The draft work programme was circulated to members at a previous meeting. Do members have a copy?
Draft Work Programme.
On a number of occasions, I raised the cost of redress and the arrangements for this. It is extremely important that we try to seek to address this. I have some problems about how we might go about it. Having spoken to people who have attended the commission, I know it is highly unsatisfactory. One of the religious orders, a party to the agreement, is exercising its constitutional right to go to court to defend any action against now elderly or deceased members against whom allegations are made.
I thought the purpose of this deal which is very expensive for the State was to allow redress to be made. However, the religious order which has got a very good deal is now taking legal action to defend allegations being made. While I accept it has a constitutional right to do this, what was the purpose of the deal? The situation has become worse. Perhaps before next week's meeting I will send you a letter setting out my concerns. I want this matter addressed. The State made the deal to allow closure, healing and rapid settlement of extremely difficult cases. The Laffoy commission could carry on for 20 years and there might be no satisfaction for the victims of institutional abuse.
The Standards in Public Offices Commission today published a report listing expenditure by all candidates in last year's general election. It previously issued reports outlining donations received by individuals and political parties. This matter is on our work programme and it appears that the commission has completed its reports. Perhaps it might be appropriate to invite it to appear before the committee before we break for the summer. I very much welcome the publication of the report today. I am very pleased with all the information provided.
I believe most Deputies will be satisfied with the level of co-operation received from the Standards in Public Offices Commission when we submitted our returns. However, it was very discourteous of it to issue the report to the media without giving it to individual Members of Dáil Éireann. We are listed in the report. I understand copies were placed in the Oireachtas Library and given individually to the political correspondents without giving them to those named in the report.
We will probably get it in a month's time.
Will members agree to meet the Standards in Public Offices Commission or do we have something more urgent to discuss?
It is appropriate.
It might be a good time as it is a year since the election and all the reports should be available. There will be different views on how it operates. We will see if the commission is available to come before the committee at our next meeting.
On what date?
Two weeks from today - 25 June.
Perhaps it can also indicate any practical operational difficulties it has identified.
Yes, that will be dealt with the next day. The business of this meeting is not yet completed. There is one matter of EU scrutiny which we may be able to dispose of.
On 25 June the National Pensions Reserve Fund is also included in the agenda - was that not agreed?
The fund commissioners are visiting the Committee of Public Accounts next week. We have written to them and they have indicated that they will come to this committee, but a date has already been arranged with the Committee of Public Accounts.
What is the position with regard to PPPs? It was my understanding that we would get briefing papers today in relation to costs and related matters.
We issued a general information document on PPPs about two weeks ago to each member of the committee.
Yes, that is the general material available from the Department.
That is all that has been issued to date.
At a recent conference to which I believe all Oireachtas Members were invited there was a good presentation on the state of play.
I attended part of it. However, there are a number of serious questions still unresolved as to how PPPs are costed and the transparency of the process.
I agree with the Deputy. However, the most senior official whom we wish to meet in that regard, Mr. Eamon Kearns, is away from 23 June to 21 July.
Can we get an undertaking that we will have that meeting in advance of the meeting with the Committee of Public Accounts? Apparently, whenever we take an initiative, that committee steps in ahead of us.
Yes, we will arrange a meeting, perhaps at the end of July, before the August break, immediately after Mr. Kearns's return. I believe the Committee of Public Accounts may have examined one PPP project involving the NRA and obtained a value for money report on it - possibly in relation to the Kinnegad bypass.
I take issue with the documentation we got, as issued for the conference. Some projects listed as such in that documentation, including some in my local authority in which I was directly involved, were not PPPs. They involved the provision of land by a local authority, from its land bank, for development by a private developer. Approximately half the projects dealt with in the document are not PPPs in the technical sense as identified by the Government, in terms of the list of schools and so on. There is a risk that everything bar the kitchen sink will be defined as a PPP when that is not the case. It is important to have transparency in cost and accuracy in the definition.
I agree with the Deputy. There is a tendency right across the system to regard any level of co-operation between a public body and a private company - even the signing of a contract - as a PPP. There is considerable confusion. We will arrange a meeting as soon as the senior official concerned is available.
On the work programme, this is the third occasion on which I have raised the issue of the strategic management initiative being addressed by an Oireachtas committee. It is more than 12 months since the matter has been addressed by a committee of the House. It is now the responsibility of this committee. While it is listed in the work programme, there is no specific focus on it. We should consider how to address this important matter. I understand that, to date, only three Departments have been looked at from a SMI perspective. Could this committee establish a special sub-committee to deal with the matter? It appears that our current workload will not allow the full committee to deal with it in any reasonable way.
In a recent public debate there were suggestions that public servants may not receive certain payments unless they complied with certain requirements. While this may not be the specific responsibility of this committee - it is more a customer based issue - the fact of the committee being in session to address the matter would give an indication of what was happening. I am aware that there are many positive developments on SMI in Departments. However, as this committee has been given responsibility in that regard, we should address the matter before the end of this term.
I suggest that if there is a decision to proceed with this matter, sooner or later, the Department of Health and Children and the health boards should be taken first.
I would have no problem with that. Deputy Finneran is quite right about the time available to this committee, having regard to our existing schedule, including Committee Stage legislation, Estimates from Departments and our regular meeting next week. It seems likely that we will have a further substantial legislative programme to deal with on our resumption after the summer recess. Perhaps the best approach is to appoint a special sub-committee involving those members with a special interest in the SMI issue.
What are the possibilities of getting some help for this committee, in terms of research assistance in the areas we wish to explore? Other committees have been facilitated in this way. In the autumn we will be into the pre-budget period. While I accept Deputy Finneran's comments on SMI, three reports were commissioned on the Department of Health and Children, one of which was commissioned by the Department of Finance. Extensive management structures have developed in the health boards under SMI rules which, in the view of many, are not working.
Rather than continuing to talk around this issue, we should set up a structure to address it by appointing a sub-committee and establishing its priorities. I ask the Chairman to investigate this proposition. If it is legally possible, it should be followed through at an early meeting of the committee.
We will place the matter on the agenda for the next meeting of the committee. The facility is also available whereby a member may act as rapporteur to draw up a report, for which I understand there are resources available. Perhaps we can consider this option further.
It would be a useful approach.
Some committees in the previous Dáil appointed rapporteurs and were given the necessary resources to assist them in producing reports. We will sign off on the work programme at the next meeting as it has to be finalised before the summer recess.