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

Are the minutes of our meetings on 9, 10 and 16 April agreed?

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

Regarding the previous meetings, we were meant to pay a visit to NAMA as part of the sub-committee of the Committee of Public Accounts and that was postponed. Is there an update on that visit? Also, does the Comptroller and Auditor General have an update on the tri-annual report he is completing?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

On the report, I signed off on it last week. Final checks are being done on it before it issues to the Minister, and I would expect that to happen tomorrow.

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

What happens to the report when it goes to the Minister? Does it come automatically to us?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It is up to the Minister as to when the report is submitted to the Oireachtas, but it must be submitted to the Oireachtas.

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

Within three months?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

No. That stipulation is not in the NAMA legislation. There is no time limit on it.

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

So we, as a committee, cannot review that report until, at the Minister's discretion-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Until it is presented.

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

-----he releases it to the committee?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It would have to be presented before the committee could deal with it.

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

And the visit?

Clerk to the Committee:

It will be before the meeting we will have with NAMA.

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

When is that scheduled for?

Clerk to the Committee:

It is scheduled for 29 May.

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

It is important that we have that tri-annual report before NAMA comes before the committee. There are many questions we want to ask off the back of that report but if we have not seen it, we will not be able to do that investigation.

Clerk to the Committee:

It is on the basis of that report that they will be coming before us.

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

Should we write to the Minister requesting the report?

Clerk to the Committee:

We will get in touch. We will wait, probably, until he gets it first, and then ask the Department of Finance in regard to it. We have the Department of Finance in next week in any event.

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

Are there any other matters?

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

A number of weeks ago, I raised an issue in regard to Bus Éireann. There has been a lot of media speculation since about it. We were getting legal advice on what we could and could not do. Have we received anything back?

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

On that issue, Mr. Nolan was in contact with me to say that he was sending in a response to the various newspaper articles and in response to what he had previously given the committee, and the questions that arise from that. Since then, a number of those concerned have been in contact with me who have given information, either to Bus Éireann, in part of the investigation or to the newspapers, and they have submitted transcripts of their conversations and the tape that is being talked about. That information will be circulated to members. In view of what happened in regard to Bus Éireann and what has been said, we need clarification from the Accounting Officer or Bus Éireann, and we will pursue that.

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

Are we still seeking legal advice as to whether we can bring them back in here again while the court case is going on?

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

While the court case is ongoing on the issue, they more than likely cannot come before the committee or give information, but we can ask for clarification on the submission that was made to the committee and their response to the recent allegations, and to the taped conversations and the transcripts that are now available fairly widely. We can seek information on that, which is what I would hope that we would do. Arising from that, we can see where we are going.

The allegation is that we were misled. If that is so, it is very serious. However, as I say, it is an allegation and we need to gather our information and then the questions that need to be asked can be put to the appropriate person.

As there is no other matter, I will go through the correspondence from Accounting Officers and-or Ministers that was received since our meeting of Thursday, 10 April. In light of the correspondence received yesterday from Rehab which was brought to the attention of members, copies of which members received since yesterday, if they want to raise any matter on that correspondence they may do so now. It is the legal response from Mr. Flannery and Ms Kerins.

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

We should note it.

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

On that aspect, we held a meeting on 16 April last and the committee received that response through the clerk to the committee yesterday. We have now received a response from all of the public bodies which provide funding to Rehab. In summary, the position of the public bodies concerned is that other than where data protection provision applies, the information is deemed commercially sensitive or a legal arrangement has been entered into which contains confidentiality clauses, they see no impediment, legal or otherwise, that would prevent all public bodies from supplying full information they hold to the Committee of Public Accounts. Those letters will be published on our website today.

In addition, the committee wrote to Mr. Flannery and Ms Kerins seeking their voluntary co-operation with the committee in its ongoing examination of the expenditure of the public funding that goes into Rehab, which in 2013 amounted to €95.5 million. A reply was received from the solicitor acting for Mr. Flannery and the solicitor acting for Ms Kerins late yesterday evening. These have been circulated to members and are before the committee today in order to deal with them. I do not have to go into the detail of these letters except to say that the committee will issue a reply rejecting the allegations contained in both letters. While Ms Kerins has stated that she has not ruled out appearing again before the committee, it is clear from the tone of both letters that they do not accept the Committee of Public Accounts has a right to examine any matters relating to Rehab or the expenditure by it of public moneys, which in 2013 amounted to in excess of €95 million. They also wrote that we should confine ourselves to examining the public bodies that supplied the funding. They are entitled to their views, but we see the expenditure of public money as falling within our remit.

In that regard, and as it now appears that the committee needs the powers of compellability in order to conclude its examination, I propose that we agree to proceed to that stage by placing a request before the Dáil Committee on Procedure and Privileges, CPP, in accordance with Part 7 of the 2013 Act. The clerk to the committee informs me that a draft of the application has been prepared and is with our legal advisers. Once that submission has been subjected to legal scrutiny, it can then be submitted. Members may wish to comment on the two letters received. However, I wish to get agreement that we should proceed immediately to compellability on the basis of the draft proposal for CPP.

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

I fully agree with the Chairman. It is now apparent that we have no option but to seek powers of compellability. I am not sure there is much merit in picking over the contents of the two letters that we received, save to say the following. My impression is that they are letters that, if you like, throw the kitchen sink at this committee. Their allegations are bogus and designed to stall and delay, and that is a great pity.

I support the proposal that we seek powers of compellability. I ask the Chairman at what stage members will see the draft application that we intend to submit. We will have to have sight of that and may have some suggestions on it. I ask the Chairman to clarify whether it is proposed to publish the letters that we received from Mr. Flannery and Ms Kerins on the committee's website.

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

The answer to Deputy McDonald's last question is, "Yes". We will publish the material. In answer to her first question on when the submission will be ready, it is in draft form and is being checked by the legal section. I would hope that we would have it tomorrow because Ms Mellissa English, our legal adviser, is otherwise engaged today. As soon as it is possible within the next day or so, we will have the draft for approval by the members. I propose that the clerk to the committee would speak to the members rather than hold a full meeting and that once the draft is agreed, it would be submitted to the CPP for its consideration.

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

I fully agree with the proposal to immediately move to make the request to the CPP for compellability powers. On the letter received from Dore & Company Solicitors on behalf of Mr. Flannery, all I can say is it contains allegations that some members of the committee, which could include me, have acted without lawful jurisdiction and abused their powers. I take offence to that remark that I may have ever done that at this committee. As I have said previously in regard to the correspondence from this individual, it has amounted to the most blatant attack on the powers of an Oireachtas committee by any person of standing in Irish society to block an Oireachtas committee in its work. The allegations against us, individually and collectively, are a disgrace and I reject out of hand that at any stage I have abused my power as a member of this committee. I am sure other members will feel the same, but I must state that for the record. I have never seen such an effort by an individual in Ireland to go to such lengths to not appear before the Committee of Public Accounts. We must seek compellability powers.

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

I regret that Ms Kerins and Mr. Flannery have come back to us in such a fashion. This is not personal; it is not about individuals. Members of the Committee of Public Accounts have a body of work to do on the charities sector. One element of that is a module on Rehab. In terms of this committee continuing its work and coming to a conclusion – we have spoken about a beginning, middle and end – regrettably it has no option but to proceed through the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in the fashion it is now doing.

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

I thank the Chairman. These letters, certainly the one from Dore & Company solicitors, are pretty well beneath contempt. This is a kind of contrived tissue of allegations in order to obstruct the work of the committee. I do not believe we have any option whatsoever, in view of this long-winded letter with its large amount of fantasy suggestions about members of this committee, but to go to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I fully support what was said in this regard. It is utterly absurd for us to get a letter of this sort when we are simply seeking to make people who have handled public money come in to us and account for it. We are not seeking to witch-hunt anybody at all. As Deputy O'Donnell said, it is not personal. The people we are seeking are not the people to judge whether they can help us or not; we are the people who can do that. The Chairman and my colleagues are 100% right that we must now go straight for the compellability option.

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

We have received and noted these letters and perhaps it is courteous to send a response, but we do not need to elevate them to a status they do not deserve. We should not be sidetracked by them. Previously, we agreed a course of action in relation to the activities of Rehab, and we should now follow that as quickly as we can.

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

I agree with what Deputy Murphy said. It is a shame that we have come to this point. This story has dragged on for more months than it ever needed to. It has now become a pitched battle between this committee and the two individuals concerned, which is extremely unfortunate. The only people who are really losing out are those in the charity sector as a whole because this matter will drag on for another few weeks. There is not a lot more to talk about. The committee has decided that it is to go down the route proposed anyway. Let us just do so and move on. Let us see what arises in the coming weeks.

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

I acknowledge that the Chairman has mentioned this documentation is in draft form. Ms Mellissa English is not here today. Perhaps we could be told what individuals, bodies, agencies and Departments will be compelled to attend. Is there a list?

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

Powers of compellability are not necessarily directed at any of the individuals; it is a question of the issue. As far as public moneys are concerned, I stress again that €95.5 million was at stake in 2013. Anyone associated with the allocation of that money, any agency that gave funding to Rehab, Rehab itself and individuals who may have information relevant to the matter can be compelled once we get powers of compellability.

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

Therefore, we are seeking to compel Ms Kerins, Mr. Flannery, Rehab, HSE and SOLAS. Is that correct?

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

Once we get powers of compellability, all or some of those agencies and individuals can be requested to come to the meeting and give the information that we deem necessary for our investigation.

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

Did we agree at the last meeting that we would contact the HSE with regard to the information it knew about? Has the clerk done that? What exactly have we ascertained?

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

We have contacted everyone. As I said earlier, we have contacted all the public bodies. Other than where these three issues arise-----

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

Could the Chairman repeat what he said with regard to those public bodies and the Data Protection Act?

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

We have now received a response from the public bodies that provided funding to Rehab. In summary, the position of the public bodies concerned is that, other than where a data protection provision applies or the information is deemed commercially sensitive, or where a legal arrangement that contains a confidentiality clause has been entered into, there is no impediment, legal or otherwise, that would prevent all public bodies from supplying full information they hold to the Committee of Public Accounts.

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

That is nothing new. With regard to the HSE, do we know how much it knows. Is it more than we thought?

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

It has given us all the information it has but, as the Deputy noted on the last day, there is other information which was being given to us under the 2013 Act and which was wrongly quoted. Powers of compellability would give us protection and the right to have that piece of information and any other information like that for our use. Therefore, powers of compellability give us the full power necessary to ask for documents and papers to be presented to us and for individuals to come before us relevant to our investigation. That case is set out clearly by the clerk and we have to legally prove it. This is being done. Once it is done, the matter proceeds to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. It has all its regulations and protocols in place for these inquiries. It has just concluded in this regard, I understand. It may have to seek external legal advice on the submission we make to it. Once that is done, it will then be in a position to make a decision on our request for powers of compellability.

I see no reason, however, that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges could not meet quickly, get its legal advice and make an early decision on this because it is clear that our only intent, despite what has been written, is to pursue how the €95 million in public money was spent.

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

I think that is right. It is becoming clear that the way to gain that information more effectively is actually dealing with the public bodies involved. They are willing to do that under compellability arrangements. If they have relevant information, they will be required to give it. If the ultimate goal is to garner that information, the most effective way of getting it is actually to pursue those public bodies and enter a compellability arrangement with them.

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

Just to clarify, when we seek compellability, we are seeking to enter into the mode of compellability, under which we then request papers, individuals or bodies as we deem necessary in the course of our being in compellability mode.

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

Yes. We will proceed on that basis.

Before we move from the issue, I want to clarify another matter. Page 5 of the correspondence from the solicitor representing Mr. Flannery, and which is addressed to Mr. Ted McEnery, states that from information received by his client in and around 14 April 2014, it further appears that the committee and-or its Chairman, Deputy John McGuinness, either verbally or in writing requested the Revenue Commissioners to review all of his client’s financial dealings of whatsoever kind that he may have had with the Rehab Group. I want to reject that absolutely. I have not spoken to Revenue, nor have I written to Revenue as Chairman of this committee. I have done nothing of the sort. However, I ask that the members agree that the transcripts of the meetings we have held on Rehab be sent to the Revenue Commissioners, the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement and the accountancy body overlooking the standards and so on of the accountants of the country. For the sake of completeness, we should bring the matter to their attention if they want to examine the situation.

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

For completeness? On what grounds would one do that?

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

It has been suggested here that it is already done. It is not done. I make the suggestion because we were dealing in the hearing with issues concerning companies that might not have been registered.

We were dealing with interpretative corporate enforcement with the governance of Rehab, the failure in that governance and the failure of the board. We were dealing here with the accountants concerned and the fact that they may have overlooked their own governance issues. If Mr. Dorr and Mr. Flannery wish to have all of this examined for completeness, I am willing to agree and let it proceed.

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

Is he referring to something quite obscure?

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

I do not know what he is referring to.

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

Nor do I.

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

I want to bring another matter to the attention of the committee. Mr. Dorr wrote to me directly, strictly confidentially, as "John McGuinness, Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee". In that communication, he said that:

In the public forum you belittled an email sent by me to the committee clerk on the evening of 9 April 2013, and you demeaned me. It is very easy to score cheap shots for your own expedience, but at my expense, while skulking behind the shield of parliamentary privilege. Your readiness to abuse this privilege calls into question your suitability to be a member of the Oireachtas Committee, not to mind your suitability to be Chairman of such an exalted one as the Public Accounts Committee. No doubt this strictly confidential letter will not be leaked and will be consigned to your nonsense file.

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

The message has to go out loud and clear from this committee that we have a body of work to do. We are currently looking at the charities sector and, effectively, we need to bring that to a conclusion. I am conscious of the impact throughout the entire charity sector. That is why it is a shame that neither Ms Angela Kerins nor Mr. Frank Flannery saw fit to work with us as a committee. We now have no option but to go to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. It is not personal or about individuals but the central message is very simple - people need to work with us rather than against us. It is about people in the charities sector and especially the service users. People working in the charities sector are doing outstanding work, including collectors. We can never lose sight of that. It is not about individuals but about the central issue. When it goes to the CPP, we should get a relatively swift response so that we can conclude our body work in this area and move on. The charities sector is entitled to that. The key message is that it concerns the entire charities sector and is not about individuals. No individual or individuals can be bigger than one organisation or sector.

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

With respect, I think we are at risk of making this personal. When the Chairman reads out correspondence like that, it only furthers the aims of those who would like to think this is a personal witch-hunt against individuals. That is private correspondence received by the Chairman. He can put it in the nonsense file if he wants to, but we are only helping them to create a perception that it is the Chairman versus them, or the committee versus those two individuals. I do not think it helps that we continue down that path. As I said in my initial remarks, there is no need to elevate this correspondence to a status it does not deserve. There is no need to introduce that private correspondence into the meeting because it has no bearing on what we are doing. All it does is to give the impression that the committee is pursuing something personal, when the Chairman reads it into the record. That is why people then make these claims. We do not want to give them any justification for making such claims.

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

I think this is getting petty. I understand that the Chairman has been specifically mentioned in this letter but if the committee engages in a tit-for-tat every time somebody writes a letter, I am not sure we are going anywhere. We should focus on compellability. If a claim is being made, that is fair enough but for us to start forwarding transcripts to the Revenue Commissioners, we are in danger of becoming petty. I think we should drop it and leave it. The Chairman has refuted this and everybody would accept that. I think we should leave it at that.

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

The letter is so absurd in its personal attacks that it is why I said we should probably just note it and ignore it, in the sense of not answering it in detail point by point. The whole objective of this letter is to make it personal. It is to make us respond in a personal way in order to obscure the real issue. It is quite obvious that the tactics are diversionary. I do not know how many members of the committee are criticised in this letter and I do not particularly care, to be honest. It is a four-page rant against us individually, one by one. We should rise above that and say that we are going for compellability. We do not intend to respond in this arena. We can do it outside or wherever we like, but we do not intend to respond in this arena to personal attacks because it is not a personal committee.

I do not think they are right in saying that we have been personal against them. They happen to be people who we are calling in and who feel very strongly about it. Inevitably, we have to ask them questions and make comments on their behaviour because that is our job. I do not believe, however, that there is any point in saying, point by point, that this or that is wrong. There are so many things in it that are utter nonsense, so I see no point in treating it with anything but contempt.

Deputy Seán Fleming:

Will the Chairman clarify one aspect? As regards the compellability powers we are seeking - I know it is not for any named individuals - are we looking into Rehab or the entire charities sector? About two months ago, I asked for a letter to be issued to each of the 25 other charities that have each received over €5 million in funding from the HSE, to find out details about senior executive pay and related matters. I understand from the last meeting that most, if not almost all, of those have been received. We have not had sight of those 25 letters back yet. It is quite possible that there might be nothing in them but it is also possible that there may be some things in those other organisations of a scale, nature or on the same lines as happened in the CRC or Rehab. I do not know. I would not like us to go for compellability in respect of Rehab. We should also ascertain if, in respect of the 25 letters referred to, there are two or three for which we would like similar powers.

We are not here because of Rehab. We started with the section 38 hospitals and moved on to the section 39 organisations that received substantial funding for contracts for work done. There are hundreds of them in the country, but there are at least 25 big ones from the HSE alone. Our work does not begin and end with just two. We are looking at the full charities sector, as Deputy O'Donnell said. I would like to get to the end of that even if it takes a while. We started with a lot of good work shining a light where it had never been shone before in some of these organisations. We need to complete that task in the interests of the charities, so that public confidence can be restored in them. Our compellability powers must include all the organisations we are potentially examining under the section 39 agreements or the 25 we have mentioned.

I do not think we will go to all 25 organisations but we need to look at that correspondence to see whether we need to talk to any of them.

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

The decision we made relates to general compellability on this issue.

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

On Rehab only.

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

This is where our difficulty is.

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

We might have difficulty next week when we see the correspondence the clerk has held.

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

I do not know. We can deal with that then. I think we should just move on with this particular piece of work because there is no other issue for other organisations. We do not know as yet but for now, this is the only problem we have. We are dealing with it and asking for compellability. The case is prepared and I think we just send it to the CPP as agreed.

I will now return to the general correspondence.

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

I have a question. In respect of what we are doing, does that mean that we can ask any private company that tenders for a contract from the State and gets allocated money to come in and explain how it is spending it? If we wanted to bring in all the LEADER companies who receive full funding from the State, could we ask them about how they spend their money and pay their employees?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

No.

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

In respect of what we are doing with the CRC and Rehab, I appreciate that it is an important issue and that the charity sector needs to be addressed but I am concerned about where we are going and what we are opening up. My understanding is that our job is to oversee the money the State spends. When it has been allocated in a tender, my understanding is that it has gone outside our remit. What happened with the CRC was obviously very necessary and what we are doing with Rehab is very necessary but I am not sure where we are and what the benefit is. We all agree that we need to clean up the charity sector. We are putting in place a charity board and must put in place rules concerning how accounts must be displayed and regulations concerning what people can earn and pensions. None of this has been in place up to now. If we go down this road, can we bring in all the solicitors, auditors and LEADER companies - everybody who receives money from the State? Can we bring them in and ask them how they spend this money, how they pay their staff and what their pension funds are?

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

If there is an issue in respect of the spending of public monies within the remit of the Committee of Public Accounts or coming from the different agencies, as was the case with the €95 million, the answer is yes, we can. A total of €95 million was involved in 2013.

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

I never said that.

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

The questions that were put to the various witnesses that appeared before us have not been fully answered. It is relative to that issue alone that we require the answers. As soon as we get that sorted, we will conclude our report on this particular matter but we cannot conclude it because the board members who were here the last day said that they did not know the answers to a number of questions and it is still unfinished business. If something major arises in respect of some other publicly funded body or agency, we would be interested in it but until something arises, there is no issue to investigate but there is an issue to investigate here.

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

If a private operator tenders for a public contract from a State organisation and gets it, does our power allow us to investigate that company?

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

It does not allow us to investigate the company. It allows us to investigate how the public monies were spent. In this instance, the agencies involved were wide-ranging and the money amounted to €95 million. Going back over previous committees, the National Roads Authority investigated the overspend on various road programmes. It involved looking at how much different contractors were paid, how they were paid and the jobs they did. That was all accounted for here in the Committee of Public Accounts so there are examples of large-scale spend of public monies being accounted for here at the Committee of Public Accounts. That is one example but there are many more. What we are doing here is along the same lines as the examination of accounts for Departments or agencies, which is what we must do.

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

I appreciate that and I understand where we are going with Rehab and the CRC but my question was on a bigger scale. Does our remit allow us to investigate where money has been spent by a Department and the contract has been tendered out to a private individual or company? Can we then bring that individual or company in and ask them how they spent that money?

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

In the context of the Departments' accountability to us, we bring in the accounting officer as we did before. In this instance, the body spending the money was brought before us as well as the Accounting Officers because they had control of the information and it was the only way we could get the information from them.

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

My question is whether we could extend that?

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

If the Deputy wishes, we can ask for a further extension to involve ourselves in other areas.

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

For example, I think there is something happening in one of the Westmeath LEADER companies today where there was-----

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

One of the what?

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

It involved one of the Westmeath LEADER companies where €7 million was not allocated. Would it be within our remit to ask this company to come in?

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

It is a matter for the Department in the first place. We would take it up with it. If something was done incorrectly or was wrong and needed to be accounted for, this is the forum to which it should be accountable.

I turn to correspondence dated 10 April from Ms Noreen O'Sullivan, Garda Commissioner, on the purchase of digital recording equipment to be noted and published. Correspondence dated 14 April from Mr. Ray Mitchell on section 38 agencies to be noted and published. Section 38 agencies have until 1 July 2014 to cease payment of unapproved remuneration. We will review the situation with the HSE at our meeting on 12 June 2014 and obtain a further update on the matter in July. It is likely that the committee will then schedule the appearance of a number of section 38 bodies before the committee.

Correspondence dated 16 April from Mr. Brian Kerr, Rehab Group, on further information requested at our meeting on 10 April 2014 to be noted and published. It states that Rehab has received correspondence from Insight Consultants which states that Mr. Flannery has no involvement with the company and that information on payments made to Insight Consultants are commercially sensitive and will therefore not be published. Correspondence dated 16 April from Mr. Brendan Ryan, CEO of the Courts Services, on the appointment of specialist judges of the Circuit Court to deal with insolvency cases to be noted and published.

The next section is individual correspondence. Correspondence dated 8 April from Mr. Ray Mitchell on the transfer of Waterford HSE South cataract list to private hospitals to be noted and a copy to be sent to Mr. Patrick Condon. Correspondence received on 8 April from Dr. Bríd McGrath on the top-up payments to senior management in private schools to be noted and a copy forwarded to the Department of Education and Skills. Correspondence dated 15 April from Mr. William Treacy on the ongoing issue with Horse Racing Ireland and the Turf Club to be noted.

Correspondence dated 14 April 2014 from Ms Carmel Thornton, Monaghan County Council, on the North-South interconnector project to be noted. Eirgrid is outside the remit of the Committee of Public Accounts and we will forward the matter to the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications.

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

Can the Chairman explain why Eirgrid is outside the remit of the committee when it is a State body and part of the ESB? Why would a body responsible for such major infrastructure spending be outside the remit of the committee?

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

Eirgrid is included in Schedule 2 of the legislation and, as such, does not come within the remit of the committee. It is specifically included in the legislation to exclude it from the remit of the committee.

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

I have seen documents setting out that EirGrid intended to spend €4 billion or €5 billion of taxpayers' money on pylons.

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

To go back to what Deputy Collins was saying, this may be a matter we should recommend comes under the committee's remit.

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

I propose we do that. EirGrid was excluded from the freedom of information legislation and I had to bring forward a Private Members' Bill on that. Just before the Easter break, I had to publish Private Members' legislation to bring EirGrid under the remit of the ombudsman. Now, I hear that EirGrid is not even under the remit of the committee.

All it does is spend public money. I understand it is a policy issue but I have a significant concern. I ask the committee to write to the Minister to ask him to review the legislation to bring EirGrid within the remit of the Committee of Public Accounts.

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

We can do that and perhaps include it as part of our submission on extending the remit of the committee also. The submission is being prepared by our legal advisor on foot of an agreement reached by members. As part of that work, we could include the EirGrid proposal and Deputy Collins's proposal of earlier. Separately, we could write to the Minister in the context of the legislation and ask for the review to which Deputy Fleming has referred, if members agree. It is only right in consideration that we should look at a company or business like that. It is an agency.

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

Commercial State organisations like the ESB or An Post are audited privately.

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

None of those are under our remit. I refer to Bus Éireann and similar companies from the commercial point of view.

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

It is a similar situation.

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

However, we can go after companies and private organisations which tender for contracts and ask them questions.

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

In the case of Bus Éireann, we can bring in the accounting officer and deal with the issues that arise there.

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

On Irish Water and other large organisations funded by taxpayers which have a commercial remit-----

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

The Deputy referred to EirGrid.

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

Yes, but Irish Water will raise similar issues. Irish Water must answer to the Committee of Public Accounts and the environment committee. I do not see why EirGrid should not have to answer to the committee. We should consider asking for the committee to be empowered to look at the commercial semi-State bodies.

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

Does the Deputy mean all of them?

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

Yes, subject to avoiding interference with their commercial activity where they are in competition with the private sector, which is not amenable. One cannot have Aer Lingus in here without having Ryanair in. One cannot interfere with competition with the private sector. However, organisations that receive some or all of their funding from the State should be answerable here.

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

It seems to make no sense that we cannot investigate those bodies but can go after any company that wins a tender and ask it to tell us how it is spending that money and the way in which it funds the rest of its organisation.

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

Can we start with what Deputy Fleming says to the effect that all commercial State organisations should come under our remit? In the light of what he says about Bus Éireann and CIE generally, which is getting approximately €270 million, we should be entitled to look at any State company receiving subsidies of that sort.

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

Could we get a briefing on it?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It is Standing Orders which prohibit the committee addressing State-sponsored bodies. I am not their auditor. The legislation to which Deputy Fleming refers is legislation appointing me as the auditor of State bodies. I am specifically precluded from carrying out audits, examinations or inspections of commercial State-sponsored bodies. Standing Orders dictate the scope of the committee's remit. When the Standing Orders were made they were regarded as being consistent with the legislation providing for the functions of the Comptroller and Auditor General. However, they are two different things.

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

I will ask the clerk of the committee to provide us with a detailed note on the issue and a recommendation as to how we might proceed to achieve what we want to achieve. Once we have that, the committee members can make a decision as to whether to write to Ministers. We will have that for next week.

I turn to correspondence dated 15 April 2014 from Deputy Sean Fleming requesting meetings with Bus Éireann and Chambers Ireland.

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

There are two items there. There has been a lot of funding of Bus Éireann in relation to school transport. The Chairman had some reference to that from the previous minutes. What is the response to the correspondence? I ask that Bus Éireann be brought before the committee to answer questions. Where are we on that?

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

Mr. Nolan contacted me on this and said he would clarify all of the issues. I do not think he would not have any difficulty in coming to a meeting with the committee. We can ask. The Joint Committee on Transport and Communications is probably the committee to which Bus Éireann reports, however, as part of the note for next week we can take Deputy Fleming's correspondence into consideration along with what Deputy Collins has said. When the note is provided, we can decide what we need to do. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next item is correspondence dated 16 April 2014-----

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

The Chairman has skipped my letter on Chambers Ireland.

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

That issue is fine.

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

We had the issue here of procurement and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform's policy. Chambers Ireland has made quite an issue of the impact this is having on small local businesses which are not being successful in many large tenders. We have only heard one side of the debate here. There is clearly a second half to it. Chambers Ireland has asked me - perhaps it has written to all members - seeking an opportunity to discuss the strategic procurement policy of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. Chambers Ireland feels the policy is not helpful to some of its members.

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

We had agreed previously to invite a group that was present in the public gallery.

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

Book sellers.

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

Perhaps we will invite Chambers Ireland to that meeting.

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

It is the same issue.

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

The officials who are dealing directly with procurement issues could also attend. We will hold a special meeting as soon as we can get those people together.

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

Are we in danger of spreading ourselves too thinly as a committee by extending our remit and losing focus on what the committee was established to do in the first place? Its function is to hold the Departments to account on a regular basis and directing the time and schedule we have to that end. I warn against extending artificially our remit to bodies that, frankly, do not come under our jurisdiction and which never have. We should be cautious about that. I understand the Chairman has asked the clerk to put together a note. I, as one member, have serious reservations. The priority for the committee is to deal with Departments and not to get sucked into areas that are secondary when it comes to the committee's jurisdiction.

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

The note the clerk will provide next week will outline all of the issues around that. It may well be that we will make a different recommendation when members have judged what has been said in the note. The concerns Deputy Deasy has can be taken on board in the context of that conversation.

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

If one takes transport, the Chairman has made the point himself about the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications. With all due respect to Deputy Fleming and notwithstanding all the points he has made, the normal course with regard to Bus Éireann would be that when the Department of Transport attends, members ask questions of its officials on the moneys it gives to that company. I do not see any great need to depart from that course.

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

I recognise that there is an issue there. That is why we need to get the background note to ensure that we are informed in any decision we make.

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

Fair enough.

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

From our point of view, it is a recommendation not a decision. I agree with Deputy Deasy that we cannot let our decision interfere with our work programme. It will not be dealt with immediately anyway.

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

Do we have other items of correspondence?

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

Yes.

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

To follow on from what Deputy Deasy says, I have great concern about tendering and the inability of small companies to access that. There has been work done on it. With all due respect to Deputy Fleming, however, is that really our remit?

Is it not within the remit of the committee with responsibility for jobs?

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

I am happy for this committee to refer the request to the Joint Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. I agree that the one thing we do not want is duplication of work by both committees. I will have no problem if the decision is made to refer the issue to that committee, but I was asked to raise it.

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

We have already agreed to bring in that group. We can couple it with Chambers Ireland and hear about the procurement issues concering the saving and expenditure of money. A claim has been made that we are not getting value for money from the industry. Therefore, we need to look at that issue. We have already agreed to do this and will do so as soon as possible.

We have received correspondence, dated 16 April 2014, from Mr. Paul Maloney regarding information requested at a meeting on 23 January. The correspondence is noted.

We have received correspondence, dated 17 April 2014, from the Secretary General of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, regarding the national monument at 14-17 Moore Street. The correspondence is noted and a copy will be forwarded to Mr. Cooney. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald raised this issue and sought a meeting to discuss it. The clerk to the committee will examine how best this can be achieved. We will come back to the issue.

No. 3B.9 concerns correspondence, dated 24 April 2014, from Mr. William Treacy regarding ongoing issues with Horse Racing Ireland and the Turf Club. No. 3B.10 concerns correspondence, dated 30 April 2014, from Dore Solicitors regarding its client Mr. Frank Flannery. The correspondence will be noted and published. We have already dealt with the issue. No. 3B.11 concerns correspondence, dated 30 April 2014, from Eames Solicitors regarding its client Angela Kerins. This correspondence will also be noted and published.

In regard to correspondence relevant to today's meeting, 3C.1 is correspondence, dated 24 April 2014, from the Department of Social Protection regarding its briefing paper. No. 3C.2 concerns correspondence received on 24 April from the Department regarding its anti-fraud strategy 2014-18. No. 3C.3 concerns correspondence received on 29 April from the Department regarding its opening statement.

Reports and statements received since our meeting on 10 April are listed. They include reports from the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, the Commission for Aviation Regulation, Abargrove Limited, Clonmel Greyhound Racing Company and quite a few other greyhound companies. All of these accounts are to be noted.

I will move to our work programme which is on screen. The HSE has been in contact with the clerk to the committee in regard to the forthcoming report of the special administrator of the CRC. The administrator is finalising his work but is awaiting the 2013 audit prior to submission of his report to the director general of the HSE. At this stage, our scheduled meeting on 15 May will come too soon. Therefore, the meeting must be deferred until we have the report and the CRC witnesses have an opportunity to examine it in preparation for a forthcoming meeting. It is now proposed that we bring forward the meeting on matters relating to education and leave Thursday, 22 May free.

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

Does the Chairman have any idea when the CRC witnesses will come before the committee again?

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

They will certainly come before the summer break. It is a question of completing the 2013 audit report prior to its submission and then informing the CRC and so on of what is in contained in the report. Once the CRC and the HSE have been informed and are agreeable, we can hold the meeting. It is only fair that those involved have enough time to scrutinise the 2013 report and be as up to date as possible.

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

Do we have a date for receipt of the report?

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

We do not have an exact date, but it is due in the middle of May or thereafter. We can then decide on a date for the meeting.

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

Does the Chairman intend to give them a few weeks to digest it?

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

The meeting will probably be held in June then, but it should not take place beyond that date because the report is already late.

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

It is late. In fairness, the special administrator has completed the work that had to be undertaken by him. It needs to be finalised, but we are also waiting for the 2013 accounts, which has led to a timeframe issue. There is no question but that the issue is being expedited and will come before us as soon as possible.

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

That is fine, as long as there is no sign of a deliberate delay.

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

There is no deliberate delay. As far as I know, progress is being made and the meeting will go ahead as quickly as possible.

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

I was asked to inquire about the appearance of Ms Niamh Brennan at the committee.

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

She is agreeable to come before the committee, but she is out of the country at this time lecturing. At a guesstimate, it will probably be September before she can come before us. She is due back in the country some time in August and the clerk will be in contact with her then. As soon as a date can be arranged, a meeting will be arranged.

We must agree to the agenda for our meeting on 8 May. We will deal with the 2012 annual report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and Appropriation Accounts, Vote 7 - Office of the Minister for Finance; chapter 1 - Exchequer financial outturn for 2012; chapter 2 - Government debt and finance accounts 2012. Is that agreed? Agreed.