I have explained the position on private session and the legal advice. Are the minutes of the meeting of 17 July 2014 agreed? Agreed. Next is matters arising from the minutes. The clerk has been advised, in respect of the direction being given to the three named persons involved in the SIPTU fund, that the committee will have to agree a date to examine this issue. We can deal with it on the work programme, but can we also agree to set aside 27 November to deal with the matter?
Business of Committee
We had agreed - we discussed this before the summer - that there would be a broader range of witnesses than simply the three we were going to compel and that we might have one or two days to concentrate on the matter.
That was just before the end of term.
The idea was to concentrate on it over several days to help us complete it. At times it is so complicated and difficult to stay on top of the facts that to have it in one go might be more effective.
What other witnesses had you in mind?
I can go back through my notes. There was a man from the HSE who would not have gone on the trips but who would have the allocated money. There are several other such people whom it might be good to have.
We can check the notes from that meeting.
Clerk to the Committee
I will come back with a note on it for next week's meeting.
Will we have a list of witnesses, including the three referred to?
Clerk to the Committee
Yes.
Is 27 November okay with everyone? Agreed. We will have to have the list of witnesses next week.
Next is correspondence from Accounting Officers. There is correspondence dated 18 July 2014 from the Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality relating to the PARC Road Safety group. This is to be noted and a copy forwarded to PARC Road Safety. There is correspondence dated 18 July from the HSE relating to information requested at the meeting on 19 June 2014 re implementation of the Haddington Road agreement. This is to be noted and published. There is correspondence dated 29 July 2014 from the HSE relating to further information requested from a meeting on 12 June 2014. This is to be noted and published. There is correspondence dated 31 July 2014 from the Secretary General of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government regarding information requested at a meeting on 26 June 2014 regarding local authority annual financial statements. This is to be noted and published. There is correspondence dated 2 September 2014 from the HSE relating to further information requested at the Committee of Public Accounts meeting of 3 July. This is to be noted and published. There is correspondence dated 2 September 2014 from the Garda Commissioner regarding information requested at the Committee of Public Accounts meeting of 10 July. This is to be noted and published.
There is correspondence dated 8 September 2014 from the Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform regarding further information requested at a meeting on 26 June. This is to be noted and published. There are several issues arising relating to accountability, in particular in respect of major public projects such as the Poolbeg incinerator. The Secretary General is of the view that the Committee of Public Accounts could have an oversight role. The set-up costs of Irish Water are also included in his comments. We should follow up on this given the costs involved. Perhaps we will ask the clerk to contact the Department and get further information on how we can progress the content of the Secretary General's letter. Is that agreed? Agreed.
There is correspondence dated 22 July 2014 from the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Skills relating to top-up payments at fee-paying schools. This is to be noted and a copy forwarded to Dr. Bríd McGrath, who raised the issue.
I find the response to this committee on the matter wholly unsatisfactory. We had asked about top-up payments to principals and senior management in fee-paying schools. In a letter dated 8 May, the Secretary General said that he wrote to the committee in respect of compliance on public sector pay policy. He went on to say that in this context the Department did not seek further information about payments in individual schools other than those made by the Department to 60,000 of its staff. He added that the Department was aware that fee-paying schools have access to additional funding which may be used to pay additional remuneration to staff, including principals and senior management, in return for additional work. This is like the section 38 and section 39 organisations in that basic pay is being paid by the public purse, the taxpayer, directly to the school principals while some organisations, like those we have been dealing with in the health area as a result of the internal audit, have access to private funds which they have been using for top-up payments.
Here we are inquiring about that issue in this context. It is a direct parallel. The Secretary General says the Department is aware that fee-paying schools have access to additional funding and says no more about it. The purpose of our enquiry was to see if they are getting top-up salaries. Are top-up salaries being paid in the education sector where the institutions have access to private funds in addition to State funds paying basic salaries? We need an answer to that question. The Secretary General does not answer it or even suggest that he will answer it. That is wholly unsatisfactory. We should write back to him seeking the information.
We will write back and include a copy of the Official Report of the meeting and ask for the information.
No. 3B.1, correspondence, dated 17 July 2014, from the chief executive officer, Irish Sports Council relating to Horse Sport Ireland, is to be noted and published. We also received correspondence from the Departments of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and Transport, Tourism and Sport about Horse Sport Ireland. A meeting has been scheduled with the Irish Sports Council on 2 October next where this matter can be raised directly.
No. 3B.2 is correspondence, dated 22 July 2014, from the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Skills regarding top-up payments at fee-paying schools.
No. 3B.3, correspondence, dated 23 July 2014, from the Secretary General of the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport relating to Horse Sport Ireland, is to be noted.
No. 3B.4, correspondence, dated 23 July 2014, from Mr. Martin E. Murray, Mayor of Whitegate, County Cork, regarding public money spent by Midleton Urban District Council, is to be noted. This is a matter primarily for the local authority and we will forward the correspondence to the director of the Local Government Audit Service for appropriate follow-up. We will, I presume, ask that the reply be sent to us.
No. 3B.5, correspondence, received from an anonymous source, relating to framework agreements concerning energy retrofitting upgrades to county council dwellings published on e-tenders on 14 April 2014, is to be noted. Local authority compliance with public service tender arrangements is a matter that falls outside the remit of this committee. We can forward this matter to the Local Government Audit Service for information and a response.
No. 3B.6, correspondence, received from an anonymous source, regarding travel expenses paid to the group director of human resources at University Hospital Group Mid West, is to be noted and forwarded to the HSE for investigation.
No. 3B.7, correspondence received from Mr. Charles Farrell relating to his legal pursuit of his rights against the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, is to be noted. This is an ongoing issue. I have asked for the papers on the case from the Department. I would ask the clerk to the committee to follow this up with the Department.
No. 3B.9, correspondence, dated 28 July 2014, from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine regarding Horse Sport Ireland, is to be noted.
No. 3B.10 correspondence, dated 30 July 2014, from Julie Sinnamon, CEO, Enterprise Ireland, relating to investment losses in Enterprise Ireland’s 2013 accounts, is to be noted.
Is Enterprise Ireland due to appear before the committee any time soon?
Clerk to the Committee
It is not on the programme but we can certainly add it at some stage.
It is a significant sum of money. It has received some attention and Enterprise Ireland might welcome the opportunity to come in and answer questions about it.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
Údarás na Gaeltachta and Shannon Development are on the schedule. It probably fits the theme.
No. 3B.11, correspondence, dated 31 July 2014, from the Secretary General of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government regarding OPEN Education, is to be noted and a copy to be forwarded to M. Frehill.
No. 3B.12, correspondence, dated 29 July 2014, from the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht relating to Foynes Aviation and Maritime Museum 2011 and 2012 accounts, is to be noted.
No. 3B.13, correspondence, dated 1 August 2014, from the Secretary General of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government regarding correspondence from Mr Michael Barrett, Lakeside Marina, Athlone, is to be noted and a copy forwarded to Mr. Barrett.
No. 3B.14, correspondence, dated 10 August 2014, from Mr. Mark Darley relating to further correspondence in respect of the closure of the pension scheme for staff, is to be noted. This issue relates to the closure of the pension fund. The Department has written to us to say it cannot provide funds for this scheme. We will refer it back to the Department for a note on the attempts that were made to save this scheme and get whatever further information we can.
No. 3B.15, correspondence, dated 12 August 2014, from the Office of the Secretary General, Department of Justice and Equality, regarding wards of court, is to be noted and a copy to be forwarded to Mrs. Mary Farrell.
We will deal with this issue when the Courts Service is before us in November.
Correspondence dated 23 July 2014 from Mr. Rory O'Shea regarding medical card reviews is to be noted. The core issue here relates to the medical card assessment and whether nursing home costs should be taken into account. Some of the issues raised by Mr. O'Shea have already been dealt with by the HSE in respect of medical cards and these issues will be covered in the forthcoming report. We will forward it to the HSE for a note on the issues which have been raised.
Correspondence from the Department of Social Protection regarding rent supplement is to be noted and a copy forwarded to Mr. Bernard O'Donovan. Correspondence dated 26 August 2014 received from Professor Niamh Brennan regarding an examination of Special Report 77 from the Comptroller and Auditor General is to be noted and published.
I wish to comment on that. I wish to clarify whether we are in public or private session before I speak.
We are in public session.
The monitor says we are in private session.
It is good to finally get this correspondence from Professor Brennan on this issue. I had hoped she would come before the committee at this time of year. She had been unable to come before it until now and over the summer it appears she decided she did not need or want to come before it, and wrote a detailed letter.
I wish to raise a couple of points. In the letter she mentioned that we have been unable to get certain key people from executives or boards to come before the committee. Do we have a list of people we have asked to come before this committee in regard to the docklands and the Irish Glass Bottle site who have said "No" to us and if they have given reasons for that?
Professor Brennan also states that because the people concerned could not come before the committee promptly, facts have not been ascertained and that there has been a conflict of evidence in the evidence we have received. That is true but her take on the comments of the individuals who came before us and conflicts they gave in their evidence and where the conflicts were would help us better determine which statements were true and which were not. There is a cloud over some of the evidence given to us from subsequent correspondence which has come to this committee.
She also states that factually incorrect evidence was given to us. If that is the case that is very important and we need to hear what that evidence was and how it is factually incorrect. Serious claims were made against Professor Brennan in this committee about the preparation of reports into the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, how they might have been influenced and how certain people were not given leave to examine those draft reports before they were finally published. We need to hear a proper response to that.
Professor Brennan said that no useful purpose would be served by her becoming involved in a highly personalised confrontation. She is correct. We do not want the committee to be a scene where people can take potshots at each other. She could appear before us and address those conflicts in the evidence we heard, those issues that were factually incorrect and the charges levelled against her and her stewardship when she came in to rescue the authority. In addition, it would be interesting to get her insight into the culture of the organisation because that was a key factor around what happened in there and to probe her on some of the aspects of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and other evidence we have heard. As a committee, given that we are hoping to draw to a close this aspect of our work this year, what are the next steps?
Does any other member have any comments?
Has the former chief executive officer, Mr. Paul Maloney, been invited to the committee?
He has given evidence.
He has already given evidence.
Clerk to the Committee
As have Mr. Bradshaw and the officials in the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, including a retired official, Ms Mary Moylan, who was the departmental representative on the DDDA at the time the Irish Glass Bottle site was acquired. We commenced our hearings almost two and a half years ago with the then remaining executive of the docklands. Loretta Lambkin was the last of the old management team.
At the time we considered inviting the former board to come before the committee and wrote letters to its members. A number of them replied. One person said it had been seven years or more since she had been involved and she had no records. Another said she was living abroad. There was an issue regarding one former board member who was before the courts at the time.
The committee took a pragmatic decision not to venture into that territory, so we left the former board members and we took evidence from Mr. Bradshaw who was the chairman and from Mr. Maloney, but we did not go near the former board members, other than Mary Moylan.
It would be my view that we cannot produce a report on this if this is the last bit of evidence we are taking. Professor Brennan has given us a detail of her time there but it is just not enough because of the conflicts we have heard from other testimonies before us. We have sat at length on this in individual sessions and over a period of time, as the clerk has pointed out. I would think that just from this letter alone we cannot conclude or write up a report that would satisfactorily give answers to the questions that remain.
I think we can write again to Ms Brennan.
Clerk to the Committee
Yes, that is probably-----
-----and, as the clerk has said, explain exactly the opinion of the committee. I share those views. She is an important witness and we should ask her to come in.
I can understand her reluctance not to want to come in but if we want to be able to produce a report that in some way addresses the issues we want to address - particularly given the charges made against her in this committee and now the charges she is making about the accuracy of the evidence that was given to us - we need to know and we can only do that from actual discussion here in committee.
The previous witnesses gave their evidence and the members asked questions. This is the final witness so there will not be an exchange between witnesses over who said what. However, her evidence is hugely important for the completion of the report. All we can do is write again, highlighting what the Deputy has said and to ask her to come before us.
Thank you, Chairman.
Clerk to the Committee
I will do that.
Correspondence dated 8 September 2014 received from Deputy Joe Costello re the ongoing dispute at Greyhound Recycling. Does Deputy Costello wish to comment?
I wrote that letter in the context of the very bitter industrial dispute ongoing between Greyhound and the approximately 80 SIPTU employees. It has been the focus of media attention so it is well known. This matter is both an industrial dispute and also a matter to do with the national strategy on waste management, recovery and recycling. It relates to the issue of the Poolbeg incinerator which is the disposal mechanism for waste. It also relates to the licensing and permit system which has shifted dramatically in recent years and the manner in which local authorities deal with it. I refer to the manner in which the private sector is involved in a very free-for-all marketing. There is no tendering process and all the players engage in the market. This is an issue for the public sector in the areas of health and sanitation and the waste management strategy. It is an issue that in my view comes within the remit of this committee. The dispute is an immediate issue but there are broader issues regarding its implications and impact.
I disagree. I do not think we should bring industrial disputes into the committee. The matter is before the courts. I do not believe it is the remit of this committee to become involved in what is an ongoing industrial dispute. The public purse is only two degrees of separation away from everything in this country and in my view it is a bit tenuous to attach the jurisdiction of this committee to this issue.
It is a matter within the remit of the local authority. It has been raised time and again that, unfortunately, this committee cannot deal directly with the funding for local authorities. We have had the local government auditor before us to explain all of this.
We cannot get involved in the examination of that issue not only because it is before the courts and is an industrial issue in a private company, but also because it involves a local authority.
Are we precluded from becoming involved?
Yes.
It is the policy issue which has brought it into the arena of industrial dispute. I do not consider that a major issue. Neither is the court case a major issue as that will be dealt with without the committee being part and parcel of the court's determinations or considerations. However, if there is a difficulty with the local authorities involved-----
It is also a matter of policy. Policy and local authority funding are dealt with by the environment committee. It is more appropriate for that committee to discuss the policy and the funding.
The Poolbeg incinerator comes within the remit of the local authority.
We are writing to the Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. We could raise the concerns raised by Deputy Costello with Mr. Watt in our correspondence in that it is an issue of oversight of local government spending.
Could we examine it in the context of the Poolbeg incinerator, which is part of our work programme? It is also within the remit of the local authority.
That is my point. Mr. Watt, who is the Secretary General of that Department, has said we may have some role with regard to Poolbeg. We are suggesting from our last meeting with Irish Water that in the discussion with the Department we can raise the issue which Deputy Costello has raised now. Policy and funding issues are properly within the remit of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government but we can raise the issue with the Secretary General of the Department in the context of Poolbeg and local government funding. We will proceed on that basis if possible.
Can I come back to it at some stage?
Yes. Item No. 4 is reports, statements and accounts received since our meeting on 17 July. They are listed from 4.01 to 4.28. A quick examination suggests most of them have clear audits, unless there is something which the Comptroller and Auditor General wishes to bring to our attention.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
The most significant one is No. 4.20 which relates to the national paediatric hospital development board. These are the financial statements for the year ended 2012 and I have issued a qualified opinion on that. The background is that the balance sheet of the development board includes assets valued at €40 million in relation to planning and development for the national paediatric hospital. Arising from the Government decision to change the location of the hospital, the board initiated an asset impairment review of the assets. The exercise had not been completed at the time I issued the opinion on the 2012 financial statements. I understand it has been completed now and the audit of the 2013 financial statements is ongoing. It may be something members wish to note. The other matters to which attention is drawn are ones of emphasis but are relatively routine in relation to health bodies which do not provide estimates of pension liabilities. What I have set out is the only significant one.
We have arranged a meeting with the board as part of our work programme.
I am not clear about the reference to it here. Is there an indication that we are looking here at the original proposals for the national paediatric hospital which incurred considerable expenditure prior to the relocation decision? Is that the area we are looking at?
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
That is it.
Instead of €40 million, the figure in the public arena was more in the region of €50 million to €55 million.
These were just the assets.
The figure in the public arena was between €50 million and €55 million.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
My recollection is that the figure is €40 million. I am not sure where the estimate of €50 million comes from, as the figure on the balance sheet is €40 million. The assets are subject to review and there may be administration expenditure that is not being capitalised.
Can we agree to note all of these accounts and the fact that we will meet the board at the scheduled meeting of 23 October 2014? We agreed to examine the credit union fund and the credit institutions resolution fund with representatives of the Central Bank, and that meeting will take place later in the autumn.
Comments were made about the committee's role with regard to penalty points. What is our plan? Are we waiting for the Garda to finish its audit? Will we then invite the acting Garda Commissioner back before the committee? Have we been in contact with the Garda on this? What are we proposing?
An investigation is ongoing and we are to get a copy of the report. That is the up-to-date position, as I understand it. We can arrange a meeting with the acting Garda Commissioner to go through the latest information when we have the report.
Will the meeting be in public session here?
We can do that, yes. We can include the latest information in our concluding report.
That relates to my second question. How close are we to concluding our end of things?
Clerk to the Committee
I had a draft report prepared based on the hearings we had up to the summer, including the road safety elements that we covered with the Road Safety Authority. This report can be deferred easily until the latest issue involving Sergeant McCabe's allegations has been dealt with, if the committee so wishes. I was going to circulate the draft report tomorrow.
Through the years the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General has compiled four or five reports on this issue. Is it being actively considered at the moment or is everything finalised on this matter?
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
We have finalised and presented our report. In fairness to the Garda Síochána, a period of time should be allowed for new arrangements to bed in. After this period we will consider re-examining the controls, but we are not doing anything at the moment.
We are waiting for the Garda to finish its audit and at that point we will incorporate what we need to into our report. At the same time we will invite the acting Garda Commissioner to come before the committee. That is fine.
I do not think we can conclude our report without consideration of that. We can only consider the concluded report when the Garda investigation is completed. This is very different from how we started - we started with a private hearing involving Sergeant McCabe and we were unsure. Then we received the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and got full information. This is new information and we will see what emerges from the Garda report.
Do we have any idea of the timeline for the finalisation of the Garda audit?
I understand the Garda is dealing with this as an urgent matter.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
A public report within three weeks has been mentioned. I can verify that.
Clerk to the Committee
I can get in touch with the Garda.
Three special reports are due for publication in the coming months. They address the Limerick greyhound track, governance at the National College of Art and Design and the trans-shipment of waste. Do committee members wish to include any other issues in the work programme?
The Comptroller and Auditor General's report is due to be published next week.
Provision is made in the work programme for the holding of hearings on public procurement on 13 November. I received a communication from the clerk to the effect that another committee of the Dáil is examining the procurement issue in a broader sense. I would like to argue in favour of this committee proceeding with its hearing on public procurement, if only because we have already begun to probe these issues and have given an undertaking to particular bodies that they would be able to come before us to make presentations. The argument being made - in respect of which we must establish the facts - is that some of the practices being employed represent a loss of revenue to the Exchequer. In other words, there is a value-for-money deficit in terms of how the State is proceeding in this area.
There is another issue to which I wish to draw the attention of the committee, although I probably really do not need to do so because it is already in the public domain. I refer to school building contracts relating to the Department of Education and Skills. There have been reports of abuse of practices involving the employment of subcontractors and a resultant loss of revenue to the State in the context of PAYE and, presumably, PRSI payments. These alleged practices also give rise to associated costs, etc., with regard to social welfare payments. Some €2 billion was allocated to the school building fund when it was established either last year or the year before. Reports of malpractice in this area are giving rise to grave public concern. I am of the view that the matter merits investigation. I am seeking some guidance as to whether - if there is agreement among members - we might approach this matter by holding a hearing on it or whether there might be a need for an investigation to be carried out and a report issued by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General in the first instance to establish the scale of the problem. This matter is a cause of extreme concern to taxpayers, construction workers and others. I am of the view that we should give consideration to it and perhaps even prioritise it within our programme of work.
I support Deputy McDonald on this matter because I have the same concerns with regard to it. I am aware that certain difficulties arise in that when a contract is awarded for the building of a school building, it is the school, rather than the State - even though Exchequer funding is used - which employs the builder. I am also seeking guidance on this matter but I would certainly like the committee to examine it. I am of the view that it would be extremely difficult to invite representatives from individual primary schools at which construction work is being carried out because the members of boards of management of such schools are largely volunteers. If I understand the position correctly, even though they would not be obliged to submit to our request, perhaps we might ask representatives from certain education and training boards to come before us. These boards would be the lead organisations in respect of some of the construction work and they might be in a position to throw some light on the issue. Like Deputy McDonald, I have heard a number of serious allegations on this matter and I would welcome it if the committee could investigate the position not only in the context of obtaining justice for the workers involved, but also because State money is being used. I would like to be able to rest assured that it is being used in the correct fashion.
In light of what has been said by both Deputies, we will ask the clerk to examine how the Committee of Public Accounts might examine the issues involved. The position is that the State provides the money but has no connection with it thereafter. It is something similar to the position with regard to the section 39 issue. We should have some input into how the money is spent or at least some oversight in respect of it.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
I think the issue was raised by Deputy Fleming when the Secretary General was here and he talked about a system of inspections being carried out. My understanding is that the reports of those inspections is what has generated the publicity around the issue now. If those findings are in the hands of the Secretary General then perhaps he could come to the committee and discuss them.
We could take that as a first step when we get those reports.
It would be useful to get some of the organisations taking on builders to do the work to come in. It would be a big demand on, say, a board of management of a primary school but it would be somewhat different for education and training boards in the sense that they are headed by professional people, so it might be easier for them to come in and discuss it.
We will get the report first. We will ask the clerk to do some work around how we might approach it. We will look at the education and training boards.
Briefly on this point, there have been numerous public instances of people working on jobs - I have publicly cited such cases here - who would only be employed on the basis that they were on the dole. It involves the Department of Social Protection and Revenue. The Department in recent times has moved from having no involvement in it to having some giant inspections where officials have visited sites and checked workers' personal public service numbers. In a few cases they were probably able to find the employer in due course which could have been two years after the project was completed but it would have been of no value to the workers in the meantime.
When contacting the Department of Education and Skills, another issue is - I referred to some projects in the past - that the Exchequer money is effectively going to the main contractor who then passes it on to a subcontractor. I have cited instances of subcontractors bussing people to a social welfare office on a Thursday morning to sign on and then bussing them back to the site where they change into their working clothes and carry on the day's work. That has been happening across the board.
When contacting the Department of Education and Skills, the National Employment Rights Authority, NERA, comes into this as well. The Department's response has been that it is the responsibility of the architect, who normally certifies the stage payments, to certify that the work was properly expended. I have spoken to architects who feel they have no real competence in these types of issues but they were the only link in the chain to certify that the work was being done and that payment should be made. It might be worth getting a comment from them perhaps after we get a report.
We should also include the issue of the public private partnerships, PPPs. If there are any PPP bundles currently in gestation or in operation, we should make sure they are included as well. I have seen much malpractice in PPPs and I have even referred to it in the context of current PPPs being conducted by the NRA. Some of the workers on some of the jobs being done in the Dublin region have told me that they would only be employed by a subcontractor on the basis that they were signing on, and we all know where that is leading. The PPP element comes into it as well as the direct contract from the Department.
I do not want to prolong discussion but there is a view emerging on the committee that we should raise this. There are questions for Revenue on the misuse of RCT1s where people are being forced into a position to identify themselves as self-employed or sole traders when in fact they are nothing of the sort. It seems the whole thing is hugely exploitative and it involves a number of State agencies. Certainly for my party the objective of this exercise would not be to put boards of management of schools in a pressurised position. That is not the issue. Even outside the construction of school buildings, there is a more generalised issue around the capital programme and practices in terms of sourcing, seeking and achieving Government contracts. It is very serious. It would be most helpful if the clerk were to take on that piece of work to figure out in an orderly way how we would go about investigating it.
Does any other member wish to contribute?
I support what has been said. I wish to ask about education. Deputy McDonald is correct that the Department of Education and Science spent approximately €2 billion and there are a large number of contracts in that respect, but there are obviously other Departments as well where there are similar tenders and procurement. The PPP sector had its heyday in the past and there were many PPPs in operation, some of which fell by the wayside because they seemed to be controlled largely by the private sector rather than by the State sector in terms of management and timelines. All of those areas probably require a degree of regulation and supervision that has not been in place previously. Rumours and allegations are widespread in terms of the manner in which the construction sector conducts it business. Where public money is spent, it is important to have a tight rein to ensure the systems in place are properly monitored and examined. I would like to see a number of Departments, not just the Department of Education and Science, that are engaged with large scale public funds examined and that they would provide a report. Broader reports are required on tendering, procurement and overall supervision during projects. The reports could come from the Departments themselves in the first instance and then we could have an examination of the nuts and bolts with the relevant bodies that operate the tenders and funding for the work being carried out.
We have agreed the work programme and we are adding to it the discussion we just had on the scope of work the clerk, Mr. Ted McEnery, will do. He will present us with the reports from the Department of Education and Science. We can agree dates for that. A meeting is scheduled with the HSE for 6 November but we should continue to monitor its budget and spend in the past 12 months and notify it of the fact that it is an issue we will query with it arising from the previous meeting when we meet in November.
It might be helpful too if we were to schedule a meeting with Mr. Watt to discuss the issues we have just talked about, namely, procurement and other matters. We are due to discuss the matter under Vote 11 on 13 November. We will notify the Department that we will take up with it at the meeting the suggestions on local government, Poolbeg and all the matters that have been discussed. Deputy McDonald has left but, on public procurement, we committed to meet a group that appeared before the committee and we should set a date for such a meeting.
I expect it is the Irish School Arts Supply Federation, ISASF.
Yes, but are we going to meet it that day?
Yes.
The group will appear with us on 13 November. Is there another group as well?
Clerk to the Committee
The Small Firms Association.
Is the matter covered?
Clerk to the Committee
Yes.
The last matter that arises relates to NAMA and its report. Have we scheduled a meeting?
Clerk to the Committee
I have not, but we will examine NAMA when its annual report is available. I refer to its financial statements for the year ending 2013.
We can schedule a meeting in the next couple of months.
Clerk to the Committee
Yes.
I am sorry, Chairman, but I could not hear what was said.
I asked about NAMA and its report. We had not scheduled NAMA's appearance before the committee on that particular work programme. I asked that we would do so in order to get updates.
Often when NAMA appears before the committee it does not have the required information. It is important that we ask for information in advance. There is clearly an issue with housing. We must get a proper portfolio and audit of all available housing stock both in terms of number, location and size.
We should also get a proper idea of the number of serviced lands that are ready for build in the greater Dublin area in particular, rather than having a general discussion. It has reached the point in the public consciousness where they want specifics. In any contact with NAMA it should be put on alert that we would look for this type of information.
If members have specific areas within NAMA that are of concern, they should give those questions to the clerk and we will have a comprehensive list of queries. On that basis we can then conduct our meeting and its report.
The future of NAMA needs to be looked into, whether it is to be subsumed into some other body or closed down. These are questions for the Department of Finance. If NAMA comes before the committee we should consider asking the Department of Finance to come in also.
In terms of my position on NAMA and the developers, I raised publicly the idea of listening to some of those people who have dealt with NAMA because there are reports in the newspaper constantly that something was sold under value. I am not saying they are right or wrong but it would be interesting to hear from people who dealt with NAMA to see if there is anything we can learn from it. It may not be something the committee would do but we should consider it. It is a point I will raise with NAMA, and members might consider it.
I would be very cautious on that front. We do not want to let the Committee of Public Accounts be used as a vehicle for any developer who has been treated fairly by NAMA but for other purposes wants to cast a negative light on the work of NAMA or regarding a particular portfolio they believe was not treated properly but which was but they were not included in it because NAMA decided not to deal with them. I am sure we have all been approached by different developers who felt they had been treated unfairly by NAMA and we should take those concerns with a pinch of salt, given the work NAMA had to do. We spent a lot of time on NAMA in this committee and any time serious charges have been levelled against NAMA, it has responded very well. We have gone into different areas in detail and it has been able to back up the different things it has done. We looked at the Comptroller and Auditor General's triennial report earlier in the year but since then, and going back to Deputy Deasy's point, we had the Department of Finance's review also which we have not had a chance to examine. If we are bringing NAMA before the committee we should bring in the Department of Finance also to go through that report and then talk about the future. However, at this point in time I would not be in favour of bringing developers before the committee.
I am sure NAMA will come back with the riposte that its function is a commercial one and that it has to engage and get the best deal possible for the State. It has indicated publicly that it is well ahead of schedule in the work with which it was entrusted and that it expects to complete its work before the end of the ten-year period under the legislation, but I am more interested in what it is doing for the future. It has indicated publicly a spend of €2 billion to €3 billion over the next couple of years, and I am aware it is taking over a strategic development zone, SDZ, in the docklands, to refer to Niamh Brennan and the Dublin Docklands Development Authority we spoke about earlier. Approximately €1 billion is supposed to be spent in that area where the other is located. What type of activities are involved because it is an enormous amount of money and it would have a considerable bearing on how development takes place in terms of the areas in which it is engaged? A report on the background would be welcome as would an in-depth report on how it will operate over the next number of years in terms of the enormous amount of State money it will be spending in various projects and how those particular projects will be determined.
Regarding the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, we were to get information from a previous hearing in relation to the costs relative to the Fleury case.
Please remind the Department again to send on that information.
Clerk to the Committee
Okay.
Is there any other business before we go into session on the legal issue?
No. 7 is just the issue of the reports. Reports on penalty points and medical cards are pending and then there are reports on Waterford Institute of Technology, the land swap, the State Pathologist's Office and payments to the director of the National Gallery of Ireland. These are a number of issues on which the committee will bring forward reports shortly.
As for the medical cards, on what date are the representatives of the Health Service Executive due to appear?
Clerk to the Committee
On 6 November.
Will the medical card report be coming up prior to their appearance?
Clerk to the Committee
The medical card report we are talking about is the one we have prepared based on the previous two hearings we had. There are a number of learning points on which we need to come back to them and ask whether they would take them.
Does the clerk anticipate that the report will be published prior to their appearance?
Clerk to the Committee
We can consider it at next week's meeting. I will circulate it to members tomorrow and then it can be considered at next week's meeting.
Sorry, will the committee approve those reports at next week's meeting? Is that what will happen in respect of the forthcoming ones?
No, we will get sight of them.
Clerk to the Committee
We will get sight of them and can discuss them at next week's meeting. It is a members' report and if they have any comment or changes-----
Or further input.
Clerk to the Committee
-----it is their report and I will be glad to incorporate changes.
I remind members again that if they have any suggestions or questions in respect of the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA, they should contact the clerk please.
The committee adjourned at 11.05 a.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 25 July 2014.