Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

There is a consensus that we should invite Mr. O'Brien back. I agree with Deputy McDonald that it would be helpful if we can close it off and be concise. I therefore ask all members to contact the secretary with a list of specific queries for Mr. O'Brien so that when he comes to the committee he will have the complete answers rather than members raising issues on the day and he having to come back again. It would be helpful for the efficient running of the committee. He is genuinely not available next week. We will ask the secretary to arrange a date as soon as practical. It will be as soon as possible after Easter. I ask members to submit their specific queries so he can be put on notice of precise issues. We will be conscious of the points that have been made today.

The next item is category C in regard to correspondence from private individuals and other correspondence. No. 373C is correspondence received on 24 March 2017 from an individual referring to inappropriate language used by Mr. Tony O'Brien, director general of the HSE, while he was at the committee. While the correspondent is sure Mr. O'Brien did not mean to cause offence with a particular term used, he or she makes the valid point that it should be brought to Mr. O'Brien's attention. I propose we forward a copy of the correspondence to Mr. O'Brien. There was a particular use of words by Mr. O'Brien that could have been interpreted in an uncomplimentary manner. It was perhaps not the most appropriate language to use in that case. It is a fair point that the correspondent makes and we will forward it to Mr. O'Brien. Is that agreed? Agreed

No. 389C is correspondence dated 30 March 2017 from an individual following on from a letter from the committee in which we advised her of how her complaints against the HSE, the Garda and her previous employer could best be dealt with. While I believe we can only reiterate that she should use the structures of the State available to deal with individual cases, I note she also raises the issue of the pharmaceutical company Novartis which she raised with us in another item of correspondence. We have written to the Department on this issue and I propose we forward any reply we receive. Is it agreed that we write to the individual along these lines. Agreed

Nos. 390C and 392C are correspondence received on 30 March and 3 April from an individual referred to as Person A in regard to the University of Limerick meeting last week. She requests the opportunity to meet with the PAC to give her side of what happened. I also want to point out that there are three more items of correspondence from former employees of the University of Limerick. We dealt with three third level institutions last week and we will be dealing with three today. When we have the six done, we will review where we stand. A significant amount of correspondence has been received from former employees of the University of Limerick. We need to consider it all after today's meeting so we will hold this item over. We will note it and come back to it.

Nos. 397C and 404C are correspondence received on 4 April 2017 from individuals referred to as Person B and Person C in our meeting last week with University of Limerick. Similarly, we will note that correspondence, hold it over and come back to it.

No. 406C is correspondence received on 5 April 2017 from another individual and ex-employee of University of Limerick. We will note that correspondence, hold it over and come back to it when we are finished our hearing with the third level instructions.

No. 393C is correspondence received on 31 March from an individual in relation to the fair deal scheme and the person’s experience of fitness programmes for elderly people. I propose that we write to the individual informing him that the adoption of such programmes is a policy matter and not within the remit of the committee. We are dealing with the fair deal scheme with the HSE. Nursing Homes Ireland have written to us separately. We will consider it as part of the total correspondence. It may not be within our remit but when we close off the issue of the nursing homes, we can dispose of it at that stage. There might be something in it that we can refer on to the Minister in the future.

Nos. 394C (i) and(ii) were received on 29 March 2017 from an individual alleging waste of taxpayers' funds in the Irish Prison Service. The person wishes to draw the committee’s attention to the inadequacy of the internal audit unit to properly police and protect the rights of someone who raised concerns with the PAC. Is the correspondence noted? Noted. Should we ask for a response from the Prison Service on it? I have not yet had an opportunity to do so. The correspondent is asking us only to note it and to be aware of it, not to take specific action. We will note it.

No. 395C (i) to (xi) are a copy of correspondence sent to the Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform on 31 March. The correspondence refers to the waste of taxpayers' money and harassment of a family. Has it been sent to other Ministers? We will note it. We have not been asked to do anything specific. It is only a copy for our information.

Nos. 370C and 396C. Item 370C was held over from last week and 396C was received on 22 March 2017. It refers to fraud allegations in Teagasc in regard to the selection process for a post of responsibility in 2007. The clerk has reviewed correspondence with the previous committee going back to 2015 on this issue. A response was sought by the committee at the time from Teagasc in regard to the issues raised. Teagasc provided comprehensive background on the case, which had gone through an internal grievance procedure, been referred to a rights commissioner service and gone through a Labour Court hearing. The person’s claims were not upheld in any of the three processes. A copy of the Teagasc response was sent to the individual by the committee on 26 January. I propose that we hold this over with a view to writing a detailed letter. We will be able to close off this matter but I have not yet had an opportunity to see the letter from the previous committee. I want to be consistent or at least aware of that. We will have that circulated. When we see how the former committee approached this matter, we will deal with it at that stage.

No. 398C is correspondence received on 3 April from an individual in relation to Waterford IT and campus companies such as FeedHenry. Can we note this for today's meeting? Noted.

The next item is reports, statements and accounts received. There are two items, first, the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, and the European fisheries fund for Irish operations with a turnover of €1.6 billion for the end of 2015 as per the auditor's report; and, second, a file concerning the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission, and the Loughs Agency 2015 accounts clear audited opinion. We will note those items.

The next item is the work programme. It is on the screen in front of the members. Today, we will have Waterford Institute of Technology followed by the Dublin Institute of Technology. In session two, we will have the National University of Ireland, Galway. Next Thursday, we will have the Department of Education and Skills dealing with the special report on the cost of the child abuse inquiry and redress scheme. Caranua is also invited to that session. We will have to work out whether we take both together or deal with them separately, but that can be decided during the week. Many people who were affected by this issue have expressed an interest in being here or watching the proceedings. I will facilitate anybody who makes such a request.

On 4 May 2017, we will be dealing with Bord na gCon. On 11 May 2017, we will deal with the Department of Justice and Equality appropriation accounts for 2015. There is a specific chapter dealing with the procurement and management of contracts for direct provision. Sometime around the date of the last meeting, we noted the report by An Garda Síochána into the Templemore issue. There is also the issue of the different slant to the Garda Commissioner's evidence before this committee a couple of years ago compared with her evidence at the Joint Committee on Justice and Equality last week.

Would it be too much if we bring in the Department of Justice and Equality to deal with direct provision and the Garda Síochána all on the one day? What do people think?