Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

No, that is something the Committee of Public Accounts will not get into. Our sole role concerns mechanisms to get the €13 billion lodged. It appears that this will happen. Because it covered a number of years, I think they are dealing with each year and there will probably be a separate lodgement. It is not a question of one big lodgement for the entire period. They will probably do it in stages. It gives the impression that this will be completed by September. That is all we know about the escrow account.

With regard to the big issue, that is not a Committee of Public Accounts issue in fairness but it is a fair question to ask at the same time.

No. 1019B from Mr. Niall Cody, Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners, dated 11 January 2018 provides follow-up information, including notes on criminal convictions for tax and duty evasion, a breakdown of the number of companies claiming research and development credit, a note on timeline relating to Apple and alleged state aid and a note on double taxation agreements. With regard to multinationals and employment by multinationals, members may wish to consider if and what further information needs to be provided as per Revenue's notes. I acknowledge the letter received. We will note and publish that. There is information there. However, there is one issue. We asked for a note on the top 100 multinationals that differentiated between foreign and indigenous multinationals. Revenue does not have this information readily to hand. It is probably a very specific question. It says it hopes to include it in its analysis for the 2016 corporation tax returns and 2017 payments. It will include that information when it is producing the next publication but it is not available at this point in time. At least, it will be included, which is a positive step.

No. 1024B is the minute from the Minister for Finance and for Public Expenditure and Reform in response to the Committee of Public Accounts report on the examination of matters relating to financial procedures at the Garda Training College, Templemore. Module one is the detailed briefing note, which we have there. Like the other briefing note relating to the Minister's response to our special report, we will hold that over until next week because we want to go through that line by line.

The next items are correspondence from and related to private individuals and any other correspondence. Nos. 877 ,1017,1020, 1021, 1022 and 1023 involve a large number of items of correspondence received on various dates between 20 October 2017 and 3 December 2017. They are from an employee of the Department of Employment and Social Protection. In summary, five issues are covered dealing mainly with financial controls and corporate governance regarding the appointment to certain positions at the Department of Employment and Social Protection; whistleblower strategies; investigations by the Comptroller and Auditor General - matters pursued by the Comptroller and Auditor General with the Department and the Revenue Commissioners; social insurance where it was suggested revenue was lost because of classification of employment status; and legal matters related to the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. As members will recall, this individual has been in frequent contact with the committee. We have given the matter considerable time previously and it has taken up considerable time for the secretariat. We have also sought legal advice on the matter and following that, we wrote to the individual, most recently on 18 October. We have recognised that there is some merit in an examination of employer PRSI classification and I note it is up for consideration under the Coillte correspondence today, not an un-connected letter, and there might be a judicial review so we will have watch that particular issue. The individual has also raised questions relating to the operation of the whistleblowers legislation. We all believe this legislation must be followed and implemented fully and if there is no adherence to the legislation, it must go through the Workplace Relations Commission. I and other members of this committee have met the individual on separate occasions. I asked him to put forward key points. Having examined the key points, which are included in the five or six items of correspondence, we believe that our position as outlined after receiving legal advice in our letter of 18 October still stands. I understand the sincerity of the individual. However, because the outcome is not as he might wish it to be, it does not mean the committee will keep returning to the matter at committee level. Individual members are, of course, free to pursue particular points through the Chamber or other relevant committees but I would suggest that at this stage, we state clearly that the Committee of Public Accounts will not pursue the matter. I suggest we will not be initiating a special Committee of Public Accounts examination of the matter as requested. I propose that any further documentation from the individual not be circulated and that it be returned to him as appropriate when we confirm this to him in writing. Can we agree on this because this is ongoing? We have already said that after legal advice. The correspondence is still coming and we are saying we will not circulate it further. Individual members of the committee can take it up individually but the items are not strictly for the Committee of Public Accounts. A wide range of other committees could look at the different issues that are covered there but we propose that the Committee of Public Accounts will not circulate any further information. We will write to the individual stating that.

No. 988C from an individual dated 11 December 2017 relates to a grievance case brought to the Workplace Relations Commission and the Labour Court.

The matter relates to An Post, which is not an organisation under the remit of the committee. I suggest that the committee does not involve itself in individual cases that have been decided by the Workplace Relations Commission. I propose that the committee forwards the matter on to the Committee for Communications, Climate Action and Environment for its attention, and we will inform the individual accordingly that the matter is about An Post.

No. 989C, from the Secretary General, Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, provides a note on the committee's query on the alleged awarding of a contract by the Minister without a tendering process. The Department has stated that there was no contract in place. The committee will forward this reply to the individual who raised the query.

No. 991C is from David O'Hagan, solicitor to the Farrelly commission of investigation in the Grace case and is dated 13 December. It is about documentation sent to it by the Committee of Public Accounts. The documentation had not been acknowledged because of a technical error. This is noted.

No. 993C is from the Coillte business and communication manager dated 15 December and No. 1029C is from the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection. These relate to the PRSI classification of certain Coillte staff. Coillte states that there is a High Court appeal and it will not comment on the committee's query until the case is concluded. I propose we write to Coillte to ask for an update to the committee following the appeal and that we forward this item to the individual who raised the matter. Agreed? Agreed.

There is a very detailed note included with No. 1029C on matters that have been before the appeals commissioner around issues of whether people who have been in the public service are established or permanent public servants. I have read the correspondence and it is quite an interesting issue. I do not believe it will affect more than Coillte. I cannot recall the phrase off-hand but it involves those who were working in different categories within State bodies, maybe in temporary positions, who then became permanent. Is their PRSI contribution backdated to when they started? The issue hinges on whether they were permanent or established. There is judicial review ongoing regarding this matter. We will all have an interest in this when it works through the system. There were interesting points in that correspondence. The committee will ask to be updated on this.

No. 994C is from an individual who had been in touch with the committee before about her position as radiographer in Naas General Hospital. The matter goes back over 20 years. The person is now retired. The committee wrote to the individual on that occasion informing her that it would not be taking the matter further. I propose we note the correspondence.

No. 996C was forwarded to me from an individual and received on 23 November 2017. The individual raises questions about the HSE’s adversarial approach in relation to legal challenges and the amount of money spent on legal services. I propose that the committee writes to the HSE for a response. Agreed? Agreed. We all know the bottom line is that every time €1 million is awarded through the State Claims Agency, with regard to cases defended by the State, there is 50% on top of that due to legal and professional fees. The correspondence raises a very valid point. If the cases were contested differently or earlier, could that amount be reduced? We will ask the HSE and the State Claims Agency for a response. It is an ongoing issue and it is raised at this committee year in and year out.