COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 22 Mar 2018

Business of Committee

Chairman

The Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, is present as a permanent witness to the committee. He is joined by Mr. Peter Kinsley, deputy director of audit. Apologies have bee received from Deputy Pat Deering.

Are the minutes of the meeting of 8 March agreed to? Agreed.

We will now deal with correspondence, of which we have a little more than usual, given the two-week gap caused by the break for St. Patrick's Day.

Item Nos. 1152 and 1181 are two briefing documents from Mr. Robert Watt, Secretary General, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, while item No. 1190 is Mr. Watt's opening statement. It is proposed to note and publish the documents.

Item Nos. 1153 and 1177 are two briefing documents on public private partnerships from Mr. Gerard Cahillane, deputy director, National Development Finance Agency. It is proposed to note and publish the documents.

Item Nos. 1154 and 1183 are two briefing documents on public private partnerships from Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú, Secretary General, Department of Education and Skills. It is proposed to note and publish the documents.

Nos. 1157 and 1179 are two briefing documents on public private partnerships from Mr. Michael Nolan, chief executive, Transport Infrastructure Ireland. It is proposed to note and publish the documents.

All of the documents on public private partnerships are connected with today's meeting.

Under category B, correspondence from Accounting Officers or Ministers, follow-up to previous meetings of the committee and other matters for publication, item No. 1150B is from Mr. Joe Nugent, chief administrative officer, An Garda Síochána. It is the audit report on the ICT directorate payment process which was requested by the committee. It is proposed to note and publish the report.

Deputy Alan Kelly

I also ask that we discuss it at a future meeting.

Chairman

We have scheduled a meeting with An Garda Síochána on 31 May and I will ensure the matter will form part of that discussion.

Deputy Alan Kelly

I attended yesterday's meeting of the Joint Committee on Justice and Equality with representatives of the Policing Authority. When issues connected with ICT contracts, tendering and procurement were raised, the head of the Policing Authority, Ms Josephine Feehily, indicated that the Committee of Public Accounts had greater capacity to deal with issues related to tendering or otherwise and public procurement within An Garda Síochána than the Policing Authority. Unless the authority's functions are extended, it will not be able to deal with this matter.

Chairman

It is a lacuna in the system.

Deputy Alan Kelly

The committee must deal with such matters. At yesterday's meeting which lasted for four hours the Policing Authority made clear that it was unable to address issues related to the expenditure of €26 million without a tendering process. This committee will have to address the matter.

Chairman

Does the Policing Authority have a role in considering other expenditure by An Garda Síochána?

Deputy Alan Kelly

I am paraphrasing Ms Feehily and do not want to misrepresent her views, although they will be in the transcript of yesterday's meeting. My understanding is that while An Garda Síochána must engage in a process with the Policing Authority to appoint a clerical officer, the authority cannot do anything about Garda expenditure of €26 million without a tendering process.

Chairman

If the Policing Authority does not have a role in dealing with financial matters, this committee will have to deal with the issue. The reopening of Garda stations raises financial as well as other issues.

Deputy Alan Kelly

Absolutely.

Chairman

I will ask the secretariat of the Joint Committee on Justice and Equality to forward the transcript of the relevant part of yesterday's meeting.

Deputy Alan Kelly

The matter was raised on two occasions at the meeting and I know the times at which it was raised.

Chairman

We will have the relevant part of the transcript circulated for the information of members. As I stated, representatives of An Garda Síochána are scheduled to appear at our meeting of 31 May and we will raise this issue at that meeting.

Item No. 1155B is correspondence, dated 8 March 2018, received from Ms Hilary Murphy-Fagan, chief executive, National Shared Services Office, providing a detailed breakdown of the €812,000 spent on training and an explanatory note on temporary rehabilitation remuneration, formerly known as pension rate of pay, which the committee requested at our previous meeting. I propose we note and publish the document.

Item No. 1156B is a letter from Mr. Robert Watt, Secretary General, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, advising the committee that it is not the intention of the Minister to issue a minute in response to the committee's report on Project Eagle as the minute would relate to matters which were the subject of investigation under the terms of reference agreed to for the Cooke commission by the Houses of the Oireachtas. We will note and publish the document. As Chairman, I am satisfied with Mr. Watt's response. The normal procedure when the committee issues a report is that the relevant Department will respond. In this case, I did not expect to receive a detailed response to our report, given that the Cooke commission was in place. This has been confirmed by Mr. Watt. It is helpful, however, that our report has been acknowledged. We accept that a response would cut across the terms of reference of the Cooke commission.

Item No. 1161B is correspondence, dated 8 March 2018, received from Mr. Des Fitzgerald, president, University of Limerick, enclosing the Crowe Horwath report, as requested by the committee. We will note and publish the document.

Deputy David Cullinane

The Crowe Horwath report merits further examination by the committee. I note that the secretariat circulated to members a note detailing outstanding issues in the education sector generally.

Chairman

We will address that matter when we discuss the work programme.

Deputy David Cullinane

A number of other issues remain to be addressed by the committee. For example, correspondence has been received from Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú, Secretary General, Department of Education and Skills on the religious congregations. We must also deal with the audit of the Kildare Vocational Educational Committee and the report on Waterford Institute of Technology. I ask for a comprehensive discussion on education issues.

Chairman

We will discuss the matter when we reach the work programme in a few minutes.

Deputy Alan Kelly

We will need a full session to discuss these issues.

Deputy David Cullinane

We will need at least one full meeting.

Chairman

I accept the Deputies' proposal because that is how we work so many third level issues into our work programme. We will discuss the matter when we complete our discussion on correspondence.

Item No. 1170B is correspondence received from Mr. Tony O'Brien, director general, Health Service Executive, enclosing a briefing note on the procurement process for legal services, as requested by the committee. We will note and publish the document.

Item No. 1178B is correspondence received from Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú, Secretary General, Department of Education and Skills, providing notes on voluntary offers made to the State by religious congregations in 2009, a follow-up audit of Kildare Vocational Education Committee and the review of eligibility for Caranua. We will note and publish the documents. Some of the information provided is working its way into our periodic report which we will publish next Wednesday at a time to be confirmed. We have compiled a periodic report on the six meetings held in November and December 2017. The report includes a number of conclusions and recommendations. It was finalised yesterday in private session and the secretariat is readying it for publication.

Item No. 1180B is correspondence received from Ms Julie Sinnamon, chief executive officer, Enterprise Ireland, providing an information note on Knowledge Transfer Ireland. We will note and publish the document.

Item No. 1184B is correspondence received from Mr. Neil McDermott of the Higher Education Authority, providing an update note on the independent review of the spin-out and sale of companies at Waterford Institute of Technology. The review is still not complete. The committee was informed previously that due diligence and a legal review were required before completion. That appears to be the reason for the delay.

Deputy David Cullinane

I have a different understanding of the position. I understand a report was completed, at least in draft form, and sent to the Higher Education Authority, HEA. It then had to be legally proofed. I do not know whether changes have become necessary as a result of communications between the legal representatives of the HEA and the author of the report which was submitted to the HEA in November 2017. With April approaching, I am informed that it could be several months before the report is published. I am concerned by the length of time it is taking to publish it. As someone who received at least 14 protected disclosures about some of the issues addressed in the report, I am aware that its author met dozens of people in Waterford Institute of Technology. Complications may have arisen because the report may make adverse references to persons other than those who made disclosures, provided information or were interviewed. However, I do not know if that is the case because we have not had sight of the draft report.

I am also aware that at one point the Comptroller and Auditor General was considering whether to produce a report on the FeedHenry aspect of the issue. FeedHenry was the spin-out company that was sold. It was a different piece of work from the broader report being produced by Mr. McLoone.

It was more global in terms of the sale more generally of intellectual property in the institute. Is the Comptroller and Auditor General still examining the FeedHenry issue or considering producing a report on it at some point?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

As I understand it, we have not seen the draft McLoone report, but I understand it is very wide-ranging. We have looked in detail at the FeedHenry spin-out and the development, or at least the disposal, of the institute's interest in it. I was holding off on making a decision to produce a report pending the issuing of Mr. McLoone's report because I felt it would be better to see it. I believed that if we had something additional to add, we could then make a decision, but, given the time, it is probably better that we press ahead with the report. I am working on it, with a view to clearing it with the interested parties. It will, however, focus exclusively on interests in FeedHenry.

Deputy David Cullinane

When Mr. McCarthy refers to working on a report, is he saying there is already a draft report?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

There is. There are just one or two things that have to be added to it, but I expect to get it out next week to the interested parties.

Chairman

It is good to hear that. We will note and publish that item of correspondence.

The final category of correspondence is category C which includes correspondence from private individuals and any other correspondence.

Item No. 1138C is correspondence received from an individual about St. Angela's College, Sligo. Item No. 1144C, correspondence received from Deputy Marc MacSharry, refers to this correspondence. The individual in question is calling for four things: first, that we critically review his latest correspondence; second, that we request cumulative officially reported expenditure on the subject of litigation in 2017; third, that we confirm that the Comptroller and Auditor General's branch, in all relevant years, namely, from 2007 to 2017, inclusive, tested under the money-laundering legislation, as applicable, in the case of St. Angela's College and, if not, that such testing be undertaken, as appropriate, this being a matter for Mr. McCarthy; and, fourth, that we recommend that an audit of corporate governance and management be undertaken by St. Angela's College Sligo Limited. Does the Comptroller and Auditor General have remarks to make? We are not encroaching on his work, just referring to correspondence received.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It is a little surprising to be asked about money laundering in the context of a college. Like all audits we carry out, we are certainly aware of the necessity to consider the possibility of fraud, but I have had no indication of anything in that regard. As the audit for 2017 has not yet been completed, I cannot speak about that year, but I have had nothing to report in that connection in the past.

Chairman

Having reviewed the correspondence, it essentially concerns a legal dispute. The individual has forwarded a number of solicitors' letters in which a number of allegations are made. If he believes the allegations, he should pursue the matter further through the courts. If he believes there are criminal actions, he should report them to the Garda. That is not our function. For our part and with his agreement, I propose that we forward the correspondence to the HEA for whatever action it deems appropriate. Beyond that, I suggest we do not involve ourselves further. We are not asking the HEA to do anything; we are forwarding the material to it for its attention for any action it chooses to take. We can also expect every attempt to be made by public bodies to reduce expenditure on litigation. The individual in question has asked for details of expenditure on legal fees in 2017. I propose that we do not go there. He can take up the matter through whatever other channels are available. It is essentially a legal dispute and we are not going to get into it any further. I have made the committee's view clear. We will forward the material to the HEA. The individual in question has the option of going to the courts. It is a legal dispute that has been in the courts before. If there are criminal matters involved, the individual in question has the option of going to the Garda, but the Committee of Public Accounts is not the appropriate body to take the matter further. We are concluding our correspondence on the issue on that basis. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 1139C is correspondence received from Professor Patrick O'Shea, president, University College Cork, enclosing information requested by the committee on the appointment process for the chief operations officer in the Tyndall National Institute. Can we note the correspondence and forward a copy to the individual who raised the matter? It is an employment matter. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 1148C is correspondence received from Deputy Niamh Smyth. It concerns the issue of corporate governance at Creative Ireland and the allocation of funding for various events and festivals. I propose, in the first instance, that we write to the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht for a response which we will discuss when we receive it. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 1149C is correspondence received from Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll, Secretary General, Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, enclosing information requested by the committee on the Irish Horse Welfare Trust, an organisation which is based in County Wicklow. Can we note the item and forward a copy to the individual who raised the matter? Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 1158C is correspondence received from an individual who alleges the unlimited waste of taxpayers' money to harass her family. She has copied correspondence to the committee and been in touch with the health committee. The substantive matter seems to relate to the taking into custody by the Garda of her children on two occasions, in 2013 and 2016, as a result of a court order. It is not within the remit of the committee to consider court decisions. I propose that we write to the individual in question to suggest she consider obtaining legal advice on her options. I also propose that we write to state our consideration of the matter is now closed. We certainly cannot revisit matters dealt with in the Family Court. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 1159C is correspondence received from an individual concerning what he describes as the SIPTU-FÁS slush fund. He questions why the committee is not investigating the matter which has been ongoing for five or six years at the committee. It was considered by the previous committee. There is also an ongoing investigation into the alleged misappropriation of grant funds and the issue remains within the remit of the Garda National Economic Crime Bureau. The last committee submitted the matter to the Garda to investigate whether there was fraud involved. This was communicated to the individual in question last November. I propose that we write to him to state we do not propose to pursue the matter further and that he not circulate further correspondence on it to the committee. If at some point the investigation is concluded by the Garda and there are matters arising from it that are relevant to the committee, we may return to the issue at that stage. It has been handed over to the Garda and we are not getting involved at this stage. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I have an observation to make on the matter. I presented a report on the issues of concern to the committee. Recommendations were made to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform which were related to the systemic management of grants. A circular was actually issued in response to the report to tighten the regime in the administration of grants. The systemic issues were dealt with after the committee's consideration.

Chairman

How long ago was that?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The circular was issued in 2014.

Chairman

It predates-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It is being implemented.

Chairman

On the original SIPTU-FÁS matter, it was a HSE issue.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It was, among others.

Chairman

Therefore, it predates 2014 and is now in the hands of An Garda Síochána which is where we are leaving it. The committee is not the Garda ombudsman.

The next item is No. 1160C, correspondence, dated 26 February 2018, received from Deputy Mary Lou McDonald, thanking the committee and the secretariat as she has stepped down from the committee. We shall note and publish the corresondence. We wrote to Deputies Mary Lou McDonald and Noel Rock to thank them for their contributions to the work of the committee.

The next item is No. 1162C, correspondence, dated 6 March 2018, received from Nursing Homes Ireland. It concerns the cost of care in HSE nursing homes. Mr. Tadhg Daly, chief executive officer, Nursing Homes Ireland, has indicated his availability to discuss the matter with the committee. We will note the correspondence and include the matter in our work programme.

Deputy David Cullinane

We should do more than note it. I was astounded when I read the correspondence because it was specifically the CEO of Nursing Homes Ireland who had written to us to alert us to what his organisation regarded as increased costs in public nursing homes. We need to remind ourselves that very serious allegations were made against Nursing Homes Ireland about price fixing and the running of a cartel. I stress the word "allegations".

A witness was here and made a lot of interesting points which, to this day, we have not been able to put to Mr. Daly and Nursing Homes Ireland. It takes a brass neck to send a note to the Committee of Public Accounts saying they are concerned about prices in respect of public nursing homes. We afforded Mr. Daly an opportunity to come before the Committee of Public Accounts to deal with the issues. It was not taken up and I understand that legal issues were raised. He has very generously written to us to alert us to what he sees as an issue and it may be so. It is worth examining whether we are getting value for money for public nursing homes. However, there was a meeting and we got a report which has not yet been shredded. It raised serious allegations of potential price-fixing and the operation of a cartel. I propose that we invite Mr. Daly to come before the Committee of Public Accounts and I would love an opportunity to put all those questions to him - not just those relating to the issues he raises. It took a brass neck to send the correspondence in question, given that his organisation has not responded to the very serious allegations that were made against it.

Chairman

In the previous letter he sent, he declined to attend on the specific day in question, rather than refusing outright to come before the committee. Following receipt of the documentation about alleged collusion and price-fixing, Deputy Thomas Byrne sent it to the to the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, which has investigated the matter independently of us and concluded that there was no evidence to support the allegations. The State body charged with examining the allegations has done that. Nevertheless, we may still have questions to ask and, even if there was no collusion, the issue of pricing is relevant to us. We will put it on the work programme.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

What are we putting on our work programme?

Chairman

We will invite Nursing Homes Ireland to come before us.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I have a difficulty with that.

Chairman

We would also have to bring in the National Treatment Purchase Fund, because it set the prices.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I have a difficulty with a private interest coming in. There is a responsibility on the Committee of Public Accounts to deal with State agencies as regards value for money and it is such organisations we should be questioning.

Chairman

That would be the National Treatment Purchase Fund.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I share some of the sentiments expressed by Deputy Cullinane. I note that Mr. Daly offered to come in on a different day.

Chairman

We will discuss it when we come to the work programme in a few minutes. The Deputy has made a relevant point.

The next item is 1163, correspondence from Deputy Jack Chambers attaching a copy of a document relating to a document he received on the GoSafe speed detection contract, which we discussed at our last meeting. We will note the correspondence and inform the Deputy that we have written to the Garda and the Department of Justice and Equality.

Deputy Alan Kelly

Have we received a response?

Chairman

No, we discussed this only at the last meeting. No. 1164 is correspondence from myself enclosing an internal audit report on the subject of the activation and family support programme carried out by the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection. I was very concerned about the content of the report and I propose that we write to the Department for a detailed note on what actions have been taken arising from it, asking for a timeline and the current status of the scheme. The report has been circulated and it was also discussed on RTÉ recently.

The next item is No. 1165, from myself relating to an individual who is employed by the Irish Prison Service and who believes he was unfairly treated over a number of years. This matter has come before us on a couple of occasions and his case was before the Workplace Relations Commission recently, which found in his favour and was condemnatory of the Irish Prison Service in regard to its treatment of him over a period of time. He was awarded €30,000 and this is public knowledge, with his solicitor having spoken about it to the media. I suggest we write to the Prison Service for a note on what lessons it has learned from its handling of the issue, and what action it is taking to prevent a recurrence.

Deputy Alan Kelly

That is a good idea. Most of us are aware of the case and lessons will have to be learned. There may be other issues that need to be sorted out and it is important to issue the letter. We want answers and we want to hear that there have been changes in the way the service addresses these issues, both currently and in respect of historical cases. The judgment raises serious concerns.

Chairman

We will put the Deputy's suggestion about historical cases into the letter.

Deputy Alan Kelly

This went on for an incredible length of time.

Chairman

It took tremendous perseverance on the part of the individual concerned. A former district justice carried out the report.

Deputy Alan Kelly

Nine out of ten people would not have pursued this case as vehemently as the individual concerned.

Chairman

He was justified in his perseverance. The next item is No. 1166, from Deputy Catherine Murphy on Garda compensation payments. We will hold that over because the Deputy is not here today. She has proposed that we write to the Garda Commissioner for further information on the costs of, and a breakdown of the figures for, legal advice and to explain the notable differences between the amounts paid in settlements versus court awards. We received a one-page email replying to a parliamentary question. We will write to the Garda Síochána in line with the Deputy's request.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

There is a note in the Appropriation Account of An Garda Síochána which gives more detail than that given in the reply to the parliamentary question. I am not sure if the Deputy has seen that information, which disaggregates the total value of what was paid into compensation awarded, legal costs awarded and other costs awarded. It also gives five categories of payment. These details may go some way to addressing the Deputy's queries.

Chairman

I will ask the secretariat to supply the information to the Deputy. If she is satisfied, that is fine but if she wants further information we will agree to write for that.

The next item of correspondence is No. 1167 from Mr. Brendan Ryan, CEO of the Courts Service, of 9 March on an independent review by Mazars regarding the wards of court financial transaction of February 2018. I thank Mr. Ryan for giving consideration to matters raised by our own committee and the justice committee relating to the matter of funds managed in respect of wards of court. The Courts Service procured Mazars to carry out an audit on the financial management of a number of cases and I propose to note the correspondence and send it to the lady who has been in contact with us on the issue. If members want to read it and hold it over until next week, they can do so and can raise it at the next meeting if they wish.

No. 1168 is from Deputy Marc MacSharry, dated 13 March, forwarding a copy of an article relating to the payment by Our Lady's Hospice in Harold's Cross of training fees of €119,000 to a company with connections to the former CEO. We have also received correspondence, No. 1182, from Deputy Cullinane on the same issue. This is a section 38 organisation which has received €23 million in public funds for their activities.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

This is the type of thing that makes it into the news and we should be taking a look at it in our work programme.

Deputy David Cullinane

We had the spotlight on this issue and, unfortunately, it is not the first time we have been here with a section 38 of a section 39 company.

My understanding is that the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General carried out a broad report on this issue last year which touched on some of the governance issues. The findings of the Console report, which we might discuss in the work programme, were so bad that the report itself said that it pointed to potentially systemic problems within the HSE, that they were not just with the funded organisations but also in the relationship between those organisations and the HSE. That was not accepted by the director general, yet almost monthly we seem to have problems with funding in these organisations. This is serious because there is a potential conflict of interest. The report itself cites that issue. There are also questions around credit card expenditure. This has all come about on foot of an internal audit by the HSE. Is that audit public? Has it been published yet? If not, can we have a copy of it? My understanding is that St. John of God may also have been dealt with and that it was not just the hospice in Harold's Cross. There were other issues as well.

It is unfortunate that we are back here again. While we have dealt with this issue, it does not seem that controls have improved to any great degree. These things are still happening. This is not a section 39 organisation. It is a section 38 one which receives very substantial amounts of taxpayers' money. There is a difference between the two types of organisation and there needs to be a higher level of scrutiny because of it. We will come back to it in the work programme.

How many times do we have to be here? People are very rarely held to account. The Accounting Officer from the HSE will tell us that the problems are all on the side of the funded organisations. In fact, the internal auditors of the HSE were in disagreement with the director general in terms of whether there were systemic issues for the HSE. We have to deal with this once and for all because there is obviously a need to sharpen up governance arrangements. Perhaps the Comptroller and Auditor General can inform us as to what work his office did in this area.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

I agree 100% with Deputy Cullinane. There is no sanction here. It is not the committee's fault. This committee was traditionally more powerful. If issues arose, people were brought in and there was some sanction. However, now outcomes from this committee are broadly noted. When there is institutional culpability, the reaction is to announce a review or to ensure that a report is carried out. Nothing will happen and everybody walks away freely without consequence. This has happened with the Garda matters we looked at among others matters. The lack of answers forthcoming and the lack of candour that we have seen demonstrates that this committee, which is the only constitutional committee of the State, can be treated with disdain and contempt without fear or favour. The CEOs of State agencies need have no concerns about how money is spent or how things are done. They will come to this committee and any issues will be noted on the audit report but there will be no net outcome. The same thing then happens a couple of years later and we are here again. There will be a slap on the knuckles and nothing happens again. That is an issue for Government to consider. It should not just allow us to continue as busy hard-working fools at this committee but should ensure that if we find misappropriation or make recommendations, tangible outcomes, including sanction, will follow.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The latest piece of work we have done relating to HSE oversight of grant-funded bodies was in last year's annual report. The committee examined that chapter last October. The committee may have reported its consideration of that report.

The internal audit work on this particular section 38 body looked back at the period 2012 to 2014. While it may seem that there has not been much reaction, I certainly feel that a better effort is being made by the HSE to get on top of the oversight issue. Earlier I mentioned the tightening of controls as a result of the committee's consideration of the levy fund. The complete effect of that tightening up has not worked its way through the system for the time period that the internal audit was looking at. One of the things we have been pushing with the HSE is for it to acknowledge that there are problems and to outline the steps it is taking. Each year in the statement on internal financial control it has acknowledged that weaknesses have been brought to its attention by my office and by its own internal audit and that it is making better efforts. It still has things to fix and it will take more time to achieve tighter control in that area, but I do believe that it is happening, that the HSE has engaged with the matter and that it is trying to deal with it at a systemic level.

Deputy David Cullinane

I am not convinced that the HSE has faced up to all of its responsibilities here, but to be fair, if Mr. McCarthy has noticed from his perspective a shift in terms of better governance and better oversight, that is good. We have a lot on our work programme but it might be useful if we write to the director general of the HSE and ask for a detailed note on exactly what improvements have been made since the Comptroller and Auditor General's chapter on this issue was published and since the executive's appearance before this committee. We should ask what improvements in governance service level agreements and oversight have been made and that might shape the debate on this issue and affect the decision as to whether we revisit the issue.

Chairman

In the first instance we will write to the HSE for a copy of this report because we have only seen the media report on it. Based on our previous experience with Console, I expect we will get a copy of it but that it will be sent to us on a confidential basis and will not be for publication.

To explain to people watching why that is the case, a report carried out by internal auditors is not intended for publication. If it were to be published, it would have to be legally prepared and tested in case anybody wanted to contest an issue. It is essentially an internal matter. To publish something that was produced only to a standard for internal circulation would be a different issue for the HSE. The HSE has never published its internal audit report because it would have to proof every internal audit report legally and it would lead to different issues. In terms of the Console audit report, we all received copies of it here and discussed it at length. Neither the HSE nor this committee published it. It was widely circulated in the media but we did not publish it because there was obviously some quite strong issues therein which might have led to legal issues. We will ask for a copy of this report and consider it.

I want to remind members that as a result of our work with the HSE and the section 38 and 39 organisations, we received 100% of all financial statements from 2016. The organisations were here last September or October and they had provided over 70% of the statements. The HSE's record of getting section 38 and 39 bodies to comply with their financial reporting obligations was far greater than the public sector organisations we deal with here.

We all see a big gap in procurement. Procurement always happens without the proper procurement processes being in place, and that to me is still the weakest link in the HSE at the moment.

On the issue of the section 38 and 39 organisations, all of the historic issues of people receiving double or extra payments or extra allowances have been brought into line bar the final few.

Apart from a small number of people at grades 4 and 5, they have all been brought into line with public service payment schedules. Some people had to leave their posts because they did not agree to that. There has been some improvement and we might refresh ourselves on that, although work remains to be done. However, here we go again. I accept everything Mr. McCarthy says in this regard.

Deputy David Cullinane

Mr. McCarthy made an important point in respect of the timeframe. If this was from 2012 to 2014 and if improvements have since been made and we have examined it, then we need to put that caveat out there in terms of this organisation. That is an important point. From recollection of our exchange with the director general, however, section 39 organisations might receive only 5% of their funding from the HSE, for example. The valid point was made that we do not want to create too much red tape for small organisations that might not have the expertise to deal with higher levels of oversight. However, a section 38 organisation is a horse of a different colour and there must be far higher levels of oversight of such organisations. I accept what Mr. McCarthy stated in terms of this issue relating to some time ago, but it is only now coming into the public domain. There is an internal audit report which we have a responsibility to examine. We should get that report and get an update from the director general as to what changes have since been made, which would provide a basis for us to then make a decision.

Chairman

We often get glimpses of internal audit reports and I have mixed views on the quality of some. Some are great on specific detail but miss the elephant in the room, which is a phrase I have used before. How many internal audit reports are there? Perhaps the committee should, as a matter of form, ask bodies appearing before it on an annual basis for the schedules of internal audit reports. Mr McCarthy's office obviously sees those as part of his audit.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

We do, yes.

Chairman

Although we do not have time to read every internal audit report, it would be useful for us to have the schedule or the listing. Whether they did 20, 30 or 40, we should have the list of which were done------

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes. In terms of the------

Chairman

------because we have never had that information.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I keep coming back to the statement on internal financial control. Internal audits and the consideration of those reports by the audit committee are key internal financial controls. There is space for all public bodies to give more information about the internal audit programme they carry out, its completeness and so on. In fairness to the HSE, many of its internal audit reports are published. I am unclear as to whether that is as a result of freedom of information requests but it produces approximately 50 reports per year, some on individual grant-funded agencies and others on internal HSE systems, controls and the operation thereof. Where possible, it has been willing to make those reports public and sometimes puts them on its website. There may be specific problems with reports involving an allegation of fraud and such reports are trickier to handle than where there was a looseness in terms of spending but there was no fraud involved.

Chairman

For now, we will seek a copy of that report from the HSE and discuss it further when it is received. Representatives of the HSE will appear before the committee before the summer is out in any event.

The next item is No. 1169 from David Begg, chairperson of the Pensions Authority, enclosing a note requested by the committee on the CIÉ pension scheme for regular wages staff. We note and publish that. I think it has already been widely circulated.

The next item is No. 1171 from Seán Ó Foghlú, Secretary General of the Department of Education and Skills, in regard to St. Conleth's Community College, Newbridge. Members will recall that we came across this issue in regard to matters relating to Kildare and Wicklow ETB. There were concerns about health and safety standards but the Department informs us they have been fully addressed. Can we note the correspondence and send a copy of it to the individual who raised the issue with us? Agreed. We will also publish it.

The next item is No. 1174 from the whistleblowers known as B and C in regard to the University of Limerick. They take issue with the Thorn report into certain matters and allegations relating to the university and wish to meet the committee. If we proceed with our meeting with the other whistleblower, to which we have agreed in principle, then I propose we also meet these individuals as it would give us greater insight into the matter. Although we have not decided the format of such meeting or whether it would be in public or private session, these whistleblowers have requested to meet us, so we will agree to that in principle. That is agreed and we will discuss it again as part of our work programme.

Correspondence No. 1176 dated 5 March from an individual alleging several Departments are misclassifying employees as self-employed in order for some employers to evade PRSI obligations. This is a large document and at first glance appears to be related to a matter previously considered by the committee in some depth. I propose in the first instance that we write back to the individual seeking a summary of which Departments are involved and how such misclassification is being done.

Deputy Alan Kelly

Is this related to a similar------

Chairman

A similar issue. It is not the same but it is similar. I do not think this correspondence was sent by the individual who was previously in contact with us on this issue. There is a significant document-----

Deputy Alan Kelly

There is a serious amount of work involved in this correspondence. If one follows that link, one could go on forever.

Chairman

Can we hold it over until the next meeting?

Deputy Alan Kelly

Agreed.

Chairman

I would like to read and consider it before the next meeting.

Deputy Alan Kelly

Agreed.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I have read it and it raises some concerns.

Chairman

If that is the case, members need to read it.

Deputy Alan Kelly

Having looked at similar documentation previously, this is quite detailed but there are nuggets of issues which would raise concern.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It is something on which we are working but if the committee wishes to proceed on it, that is its prerogative. We are re-examining the issues raised------

Chairman

Will that form part of Mr. McCarthy's annual report?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I expect so. It will be completed for September.

Chairman

In any event, we will hold the document over. It is substantial and if members read it we will be able to have a more detailed discussion on it at the next meeting and then decide what action to take, if we wish to take action.

The next item is No. 1175 from an individual in regard to AIB and his treatment in respect of his tracker mortgage. We have not circulated the item as it contains a considerable amount of personal financial information and is not a matter within the remit of the committee. I have asked the clerk not to circulate that information. Is the committee agreed that the information should not be circulated and that the committee should write to the individual to suggest that the matter may be appropriate for the Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach or the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman? It is a matter between an individual and AIB. We will write back to him on that basis.

The next item on our agenda concerns statements of accounts received since the last meeting and they are coming up on the screen. The first item is the Grangegorman Development Agency. It has a clear audit opinion and we note that. The Ombudsman for Children's Office received a clear audit opinion and we note that. The Environment Fund received a clear audit opinion. Did we deal with the Environment Fund with the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government last-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

No. It is no longer the responsibility of the Department of the Environment; it is now under the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment.

Chairman

Did we deal------

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The committee did not deal with the Environment Fund.

Chairman

It got away from us. That is the 2016------

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It is under the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment.

Chairman

We will note the clear audit opinion that is laid before the Oireachtas.

The next item is the Legal Aid Board. There is a clear audit opinion but the board incurred material expenditure where the relevant goods and services were not procured by way of competitive process. Here we go again.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I wish to point out that the version of accounts presented does not contain the correct statement of internal financial control. When I issued the certificate, I specifically referred to the statement of internal financial control giving detail about the difficulties with the procurement of goods and services but that is not the version that was submitted.

We only discovered this late yesterday, so we are bringing it to the attention of the Legal Aid Board.

Chairman

The version laid before the Oireachtas is not the version that the Comptroller and Auditor General certified.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The version of the statement on internal financial control is not the version-----

Chairman

Was it an earlier draft that was submitted or did-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It may have been an earlier draft that somehow came around the-----

Chairman

This raises an issue. When the Comptroller and Auditor General conducts an audit, he gives the body a certificate, but it is up to the body to print the report using his information. Sometimes,-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

There can be-----

Chairman

-----something incorrect appears in what is published even though the Comptroller and Auditor General did not sign off on it.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

I am not an auditor and Mr. McCarthy has all of the expertise, but I always have a problem when I read "clear audit opinion, but". How could there be a clear audit opinion if processes were not followed?

Given that the Comptroller and Auditor General certified this, there is something about the situation that I do not accept. If a Word document was sent to him, it would take work to-----

Deputy Alan Kelly

Pull it out.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

-----pull out some of that and submit an earlier draft. We are reaching a little if we assume it was a clerical error. This is not a bunch of documents, but something in electronic format. Would that pay-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

No, it is actually a paper document. What we require is that a body submits three signed sets of financial statements.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

I understand.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The three of them arrive in my office and I sign three separate certificates. We keep a copy centrally, there is a copy on the file and a copy returns to the agency.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

To get it printed-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

-----and presented to the Oireachtas.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Obviously, the agency has an electronic version of it. Where the agency is also publishing an annual report, there may be typesetting, so it may take my certificate, retypeset it and take a picture of my signature. There is space for errors to be made. I would be very surprised if this was anything other than an error.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

Is the part of the report other than what was presented to Mr. McCarthy internal to the document? Is it the last page?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

No, it is in the first part of the document.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

It is not the first or last page.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

No.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

Would this not take work?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

One might retypeset. When I cleared the set of accounts for signing, one of the points that were conditional was that, while we would put a certificate on this set of financial statements, the agency must include additional material in respect of procurement. The agency did that in the paper version, so it was agreeable. That version was signed by the chairperson, so I do not believe there is any difficulty. The agency accepted that it needed to include information on the procurement of goods and services.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

I am sorry for harping on about this and I will not discuss it again, but the document reads: "The Board incurred material expenditure where the relevant goods and services had not been procured by way of a competitive process." How can there be a clear audit opinion if that is the case?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

A distinction needs to be drawn between the financial statements and the statement on internal financial control. The latter is not part of the financial statements and the audit opinion relates just to the financial statements. By exception, if I find that there are matters that would be of interest to the committee, I will draw attention to those. There is not a contradiction between the two. The financial statements give a true and fair view of the agency's financial situation in the year of account.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

The arithmetic adds up to the totals and they concur. However,-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes, and the proper disclosures have been made.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

Right, but were there competitive tendering breaches?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

There was a lack of competitive tendering where there should have been.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

Was it just a case of, for example, me getting Deputy Cassells to do a job because I knew him, he was local or I liked his price?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I am not suggesting that that is the situation. It may be that, administratively, it was more convenient to roll over a contract rather than to go to tender and return to the market. It may not be preferential, but there is not market testing to determine whether we are getting the goods and services at the best price and whether all of those who are in the market and able to present the goods and services have had an opportunity to compete for the contract.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

I am sorry for going on but I promise that this will be my last question.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

That is okay.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

Is any sanction applicable, applied or even stated as a sanction that ought to be applied?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

No, there is not a sanction per se, but one of the reasons that organisations need to be careful is that a potential supplier of goods and services could seek a remedy on the basis that, for example, it could have provided that service and should have had an opportunity to compete for the contract. There could be grounds for a legal claim-----

Deputy Marc MacSharry

The supplier did not get a chance.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

-----to be made against an organisation.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

Our main focus is not on A or B getting the job-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

No, A or B may have got the job anyway.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

-----or having the lowest price. It is more about not wanting C to sue because it did not get an opportunity to tender.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

That has to be a consideration.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

It is not about the lowest price. It is about sueability after the fact.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

No. The whole idea of going for competitive procurement has two aspects. First, it should get the best quality at the most economic-----

Deputy Marc MacSharry

Economically advantageous-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The most economically advantageous product. Second, people who are operating in a market should have an entitlement to compete and offer their services without being excluded from the market.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

In the event of us not having competitive processes, our concern as the State is not that we have to pay the lowest price. Deputy Cassells did the job, he charged X and that is good enough for me. I am not worried about what he got for doing the job. I am more concerned about Deputy Kelly suing me because Deputy Cassells got the job without there being an opportunity to compete. Is that the case?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Both are considerations. There is the value aspect as well as the equity for suppliers aspect.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

I apologise for going on.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

My issue also relates to the Legal Aid Board. There is a particular onus on a body like that.

(Interruptions).

Deputy Catherine Connolly

That is the first point. Second, the nature of the service it provides has changed dramatically in recent years. Clients of the Legal Aid Board pay for its services. It is not a free legal aid service. It is being commodified into sections. For example, if one is getting an hour's consultation, one must attend with the cash to pay for it. As such, there is a particular onus on the Legal Aid Board.

I will ask two or three specific questions. Regarding the error that was made, the Comptroller and Auditor General clarified that he had asked for more information. Is that the part that is missing?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

But Mr. McCarthy is familiar with the information. Has he seen it?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes. I have it here.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

It was just not included.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I just got a copy from my office this morning.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

Lovely. There was a turnover of €38 million and the board incurred material expenditure. What was the figure?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I will provide the full section, which states:

The Legal Aid Board ensures that there is an appropriate focus on good practice in purchasing and that procedures are in place to ensure compliance with all relevant guidelines.

The Legal Aid Board complied with the guidelines with the exception of 9 supply arrangements to the total value of €758,304. These are broken down as follows:

- 1 proprietary purchase accounted for a total of €33,366

- 1 existing supply contract was extended/rolled over with a value of €53,864.

- 1 situation arose where there was a single suitable supplier available and the value of this contract was €61,331.

- 2 local arrangements/tenders were entered in to with a value of €85,529

- 4 other procurements with a value of €524,214 have mainly arisen while the finalisation of centralised tenders in the Office of Government Procurement is awaited.

Apart from one sole supplier case, the Legal Aid Board has already put contracted arrangements in place for two cases and is taking steps to put tenders in place in 2018 for the remaining six cases.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

What was the nature of those services?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I do not have the detail of that with me.

Chairman

Given that the Comptroller and Auditor General became aware of this, can we ask him to come back to the committee? Normally we would write to the board directly but because you have spotted this issue in respect of the board, you might follow up on it and come back to us. Or will they have to lay a fresh set of accounts before the Oireachtas?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I would expect the proper thing to do would be to correct the record, so to resubmit.

Chairman

Should we write directly or should we ask you to follow up on it?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

We have brought it to their attention this morning. I would expect them-----

Chairman

Were they aware of this?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I do not know if they were. I have not spoken to anybody.

Deputy Alan Kelly

I am sure they are aware of it now.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes, they should be aware of it now.

Chairman

We will come back to this. We are holding over the financial statement of accounts received from the Legal Aid Board and we are not in a position to note them. I will ask for this item to be included on next week's agenda.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I will give an update next week.

Chairman

The next items are 4.5, Inland Fisheries Ireland, clear audit opinion, and 4.6, University College Cork, qualified audit opinion in relation to recognition by the university of expected future funding of €15.7 million in respect of certain pension added year commitments.

Deputy Alan Kelly

Here we go again.

Chairman

It is a pensions issue involving deferred pension funding. This is all about the deferred pension funding.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

There are two pension issues in respect of UCC. Anybody looking at these financial statements should understand what the liability is and that there is an assumption being made that the State will meet the pension liability. That is the second of the bullet points in the document the Chairman is reading.

There is a specific issue in Cork in respect of what is called pension added years. There was a dispute between the university and the Department in respect of liability for certain of those pension add-ons. The total value of meeting those liabilities is estimated at €15.7 million. Subsequent to the end of the period of account, an agreement was reached between the Department and UCC that they will meet those liabilities on a 50-50 basis. What the university has done is to recognise the liability and to present it on the basis that the Department would meet 100% of it. Because it is a post-balance sheet agreement, it should have been presented without that €15.7 million of an asset. It is a technical point. In the future, if the value were the same, half of it could be recognised because the Department has given an undertaking to meet that liability.

Deputy Alan Kelly

I am not sure. There are a couple of issues here. First, when the people from UCC were in here they had significant legal costs in respect of staffing issues and things like that. Some of it is transpiring into this issue.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

There were High Court cases being taken.

Deputy Alan Kelly

Which is now coming out as part of this. Their liabilities here are a result of the High Court cases and other cases. Second, going back to my favourite phrase which my own alma mater seems to use all the time, costs "will be borne by the university from non-Exchequer funding sources". This is the old chestnut that we have been down the road with a few times before. How can we stand over a statement like that?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

There are certain income streams in third level institutions. For example, let us say there is a bank on the campus that pays rent. The rents can be quite generous and we could be looking at €5 million or €6 million. That is referred to by the Department and by the third level institutions as being "own funding" or "own resources".

Chairman

Their total funding is made up of State funding and their own funding.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It forms one fund.

Deputy Alan Kelly

The bottom line is that I could not stand over this statement. I am not going to accept this. We have been down the road on this a number of times. I raised another issue in respect of the Cork Opera House, which they are now funding under own funded sources or whatever phrase they use.

The issue here is that there is an extra pension liability as a result of legal challenges to decisions that were made by the college. As a consequence, that has to be met by the university and paid for proportionately out of that whole pie of funding by the taxpayer. That is the bottom line here. We need to get to the bottom of why we ended up in this scenario on these pensions from this university. What professional decisions were made on employment that resulted in people getting their legal entitlements - I have no issues with that - ending up in court and winning?

Ultimately it is the taxpayer who pays. I do not buy any of this rubbish about non-taxpayer funded sources. They should be banned, in my opinion. It all goes into one pot. The total taxpayer-related funding could be 60%, 70% or whatever. Whatever the net cost to the taxpayer of an issue like this because of decisions they made, it is proportionately being paid in that amount by the taxpayer in the first place. We need to ask questions about this and dig into it. The taxpayer is ultimately funding the majority of this bill. It is not non-taxpayer related funding.

Deputy David Cullinane

From an accounting perspective, I can fully understand how one would and could label it as non-Exchequer funding sources. From a financial or accounting perspective, that is fine. We know there are multiple income streams, separate from State funding, for institutes of technologies and more so for universities. The difficulty, as Teachta Kelly said, is that there is an added liability to this being met by the institution. Even if we take the line that it is coming from non-Exchequer funding sources, that means the money is not being spent on other services. It is sleight of hand in some respects. It is still money that is spent by an institution that is primarily funded by the taxpayer. Contributions from parents and students have also increased substantially in recent years. Any added liability as a consequence of actions taken would obviously raise concerns for us and for those who pay the fees.

The Comptroller and Auditor General might be able to help me unpack some of the language. The document states, "This treatment is not in accordance with the requirements of FRS 102 Section 21 [whatever that is] 'Provisions and Contingencies' because the receivable is contingent in nature." Will Mr. McCarthy explain to us what that means in layman's terms? The document also refers to "the non-consolidation of Cork University Foundation DAC, which had accumulated reserves of €4.1 million". Teachta Connolly has raised issues about foundations before. Is that a qualified opinion because the consolidation did not happen as quickly as it should have? Is that what the issue is?

Reading the final reference in this section of the document, here we go again with procurement. Going back to the point made by Teachta MacSharry on procurement, there is no sanction or penalty. We have said this over and over again. It is becoming really frustrating. What is the point in having all of these accounts presented to us? Almost every week, there is some public body that does not follow procurement guidelines. Notwithstanding whether they are watching their backs in terms of being sued or if there is a party that did not get the contract that might sue them, that is separate in my view. In terms of breaching guidelines set down and there being no penalty except a slap on the wrist, it really is becoming a joke. Did we make recommendations in any of our periodic reports in this respect? One of the things we can do is recommend to Government, to Departments and to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, DPER, that they should apply sanctions in this regard.

Chairman

We have not done that yet.

Deputy David Cullinane

We should.

Chairman

We will.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I think it is on the committee's work schedule to look at procurement.

Chairman

A couple of weeks ago I asked the Comptroller and Auditor General to go through the last set of audit accounts to produce the total list of procurements carried out not in accordance with the guidelines. I know it is a big task.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I have a schedule. We are working on that and will have it shortly.

Chairman

That is going to bowl us over when we get it.

Deputy David Cullinane

If the Chairman would ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to print out a copy of every organisation in which there were procurement problems, he could probably fill the room with paper.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

That is what I have been asked to do.

Chairman

We asked this two or three weeks ago. It is a big ask but it will enlighten everybody starting with us.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I will deal with the points made by Deputy Cullinane. The non-consolidation of the foundation financial statements was discussed here previously. The Higher Education Authority, HEA, has asked the colleges to consolidate. Some of them feel that they do not control the foundation. The committee recommended that they attach the financial statements of the foundation. They have not done that. That is why I draw attention to it.

Deputy David Cullinane

Why have they not done that? Have they given any reason?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

They have refused to do it. I do not recall whether they have given an explanation or not.

Deputy David Cullinane

On that point-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I am drawing attention to it so the committee is aware of it. In respect of-----

Deputy David Cullinane

Can I hold on that issue for one second? If they have not given any reason and they have essentially ignored us and just said that they have not done it-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

They may have given an explanation. I just cannot recall it.

Deputy David Cullinane

At this point we are not aware of it. Can we write to them to find out why?

Chairman

We can. Has Mr. McCarthy's office a record of why from the audit?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I can certainly check if they have given an explanation. It is likely to be that in the period of accounts they did not control the foundation.

Deputy David Cullinane

Was Cork one of the ones that put up a robust defence that they should not have to consolidate?

Chairman

No, it was Galway.

Deputy Alan Kelly

Galway was number one there. Trust me, I know.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The figures were of a different order of magnitude. They were €40 million to €50 million in Galway's case. The reason-----

Chairman

We will hold over the noting of the UCC accounts until next week. There are a few queries that Mr. McCarthy might help us with. It is unusual. We holding over the accounts of the Legal Aid Board and UCC until next week. The witness might come back to us. As Deputy Kelly has said, when people are saying their organisation is substantially funded by the taxpayer and it has another minority line of funding, it all goes into one pot. This committee is not going to accept the phrase that it was borne by the university from non-Exchequer funding unless it can be proved. We cannot accept a statement like that with zero proof. We will be saying-----

Deputy Alan Kelly

The same university used the same statement recently in respect of its sponsorship campaign with Cork Opera House.

Chairman

They should be able to give us a list of what they are funding through their non-Exchequer funding. If they have a separate accounting stream, let us see it or let us verify it. Unless they can prove the statement, that cannot accepted.

Deputy David Cullinane

We have no way-----

Deputy Alan Kelly

When they come looking for looking for taxpayers' money for different issues, they need to look into their own hearts on the non-Exchequer funded schemes-----

Deputy Catherine Connolly

Their foundations' hearts.

Deputy Alan Kelly

Their foundations' hearts or whatever, and to say what they are using that money for first.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

They will make the point that they discuss their funding with the Higher Education Authority. The terminology "non-Exchequer funding" and what it means is something used by the Department and by the HEA.

Chairman

What? They are all cosy.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

They have an understanding of what that means.

Deputy Alan Kelly

I do not want to hold up the meeting but at some point before we go, we are going to talk about the work programme about this. Perhaps as part of that, whenever we have those universities and colleges in, this committee should make some declaration in respect of this issue because it keeps coming up.

Chairman

It does. At this stage we are holding those two items over. I propose we hold over the work programme to next week as well. We have a big meeting on public private partnerships PPPs. We will have a lot of correspondence on next week's agenda because we were not here last week. Nothing is going to change on the work programme between now and next Thursday and then we are into the Easter break. I suggest we just hold over all discussion on third level and whatever else was mentioned until next week's work programme. We will be delayed if we start getting into detailed discussion. We want to get on with the main business as well. We might also have lighter correspondence next week. We can come back to everything.

Deputy David Cullinane

Normally when we hope for lighter correspondence, we get more.

Chairman

I know, but it is only a week.

Deputy David Cullinane

In any event we will see what will happen. The report we got from the secretariat on third level issues is helpful. However, five more have been handed to us today.

Chairman

That is what I am saying.

Deputy David Cullinane

The Kildare and Wicklow ETB is not on it, the Crowe Horwath report is not on, and it the foundations we have just discussed and procurement in the third level sector are not on it. Those issues can be added to the very long list.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

Would it be okay between now and next Thursday if we emailed some suggestions about the programme as it stands? It might inform our deliberations then.

Chairman

Yes, that is okay.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

There are two more accounts.

Chairman

The schedule I have-----

Deputy Marc MacSharry

There are, sorry. I also have one to raise.

Chairman

Yes, there are. Over the page, the Health Service Executive patients’ private property accounts have a clear audit opinion. Attention is drawn to the standard internal financial controls which outline weaknesses in the HSE’s control over the management of patients’ private property accounts in 2016 and the steps being taken to address these weaknesses. On the health repayments donations scheme there is no-----

Deputy Marc MacSharry

Just on that and not to be delaying the meeting, but-----

Chairman

That is okay.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

-----that would be a matter of major concern. I presume we are talking about people who may be in the care of nursing homes and so on. There is a suggestion of issues or weaknesses around the personal property of patients. That is one of the-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The bulk of the funding is managed centrally and held centrally. It is fairly tightly controlled. It is really at the point where small sums of money are being withdrawn that there is some concern around weaknesses.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

Were we getting more detail on that?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It is in the statement on internal financial controls.

Chairman

I will ask the secretariat to circulate to the committee the statement on internal financial controls that has been published as part of those accounts and we will look at it. There have been no payments through the accounts of the health repayments donations scheme since 2016. It must be nearly completed by now. It probably has to be kept open for a bit longer.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

There has been very little in this from the very beginning. It was an idea where it was felt that people might contribute. There was a small amount around the mid-2000s but it is effectively a dormant account.

Chairman

There is no major activity. At this stage I propose we suspend for a few minutes while our witnesses in relation to the overview of public private partnerships take their seats. We are holding over the work programme discussion until next week because we want to get on with today's business.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

When will the periodic report be launched?

Chairman

The report we are talking about will be launched next Wednesday. We do not yet have a time. As soon as we do we will send an email out to the members of the committee. The periodic report launch will be either next Wednesday morning or afternoon. The time will be noted by members as soon as practicable. Before the official launch, the final copy will be available in a room for 45 minutes for members to read and be up to speed on it.

Sitting suspended at 10.28 a.m. and resumed at 10.35 a.m.