than the current system. The working group will have to make progress on this.

Deputy John Deasy

I know the Minister referred the issue to the Garda inspectorate, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission and so on, but having looked at it, I see a common thread. We are not dealing with issues as quickly as we should be, issues are put on the long finger and in some cases this may be up to ten years. I would add the penalty point saga to that. I do not think it is necessary for the Minister and the Department of Justice and Equality to refer it to somebody else, I think the Department should deal with it. In some cases, officials may think that is impossible and the matter should be referred to an independent arbitrator, but the leadership in the Department should deal with issues that the Comptroller and Auditor General has flagged.

I put questions to the Commissioner and frankly I could not believe some of the responses because they were so scant. That is the reason I raised the company car issue. As I have said, I have come to the conclusion after drilling into the figures that issues, which are simple to explain, are put on the long finger, when there is no need to do that.

The Secretary General has answered the question. In respect of penalty points, company cars and statute barred summonses, there is a distinct lack of action, whether that is the responsibility of the Department of Justice and Equality or of collective Departments. I think the group should focus on how to respond quickly to issues as they arise and deal with them collectively.

Mr. Brian Purcell

Deputy Deasy has made a valid point. The problem was first identified in the Comptroller and Auditor General's 2003 report. While things have moved on, in particular in respect of fixed charge processing system, some of the core difficulties still exist, in spite of efforts over a long period. There may have been some improvements but we still have not managed to deal with them effectively. It is correct to say that some of the recommendations from the action plan have already been acted upon but the key issues will be dealt with.

I give an assurance to the Chairman and members of the committee that we will ensure this is driven forward from now on, regardless of what may have occurred and whatever failings there may have been in dealing with some of these issues in the past. I have been given very clear instructions by the Minister that we have to ensure this group deals with these problems quickly. If there are resource issues involved, we have to deal with that element. As I stated, however, I assure the Chairman, members of the committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General that they can expect to see progress being made quickly in this area. I take the Deputy's point which is a valid one.

Deputy John Deasy

Mr. Purcell will see that there is a significant danger that members of the public will decide that the Department and the criminal justice system are inherently inefficient if these issues are not addressed within a reasonable timeframe. They look at the entire penalty points saga and ask what is going on and why people cannot simply step in and deal with it. While Mr. Purcell is correct that the system as a whole works well, it was known for years that the use of discretion was a major factor in the penalty points system, yet the issue was not dealt with appropriately and was left hanging. We now have four or five reports which clearly point out that the problem with the system has been known about for a long time. Members of the public believe the matter should have been addressed a long time ago.

With the indulgence of the Chairman, I will ask a further question on training, education and development programmes for former prisoners and the reintegration of former prisoners in the community. One such programme, U-Casadh, is located in Waterford. How much money is the Probation Service allocating to these organisations? Does the Department intend to increase funding for these groups? Do these programmes work and would it be worthwhile investing more money in them?

Mr. Brian Purcell

What is the name of the project in Waterford?

Deputy John Deasy

It is called U-Casadh and one of many such programmes aimed at reintegrating former prisoners into the community.

Mr. Brian Purcell

There are obviously significant benefits from having schemes that facilitate the reintegration of prisoners into the community. One can only do so much work in terms of rehabilitation within a prison setting. As I know only too well from my time as head of the Prison Service, when offenders are going back into the community, the early stages after their return are the key period. Whatever progress can be made while they are in custody, it is important that supports are available on the outside. The Probation Service has a budget for these projects and in 2012 expenditure on community based organisations was approximately €10.3 million. The Department intends, in so far as our budgets allow us, to continue to support community based projects for offenders returning to the community.

Deputy John Deasy

The focus of the committee is on saving money and obtaining value for money. Does investment in rehabilitation programmes for offenders save money in the long run? The Department obviously has conducted cost-benefit analyses in this area and of some individual projects. What is Mr. Purcell's opinion of the investment it is making in rehabilitation projects? Do they pay dividends and would it be worthwhile investing more money in them? Has the Department carried out an analysis?

Mr. Brian Purcell

I believe the projects are paying dividends. To be honest, some of them are better than others and the Probation Service examines, audits and analyses the various projects to find out which ones it considers are delivering the greatest benefits. This will continue to be done on an ongoing basis.

Deputy John Deasy

Does the Probation Service make a case to the Secretary General for additional budgets if it finds they are needed?

Mr. Brian Purcell

While the Probation Service would look for extra budgets, obviously the Department's budgets are limited by the amounts allocated to us by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. We fund 45 community based organisations that are funded by the Probation Service throughout the country, which represents 28% of the entire Probation Service budget allocation. These organisations provide a range of services, depending on the areas in which they operate. I certainly believe one can obtain a significant benefit from investment in community run and community based programmes for prisoners. One of the measures we have introduced that has been quite successful has been the community return scheme where we have taken suitable prisoners and put them into the community. In other words, the prisoners concerned are able to serve the tail end of their sentences in doing community service. This project has proved to be very successful since it was introduced in late 2011. I see the way forward as continuing to invest as much as possible in those services in which the Probation Service is involved because this investment is showing benefits. For the first time in a long time we have seen a reduction in the number of people coming into custody. The investment we have made in this type of project in the community and through the Probation Service has been instrumental in that regard. I am not saying by any means that it is the only reason, but it is-----

Deputy John Deasy

Mr. Purcell has made a significant statement. He has said he believes these schemes are effective and that it is worth investing money in them. I do not know if the Comptroller and Auditor General has ever examined this issue or if his office has a role in analysing the expenditure the Department and the Probation Service allocates to these organisations in terms of its effect and the end result for the Exchequer in reducing the level of reoffending and the recidivism rate among those who enter these programmes compared to that among those who do not do so. Would it be worthwhile examining this issue? Would such an examination be helpful to the Probation Service or the Department?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

We looked at the Probation Service in considerable detail, but, again, it was probably about ten years ago. I think one of the aspects we looked at was how they assessed which programmes worked and perhaps which were less successful. While it is something we could certainly return to at some point, it is not an easy process. One could end up case-making if one wanted to support this approach or one could end up making a case to abolish these organisations if one wanted to do this. There are so many variables in the equation that it is a significant challenge for the Department. However, it is something that needs to be done.

Deputy John Deasy

Mr. Purcell has stated these programmes have had a considerable effect on the recidivism rate. Given that a study of the programmes in which we are investing €10.3 million has not been conducted in the past ten years, surely we need to analyse them to ascertain how effective they are? All of these organisations keep track of the people who avail of their programmes and each of them will, therefore, have statistics. We have all read reports on the success the Scandinavian countries have achieved in this area. I do not know if there is anything more scientific that could be done to bolster our belief and faith in investing in this area.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The point about my office having looked at it about ten years ago is beside the point. The Department would be obliged, in terms of its spending on an ongoing basis, to do that type of evaluative work on a routine basis, not waiting for my office to come and do it.

Mr. Brian Purcell

We do that. We have a very close engagement with the Central Statistics Office. We have two members of staff from that office in the Department, one of whom has done a great deal of work with the Probation Service and would focus on the type of thing that works and the type of thing that does not. What I am saying is based on what we have seen ourselves. I would make the point, the Comptroller and Auditor General touched on it, that this is a very broad area and it is not always easy to pinpoint exactly what works and what does not work. In relation to the problem and the individuals one is dealing with, it is not necessarily one particular intervention that delivers the result. It depends on a myriad of different issues, most of which do not fall within the remit of the Department of Justice and Equality, or the Probation Service or the Prison Service. It also depends on a wide range of societal issues but also on a wide range of services provided by a wide range of other agencies.

Deputy John Deasy

Sure.

Mr. Brian Purcell

We try to evaluate what works best and what does not. That is something we will continue to do although, at the same time, I have to point out that we only have a limited amount of money that we can spend on these projects and we spend whatever we can.

Deputy John Deasy

That is what I am getting at. Notwithstanding the intangibles the Comptroller and Auditor General has mentioned - I accept all that and what he has said - I do not know if it is within his remit to take another look at this issue and, perhaps, assist the Department, notwithstanding the work those two individuals do within the Department, to see if this money is being well spent or if more money would result in a lower recidivism rate.

Chairman

Does Mr. Purcell accept the recommendations from the Comptroller and Auditor General on the building project?

Mr. Brian Purcell

Yes.

Chairman

Does he accept them all fully?

Mr. Brian Purcell

Yes.

Chairman

On the other matter of the lottery and the charities, I understand Mr. Purcell will get a note for the committee, perhaps from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and his own Department.

Mr. Brian Purcell

Yes.

Chairman

Will he please include in that note information on whether the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, the Department of Finance or the Department of Justice and Equality were lobbied? Can he answer that question now?

Mr. Brian Purcell

Whether-----

Chairman

Were officials within the Department of Justice and Equality dealing with this matter lobbied?

Mr. Brian Purcell

During-----

Chairman

On the scheme and what was happening.

Mr. Brian Purcell

On the charitable lotteries fund scheme.

Chairman

We were told last week that Rehab had a figure in its account for €700,000 and that it had to do with advocacy. It could be for PR or for lobbying. I am trying to establish if the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform would comment as to whether it was lobbied and, if so, by whom and when, and likewise, in respect of the Department of Justice and Equality if, Mr. Purcell or his officials were lobbied and, if so, when and by whom?

Mr. Brian Purcell

There was one meeting with Rehab in relation to the charitable lottery scheme?

Chairman

Who attended that meeting?

Mr. Brian Purcell

It was attended by the CEO of Rehab, Mr. Frank Flannery and Mr. John McGuire. The meeting took place in November 2011.

Chairman

That was probably a standard meeting between the organisations-----

Mr. Brian Purcell

It was a meeting in relation to the charitable lotteries fund.

Chairman

I mean separate from that, in terms of professional lobbyists or lobby groups, was the Department lobbied other than-----

Mr. Brian Purcell

Not that I am aware of.

Chairman

Perhaps the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform would check it out and come back to the committee.

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

I would not be aware of that type of engagement at all beyond what is officially need for the purposes of the fund.

Chairman

So that was the only meeting that the Department of Justice and Equality had.

Mr. Brian Purcell

Yes, so far as I am aware. I presume there were meetings at some point with others-----

Chairman

Mr. Purcell might let us know within the next couple of weeks.

Mr. Brian Purcell

-----but I am not aware of any lobbying as such.

Chairman

Perhaps he would check it for us to be absolutely clear and let us have a written note on it.

In relation to Mr. Purcell's comments on the penalty points system, I believe it is a very serious issue, and one that has been highlighted not only by the Comptroller and Auditor General but by many others. As the witness will be aware Sergeant McCabe appeared before the committee in private session. In spite of what you say about two per district and so on in terms of your analysis, 28% were not paid. In my opinion that results in a serious loss to the State and as leakage from the State it shows up governance issues in terms of how the whole system was managed. I will not go into the detail of it but I would not like any comment from this committee meeting to be taken as implying it is not that bad. I believe it is very serious and I would like to see much more action taken to resolve the matter. We were talking about delivering summonses or delivering the paper to the offender in person at the end of it. Is it not amazing that courier companies can go to apartments, the most far-flung places and can deliver to individuals and yet we have a problem. If these summonses and these pieces of paper were not delivered in the private sector they would be bust. They would not accept the percentages of non-delivery that the Department or those involved in this particular instance seem to accept. The percentage of non-delivered items of paper in the case of these issues was 11%. Non-delivery in the transport business is down to 1%. The Department lags behind in terms of a commercial comparison. I am aware there are complications but to allow that situation to continue over the years, without dealing with the issue in some way, is an awful reflection on all of those involved in the Departments or whoever else is steering this through. I would hope Mr. Purcell would take into consideration all of what has happened on this issue recently and get to grips with it rapidly.

Mr. Brian Purcell

Very briefly, I take on board what the Chairman is saying. You are right, it is an issue we have to come to grips with. I made the point that there was one cancellation every two-and-a-half weeks. I take the point about the 28% that are not dealt with. The one point I would make on deliveries and courier companies and the commercial sector is that in virtually all those instances the deliveries are being made to people who actually want to receive the delivery whereas when one is delivering penalty points notices or summonses, in most instances, the people themselves definitely do not want to receive them, so that is-----

Chairman

All the more reason the Department should have a system in place to make sure they get them.

Mr. Brian Purcell

I accept that.

Chairman

Let us not ignore that. The Department has a job to do. The couriers are doing it, the Department should be able to do it and no amount of discussion around this issue will convince me that an efficient system in place; there is not.

Mr. Brian Purcell

We will have to make sure it works better.

Chairman

Mr. Purcell could not have said a truer word. Let it happen as soon as possible. Does Mr. McCarthy wish to add anything.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

On the issue of the 10,000 cancellations per year, to focus just on the cancellations narrows the scope of the issue too much. While in my report we tried to open the box and look at all the parts, one has to think of how members of the public see this.

They do not see the distinction between whether it did not arrive because there was a failure of post, or just because a summons did not arrive. They see it in terms of one in five fixed charge notices that are issued do not get acted upon. Once people start to understand that, they can start gaming the system and try to avoid it. Fundamentally, that will undermine the acceptance of it. From a managerial point of view, we have to manage it as a set of processes, but we must always understand the combined effect of it and what it looks like to people from the outside.

I wish to go back to the point made by Deputy Deasy about why change does not happen. Change is difficult. It is hard to make change happen. Very often it can be easier to get over a report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and move on. That is one of the reasons we have tried to be more explicit about recommendations in recent reports. We will be coming back, checking, and reporting back to the committee, in a more routine way, on whether or not recommendations made have actually been implemented. Hopefully that will effectively keep the pressure on to ensure that the change happens.

Deputy John Deasy

I accept that change is slow and is difficult sometimes. I am not sure that it should take three attempts at legislation to deal with something which Mr. McCarthy characterised as a pretty simple issue, when he identified it and recognised it all those years ago. I accept that in some cases it is slow and can be hard, but I am not so sure that it is acceptable that three different Bills are necessary to correct it.

Chairman

Is it agreed that we dispose of Vote 24 and Chapter 9 of the 2012 annual report and appropriation accounts of the Comptroller and Auditor General? Agreed. I thank all the witnesses for attending.

The witnesses withdrew.

The committee adjourned at 2.55 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 27 March 2014.