Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Absolutely. It is on our work programme.

Next, we held over No. 1595 C from our previous meeting. We will revert to it.

Correspondence Nos. 1674 C, dated 22 October, and 1716 C, dated 7 November, are from an individual who made a submission to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform regarding the OPW in terms of "Strengthening Civil Service Accountability and Performance". We requested the relevant report at our meeting with the OPW. Members will recall that the report reviewed five specific properties. The individual also provides the details of other properties on which he believes value for money was not achieved, namely, the former Passport Office and the Garda offices on Harcourt Street. The individual believes that an independent report should be commissioned by the OPW.

We have dealt with the correspondence from Mr. Maurice Buckley, chairman of the OPW, which provided considerable information, including background information, regarding recent developments in the property management division. While we might have to return to this topic in the new year, I propose that we ask the chairman to provide a further update on developments to ensure effective property management and that we advise the correspondent accordingly. We have agreed to invite in the former employee who wrote the report. This is on our work programme. We will deal with the matter as soon as we set a date.

The next correspondence is No. 1697 C from an individual, forwarded to the committee, regarding a value for money query relating to the Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland, SBCI. The bank is audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and I propose that, with the correspondent's permission and appropriate redactions, we forward the correspondence to the SBCI. I understand that the clerk to the Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach has been in correspondence with that organisation. I propose that the two clerks liaise and seek an update on any intended action. Is that agreed? Agreed. This correspondence has gone to two committees.

No. 1710 C from an individual dated 8 November relates to property leases undertaken on behalf of the State by the OPW. We will note this correspondence and take it into consideration during our meeting with the former OPW employee.

Nos. 1712 C and 1713 C, dated 7 November, are from an individual who has been in correspondence with us regarding Cork Education and Training Board, ETB. The board has advised the committee that the individual agreed a full and final settlement with it of all outstanding complaints, including a provision that the individual would not apply for any further position within the ETB. The Department of Education and Skills provided advice to the effect that the individual was free to accept or reject any or all of the settlement, and encouraging the individual to engage with the ETB, through the individual's legal advisers, to reach a settlement. The responses from the ETB and the Department were forwarded to the correspondent. I propose that we advise the correspondent that our consideration of the matter is now closed. Has anyone a comment on this? I think we taken it as far as we can? While it sounds severe, the person, with the individual's legal advisers, signed the agreement. We are not going to unravel an agreement into which someone entered freely, full stop. That is all I can say.

That marks the end of today's correspondence.