John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

No. 3B.4 is correspondence received from Ms Marie Hickey-Dwyer regarding a Health Service Executive matter which will be passed to the HSE for its comments. Correspondence dated Friday, 13 February 2015 from the HSE is a reply to an anonymous correspondence regarding cover up and corruption in the HSE. This is to be noted and published. Correspondence dated 2 February 2015 from Mr. Brian Lynch and Associates solicitors regarding the school transport system, is to be noted and published. Correspondence dated 16 February 2015 from Ms Anne-Marie Swift regards the cost of the central access scheme in Kilkenny. This is a matter for the National Roads Authority so we propose to forward that correspondence to the NRA for a note on the matter.

No. 3B.8 is correspondence dated 10 September 2014 from Mr. John O'Connell regarding State-sponsored methadone clinics. This is to be noted and forwarded to the HSE for a note on the matter. No. 3B.9 is correspondence dated 23 February 2015 from Ms Claire McGrath, chairperson of the Office of Public Works. It relates to the Irish Jewish Museum and will be noted and forwarded to Mr. Jim O'Callaghan.

No. 3B.10 is correspondence dating 24 February 2015 from Ms Eileen Creedon of the Chief State Solicitor's Office regarding a Probation Service project. No. 3B.11, correspondence dated 24 February 2015, is again from the Chief State Solicitor's Office and regards the costs of the Fleury and Shine cases. The committee will recall that we wrote and asked for the cost of various cases that were taken by the Chief State Solicitor's office but which were abandoned or terminated for various reasons. She quotes the Act in her response to us and reference is made to not commenting on individual cases. We have asked that the Chief State Solicitor's Office would come before this committee for examination of its spend on administration and so on. We are not interested in names in cases, what we are interested in is the approach to how cases are taken, the cost of each case from any Department or agency which may have gone on for years and have been lost or dropped by the State for various reasons. The committee wants to determine the spend on those cases without needing to know who was involved in the cases. I believe we are in agreement with the contents of the letter but we certainly want to get more detail on the administration of the Office of the Chief State Solicitor, the cost of the office and the cost of the cases I have described. We will write back in that vein and set a date for the office to come before the Committee of Public Accounts.

No. 3C.1 and No. 3C.2 are briefing documents and opening statements for today's meeting. These are to be noted and published. No. 4 is statements and accounts received from Waterford Institute of Technology financial statements 2012. Could I ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to explain?