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

We are joined this morning by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, a permanent witness to the committee. He is accompanied today by Mahin Fitzpatrick. Apologies have been received from Deputy Shane Cassells.

We will sign off on the minutes of the recent meeting at next week's meeting.

Members have a list of correspondence in front of them. Before I get into the correspondence, I must say, as Chairman of the committee, that I am very disappointed that one item of correspondence we requested two weeks has not been received. We were here two weeks ago with the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Skills dealing specifically with funding for the ETB sector. The first question he was asked that morning in public session was the amount of funding to the ETB sector. We sat here at length in what was an unsatisfactory situation whereby that figure could not be reasonably, accurately and promptly provided to us. We are here a considerable period of time later and we still have not received it in writing. I am saying now in public that we will contact the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Skills and tell him that if we do not have it by Tuesday, he will be here in person next Thursday morning to explain why he has not supplied that information. The simple message I am sending out is that when witnesses appear before the Committee of Public Accounts and are asked questions and when they give commitments to supply information to the committee, it is not the end of the matter when they walk out of the room. That information must be supplied. We will be watchful of all such matters to ensure all these commitments are honoured in full, and I know members will agree with me on this. The Secretary General will be here next Thursday morning at the commencement of the meeting if we have not received the full information requested by next Tuesday. Is that agreed?

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

Agreed.

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

We will now move on to the correspondence received. The first item, 950A, is the briefing document from the Revenue Commissioners' liaison officer for today's meeting. We will note and publish it. Item 956A, correspondence from Niall Cody, chairman of the Revenue Commissioners, is his opening statement. We will note and publish it.

Correspondence category B is correspondence from Accounting Officers and Ministers and follow-ups to Committee of Public Accounts meetings. The first item is 933B, correspondence received from Mr. Robert Watt, Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, dated 16 November 2017, regarding the transfer of assets of dissolved companies to the State. This is held over from last week's meeting, so I suggest we note and publish it. Members are free to study it and use it as they see fit.

The next item is 942B from Mr. David Carson of Deloitte regarding the report carried out by Deloitte entitled Independent Review of the Cost of Care Incurred by a Service Provider. This relates to the Grace case. The committee had requested an earlier draft of the report produced in May 2017. Mr. Carson states that providing such a draft would set a precedent and that a draft report is incomplete and subject to change. He states that he cannot provide draft reports to a party that is seeking to rely on them for any matter contrary to the basis on which they were prepared. He does, however, provide explanatory information on the particular issue we spoke about. We would not want our draft reports circulated until completed so, as Chairman, I understand what he is saying. There is an item of correspondence there. Does anyone wish to comment on it?

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

I think there was further information that was to be forthcoming. I am almost certain it was agreed that Deloitte would also forward exchanges between the author of the report and the HSE, and maybe that would give us a clear indication as to whether or not suggested changes were coming from the HSE. I, therefore, propose that we hold off discussing this until we get all of the information, first of all to establish why that has not come yet. If and when we get that, we will have those exchanges and then the draft report and we will be in a better position then to ask questions about it, so-----

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

We are still waiting for that second portion-----

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

Until we get that, I do not see how we can proceed, so I propose that we hold off on any discussion pending receipt of that information.

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

We will conclude this topic. We can hold off. However, I think everyone is agreed that in the meantime we will forward this to the commission of investigation because it is relevant to its work and it would be improper of the Committee of Public Accounts to sit on information that may be relevant without forwarding it. It does not mean we are not coming back to it, but we will forward it in the meantime.

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

Just in a more thoughtful way, we need to consider this business of draft reports and the inappropriateness of their being circulated, or the refusal to circulate them on the basis that they are drafts and therefore not the completed work. Ordinarily, that makes absolute sense, of course - one wants the finished product and not work in progress - but it is different if a controversy arises or there is a suggestion that something else happened to influence or shape what was in a draft and what was in the finalised document. Deloitte is right to say that providing us with the draft would set a precedent, but it is not necessarily a bad precedent. In fact, in some respects for the work of this committee, it might prove a necessary precedent. It would be the exception, I am sure, and not the rule. We are not in the market for additional paperwork or additional reports, I can assure the committee, if we can possibly avoid it. I am just bringing this to the Chairman's attention because, as a rule of thumb, I do not like the committee getting brushed off in that way. There was a particular reason we made that request. I agree with my colleague, Deputy Cullinane, and with the Chairman on the course of action here on out, but if we are to correspond with Deloitte I would not like the committee to say that by adopting this stance, draft reports are off limits. That could hamper future work by this committee.

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

I take the Deputy's point completely.

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

I wish to make pretty much the same point as Deputy Cullinane's. Mr. Tony O'Brien made a very clear commitment that there would be no problem getting that correspondence between the HSE and Deloitte.

He told us it was no problem. We were strung along with regard to the Deloitte report. We were told we were going to see it and it was imminent. We were told all of that. There is a pattern here. I do not think we can criticise the Department of Education and Skills if exactly the same thing is happening in the HSE. It is not a huge volume of information that we are looking for. We were told it was no problem when Mr. O'Brien was here. If it was no problem, why is it taking so long?

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

We will follow it up.

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

I had indicated I wished to speak. I agree with what is being said about the background. It cannot be dismissed as a draft report that cannot be circulated. It became an issue because of the issues surrounding it. The point was being made by the service provider that funding had been reduced. That was its consistent point to this committee and the previous one. In response to that and in response to pressure from the Committee of Public Accounts, it was agreed that an independent report would be produced. With regard to that independent report, Deputy Murphy has made the point that the word "imminent" took on a new meaning. Imminent does not mean a year or longer. The interchanges between the parties and the person procuring the report are of great interest. That is why we asked for the correspondence but we have not received it. I agree that if we are going to be very critical of one Department it has to be done across the board when the same issues arise. There is a statement somewhere that the final report was agreed by both parties. One of the parties did not see the final report. It is something for that party to follow up on but it would seem it did not see the final report. I do not know if it is usual to see the final report. I agree with Deputy Cullinane that it has to go back and then we will look at it in a more nuanced way.

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

We are unanimous at this stage. In the meantime, we will note and publish it because it is on the record. We will make sure it is sent to the persons concerned with the transcript from the last day. We will send out a copy of that letter. While we are on that topic, we recently spoke to An Garda Síochána regarding the unit it had set up to deal with the Charleton tribunal. As a matter of proper procedure we will send a copy of any correspondence we had on that matter and the transcript of that aspect of the meeting to the Charleton inquiry. Now that I have considered the matter, since we have concluded our report on NAMA and Project Eagle, which is also subject to a commission of investigation, if anything has come through this committee by way of correspondence or discussion that could be relevant to that commission, it is our duty to send it on. It is up to the commission then. Is it agreed that with regard to the investigation into the Grace case, we will send on anything that is said or done here? It is up to them to deal with it then. Similarly with regard to the Charleton tribunal, we will forward anything that was said or any other information we have. We will do the same with regard to the commission of investigation into Project Eagle. We do not want it said we had information we did not pass on. I think we all know where we are on that issue. We will await further correspondence.

The next item concerns correspondence items Nos. 945B and 953B from Mr. Ray Mitchell. It is follow-up correspondence in response to our meeting with the HSE and Chapter 19 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on section 38 and 39 organisations. I want to make a comment on this. I hope people will appreciate the good spirit in which I make it. It is in contrast to the remarks I have just made. The reply we have received from the HSE should be the model for how other Departments reply to us. We asked questions and it deals with them by replying with exact answers to each numbered question. It is very thorough and complete. The HSE has improved its communication with us by replying to each specific issue raised. For the information of the public, we will note and publish the reply. We asked for the breakdown of the section 38 organisations required to publish their annual reports. The HSE gave us a list of the 30 organisations. There is a list of 14 others that are not incorporated bodies and do not have to lodge accounts with the Companies Registration Office, CRO, but which are published as well. With regard to section 38 organisations that have received over €3 million in funding, we wanted to ensure that all of the 2016 accounts were received by the HSE. This letter provides a list of 43 such organisations and only three are outstanding. They are Cheeverstown House company limited by guarantee, Leopardstown Park Hospital Trust and St. John of God Community Services, company limited by guarantee. Three out of 43 is very good progress and the HSE is to be commended on getting such a high number. If only other Departments were so good. Under the section 39 not-for-profit organisations, there is a list of 65 organisations that are required to supply their 2016 financial statements. Only five of the 65 have not yet done so. That is a very high hit rate. We can discuss the content of the HSE correspondence later but I acknowledge the way it is approaching our questions by systematically answering every one and getting those accounts in on a timely basis. If the rest of the public service got their accounts in as quickly as the HSE seems to be doing with the section 38 and 39 organisations, there would be improved public accountability. That is an administrative point rather than the substance of the point.

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

I commend any section 38 or 39 organisation on the timely presentation of accounts but that was not the issue we were discussing. It is good that it has happened but we have had a lengthy discussion about the failings in a number of these organisations, which arose from the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. While this happened on the back of a targeted auditing, we heard from the internal auditor that he had difficulty with a lot of these failings. We could refer to the situation of Console; its internal audit report showed the issues were systemic and had raised questions for the HSE nationally. We then saw a list of more than a dozen organisations over which red flags had been raised. Some of them were new because others in which there were difficulties came into the public domain after we discussed the issue of Console. We know there are issues in the sector. I add a caveat to that by saying I understand many of these organisations are small and such a level of governance and oversight can be quite difficult for them to manage. Some of these organisations get very significant funding from the State and some of the failings were of real concern. We have had an exchange with the director general of the HSE. What is the next course of action?

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

We have sought some information so the next course of action, which we will discuss in our work programme, is to produce a report. Can we come to it in the work programme in a few minutes? That is the next step. We will come to it on the agenda in a few minutes.

The next item is No. 946B from Mr. David Keating of the national patient safety office in the Department of Health providing details as requested by the committee regarding the employment status of the 101 inspectors in the Health Information and Quality Authority, HIQA. We will note and publish it.

The next item is No. 952B dated 27 November 2017 from Mr. Michael Nolan of Transport Infrastructure Ireland providing follow-up information on a number of items requested at our meeting of 12 October. We should note and publish it.

The next item is correspondence No. 954B dated 28 November 2017 from Ms Madeleine Halpin of Tusla providing an update on the implementation of recommendations made in the Geoffrey Shannon report. Ms Halpin also corrects two inaccuracies with regard to details given at the meeting with Tusla last month. We will note and publish that as well.

The next item is category C correspondence dated 30 November 2017 from Deputy McDonald on matters raised in a "Prime Time" programme on hospital consultants. I am sure the Deputy would like to speak on that.

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

I do not want to delay things but I am sure everyone saw the "Prime Time" programme and the serious issues it raised. They are issues which for the most part will need to be dealt with in the Oireachtas through the health committee and on the floor of the Dáil and Seanad. I was struck by the issue of the spending of public money on consultant contracts. There was a suggestion that some consultants were not fulfilling the hours' requirements and yet were being paid from the public purse with public money.

That particular issue, as opposed to broader policy issues, ought to concern this committee. I do not need to rehearse for anyone how unacceptable it is if this is a widespread practice or a practice adopted by a small minority within the consultant community. I am not saying that this is the core reason for the failures of the health system but, given our stewardship, we need to consider and get to the bottom of this issue. It concerns the spending of public moneys and accountability at every level in that regard. We are in the midst of a busy programme of work, but I suggest that we carve out time for this. I emphasise that I am referring to this niche issue, not general issues. We are not equipped and do not have the scope, capacity or terms of reference to deal with the broader issues, but this issue falls squarely within our remit.

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

It does indeed.

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

I concur. The issue of not honouring contracts is important because it has financial consequences. If we are exploring it, though, we could also explore a related matter, namely, that of tax avoidance. We dealt with this. In a report, the Comptroller and Auditor General brought our attention to a practice whereby consultants established companies and paid corporation tax rather than PAYE, and that they were availing of improper allowances. I am not saying that every consultant does this, but it was a practice within the health service. We put questions to Revenue, but we never got the chance to put questions to consultants, a group representing them or the HSE. If we are examining the issue of consultants, there is a considerable amount involved that is relevant to this committee.

Deputy McDonald is right about the governance issues and the financial fallout of consultants being paid to do a job and not doing it, which falls under our remit. If a practice is being employed by some consultants to avoid paying income tax and there is a loss of revenue to the Exchequer, that also falls under the remit of the committee. In light of both issues, this is a serious enough matter to put on our work programme. Perhaps we can discuss it later.

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

We will discuss the work programme in a moment, but the Deputies' points are well noted.

The next correspondence is No. 949C from Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú, Secretary General of the Department of Education and Skills. This is in response to a request for follow-up information on the building of a boat on a school premises in Carraroe, County Galway. The Department states that it could not find any evidence to support the allegation made in an anonymous piece of correspondence received by the committee. Is that noted?

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

I wish to clarify our policy on anonymous correspondence. Do we respond to and act on anonymous correspondence?

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

We do not publish it. If, however, correspondence raises issues-----

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

Do the Chairman and secretariat examine whether it has substance?

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

Yes.

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

There is a procedure or policy in place.

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

Everything is circulated. We often refer to anonymous correspondence. As a committee - and regardless of the source - we just note it or decide that it raises valid points that need to be followed up. We have done both depending on the content. Everything received, anonymous or not, comes to us.

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

I wanted to clarify what we would do.

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

It all comes to us. On occasion, we receive anonymous correspondence, but it is not shielded from members just because it is anonymous.

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

It was more about acting on anonymous letters that I-----

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

It is our decision on a case-by-case basis.

I wish to make a further observation. We have three other items of correspondence - I believe I received some last night or this morning - regarding Kildare and Wicklow Education and Training Board, KWETB, that have not yet been circulated. A number raise important legal and procedural issues and some that I have seen are potentially libellous. I propose that we ask the secretariat to liaise with the legal adviser and prepare a proposal for us for next week. I was not happy to circulate the correspondence. Some of it refers to High Court proceedings. I want to obtain advice. The secretariat will revert to us next week with a proposal on how to handle the various items of correspondence that have been received - some of it from members of the ETB - by me, the committee or members. We will deal with the matter next week.

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

On a wider issue, I am still not satisfied with Dr. Thorn advising members of the ETB not to answer our committee's questions.

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

Reportedly advised. It was just stated here. We were told that.

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

Reportedly advised. He certainly wrote to the committee indirectly given that the Secretary General of the Department wrote to us and made reference to advice that Dr. Thorn was giving us as well. I am concerned about that. I stand over what I said at the previous meeting. Without repeating any of that, we should at least write to Dr. Thorn asking for an explanation. That might give us scope to consider whether we should take this matter further. I was concerned that if this were to become the precedent, it would hamper our ability to do our job. There can be parallel examinations. The role of the Committee of Public Accounts is to examine systems, processes and procedures. We are not in the business of telling the Department what it should do in its examinations. We can offer opinions, but how the Department puts its processes in place is its responsibility. If any member of the committee had advised a member of the ETB not to co-operate with Dr. Thorn pending the witness' appearance before us, that would have been inappropriate. Why, therefore, is it okay for Dr. Thorn to advise members of the ETB not to co-operate with this committee? I still have a difficulty with that and I was not satisfied with the responses we received from the Secretary General. At the very least, we should write to Dr. Thorn asking for an explanation and his rationale. There may be one and I would like to hear it.

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

Regarding the correspondence that the Chairman stated would be circulated in some form, is there engagement with the correspondents in such a situation?

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

I am sorry, I was distracted.

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

Is there engagement with the correspondents? There is information that would not be problematic and would be useful for us to know. I am concerned that some of the information that could validly be put before us and that did not carry a legal impediment could be held back.

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

Everything comes to us. Nothing is held back from the committee by the secretariat. Occasionally, we must seek legal advice. The Deputy sees the extensive list of correspondence that we receive every week. We note it, publish it or agree to write back. That is all done.

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

That is not my point. Clearly, the parliamentary legal adviser-----

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

That is the exception.

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

-----is examining the nature of the correspondence. We do not want material that may be libellous appearing before us. If someone writes a letter and 90% of it is useful to us but there is a question mark over a particular aspect, is there any engagement with the person who wrote the letter to understand that aspect?

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

Do Deputies wish to go into private session for a moment? This will be too difficult otherwise. The secretariat's officials are probably better placed to explain the process. Can we go into private session?

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

Yes.

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

Do they have to speak in private session?

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

They cannot speak about this otherwise.

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

Of course. That is fine.

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

Officials have to speak in private session.

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

Before we do that-----

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

We can revert to this matter.

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

No, private session is fine. I just want to clarify what we have agreed. We are reverting to all of this correspondence-----

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

We are.

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

-----because it relates to many issues.

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

Maybe we will hold it over until next week.

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

That was the decision - we have agreed to revert to it.

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

Yes.

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

That is fine. We can go into private session now to tease it out.

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

We will revert to this matter with the correspondence next week.

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

It might be helpful to go into private session and tease out matters so that we know what we are reverting to. I do not mind.

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

Will we go into private session? It will only be for a minute or two?

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

We are coming back to it next week?

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

That is guaranteed.

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

We are in public session. For the benefit of the public, I note that in our private session we discussed correspondence we received in the past week on the Kildare and Wicklow Education and Training Board. While we wish to address matters relating to the ETB, we are concerned about some legal issues. We will discuss the matter again next week following receipt of advice from the secretariat with the support of the Office of the Parliamentary Legal Adviser. Separate to the correspondence referred to, we have received other correspondence from a private nursing home on issues raised previously at the PAC. That matter will also be discussed in private session next week with the assistance of the secretariat and the Office of the Parliamentary Legal Adviser.

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

I want to raise the issue of the independent review in relation to the University of Limerick. It follows on from the hearings we had earlier this year. Is it on the work programme?

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

We will come to the work programme in a minute. The answer is "I do not know" because it is up to members.

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

Are we finished with correspondence?

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

Yes.

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

I have to follow up on my correspondence on outstanding matters from the Department of Education and Skills which was to provide a list of properties. There were three letters on the properties under the first agreement.

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

The Department has been asked and we are waiting for it. We do not have it, but it is on our list.

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

The second matter relates to goodwill payments.

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

We have that. It is in the comprehensive document which has been circulated. I looked at it before I came down. It is 952B - the TII response to the request for further information during its appearance. There is a full list of every motorway project on a county-by-county basis and the total cost of land acquisition and goodwill payments. The full detail is there.

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

Lovely. I thank the Chairman.

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

There is a lot of volume and it is all there.

We move to item No. 4, statements and accounts received since the last meeting. On the screen, there are three sets of accounts, the first of which relates to the Social Insurance Fund. While there is a clear audit opinion, chapter 16 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's annual report this year deals with the estimated level of irregular payments in respect of certain Social Insurance Fund schemes, which is material. That item is on our agenda for next week with the Department and we will deal with it then.

The next item is the Environmental Protection Agency. Its 2016 accounts were given a clear audited opinion. The other item is the Institute of Technology Tallaght. It received a clear audited opinion except for the non-recognition of pension costs and liabilities. That is the standard issue raised by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General with all of the institutes of technology. We note those. We will deal with the social insurance fund accounts next Thursday.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

The Vote needs to be put up there as well.

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

Is that the Departmental Vote? We do not have the Vote on for next week. We have chapter 16, regularity of social welfare payments-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It relates both to the Vote and to the social insurance fund, so either it makes sense to put both of them on or-----

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

How can we have a chapter in the social insurance fund next week if it deals with the social insurance fund and we are not discussing the social insurance fund?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It deals equally with schemes and irregular payments-----

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

The Department?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

-----in regard to the Vote.

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

I do not want to have a partial debate here. It does not make sense to me that we would have a debate on three chapters which are related to the Department and not yet have the Department Vote before us.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

That is for the committee-----

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

There is a logic-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It is logical to have it on but confine it to the issue that arise maybe in the chapters? Is that-----

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

Yes, that is fine.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It does not preclude the committee from-----

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

Coming back?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Coming back to the Vote.

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

We will ask for the Vote to be included and specifically ask in regard to these chapters in respect of the Vote.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Which are Comptroller and Auditor General issues.

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

We will come back then to the Vote separately as part of our work programme, but I do not want to be told, as part of the Vote, that as it is not part of the chapter we cannot discuss it. The same with the social insurance fund. We cannot discuss those three chapters without discussing the account out of which they are paid. That is simple.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

That is sensible.

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

In regard to the work programme then, we have the Revenue Commissioners today, the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection, as it calls itself, now and then on Thursday we are starting with banking issues and the Department of Finance. What I will ask for next week is that the secretariat brings forward a draft work programme for the first couple of months of 2018. We cannot find ourselves breaking up for Christmas without a schedule in place for 2018 and so for next week's meeting we will have a draft work programme for the first couple of months of 2018. If members have something to feed into it, please do. I remind members that the basic issue we have is to deal with are the chapters in the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report. That will be the core of our work programme and the other items can come up. We will have a detailed discussion on the work programme next week in regard to the first couple of months of 2018 so we can start getting invitations out before Christmas. People will know that they are expected to come in.

That is the end of the work programme. Unless there is any other business we will suspend for a few minutes to allow witnesses to their seats.

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

Before we go to the next item on the agenda, there is one item I omitted to mention before the break. I want the committee's agreement on this. The committee has already decided that we will produce a report to be published in early 2018 in respect of the public hearings we have had since the Dáil resumed in September. We will do the first five or six meetings up to early November. The secretariat is working on a working document. I propose that we discuss that next Thursday in private session and, if the committee members agree, that the secretariat can circulate it to members early in the week so people can have had a look at it before we arrive next Thursday. Can we get agreement on that? That is agreed.