Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

When the Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform was before the committee, I asked him if he had read the Indecon report. He told me he was briefed on it but he did not say he read it. I had an engagement with him on that.

I wish to refer to specific elements of the report. The conclusions section states: "Indecon’s analysis suggests that the overall benefits of the Benefacts service are likely to be in excess of the costs." The report goes on to suggest that "ceasing funding of Benefacts or an alternative service would reduce information which is needed for effective governance". It further adds that in a previous review by the Comptroller and Auditor General "the importance of adequate oversight arrangements where public funding is provided to a range of organisations was highlighted". In the executive summary, the authors argue:

In order to ensure that the [competitive tender] process would be likely to deliver value for money and that the existing assets are protected, Indecon would recommend that a mechanism is found to enable Benefacts to be a bidder in the process, or for the existing assets, experience and knowledge to be maintained. In this context depending on the timescales involved, there may be a need for the Government to consider transitional arrangements to ensure that the service is maintained until a bidding process is completed.

The way Indecon sees it, there was a system in place that may not have been doing exactly what the Department wanted it to do but it was providing an overview of a sector that is worth €14 billion, with €7 billion in grant funding provided to non-profit organisations by State entities. Approximately 160 State entities have to do the due diligence if they are grant-aiding but they cannot see what other matching funding is going to be available. The system was wound down but there is no timeline for introducing an alternative. The alternative does not appear to be a duplicate of Benefacts but appears to be something related to grant-aiding. It will pay for itself, essentially, is what we are being told. We have seen the kinds of information that could be drawn down when the database is built. In fact, some Departments availed of the data and engaged Benefacts to do that.

The committee is examining something that cost €8 million or €9 million, with approximately one third of that coming from a non-governmental source, and which was heavily used. It was used by several Departments. It has been wound down and is not available now. We are going to see something developed that will duplicate it, that will cost an unknown amount to build and that will probably involve an expensive consultancy. That does not strike me as value for money.

What kind of engagement was there with the Department? Was there a conversation to the effect that there was a procurement issue with Benefacts and that the Department of Rural and Community Development should not touch it with a barge pole or did the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform simply provide the information and ask the Department if it wanted to be the parent Department for Benefacts? Which was it?