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

Are the minutes of our meeting on 12 November 2015 agreed? Agreed. Are there any matters arising from the minutes? There are no matters arising. The next item is correspondence received since our meeting on Thursday 12 November 2015. Correspondence was received from accounting officers and or Ministers. Correspondence received from the HSE dated 11 November 2015 is a follow-up from our meeting on 22 October 2015 and it is to be noted and published. Correspondence was received from NAMA dated 11 November 2015 and is a follow-up to correspondence we received from representatives of families of 1916 regarding Moore Street. This is to be noted, published and also circulated to Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan. Correspondence, dated 11 November 2015 was received from Mr. Jim Breslin, Secretary General, Department of Health. This is a follow-up to the Committee of Public Accounts meeting with the HSE on 22 October 2015 and is to be noted and published.

Correspondence, dated 13 November 2015, received from Mr. Aidan O’Driscoll, Secretary General, Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine refers to the special investigations unit, SIU. This correspondence is to be noted and published. I draw members' attention to this correspondence because this is the third letter the committee has received from the Secretary General since his appearance before the committee on the 18 June 2015, which is five months ago. Mr. O'Driscoll has still not answered the committee's queries in respect of the more serious case of Mr. Douglas Fannin, to which I will return later. The letter is a stout defence of the activities of the SIU and the committee could expect no less from a Secretary General. However, there is a complete denial of the heavy-handed tactics which led to people being manhandled or treated without dignity. Anyone who suggests that the SIU operates outside the codes of conduct for civil servants are simply saying that these things are untrue. The committee met privately last May with seven individuals and listened to what they had to say. All but one had seen at first hand the work of the SIU. Some have had their livelihood's ruined as a result of huge legal bills which were run up in order to defend themselves. Some were simply appalled at the behaviour of State employees. The Department tells a different story and has rejected all of what was said by the individuals who have come before this committee. It would appear that the Department is saying that these individuals have lied to the committee. The truth is probably somewhere in between.

I will make one further point regarding the Committee of Public Accounts. The committee is not advocating on behalf of anyone else here, that is not the job of the PAC, but to be fair to the seven individuals, only one of them has been in contact with the committee since. The others told their stories but did not ask that the committee would act on their behalf. They were disturbed by their experience and they reported to us. Some of their reports tally with what members hear in their constituencies. It is right that a citizen can contact a public accounts committee to enable the PAC to question Departments about the ways in which they conduct business. This is part of the job for the PAC and for the Oireachtas committee which has an oversight function. Department officials are answerable, through their Ministers and through their Accounting Officers, to these committees.

Mr. Douglas Fannin has been in contact with some members of this committee and with the secretariat. Mr. Fannin was prosecuted by the Department and the case against him was dismissed. His integrity was exonerated two years ago by Judge Reynolds. Since then Mr. Fannin has continued his fight for justice and it is in desperation that he has turned to this committee. He should not have had to do that in the first place. The Department appears to be reluctant to recognise Mr. Fannin's innocence. I understand that the Department has not engaged with Mr. Fannin and that he is owed money for cattle that were taken from his farm and slaughtered and which were then allowed to enter the food chain. Given the outcome of the case, and out of respect for Judge Reynolds, Mr. Fannin should be paid for his losses. Is it right that Mr. Fannin has to go the civil route to seek justice? We know that going the legal route is extremely costly and the Department will know that Mr. Fannin may not have the financial muscle to take on the Department again.

Last week the issue was raised of a Department official apologising to the Judiciary for remarks made at this committee. What the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine continues to do to Mr. Douglas Fannin, in ignoring the decision of Judge Reynolds, is far more serious. The committee is coming towards the end of its term so it may not be able to fully follow up on this matter. There is a need to find a resolution to the issues arising from the Fannin case so that Mr. Fannin can try to get on with his life. The Department should engage with Mr. Fannin to seek a resolution, if necessary with the help of an independent third party. This is the least that is owed to Mr. Fannin. The committee awaits Mr. O'Driscoll's next letter but this matter is so serious that, in the light of the remarks made by Judge Reynolds and by this committee, the case should be highlighted again and the Department be asked to take note of what is being said.

Item No. 3A.5 is correspondence dated 13 November 2015 received from Mr. John Pollock, project director, National Paediatric Hospital Development Board. It is a follow up to a PAC meeting on 8 October 2015 and it will be noted. As there is an inspector's report from An Bord Pleanála the committee should seek a note on the contents of that report and the committee could consider the issue again next week. I ask that Deputy Joe Costello make that contact.