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

If I am in trouble it means somebody is listening, so that is a good thing. We will proceed with the rest of our correspondence. We had many issues to cover with the third level colleges at the last meeting.

The next item is category A correspondence for today's meeting. Nos. 410A and 411A are the briefing documents from the Department of Education and Skills and Caranua. We note and publish them.

Nos. 421A and 425A are the opening statements from the Secretary General at the Department of Education and Skills and from the chief executive officer of Caranua. We note and publish them.

Category B is correspondence from Accounting Officers. No. 405B is correspondence from the president of Dundalk Institute of Technology. We note and publish it.

No. 412B is correspondence from Ms Niamh O'Donoghue, Secretary General at the Department of Social Protection, providing a report to the committee on issues we raised when the Department's representatives were before the committee last October. We note and publish that.

No. 421B is correspondence from Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú, Secretary General at the Department of Education and Skills, providing follow-up to our meeting on 28 March. Items covered include accounting treatment of assets transferred to school authorities, redundancy payments, youth employment initiative, DEIS, contributions from religious institutions, gender balance in higher education, public sector benchmarks and campus companies. We note and publish that. Members can consider that documentation further.

In category C correspondence, Nos. 400C(i) to (iii) is correspondence dated 27 March 2017 received from an individual regarding a response received from the Department of Education and Skills about the use of public money on behalf of an employee or board member of the Mayo, Sligo and Leitrim Education and Training Board. The correspondent highlights the difference between the stated policy and the practice in the case mentioned. For completeness, I propose that we write to the Department for an explanation. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Next is Nos. 401C(i) to (iv), which is correspondence from Deputy Thomas Broughan providing information and analysis on speeding offences and court outcomes between January 2015 and October 2016, prepared by PARC - Promoting Awareness Responsibility & Care on our Roads - Road Safety Group, on the north side of Dublin. The analysis draws attention to the percentage of cases struck out because a summons was not served. Nearly half of all cases are struck out for this reason and only about 25% of cases result in a conviction. The last committee was informed in June 2015 that a criminal justice fixed charge working group was examining this matter and that at the time a number of recommendations from the Garda Inspectorate were to be followed up. It is timely that we write to the Department of Justice and Equality for an update and observations on the analysis provided by PARC Road Safety Group. Is that agreed? Agreed. We will keep Deputy Broughan informed. He has been working on this for some time with the group concerned.

No. 408C is correspondence dated 5 April 2017 from the chief executive of Mayo, Sligo and Leitrim Education and Training Board. We have covered that as it is about the timeliness of the accounts. We will note it.

Nos. 413C(i) and (ii) is correspondence dated 7 April 2017 from the Console liquidator company Friel Stafford regarding the situation for staff employed by Console which is now in liquidation. We also have related correspondence, which is the next item No. 424C, from the Secretary General at the Department of Health. It is on the same topic. The letter from the liquidator contains facts and information about staff who worked for Console or people who were engaged by Console who have not been paid for their work. We asked that the staff be paid. We already had a letter from the HSE saying it was not its problem and that it had no legal obligation. The letter from the liquidator states that there were 70 individuals who were referred to as staff, but 12 of them were direct employees and have been dealt with by the normal unpaid wages and redundancy payments of the Department of Social Protection. Two did not submit applications, ten did submit applications, nine have been paid and one is getting their forms in now. The 12 direct employees, therefore, are being dealt with by the State mechanism for their unpaid wages and entitlements.

The issue concerns the other 58. These individuals were not direct employees of Console but were operating on a contract basis and submitted invoices. They are listed by the liquidator as unsecured creditors. We know that means they will get nothing at the end. They might get a penny in the pound, as it were.

He gives us a detailed breakdown. He met the 58 contractors and the 12 direct employees. The 12 people have been dealt with. He said most of the 58 contractors were offered employment and had taken it up. They are now working with Pieta House. He is also saying all he can do legally is treat them as unsecured creditors. The letter from the Department is on the same topic. We had the letter from the HSE previously. It notes that contracts were offered to 52 people and that 47 took up contracts with Pieta House. It notes that the Department hopes the outcome of the liquidation process will provide recompense. That is wishful thinking. It also notes that the Department considered the matter under the appropriation account. It is sympathetic, but it can do nothing about it.

We cannot let this go. We had representatives of Console before the committee. We had the internal audit report carried out by the HSE before the committee last autumn. The committee showed grave concern about the staff and the service they provided. If we were to walk away from them at this stage, we would be shallow people. That is all I have to say. I do not know who has the legal entitlement to pay them. Everybody says they do not have it. The liquidator refers to unsecured creditors; the HSE states the matter is nothing to do with it, while the Department states it is sympathetic but can do nothing.

I propose that, in the first instance, we go back to the HSE. I am putting some of the responsibility on it because it was aware of issues in Console for a long time. It took an excessive and inordinate amount of time to produce its internal audit report. It went down to check every bunch of flowers delivered and purchased on credit cards, knowing that the organisation carrying out the internal audit was a basket case and that there would be problems down the line. Had it moved earlier to deal with the Console issue, the people in question would not be waiting for the money now. It is going to quote legal matters and there is also the question of whether we should talk to Pieta House. On that basis, the HSE is a contributory factor in the people concerned being left without money at the end of this process because it was negligent in doing its job of looking after the taxpayers' money it had given to Console. I do not know what legal mechanism we can use. Perhaps I am wrong to suggest it, but it has to use its imagination. It gives grants to all sorts of people for all sorts of thing. There is a legitimate case and it has to think outside the box in which it has been thinking.