John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The meeting is in public session.

Are the minutes of the meeting of 13 March 2014, agreed? Agreed. On matters arising from the minutes, NAMA has been in contact with the committee suggesting a meeting in NAMA's office on Tuesday, 15 April at 11 a.m. Is that date and time agreed? It is the only time available. Would noon or later in the afternoon be preferable if possible?

Clerk to the Committee:

I will inquire if the meeting time can be arranged for later in the day.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The clerk will notify members. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Correspondence from Accounting Officers and-or Ministers includes correspondence, dated 11 March 2014, from the Secretary General, Department of Justice and Equality re a follow-up from PAC meeting on 27 February 2014, to be noted and published. Correspondence, dated 13 March 2014, from the Secretary General, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform re funding paid to political parties, to noted and published. Correspondence, dated 7 March 2014, from the head of administration, Office of the Attorney General, re expenditure incurred by the Law Reform Commission, to be noted and published. Correspondence, dated 12 March 2014, from the Chairman, Office of the Revenue Commissioners, re further information requested at meeting of 20 February 2014, to be noted and published. Correspondence, dated 13 March 2014, from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, re update on Dublin waste energy project at Poolbeg.

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not wish to delay the meeting but Poolbeg has come across our desk again. We have received more information and more details this time. The total spend is now looking at €96 million. I said at a previous meeting that over €600,000 will be spent between now and June this year alone and this situation is continuing. We cannot deal with it at this meeting. I think the committee needs to make a move on this to put it on the agenda and also to ensure that we can investigate it properly, not just with the Secretary General of the Department but with any of the relevant officials. Perhaps the Chairman has suggestions as to how we can proceed in order to get Poolbeg properly on the agenda. I know the committee is prevented from following some of the spend at the moment because it goes through local government. I do not know if the committee can change its terms of reference for one particular piece of work or change the committee's terms of reference more generally, if we can see a way to do a proper investigation. The spend continues and over a decade nothing has been built. The situation is just going on and on at this stage.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My own opinion is that the amount of money being spent on that project is an ongoing scandal. I suggest that in order to do a proper investigation into this matter that we would seek a change in our terms of reference. In that regard we could ask the Parliamentary Counsel to provide a note so that we can make the appropriate submission to whatever committee it might be with a direct request to allow us to investigate Poolbeg. That is what the public interest demands. If the members are agreeable we will proceed with the request.

Correspondence, dated 20 March 2014, from the HSE re update on section 38 bodies, to be noted and published.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does that correspondence include a schedule on the section 39 agencies?

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is your question, Deputy?

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At my request they have given us a list of 25 agencies with section 39 agreements with the HSE, each of which receives over €5 million. We wanted to have an indication of the other organisations such as Rehab Care, etc. I was surprised to see that there are 25 organisations receiving €344,699 between them. In case anyone would think we are picking on Rehab or any other organisation, I believe we should write to each of those 25 organisations asking for the full remuneration package of the chief executive and of anyone earning more than €150,000 - as requested from Rehab - and the number of people receiving salaries between €100,000, €120,000 to €150,000. Enable Ireland receives €36 million, the Irish Wheelchair Association receives €36 million and Western Care receives €27 million. This is a phenomenal amount of money which is taxpayers' money and which is being given by the HSE. In our view they should comply with public sector pay guidelines if they are in receipt of such money. I am surprised that some of those organisations are what we know as out-of-hours and GP services. One such organisation receives €8 million and another receives €7.3 million for the out-of-hours GP service. I know much of the money goes to the doctors and drivers and administrative staff but for us to be effective in our job we should write to all those 25 organisations who are all in receipt of substantial payments of taxpayers' money and ask for details of the remuneration packages of the senior people. It is a full 12 months - March of last year - since the HSE produced its internal audit report on the section 38 bodies. We have not got to the end of it after 12 months. I do not want to spend another 12 months getting to the end of the section 39 organisations. I am starting with those in receipt of over €5 million although some might argue I should start at a lower amount but in my view this is a good starting point. It is in the public interest to find out. We may find out that they are all in receipt of reasonable salaries in line with public sector pay guidelines. If that is the case we would be very happy with that situation and I think we should do that.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed. We will do that immediately.
Correspondence dated 20 March 2014, from the Comptroller and Auditor General re request for supplementary analysis at PAC meeting of 30 January 2014, to be noted and published. We will use this when considering returning to the penalty points issue. We were to invite the Road Safety Authority at an early date in order to conclude our work on the penalty points issue.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would it be worthwhile going through the supplementary report from the Comptroller and Auditor General now? It would be useful for the sake of clarity.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It was part of the discussion when Sergeant McCabe came to the private session. It was around whether there was an exercise of discretion by An Garda Síochána in the cancellations or being manifest in the cancellations. What we tried to do was to split out the cancellation rate by reference to where the ticket actually issued from. There was a difficulty because in the report we looked at the whole data set for 2011 and 2012 but to drill down into it we needed more information about why tickets were cancelled and so on. That was only possible from April 2012 to December 2012. It is still quite a significant number of tickets in total. The total number of offences detected in that period was nearly 300,000. One can see the split in the table as between the intercept cases, where a member of the Garda Síochána would have spoken to a driver and engaged with a driver and the non-intercept cases which are all speeding ticket cases where cameras were involved.

When we examined it, we discovered that the number of offences terminated varies significantly as between intercept and non-intercept. There is a higher level of cancellations in respect of the non-intercept cases. When one removes cancellations that relate principally to processing errors, cancellations for emergency vehicles and so on, it switches the balance so that the cancellation rates for exceptional and discretionary reasons, as recorded on the processing system, were 1.6% for the hand-held detection devices used by An Garda Síochána and notepads - where drivers are interviewed - and 1.7% or 1.8% for speed camera cases. This means that there was not much difference between terminations relating to Garda Síochána cameras and GoSafe cameras.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are there any questions?

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So the overall figure relating to terminations for exceptional and discretionary reasons in respect of the offences detected is 2%.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Yes, particularly when one removes the processing errors and cases were something was wrong. One of the examples we provide relates to a situation where a townland was improperly recorded on the notice. That might have affected a batch of tickets.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the Comptroller and Auditor General's overall observation on this matter?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

The rate of approximately 2% relates to the type of cancellations which deserve more attention. That is really where one expects to see a clearer audit trail. That is the point I was making. I do not believe there is anything particularly significant in the differences between the rates of cancellation for intercept and non-intercept cases. I do not see it.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Comptroller and Auditor General reiterate what are classed as exceptional and discretionary reasons? What is the nature of such reasons?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

I do not have the report in my possession but exceptional circumstances would be where a medical emergency has occurred.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So those circumstances are covered.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

There is a category of the type of reasons that are accepted - for terminations - and these are described in the Garda Síochána processing manual.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Comptroller and Auditor General not possess the means to distil those down further?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

One can go down to individual termination level because reasons or explanations are given for each one.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

However, the Comptroller and Auditor General has not done that.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

No. I do not know what would be the particular value of doing that.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the case of medical emergencies, would there not be value in segmenting-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

We discussed this matter previously and, in terms of the report, I would draw a distinction between what is described as a medical emergency because evidence is capable of being produced.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand. Basically, it could go either way.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

What is recorded on the system is the term "medical emergency" but I cannot distinguish between those cases where evidence that such an emergency occurred-----

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In other words, those that were legitimate and those that were not.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Who knows?

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Allegedly.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Lack of evidence is the issue from my point of view.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fair enough.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will be dealing with the content of that matter again in any event.

No. 3A.8 is correspondence, dated 25 March 2014, from Mr. Ciaran Breen, director of the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA. This is a follow-up to a request made by Deputy Sean Fleming at our meeting on 13 February and it is to be to be noted and published.

No. 3A.9 is correspondence, dated 21 March 2014, from the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Skills re the referral of the report by Bus Éireann. It is to be to be noted and published.

No. 3A.10 is correspondence, dated 25 March 2014, from the private secretary to the Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government re the Tipperary hostel project. It is to be noted and published. I suggest that we flag our intention to return to this matter in the future because it is not going to go away.

No. 3A.11 is correspondence, dated 25 March 2014, from the Secretary General of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade re a follow-up from our meeting of 6 March 2014. It is to be noted and published.

Derek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to raise two issues. The reply we received is quite comprehensive and I thank the Department for sending it in. The first issue is that I would appreciate if it could also provide us with a list of the countries which pay a cost of living allowance. The second issue relates to the discussion I had with the Secretary General on a number of matters relating to rent and the payment of rent allowance. That issue is not mentioned at all in the briefing note. One of the questions I asked related to whether it complied with the Department of Finance's regulations in the context of being purely compensatory. I requested that the matter be raised with the latter Department but there is no reference to it in the briefing note. Would it be possible to ask the Secretary General to communicate further with us on that matter?

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. No. 3A.12 is correspondence, dated 25 March 2014, from the HSE re follow up information requested at our meeting of 27 February 2014. It is to be noted and published.

We now move to No. 3B, individual correspondence. No. 3B.1 is correspondence, dated 13 March 2014, from the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government re correspondence received about Mr. Liam Noonan in respect of the installation of a water meter. This is to be noted and a copy to be forwarded to Mr. Noonan.

No. 3B.2 is correspondence, dated 11 March 2014, from Ms Lorraine Gallagher, Wicklow County Council, re An Bord Pleanála's policy on board members adjudicating on planning appeals in the areas in which they reside. This is to be noted and a copy forwarded to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government for direct reply. This is not a matter for the Committee of Public Accounts.

No. 3B.3 is correspondence, dated 6 March 2014, from the clerk to the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform re correspondence from Mr. Eddie Kearns. This is to be noted and forwarded to the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions. This matter was dealt with by a previous incarnation of the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, which made recommendations to the then Minister in respect of the payment of the outstanding tax returns Mr. Kearns says are due to him. As stated, we have asked for the correspondence to be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions and I suggest that we seek the latter's direction with regard to what it intends to do with it. This matter has been ongoing since the late 1990s and it should be resolved. Perhaps we should also inform the Minister for Finance about what is happening in respect of it.

No. 3B.4 is correspondence from Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan re his request that IBM be invited to come before the committee. The correspondence is to be noted. This is a matter for the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission and we will refer the request to it for direct response.

No. 3B.5 is correspondence, dated 10 March 2014 from Mr. Patrick Cooney re public funding towards the creation of 1916 commemorative centre at the 1916 national monument. This is to be noted and a copy forwarded to the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht for a note on the matter.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I met the 1916 committee and I know other members have also been involved in dealing with this matter. I would like the committee to consider whether it would be possible for it to examine some of the issues identified in the letter we received, particularly as they pertain to public moneys. Obviously, there has been a very high profile controversy in respect of this matter. Whatever form it eventually takes, the project involved will obviously be a flagship one for the State. There is obviously a very specific timeline involved, particularly in view of the fact that the centenary is rapidly approaching. In addition to passing the correspondence on, I would like us to examine in what way we might be of assistance in investigating the matters set out in the letter.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will come back to the Deputy on that matter.

No. 3B.6 is correspondence, dated 25 March 2014, from the HSE re a reply to correspondence regarding Headway (Ireland) Limited. This is to be noted and a copy forwarded to Ms Mary Farrell.

No. 3B.7 correspondence, dated 27 March 2014, from the HSE re a reply to anonymous correspondence regarding Meath Community Services. This is to be noted.

No. 3B.8 is correspondence, dated 27 March 2014, from Deputy Ross re a request for the committee to hold a hearing on the Garda Síochána's request for tender for the supply, delivery and maintenance of digital recording systems. Does the Deputy wish to comment?

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has the letter been circulated to everyone?

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It has.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The letter addresses the issue of a possible misuse of public money. It certainly addresses the issue of a use of public money which has entered the public arena in recent times. The issue to which I refer is that which relates to a tender for what is termed a "digital recorder logging system" for use in taping telephone conversations in Garda stations. A large contract was awarded in 2007 to cover a period from 2008 onwards at three-yearly intervals and to be renewed at yearly intervals.

It also includes a maintenance contract and the parties to that contract are the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána and whoever got the contract. It is important that since the Garda Commissioner cancelled these activities that we look at them and at whether there was a waste of public money and whether it was being properly used. The issues involved here are very serious. They include, first, why this particular service was needed; second, whether value for money was given; and, third, whether it was illegal. In other words, was this money being used for purposes for which it should have been used? All those issues are matters which should be addressed by the Committee of Public Accounts. This applied to at least, as everybody knows, 20 Garda stations or more. It is a matter we should address as a matter of urgency, particularly in the light of what the Garda Commissioner has done since last November when he cancelled these activities. The people we should ask in are the people involved and the people I specify in my letter.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do any other members wish to comment?

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I direct this question to the Comptroller and Auditor General. When the then Comptroller and Auditor General would have carried out the examination in terms of the position, as distinct from the person, I have no doubt this particular issue would have come in within the normal audit in terms of An Garda Síochána in 2007. The Comptroller and Auditor General might give us a comment on the issue and examine what was carried out in that particular year and report back to the committee. The Comptroller and Auditor General's office audits An Garda Síochána on an annual basis. The Comptroller and Auditor General might give us a general overview on that.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Obviously we do not examine every procurement every year. That is not feasible. There was a procurement competition in relation to this, as I understand it, and our approach would have been focused on whether there was a competitive procurement. We would not routinely examine the business case for every individual procurement. That would not be feasible realistically. As I understand it, expenditure did continue in succeeding years in relation to the maintenance and my understanding is that it is of the order of €40,000 to €50,000 a year. The difficulty that strikes me in relation to this is that there is an accepted use for the equipment in recording emergency calls. There is almost a cynical economic way of looking at it - that using the equipment for another purpose should be adding value, but obviously not if the purpose is not within the law.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Comptroller and Auditor General is straying into territory that-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

As I said, it is more of an economist's point of view.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A career in politics might beckon.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

The big difficulty, as I see it, is where there is a statutory commission investigating it. I do not think it would appropriate for me to initiate anything in relation to this and report on it, certainly until such time as the commission's terms of reference have been established and even then I would be reluctant to become involved in an area and to cut across another exercise.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that even on the issue of going back and reviewing the audit that was carried out in 2007 and informing the committee as to what were the issues that came to light or what was the outcome of the audit? Obviously, there is a commission of investigation under way which we must allow do its work. I am looking at this in terms of the practical aspects of the Committee of Public Accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General is effectively the executive arm of what we do. Is it possible for the Comptroller and Auditor General to look at the work that was carried out in 2007 and to give us a comment on that?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Certainly, in terms of the normal questions that we would raise in relation to a procurement, I do not see from the information that is in the public domain and the information that is available to me that there is any particular problem with the procurement of it. That is my understanding of it. We can look at it in the context of the 2013 audit but we would still be looking at it as a procurement rather than as value for money examination.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not the issue I am raising. I am asking that the Comptroller and Auditor General in his role would look at the audit that was carried out overall in 2007 and give us an update as to what arose from that audit, no more and no less.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

I have already examined this and we would not have looked at this particular procurement. It was not in the sample that we looked at in 2007, so there are no issues from the audit of 2007 in relation to this procurement.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is some role for us to try to get to the bottom of the expenditure of taxpayers' money - the timing of it. I share the view of the Comptroller and Auditor General in terms of how we go about it, or I would be guided by views on that. We would also need to extend the request to the Prison Service as well, which possibly since Deputy Ross has written his request has also come to light. The fact that the current Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality, who is the Accounting Officer today for the justice spend, was as at that time, from my understanding, the head of the Prison Service, he may well be able to cast some light on this. The nub of the question I would like to get answered is how much was spent on such equipment? What was the understanding of the purpose for which that equipment was being purchased and what did the equipment ultimately end up being used for? We need to be careful in regard to the timing and I think we need to include the Prison Service.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does any other member wish to comment?

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If there is no problem with the procurement, as the Comptroller and Auditor General has said, we should be wary about this. Maybe it is a simplistic way of putting this, but if there was a tender for firearms for An Garda Síochána and they were used, hypothetically, in an illegal shooting, would the Committee of Public Accounts be getting involved in the tender for those firearms? I think we are bringing it a bit too far. It technically could be within our remit because it is public money, but we are straying into an area that has more to do with politics than to do value for money.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no doubt we have to be mindful of the Commission of Investigation in respect of the content of tapes. I do not think there is any proposal from Deputy Ross to stray into that territory. The difficulty we have is that the Comptroller and Auditor General can assure us in a general sense that procurement was examined and that he detected no issue but, as he said, he did not in the practicalities of the audit focus in on this particular process and this particular tender. I think we should and that we can examine these matters. We can do it in a way that is mindful and respectful of the statutory process that is under way. We have not as of yet seen the terms of reference for that inquiry but we should pursue the matter in the manner that Deputy Ross has set out. Deputy Harris made a relevant point in respect of the Prison Service. It does fall within our remit and we should examine the process of tender and the amounts of money spent. That would be a rational and necessary thing for this committee to do at this time. I do not accept that is straying necessarily into the politics of the situation. It is out there and questions have been asked around this tender. We are the committee that needs to examine that matter, so I would be very supportive of this proposal.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wonder whether it strays into the area that is going to be investigated anyway and that, therefore, an investigation by the Committee of Public Accounts would be in a sense unnecessary because it will be dealt with within that domain, but it is not clear at this stage exactly what it is going to investigate. That is a query I would have.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My understanding of it is that, in terms of what is being asked here, it is about the procurement process, the costs and so on. From that perspective, one option is that we could ask for the material from the Department to look at it and determine what we would like to do with it.

I do not think it will cut across any other investigation. We must be careful but there is nothing to stop us from asking for all the information that would be relevant to us to examine and to determine then the witnesses who would be called.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fair enough. I agree with the other members that we should be mindful that an investigation is ongoing but we should also bear in mind that we are independent of Government and that we should go ahead with our remit and should not be in any way inhibited from going ahead with it.

I presume the investigation will take an extraordinarily long period and there is a need for a more immediate reply to those questions, in particular about money.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If members are agreeable, we will seek all the relevant information and we will set out for the Department and the Prison Service what is asked of them.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about witnesses?

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will get the information first.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will deal with the matter of witnesses after that.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A commission of investigation is being set up. Before proceeding should we wait to see its terms of reference? The Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Defence is taking such an approach. Do we need to consider taking a similar approach?

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The joint committee is considering a different issue. We seek to deal specifically with the procurement and costs. Requesting such information does not cut across the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Defence or the commission. If it does, I am sure we will be advised by the services and the Department. We can go ahead and ask for the information and then we can determine what we will do.

Áine Collins (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When we ask for the information, would it be within our remit to find out who in the Department approved the expenditure?

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, I am sure that would not be a problem. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Correspondence 3B.9 was received on 27 March from the Irish School Art Supply Federation. It is a request for a submission by the Committee of Public Accounts, to be noted and published. Members may wish to raise the matter with the Accounting Officer today.

Correspondence relevant to today’s meeting includes correspondence received on 31 March 2014 from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. No. 3C.2 is correspondence received 2 April 2014 from Patricia Callan of the Small Firms Association re request for submission by the Committee of Public Accounts. It is to be noted and published.

No. 3C.3 is correspondence, received 2 April 2014 from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform re the opening statement. It is to be noted and published.

Paul Connaughton (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have been contacted by Brian Lynch & Associates, Solicitors, on the school transport scheme in connection with an issue relating to Bus Éireann potentially making a profit on the contract. I accept the matter came before the Committee of Public Accounts previously and that he has probably been in contact with other members as well. Could we re-open and re-examine the matter?

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The matter has been before the committee in that the question has been asked of the Accounting Officer of the Department of Education and Skills. A court case is pending on some or part of the matter. We could refer the file we have to the parliamentary legal adviser and ask for direction. I support Deputy Connaughton. There is a need to look at the matter again. The questions that have been posed by those interested in the subject have been dodged by the Department. I would like to see the matter discussed and full and frank answers given in response to the questions raised. We will ask our legal adviser about the court case and how we might be able to deal with the matter. Following that, I would be supportive of some form of investigation into the matter.

Paul Connaughton (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is perfect.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The work programme is now on the screen. A number of meetings have been added to the programme. As part of the work programme we will deal with the further examination of the Rehab Group. Rehab came before us on one occasion and we have arranged for it to come before the committee again. We have set out the individuals with whom we would like to discuss matters – Angela Kerins, Mr. Flannery, the remuneration committee, the chairman of the board and the director of finance. I note the pending retirement of Angela Kerins. I suggest to members that it does not affect the matter we are dealing with and that we would expect both Ms Kerins, Mr. Flannery and the others who received individual notices to attend our meeting on 10 April to be present. We will continue with the agenda that has been set by the committee and with our investigation into this matter.

As Deputy Fleming said, we have agreed to write to the other section 39 organisations that are in receipt of more than €5 million. It is not that we are centring our attention on one particular organisation. We have dealt with section 38 organisations and we await the receipt of some reports. We will finish our work in that regard but we have every intention of having a number of hearings on section 39 organisations. At the previous meeting we agreed on which section 39 organisations to invite before the committee. I see nothing different in terms of our work on 10 April.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with you, a Chathaoirligh. It is very important that the message from the entire committee today in respect of Rehab in particular is that we expect all those who have been invited to attend, including Angela Kerins and Frank Flannery, both of whom have resigned from their respective positions since we heard from Rehab last. Could you confirm, a Chathaoirligh, whether we have had any direct correspondence from Rehab, including Angela Kerins or Frank Flannery, but also members of the remuneration committee and the chairman? If we have not officially heard back from them at this stage, I suggest that we urgently make contact with them again, perhaps through the clerk of the committee, and ask them without further delay to confirm that they will be in attendance next Thursday.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The reason I am setting out our intentions for next week is to make all that clear. It is because we have not received any correspondence from Rehab on next Thursday’s meeting. In the absence of any correspondence, it would be unfair of us to speculate as to whether a certain individual or individuals will attend, but it is no harm to make it clear that we intend to pursue our work next Thursday as agreed and that, as Deputy McDonald suggested, with the approval of the committee, we will confirm that to Rehab and request that it confirms its list of witnesses for next Thursday.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I fully agree with the Chairman that it would be unfair of us to speculate, but not nearly as unfair as Rehab’s behaviour towards the taxpayers in recent days by refusing to tell us. The meeting is next week and there has been significant engagement and commentary by Rehab within the media. It is reasonable that it would provide finality by the end of the day in terms of who is and is not coming.

We were told by Mr. Flannery in correspondence with the committee that the reason he did not come on the previous occasion is that he was not formally invited. He received copious e-mails and he said in one e-mail that he would be willing to attend but he wanted to understand what he was coming in to talk about. I do not think he can be in any doubt about that now.

I understand Ms Kerins is working a period of notice so presumably she will still be the CEO of the Rehab Group next Thursday.

Rehab should provide finality as to whether it will attend, as well as who is coming, as quickly as possible. While I fully agree with the Chairman's suggestion, Rehab should bring finality to it.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is important the people understand the Committee of Public Accounts has a body of work to do and that this is not personal but members are here to ensure taxpayers' money is spent in an efficient manner. I ask those to whom the committee has written to work with members in a spirit of co-operation. It is an issue that pertains to the entire charity sector. In common with other members, I am aware of people working in various organisations throughout the charity sector who are doing fantastic work. While the clerk to the committee clearly will make contact, I ask those concerned to facilitate the committee, appear before it and work with members in a spirit of co-operation in order that this issue can be dealt with.

It also is important that this entire module being undertaken on charities is brought to as rapid a conclusion as possible. The committee must reach a conclusion on this matter and any people I meet from the charity sector tell me that although it is tough on them, they want the committee to deal with the matter in a proper and a forthright manner. In this context, members must consider that there is a beginning, a middle and an end to this process. At present, the committee is in the middle and the end will be when a better corporate structure is in place for the charity sector. This will enable the various bodies such as Rehab and the Central Remedial Clinic, CRC, to continue the work being done on the ground by those who are providing the services. Moreover, the service users and the taxpayers will have absolute confidence in the manner in which taxpayers' money is being spent. In that context, I ask today that in the spirit of co-operation, those to whom the committee has written appear before the committee next week on 10 April and work with members to bring about a better corporate structure for the charity sector overall. I reiterate it is not personal.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with Deputy O'Donnell. I also believe this should be depersonalised and what Rehab is doing at present is to play cat and mouse with the committee. Members know perfectly well that last time, Rehab did not bring in the people the committee asked it to bring in. It now is refusing to state or is delaying its statement on who is or is not coming in and the committee needs certainty in this regard. Moreover, this is needed for the charity sector. If one forgets about the high profile people for a moment, what is the board doing? Has the committee not asked the remuneration committee to attend as well?

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It also is playing this game of not telling the committee. The board also has not replied and nor have other members of the board. The committee should write them a fairly stiff reminder today - not just to Angela Kerins and Frank Flannery but to the others as well - asking what is happening, informing them the committee expects them to appear and asking them to confirm today whether they will attend. Members should do so because this is obstructing progress towards the ultimate aim in this regard, which as Deputy O'Donnell noted is to ensure money gets flowing back into the boxes of charities. Rehab is obstructing that through its behaviour.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I feel a tiny bit differently on this issue in that I am less interested in the individuals. The issue is the information, and that is what I believe the remit of this committee to be. I believe members need to find out from Rehab whether it intends to garner the information the committee has requested in every respect. Obviously, there is a danger that some people may not wish to appear before this committee but the board of Rehab and its remuneration sub-committee must be informed that at the very least, this committee requires the information it has sought. That is the key point. It is not necessarily individuals but it is the information, and that is what the committee should be requesting of Rehab at the very least.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have one question on the Rehab issue. I seek procedural clarification from the Chairman for the committee. At the last meeting, the committee referred a letter to the Garda Síochána because of allegations. Is that the end of it as far as the committee is concerned? Should the committee leave it to the Garda Síochána, should members follow it up or is it simply out of their hands? I seek information in this regard.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a matter for the Garda Síochána.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I simply wished to confirm that issue is now out of the committee's hands.

Paul Connaughton (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with the point made by Deputy Deasy but also with what has been stated earlier. The main issue in this regard is that trying to get information has been akin to pulling teeth. Had Rehab been upfront months ago, members would not be here. While the committee may still have had the same issues to face, Rehab has been extremely secretive about the whole thing. No matter what question one asked, one did not get the answer. While Deputy Deasy is correct in that the greatest need is for the information, certain people obviously know more than others. The point is that I understand what Rehab is going through and all members are aware of the issues facing the charity sector. However, the blame falls solely on Rehab itself because had it been upfront and had it told the committee exactly what it did and did not know, members would not even be having this conversation this morning. Consequently, it is the best interests of both Rehab and the entire charity sector that those who were invited will turn up next week and be open and frank once and for all.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

From the last meeting, it has been made clear to them as to what information is outstanding. Consequently, there is no doubt about that. It has been made clear to them as to who should attend, and while we are interested in the information, as Deputy Connaughton noted, it must come from certain individuals who must be present to tell members.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I believe the board is well aware of the information.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not believe the board should be let off the hook with regard to information the committee has sought through people's non-attendance. I am less interested in the individuals. I do not believe for a second that members of the board do not know all the information. At the very least, this committee must make that clear to the board.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The board is aware that we require the set of questions that were unanswered at the last meeting to be answered. Alongside that, we are dealing with the payments made by the HSE to Rehab under section 39 of the Health Act 2004, the operation of the charities lottery scheme, payments to Rehab from the Vote of the Department of Justice and Equality, payments made by SOLAS to Rehab for the provision of special and vocational training, and payments made by other Departments to companies of the Rehab Group. This generally is the agenda of items the committee will be discussing. The total amount of money per year going to Rehab is approximately €90 million when one adds together all these figures. It is a substantial amount of money and, frankly, I expect Rehab to appear before the committee and to answer all the questions that will be put to its representatives. Rehab is on notice of that and the committee should simply proceed on the understanding that it will deal with this matter next Thursday with the people it has invited before it.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have two points to make. First, 95% of the funding for the two main companies operating, namely, National Learning Network and RehabCare, is coming from the State from taxpayers' money. Second, the committee is undertaking a wider charities module of which Rehab is merely a part. Effectively, people must understand that the committee, on behalf of the taxpayer, will deal with many charities in respect of various matters. Rehab is just one particular group and this is not personal but is about information. The committee is here to work on behalf of the taxpayers who are directing members and have given them a duty to get to the end of this module dealing with charities. While I reiterate this is not personal, I am proposing that Rehab should appear before the committee next Thursday in the spirit of co-operation, in order that members can deal with this area of the charities sector and reach the final conclusion.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is really important that Rehab should return before the committee with all its main people, including Angela Kerins. The damage that has been done to charities by the likes of their behaviour is huge, and in the interests of that entire sector and of good governance in general, it is essential that all the relevant people should appear.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I believe members have made everything clear. Does Deputy Nolan wish to come in on this matter?

Derek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This hearing is due to take place in seven days and, as the Chairman noted, the committee has had no response to its invitations to people to attend. Yesterday, eight days before the meeting, members were informed that the chief executive officer is to stand down and is to retire. While I am unsure of the motivations in this regard, I would hate it to be perceived that it is okay, shortly before a committee meeting to which members have invited one to attend, to resign and thereby get off the hook. The information may be sourced in various individuals and those individuals are expected to attend next week to give that information and to answer for the taxpayers' money, and members need to see them.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We now are dealing with No. 7-----

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I note there is a precedent in this regard.

When Mr. Kiely from the CRC came before us, he had already retired from his position. There is a precedent of a former CEO coming here.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It should be made clear that no one has indicated that they are not attending. I ask that the witnesses be brought into the room.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Under AOB, we agreed that we would have in representatives of St. Vincent's hospital. Could we try to have a provisional date for the next meeting for when we could discuss it? Things are getting worse there.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will we keep it for 24 May?

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine, once the Chairman sets a date for it.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

And they are not swinging towards compliance.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a precedent on a vote.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would be useful for clarity if we could have a date. I thank the Chairman.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There were others. I agree with that.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

St. Michael's House-----

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. It is a matter of how we schedule them into the meeting.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

----and the maternity hospitals.

Áine Collins (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Under any other business as well, I should have mentioned the following on the work programme. Can we have an investigation into the tender process that the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport had for the vans on the road that are capturing penalty points violations? I understand there is an issue about the technology used and they now will not be able to process all of those issues.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are going to do it. We will ask for the details on that matter.

Áine Collins (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the tender process, the evaluation of it, who approved it in the Department, etc.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is on the list here.

Áine Collins (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perfect.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will do that.

Áine Collins (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not see it, apologies.