COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 20 Sep 2018

Business of Committee

Chairman

We are joined by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, a permanent witness to the committee. He is joined today by Ms Georgina O'Mahoney, deputy director of audit. We have received apologies from Deputy Pat Deering.

We have received at least 80 items of correspondence, which is considerable, so I hope the committee can agree on them. I sent out a draft timetable indicating that we would deal with the work programme and certain items of correspondence and that at 10 a.m. we would move on to NAMA. I propose that, when we finish with NAMA, maybe before the vote, we conclude the meeting and hold over the correspondence until next week. There is a large volume of correspondence. We might get some dealt with before 10 a.m. What we get done will be well and good. We will hold over the remainder. I printed off what we got. I am sure there are up to 2,000 pages of correspondence received.

I record that I printed off what we got and up to 2,000 pages of correspondence was received. One document from the National Transport Authority, NTA, on the review of public private partnerships ran to 600 pages. I do not expect everyone to have read it all for today. Are members happy in general? If there is specific correspondence, we will deal with it before 10 a.m.

Deputy Alan Kelly

I agree in principle. Three or four items are time sensitive and we probably need to deal with those. They are in the correspondence and have been aired in public. Can we deal with those issues specifically? I refer to issues surrounding the Vote for the President and CervicalCheck, the Scally report and Ms Gráinne Flannelly, which is a category in itself. I agree with holding over on the considerable volume of information in the education sphere which must be put together, analysed and brought up at another date. If we could prioritise the three or four items for discussion in the first hour, I would be in favour of that.

Chairman

I intended to propose that, aside from the minutes, we move straight to the work programme, which includes those urgent items. There are three items that could be dealt with next week. One is the issue of Vote 1 - President's Establishment, which is very time sensitive with an election around the corner. The second item is the issue of CervicalCheck, on which there is correspondence with which we need to deal this morning. The third item is an invitation from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, to the PAC and several other Oireachtas committees and Departments to talk about government accounting. We will come to that. They propose a meeting next Wednesday morning. A representative delegation from the committee will meet the OECD. Those three items have to be dealt with immediately. I just want to clear the minutes first. Are the minutes of 12 July 2018 agreed with no matters arising? Agreed.

We turn back now to the work programme. There are three time sensitive issues on the work programme. I have a note on the file that we can note and publish on the request to discuss Vote 1, which is expenditure on the President's Establishment reported in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report every year. I have received a lot of requests as Chairman for that to be considered. I propose we consider it, as people have said it is not available under freedom of information but is within the remit of the Committee of Public Accounts. If the committee were seen to not want to discuss the matter, it might raise even more significant questions than any questions we might get answered if we had a discussion. In view of the fact that nominations close next Wednesday, next Tuesday is the last possible day on which we can go there. I would not be comfortable having a meeting on the issue after the close of nominations at all. I do not think anyone would want to be here two weeks before an election campaign discussing the matter. If we are to do it, we have to get it out of the way promptly.

Strictly, it will be the Accounting Officer only in relation to expenditure. I would not allow any question to be directed involving the President. The President is not answerable to the House, which is a long-standing principle that we will honour entirely. If anyone asks a question about what the President did or did not do, I will rule it out of order. The Accounting Officer will be here to answer and Mr. Seamus McCarthy has published his report from the previous year. The most recent report will not be out until next week. As such, we will have to go with the most up-to-date information we have. The secretariat was in touch with Mr. Martin Fraser, the Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach, who is the Accounting Officer. We would invite him. There is a letter from him on file in which he raises some points and which we can note, publish and put up on screen. It is No. 1557. We can deal with the those points now.

Deputy David Cullinane

What is the logic or reasoning behind examining this in the first place? I have no difficulty with scrutinising any set of accounts and if a proposal is made, I will support it. We have the letter from the Accounting Officer. However, the accounts are audited by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General and I might put a number of questions to him before we proceed. If his office audits the accounts, I am sure it will have seen whether any pattern of issues arises. I ask the Comptroller and Auditor General whether there has been any issue in respect of the accounts.

Chairman

I understand. The Deputy asked two questions. The first was to me and why we would examine this. It is Vote 1. There are 40 Votes before us every year and we discuss the majority of them, albeit we do not get to all of them every year. As Chairman, I have received several requests to discuss the matter and I said that if we do it, it will have to be done promptly as I would not like to do it during the campaign. It is the first chapter in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report every year which we are free to examine. I would not like to have a substantive discussion on the issue-----

Deputy David Cullinane

With respect, the proposal came from the Chairman. We have a great deal to do but let us not rush things either. We have a responsibility to ask questions before we proceed to bring people in, especially if an Accounting Officer has raised concerns himself and written to us. I am, therefore, asking the Comptroller and Auditor General about the work his office has done. Second, my understanding is that Mr. Fraser is not an accountable officer, but is rather an Accounting Officer for the purposes of those accounts, which is a different thing. I ask Mr. McCarthy to outline what that distinction is. I have no difficult with us doing it. We should do it quickly if it is the first chapter. However, I do not want us to waste our time if Mr. Fraser is going to come in and say he cannot answer any of the questions we ask. We have a responsibility to the Committee of Public Accounts to get answers to these questions before we proceed. My questions were to the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The Vote for the President's Establishment is audited in the same way as all other Votes. There is no difference. There is a difference in that the Accounting Officer for the Vote - and any Vote holder is an Accounting Officer - does not have executive responsibility for the decisions on how spending is done.

Deputy David Cullinane

Who does?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Those decisions are made in the President's Establishment. There is a deputy secretary who is the secretary to the President.

Deputy David Cullinane

What body scrutinises those?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The audit is the same and the questions are addressed to-----

Deputy David Cullinane

That is the Comptroller and Auditor General's audit.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes. My audit addresses any questions we have to the President's Establishment and the secretary to the President. The answers are given in the normal way but the Accounting Officer for the President's Establishment is the Secretary General to the Government.

Deputy David Cullinane

Is the issue then that the Accounting Officer, or accountable officer, is saying he cannot answer questions because it would be unconstitutional? That seems to be what he is saying. Mr. McCarthy says he audits the accounts in exactly the same way, signs off on them and gives an opinion. I imagine if there were an issue, there would be exchanges between management in Áras an Uachtaráin and the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

There would be.

Deputy David Cullinane

The Comptroller and Auditor General does that in the course of all of the audits of all Departments and we have an opportunity to scrutinise them. The problem here is that we are being told we do not have an opportunity to scrutinise these accounts in the same way due to legal or constitutional issues. Is that not what Mr. Fraser is suggesting?

Chairman

It is suggested. We are not being told this but it is suggested.

Deputy David Cullinane

That is a suggestion but he is the person saying it and he is the person coming in. We may need to get some clarity on that. Do we have legal advice as to what we can or cannot do and what we can or cannot ask?

Chairman

The answer to that question is that we have not obtained legal advice because I understand that we will not direct any questions to him in respect of the President and will question him only in relation to the financial matters for which he is Accounting Officer. He will not be able to explain. It is just to provide the information. He will not have made the specific arrangements. As Accounting Officer, however, he has a duty to report to the Committee of Public Accounts arising from appropriated-----

Deputy David Cullinane

However, he does not have a duty to explain how the money is spent. I imagine he will say he has allocated the money.

Chairman

He can account for it.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

No. Subject obviously to Mr. Fraser making a correction on this, my understanding is that it would be more around why the money is being spent in the way it is. That would probably be the question at which he would balk. I do not think he would have a difficulty answering how the money was spent.

Deputy David Cullinane

The breakdown.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

That is what it was spent on.

Chairman

Exactly, and we would leave it at that.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Obviously, he would have a responsibility for ensuring that there are proper systems of control in place in respect of the expenditure.

Deputy David Cullinane

That makes perfect sense.

Chairman

Exactly. I accept that we will not be able to tease out why this decision was made as opposed to that decision, but he will have to say that this happened, this is what it cost, and this was the expenditure. It is a question of having the information available. That is all it is.

Deputy David Cullinane

I am okay with that.

Chairman

As was said, there would be limits and I would expect that, if somebody strayed too far with a question that I did not pull him or her up on, he would say that it would not be appropriate to answer. I would accept that.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

Is the money given in the Vote for the year exceeded or is the President's Establishment living within the money voted every year? Is it going outside of the Vote that is being passed every year? Is it spending more than is being allocated or is it spending less? That is an important question.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I can address that. There has not been excess expenditure on the President's Vote in any year.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

So it is coming in under budget?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It is coming in under budget.

Chairman

It is coming in in line with the Estimate.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Normally it would have a surrender of, perhaps, 10%. I think that was the figure for 2016. There is not a danger of that.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

We should do it and get it over with. I am sure we are equally proud of all our Presidents. I do have a problem with Mr. Fraser's letter. He quotes the Constitution in it and, frankly, he is wrong. He suggested that this is unconstitutional. At no time are we seeking to question the powers or functions of any President or the execution of same, nor would we. The Chairman quite rightly pointed out that any such questions would be offside. I agree that is appropriate. However, the tone of the letter did bother me. It then goes on to say that, if we do this, it would in some way undermine the impartiality of the Civil Service. I resent that suggestion because I do not see how that would remotely be the case. In fact, my interpretation is the converse of that. Here we have a senior civil servant seeking to direct the operations of the committee. I have a real problem with that. We should go ahead. We should do it. We should keep the questioning very much to the question of where the money goes and what happens to it. It is a matter of public interest. When people see the value for money they are getting - indeed the 10% surrender and coming in under budget is an example to all Departments - it might even encourage more people to engage in the democratic opportunity that is before us in October. I thank Mr. Fraser for the advice but it is flawed and incorrect. Under no circumstances are we seeking to undermine his impartiality or that of other civil servants in the political process. I cannot say the same for this letter in terms of how it looks to me. It seems he is seeking to influence our particular view. In fairness to everybody on the committee, at no time in my few years on this committee have I felt that anybody took his or her political jersey through that door.

Chairman

Can the letter be moved along on the screen? I call on Deputy Peter Burke. I am sorry, I missed Deputy Alan Kelly.

Deputy Alan Kelly

The Chairman should let Deputy Burke go first. I will go after.

Deputy Peter Burke

Having looked at the letter from the Secretary General to the Government, I note he signs off using that title, this is something I would take seriously. My big concern is that the campaign is now under way. The nomination process under Article 12 is concluding. It is very clear that candidates are out there robustly campaigning. We can see that even at the front gates outside the Dáil yesterday; at the Ploughing Championships, if anyone was there; and at events before that. I have a huge concern that this could, in effect, compromise that democratic process. I am all for transparency, but we are now so close to a presidential election that if we discuss the Vote here it will really impact on that election. It is very hard to have demarcation lines in terms of the expenditure in Vote 1 that have nothing to do with President Higgins. We have seen how difficult it can get in respect of these inquiries in other countries. I am very concerned that it can get very highly charged in this room. It can be difficult to stay within the lines. This committee has a hierarchy of needs which includes CervicalCheck and our education sector. We have huge important issues to discuss and now we want to look at a Vote which, first, has an audit committee established for it and which has internal audit procedures-----

Chairman

We cannot say that.

Deputy Peter Burke

It is stated in the Secretary General's letter. Something either has an internal audit function or it does not. It either has an audit committee or it does not. He states clearly "I have also put in place an Audit Committee and an internal audit function" and the establishment is under budget. If we are trying to pick important issues on which to adjudicate over this term I cannot see why we would immediately pick a Vote when, first, it meets its budget targets and has audit procedures in place and, second, we have such important other issues to discuss outside it. In my opinion it would come across in a very bad light if we were to start trying to adjudicate on this in a highly charged atmosphere here. There are also constitutional issues of which we have to steer clear. Maybe we could do that, I am not saying we could not, but it is very difficult to keep things objective in doing so.

Deputy Alan Kelly

I agree with Deputy Burke's points. In general when it comes to 50:50 calls I would always edge towards taking a risk but I do not think this is a 50:50 call. I find it extraordinary that we have not gotten legal advice. I do not think we can move without getting legal advice.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

I have the Constitution here. It is in English.

Deputy Alan Kelly

I am not a constitutional lawyer. I have a few more things to say.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

It is also in Irish.

Deputy Alan Kelly

We need to get legal advice before we do anything. That is the first thing. We have gotten legal advice for less. We obviously have to get that. In terms of the the work of this committee, the Chair has said that he has been asked to raise this. For the public watching, he might tell us who asked him to.

Chairman

As Chairman of the committee I have received several media requests from journalists who have concerns about not being able to obtain information under freedom of information legislation. A number of members of the public have also asked me to raise this. That is why. I could not say no to the media.

Deputy Alan Kelly

When it comes to the priorities of the committee, given that we know that there is an internal audit function and an audit committee in place and that the actual Vote is underspent, one has to wonder why this is being brought forward now. What is the rush to do it now? Anyone who is watching these proceedings and who does not think there is some form of political capital to be gained, maybe outside this room, from this going ahead now is not being realistic.

Of course it will be impossible for the Chairman to unsay things that will be said in here that are linked to a candidate who is currently in office. The Chairman needs to think about that. He will not be able to unsay those things. The media will not be able to unreport those things. As a consequence, this rubbish about doing it before the closing date is irrelevant and insincere. I am not referring to the Chairman, but people are saying this. This campaign is up and running. It is everywhere. It is the most dominant story across the media and has been for weeks and months. I am not finished. The fact is that this is an ongoing campaign. If we are going to jump into this now, it will really say an awful lot about this committee, about its priorities and about the fact that, from a political point of view, while we might leave our jerseys outside the door - I believe that and I share Deputy MacSharry's faith in it - the Chairman will not be able to unsay things said inside here, to unlink them from one candidate or to stop them being reported in the media. That will be damaging to this committee and will have an impact on the presidential election. We damn well better think about this very clearly and we better get legal advice because I do not want to be associated with a committee that goes down that road without its eyes open. Things will happen in that meeting and we will not be able to undo them. I have one last point with regard to this. I do not think there is any way we can move without getting legal advice before next Tuesday.

Deputy Shane Cassells

I thank the Chairman.

I was open to listening to everyone's opinion on the suggestion put forward. The Comptroller and Auditor General, the person on whom we rely for advice, has advised us what we would be examining is how money is spent, not why it is spent. This sets the parameters for any work that will be done in this room.

This debate has spiralled in other spheres, despite the concise advice given by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I do not agree with Deputies Burke or Kelly that such an examination would compromise the democratic process. I share Deputy MacSharry's point regarding the three and a half page rebuttal from the Secretary General to the Government, Mr. Fraser. I wonder did he run that by the Attorney General, bearing in mind his challenge to this committee as to whether it has sought legal advice. In his summary remarks he states: "I believe your proposal appears to be unconstitutional" but he does not reference whether he ran this three and a half page rebuttal by the Attorney General's Office to see if his own assertions were correct. He references the Constitution. The Constitution references the President as the person not being answerable to either Houses of the Oireachtas. Mr. Fraser draws on Article 13.8.1° in respect of the duties of the President. It does not refer to the moneys of the office. Mr. Fraser also talks about his own role as Accounting Officer and says that his capacity is in obtaining assurance that the office operates properly. If his job is to obtain assurances that the office is operating properly, he obviously is required to set a standard of guidelines in respect of the spend of moneys, which are then subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General and should be open to discussion and examination.

As I said, I was open to the discussion this morning, as was Deputy Cullinane, but not in regard to the incumbent, President Higgins, in regard to the performance of his duties or how he conducts himself or his office. The examination would be about how the money is spent and not why it is spent. The letter sent to this committee by the Secretary General to the Government, Mr. Fraser, is amazing. He has asked if the committee sought advice and if he can see it. I do not see too much standing from him in that regard. He has cited that it is his belief that the proposal for the meeting is unconstitutional. We are at a stand-off. I refute the point that an examination would in any way compromise the democratic process. I do not believe it would. That is a dangerous assertion. If anything, it is about ensuring we have a democratic process, which is what anyone involved in a campaign would want.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I did not give serious consideration to this issue until now. I was trying to get my head around NAMA, the correspondence and many other items. I was aware that the Chairman had received requests. I have listened carefully to the discussion and I am now moved to say we should have a discussion on this matter because I have not been convinced by the arguments against doing so. The level of argument worries me. I say that reluctantly. As pointed out by Deputy Cassells, the letter from Mr. Fraser mentions that he relies on reassurances. I have tried never to be political in this committee. I would expect the Chairman to reprimand us if we are political because in doing so, we would lose all credibility in terms of our job. We have done a good job, as have previous Committees of Public Accounts. We struggle with the amount of work we have to get through.

On this matter, there are practical questions to be asked, not about any President but how money is spent. Perhaps it should have been done before now and perhaps the committee was negligent in not having examined Chapter 1 more carefully. If it came before us previously and we did not give it enough attention, what is the difficulty in giving it attention now? I do not agree that that work would have to be concluded by Tuesday next. The issues are bigger than the election, the incumbent or candidate. There are issues we should be looking at in terms of value for money. That is the purpose of this committee. If we limit ourselves to that, I am happy to do it.

Deputy David Cullinane

My concern is that this could turn into a sideshow and become an issue between the accountable person, Mr. Fraser and members of this committee, which is of Mr. Fraser's making because his letter was over the top and defensive. He could have approached the matter differently. That said, if we are going to do this, we have to frame it in the right context. The context for me is that it is Chapter 1 in the account which we would want to scrutinise anyway. The Comptroller and Auditor General has given us the parameters in terms of the "how" and on the controls that are in place. It would be within the scope of the accounting person to answer for the committee not why the money was spent but how it was spent. I think we should focus on that. I support doing it. I agree with the concerns around the upcoming Presidential election. I said publicly when asked about this that I have a concern in that regard. I do not think the Committee of Public Accounts should put itself in a position whereby it could be seen that we are doing this for political reasons, that there are people outside of this committee who are lobbying us to do it because they want it as a backdrop to the election. That is not the reason we should do this, in my view. We need to be careful, set parameters and do it right. We should not allow that meeting to become a sideshow. It would be remiss of us to do so.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

I know that the Chairman is anxious to conclude this matter but I would like to make two points. Deputy Connolly's remarks captured it all for me. I might have been relatively indifferent about the timing and so on but this letter has annoyed me. It makes me feel like we should send the work programme over to Merrion Street and see what they are happy for us to do, who we should meet and what questions we should ask and so on.

There was an internal audit function for the Garda training college in Templemore. We all know where that led. That is not to say that the internal audit of the President's Establishment is not exceptionally good. I am sure it is. Another issue is the actions of the Chief State Solicitor's Office in offering as a defence the committee's interventions in a case as a reason for somebody to withdraw from suing the State in the David Hall case about which we were never consulted. Under Standing Order 186, the Committee of Public Accounts is a committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas. With respect to the Secretary General, the Chief State Solicitor's Office and anybody else we set the agenda in this committee in line with our remit.

I am so annoyed about this letter and I want the committee to do the examination. I am hugely proud of the performance of all of our Presidents, including the incumbent. I am only interested in where the money is spent.

Chairman

I want to bring this matter to a conclusion.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

Mr. Fraser also says in the letter that he has put in place an audit committee and an internal audit function but he has not said when he put that in place.

Chairman

We will conclude.

Just to be correct or precise about it, the last published appropriation accounts are the 2016 accounts which were published by the Comptroller and Auditor General at the end of September last year. The ones for 2017 will not be published until Friday week, well into the campaign. We are not waiting beyond that. The last set of figures we are going on are the 2016 audited accounts.

Mr. Martin Fraser comments in a specific paragraph where he confirms the audit committee has not met and the chairman was not there. He goes on to say that once the President's Establishment audit committee is up and running, it is expected an internal audit of the office will be then scheduled.

That is the last written issue on the public record from the Secretary General, the Accounting Officer, of the Department of the Taoiseach. The only reason we are now aware that an audit committee is in place - it must have happened since then - is because this committee indicated it was going to consider this matter. Mr. Martin Fraser has volunteered that information that he has an audit committee in place. That is what he says in his letter. His function is in relation to the audit committee.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

He also put in place another committee.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

That was something we had discussed with them and that there was not an audit committee operating. It predates any discussion at this committee. He took the point, or at least the point was taken, that in relation to 2016 we raised the issue that there was a difficulty.

Deputy Alan Kelly

That was before it was raised in this forum.

Chairman

The point is that the 2016 accounts, which are the last ones we have in front of us, refer to the fact that the audit committee is not there. Arising from that, it has been put in place. While the Comptroller and Auditor General and the committee might be aware of it, the public has only been made aware of it through this letter which has come as a result of our indication that we may wish to consider the matter. It is good it is there.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

Is that the reason a committee was set up?

Chairman

We are not having a discussion about this. When the Accounting Officer is here, the committee can ask him that question.

I am of the view that we will not have any questions in respect of the President at all. This is important and I want to put this in the public arena because it might not be fully appreciated, even though it is a matter on the public record. There is a discussion every year at the Estimates committee on Vote 1. I was the Fianna Fáil spokesperson on public expenditure in the previous Dáil. I attended the committee five years in a row with the Taoiseach and officials. There is a detailed explanation presented by the Civil Service to the Oireachtas as part of that process. I have attended that at least five times in recent times. Deputy Burke knows full well because he attended that meeting on 29 March this year.

At that meeting this year, the Civil Service provided detailed information on expenditure on the office of the President's Establishment. It gave specific details on administration and pay, detailed notes on underspend, detailed notes on travel and subsistence, what trips were taken, not taken, planned and have happened so far this year, detailed notes on training and development and on the centenary bounty for people who reach 100 years of age. All of that was provided year in, year out by the Civil Service for the Oireachtas to discuss in detail. I know from attending the committee, as does Deputy Burke, that the members are free to discuss it in detail or to glance over it. At the meeting, the Taoiseach even made reference to the Vote for the President's Establishment because he was also dealing with the Vote for the Office of the Taoiseach at the same meeting. It was a matter for the committee members that year and every other year how much they wanted to delve into them. Some years they had a detailed discussion about the President's office while other years they did not.

At that meeting on 29 March this year, at which the Taoiseach gave details on this matter, he was accompanied by Mr. Martin Fraser. If it was constitutional for that meeting to happen and for the Taoiseach and Mr. Martin Fraser to discuss expenditure on Vote 1, it is constitutional now. To raise the issue that he thinks it is unconstitutional to discuss expenditure in respect of Vote 1 at an Oireachtas committee, it is obvious what he is suggesting about his attendance. He has raised this issue but his actions have spoken louder than his words by his actual physical attendance at the Taoiseach's side. He talks about the political impartiality of the Civil Service. The Civil Service gave detailed briefings to that Oireachtas committee year in, year out. It is on the record of the House. I do not understand why it could now be a constitutional issue. We have to move on. There is no difference between one Oireachtas committee discussing Vote 1 and another discussing it.

Deputy David Cullinane

It is nearly 10 o'clock and we have not got on to CervicalCheck or any of the other issues.

Deputy Peter Burke

I have no issue with that aspect. As I said when this issue first came out and when the Chairman made a statement over the summer, I was contacted by “Morning Ireland”. I gave my opinion that it was discussed. I am not disputing that the committee on public expenditure and reform discusses it. My major issue is the timing of this. The campaign is well under way. No matter what we do or say, we cannot disguise that fact. Discussing this issue in a highly charged atmosphere will have implications for the campaign. Other candidates will take what is said here as having implications.

The Secretary General to the Government raised the fact that he does have to consult the Attorney General. This is in his letter. To say he never mentioned legal advice, is not correct; he did. We should not misquote. The core point here is that we have to be responsible in what we do. We have to look at the needs of this committee. Is this a critical and important issue for us to discuss now or are there more important issues?

Deputy Alan Kelly

I put a formal request to the Chairman to get legal advice. I would like a ruling on that. I think it would be prudent to get legal advice before we proceed. I think we should get the Office of the Parliamentary Legal Adviser to give us legal advice. It would be irresponsible of us not to.

If we go ahead as several members have said, why can we not do it once the presidential election is over? If we want to do it, if we feel it is legal and if we get advice to that point, why do we take the risk of having an impact, possibly an unintentional one, when we could do it a few weeks' time when this is over? By God, we have enough of other priorities on the table.

Chairman

I am dealing with that and I am bringing the matter to a conclusion now.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

The Chairman has let two speakers in already.

The more I listen to this, the more I think there is a patriarchal paternalism coming across that we must protect the electorate in relation to information. It is actually getting worse. There is nothing wrong with information, dealt with properly by ourselves in an open and accountable manner. These types of arguments are actually echoes of what happened with CervicalCheck. We know best; do it later; now is not the time. I despair of this level of argument.

Chairman

I am drawing the discussion to a conclusion. This committee has never in the past or will never in the future allow its work to be dictated by timings of elections. In the previous Dáil, the committee met right up until, and including, the day of the dissolution when an election was imminent within weeks. The Committee of Public Accounts does not stop its work because elections are somewhere around the corner.

At this stage, I am proposing that, having considered Mr. Fraser's letter on 17 September, the committee has decided that it does not require legal advice on the matter and will on Tuesday, 25 September, proceed to examine the 2016 Appropriation Accounts - Vote 1 - President's Establishment. Is that agreed?

Deputy Alan Kelly

No.

Chairman

Is it seconded?

Deputy Marc MacSharry

I second it.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I have no difficulty with the meeting but I have a difficulty with the timing on Tuesday.

Chairman

We will ask the Secretary General to make the necessary arrangements and the timing as best he can.

Deputy Alan Kelly

I disagree with that. I still request we get legal advice.

Deputy David Cullinane

The reason I do not think the committee needs legal advice at this point is because, if it is going to stick with the controls, I see no reason that is not under our remit.

Chairman

The proposal is-----

Deputy David Cullinane

I am happy with that.

Chairman

I read out the proposal. Having considered Mr. Fraser's letter of 17 September, the committee has decided he does not require legal advice in the matter and will, on Tuesday, 25 September, proceed to examine the 2016 Appropriation Accounts - Vote 1 - President's Establishment. Is that agreed?

Deputy Alan Kelly

No.

Deputy David Cullinane

No.

Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed. The proposal is carried.

We will write to the Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach, in his role as Accounting Officer, to attend the meeting with the committee to discuss the Vote on the President's Establishment for next Tuesday.

The next item relates to CervicalCheck. The committee will deal with the work programme issues and will hold over the rest of the correspondence until next week. Deputy Cullinane has a letter for the committee.

Deputy David Cullinane

I do. It is unfortunate that the committee spent 15 minutes on the first issue, although it had to be done, when this issue is much more important.

Chairman

Some time will be allowed if people want to talk about CervicalCheck.

Deputy David Cullinane

That is my point and I do not want to hog this, but we cannot have 15 minutes of discussion on the first issue when a more important issue, and one that requires a deep dive, is only given a couple of minutes.

My issue is that I have read Dr. Scally's report several times and it shows failures in system, processes, procurement and audit, all of which come under the remit of the Committee of Public Accounts. It is extraordinary that Dr. Scally is still asking questions in the report because he did not have enough information or enough time to further examine some of the issues. There are issues about the labs and the roll-over of contracts. Whether we have a commission of investigation or not has not yet been determined by the Oireachtas. The committee has a responsibility to look at the areas that come under its remit. Procurement and audit are clearly under the committee's remit, as are failures in the system and process.

The HSE and the Department are scheduled to come in next week. That is a little premature. The committee should do a scoping exercise as to what it now wants to do. Is it going to do a report? Are there going to be a number of hearings? Who should attend the hearings? Otherwise these people will come in next week and we will all go through the motions. It will be aimless and there will be no end product. It is more prudent for the committee to agree terms of reference for our work on this issue either today or next Tuesday and get that from the clerk. That would be a better way to do justice to the issue. There is much in the Scally report which falls under the remit of the Committee of Public Accounts. The committee needs to examine the report and get a report on the issues that are under our remit and then decide the framework.

Will the Comptroller and Auditor General's office examine the Scally report and look at the issues arising in terms of procurement and auditing and the need for a special report?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

My office will absolutely review the Scally report and we have started that. I have not had an opportunity to look at it yet. If next week's meeting goes ahead, I will look at the report before then. We will be looking to see if there are any systemic issues that require further work. My office has often reported a systemic problem with procurement in the HSE. That is well established. I wonder sometimes what is the point in repeating it, but we do, and I imagine we will be doing more work in that area.

Deputy Alan Kelly

I agree with Deputy Cullinane. What he is saying is sensible. I also sit on the Joint Committee on Health and this issue will come to that committee. There is a distinction here and I think we could be quite helpful to the Joint Committee on Health. There will not be that overlap, about which there were arguments previously, because that committee will get into the components of the Scally report relating to happened with the HSE-----

Deputy David Cullinane

Non-disclosure.

Deputy Alan Kelly

-----non-disclosure, the audit process and the overall screening programme. There are specific issues. I have spoken to Dr. Scally, a very impressive man who has done a huge report, a number of times and I have gone through the report and spoken with Vicky Phelan, Stephen Teap and Lorraine Walsh.

There is a need for the Committee of Public Accounts to look at specific areas that Dr. Scally has identified and aid the work of the health committee and the Oireachtas. Those areas include examining how the money has been spent, issues around screening and labs and process and procurement, and how tenders rolled over and were changed and contractually managed. The key finding of the Scally report was systemic failure. We all could have written the first page of that report before there was any report. There is a need to delve into organisational issues within the HSE. There is a component here which is definitely within the remit of the Committee of Public Accounts and separate from the health committee.

The HSE will be before the Committee of Public Accounts. Dr. Flannelly has offered to come in, and that must be acknowledged. The timing, order and manner in which this is done needs to be thought about. I agree with Deputy Cullinane that we need to put this into a pot and scope it out separately so that we maximise our work.

Chairman

What is the proposal for next week's schedule? Where should the committee start?

Deputy David Cullinane

There are a number of other issues that need to be examined. The third level sector was mentioned. There are issues around the departure of the head of the Higher Education Authority, HEA. There are issues around reports which we are looking for. There is a lot of work that can be done. My concern relates to next week's meeting. I am not saying it will be an unproductive meeting because there is always something useful. It would be more useful to do the scoping exercise as to what is under our remit. Once the secretariat has time, it could provide a report. The Comptroller and Auditor General has not read the report, but I am sure he will. The committee will then have a plan as to how to examine the issues so that there is no crossover between this committee and the health committee. We will know what we are doing.

That will determine who is invited in. Dr. Flannelly should come in as part of that. The Department and the HSE will be here. Those with responsibility for procurement and auditing would form part of it and whatever else the committee decides.

The plan will determine who comes in and that needs to be done first. That is my proposal. We should hold over next week's meeting with the HSE.

Chairman

Another practical reason for holding over next Thursday's meeting is that the director general of the HSE, John Connaghan, must leave by 12 o'clock because he has a meeting in Scotland with the Scottish Minister for Health and the Irish Minister for Health about the implementation of Sláintecare.

Deputy David Cullinane

All the more reason to hold it over.

Chairman

He would have to leave at 12 o'clock in any event. The chief executive of the State Claims Agency who is handling the case is on leave. He booked it before we set this schedule. There were going to be gaps next Thursday, one way or the other. We will have a detailed discussion. Maybe the secretariat will liaise with Deputy Kelly, because he is on the health committee, to ensure that there is no unnecessary crossover.

Deputy Alan Kelly

I think the clerks should have a chat.

Chairman

Yes, to ensure the two committees do not duplicate work. We will hold that meeting over for the moment until a precise scoping exercise has been done as to what we will do and let the health committee do its important work as well.

At next Thursday's meeting, there may not be any witnesses. It might be an opportune time to clear all the correspondence that we are not going to do today.

Deputy Alan Kelly

That is a great idea.

Chairman

There is a couple of hours' work in that. Some of it will be very interesting. There are issues about health and a lot of other things. The public will be very interested in relation to some of the correspondence that has come in over the summer.

Deputy Alan Kelly

There is three or four hours' work there.

Chairman

The committee has two previous periodic reports. There are detailed responses now from the Minister for Finance and for Public Expenditure and Reform. There is a lot of stuff for public debate in our correspondence. That meeting on health can be held over and the committee can deal with the backlog of correspondence from the summer.

That is great.

Staff in the secretariat have been working over the summer and I have told them to try to have some slots filled. I suggested they find a large State agency that has not been before the committee in a while and they have come up with Teagasc. Some members will be interested in Teagasc.

On Thursday, 11 October, we will have the Office of Public Works before the committee. The Comptroller and Auditor General's most recent report will be published at that stage, which means we will be able to raise information from the report with the Office of Public Works.

On Thursday, 18 October, we will have the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform before the committee for a discussion. We did not meet officials from the Department last year because we ran out of time. We will bring them in early in this session.

On 25 October, we will have a special meeting on housing. I ask members to start putting together specific points of discussion for that meeting. That is the provisional schedule.

Deputy David Cullinane

Looking through the work programme, I do not see any reference to the higher education sector, which is an area that we need to come back to.

Chairman

There is so much in the work programme that we did not know where to begin.

Deputy David Cullinane

I understand that. I merely make the point. The head of the Higher Education Authority, HEA, has resigned. There were some media reports on the reasons for his resignation. I will not repeat them but they are in the public domain. We were working with the HEA to drive reforms in a number of areas. If it is the case that the reforms met resistance from the Department, I want to know why and what was happening. The chair of the HEA should appear to answer some of those questions on the relationship between the authority and the Department. What we found in our work was the level of governance, who was in charge and who was driving the car in terms of the reforms in governance and policy and the distinction between the two.

A secondary important point, which I have raised on several occasions, is that we still have not received the report into Waterford Institute of Technology. Correspondence to the committee, which we will not get to today, includes a letter from a trade union representing dozens of people who were asked to come forward and be part of a report at risk to themselves. We could call them whistleblowers or individuals who have come forward and made their points known. They believe they have been left hanging because there has been no outcome or report. It seems, on the face of it, the HEA made a complete mess of this issue, did not do its work in advance and did not anticipate the legal challenges that could arise. My point is that we had a number of lengthy hearings with the Accounting Officer in-----

Chairman

The Department of Education and Skills.

Deputy David Cullinane

-----Waterford IT, other institutes of technology and the Department. We have acknowledged that there is an issue in this area. There was a deep dive done but there has not been an outcome, which is unacceptable. It is unfair to leave so many people in Waterford IT hanging. They deserved a product at the end of the process.

The Comptroller and Auditor General was doing his report, which was only a small element of the overall picture in terms of research and development in Waterford IT. By the way, it is a first class institute of technology.

Chairman

Of course.

Deputy David Cullinane

It is one of the best in the country. There is no difficulty with quality but there are issues and questions around governance that need to be answered. It seemed they were answered in this report but we do not have a copy of it. My point is we need to get the report and apply pressure. We also need to hear from the HEA's board as to what is happening. The media reports on this matter need to be examined. I ask for a response from the Comptroller and Auditor General on the status of his work on that issue.

Deputy Alan Kelly

I thank Deputy Cullinane for raising this matter as I was about to raise it. I was not aware the Deputy had written in on it.

The resignation of Dr. Graham Love from the Higher Education Authority raises serious concerns because of what he wrote regarding his decision. The HEA and the whole third level education cycle is like the gift that does not stop giving, by which I mean the issues are not being resolved and are still ongoing across the board.

On governance, it is obvious from the structure of the relationship between the Department and the HEA that there is a significant issue between the two organisations. From a governance point of view, I would like to hear from Dr. Love before he leaves the HEA. I would like him to appear in front of the committee.

Chairman

I understand he is leaving his position at the end of October.

Deputy Alan Kelly

We have time in that case.

Chairman

We will make inquiries.

Deputy Alan Kelly

We need to delve into all the issues raised by Deputy Cullinane. The committee has dealt with many issues relating to a number of third level institutions, including an issue with Cork Institute of Technology which has been ongoing for years. Some have not been resolved, including issues relating to whistleblowers, their treatment and the processes in place for dealing with them. I have had direct interactions in respect of some of these cases and I find the way in which they are being dealt with incredible.

All in all, we need to address a number of issues related to the third level sector, the Higher Education Authority, Dr. Love and the Department. We should have a meeting in the next few weeks and treat it as a priority. Representatives of the relevant organisations should appear before us and isolate and address the issues before Dr. Love leaves his position. In fairness, Dr. Love has a contribution to make before he leaves his position and it may be difficult getting him to appear after he leaves.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

I will not be repetitive. I very much support the call for a meeting on this matter. It would be extremely useful. Given that the boss of the HEA is exiting the organisation, it would be most informative to have him debrief the Committee of Public Accounts. Notwithstanding the issues with whistleblowers, and Deputy Kelly, Deputy McGuinness and I recently raised in the Dáil a specific matter concerning an outstanding issue with whistleblowers, I would like to have an opportunity to raise an issue with Dr. Love.

Chairman

For next Thursday, we will try to have-----

Deputy Alan Kelly

An agreed topic.

Chairman

Agreed. With regard to CervicalCheck, the secretariat will work on a programme for Thursday next. We will not have external witnesses. The meeting will be on our work programme and correspondence related to the third level sector.

Deputy Alan Kelly

Agreed.

Chairman

The secretariat will contact Dr. Love in the meantime to check his availability before he leaves office.

Deputy Alan Kelly

That is perfect.

Chairman

We will have that finalised for the next meeting.

Deputy Alan Kelly

That would be a good day's work.

Deputy David Cullinane

Third level procurement would be another leg of that stool.

Chairman

Any member who wants an issue discussed as part of the process next Thursday should contact the secretariat directly in the coming days.

On one final urgent item of business, the OECD is carrying out its accounting framework assessment and officials will be in Ireland next week. They have asked to meet the Committee of Public Accounts to get our views on the move from cash-based accounting to accrual accounting. They will meet other committees and I note the timing is tight. They have meetings with officials from several Departments, the Comptroller and Auditor General and several other persons. It is proposed to meet them somewhere in the House next Wednesday morning. As Chairman, I propose that I will meet them. As there is not sufficient time for the committee to have a detailed discussion on the matter, I ask the members to allow me, as Chairman, and any other member to attend on behalf of the committee.

Deputy David Cullinane

Deputy Burke would be a fine ambassador.

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

What is their role?

Chairman

They want to discuss the long-term movement of Government accounts from a cash-based accounting system to an accrual accounting system, as is the norm in the private and commercial sector. They will ask us to make an input to the discussion. I ask members to allow me to use my discretion, as Chairman, go give my views on behalf of the committee. Staff from the secretariat will accompany me to the meeting and will report back.

There is no single national State balance sheet. The Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, will make his own point. I believe the Estimates should be cleared before the beginning of each year, not months into the year. I will raise the issue of what is on the State balance sheet, the various semi-State bodies, the universities, the section 38 entities and companies which receive more than 50% of their funding from the public purse but may not be on the State balance sheet. I also want to raise the issue of accounting for public private partnerships. I will also raise the issue of what I describe as contingent liabilities, medical negligence and the accounting policies of the HSE, the biggest State organisation. Some of these policies are set down by the Minister in legislation and do not fully comply with international accounting standards. We exclude contingent liabilities. I intend raising the issue of agencies such as NAMA, which are not on the State balance sheet. I will raise these issues to have them taken into consideration.

The final issue is contingent assets. There is money out there that the State does not collect. We all hear about the money the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection does not collect from people who - for example - have received a week's dole payment they should not have received. We hear nothing at all about employers who owe money for redundancy refunds. The State does not have a mechanism to account for that. The Department does not have a contingent assets section to deal with the non-principal private residence charge. If someone wants to sell a house ten years from now, the Government will be happy to take the €7,000 then, but the money is due now. There is no mechanism to know what is due. I will raise those types of issues.

Deputy David Cullinane

Is the report written?

Chairman

No. I have written some speaking notes.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

What is the Chair going to say about NAMA being off the State balance sheet?

Chairman

I am going to raise the issue of NAMA-type organisations being off the State balance sheet. I want to put it on the public record. The public does not understand this. As we all know, NAMA was created when the Government took over the banks on behalf of the State and the taxpayer. I will explain this in two sentences. The Government did not want that on the State balance sheet.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

It took the Comptroller and Auditor General a big chapter to explain it.

Chairman

If I am not 100% right, Mr. McCarthy can correct me down the line. The principle of what I am saying is as follows: the idea of setting up an organisation called the NAMA Group was developed in the Department of Finance. The NAMA Group has a shareholding of €100 million. Some 51% of it is owned by the private sector. One of the insurance companies - Irish Life - owned some of the 51%, but it had to divest some of that. As it happens, quite a lot of the 51% is now owned by trustees on behalf of various Church of Ireland pension funds. The State owns 49% of the shareholding. The State's shareholding gives it some power. The 51% cannot make any decision without the 49%.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

Or vice versa.

Chairman

Yes. The 51% is off the State balance sheet because it is technically in private ownership. It is a great con job. Europe and everyone signed up to that mechanism to get it off the State balance sheet. Logically, it should be part of the State apparatus. It is not on the State balance sheet. I want to raise those types of accounting issues. I know we are about to talk to representatives of NAMA.

Deputy David Cullinane

They are outside the door.

Chairman

I say all of this to clear up what has to happen next Wednesday. Deputy Burke and I will talk to the nerds from the OECD about boring accounting stuff next Wednesday. We have concluded our discussion on the work programme. People know where we are. An invitation for next Tuesday will be sent to the Accounting Officer, Mr. Martin Fraser. A delegation from the committee will meet representatives of the OECD next Wednesday. Those who want to attend should contact the secretariat. We will not have any external witnesses before us next Thursday. We will deal with specific matters from our work programme - CervicalCheck and third-level education - and, under the business of the committee, we will have a lot of correspondence to catch up on. Before we suspend for five minutes, Deputy Aylward would like to raise a final matter.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

I would like to make a request under the work programme. I know it has gone in. I was supposed to send it in yesterday evening.

Chairman

We will have it next week.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

The issue of Bus Éireann's school transport service always raises its head at this time of year. Like everyone else around the country, I am hearing about problems with the provision of the service, particularly with regard to concessionary tickets. It causes uproar in rural Ireland at this time of year every year. I know that a report was compiled last year. The Comptroller and Auditor General might comment on this. I wonder whether we have any role to play in this regard. Can we play a role in examining value for money in the system as it is being rolled out at the moment? Could we make any input? Some €195 million in taxpayers' money is being spent on this service every year. I do not think the service is up to scratch. It needs to be reviewed and we should play a role in any such review.

Chairman

Deputy Kelly wants to come in on the same issue.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

I ask the Comptroller and Auditor General-----

Chairman

Everyone could speak on this matter, so I will close it off.

Deputy Alan Kelly

I agree with the previous speaker. This is the bane of my life.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

It will not be any use talking to the Minister of State, Deputy Halligan. I try to talk to him, but he will not talk to me anyway.

Deputy Alan Kelly

This is the bane of my life at this time of year.

Chairman

We all know it.

Deputy Alan Kelly

It is very regrettable that a Fianna Fáil Minister brought in this scheme in 2010.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

Hold on. If the Deputy wants to know, it was implemented by the Labour Party in 2011.

Deputy Alan Kelly

It was the Deputy's party, but we will leave politics outside the door.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

The Deputy mentioned Fianna Fáil. It was the Labour Party that implemented it.

Deputy Alan Kelly

I am only hopping the ball. Will the Deputy take a joke? The point is that a value for money issue potentially arises in this context. Maybe we should stick it on the programme somewhere.

Chairman

We will ask for it to be considered on the work programme.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

I thought my request would have been in sooner. It might not have been in until this morning.

Chairman

We will discuss it next Thursday.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

Okay.

Chairman

I will suspend the sitting briefly while the witnesses take their seats.

Sitting suspended at 10.15 a.m. and resumed at 10.20 a.m.