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

No. 3A.5 relates to correspondence, dated 23 December 2015, received from Mr. Aidan O’Driscoll, Secretary General of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, concerning the milk superlevy. This is to be noted and published. No. 3A.6 is correspondence, dated 17 December 2015, received from Ms Eileen Creedon, Chief State Solicitor, and is a follow-up on our meeting on 12 November 2015. This is to be noted and published. No. 3A.7 is correspondence, dated 22 December 2015, received from Professor Willie Donnelly, President of WIT, and is a follow-up from our meeting on 10 December 2015. This is to be noted and published.

No. 3A.8 is correspondence, dated 22 December 2015, received from Mr. Frank Daly, chairman of NAMA, and relates to correspondence with the Northern Ireland Assembly’s finance and personnel committee. This is to be noted and published. No. 3A.9 is correspondence, dated 23 December 2015, received from Mr. John McCarthy, Secretary General of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, and relates to social housing refused by local authorities. This is to be noted and published.

No. 3A.10 is correspondence, dated 10 December 2015, received from the HSE. This is a follow-up to our meeting in October 2015. This is to be noted and published. No. 3A.11 is correspondence, dated 8 January 2016, received from the HSE. This is a follow-up to our meeting on 22 October 2015. This is to be noted and published.

No. 3A.12 is correspondence, dated 15 January 2016, received from Mr. Tom Boland, CEO of the Higher Education Authority. This is a follow-up from our meeting on 10 December 2015. This is to be noted and published.

No. 3A.13 is correspondence received from Mr. Aidan O’Driscoll, Secretary General of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. This concerns the case of Douglas Fannin v. the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine. This correspondence, along with the correspondence on No. 3B.4, relates to the same issue. A briefing note has been circulated to members on this case outlining the steps we believe should be taken and I will read over this briefing note now.

Members will recall the Douglas Fannin case, which has been the subject of examination by the committee, dating back to the meeting on 18 June 2015. The committee has since followed up with the Department on issues specific to Mr. Fannin’s case. In particular, it has sought a transcript of the court proceedings and a copy of the Owens report. Mr. Owens was the senior counsel in the prosecution of Mr. Fannin.

As outlined in the Department's letter and the letter from the Chief State Solicitor, the requests from the committee cannot be considered as the matter is sub judice.The Department’s line now is that its hands are tied and that any comment could potentially damage the State's defence in any forthcoming proceedings. Members will be aware that the prosecution case taken by the Department against Mr. Fannin led to a severe reprimand from Judge Reynolds, who accused the special investigations unit of being heavy-handed and she questioned the integrity of the prosecution case.

The committee’s position on this case is already part of the public record and there are three key issues, two of which have nothing to do with the civil action being taken by Mr. Fannin. Three key issues remain to be dealt with. First, the Department should confirm whether Mr. Fannin is entitled to compensation in respect of the animals that were seized from his farm in 2009. These animals were subsequently slaughtered and entered the food chain. A TB reactor grant is payable but it is the committee's understanding that this has not been paid. Second, in dismissing all charges against Mr. Fannin, Judge Reynolds questioned the integrity of the prosecution case. Arising from this case, an internal review of the handling of the case was commissioned by the Minister and undertaken by officials of the Department. That internal report has not been published. Given the criticism made by Judge Reynolds, a better outcome could have been achieved if a full independent review of this whole case had been taken. This has nothing to do with the civil case and should still happen. The third issue is the civil case which, as outlined by the Chief State Solicitor, is for damages. While the Department cannot engage with the committee on this, the committee can make a call and ask that both parties engage in some form of mediation.

The case involving Douglas Fannin has taken almost eight years so far. It is time for all parties to move on and get agreement as that will happen anyway. There should not be a need for a court case to sort out the issues. We can take this issue no further, as we are coming to the end of this Committee of Public Accounts, but it is clear from the details I have given now that Mr. Fannin should, in the first instance, be compensated for the animals taken. Also, the issues raised by Judge Reynolds should be dealt with and the report published. Some form of mediation or arbitration should be entered into so that, in view of the findings made by Judge Reynolds, Mr. Fannin is not put through this whole process again. This committee should add its weight to the recommendations I have repeated in support of Mr. Fannin and encourage the sorting out of the matter as soon as possible. He and his family have been put through enough. I ask the committee to agree to the note and the recommendations therein. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We move on now to individual correspondence. Nos. 3B.1 and 3B.8 deal with the an issue of investigation of fraud in Teagasc. We have received a reply from the director of Teagasc, Professor Gerry Boyle, and this information will be forwarded to Mr. Jarlath Reilly who raised the issue. No. 3B.2 is correspondence, dated 11 December 2015, from Mr. Martin Whelan of NAMA, concerning issues raised by Mr. Patrick Coughlan. This is to be noted and forwarded to Mr. Coughlan.

No. 3B.3 is correspondence, dated 11 December 2015, received from Ms Deirdre McKeogh concerning An Modhscoil, Limerick. This is to be noted and forwarded to the Department of Education and Skills. No. 3B.4 is correspondence, dated 16 December 2015, received from Ms. Eileen Creedon, Chief State Solicitor, regarding the case of Douglas Fannin v.the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

We just dealt with that matter.

No. 3B.5 is correspondence received from Deputy Sean Fleming regarding State funding through the HSE to a medical website, myGP.ie, to be noted and forwarded to the HSE for a note.

No. 3B.6 is correspondence, dated 14 December 2015, received from Mr. Paul Quinn, chief procurement officer, and No. 3B.7 is correspondence, dated 23 December 2015, received from Ms Clare McGrath, chairperson of the Office of Public Works, OPW, regarding the Phoenix Park hire concession. This is to be noted and forwarded to Mr. Paul McQuaid.

No. 3B.9 is correspondence, dated 12 January 2016, received from Mr. Dermot Sparrow, Moss Veterinary Partners, County Kildare, regarding the special investigations unit in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. This is to be noted.

No. 3B.10 is correspondence, dated 13 January 2016, received from Mr. Philip Cantwell. This is a letter about the unauthorised dumping of waste by contractors working for Meath County Council on the upgrade of the R158. This is be noted. Mr Cantwell has been in correspondence with this committee for a long period of time. He has concerns about the following matters. One is the legal status of certain companies that have contracts with Meath County Council. The matter should now be examined in detail by the Local Government Audit Service and I also ask that his correspondence be forwarded to the chairman of the audit committee of Meath County Council for appropriate follow-up. Second, the illegal dumping of waste was from the R158. Nobody knows where this material was dumped and it should be followed up by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. This matter was dealt with by way of correspondence, and with the Secretary General. The answers given were unsatisfactory and, at times, the correspondence from Meath County Council on this issue was somewhat misleading and contradicted other statements. I believe Mr. Cantwell has been hard done by in this case in terms of attempting to seek a resolution. Immediate intervention is needed by the Department and the audit committee, both locally and nationally, to ensure that this matter is dealt with in a satisfactory manner. I suggest we take the action outlined in our note and, accordingly, notify Meath County Council and the Department, request that appropriate action and investigation take place and that Mr. Cantwell be involved in the correspondence and that investigation to give his side of the story.