The first item on the agenda is correspondence received since our meeting on Thursday, 5 March. Correspondence has been received from the HSE on its appearance before the committee. It relates to what was reported in the media on the responses to the Comptroller and Auditor General's questions. I understand the HSE has not finished its work with the Oireachtas and Mr. McCarthy.
Business of Committee
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
That is correct.
Presumably, it will be finished before its representatives appear before us in April.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
In everybody's interests, it would be better if it was finished before they come.
We should put them on notice that it may take more than a morning to deal with the matters that will be before us. As we will have a considerable amount of work to get through, it is only fair to put them on notice.
We have received correspondence from Mr. Alan Duffy, CEO, HSBC, on the appearance of representatives before the committee. The correspondence is to be noted.
I have a question on correspondence.
The Deputy's correspondence is not on the list.
On correspondence received.
The item of correspondence circulated the last time.
Yes, the item that was circulated the last time. The representative of HSBC in London is not available. The correspondence from HSBC includes the statement that the representative of HSBC London is not available.
Is that stated in the correspondence?
I have a question on the text of the correspondence as I am not sure what it means. Does it mean that the bank cannot make representatives available? Does it mean that they are not available at this moment? Will they be available at a later time? Would it be more appropriate for somebody from Geneva to attend? I know that London is the location of its headquarters, but the events took place in Geneva. It seems to be stating they have no information and that anybody in London who might have it is not available. I am not sure whether it means that they are not available at this moment to come to us or whether they might be available to come in the future.
At the last meeting the committee agreed that it would ask HSBC to send a representative, that we would have this meeting with the Revenue Commissioners and that the HSBC representative would sit in on it. There is no information to be had from this representative because they are not aware of the issues involved. We also asked at the last meeting that a letter be sent to HSBC in the United Kingdom to ask if the individual who had attended the UK public accounts committee meeting would be available to attend our meeting. That is my understanding. To refer back to the letter of 9 March, it states that if we have specific issues, we can raise them in writing and that HSBC will consider them. It also states a representative from London is not available. That is the background to the matter.
As it states they have no information, there is not much sense in writing about the specific issues involved if they are not able to answer questions. Is it a matter of the representative from London not being available at this time, or is it that they do not intend to make a representative from London available under any circumstances?
The letter leaves it hanging. To answer the question, we simply have to go back and ask it.
I understood we had decided to write to the people in the United Kingdom. We have not received the correspondence. May we have it?
The letter to the United Kingdom.
Yes, the letter we decided last week to write.
The clerk to the committee is not here. I am told the correspondence can be made available at the next meeting.
May we have it today? We should have it today.
My information is that the letter was not written.
Why not? I thought those were our instructions.
Substitute Clerk to the Committee
The instructions have not been followed through, but they will be immediately.
Why not?
Substitute Clerk to the Committee
I cannot speak for the clerk to the committee who is absent.
As I know he is not present, it is difficult to justify. However, instructions were given last week to write the letter and it has not been written. Is that right?
Substitute Clerk to the Committee
I believe so.
That is not acceptable. It is not acceptable that we instruct somebody to write a letter and they do not write it.
It was agreed at the last meeting that we would write to invite a representative of HSBC to attend. As I said, that person attended the UK public accounts committee hearing. We are now told that it did not happen. I agree that that is not acceptable. However, in the light of what Deputies Joe Costello and Shane Ross have said about the person in London not being available, we will have to establish by way of correspondence if they will make themselves available to attend a further hearing. I cannot address the fact that the letter was not sent.
Whatever the response to the letter would be, it is not relevant. The relevant fact is that we asked for this letter to be written and it has not been written one week later. Second, I do not understand why we do not have a representative of HSBC in Dublin today. The letter from HSBC states it thinks it could not assist, but I it might be able to do so. I received a telephone call from one of the members of staff here and was asked to take the second slot after Deputy Áine Collins today, which is fine, in putting questions to the Revenue Commissioners and, as I thought, the HSBC representative. When I rang the secretariat the day before yesterday, I asked if a representative of HSBC was coming to the meeting and was told "No." The reason given was that it would not be appropriate for them to come and sit in on the meeting. I then said I would like the representative to be here and asked the secretariat to request that they attend. I note that HSBC has not refused to come to the committee; the correspondent just states it does not think it can help us. I believe it could. I was assured that the staff would get in touch with the Chairman about whether they were to come. I do not know what happened after that, but it is my understanding that it was quite clear that they would be coming. It now appears that they are not. What happened? Did the staff get in touch with the Chairman?
The arrangement made at the last meeting was that we would invite representatives of the Revenue Commissioners to the meeting and we understood HSBC Dublin was agreeable to sending a representative but that the representative would not know the details of the issues to be raised. I suggested we have the representative of HSBC Dublin attend the meeting in order that at least that person could hear at first hand the concerns of members and the response from the Revenue Commissioners. To refer again to the letter of 9 March, HSBC stated that, given the fact that it was not aware of some of the issues involved, it would assist where possible but that specific questions would have to be put in writing. What Deputy Shane Ross is raising is the fact that last week we agreed to do this in a particular way. Now, due to not extending an invitation to the representative in London, that will not happen today. When members agree to hold a meeting in a particular way and invite specific individuals to attend, this should be adhered to. That is the message to the clerk to the committee and the secretariat.
I agree that that is the message. However, on the second matter, I was told the secretariat was going to get in touch with the Chairman. My understanding was that the Chairman was in favour of somebody coming also. I do not know what happened, but did it get in touch with the Chairman about inviting the Dublin people?
Yes. I spoke to Mr. Hearne yesterday and indicated that, rather than have an individual come from HSBC to attend the meeting in the Visitors Gallery, the person should attend and sit with the representatives of the Revenue Commissioners to hear at first hand what was happening. That was my view and that is my view of what was decided last Thursday at the meeting. What happened was that, first, the letter was not sent to London as requested and, second, the request to have a person attend obviously was not acted on.
Why was it not acted on?
Substitute Clerk to the Committee
I did not have an opportunity-----
What?
Substitute Clerk to the Committee
I did not have an opportunity to act on it.
Why not?
Substitute Clerk to the Committee
I have several other duties also.
That is completely unacceptable. We ask for somebody to come to the meeting and you have other things to do and cannot do it. Is that what you are telling us?
Substitute Clerk to the Committee
It is unusual at the moment. Yes, that is the case.
You did not do it. Did you convey to the Chairman that you were not going to do this?
Substitute Clerk to the Committee
No, I did not.
You just decided not to do it.
Substitute Clerk to the Committee
I did not decide not to do it. I did not get to it.
This is crazy. We have a situation where last week we asked for a letter to be written to invite people to appear before the committee. Does the Chairman see what is happening? It was not written on the decision of one of the secretariat. They decided not to write it for some reason. Perhaps they are too busy. I specifically asked, as one of the questioners at the meeting today, that a representative of HSBC Dublin be invited. That is conveyed to the Chairman for him to either endorse or not endorse it. The Chairman says they should come and the clerk to the committee does not do it. The committee is being upstaged by the secretariat. Whether it likes it, it must invite the people we ask to be invited.
It is not so much that I would endorse a request. It is the fact that at the meeting last week the format was agreed.
Correct.
That is the issue. The clerk to the committee is not present. On behalf of members, I will raise the issue with him, on his return, and the acting clerk.
To say, "I did not have an opportunity to act on it," and not to come back, leaving members who were expecting the people concerned to come before them in limbo, is just not acceptable.
I agree, but to address the matter, it must be taken up directly with the clerk to the committee and the acting clerk.
It makes a mockery of the committee.
In addition to the point Deputy Shane Ross has made, it is very important that HSBC send the person who could most usefully address the committee. If the appropriate person is based in London, not Dublin, that is the person who should come before us. What struck me was that the Westminster public accounts committee had HSBC personnel before it recently and I know that they received a considerable dressing down from Margaret Hodge MP, the Chairman's opposite number in London. I want that letter to be written. In addition, it is really important that HSBC send somebody who could usefully address the questions we want to ask.
I agree with the Deputy that we need to move on. Berating the staff serves no purpose. To be honest, a mistake has been made, but everybody makes a mistake. We should move on.
To come back to the letter, it makes it clear that nobody in Ireland is able to provide any useful information. It also makes it clear that HSBC is prepared to answer specific questions. It then makes a rather ambiguous statement that a representative from London is not available. Whether such a representative is not available at this time or whether it is not prepared to make a person available is not clear. The tenor of the letter we will now send to London should be that we wish to have a representative from London who could actually answer questions and would have the relevant information.
I do not believe it is appropriate to chastise staff in front of members in the manner that happened a minute ago. As Deputy Patrick O'Donovan said, a mistake was made and everybody makes mistakes. I do not think anybody set out to make a mistake by deciding not to do it.
Having worked with the secretariat when I was Chairman, it would be very wrong to chastise the clerk to the committee and the acting clerk. What happened might have been a blessing in disguise, as we now have the Revenue Commissioners before us and will have ample opportunity to bring in representatives of HSBC once we hear what the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners has to say. In all honesty, the volume of work being progressed by the Chairman would keep five or six clerks very busy.
Notwithstanding all of that, it is important that decisions taken by the committee be acted on in full, unless there is a legal issue such that it cannot be done in that way. If that is the case, when we make decisions, we should be told whether the general outline of the request is within the legal remit of the committee. I will talk to the acting clerk and the clerk to the committee in the next few days.
I totally disagree with what the Deputy on my right said. There is a pattern developing which is making a mockery of the committee. If members do not recognise this, it is up to them, but it is quite clear to me that if the instructions of the committee are not being carried out, we might as well abandon our role and leave it all up to the civil servants.
The discussion has been noted and action with be taken.
On No. 3C, documents relating to today's meeting, we have received correspondence from the Revenue Commissioners, including the opening statement. The correspondence is to be noted and published.
At our meeting on 26 March we will be examining the 2013 financial statements of the Dublin Docklands Developments Authority. Is that agreed? Agreed.