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

The first item on the agenda concerns the minutes of 23 March 2017. Are the minutes agreed? Agreed. The next item concerns issues arising from the minutes. I have one matter in which members will be interested. Deputy Cullinane contacted the committee on this matter directly as well. Arising from the minutes of the last meeting and the appearance of Mr. Tony O'Brien, chief executive of the Health Service Executive, who was called in to clarify his earlier statements or correct the record, if necessary, from a previous appearance before the committee when he spoke about the Grace case. During the course of last week's meeting, Mr. O'Brien stated:

As to the full extent of HSE-AGS liaison and engagement on this important matter, certain media reports over the past number of weeks have been incomplete. The genesis of the media reports was information provided in response to a freedom of information, FOI, request. The request was quite specific and sought, "all correspondence between the HSE Social Care Division and the HSE Director General's Office and An Garda Síochána on the subject of the publication of the Conal Devine and Resilience Ireland Reports" from December 2014.

He went on to state:

As set out in the schedule mentioned above, the liaison and engagement with An Garda Síochána between 2011 and 2015 was through the HSE's local office. This correspondence did not come within the scope of the FOI request and therefore would not have been included in the material released. Had the requester included the years 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 and included HSE services at local level the information sought and provided would have allowed a more complete picture of the situation, and could have avoided some incorrect media headlines.

While much of the media coverage dealt with HSE contact with AGS surrounding the publication of the Devine report, for completeness it is important to state that the HSE, while aware of ongoing live investigations surrounding the former foster home, did not seek formal clearance to publish the two reports until February 2015.

This is important as we had that special meeting last week as a result of a "This Week" programme on RTE radio a number of weeks ago, which released details of the information that Mr. O'Brien states is incomplete because the request did not take in the sufficient period for release of all the information. He indicated that because of the limited focus of the FOI request, there was incomplete information and various headlines out there.

RTE has made it clear to me that "This Week" lodged a freedom of information request, reference No. C498-16 to the HSE, that was far more comprehensive. The original request on 2 November 2016 sought all correspondence discussing the publication of the Conal Devine and Resilience Ireland report. This request was refused by the HSE on 8 December 2016 and appealed on 22 December 2016. A further request with no time limits was submitted on 20 January 2017 for "all correspondence between the HSE and An Garda Síochána on the subject of the publication of the Conal Devine and Resilience reports". That was freedom of information request reference No. C053-17. In an e-mail dated 23 January 2017, "This Week" was advised by the HSE freedom of information office that the requests I referred to "would not be considered valid" due to the lack of specificity, despite the relatively limited number of people involved in the key decision making around publication. This is at odds with what Mr. O'Brien told the Committee of Public Accounts when he said if the requests had sought more information, he would have got more information and there would not have been confusion.

It is quite clear to me on the face of this that the requester had sought all the necessary information in the first instance. It was refused before being appealed and refused again. The freedom of information requester put in a subsequent freedom of information request which was considered not valid because it was not specific enough. At the third attempt, the requester limited the freedom of information request and it was ultimately answered. That is the one to which Mr. O'Brien referred last week. He gave the impression that had the requester asked for more information, it would have been provided. That is clearly at odds with what appears to be before us now. Mr. O'Brien created a line of new confusion regarding his evidence here the last day in dealing with that matter. We spoke to him last week and said we would be sending on all the transcripts and information to the commission of investigation as soon as possible or this week. We asked him to have outstanding information to us within the week. I am expecting to receive information from Mr. O'Brien before the day is out. When we see that, we will discuss it first thing tomorrow morning as well. It will be a brief point but essentially I am saying if a reply comes in, I would expect this issue to be addressed in that reply we will get from Mr. Tony O'Brien today. If it is not, and depending on how it is addressed, we will deal with it at commencement of tomorrow's meeting.

I put on the record that there is a briefing note on the commission. We all recall that on 9 March the Dáil and Seanad passed a motion to establish a commission. As Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, I was very clear that anything we would be doing in this committee would not cross over with the commission that the Dáil voted to establish. However, the commission is not up and running. It is very important that people listen to this now as there was an assumption, once we passed the motion in the Dáil, things would get cracking straight away. My understanding is the Government considered the matter on Tuesday last week. The motion essentially allowed the Government to set up the commission. The terms of reference we saw and discussed, which were laid before the House as part of the motion, were only draft terms of reference. The Taoiseach signed the order establishing the commission last Tuesday week and that establishment order provided for the Minister to formally appoint a chairperson of the commission. I am informed the Minister is proposing to nominate or request an individual to take over as chairperson of the commission in the coming days but it has not happened yet. Subsequent to that it is expected the person will accept the position. After that, the terms of reference published in draft will be approved by the Minister. They will only become terms of reference at that point so they have not been signed off as we speak. At that stage the commission will commence its work. The chairperson has not yet been appointed and the terms of reference have not yet been finalised. The chairperson has not yet agreed to take up the offer. We expect all that to happen in the coming days.

If it is necessary for us to invite back Mr. O'Brien, we will not be interfering with the work of the commission because the terms of reference or chairperson have not yet been agreed or appointed. If anybody is concerned that we are crossing the commission of investigation, we are not, as long as we keep the matter specific to the work of the Committee of Public Accounts. If we invite him here, in the interests of us being precise, we should specify precisely what Mr. O'Brien is to answer. It would be given to him in writing so there should be no confusion. We should all agree the issue is to be dealt with before he comes in. I do not want the engagement to go back over issues that do not specifically relate to what we are dealing with. I have outlined the position and I hope to hear from Mr. O'Brien today.

We will discuss the issue tomorrow morning.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has the committee received correspondence from any of the whistleblowers since the previous meeting?

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

Something arrived this morning but we have not had time to examine it.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will members receive copies of it in advance of tomorrow's meeting?

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

Yes, copies will be circulated today. We have not seen it but it is from a whistleblower.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with almost everything the Chairman said. I have no desire to establish a parallel investigation into this matter. We all accept that a commission will be established and should do its work. Our only interest in having Mr. O'Brien before the committee last week was to have him clarify comments he made during his previous appearance. The Chairman gave one example where that was not the case. This has given rise to more confusion because Mr. O'Brien was clear and explicit that he was criticising the media for their coverage of an issue based on a freedom of information request that was essentially delivered to the media as a result of concerns the HSE had. Mr. O'Brien stated the request was too limited but it was only limited because the HSE refused the more extensive original freedom of information request. The Chairman pointed this out and members accept it.

Issues also arise with evidence provided on procurement in respect of the first report. As those issues were not sufficiently dealt with, Mr. O'Brien, if he appears again, should be accompanied by Mr. Healy because I have been made aware of issues on which Mr. Healy potentially gave inaccurate information to the committee. On the previous occasion, there was confusion as to when he whether Mr. Healy was invited. Mr. O'Brien should appear again with Mr. Healy, notwithstanding any decision on whether to establish a commission, although it is probably better that a commission has not yet been established. All I want is that the committee is furnished with accurate information by an individual who holds a very senior position in the Health Service Executive. This is not too much to expect given the gravity of the issues at play. I support the proposal to reconsider the matter tomorrow.

Alan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman for his preamble. I listened carefully to what Mr. Colm Ó Mongáin had to say about the freedom of information requests and while I have not seen them, they were partially-----

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

Mr. Ó Mongáin is the RTE journalist with the "This Week" programme.

Alan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. The freedom of information officer in the Health Service Executive rejected or only partially responded to a freedom of information request. Is it possible for the committee to obtain a determination on this matter? I found that the request was direct and specific, yet the HSE determined that it was too broad. My reading is that it was not too broad, although I appreciate this will always be a matter of opinion and the ultimate decision maker is the freedom of information officer. Is it feasible for the committee to obtain a determination on the decision, perhaps through the Data Protection Commissioner? I am not sure under whose jurisdiction the matter falls.

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

It is in the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner.

Alan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can the committee elicit the Information Commissioner's view on the decision, perhaps in correspondence? I would find such a view interesting and I suspect it would be good guide for members of the public, Members and journalists if they had such information in hand. On foot of the information provided, only a partial picture was presented and issues arose subsequently. I suspect it would have been much easier to provide the information requested in the first instance.

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

It would be instructive to contact the HSE immediately after this discussion concludes to apprise it of our views and the points made by members. We should first read copies of the original freedom of information request and the correspondence setting out the refusal. Let us examine the documents and decide whether we want to take the matter further. Deputy Farrell is correct, however, that we need to have the full picture.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with Deputies Cullinane and Farrell and the Chairman, including on inviting Mr. Healy to appear. It would be useful if we could clarify whether there is one information officer in the Health Service Executive and if the same person or unit dealt with the request for information. If that is the case, there could not be any doubt regarding the possibility that Mr. O'Brien was fully apprised. We must establish the position in this regard and it is important that Mr. O'Brien clears it up with the committee. I fully endorse the Chairman's point that we must see the freedom of information request submitted to the HSE.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree that we should make a decision. Subject to what I see tomorrow, Mr. O'Brien should come back to the committee, as should the other gentleman mentioned and anyone else Mr. O'Brien believes would be able to assist him.

On the freedom of information question, while Deputy Farrell raises an interesting point with which I do not have problem, it takes us off the issue of the Health Service Executive's interpretation of the freedom of information request. It is extremely important that we focus on that issue. What was conveyed in writing and verbally to the committee was a particular narrative that did not match the facts on the ground in respect of the two freedom of information requests that were partially granted further to appeals and so on. It was particularly significant that the information on communications between the Health Service Executive and An Garda Síochána was refused on one occasion.

While I am acutely conscious that an investigation is under way, the committee has a different role in this matter. Mr. O'Brien appeared before us a second time to clarify the position and in his attempt at doing so, he caused confusion, to put it mildly. There is, therefore, a duty on him to clarify three issues. The first of these is the narrative in respect of the freedom of information request. The determination is a separate issue from the narrative Mr. O'Brien provided, which was completely at odds with the narrative of the RTE programme. Second, Mr. O'Brien must clarify procurement issues, which fall directly within the remit of the committee. While I was not present for the meeting at which this matter arose, I understand the discussion was not successfully concluded. Third, there is confusion as to the number of employees involved. Mr. O'Brien appeared before us ostensibly to clarify this matter. In the course of questioning him, however, we discovered he had left out another decision maker who was on the panel. It should be clarified how many employees who were involved in the decision making process-----

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

Okay.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Chairman can say "No" to that but I am making clear what I want.

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

Before this meeting concludes, a communication will be sent to the HSE seeking a response regarding the narrative in respect of the freedom of information request. We will also want to have sight of the original freedom of information request that was made and correspondence setting out the reason for refusing or not granting the request in full. Second, we need an update on the procurement issue. Third, I omitted to state that there was confusion at our previous meeting with regard to several individuals, namely, H3, H6 and H7, and we will ask Mr. O'Brien to clarify the matter. This communication will issue today. While all these matters may not be clarified by tomorrow morning, I expect to receive some information by the time we meet.

The reason I am raising this matter is to protect the integrity of the Committee of Public Accounts. As Chairman, I will not tolerate witnesses giving information to the committee if it subsequently comes to light that what we were told was not a true and fair view of what occurred. We will not walk away in such circumstances. Every Accounting Officer and witness should know that if the committee finds, as a result of information received, that his or her evidence does not stand up, he or she will brought back in person to answer to the committee. We will not have people giving evidence in the belief that the matter will be closed as soon as they leave a meeting. Matters are not closed until we are finished with them. I will insist on upholding the integrity of the committee, which is a matter on which all members will agree. We must be given the full story.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I asked for clarity with regard to the unit in the HSE that makes decisions on freedom of information requests. This is an important issue.

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

Yes, it is important. My experience of submitting freedom of information requests to the Department of Social Protection on various decisions is that there are different freedom of information officers or units in the Department depending on which allowance is involved.

We need to know who in the freedom of information section dealt with these requests and if there is one office with overall responsibility for freedom of information requests. The committee secretariat will send that letter today and we will review the situation tomorrow morning.

The next item on the agenda is correspondence. Category A correspondence is No. 357A - a briefing document from Mr. Diarmuid Collins, chief finance officer, University College Cork, in advance of tomorrow’s meeting, to be noted and published; No. 359A - a briefing document from Ms Anne Campbell, president of Dundalk Institute of Technology in advance of tomorrow’s meeting, to be noted and published; No. 360A - a briefing document dated 24 March from Mr. Neil McDermott of the Higher Education Authority in advance of today’s meeting, to be noted and published and, No. 368A - a briefing document dated 24 March from Ms Callista Bennis of University of Limerick in advance of tomorrow’ s meeting, to be noted and published.

Category B correspondence is correspondence from Accounting Officers and-or Ministers, and follow-ups to previous meetings.No.s 355B (i) and (ii) is correspondence dated 23 March from Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll, Secretary General, Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine. This is a follow-up to his appearance before the committee on 20 February and a subsequent information request. This correspondence will be noted and published but I propose to come back to it again. Mr. O'Driscoll gave us information in regard to the account from the European Union from which grants to farmers are paid. As this is a €1.5 billion account, which most of us will not have seen before, I suggest that members take a few days to review it following which we can seek some points of clarification.

No. 356B is from Mr. John McCarthy, Secretary General at the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government providing follow-up information subsequent to his appearance before the committee on 2 March 2017. This is an extensive document, comprised of 26 pages. This correspondence will be noted and held over for future discussion. Members may raise any issues arising next week. If any particular question has not been fully answered in this document we can come back to it. There is a lot of good, comprehensive information in the document and I encourage members to read it.

No. 358B is a letter dated 24 March from Mr. Stephen Mulvanny, chief financial officer and interim deputy director general at the HSE providing replies to questions raised by Deputy Aylward at our meeting with the HSE on 9 March in relation to possible misappropriation of funds and control breaches, to be noted and published. If Deputy Aylward has any further interest in the matter he can raise it again.

No. 371B (i) to (iii) is a letter dated 27 March from Mr. Joseph Nugent, chief administrative officer, providing a copy of any interim report on financial procedures in the Garda College, Templemore, to be noted and published. We will have to agree to set a date to invite in the Garda Commissioner to answer questions in relation to the very substantial document received by the committee in the last day or two. The report is the full internal audit report. The correspondence includes a document entitled "Progress Report: Interim Audit Report - Financial Procedures in the Garda College" dated 27 March. Also included is the original interim audit report - financial procedures into the Garda College, Templemore February 2017. It was mentioned yesterday in the Dáil by the Minister that this committee would examine this report. In any event, we will. We will be setting a date in that regard.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Following on from an article in theSunday Business Post, I wrote to the Committee of Public Accounts in January seeking a copy of the interim audit report, which according to that article, contains outrageous information. I have been passed from Billy to Jack by the Minister for Justice and Equality on this issue. I believe I was misled in the Dáil on this matter. I was told the interim report had been sent to the justice committee and to this committee and that it had been evaluated but it was not. I heard on radio this morning that there was no loss in terms of public funds. It is very difficult, even after a cursory glance, to conclude that because there was certainly a loss to the OPW. I believe the committee should deal with this matter at the earliest opportunity.

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

We will return to this matter tomorrow in the context of our consideration of our work programme. We will set a date for it as early as possible. We have a couple of meetings planned. If members want to take this item a little earlier than the work programmes allow for then that would involve a separate meeting in addition to our Thursday meetings. I am not suggesting that, rather I am asking members to consider it. It is on our work programme.

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Committee on the Future of Healthcare meets twice a week. One of its meetings is held at the same time as this meeting. That committee is meeting twice a week in an effort to finalise its report by end April. Deputy Alan Kelly and I are members of that committee and so attendance at additional meetings will be difficult for us.

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

I take the Deputy's point. I am not suggesting that we schedule additional meetings. I am asking only if that is the desire of members.

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would ask that the Chairman bear in mind the point I made.

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

I am conscious that there are many committees.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We might have to meet on Sundays.

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

We need an eight day week. We will deal with the report as soon as possible. The secretariat will make arrangements for it.

Category C is correspondence from, or in relation to, private individuals, and any other correspondence.

No. 354C is correspondence from an individual in relation to work related issues as an employee of Revenue and informing the committee that the person will be forwarding a related complaint to the PAC. The person has been provided with details of who to contact. This correspondence will be noted and we expect to receive further correspondence in due course.

No. 361C is correspondence dated 20 March from an individual asking why Ireland is not investigating the pharmaceutical company, Novartis, to be noted. I do not know the answer to that question. We will write to the Minister for Health seeking a response to that letter. The committee is not in a position to answer that question.

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a good idea.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Similar correspondence was received from the same individual last week. It probably is relevant to consider it in the same way as last week's correspondence.

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

We responded last week to the effect that the matter was not one within the brief of the committee. We will seek a response from the Minister for Health, which we will pass on to the individual concerned.

No. 362C is correspondence dated 15 March from Mr. Willie Donnelly, president of Waterford Institute of Technology in relation to positions he held in Feed Henry, a campus company in Waterford Institute of Technology. Can we note this correspondence?

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Chairman might recall that I raised substantial questions at the meeting with the Secretary General from the Department of Education and Skills. It was acknowledged at that meeting that there is an internal review under way in Waterford IT in regard to conflicts of interest which include the president of the institute. The Secretary General was at pains to point out that the president would have no role in the review because he is subject to the review. I have very serious questions to ask on governance, management and oversight of intellectual property. As Waterford Institute of Technology will be before the committee next week, we need to put it on notice that those questions will be asked. If Waterford IT is to appear before the committee on issues relating to policy and governance, should a representative of the HEA and the Department also be present? I believe there are serious questions that need to be asked and answered.

I also think that we need to find out why an internal review is taking place now. We need answers to questions such as what is the genesis of this review? It is interesting that at the same time as questions are being asked there is an internal review under way within the institute. There are other issues I would like to raise, which I will pass on to the secretariat, and we can have a discussion on them tomorrow. To be fair to the witnesses due to appear before us next week, they should be given notice that these issues will require to be addressed.

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

Is the Deputy requesting that someone from the HEA be present at the Waterford meeting, as well as the Waterford people?

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My understanding is that there are two issues of governance. There is a national protocol and then there is the policy of the institute. From my reading of it there seems to be further confusion around potential conflicts of interest regarding the policy of the institute, which I will put to the witnesses on the day. The Department has oversight of the national protocol, and potentially the HEA as well. To make sure I am not in a position where questions are being put and then being diverted to the Department the relevant policy managers should be in the room.

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

Can the Deputy ask those questions to the HEA today?

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I certainly can, yes.

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

If the information required can be attained that is well and good.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Chairman can appreciate the point I am making. I try to put reasonable questions, but it is easy to say that a question should be addressed to someone else who is not in the room. I do not want to be in that position next week.

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

We will be guided by the Deputy on this. If he feels there is a need or it would be helpful to call someone, we will certainly do that.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the past when the institutes were before PAC, the head of the HEA and the Secretary General were also present for all the meetings.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

That is the way that previous meetings were structured. I think it is analogous to when an appropriation account is here that there is a representative from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

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

We are putting the HEA on notice that it should be present at all meetings involving third level institutions-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It should be represented.

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

-----and if there are specific requests for particular people. Is that agreed across the board?

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To be clear, because it is referenced as an individual here, I have alleged no wrongdoing whatsoever here by any individual. My only concern is the protection of the interests of the institute in the first instance, and whether the policy itself is being adhered to and whether it is robust enough. I want to put that on the record.

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

We understand where we are going with that.

The next item is No. 337C, dated 10 March from the National Transport Authority, providing a note on the licensing of bus services operated by Bus Éireann. We note and publish that.

The next item is correspondence from the Office of the Garda Commissioner dated 14 March, providing information on when a Garda Sióchána audit report on the Garda College will be sent to the Comptroller and Auditor General. We have it this morning. We have dealt with that, and it will be on the work programme.

No. 364C, correspondence dated 14 March from the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland outlining the reasons a €927,000 expenditure was not openly tendered for. The correspondence also describes the steps that have been put in place to ensure that the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland is fully compliant in the future. We will note this, and if anyone has any questions to come back on we will take them up again by way of further correspondence.

The next item is No. 365C, a copy of the protected disclosure made to the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Education regarding the Springboard programme in Dundalk Institute of Technology. We will note this, and I am sure that that matter will be raised when it is in. It is in tomorrow. We will hold that and include it as part of our correspondence for tomorrow's meeting as well.

No. 367C, an e-mail from Deputy Catherine Murphy outlining further information that should be requested from the Central Bank, following up on information provided by the bank to the committee as discussed at last week's meeting. Can we note and agree that the clerk would seek to follow up this information? Is that agreed? Agreed.

Correspondence No. 366C(i) and (ii) dated 13 March from the Secretary General of the Department of Health enclosing a report on the review of the project to build the children's hospital on the Mater site. This review was requested at the previous PAC, so we will consider that. We asked the board overseeing the hospital development committee to attend before the committee to discuss the overall costs. Last week it said that the Minister was bringing that topic to the Cabinet, and after the Cabinet has discussed it it will be free to come to us at that stage. There may be a similar request to the health committee, but we will hold that request over until the Cabinet has considered it, and because that report relates to the 'sunk' costs, as I call it, relating to the Mater site it needs to be considered at that meeting as well.

The next item is further correspondence, No. 370C-----

Alan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is our role and function to supervise the expenditure of public funds after they have been spent?

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

The Mater report is a historic report.

Alan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Forgive me, sorry.

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

The Deputy is right, and we have asked the National Hospital Paediatric Board to outline the costs incurred to date and the systems it has in place to ensure that the costing system they have used in the past are valid and will hold. The Deputy is partly right.

Alan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was thinking about it because I know where the conversation is going to go. It will descend into a sectoral committee, and we are not a sectoral committee. It will descend into a debate about locations.

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

I understand that, but what I would say is that we can agree-----

Alan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Chairman knows we will do that.

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

That may happen. Most people will focus on what is actually happening. What other people might like to happen is another day's work. There is quite a campaign out there.

Alan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is coming up in the Dáil today and it will be dealt with tomorrow.

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

We will have to be conscious of that and try not to be deflected on the day.

The next item is correspondence No. 370C from an individual on 22 March regarding broad allegations of an investigation into Teagasc officials. The secretariat is currently reviewing all correspondence concerning this matter. The correspondence had been submitted at a previous PAC. None of us is personally familiar with it, only what we have seen quite recently, so I have asked the secretariat to go back to last year's PAC and see what is on file so that we can then get a summary. When we receive all that we can consider the matter further at that stage.

The next items are correspondence Nos. 372C, 375C and 376C. These are from Deputy Cullinane. The first one is requesting the PAC meet with the Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality regarding the administrative errors surrounding the fixed-charge penalty issue. We will deal with each of these first.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The sectoral issue will deal with the administrative issue here, and that is fair enough. We have a responsibility for value for money and costs. It is being reported that there will be a very significant cost attached to this error, and the Accounting Officer needs to be held to account. There is much focus on the Minister and the Commissioner, but the Accounting Officer of the Department, in my view, should also be requested to come before the committee. I do not know whether the Commissioner will still be there by the time we get to it, but in the past - and I am thinking about the penalty points issue - both the Commissioner and the Department head came before PAC, and rightly so because it involved a cost to the Exchequer. I am saying that for consistency purposes, and because it is the right thing to do, we should have the Garda here as well, whoever is head at the time, and the Department.

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

I will follow that up. We will also write to the Courts Service, because there is a separate Accounting Officer. Fines were issued through gross incompetence, perhaps not by the administrative section. We want to know what fines were issued and paid and what process it has in place to return money to the public.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the Accounting Officer. It is whoever is the Accounting Officer.

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

That applies to the Courts Service as well, because it is the body that collected the money that now has to go back, so we want a report on that money.

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Commissioner is going in front of the justice committee tomorrow.

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

Yes.

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not disagreeing with the request to have the Secretary General in here, but it is premature in terms of the information that it would have about value for money or not.

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

Okay, we will write to them.

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We need to know the facts. They will say that they need to check. They do not know the full information at this stage.

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

The Deputy is correct. We will write to the Courts Service and it can give us a timetable.

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not disagreeing with the principle of it.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If it does not know, it is all the more reason it should be here, because it is an opportunity for us to ask why it does not know and also what it need to be looking at.

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It also needs an opportunity to get all the information in advance of coming in.

Deputies Daly, Ó Caoláin and O'Brien will do a very good job of questioning the Commissioner. Opening up another stream on the issue will not benefit anyone and certainly not us because they will not be able to answer.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If that is the Deputy's position-----

Alan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are not going to be able to answer the questions.

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Certainly not at the moment.

Alan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the point.

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

However, we can ask and it is up to them how they respond.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

People can have whatever view they want individually. I am expressing my view. I am saying that on previous issues of this magnitude, to be fair in terms of consistency, the Garda Commissioner and the Secretary General of the Department came before the committee because there is a cost. If we do not know what the cost is, it is our job to find out. Whether they have the material there is irrelevant. We can put questions around how they can get to a point where they get the costs.

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

For information purposes, the Department of Justice and Equality is in on its Vote on Thursday, 11 May. That is already scheduled and this is smack bang within the Vote. The Department is scheduled to be here for its routine visit and it will deal separately with procurement and management of contracts for direct provision on the day.

The next item is a letter from-----

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is direct provision and all of the other stuff.

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

We have the Department of Justice and Equality. Specifically, there is a chapter in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on direct provision. We always deal with the chapter in the Department when it is here but, obviously, there will be a special focus on the chapter in the report on that day.

The next item is from Deputy Cullinane on an RTE story of a possible loss of €800 million by NAMA on sales conducted in private. The Sunday Business Post suggested that €18 billion may have been lost due to the change in strategy in working out NAMA assets. To speed matters up, NAMA normally signs off its audit reports and we will have been through NAMA here a while at the end of April-May. We will suggest a meeting with NAMA immediately after it signs its audit report which is normally about that time of year.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It is normally April to May.

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

That will be its annual report which will be bang up to date and include everything Deputy Cullinane is looking for.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To be fair, we should not respond to every media report on NAMA.

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not like the way we are being directed by media.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I must say at this point that it is very unusual and in fact a new departure for the committee that when members of the Opposition are making points, Fine Gael members seem to be jumping in a great deal to question our motives. I am putting the Chairman on notice that I am not happy with that. We are all equal members here and entitled to our opinions, as are the members of Fine Gael. However, they seem to be quite political in trying to water down the work of the committee. I am saying that very clearly.

On this issue, two serious charges are being made. One is that €800 million of loans were sold in secret and the other is that there is a report which is being discussed in the public domain at the moment which was written by a number of economists. As such, there is a report out there and all I am saying is that it should be factored into our work. The Comptroller is working on section 22(6) and we will have them back in again. We should have the opportunity to put those questions to them. That is all I am saying.

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

I will have to be excused for half and hour or so. Is it agreed that Deputy Cassells takes the Chair? Agreed. It is probably his first time so I ask members to give him some latitude. There is a brief here and the secretariat will assist.

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Cullinane is being a bit sensitive about the first two points I made. I do not disagree with the principle of what he said on the Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality. All I said was that it was premature because the Department does not have the facts. Secondly, and in this regard I am entitled to make my opinion known to the committee, it is not personal in relation NAMA. While it could very well be a very interesting issue, I am just saying in general terms that this committee should not be led by media reports. That is all. It is not personal to Deputy Cullinane in any form. He is perfectly entitled to bring forward his matters.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was not taking anything personally.

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was directed towards me.

Shane Cassells (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Cullinane has made his point so we will move on.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What I was pointing out, with respect, was a pattern here and that pattern is not just related to those two issues.

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the Deputy is referring to Project Eagle, we are entitled to make our opinions known. It is unnecessary to be------

Shane Cassells (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The point is made. The next item is No. 377C, correspondence attaching to the Comptroller and Auditor General's special report No. 97 on the administration and collection of motor tax.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wonder if the Comptroller and Auditor General could be asked to slow down with reports.

Shane Cassells (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can we note the item and discuss it as part of our work programme which is coming back tomorrow? That is noted. We move on to statements and accounts received since the last meeting. These are reports, statements and accounts of bodies audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General which have been laid since last week and they are coming up on the screens now.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

These are four sets of financial statements which have been submitted. The first is from Bord na Radharcmhastóirí, a body which was in place to register and regulate optometrists and dispensing opticians. These are cessation accounts as the board was incorporated into the Health and Social Care Professionals Council at the end of October 2015. It is a clear audit opinion.

Second is a clear audit opinion in relation to the National Treatment Purchase Fund board except in that case for the non-recognition of pension costs and liabilities of the board staff as required by financial reporting standard No. 102. This is a standard issue for health bodies where they account for pension costs as they arise rather than accruing for them. They are doing that by direction of the Minister.

The third one is the hepatitis C insurance scheme. This scheme is in place to reimburse the HSE for benefits it pays out under an insurance scheme to benefit hepatitis C sufferers and for the costs of the scheme's administrator. The total amount receivable by the HSE in the year was €359,000. I note that there are a couple of other funds related to hepatitis C and HIV contamination and significantly larger sums are paid out under them.

Finally, we have the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. This is an unusual account in the sense that it is a temporary account pending the creation of the Vote. There was an amalgamation of the Equality Authority and the Human Rights Commission in 2014 and this is a two-month account from November and December 2014. That was certified in June 2016 with a clear audit opinion, but for some reason it is only coming through now. I am not sure what the reason for the delay is.

Shane Cassells (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can we note all of those? Noted. Item No. 5 is the work programme, a copy of which is on screens. Can we agree to finalise that tomorrow? Agreed. People were asking about the appearance of Bord na gCon which will be on 4 May and the Department of Justice and Equality will appear on 11 May. Is that noted? Noted.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the attendance of the Department of Justice and Equality relating to the appropriation accounts?

Shane Cassells (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. There is a matter still to be confirmed on 18 May. There being no other business, at this stage we will suspend for a minute while the witnesses take their seats.