Are the minutes of the meeting of 7 May 2015 agreed to? Agreed. There are no matters arising from the minutes. We will move to correspondence received since the meeting of 7 May 2015 from Accounting Officers. No. 3A.1 is correspondence, dated 5 May 2015, from Mr. Mark Griffin, Secretary General of the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. It follows up on the committee's meeting of 16 April 2015. No. 3A.2 is correspondence, dated 7 May 2015, from the Health Service Executive regarding a follow-up to our meeting of 23 April. No. 3A.3 is correspondence from Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú, Secretary General of the Department of Education and Skills, regarding compliance with public sector pay policy. I ask for the letter to be shown on screen as there is an issue with it.
Business of Committee
Clerk to the Committee
There is and it will be displayed.
There is an issue in regard to University College Cork.
Yes, that is the issue I am raising now.
We received a very strong reply from the Secretary General of the Department on UCC, indicating that it is not in compliance with public pay policy. The university was given an ultimatum to be in compliance by 15 May which is tomorrow and to cease any further payments that were out of line with that compliance, prior to that. Have we received confirmation from the president of UCC that the university has complied with the demand?
We can ask for an update.
It appears that the information that was supplied originally by the college is not in accordance with the information that was supplied subsequently. These are serious matters that need to be addressed. After the president of the university replies to the Secretary General, we can look into the matter in greater detail.
The HEA and the Department will be before us as part of our work schedule so we can deal with the matter later on.
No. 3A.4 is correspondence, dated 11 May 2015, from the Health Service Executive and is a follow-up to our meeting of 23 April 2015. Members can see the information on screen.
In regard to the matter raised by Deputy Costello, which I will deal with now rather than raise it later on, alongside that issue, a number of reports were given to us by a whistleblower relating to Cork Insitute of Technology. I know this is a different matter but it is still part of the third level sector. Then there were reports on Waterford Institute of Technology, there were problems in regard to the amalgamation of Carlow and Waterford ITs and Tralee and Cork ITs. Within what was said at those meetings, there were serious issues which have not been addressed in an adequate way. We should not just remind the Department of Education and Skills but, if necessary, bring forward the date of our hearing with it if we do not get the appropriate replies. Extremely serious allegations were made but it seems to me that the Department has not taken them seriously.
In the context of the amalgamation of institutes at both Carlow and Waterford and Tralee and Cork, significant moneys are involved and the Department has not clarified the matter yet the amalgamations continue apace. Again, it is a question of having the information before us, being able to make a decision and not allowing a process to continue that will further cloud the financial circumstances of the colleges involved so that we will never get to the end of the matter. We should express our concern directly to the Department about these matters that have been raised. If we do not receive a comprehensive reply to the queries raised by members and whistleblowers, then we should have an earlier than planned meeting with the Department, the Higher Education Authority and representatives from the different colleges concerned. Deputies could deal with the issues raised in the correspondence supplied by the Department at that meeting. The allegations are far too serious for this committee to ignore.
I agree with the Chairman that we should bring forward the meeting with the Department. I would like to read into the record the letter sent by the Secretary General to the president of the college:
The Department, however, has established from an analysis of the schedule submitted by the President with his letter that it includes additional unauthorised payments which were not previously notified to us. The information contained in the schedule is regrettably incomplete and the outstanding data have been sought from the university.
The correspondence refers to the public sector payments that were not authorised. He stated further: "I have directed the President to cease with immediate effect all remaining additional payments contained in the schedule which remain extant and to confirm to me by the 15th May that this has been done." As tomorrow is 15 May, I suggest we meet the Department on some date this month. The meeting would prove valuable as the Department could deal with this matter and all of the other issues outlined by the Chairman.
We should wait until Mr. Michael Kelly finishes his report. It might be more useful to have him in when we meet the HEA and the Department. I have spoken to him and he has agreed to meet the Committee of Public Accounts once he has finalised his report.
My understanding is that he is taking a look at some of the issues you raised as well. He has had to wait until the two governing bodies in Waterford and Carlow met and until they have been put together before he issues his report. There has been a delay because of that and I believe that is reasonable. However, if we are asking in the Higher Education Authority with the Department of Education and Skills then I believe it would be useful to bring him in and discuss his report and findings as well, because he is examining the issues you have raised.
I have no difficulty with that, Deputy Deasy, save to say that what Deputy Costello has raised and what I have raised are almost separate from the particular issue of Waterford and Carlow ITs.
Yes, that is grand.
It is a broader issue of governance and reporting between the colleges and the Department, and, in turn, reporting between the Department, the HEA and the Committee of Public Accounts. It is obvious that we are not getting the information. It is clear to me that there is almost an attempt not to give us full information, and that is not acceptable.
That is fair enough. He is probably the one person who has been tasked with independently reviewing the governance matters that you are talking about. Therefore, if we are going to have a meeting on the matter it might be useful to have him before the committee to talk about his findings when it comes to the governance and the stream of information between the Department, the Committee of Public Accounts and the HEA.
It might be no harm if he was invited in and heard the exchange in respect of the issues that have already come before the Committee of Public Accounts and which have not been answered by the Department in any way, shape or form. This has to do with a serious lack of governance and control of taxpayers' money.
I agree with you on that point. What we are talking about is Government pay policy, but we are not getting full information. It is only dripping out subsequently when we hear of breaches of pay policy that are unauthorised. This is a clear case of it. Some of the other issues raised are related to this. It is important that this be done urgently and that the matter be raised at this committee. I agree that it could be done and that the broader issues could be dealt with at a later stage.
We were dealing with correspondence from the HSE which is a follow-up from the 23 April 2015 meeting. There are a number of other outstanding matters that the executive has to deal with but this correspondence answers some of the questions raised. In the context of the HSE reflecting on our meeting I suggest that we forward a transcript of that meeting to the Garda Commissioner in light of the issues raised separately, relating to the home in Waterford and other matters. We are told the Garda is investigating. It is extremely lax on the part of the HSE and the Garda that this matter is not being dealt with in a more open way. On one side there are approximately 30 young adults who have been affected by what happened there, but I get no sense from the HSE that there is an urgency about this or any desire to resolve it.
The position is likewise in respect of the investigation into the procurement process. That has not been rightly explained to us either. Perhaps the transcript may be of help to the Garda.
A protected disclosure was made, under legislation, on more than one occasion from more than one person, but nothing has happened since. The Garda Commissioner needs to understand that we have had our hearing, that protected disclosures have been made and that we would have expected a far greater urgency as a result of that meeting. The care of these 30 or more individuals is a matter of concern to us. Given all the reports undertaken into incidents within the HSE one wonders whether the executive is fit for purpose at all. Perhaps the transcripts should also go to the Minister out of concern for the issues raised.
There is a good deal in this. As you have said, one of the issues the committee dealt with has to do with procurement and tendering. The Comptroller and Auditor General has carried out reports on the matter. Across the board when it comes to the HSE it is clear that the executive is a bad actor, frankly, when it comes to tendering within public procurement guidelines. When it comes to the issue that you have just raised and what the committee has dealt with in recent weeks, the appropriateness of hiring former HSE employees to do reports for the HSE on issues as disturbing as those we have been dealing with is questionable.
When Mr. O'Brien was before the committee and questioned with regard to the process whereby the tender was awarded, he pointed to some regulations that needed to be followed. When he was questioned about whether they had been followed in that particular case and for the particular contract in question, it was clear that they had not because the procurement office said it had no communication with the HSE on the matter. In hindsight the answer he gave was disingenuous. We have done a great deal of work when it comes to this issue as well as the tendering of contracts by the HSE and the potential conflicts of interest that arise when former employees of the HSE get these contracts.
We should put a formal proposal from the committee to the Minister to change this arrangement. Most of the work has already been done by the committee. It would be simple to do. The issues we have raised in the committee have not been raised in any other forum in the Oireachtas and therefore it is reasonable for us to do that.
I support Deputy Deasy's proposal, particularly in the context of the last meeting with HSE. You might recall, Chairman, that in the afternoon session yourself and myself stumbled into the Áras Attracta investigation by accident. No more than the concerns Deputy Deasy raised in respect of the south east, the same questions were left unanswered in respect of who was involved and how the team investigating Áras Attracta by the HSE was appointed. To be honest, the answers that came from the HSE officials were wholly unsatisfactory. We are still waiting to hear whether there is to be another investigation into something the HSE is responsible for and whether those involved have learned anything from it. It seems to me that they have not.
Maybe it is appropriate, then, given that proposition, to ask the clerk to do a short report on the basis of that meeting. The members can feed into that and it could be done for next week.
Clerk to the Committee
It will be the week after next. We are not meeting next week.
The Comptroller and Auditor General has done much work on procurement and HSE tendering. I will preface my comments by saying that one would wonder about value for money as far as the taxpayer is concerned when it comes to a contract being given to a former employee and individuals who were known within the organisation and who had been there for decades but it is far beyond that, frankly. The conflicts of interest that arise in these issues are incredibly disturbing and far supersede that consideration.
The premise is in place. You have done a great deal of work in this area, Chairman, as has the Comptroller and Auditor General. Perhaps you could feed into any report that the committee might do. That would be useful. Rather than simply point out the position, we should come up with a solution. I think we should come up with a clear determination, as a committee, about what should not happen when it comes to the issuing of a contract by the HSE. This should include an absolute bar on individuals who are former employees of the HSE getting these contracts. I believe that step will need to be considered by the Minister and we should make that recommendation and consideration.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
The only comment I would make in that regard is that there may be a problem in law in respect of making a restriction completely debarring people who have legitimately set up in business from tendering for work. The complication in this case was that it was people, who had previously worked for or who had been previously engaged with the HSE, who were appointed without any competition.
If the Government is prepared to pass a law that prevents politicians or former politicians lobbying their former colleagues, I do not see a problem with the Government passing a law preventing former employees of the HSE getting contracts as it applies to cases like these. Anything can be achieved if enough thought and consideration is given to it. I understand Mr. McCarthy's point, but if the will is there and the potential conflicts are understood well enough by the Department, it can probably do that too.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
I do not want to argue for or against the proposition the Deputy is making because it comes into a policy area. I am just saying there may be a restriction in terms of the contestability of the issue and excluding certain categories. However, it is a matter that can be looked into.
We can bring forward a draft report that we will present to the Minister in a short format. We can then discuss it and members can decide on recommendations, such as the one Deputy Deasy is putting forward. It is clear, in the context of all these reports, that there is a crisis in the management of the HSE. No political system or Minister could manage the HSE the way it is. It will appear before the Joint Committee on Health and Children this morning. The stonewalling that goes on when one is trying to sort out a problem is just incredible. It is unacceptable and somebody will have to do something about it. My concern is that while we are discussing this and while we had our meeting with the HSE and are now going to bring forward this short report with recommendations, there are individuals out there who are suffering because of it and nobody seems to mind. The system seems to be conditioned to a high level of acceptance of this stuff going on. It is not acceptable. That is what members are saying in the context of trying to achieve balance and a change. Somebody has to change the system in the interest of justice and fair play. It is all one side at the moment and no one seems to be paying a bit of notice to any of the public hearings that are going on. That is not acceptable. We will have this short report as soon as possible. We will put it before the members and then we can decide what is necessary.
All the correspondence that has been mentioned is to be noted and published.
No. 3B.1 is correspondence from individuals. We dealt with correspondence previously from Mr. Philip Cantwell regarding illegal dumping of waste. The correspondence is to be noted and published and the Department is to be requested to give a full up-to-date account of its investigations into this matter because it was raised directly with the Secretary General at the Committee of Public Accounts. We will ask for that in a timely fashion, so that we can respond to Mr. Cantwell.
Correspondence from Mr. Paul O'Toole, CEO of SOLAS, regarding spousal travel in FÁS 2002-2008 is to be noted and published.
Nos. 3C.1 and 3C.2 are documents relating to today's meeting, namely, the opening statements and briefing documents. The correspondence is to be noted and published.
Nos. 4.1 and 4.2 are reports, statements and accounts received since our meeting on 7 May from Trinity College, Dublin. Regarding 4.1, the committee's attention is drawn to the recognition of a deferred pension funding asset, which is standard for universities.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
As the note says, it is a standard approach in the third level education sector to recognise a pension funding asset, which would strictly not be in compliance with accounting standards. I just draw attention to that. In fact, I have drawn attention to it in respect of the two years.
These accounts are to be noted. The work programme is now on the screen. The clerk is providing us with a dossier on the information that was brought forward at a briefing session last week. That will be ready for us in the coming week. I presume that after it is made available to members we should make it available to the Department before our meeting with it. Is that on 16 June?
Clerk to the Committee
It is on 18 June.
We should make it available to the Department so that it is fully aware of the content of the dossier. In the course of our discussions and briefing, it was said that a recording was available to members if they wished to see it. I ask the clerk to make that available to any member who wants to view it. A date can be arranged on which a number of members can view it, or it can be reviewed independently. Members should indicate their availability to the clerk so that we can arrange that.
Are there any questions on the work programme? The Dáil is not sitting next week, so our next meeting will be on 28 May. We will be dealing with the Department of Social Protection. Would MABS be brought in under that Department?
Clerk to the Committee
It can be brought in on the Vote.
We will just flag that for the Department. Are there any other issues arising?
What is the situation with the investment committee of the Office of Wards of Court coming in?
At present the funds of the Office of Wards of Court are not audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, which is a question Deputy Ross raised at a previous meeting.
We agreed to ask it in.
We have recommended in our draft report that the board should be examined in terms of the Courts Service. What was the Deputy's question?
We agreed to ask representatives of that office in about two weeks ago. Presumably that request has not been delivered to them.
I do not think it was taken up as an agreement to ask them in.
It was.
Was it?
It was, absolutely.
It was.
Okay.
That request has not been carried out. We did not know at the time that it was outside our remit. Is that correct?
Yes. On the day it was mentioned, it was taken as a suggestion rather than a proposition.
No, it was not.
I was not here.
It may have been taken as that, but it was not agreed as that.
I was not here and I am reluctant to be led by Deputy Ross.
Everything has changed.
If we have agreed to invite it in, the question is that the office is not audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Whether we can invite it in and see whether it will come in is another matter.
We should invite the office in anyway. It seems it can refuse and may do so, but there is a strange void here. It is not accountable to anybody. Is that correct?
Clerk to the Committee
It is not accountable to us.
It is not accountable to us, so presumably it is accountable to its own auditors.
To whom is it accountable? This is €1.5 billion, which is being managed by some individuals who are on the investment committee. If the office is not accountable to us, we must ask to whom it is accountable.
Members have decided that we should write and invite it in, which we will do.
We should ask it in. I do not think we should back away just because the individuals are particularly powerful. There are a couple of judges there but they would be very welcome to come and give evidence here.
Yes. We will invite them in.
I support Deputy Ross on that. I feel strongly that Office of Wards of Court should be invited in. If its representatives decide not to come in, one would have to ask why they would not appear before the committee. The Committee of Public Accounts, by virtue of its title, is here to investigate things like this and this office must be accountable to somebody. We have a duty of care to these people to ensure that what is happening in their name is looked after.
I am suspicious that the service that runs the fund is not audited internally or externally. It just does not seem right. I support Deputy Shane Ross and believe it should be invited and encouraged to appear before the committee. If it does not, there is some reason for not wanting to appear before us and that would make me suspicious.
I would make the point that it is audited but not by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
The families have never been given a statement in respect of any of the funds. Who is doing the audit and, if so, where are the results?
The Deputy can ask those questions.
The fact that they are audited is irrelevant.
Exactly.
The point is to whom are they are accountable.
I agree with everything that has been said so far. Presumably, its line of funding starts from voted expenditure probably through the Department of Justice and Equality and the Courts Service. The funding must start somewhere.
The Comptroller and Auditor General may be able to say.
If you did not get the nuance of the discussion that took place the last day when you were not present. We also agreed to invite Ms Mary Farrell, who was from one of the families concerned and to give her the option of meeting members in an informal session. I want to ensure that end of it happens as well. The Courts Service or somebody must have a hold on the line of funding. A decision to invite in that lady was made.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
Just for information, as it has been stated, I do not audit them. The funds of wards of court are regarded as private funds. They are not public funds.
Why?
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
They are essentially awards that are made in court.
Who pays the awards?
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
It could an insurance company or it could be the State.
So some of it comes from the State.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
The expenses of the accountants' office are in the appropriation account of the Courts Service.
That is what I said.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
The accountant who manages the funds, as I understand it, manages it under the supervision of the President of the High Court.
From memory, one of the recommendations in the report we are issuing states that the Comptroller and Auditor General oversees this entire area with regard to accountability. I think that is reason enough for us to invite in the investment committee to discuss that recommendation.
Is there a rule that the Comptroller and Auditor General would check if more than 50% of an organisation's funds come from the State and that the Comptroller and Auditor General should be the auditor? Is there a rule in that regard?
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
That is for inspection.
Some of the funds may come from insurance companies because of awards but some come from the State where there are no insurance companies involved. What proportion of the original funding base comes from the taxpayer? That is what I would like to know.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
There is a provision. I think the Deputy is referring to section 8 of the 1993 Act which provides for inspection. In section 5 there is a permission to allow the Comptroller and Auditor General to audit the accounts of funds, except a fund under the control of the courts.
They saw us coming.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
This is in the legislation. For the record, there was a draft Bill in 2006 or 2007 which did contain a proposal that the audit would be assigned to the Comptroller and Auditor General but that was never progressed.
Given that we are not clear whether the awards have been made from public moneys or insurance money, surely that is an area that requires clarification in its own right. One of the major points raised by Deputy Sean Fleming at the last meeting was that we are talking about a totally different scenario where many of the wards of court are living to quite an old age and the issue of investment has changed dramatically from what it might have been 50 years ago and, therefore, there may be a need to explore the matter to some degree. If there are public moneys involved, there is an accountability issue for the committee. The very least we need to do is to tease out and see what level of public moneys may be involved. I agree entirely with the proposal that we should invite them in and let us take it from there.
As to whether we invite them in, the person who makes this decision as the Comptroller and Auditor General has just explained, is probably the Minister for Justice and Equality with regard to the changing of legislation that was mooted in 2006 or 2007. Therefore, we will not get anywhere with regard to the recommendation in the report until there is some degree of change in thinking when it comes to transferring the oversight of this area to the Comptroller and Auditor General. If we are to do that I would ask the Department of Justice and Equality to be involved as well.
May I make one point? Obviously the recommendation is very important. Much of the funding would come from the estate of the people concerned. It would not always come from insurance companies. It could be the residual of probate.
It could be.
I think they would be quite willing to come in. Given what the Comptroller and Auditor General has said with regard to the draft Bill in 2006, perhaps we could look at that possibility.
There seems to be agreement that we invite them in and that we have the Department of Justice and Equality in on the same day. We will ask the clerk to act on that immediately.
With Ms Mary Farrell as well.
Yes, on the same day. I am sorry about the lack of clarity in regard to the decision that was made at the last meeting. I will speak to the Vice Chairman about that.
The Chairman was on holidays.
He will have to go on another course.
The Chairman was on holidays.
Do not keep repeating that. The press is there. Next week's business is Vote 37 - chapter 10 - regularity of social welfare payments; chapter 11, control of supplementary welfare allowances; and chapter 12, farm assist and Social Insurance Fund 2013. As I said earlier, within that Vote there is the funding of MABS and the reporting procedures within it. With that agreed we move to today's business and ask the witness to attend.
Has there been any response from the Office of the Chief State Solicitor and the Courts Service in respect of coming in to give the committee a briefing?
Yes, we are in the process of organising that.
Great. In relation to the docklands, we were to do a report on the Jeanie Johnston on Hanover Quay.
That will be available the week after next.
Excellent. We did not get a reply to our request to the Department of Justice and Equality on Thornton Hall to clarify the discrepancies arising from the various reports.
Not as yet but we have asked.
Excellent. That is full clarity.
In relation to last week's meeting, what is the position in regard to the special investigations unit and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine? Are we going to wait until the Department appears before the committee?
Yes. As I said at the start of the meeting, the clerk will have the dossier made available to us. When the members receive it, maybe we will have an informal meeting about it again. It will then be made available to the Department officials before they come in. As part of that, there is a video which is available to members to look at. If members indicate to the clerk when they are available, we can arrange that.
Can it be e-mailed to us like other documentation?
We can get a copy for the Deputy.
It can be sent to us by e-mail in the same way as the rest of the documentation and we can view it in the same way as all the other correspondence. It is just another step of technology.
It depends on the size of the-----
We can share it then.
It is available. We have agreed to that. We move on to today's business and ask the witnesses to attend.