Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

We have had a few major floods this year in Donegal and Mountmellick in County Laois. Could the Department send us a report on its assistance? I know the Department would have had a temporary office in Mountmellick for a few days. Now we are relying on the social welfare officer to keep the rest of it afloat so could the Department send us a note on that?

My last question concerns the Social Insurance Fund - this big amount of money. I see the Department has submitted the accounts, which were signed off on 26 September 2017. I come back to the €462 million that is due to the Social Insurance Fund under the redundancy and insolvency payments scheme. It is on page 13 of the audited accounts. The witnesses do not need to go through it because they know the figures. This issue was raised when Mr. McKeon's predecessor was here last year. I am looking at note three at the top of page 14, which says that it is envisaged that in the order of 90% of the value will eventually be written off since the majority of the debt refers to the insolvent companies and that the balance is not recognised as an asset in the Social Insurance Fund balance sheet. I understand that. That figure of €462 million is still there. The Department signed that. The Comptroller and Auditor General has said that 90% of it might eventually be written off. Could the witnesses look at that? This topic was raised here 12 months ago when Mr. McKeon's predecessor was before the committee. We got a letter from Mr. McKeon's predecessor dated 6 April 2017 giving details of the companies that owed the debt and those that were in receivership, liquidation, dissolved, struck off or normal. We continue to pursue that. I have done so through parliamentary questions at various stages. In May 2017, the Department gave a breakdown to a parliamentary question of mine that said that €230 million of that was for cases involving less than €10,000, €120 million for cases involving between €10,000 and €50,000 and €90 million for cases involving individual employers. I am not saying they are there. What is recorded is that of the figure of €462 million, €90 million was for amounts over €50,000 and one of those amounts involved an amount greater than €10 million so some company somewhere along the line owes the fund €10 million. I have no idea if that company is long gone or whether it is back in a new incarnation. They are the figures given in a reply to my parliamentary question on 23 May 2017. One company owed €10 million. There should be clarity on this. It was then asked what liaison existed between the Department and the Revenue Commissioners regarding how many of these companies are still trading. There was a reply to a parliamentary question of mine on 17 October 2017, with which I am sure the witnesses are quite familiar because it is quite recent and they have seen me following this topic since the last meeting. At that meeting, the breakdown by employer with a trading status deemed normal by the Companies Registration Office was given. These are the Department's figures in the reply to the parliamentary question involving normal companies and the Companies Registration Office. Not all these companies have gone away. Possibly most of them have but there are 3,453 with a debt of €72,235,000. The reply to the parliamentary question states that the Department deems their trading status as normal. I do not understand why if their trading status is normal, why the Department is not chasing that €72 million. Some of these businesses may not have been incorporated companies. The Department gave a breakdown per employer of non-registered companies primarily sole traders who were involved in this. There are 4,093 of them with a debt due to the fund of €41.550 million. I still do not understand why the Department has not followed that. We asked what arrangements the Department had with Revenue to follow that up. A memorandum of understanding, co-operation and mutual assistance between the Department and the Revenue Commissioners was signed by Mr. McKeon's predecessor and the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners on 27 February 2017. Page six of that agreement, which I sourced through a parliamentary question, talks about governance of this agreement. If the figure of €462 million is not real, give us the real figure. The Department says 90% of it could eventually be written off.

The figure for the companies and sole traders considered to be engaged in normal trading might be much less than 90%. We firmly do not believe an adequate effort has been made. It stems from the old Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Employment. The witnesses probably feel this was not their debt originally, but nobody in the public service seems to be getting to the bottom of the figure. It is important that we do in order to have a real figure.

On page 6 of the memorandum of understanding the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection has signed with the Revenue Commissioners, under the heading of governance, it is stated:

The implementation of this memorandum, and any strategic or policy issues arising, will be kept under review by the high level group, as will proposals for this memorandum to be modified or extended. Meetings of the high level group will be held quarterly or, exceptionally, at anytime at the request of the either party.

The memorandum of understanding was signed in February and there should have been at least two quarterly meetings on it. Mr. McKeon can brief us, but I am quite happy for him to send us the minutes of those meetings and to indicate the progress made. They can be forwarded to the secretariat, as I do not need to delay him. Let us come to a conclusion on this issue. The majority of it is probably a phantom figure. If there are good reasons it is not the real figure, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform will have to be given a detailed memorandum to enable it to consider whether it is appropriate to make changes as it is hanging there year in and year out. In the interests of clarity, I hope we can get to the bottom of the figure. I am happy, therefore, for the information to be forwarded to the secretariat. Would Mr. McKeon like to say anything?