Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I can give a simpler, practical example that we all will understand. In every town and city in Ireland there are various approved housing bodies funded by the State competing with each other to buy sites so they can build their houses and units. They are driving up the prices. It is happening everywhere now. Approved housing bodies and local authorities are often competing against each other. I saw it happen recently. That is a big point to which we will return. What we have touched on is the tip of the iceberg. That is all we can say at present. We can come back to it. We will draft a response to that particular recommendation.

The next recommendation is: "There is a lack of transparency in relation to the companies which have an association with the Higher Education Institutes." It states the Comptroller and Auditor General has access to accounts and financial statements and the Minister is aware of all the reports. Our earlier discussion dealt with that point and we will follow it up on that basis.

The next item is a recommendation relating to the Office of Government Procurement "to ensure that they have the necessary controls in place to allow themselves sufficient time to develop specifications ...". This followed the roll-over of an ICT contract in An Garda Síochána. It was caught as it did not have time. The Minister accepts what we said. The next recommendation is on the same point. There is the broader issue and the specific issue. It states that the Department of Justice and Equality is informed by An Garda Síochána that the recommendation is accepted. It also states that in 2019 An Garda Síochána initiated a planned update of the Garda procurement guidelines and will run training courses on this. It states it is also governed by future planning in "A Policing Service for the Future" and these issues are included in it. We note that.

The next recommendation was on prepayments and procurement guidelines. That involved making advance payments where there are ICT contracts. We are told it is the industry norm but there can be a risk to the taxpayer. The financial status of the companies should be checked. The Department accepts the recommendation. We will keep an eye on that.

The next recommendation was that "the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform uses a more nuanced approach to recruitment expenditure planning to ensure that initial headline savings do not result in additional costs in the long term". We are saying that due to the public sector employment embargo there is a lack of skilled resources in An Garda Síochána. The Department notes that recommendation. It likes it, but it is subject to Exchequer pay ceilings. That is probably the answer we expected.

In Recommendation A.11 the committee "recommends that the Commissioner takes the necessary steps to ensure that the governance structures and systems in place within AGS are understood by all and supported at the highest levels". This is accepted and the recommendation will be taken forward as part of the Policing and Community Safety Bill, replacing the Garda Síochána Act 2005. That will come before the Oireachtas in due course.

The next recommendation is important. People will be interested in the fair deal issue. We had an issue regarding the nursing homes and we had asked if there was value for money. The Department of Health commenced a value for money report. It has noted our Recommendation A.12. A number of the recommendations flow together. It states that the Department of Health is currently undertaking a value for money review of nursing home care costs - a comparison of private and public sector care costs. Members will be surprised to hear the following:

A number of critical technical issues has arisen which has delayed the work of the Steering Committee and Review Committee. Following legal advice the National Treatment Purchase Fund (NTPF) was not in a position to provide the detailed data requested by the Department, given data protection concerns. Subsequent to this, the Department's legal advisors and the NTPF's legal team agreed an approach that would allow the provision of high level aggregated data, consistent with legal obligations.

Clearly, the information that is required to examine the value for money is within a State organisation but data protection is preventing the National Treatment Purchase Fund giving granular information to the Department team to provide a good report and recommendations. This is dreadful.

It goes on to say that the most cited reason for cost differential is that public nursing homes have a much greater cohort of high dependence residents. The Department will do a sample to determine if the resources provided are aligned with care needs. It will only do a sample. Then it says that this will extend the timeline further. It will take time to complete the value for money report, "but without this data the VFM Review would have to rely on hypotheses to explain a significant element of the cost differential. To proceed without the data may have significantly undermined any conclusions and/or findings reached by the VFM". Essentially, it is saying that this is being said but it has no evidence to support that hearsay. Despite what has been said by successive Ministers about the higher dependency it is saying it has no data or evidence anywhere to support that statement. It is what everybody thinks, but one cannot do a report on that basis.

It states that due to the body of work required to acquire sufficient data, a revised completion date at the end of 2019 is now proposed. However, it is already acknowledging that it will not have the necessary granular data to carry out a detailed report due to the general data protection regulation, GDPR. I am putting this on the public record because many people are asking when we will get the report on this issue. Many self-employed people who have assets want to see this report.