COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 11 Dec 2014

Business of Committee

Chairman

Are the minutes agreed? Agreed. Are there any matters arising from the minutes? No. We will now deal with correspondence from Accounting Officers and Ministers. No. 3A.1 is correspondence dated 3 December from Mr. Tom Moran, Secretary General, Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, which is a follow-up to the committee's meeting on 16 October 2014, to be noted and published. I will ask the clerk to prepare a report to the Dáil on the evidence taken in respect of the fishery harbours.

No. 3A.2 is correspondence dated 1 December from Mr. Jim Breslin, Secretary General, Department of Health, which is a follow-up to our meeting on 23 October 2014, to be noted and published.

No. 3A.3 is correspondence dated 5 December from Mr. Noel Waters, acting Secretary General, Department of Justice and Equality, which is a follow-up to our meeting on 20 November 2014, to be noted and published. The committee at its meeting with the Courts Service had already agreed to make a number of recommendations on the ward of courts issue and we will proceed to draft a report on this.

No. 3A.4 is correspondence dated 5 December from the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, regarding a follow-up from a meeting on 4 December 2014, to be noted and published. This issue relates to the dossier of information supplied to individual members and there is related correspondence on this from Arthur Cox. We had asked the Minister to refer the dossier to Revenue, but the position is that the Minister does not have this dossier. There has been a bit of a mix-up in terms of the information members received for their private papers and what was received by the Minister. This matter has been cleared up with the Minister and we have written back accordingly. There are legal impediments to him handing over the papers, or not having them in fact.

No. 3A.5 is correspondence dated 8 December from Arthur Cox solicitors in respect of a dossier regarding an Ansbacher account, to be noted. The position as outlined last week is that the dossier of information is not a committee document and therefore we cannot accede to the request from the solicitors acting for Mr. MacSharry. A draft letter, which is now on screen, will issue to Arthur Cox solicitors today. It is the same as the reply we agreed with regard to Mrs. Ann Lenihan. We do not have the papers and they are not committee papers. They are the personal papers of the individual members of the Dáil. Therefore it is not a matter for us. Other references in the correspondence have to do with a Member raising the names in the House. This is a matter for the Ceann Comhairle and the Member and not for us.

We need to be a bit clearer on what happened afterwards, perhaps a paragraph of explanation of the committee's role in the matter.

Clerk to the Committee

We can do that.

Chairman

No. 3B.1 is correspondence dated 4 December from Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú, Secretary General of the Department of Education and Skills, re issues between UCC and Midland Construction. This is to be noted. Did Deputy Deasy raise this matter?

Deputy John Deasy

Could the clerk tell me what the gist of it is?

Clerk to the Committee

It reaffirms the position as regards whom the contract was with and the fact that, after considering how to pay the subcontractor, the Department cannot do it. The Department has pointed to next year's forthcoming Bill, but the problem there is that its provisions will not be retrospective.

Deputy John Deasy

It will not be retrospective.

Clerk to the Committee

No, that has not been stated. Rather, it will be a matter for the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. In that context, I can refer the letter to the Department and ask it to consider the matter.

Deputy John Deasy

One wonders how many cases like this one are outstanding. The number and the amounts of money involved might be reasonably small. Retrospective legislation is not something that the Oireachtas embraces.

Clerk to the Committee

No.

Deputy John Deasy

However, there is a question of fairness. We could make a case.

Clerk to the Committee

Okay.

Chairman

Due to the fact that there is pending legislation, perhaps its spirit should be cognisant of this case.

Deputy John Deasy

Yes.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

According to the letter, it is the Construction Contracts Act 2013, which has already passed.

Deputy John Deasy

So it has passed.

Clerk to the Committee

It has commenced. My apologies.

Chairman

In line with the spirit of that legislation, perhaps we could ask the Department or whoever to re-examine the matter.

Clerk to the Committee

Yes.

Deputy John Deasy

Fair enough.

Chairman

No. 3B.2 is correspondence from Mr. William Treacy. This is an ongoing matter of which members are aware. The correspondence is to be noted.

Moving on to correspondence relevant to today's meeting, correspondence received 5 December from Mr. John Doyle, CEO of ReBo, re briefing statement is to be noted and published.

No. 3C.2 is correspondence from the Central Bank re briefing statement at today's meeting, to be noted and published.

No. 3C.3 is correspondence received 9 December from Mr. John Doyle re ReBo opening statement, to be noted and published.

The final item is in regard to the Central Bank's opening statement.

Moving on to reports, statements and accounts received since our meeting of 4 December, the Credit Union Restructuring Board, Tourism Ireland and the Office of An Coimisinéir Teanga have all received clear audit opinions. These accounts are to be noted.

Our work programme is on the screen. Is it agreed?

Deputy Joe Costello

I have no problem with the work programme. Did we cover the item that came from Mr. Jim Breslin, Secretary General of the Department of Health, regarding the national paediatric hospital and the further information on same?

Chairman

It was an item of correspondence.

Deputy Joe Costello

Yes. I am sorry if I missed it. I suggest that the correspondence is inadequate and does not fully provide the information that was requested. The information that has come to us has come from the Department itself, but we also requested that the board send some information. While this correspondence relates to certain matters that were discussed, information on other issues was required in respect of the previous board and planning applications for the original hospital on the Mater site, but there is no reference whatsoever to those. This correspondence was received by the secretariat on 1 December. Without going into detail, I suggest that we refer to the request and ask for fuller information. There are gaping holes in what was sent.

Clerk to the Committee

That is only part of the answer. A reply is due back from the paediatric board as well. I will follow up with the Deputy after the meeting, but a fuller answer is due from the board.

Deputy Paul Connaughton

Bord na gCon attended our meeting a number of weeks ago. We asked for additional information. Has anything been received?

Clerk to the Committee

No.

Deputy Paul J. Connaughton

Would it be possible to follow up on the matter?

Clerk to the Committee

No bother.

Deputy John Deasy

Reverting to the issue of UCC and Midland Construction, it was live while the legislation was being drafted and passing through the Oireachtas. As the issue has not been resolved, is it the case that the legislation does not apply retrospectively?

Clerk to the Committee

I am not sure.

Deputy John Deasy

Could we check?

Clerk to the Committee

I will check with the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation.

Deputy John Deasy

The issue was live while the Act was a Bill. We also asked the IDA to attend the committee.

Chairman

And Enterprise Ireland.

Clerk to the Committee

Both are due in early next year on 12 February.

Chairman

Are there other comments on the work programme?

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

I am reading the minutes of our meeting of 2 December, at which we dealt with a number of issues, including the dossier that we received from the whistleblower. We agreed a number of matters, including that there would be a review of evidence taken at the meeting of 4 December before establishing what to do next. To clarify, where does all of that sit and what do we propose to do next?

Chairman

We agreed at the meeting to do a number of things, one of which was to send a transcript, which I understand we did. Perhaps we should wait for a response, if there is to be one.

Deputy John Deasy

To whom did we send the transcript?

Chairman

Mr. Ryan. We had an exchange with Revenue on the matter. Where we go from here as regards Mr. Ryan is a matter for the committee, but we must wait for a response from him, if there is to be one. To date, we have had no contact whatsoever.

Clerk to the Committee

The transcript only went out to him this week.

Chairman

Is that okay?

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

Perfect.

Chairman

We can revert to the issue next week and see what has happened.

In terms of the work programme, another week has gone by without a response from the Department of Education and Skills regarding the issues raised about the Cork Institute of Technology, CIT. Deputy Connaughton referred to the response from Bord na gCon. We should put both bodies on notice to the effect that, if we do not receive a reply by the end of this session, we will have a special meeting in January and ask them to return.

Horse Sport Ireland appeared before us. This morning, I received correspondence from an individual who read the transcript and raised serious issues with the evidence given at that meeting. I have not had a chance to circulate the correspondence, but I will give it to the clerk this morning. Arising from it, we should seek clarification from the Irish Sports Council about the issues that have been raised. A commitment was given to the effect that the chairman would make an intervention in a matter that was raised during our meeting.

We should put the organisation on notice that if we do not get the responses required, there will have to be a special sitting to deal with those three matters in the new year; otherwise, we would not be completing our work and Departments or agencies coming before us would simply be putting the replies on the long finger, which is not acceptable.

Again on the work programme, next week NAMA will be before us. It was reported in The Sunday Business Post and raised in the Dáil yesterday that a lady has asked me to appear before the committee to explain her case. I will circulate the information on this to members. We are opening the chapter on NAMA next week and I honestly think it would be worthwhile to hear from this woman after that meeting. The matter relates to the business of NAMA and to how it is conducting its business. What I heard from the woman is compelling and I believe we have to hear it.

Deputy Robert Dowds

Does this relate to the case in south Tipperary?

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy Paul J. Connaughton

Would it be better to meet her before the meeting?

Chairman

We want to open the hearing with NAMA. One can hear the case before or after that. I am not recommending to the members someone who is not credible. The woman and the family have a very credible story to tell and it gives an insight into how NAMA conducts its business. It is important for the country and people dealing with NAMA that they understand how this is happening. If we can hear the story before the meeting, with the agreement of members, that is fine. However, I believe there is a need to hear this case.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

Is the Chairman inviting a decision by the committee on whether it should hear this person, and when?

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

It strikes me that, given that next week's meeting is to be the last before the Christmas break-----

Chairman

Next week we are to hear from NAMA.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

-----it would be best if we were to hear the case before the presentation by NAMA.

Chairman

NAMA is not due to appear again for a while after next week. Our work programme is fairly full.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

I offer this as a proposition just to move things along.

Chairman

We have to be careful about this. I have spoken to the woman at length and I would not suggest the meeting to the committee if it were the wrong thing to do. If the lady wants to represent her family and put her case to the committee, she should be asked to do so. She is not making any direct allegations or naming people; she simply wants to explain the impact on her family, her farm and her life. Her husband took his own life because of this. The case is so compelling that I feel we should not let it go. I suggest that we hear the lady, perhaps in private session, next week and perhaps before the meeting with NAMA.

Deputy John Deasy

In my constituency I have come across a family in very similar circumstances so I agree.

Deputy Paul J. Connaughton

I do not doubt the sincerity of the case whatsoever and certainly have no issue with meeting the woman. However, would it become the norm for us to meet certain individuals before certain groups appear before us? I am not for one second-----

Chairman

I am working on the basis that when we dealt with procurement here, it was agreed the relevant group would be brought before the committee. It was unanimously agreed. We took a step in the direction of Sergeant Maurice McCabe and it was uncharted territory. We would not have had the information given to us as clearly if we had taken any other route or if we had not intervened. The story that this lady has to tell is shocking. It is shocking that an arm of the State would treat a family or individual like this. We should hear the story. Yes, it does open the gate but we have already set a precedent for this. I cannot understand another side of a story unless I hear it. If I am constantly going to be fed with one side of the argument, I am only going to take up that side of the argument.

Deputy Joe Costello

I agree we should hear the story. My only concern is that this will probably be a highly emotionally charged presentation because of the circumstances, which, as the Chairman suggested, are obviously very tragic. From that point of view, it might not be best to hear it immediately before NAMA. Would it be possible to hear it on the Tuesday rather than the Thursday so there would be a gap? It is an individual case and I am sure there may well be many others but, nevertheless, we are bringing in NAMA in relation to a variety of issues, including the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Therefore, I suggest that we separate the two.

Chairman

Okay. We can discuss this with the individual concerned and find out how she feels about it. We can proceed from there.

Deputy John Deasy

The other side of that, of course, is that one is landing immediately after the NAMA officials with what could be a very powerful testimony. They may actually need an opportunity to think about what they are going to say. That is sensible.

Chairman

I do not wish to burden the committee with too much but what Deputy Connaughton has raised is true in that the case in question must be borne in mind. I have been continually raising the issue of the special investigation unit in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the fallout and cost to the State in relation to its work. It is difficult to get explanations about the cost because, in spite of the fact that cases have been lost and people have been threatened, or allegedly threatened, there is a serious cost to the State. When one proceeds to investigate with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, one is referred to the Chief State Solicitor’s Office. There is evidence in relation to all of these cases coming forward directly to the members of the Committee of Public Accounts. I want to put members on notice that this information will be arriving to them in the future. However, we will see what transpires from our contact with Annette De Vere Hunt.

Since there are no other matters arising, we can move on to the business of today. We have agreed to hear from NAMA next week.