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

Are the minutes of the meeting on 29 May 2014 agreed to? Agreed.

No. 3 is correspondence received since the meeting on 29 May 2014. No. 3A is correspondence from Accounting Officers and-or Ministers. No. 3A.1 is correspondence, dated 29 May 2014, from the Secretary General of the Department of Finance regarding further information requested at the meeting on 8 May 2014. The correspondence is to be noted and published.

No. 3A.2 is correspondence, dated 30 May 2014, from the Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform regarding further information requested at the meeting on 3 April 2014. The correspondence is to be noted and published.

No. 3A.3 is correspondence, dated 30 May 2014, from the Secretary General of the Department of Finance regarding the progress update report on the liquidation of IBRC. The correspondence is to be noted.

No. 3B is individual correspondence. No. 3B.1 is correspondence, dated 29 May 2014, from Deputy Paul Connaughton regarding the sale of Arramara Teoranta by Údarás na Gaeltachta. The correspondence is to be noted. We will seek a note on the issue from the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and schedule an examination of the accounts of Údarás na Gaeltachta for the autumn.

No. 3B.2 is correspondence received on 12 June 2014 from Mr. Bernard O'Donovan regarding rent allowance paid to tenants that is not passed on to landlords. The correspondence is to be noted and a copy forwarded to the Department of Social Protection for a note on the issues raised.

No. 3B.3 is correspondence, dated 30 May 2014, from Mr. William Treacy about ongoing issues regarding Horse Racing Ireland and the Turf Club. The correspondence is to be noted.

No. 3B.4 is correspondence, dated 4 June 2014, from Mr. Alan Guidon, clerk to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, regarding the cost to the State of the investigation of Ian Bailey in connection with the murder of Sophie Toscan de Plantier. The correspondence is to be noted. The remit of the committee does not allow it to examine the costs associated with individual Garda investigations. That might be the case, but can we ask for a note on the matter?

Clerk to the Committee:

Yes, we can ask for a note.

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

No. 3B.5 is correspondence, dated 11 June 2014, from Ms Noreen Banim, clerk to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, regarding the response to the committee's two applications for compellability in our ongoing examination of expenditure at Rehab and also in connection with the operation of the SIPTU national health and local government levy account. The Rehab issue relates to the examination of section 38 and section 39 organisations. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges is seeking greater detail in respect of both applications before it decides on whether it can grant compellability. We will review both applications and the correspondence received. We will be required to submit a detailed response to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Do members wish to comment?

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

Will the clerk clarify the communications he has had with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in this regard? What is meant by "additional information"? Has it been made clear?

Clerk to the Committee:

I have had no correspondence with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, other than submitting the application. I received the letter from the committee this morning. The problem we have always had in this regard is that we were first out of the traps in seeking compellability. It is very difficult to know, therefore, the level of detail that the committee requires to make a decision. However, as one can see from its letter, the committee wishes us to be far more explicit. I kept the application general. The legislation provides that one can either make a general application or seek compellability in respect of specific individuals. If the Deputy recalls, when the committee was dealing with the section 39 bodies, there was an issue about Government bodies releasing information to us, as well as Rehab and specific individuals. We kept the application general in order to encompass this in order that if a Government body such as the HSE wished to give us information but felt it could not do so unless it was compelled to do so, we would spread the net of compellability over the Government bodies, as well as persons in Rehab.

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

I understand that. Is it that we were not specific enough with regard to the specific information sought from the HSE?

Clerk to the Committee:

I think it means specific information from the HSE, Rehab and other bodies. It also probably wants us to name the individuals concerned. That is the tenor of the letter as I read it this morning. I have only had a brief opportunity to look at it and see what its implications are.

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

I only read the letter briefly. The details it is seeking are clear, but I believe it is implied that we will not have compellability. I think it is implied that we are acting outside our remit. This is particularly clear in point 4 on page 2. I think that is what is behind the letter. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges is asking us if we want to push the issue.

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

I took a cursory look at the letters which we only received this morning. The trend running through them appears to be that it is important when seeking compellability that it be linked back with the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General. It is looking for a pathway. Will the Clerk confirm this? Reading the letters they appear to be looking for us to show a link with the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General. They make specific reference to funding from a specific Department for Rehab that falls to be examined and audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. If the committee proceeds with the matter, it is important that any correspondence with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges be written in the framework of work we have been doing, that is, work based on the foundations provided for us by the Comptroller and Auditor General. That is my interpretation. Does the clerk consider this to be a fair comment?

Clerk to the Committee:

It is a fair comment.

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

I tend to agree with Deputy Eoghan Murphy. The relevant paragraph is No. 4 on page 2 where it states the Committee on Procedure and Privileges wishes to know the proceedings and under which Standing Order we intend to pursue the issue, having regard to the fact that Rehab is not audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. This appears to be camouflage. What is intended is giving us a refusal by another name. The requirement for more detail is simply a challenge to us to provide more stuff and, in due course, it will refuse on either legal or spurious grounds. This is a very strong challenge to the Committee of Public Accounts. In fact, it is probably an attempt to nobble it and see to it that we do not seek or have compellability under any circumstance.

The clerk will correct me, but we first looked for this in February with SIPTU. It is now June but we have got absolutely nowhere and there has been delay after delay.

I think the Committee on Procedure and Privileges got a legal opinion on this matter, but I am not sure, which it has not shared with us. In fact it has not even given us an indication that it got a legal opinion. It appears that it has been legally advised and is coming back now with demands for more detail, which are not necessarily required as far as I can see under Standing Orders or the Act.

I do not know when the CPP will hold its next meeting but it does not hold them very frequently. However, the CPP is politically controlled and I think this is a challenge to the Committee of Public Accounts. It looks like we are going to be refused compellability under any circumstances whatsoever, which is a serious situation for us. We are not looking like we are going to get compellability any time in the near future. It is to be presumed the CPP is being advised by lawyers and we are not having that advice shared with us. We are being deliberately frustrated and I suggest that we, in turn, get legal advice, and I think we have a budget for that, to see what we are entitled to and what are our rights under Standing Orders and legislation to push for compellability. Otherwise we are going to be frustrated by the CPP. We were frustrated when we wanted to get a tape of the whistleblowers and we are now in a situation where our investigations are being frustrated again. We need to get independent legal advice to see whether the CPP or we are on the right track. We should make it quite clear that we do not intend simply to buckle under and say we have a challenge and we are not going to pursue it any further. It is imperative we get the information that we are entitled to compellability and that we do not meet a brick wall every time we look to investigate matters like this.

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

In case my previous comments are misinterpreted, I do not think this is an attempt by the CPP to nobble us. I do not think it is trying to challenge us. It is just an indication of a central fact that we are outside our remit so the problem is to change the remit. So long as we operate under the current remit, operated under the Standing Orders, I do not think we can pursue this matter. We must, therefore, look at the bigger picture rather than continue down this path with Rehab which I think is only going to damage the committee in the future. I have no problem with independent legal advice, as Deputy Ross asked for and think it might be helpful. We had a previous discussion in private on the legal advice available to the Oireachtas and the legal advice that we had before. If a second voice would help in the matter, that would be useful. The bigger problem is changing the remit which is something that would bring benefit, not just in the Rehab case, but also in relation to local authorities where we want to look at the Welsh model of a public accounts committee. We have discussed those things here before in private. That is the central thing that has been told to us in this letter and I do not think that will change.

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

It is most essential that we have compellability in terms of anything that relates to the spending of public moneys. I would support any move to achieve that goal. I wish to be reminded of what Standing Order 163 says in this regard.

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

It is a full page which can be put up on screen.

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

Perhaps we can consult between now and-----

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

We will have it circulated tonight.

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

I thank the Chairman.

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

Does any other Member wish to contribute? I call Deputy McDonald.

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

I respectfully disagree with Deputy Eoghan Murphy in respect of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges because I think there is an attempt to nobble our work. I do not think it is the first attempt by Government, whoever the personality or whatever level, to do so. There has been clear discomfort in the fact that, as a committee, we have managed to call to account, in respect of individual rewards, remuneration packages and so on, individuals who are in receipt of and are spending very large sums of public moneys. That is the politics of it. I am very unhappy with the situation and suggest the following course of action. We have received a request for specific information so we should furnish the CPP with responses to each of those challenges. In the course of doing so I strongly support Deputy Ross's proposition that we seek outside legal advice. To my mind I would like to see it truly independent. If I have taken him up correctly, and I want to make sure that we are on the same page on this matter, I think he meant advice from outside of the Oireachtas services.

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

Yes, absolutely.

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

From the very beginning there has been a very narrow read of our terms of reference. I recall that when we had a discussion with the legal services here it was conceded that it was a narrow and conservative view of what we are ordered to do.

There is a broader public interest issue here because there is a clear line of connection between section 39 bodies and funding authorities that are fully audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. It is a circuitous route, I will grant, but none the less the relationship is there. Therefore, we must do everything we can to assert our authority in this situation and, more important, ensure we can complete what is an ongoing and live set of investigations under way by this committee.

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

I call Deputy Deasy and then Deputy O'Donnell.

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

Having looked at this matter and listened to everybody, I wish to make a suggestion. This is the first application that has been, or first applications that have been, made with regard to compellability. Therefore, it is not that surprising that the CPP would have questions with regard to an application and details. Why not take it up on the points we have made? With regard to the detail that it thinks we have not supplied, we could ask it to reconvene, get the information to it within the specified period and ask it to make a decision.

There is one point of its analysis with which I disagree. It talked about the Committee of Public Accounts having taken evidence from, for example, the Accounting Officer of the HSE. The CPP did not mention the fact that Mr. O'Brien tried to give the information to the committee but, on re-reading the Act, it was found to be the case that we needed to be in compellability mode. It was the HSE which desired to give the information to the committee. However, we should not jump to conclusions. At the very least we should deal with the issues the CPP has raised, ask it to reconvene, give it a specified period and see what kind of a response it gives, if we furnish it with the information.

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

Does Deputy O'Donnell wish to make a short comment?

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

Yes. It is very simple. As an independent committee we must seek independent legal advice and then reply to the CPP. I agree with Deputy Deasy's suggestion that we set a timeframe. We are in a process here. This is nothing different from what we have done with the process to date and we should proceed forthwith.

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

I wish to add to what has been said. The CPP met yesterday at 6 o'clock and 25 minutes later a two page letter was issued, or at least made available to its members, that detailed the request for further information. I want to separate both issues.

The issue in relation to the SIPTU fund, as it is known, is clear cut. The Comptroller and Auditor General gave a report and we have had hearings on it. We cannot conclude those hearings and bring about our report without seeking to determine what is in the Grant Thornton report and interview, as witnesses, the individuals who are central to the administration of that fund. They know all about it but others do not so we cannot get to the truth without hearing from them. To my mind, that is clear cut. There is no question of remit and it is simply on the basis of the work that this committee has been asked to do. Therefore, I have no difficult with that matter.

In terms of section 39 bodies and Rehab as part of the section 39 issue, every single Department we interviewed regarding the funding of Rehab has an Accounting Officer responsible to the Comptroller and Auditor General and, in turn, responsible to us.

Some €95.6 million in one year is being questioned. The Departments concerned could not give us all of the information they have because we were not in compellability mode and they had to withdraw that information. The audited accounts produced by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the reporting to this committee is standard and is within the remit of the committee. It is nonsense to consider that it is not. We are being asked about the first two applications for compellability from the committee. Undoubtedly, there will be questions over the content of the applications. One of the questions in the letters concerns how witnesses will be treated. Before 6 p.m yesterday, we had passed a Standing Order in the House stating how witnesses would be treated. Do these people not read the motions?

My position, and I think it is the position of the committee, is that we seek outside legal advice of a senior counsel to determine the background to our application and to determine the types of responses required to the questions asked and how we should focus the response in terms of the overall legal position on the legislation. That is essential because there is only one in-house legal section in the Oireachtas. We have had their advice and, while it is no reflection on them, that section also gives advice to other committees. This is so serious that we must look beyond that to satisfy ourselves. We may be told that we should not proceed but it is up to us as members of the Committee of Public Accounts, who act with the taxpayers' interests in mind, that we take this step to press for clarification. Clarification can only be brought about by making the response in a professional way by relying on senior legal advice. I take it that is the proposition from the meeting and that is how we will proceed. Are there are dissenting voices? That is agreed.

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

Standing Order 163 is not clear and we should seek to have it widened and clarified so that these obstacles do not arise in the future. We spoke about the standing orders of the Welsh public accounts committee which empower it to pursue where public money is spent. It is a wide-ranging definition. Standing Order 163 is quite clear and we have spoken previously about the need to change it to give us a wider remit. I am talking about pursuing a second track at the same time so that if the Committee on Procedure and Privileges says it is outside our remit, and if our independent legal advice says the same thing, then we will be ready to move for a change to Standing Orders.

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

My apologies, I intended to address that. The Deputy is correct and part of the advice we should seek concerns not just a response to this, but how best to approach changing the Standing Order. That work, in two pieces, needs to be done now.

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

I agree with everything the Chairman said. It is a sensible way forward. My problem is with the operations of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I asked to go to the meeting to observe what was going on but I was told I could not. Why are the Committee on Procedure and Privileges meetings held in such secrecy? Why can we not have access to what is going on and why does the public not have access? I gather it received a legal opinion and the members were made to hand it back. They are not sharing it with us. In this situation, it appears there was a letter issued within 20 minutes but not much consideration was given to the letter because the meeting was over within 20 minutes. We should know what is going on in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges instead of the committee issuing ultimatums. We do not know what is behind it, we do not know who said what and we do not know what manoeuvres are going on. Our meeting is thankfully open to the public and we should not allow the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to surround its itself in secrecy but to be open to the public and to us.

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

That is definitely outside our remit but we will make the Deputy's views known to the committee. I tend to agree with Deputy Ross. We agree on the piece of work to be done and we will ask the clerk to make the appropriate arrangements as soon as possible so we can get the best legal advice independently.

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

The Chairman made the point that he must separate both applications because they are completely different but also that there is no case for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to deny remit to this committee when it comes to the SIPTU and Merrigan application. Is that what the Chairman is saying?

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

That is my view.

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

They should be given an opportunity to respond to that. These are separate applications and it was our opinion, with regard to the comments of the Chairman on the work done by the committee, that this committee was within its jurisdiction and remit in its application. The committee should be asked to respond to that. The other point is more complicated and I can see where the committee is coming from, even if I do not agree. It is reasonable to ask for more information.

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

I do not want to hold it up but we have agreed to move quickly to do so. The committee has raised issues regarding the SIPTU and HSE fund and we need to respond beyond that. If we can move quickly to get legal advice, we can answer that question and then deal with the other question.

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

We should outline the timeline for this. We should ask that this be done and resolved before the recess.

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

That is fine.

The next item, 3C, is correspondence relevant to today’s meeting. Item 3C1 is correspondence, received on 6 June 2014, and is briefing material for this meeting and is to be noted and published, as is item 3C2, received 9 June, and item 3C3 from the Department of Health. The opening statement from the Department of Health is to be noted and published, as is the HSE opening statement.

Item 4.1 is the reports and statements received to date, including item 4.1, concerning NAMA. These accounts are to be noted and our attention is drawn to the going concern note, 2.1, and to the note on the impairment charge, 3.1. We dealt with these last week.

The work programme is now on the screen. The auditor general from Uganda will join us at the meeting next week. We had a report on the misappropriation of funds in 2012 and we will have a private meeting with the auditor general before meeting in public session next week.

There remains a considerable number of bodies or organisations that we have asked to come before us. I spoke to Deputy Robert Dowds about this point because he had an interest in some of them. Have we made any progress in bringing in the different bodies?

Clerk to the Committee:

Some of these are section 38 bodies and it arises in today's meeting in respect of their compliance with public sector pay policy. They have been given until 1 July to comply. When we discussed it in the past, we wanted to focus on those not in compliance. We can still go back to St. Michael's House to schedule a meeting because of the issues that arise.

We were waiting for this in order to get a full picture. That is what had been decided.

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

If possible, could we bring in representatives of NAMA before the break because the review of the Department of Finance of NAMA will be published before the recess? That might be an option if there is a gap in our schedule. On the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, have there been further developments?

Clerk to the Committee:

That is something that will be dealt with in September. We are waiting for Professor Brennan to give us a date. After that, we should be able to conclude our work.

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

Has there been any recent correspondence?

Clerk to the Committee:

I have not been in touch with her recently, but I will get in touch with her this week.

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

The agenda for next week's meeting is chapter 7: management of fixed charge notices; chapter 8: management of outsourced safety cameras; the cash balances of the RSA; and the Vote for the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We are joined by members of the public accounts committee of the Isle of Man. We met them yesterday when we had a discussion about their work and ours. They are in the Visitors Gallery and I welcome them to the meeting. I hope their trip has been successful. Members of the committee who were present yesterday enjoyed the exchange.

I also thank our liaison officer, Ms Mahin Fitzpatrick, who is leaving us this week to move to the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General after her break. She gave the committee and its members great service and I thank her for all of her work. Mr. Ciaran Wright will be our new liaison officer and I look forward to working with him.