Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

We expect to have it in the next few days, possibly tomorrow, because the response issued last week. We will note and publish that and wait for the rest of the information.

Correspondence item 1394 is from Mr. Ray Mitchell of the HSE in regard to a matter raised at our last meeting regarding offering open access to all records to Dr Scally. What does that letter say? It is a short note. We will note and publish that.

In correspondence category C, items 1342C, 1355C (i) to (vi) and 1362C in regard to wards of court were held over from our last meeting. We will hold them over until our next meeting.

Item 1347, relating to GoSafe cameras, was held over from the last meeting. Some members who are not present asked that it be held over as they are not here.

The next item of correspondence is 1350. It was received from an individual regarding a submission to the committee on protected disclosures in the Irish Prison Service. I was asked by members who are not present to hold that over to the next meeting.

Correspondence item 1386C is an anonymous letter from an individual who made a protected disclosure in regard to wrongdoing at a location in Limerick. It requests that the committee make inquiries with the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection. Again, members not present have asked for that to be held over.

Correspondence items 1398C and 1399C, dated 18 June 2018, are from Deputy MacSharry and draw attention to issues in regard to the selection and operation of the election observation roster by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. This matter was dealt with during our engagement with the Department this morning. The Department has a panel which is expiring. The Department representatives said they hope to establish a new panel but that will not be done until the end of the year, so the current panel will remain in place until then. The Department will publish criteria in the next two weeks and invite interested members of the public to put forward their names for consideration. A new panel is about to be established. Is that of benefit? I am summarising what was said this morning when that topic was specifically discussed. We are to receive a detailed note on why the current panel was allowed to expire without this action being taken in advance. The witnesses stated that there were staffing issues. We asked for a detailed briefing note this morning and we will receive that shortly. We will note and publish that item and wait for the response.

I will return to correspondence item 1316, received on 11 May 2018 from the former vice president of Cork Institute of Technology, CIT, regarding matters discussed at the committee meeting on 22 March 2018. We held this item over. At our meeting on 22 March in regard to public private partnerships, PPPs, a number of points were made regarding the former vice president and his role as contract manager at CIT’s National Maritime College, which he says were untrue or misleading. He has written to the committee to state that he was not here to respond to those points. We are providing this opportunity for him to correct the record. At the request of the committee, the clerk has liaised with the individual to summarise the main points of his letter. It is an extensive letter and I do not wish to read it all, so will just give the main points. I ask any member with observations on what I am about to read into the record to listen carefully and take me up on it if he or she so wishes.

First, the individual clarifies that he was not the contract manager during the construction phase and accepts that, as a scientist, he would be unlikely to have the skills to oversee the construction phase. The committee acknowledged that already at our meeting on 24 May. Second, following the hand-over of the building, he oversaw the operational phase on request of the Department of Education and Skills. He believes it is not accurate or fair to say that he did not have the relevant skills to oversee the operational phase. Third, the individual states he was never employed by companies that were subsets of the college. However, the committee notes that he was an unpaid director. That was put on the record on the last occasion this was dealt with and we again note it now. Fourth, following retirement, he was employed one day a week by Cork Institute of Technology to support the college in a number of areas but that what was involved required attendance in the college on three or four days a week. Fifth, in respect of his retirement party, he states that CIT did not contribute to this but that it was paid for by friends and colleagues who attended. Sixth, he states that any problems with the building were the responsibility of the PPP company and it was required to meet the costs. That was also stated at the meeting on 24 May. In summary, the individual was greatly upset by what he believes were false and misleading statements made about him while he was not present to defend himself. We have now provided an opportunity for the record to be corrected. Can we note and record that item of correspondence? Noted.

The committee has received five items of correspondence from an individual regarding matters arising from the amalgamation of Kiltoghert Co-operative Agricultural and Dairy Society and the North Connacht Farmers' Co-operative Society in 2000. These items have not been circulated. The correspondent makes a number of allegations in regard to irregularities in the amalgamation process, procedural and behavioural matters relating to the Garda and procedural failures by officials of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. The substantive items in regard to the amalgamation process of co-operatives and allegations in regard to the Garda are not within the remit of the committee. For informational purposes, issues relating to the amalgamation should be addressed to the Registrar of Friendly Societies in the Companies Registration Office and allegations in regard to the Garda should be dealt with by the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, not the Committee of Public Accounts. Given that serious accusations are made about specific individuals, with the consent of the committee I propose that the items not be circulated and that we inform the individual that we will not consider the matter further. I propose that we return the documentation to the individual. If any member wishes to see the documentation before it is returned, he or she may contact the clerk. Is that agreed?