Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

It does, and that is why this is a timely and important question and why I have homed in on this paragraph.

In response to recommendation No. 89, it is stated that a review of the practice in respect of sabbatical leave is to be commenced in the fourth quarter of 2017. We want a copy of the circular referred to in the response to recommendation No. 95.

The response to recommendation No. 101 states:

The codes of governance for the higher education sector are in the process of being updated to take account of the provisions of the Code of Practice for the Governance of State Bodies, 2016 and should be finalised by the end of 2017.

We want a copy of that. When we are told something is going to happen, we want to check that it actually does.

Finally, I refer to the response to recommendation No. 128, which refers to a "reporting template for the 2016/17 academic year that recently issued to the higher education sector". We just want a copy of that because when they say they agree with us, that is fine, but we want to check that.

I know we have another minute to discuss Templemore but I think we can move through it very quickly. I have had a quick look at it. This is document No. 1024. This will be a quick run through, I think. Recommendation No. 37 has been accepted. I think we will ask for just a general update on the recommendations in the interim report. The Department states that the the committee overseeing the matter has met 18 times since January 2017 and that the vast majority of the recommendations have been implemented. Recommendation No. 38 was accepted. Regarding recommendation No. 39, there are one or two points to which I want to draw members' attention. I am on page 4. Our recommendation states:

The Committee recommends absolute clarity on a reporting framework to bring significant issues to the attention of relevant parties such as the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG), the Policing Authority and the Minister for Justice and Equality. The matter of what constitutes a "significant issue" [should] be communicated clearly.

Obviously there was an issue in Templemore that was not communicated to the Comptroller and Auditor General as part of one of the audits and we felt it was significant. There was another issue where some people may or may not have felt the Garda Commissioner should have informed the Minister about a particular matter regarding Templemore. The last paragraph states that a communication protocol between the Department of Justice and Equality and An Garda Síochána is also being developed as part of the revised governance framework, and the timeframe for completion was the end of 2017. We wish to see that document. They appear to be responding on the issue of when the Garda Commissioner is to raise a red flag with the Comptroller and Auditor General or the Minister, as the case may be, and they say the timeframe for completing that protocol was the end of last year. We want to see a copy of it and when we get it people will be free to examine it.

In recommendation No. 41 on page 7, we talked about the independence of the Garda Síochána internal audit service and they accept that. They say in the last paragraph on page 7 that the Minister was informed that in December 2016 An Garda Síochána contracted external consultants to conduct a review of the Garda Síochána internal audit section against international professional practice frameworks to identify the opportunities to enhance the internal audit process and to provide recommendations to improve efficiencies and effectiveness. This review was completed in March 2017. I do not think that was brought to our attention during the course of our discussion on Templemore. In any event we want a copy of that report. That goes without saying. That addresses one of our specific recommendations.

Much of the next page is about procurement training for the Garda. We are told that is happening. Regarding returns of information to the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, they say only one has not been verified or returned because the particular person is on extended sick leave. Everybody else at work has completed all the documentation and confirmed with SIPO.

Those are my observations on that. I hope I have covered the ground for the committee. There are only one or two points to be followed up in that regard. That was the longest part of the correspondence.

Correspondence No. 1034 is from Mr. Derek Moran, Secretary General of the Department of Finance, providing up-to-date information following our meeting on 14 December last regarding promissory notes and NAMA's loans value. Mr. Moran also includes, on a confidential basis, a copy of the letter engaging KPMG as special liquidator and an update on the situation relating to related costs. Can we note and agree to publish the material, except for the letter of engagement as requested by the Department? Members are free to raise any matter in that at a later date. Is that agreed? Agreed. We are not publishing that letter, as requested.

Correspondence No. 1040 is from Mr. John McKeon, Secretary General of the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection, providing a follow upto our meeting with the Department in December. A number of items are included in the documentation. We note that. Members can read and study it and if there is information of interest to any member please use it in any way you see fit.

In category C correspondence, No. 1010C is carried over from last week. This is from Senator Rose Conway-Walsh and it is a copy of a report compiled by Deputies Denise Mitchell and John Brady entitled "Job Path Exposed". It is a Sinn Féin policy document. The Senator asks the committee to examine the matter considering the ongoing spending in the area. However, given that our remit is to look back, it may be more appropriate for the sectoral committee. There is a review of JobPath. There are two companies involved. We are seeking information on the commercial sensitivity issue but the policy of how that is working is a matter for the sectoral committee. However, we are still following the commercial aspects of the topic we spoke about in respect of the two private providers for the JobPath programme. Is that okay?