The committee is now in public session.
Business of Committee
Before we get to the business, why did we start at 10 o'clock today and not 9 o'clock?
I think we were tired.
(Interruptions).
The only item on our agenda after we get correspondence out of the way is our private meeting. The later start time was probably in that context because, as it is a private meeting, it might not take as long.
I presume we will be going back to a 9 o'clock start.
Yes. Today was the exception because we do not have any public witnesses coming in. That was the reason.
We are joined today by the Comptroller and Auditor General. For the benefit of people watching these proceedings, we are having a brief public meeting this morning to deal with routine correspondence and our work programme for the next couple of weeks. After a very short period, we will go into private session to commence our discussion on a draft report on the Garda Síochána and the Templemore issue. Most of today's meeting will be in private session.
I will proceed straight away to item No. 1. Are the minutes of the meetings of 20 and 22 June noted and agreed to? Agreed.
There are no matters of relevance arising from the business we are dealing with today.
No. 603B, carried over from last week’s meeting, is correspondence dated 16 June 2017 from Maurice Buckley, Chairman, Office of Public Works, OPW, regarding a 2013 request by the Department of Education and Skills to provide office accommodation for Caranua with instructions from the Department that Caranua would meet the appropriate rental costs. The correspondence will be noted and published. If any member wants to use the correspondence or raise a further-----
I may raise it at the next meeting.
We will hold it over because it is an outstanding issue.
I thank the Chairman.
No. 604B, carried over from last week’s meeting, is correspondence from the chairman of the Office of Public Works, OPW, on the committee’s investigation of financial arrangements at the Garda College in Templemore in regard to Dromard Farm. We will note and publish the correspondence, and it will be part of our consideration.
No. 623B (i) to (v) is correspondence from the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners enclosing information requested regarding the 2016 research survey of illegal tobacco products published in April 2017; the code of practice for the Revenue audit and other compliance; an analysis of 2015 corporation tax returns and 2016 payments; and a note on the research and development tax scheme from 2009 to 2015. There is detailed information on that.
I was reading that report. It is amazing that there was a 6% reduction in the illegal sale of packets of cigarettes. I am sorry, is that the research and development tax scheme?
It is in the Revenue correspondence.
Approximately 21 million packets of cigarettes is what is accounted for under the illegal distribution category. That is out of a total of approximately 207 million packets of cigarettes. That clearly shows the problem of cigarette consumption. Despite all the efforts by the Department and even the financial constraints put on the purchase of cigarettes more than 200 million packets were still sold in the country. However, I refer to the fact that some 21 million packets are in illegal distribution. Furthermore, we see the prevalence now of the illegal distribution of roll-up tobacco pouches. It is a very serious problem. The 6% reduction in the illegal sale of packets of cigarettes in the past seven years is welcome, but 21 million packets are in distribution. That is a loss to the Exchequer of approximately €170 million, which is significant, not only from the Revenue's point of view but also from the point of view of the Department of Health in terms of its objective to reduce smoking in this country.
We will note that. There is a lot of information in this which I believe all individual Members of the House will want to digest and use as they see fit. It is on the record from the Committee of Public Accounts point of view. I thank the Revenue for that useful information.
No. 628B (i) and (ii) is correspondence from Dr. Graham Love, chief executive officer of the Higher Education Authority, enclosing a report on procurement practices that has been commissioned by the Higher Education Authority. We will note and publish that and consider it as part of our work on the third level institutions.
No. 630B (i) to (iv) is information requested from An Garda Síochána. There is quite a lot of information here, all of which we will take into consideration in drafting a report, but I want to put it on record that we have received it. It includes notes from the meeting on 29 July 2015 between Ken Ruane and John Barrett, a statement on shares held in the name of the Garda Mess Committee, a report dated 20 April 2017 from Ken Ruane, head of legal affairs, to the chief administrative officer regarding the modernisation and renewal programme reporting structures. We will note and publish the correspondence.
No. 633B (i) to (ii) is correspondence dated 22 June 2017 from Mr Maurice Quinn, Secretary General of the Department of Defence, enclosing a note regarding the disposal of the former Naval Service vessel LE Aisling. A member requested that earlier. We will note and publish that correspondence, and any member should feel free to use it in their own capacity.
No. 634B is correspondence dated 26 June 2017 from Ken Ruane providing clarification as requested by the committee regarding a meeting on 27 July 2015 and legal advice provided to the Commissioner. We will note and publish the correspondence.
The next item is Nos. 637B to 647B. The remaining items in Category B are in regard to our examination of finances in the Garda College. We will note and publish these, but I will list them for the record.
Nos. 638B (i) and (ii) is a chronological explanation of the process used for taking, preparing, circulating and amending the audit committee minutes of 30 September 2015 and an email re observations on minutes of the audit committee meeting on 20 September 2015.
No. 639B is an e-mail from Niall Kelly regarding the reporting arrangements for the head of internal audit.
No. 640B is the Garda Training Committee report on probationer training.
No. 641B (i) to (viii) are responses to the draft interim audit report.
No. 642B is a note regarding managers who were responsible for the Garda College since 2005.
No. 643B is an analysis of Garda restaurant accounts from 2009 to 2016.
No. 644B is a note from Barry McGee re interactions with John Barrett.
No. 645B (i) is a letter from assistant commissioner McMahon re queries raised at the PAC meeting on 14 June 2017.
No. 645B (ii) is a letter from Revenue re income tax exemption in regard to Garda College Sportsfield Ltd.
No. 645B (iii) is a letter from the Department of Justice finance division re investments relating to the Garda Training Centre mess funds.
Correspondence 645 (iv) is a Garda Training Committee report on probationer training. This is a duplicate of the previous document and the Walsh report relevant sections. That was mentioned in passing at the previous meeting.
We asked for a copy of that report. There are various letters regarding conditions of service of Garda trainees and further various letters regarding the increase in allowances paid for student maintenance. There is an information note for the committee from Ms. Helen Hall, chief executive of the Policing Authority. Also, there is a letter from Mr. Michael Culhane to the chief administrative officer concerning the reference to "muddying up" and associated correspondence. There is correspondence from Mr. Noel Waters, Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality. This is an information note and appendices on the oversight functions of the Department in respect of An Garda Síochána and, in particular, Templemore.
The next item is correspondence - dated 13 June and carried over from the meeting on 22 June - from the chairman of the Office of Public Works, OPW, on the issue of the lower Lee Cork city flood relief scheme. It was agreed to postpone this correspondence for consideration today. This correspondence states:
Many options to address the flooding in Cork have been considered by the Design Team and assessed by reference to a comprehensive suite of technical, social, environmental and economic criteria. Arising from this detailed multi-criteria analysis, a preferred option was identified and brought to exhibition. The estimated cost of the proposed scheme is €140 million based on 2017 construction costs including VAT.
As part of the statutory Exhibition process carried out between 12 December 2016 and 7 April 2017, over 1,000 submissions were received on the proposals. The submissions are currently being considered before the scheme is advanced to formal Confirmation (i.e. Ministerial approval) stage. OPW is in discussions with Cork City Council on the main issues arising to identify potential changes to the Scheme as a result. OPW is aware of alternative design ideas being put forward and all such proposals will be considered during this process.
I propose that we ask the OPW to keep us informed of and up to date on each stage of this project as it progresses. Deputy Catherine Murphy had requested this report, so I hope it is of some assistance to the people who raised the matter.
There is considerable resistance to the particular solution proposed and the 1,000 submissions give some indication of that.
Absolutely. We will ask the OPW to formally keep us informed of developments on this issue because there is some €140 million of taxpayer's money involved, so we are entitled to watch this space. That is agreed.
The next item is No. 624C, correspondence received from an individual on 19 June 2017. This correspondence is addressed to the chief superintendent at the Bridewell Garda station and alleges treason by judges and contempt of the High Court by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It has been copied to us and we have not been asked to do anything. We acknowledge that we have received it.
The next item is No. 625C, correspondence dated 20 June from an individual making an observation about the meeting on 20 June with An Garda Síochána. I assume this is an observation from a member of the public on our public meeting. We will note it and take it into account.
The next item is No. 626C, correspondence received from an individual on 22 June refuting information provided by the University of Limerick on 18 April 2017. I propose we forward a copy of this to Dr. Richard Thorn, who is carrying out the review, subject to the correspondent's approval. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The next item is No. 627C, correspondence dated 22 June 2017 from the chairman of a company in the Czech Republic. This correspondence alleges that NAMA failed in its duty to achieve the best achievable financial return for the State by dealing expeditiously with the Savarin loan portfolio owned by Welwyn in order to expedite the matter. We received this complaint and wrote to NAMA about it, which has given us a detailed response. We sent it back to the company involved which is writing again to us. We do not normally do this. However, in order to be practical and expedite the matter on behalf of the correspondents, I propose that we refer this to the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach, which is scheduled to meet representatives from NAMA on 13 July. Those representatives are not scheduled to come before our committee for some time. They will be before the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach in two weeks' time so we will ask the latter to follow up on this issue with them. That is a practical way of moving matters on. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Nos. 629C and 635C are two items of correspondence from an individual - dated 23 June and 27 June, respectively - regarding the Courts Service spectrum growth fund. Inquiries were previously made with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and its response was forwarded to the individual, who was also advised that the matter will be discussed at the meeting on 13 July 2017 when the representatives from the Courts Service are due to attend. We will be raising this issue publically and formally with the Courts Service on that date. The individual has requested a meeting with the Chair and members of the committee in advance of the meeting on 13 July. If such a meeting were to happen, it would, by definition, be informal in nature. As we will be engaging with the Courts Service on 13 July, I propose that we raise the matter then. I do not know if we will have an opportunity to meet the individual in the interim. Perhaps members can do so in order that we might be fully up to date with the views of the people who are corresponding with us and thereby have a proper discussion on the matter at the public meeting with the Courts Service on 13 July.
It would be quite useful to meet informally with this individual because there is quite a bit of information involved.
I know that this person has been in contact with Deputy Catherine Murphy and several other members of the committee. Will the Deputy act as an informal link and arrange a meeting?
The Deputy should check with us and arrange to meet on some day next week when we are here. It is not a meeting of the Committee on Public Accounts but an informal meeting involving members who have been dealing with the issue. It will not involve the secretariat. It will involve a number of members of the committee who are available to meet. The Deputy might advise us as to when might be suitable. We will leave it in her capable hands to arrange.
That is fine.
I thank the Deputy. We will deal with this publicly on 13 July. That is agreed. We will let the lady who is writing to us know directly. She may even be watching, but the Deputy will contact her shortly in any event.
The next item is No. 631C, correspondence from an individual requesting parchment paper from the clerk. Ten pieces of good quality parchment for ten-----
Ten pardons.
What is that about?
The members of the committee will figure it out at some stage.
I am at a loss to understand this one.
When the committee gets extra staff there might be an interpreter for the Chair.
I do not understand that particular item of correspondence. If light can be shed on the matter, we will consider it on the next occasion or deal with it one way or the other. I do not understand. Perhaps there is something behind it. We will put it to one side and finalise it at our next meeting.
We can give it to the clerk to deal with.
We will formally conclude the matter the next day.
The next item is No. 632C, correspondence dated June 2017 from an individual on the issue of Horse Racing Ireland's proposal to revoke the individual's course betting permit in accordance with the provisions of section 48 of the Irish Horseracing Industry Act 1994. The matter is outside the remit of the committee and I propose to refer it to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine as it falls within the latter's remit. It is a policy and legislation issue relating to the relevant Department. That is agreed and noted.
The next item is No. 636C, correspondence dated 27 June from an individual on the issue of the playing fields at Clonkeen College school. The correspondence states that the school has recently been refurbished and the individual understands that the Christian Brothers now wish to sell the playing fields to a developer. Further correspondence was received this morning, one item from an individual and another through Deputy Catherine Murphy's office. We will collate the information and all the correspondence. I propose to write to the Department of Education and Skills seeking a response. I have received several emails on this issue in the past few days.
Did the chair receive any correspondence about Our Lady's Grove?
No, this is the only issue that I have received correspondence about in my emails. We will write to the Department of Education and Skills for a response to the emails and the correspondence we have received.
We have received another item from an individual with whom we have dealt before. On this occasion, he writes to us under the heading: "Protected Disclosure: Section 10 to the PAC regarding internal competition processes to appoint head of internal audit and protected disclosures recipient in the Department of Social Protection". We are going to ask the legal people to advise us on this documentation before we consider it further.
There is another item, a possible protected disclosure, and we will ask the legal people to have a look at it during the week. The committee will come back to both next week. Neither is listed on the correspondence so we will have to come back to both. We dealt with the individual on a previous occasion and we concluded that we could take no further action on the matter raised. There has been a further response and we must take advice on that. We will return to the matter next week. That is the end of the correspondence for today.
The next item is statements and accounts received since the last meeting. I do not believe we have any to record this week.
The final item on the agenda is our work programme. This should only take a minute. We will be going into private session at the end of this meeting in order to discuss the draft Garda report into issues relating to the Garda College in Templemore. I propose that we meet next Tuesday in private session to discuss the reports we have requested. I hope the education report will be nearly at a final stage by next week, possibly on Tuesday, and we can then move on to the Garda report. A draft of the latter will be presented to us in a few minutes. We will take time to consider that and discuss it. I will ask the secretariat to take members' comments on board and hopefully come back on Tuesday with an updated draft. We must get in to that in the next week or ten days in order that we might try to bring it to an interim conclusion. It will not be fully concluded because we will not get it all completed before the summer as there is information still to come. Is next Tuesday-----
The Chairman said we will come to an interim conclusion?
It will not be our final report.
There is a difference between an interim first-phase report and a first-phase report.
It will be phase 1, module 1, part 1.
I just want to be clear on the language. It is not an interim first-phase report, it is a first-phase report.
Correct, it is not an interim report.
The Chairman said that before.
The Deputy is quite right, I should have said part 1, phase 1.
It is better to be absolutely clear on these things.
That is right and Deputy Kelly is 100% correct.
Can we agree to meet next Tuesday at 11 a.m.?
I will be have difficulty getting here by that time.
Or later in the day, possibly at 4 p.m. or 5 p.m.?
I prefer the morning.
We could start at 10 a.m.
Coming from Sandymount?
We will meet at 10 a.m. next Tuesday. The first item on the agenda will be an update on the education report and we have a lot of work done on that. I expect that when we get it back at our next meeting, we will be getting quite close to a final stage. We will then discuss the updated draft report, which the secretariat will have prepared as a result of this afternoon's meeting. We want to break the back of our work fairly soon after.
Does the Chairman envisage any other meetings next week or the following week?
No. We will have the regular meeting next Thursday. Officials from the Department of Finance will be in to discuss the appropriation accounts. Officials from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform will also be here to discuss its accounts and there is also a special report on financial reporting in the public sector. On Tuesday, however, we might make a decision to devote an hour on Thursday to deal with our own report. We will not know until Tuesday when we see how we get on. We will have a full day on Thursday next, 6 July. On the following Thursday, 13 July, we will deal with the general appropriation accounts of An Garda Síochána, the Courts Service and the Courts Service Vote. We will also deal with the Garda Commissioner. There is a draft timetable of how this might be handled which states: at 9.30 a.m. we will take the Garda Vote; there will be voting in the House at 12.50 p.m.; at 2.30 p.m. we will have a joint meeting with An Garda Síochána and the Courts Service to discuss fines; and when the latter is completed, we will deal with the Courts Service Vote.
On which matter will I be lead speaker? Will it be on the Courts Service? Will Deputy Connolly lead on the Garda?
Whichever. Deputy Connolly is down as the lead speaker and then Deputy Madigan. They can liaise with each other and work it out with the secretariat. The first issue is the Garda Vote and the final issue is the Courts Service Vote. The issue for discussion in between the Votes relates to fines and involves the Garda and the Courts Service. Representatives from both entities will be in attendance for the middle session. Hopefully, at that time, the committee will know where it stands in respect of publishing its report on the issues relating to the Garda College in Templemore. I believe we are concluded in-----
Deputy Cullinane and I both have other issues to discuss.
Yes. Deputy Cullinane had indicated.
I do not know if I am in trouble regarding time on Tuesday, but I will be here at 10 a.m. I may have to leave afterwards.
The Deputy will have to leave early.
Just in the morning. If it goes on until the afternoon, I will be back.
If a member cannot be present at 10 a.m., I will ask that he or she be facilitated. Reports are to be handed out at the meeting and are to be handed back as there will be no electronic version. If a member cannot make it and he or she needs an hour to update himself or herself by reading the report, I will ask the secretariat to facilitate this. The report will not leave the member's hands and go to the his or her office. However, a member can come in to sit down for an hour to catch up and then hand the draft report back. Is this fair enough? Someone could have difficulty getting here and we do not want to leave him or her out of the loop.
I have a question for the Chairman and the secretariat. Has a report ever been compiled for the committee in respect of the High Court judgment in the Kerins case?
This committee has not yet discussed the matter. A briefing was being arranged but we have not yet set time aside for it.
That needs to happen. I will not go into the details of where it was said but it was indicated to members of this committee, at a meeting with a senior politician yesterday, that we should be mindful of the Kerins judgment and our obligations in that regard. I have read the judgment and it is my understanding that the Committee of Public Accounts won the case. Perhaps I am missing something. I would like to have a report on what was stated in the judgment handed down. If there are lessons to be learned, that is fair enough. As someone who has read the judgment from start to finish, I take exception to people throwing the case back at us as if we had lost. I know the matter is still before the Supreme Court because the costs element is being appealed. If, however, there is a briefing paper that is sitting there and that has not been given to us, then I want to see it.
At Tuesday's meeting we will have an update and I propose that we will then discuss when we could try to set time aside for the briefing. By Tuesday, we will be up to speed. Is that agreed?
Absolutely.
I have to say that I disagree with Deputy Cullinane on that, not in the sense that the Committee of Public Accounts won the case but in that there are lessons to be learned from the judgment. I read it and I believe we should learn from it. It will only help us and make us stronger. We should read the judgment and learn from it.
That is fine. We will make a decision on Tuesday. We need to do it before the summer recess.
It is not a related issue but I need the Chairman's advice. Since last week's meeting, the committee has not received any correspondence from Cork Institute of Technology, CIT.
No.
Obviously, there are many issues involved. I know we are dealing with the colleges, which are a separate module, but CIT has one leg in and one leg out because of the fact that it was not-----
It came late to-----
Its representatives have been before us on two occasions. There are a lot of serious issues in respect of CIT and my particular issue relates to the Higher Education Authority and the manner in which the review was carried out. In essence, the terms of reference were written by the institute in respect of an investigation into itself. Can the Chairman offer guidance on how we deal with this? I would be happy to deal with it in the context of the report relating to the colleges. However, because of our work schedule, do we need to set aside time separately to deal with it? I am happy to deal with it as long as we do deal with it in the context of the report, which would be my preference.
We brought representatives from the institute before the committee. At our previous meeting, we decided that the institute certainly had to feature in the report. I would hope that we will deal with that matter during the private session on Tuesday next. We may not get to deal with all of it but it is certainly going to be discussed.
Okay. Can I ask if, based on the evidence, we will focus on the process by means of which the investigation was carried out?
Yes. That will be dealt with on Tuesday.
Okay.
Had we said that we would also consider revisiting-----
These issues will not be-----
Did we decide at our previous meeting that, in the context of the work programme for the new session, we would begin the work that the Chairman and Deputy McDonald never got to finish because of the KPMG report and issues relating to it?
Yes. We said we would put it in the work programme but we have not discussed the schedule for the next session.
That is grand.
Can we just deal with it-----
We will deal it as part of the report.
-----and make a judgment call after that?
Vis-à-vis the first phase Garda report, there is still documentation outstanding. I have asked for some correspondence that I have not received since the relevant witnesses gave evidence.
How will those gaps be addressed in the report?
We will deal with that issue in our discussions on the Garda report. The issue of information not received is one with which the committee will have to deal. That information has not been provided is in itself a conclusion.
On a separate issue, notwithstanding the 13 individual personalities and views of committee members, in order to ensure the committee's approach to its work is as cohesive as possible, perhaps in the next session, in advance of meetings, each member could be tasked with selecting and dealing with one or two of the suggested questions listed in the briefing provided by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. If, for example, there were ten questions, the lead questioner would deal with three of them and each other member would deal with one. This would not affect the integrity of members' individual contributions but it would ensure a level of cohesion. In addition, it would not take up a huge amount of each member's speaking time. I think this process would serve us well. It served the banking inquiry well after a very disjointed start. From the point of view of both the secretariat and the committee, it would be very useful.
I echo Deputy MacSharry's views. I have found the current process and that relating to Project Eagle very frustrating. There is no joined-up thinking on this committee in my view. The work should be divided between members, with each member tasked with forensically examining a particular section and then putting questions that stem from that work to the witnesses. There is too much repetition, from my perspective, in terms of the questions being asked and individual members trying to get soundbites. I am not casting aspersions on anybody but, ultimately, we want to get value from the work of this committee and for it to serve its purpose in the best way possible. To do this, we need to break up the workload. Perhaps, in the context of our discussions on the next phase of the Garda report, we can do what is proposed by Deputy MacSharry. It would be better than members randomly asking questions, repeating questions and sticking to the same topic such that other topics are not being covered at all.
We can do that.
I agree with Deputy Madigan that there are topics that are not being covered. I support what is proposed.
We can discuss what mechanism should be put in place. We could, for example, allow each questioner to ask one question or to engage in a particular line of questioning and then he or she would be followed by a sweeper who would raise issues that merit discussion in public but are often only dealt with briefly before the conclusion of a meeting. I have mixed views on this. When I am given briefing notes, I sometimes follow them closely. On other occasions, I take an equally good and separate line of approach. There are issues that need to be raised.
It would give a level of assurance. The researchers and the secretariat engage in a particular line of work and members might identify an issue not identified by them. There may be 20 suggested questions, as was often the case in terms of the banking inquiry, and the lead questioner, for example, Deputy Catherine Murphy, could deal with four, the second questioner could deal with three and so on. A member might have 20 questions to ask but he or she would have to ask the two or three questions allocated to him or her to ensure a level of consistency in terms of direction.
We would be covering all the bases. We will return to this discussion. The remainder of this meeting will be held in private session. The next meeting will take place at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 4 July 2017, when, in private session, we will discuss the education report and the report on the Garda College in Templemore.
The committee went into private session at 10.45 a.m. and adjourned at 1.30 p.m. until 9 a.m. on Thursday, 6 July 2017.