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

The Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, is present as a permanent witness to the committee. He is joined today by Ms Maureen Mulligan, deputy director of audit.

Are the minutes of the meeting of 22 March agreed? Agreed. I have not been notified of any apologies. We will deal with matters arising as we discuss the work programme.

We will now deal with correspondence received. First, we will deal with category A, briefing documents and opening statements in respect of today's meetings. Correspondence No. 1206A was received from Ms Katherine Licken, Secretary General, Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. This is her opening statement. We will note and publish that. Correspondence No. 1117 is the briefing document also from Ms Licken which we received. We will note and publish that.

We now move to correspondence from category B, which is correspondence from Accounting Officers and Ministers and follow-up to PAC meetings and other items for publication. The first is No. 1185B from Mr. Neil McDermott, System Funding, The Higher Education Authority, providing an update in relation to St. Angela's College Sligo Limited and its incorporation with NUI Galway. We will note and publish that.

No. 1186B is from Professor Brian Norton, president, Dublin Institute of Technology, dated 20 March 2018. The item provides details requested by the committee on €3.16 million of non-compliant procurement which came to light when we were looking at DIT's annual accounts. If nobody has any question on that we can note it and move on. We will note that.

No. 1192B is from Mr. Mark Griffin, Secretary General, Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment, dated 22 March 2018. This is follow-up information requested at our meeting on 9 November 2017. A note is included on EU rulings in relation to landfill sites and an update on the number of landfill sites and their remediation status. It has been several months since the information was requested. We will put the information up on the screen. A document was to be attached. Did we get an attachment? Perhaps I missed it. I am informed that we wrote only relatively recently. In the correspondence there is reference to a document being attached. Does Mr. McCarthy know if we got it?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

We did not get it. I do not think it came. I think it is just the letter.

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

In the document I have here the last paragraph on page 3 refers to the status of the EU case. It is stated that full details of the programme of measures that Ireland agreed to deliver to ensure compliance with the judgment, including the costs incurred, to June 2015 by the State are set out in the enclosed document which Ireland and the then Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government was required to publish and update periodically. I do not recall seeing that information. Could we ask for it again?

In the last paragraph of the letter there is reference to 27 historic municipal landfill sites having received funding. We are told the final remediation works have been completed on 11 sites, which means quite a few have not been dealt with. Funding is earmarked this year for additional works for Kerdiffstown in Kildare, Tymoole in Meath, Rathcabbin in Tipperary, Portlaw in Waterford and Brigend-Balbane in Donegal. The work is ongoing during the course of this year and we will seek an update on it in perhaps six months' time, after the summer, to be available in September.

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

I am very familiar with Kerdiffstown.

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

Is that the site at Naas?

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

Yes. Action was taken only when it went on fire and it took weeks to put it out. While it is welcome that there are no unlicensed waste or landfill facilities operating at the moment, in fact, the number of landfill sites is contracting considerably. There will be only two landfill sites available from next year in addition to the incinerator. Waste is also shipped abroad. It seems there is not serious control on this whole area. There is control over unlicensed landfill sites but quite a lot of public money is likely to come into play in terms of landfill sites that might be in private hands where money needs to be recouped, as in the case where the site then went out of business. Is that an area that could require particular attention? It strikes me that it is an area that will incur a sizeable amount of public money into the future.

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

That is why I highlighted this letter.

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

I agree with that. It is an area we should look at with guidance from the Comptroller and Auditor General. I come from a city where the city council ended up in the High Court and the manager was very nearly jailed for contempt of court. We have a history in that regard. I also come from a city that learned to do it right and had a fantastic recycling system. I know it from both ends. We then privatised the service and I have serious concerns over where our rubbish is going, and other concerns in terms of value for money. I would support examining the issue. I would like more information on the remediation of sites, and that we would keep an eye on the situation. Galway has a number of such sites.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

In the 2013 report I reported about remediation and the costs associated with that. In 2014 I reported on the trans-shipment of waste and provided an update on landfill.

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

What is trans-shipment?

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

Could Mr. McCarthy please explain trans-shipment? Is it between the North and South and abroad?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Trans-shipment is more abroad. There is a European system for controlling waste. It is interesting that at that stage the then Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government had arranged for a national office to be set up within Dublin City Council and it was licensing, overseeing and regulating the trans-shipment. It charged fees so it recovered its own costs and therefore there is not an Exchequer funding for it.

There is a limit to the extent I can get involved in that, but it is something we encourage the relevant Departments to look at in terms of the potential costs, the contingent liabilities, that are associated with cleaning up illegal sites or sites that need remediation. One way of accessing it from the committee's point of view is the environment fund, which is a fund under the current Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment. I think the account for 2016 was presented relatively recently so it could be something for the committee to examine. Landfill levies go into the environment fund and the money is then used and passed on for remediation.

That would be an access point for the committee if it was so minded.

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

When the Secretary General was here before Christmas when we had this debate, I made the point about the broader discussion about waste, the culture around it and how we handle it. We spoke about the illegal dumps. My county has one of those remediation sites. It was managed by Meath County Council but it has led to millions being spent on remediation. It is taxpayers' money and public money. In autumn we found an illegal site with 70,000 tonnes, which will take 15 months to remediate at a cost of €6 million. There is a wider issue here. We have heard the warnings about people just putting waste outside for it to be collected and thinking there is no consequence to these unregulated illegal collections. The consequence is €6 million of public money being spent to remediate illegal sites. These debates led to a broadening of public opinion and to us waking up to what is happening in our countryside.

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

I am looking at the last page of the letter again from Mark Griffin, the Secretary General. He states that 27 historical municipal landfill sites have received Exchequer funding, which includes remediation work. He states that 11 sites have been completed, which means 16 have not been completed. We will ask for a list of the 11 that have been completed and the cost to date. There are 16 outstanding. He mentions work being carried out on five during the course of this year. I read it out already. It appears there are 16 sites still not completed but he has mentioned funding for only five of them for this year.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

What is not included there is Haulbowline which is the biggest remediation project. It involves very considerable funds. It is being funded though the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

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

The Department of Defence.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

No, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

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

We will write immediately for specifics on it. If work is ongoing this year, we will put it on our work programme but it probably will be the autumn. Let us see what happens over the next six months but we will come back to it.

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

A lot of these were privately run sites. The efforts made to recoup is an issue we should look at specifically when we look at it.

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

We will ask what has been recouped in the letter about the private sites. Some outfits just dumped it and went bust. We know that too. We will ask them what has been recouped. He should know the position. We will send the letter straight away but we will come back to it in more detail later in the year.

The next item of correspondence is No. 1194B from Neil McDermott of the Higher Education Authority, providing the committee with an update on developments from last year's review of procurement. We can note and publish it. A corporate procurement plan has been now put in place. I will ask people to study and note it.

Correspondence No. 1199B is from Graham Doyle, Secretary General of the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, on the Comptroller and Auditor General's special report No. 97 on the administration of and collection of motor tax. We had a discussion on that at the last meeting. There is detailed information which the Secretary General was asked to supply. We can note and publish it.

The next item is No. 1203B from Robert Watt, the Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform providing a note on hospitality and entertainment to which the committee drew attention with regard to the retirement event for the president of Cork Institute of Technology. While the Department provides a governance code, it does not have specific guidelines on hospitality events. Mr. Watt said he will consider this and on page 2 of his letter, he states, "The committee may wish to note that my Department intends to initiate a review of Department of Finance [25/2000] Official Entertainment Circular". He intends to do that this year. He enclosed a copy of the circular that was issued 18 years ago, in 2000. We need a new circular on hospitality and entertainment where it involves taxpayers' money directly. We will acknowledge it and write back and ask if there is a timetable for the new circular and ask that we be provided with a copy as soon as it is ready.

Marc MacSharry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The letter quotes all sorts of bits and pieces but it does not deal with the elephant in the room. This came about because we identified an event that cost €13,000. I alluded it to it yesterday at the launch of the report. What is the sanction? Will the money be paid back? Will there be action taken against the college? There is no way any existing circular, however much it is in need of being replaced by a new circular, sanctioned €13,000 for a bash with ice sculptures and so on no matter how important the person. He is not really telling us anything. There are three pages here that can be summed up in one sentence, namely, "We do not have adequate measures in place, we plan to have adequate measures in place and we will let you know at some stage." The key point is there is still no sanction. Is someone divvying up this €13,000 in Cork? That is the issue. It is the issue with everything we do in here. When we identify things, it is not our role to determine what a sanction might be, as the Chairman said at the report launch yesterday. What are we doing it for? Is it just to highlight stuff, give copies to the media and then nothing happens? Maybe a circular changes or a policy direction changes but there is no comeback for the public and the people's money. That is what I would write back to him and say. I would ask him what he is doing about recovering the money.

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

Deputy Cullinane indicated.

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

I apologise for being late. I got stuck in traffic.

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

We are dealing with this item of correspondence.

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

There seems to be an over-reliance on the voluntary code of practice. I agree with my colleague that there is no sanction on any of this. At what point do we advocate that there should be sanction? We had a periodic report and we dealt with some of this. It is not our role to sanction. All we can do is hold public bodies to account. I imagine we can in future reports advocate there should be a change in policy. We should because it is getting to a point where time and again we have instances like this. We have correspondence coming back from Accounting Officers. Sometimes there are changes and the Comptroller and Auditor General will alert us to positive changes in accounting practices and how accounts are presented and so on. In terms of wrongdoing, there is no sanction whatsoever and it is a slap on the wrist or a shrug of the shoulders from the Accounting Officer. This letter is exactly that. It is just a shrug of the shoulder to say, "Here we go again" and there are no sanctions. We need to think about that in terms of the next report we do. We cannot accept this any longer. All we are doing is bringing in Accounting Officers and going through the motions. We are doing our job but nothing changes and we come back to the same issues time and again. I agree with my colleague that it is getting very frustrating.

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

It goes without saying that while we cannot impose sanctions, perhaps in our next report we might be in a position to recommend and specify some type of sanction that would be implemented by the relevant Department. We will not implement it but we can make a recommendation that there be some sanctions. We might even specify them at that stage. My instinct is our main challenge would be to the board of directors or governance of any State body. Our sanctions should not involve any cuts to services down the line, whether it is in the HSE, health, social or education sector. Our sanctions should be directed at board level because they are the people who are responsible for running the organisations. Our sanctions should be directed at that level. They are the people responsible for corporate governance, not the staff down the line. That is a thought. We will come back to it on another day. There is scope for us to do something on sanctions where there has been a breach of corporate governance. The responsibility should start with the chairman of the board and board members.

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

It is exactly that. It would be quite useful to specify the sanctions should be within the financial aspect of the particular entity, in this case one of the colleges. In terms of a change of culture, we should remember the HSE example of getting compliance. It would be useful for us to have a number of routine sanctions we would recommend to change the culture.

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

This is a broader issue. With regard to the HSE sanction, all Secretaries General should see what Tony O'Brien did.

He said to every funded organisation that unless accounts were submitted on time, there would be a delay in funding until accounts were submitted. All those organisations came into line. What if the Department of Education and Skills were to do that with everybody under its auspices, instead of automatically giving money for the current year, not having received accounts for the previous two years? What if it told organisations it had no problem giving them their money, once they submitted their accounts? The HSE, which comprises one third of the public sector of Ireland, has achieved it substantially by just that simple statement. It is time the other two thirds of the public sector followed the HSE. Perhaps we will have to get specific on those issues.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

I have a couple of observations on hospitality spending. The level of hospitality spending in organisations is generally a function of the culture. It may not be a lot of money in itself but it tells one a little bit about how governance is managed in an organisation. We examine expenditure on hospitality as part of a set of propriety tests we do every year. That process in itself acts as a control over the level of spending. However, sometimes we find something that looks to us to be excessive and in a situation like that we push for publication. With the revision of the code of practice, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has required organisations to publish where there is any significant level of hospitality.

They have got to declare what the spend has been. Questions then can be asked here by the committee or others who look at the financial statements, because it can clearly be seen what the level of spending is and justification can be sought. While there is not a provision for a direct sanction, the fact that the committee takes it seriously and regularly raises it has an effect of adding to that control that is exercised. Most public sector organisations are very careful about not spending in an extravagant way because this committee and our office are interested in it.

Marc MacSharry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I disagree, respectfully, with that. I think increasingly there is a lot less shivering in one's boots at the fear of the Comptroller and Auditor General giving a note on the audit or of people being called before this committee because of the absence of sanction. I do not necessarily think we need to determine the sanction but there needs to be some fallout. In the private sector, the Garda is called in. If it is the public sector, it is a case of coming in for a superficial meeting of this committee, a theoretical slap on the wrist and on we go to the next year for the next party and ice sculpture. I agree the fear of Deputy Fleming putting an organisation across his knee and saying "do not do that again" is not good enough.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

I think the Deputy underestimates the terror the Committee of Public Accounts strikes across the system. I honestly think people do take it very seriously.

Marc MacSharry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am only judging it at the level of preparation and dismissal of many witnesses. That does not suggest it is taken remotely with the level of seriousness that it should be. That is based on the last two years.

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

I call Deputy Cullinane, and then we will try to move on to the next section.

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

I would not want to appear before the committee anyway and that is for sure.

In respect of the last paragraph of Mr. Watt's letter, I suppose we could be helpful to him because we do like to help out Accounting Officers. He states, "Notwithstanding the above, I will give consideration as to whether it might be appropriate to develop specific guidelines in terms of expenditure on staff hospitality such as retirement events." Perhaps that is something we could examine ourselves if we are making recommendations. He is offering us an olive branch where he is prepared to look at it, so let us help him out and offer up some potential guidelines.

Marc MacSharry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

People should pay for it themselves just like we do in here. If someone retires, everybody divvies up their €20 to buy them a present, have a beer and that is the end of it.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Pure Fianna Fáil.

Marc MacSharry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is what does happen.

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

I think we should send a letter back to Mr. Watt asking him for the date of when that new circular on official entertainment is going to be updated, telling him we think it is appropriate to develop specific guidelines and that he might commence work on that straight away.

The next item of correspondence is No. 1204 from Mr. William Beausang, assistant secretary of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. He provides a copy of a circular in respect of the publication of post-project reviews. This relates to our meeting with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform last week. As I have not had an opportunity to review that circular, perhaps we will just hold that over. Are there any comments?

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

If we are going to hold it over, perhaps the Comptroller and Auditor General could do a note for us for the next meeting. The Secretary General has now given an instruction that the post reviews be published and we should welcome that because that is a positive that came from our hearings and putting a spotlight on it. In respect of the post-project reviews, does Mr. McCarthy know now who carries them out, are they internal to the organisation and what are the framing criteria for the reviews? Are benchmarks set initially and then checked to see if they have been met? Has there been any comparison with the post-project reviews in this State and how they are carried out internationally? It is all very well to have post-project reviews but if they are internal, they may do what we want them to do or they may not; we do not know because we have not seen them before. Perhaps Mr. McCarthy has seen them. It is important for us to have some sort of background note on it before we start reading them all.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

I have not seen them in recent years. Sometimes I think they can be externally done. The expectation, set down in the public spending code, is that it be a look-back at the business case and whether that was realised when the project was developed. There is quite a bit of work in what the Deputy has outlined as a request. It would take a bit of study. I would prefer to report formally on that. Maybe, when the information is available publically, we will have a look at it and can have a discussion around it at that stage. If the committee wants to outline questions it feels would be appropriate, then we can look at addressing them formally in a report.

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

On this particular issue I think the public will take some satisfaction from an achievement by the Committee of Public Accounts. Some people ask what actually happens as a result of our meeting. We had the meeting here last year. As long as any of us have been here, we have never seen a post-project review of a public private partnership project. It has not happened. We had quite a stand-off here last week when we threatened to close down the meeting and went into private session to discuss it. We came back and said that we were not happy. It was said in the meeting that they would be produced.

In response to the Comptroller and Auditor General's recommendation in his report last year, a commitment was given that the post-project reviews would be published and it was being worked on. Six months elapsed and the Department was here last Thursday. We asked when was that going to happen. As a result, a circular, dated 26 March, has been issued by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to all Departments since our meeting last Thursday. We have had an instant success on this. I said I wanted to hold over the circular. It is only a page and a half. There are two paragraphs I want to read, where the Secretary General refers to the Comptroller and Auditor General's report last year. He states "The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform also accepted the recommendation that such post project reviews should be published, and indicated that a requirement to this effect (subject to redaction of any commercially sensitive information) will be included in a revision of the Public Spending Code which is currently underway and in revised PPP guidance to be issued in the near future.

Paragraph No. 5 of this circular, which has been issued to all heads of Departments and Government offices, states:

However, in advance of completion of the updated Public Spending Code and PPP Guidance, I wish to advise all Departments and Offices that this policy on publication of post project reviews for all public investment projects, including PPPs, is now being implemented with immediate effect. Accordingly, any post project reviews undertaken from this date should be published at the earliest possible opportunity, following completion.

That is a complete success for the Committee of Public Accounts here last Thursday. We are achieving something in respect of the publication of these reports that has never happened. As a result of last Thursday's meeting, the circular was issued within a matter of days stating such reports should be published and to get on with it. They are to be published at the earliest opportunity.

We look forward to receiving them. I want to note this is an example of the Committee of Public Accounts achieving something that is across the entire public sector. The Comptroller and Auditor General has been calling for it year in, year out and the meeting last week has brought about this positive result. We will wait to see it happening, but a circular has gone out and that is a positive result. It is an achievement as a result of people appearing before the committee. We welcome the note and look forward to seeing the reports.

Correspondence No. 1205B is from Mr. Michael Nolan, CEO of Transport Infrastructure Ireland, providing follow up to our meeting on 8 March 2018 on motorway maintenance contracts. We note and publish it. People will find it interesting and should work on it as they see fit.

Correspondence category C is from private individuals and any other correspondence. Correspondence No. 1162C was held over from last week. This item is from Mr. Tadhg Daly, CEO of Nursing Homes Ireland, dated 6 March 2018, on the cost of care in HSE nursing homes. We agreed to discuss this as part of the work programme, which we deferred last week. We will discuss the work programme in a few minutes. The correspondence is noted.

Correspondence No. 1176C was held over from last week and is from an individual alleging that a number of Departments are misclassifying employees as self-employed in order for some employers to evade PRSI obligations. This is a large document and at first glance it appears to be related to a matter considered by the committee in some depth before. I propose in the first instance that we write back to the individual to request a summary of which Departments are involved and to specify how the misclassification is being done. It is an extensive document and we will ask for the person's assistance because he or she must have quite a bit of knowledge, so we can narrow the focus and then deal with it.

Correspondence No. 1188C is anonymous correspondence regarding alleged misuse of public moneys in relation to the children's hospital in Crumlin. There is no evidence presented so we will just note the document.

Correspondence No. 1189C is from an individual in relation to the racing industry. He is calling for an investigation into the industry to ensure that it is tax compliant and employees are treated fairly. It is the responsibility of the Revenue Commissioners to ensure all businesses are tax compliant and if employees are treated unfairly they have recourse to the mechanisms of the Workplace Relations Commission. I propose that we note the item and our consideration of the matter is closed. The tax affairs of employees in an individual sector is not something we can specifically get into. Perhaps we will forward the letter to the Revenue Commissioners for their attention and with regard to any action they deem appropriate.

Correspondence No. 1193C is from an individual, dated 22 March 2018, in relation to the wards of court funds. We forwarded correspondence from the Courts Service to the individual. I propose we note the correspondence for now. We dealt with this last week and the correspondent is not happy with the response that was considered here at the meeting last week. We have sent the documentation and I know this matter will come up again.

Correspondence No. 1195C, dated 21 March 2018, is from a specific individual in relation to the non-payment of 2017 farm grants for the GLAS and organic schemes. I propose, with the individual's permission, that we forward the item to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine for its attention and request to be updated on how the case is being addressed. We will forward it directly to the Department and ask it to keep us informed. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Correspondence No. 1196C is an anonymous piece of correspondence in relation to Inland Fisheries Ireland. We have had similar issues raised with us and we received a response from Inland Fisheries Ireland. I propose we note this correspondence.

Correspondence No. 1197C is from Professor Patrick O'Shea, the president of University College Cork, dated 23 March 2018, providing information as requested by the committee on UCC's partnership with Cork Opera House. Deputy Kelly raised this matter and we will hold it over to our next meeting because he is not here today.

Correspondence No. 1198C from Ms Catherine Colman, from the estimates section in the finance division of the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, dated 23 March 2018, enclosing an information note on swimming pools. Deputy Farrell had requested this information at our meeting with the Department. We will note the correspondence.

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

It was around 2000 when the original list of swimming pools was opened up, and each local authority was asked to nominate two locations for swimming pools. This is the first time it has really been opened up since. It is there in theory, but I wonder about the good use of public money. It has to be there in practice, but the amount of grant aid is not sufficient to build a swimming pool. It requires matching funds. Swimming pools do not make money; they are expensive to run and the energy efficiency side of it is very important from this point of view. Many of the pools do not materialise, and it strikes me it is a terrible waste of money to give the impression a scheme is available but we do not actually see new swimming pools emerging in some cases, or it takes years for them to be built because they must find the matching funding. I absolutely support the need, but I question the value of this approach because if the local authority will not put up matching funding then we will not get the swimming pool. There is a constant round of disappointment because there are announcements without follow through. Areas most affected by this are those which do not have facilities to begin with that can be expanded on, such as my area and the areas of the Chairman and Deputy Cassells, which are growing areas. If we are going to look at some of these initiatives, can we look at them from the point of view of whether what is being proposed is viable, or is this something that really should be looked at from another committee's perspective?

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

The Deputy is talking about the viability of future projects and the line Department is the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government. I call Deputy Farrell and we will decide in a moment.

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

I cannot disagree with anything Deputy Catherine Murphy has said. It is an unfortunate reality that the viability of these projects is called into question. I have a legacy community based swimming pool in an affluent suburb, which has required consistent and continuous funding from local government and national Government to keep it going, and now we are proposing to put pools into communities which, quite frankly, really require them because there are no private facilities that offer the same service at a reasonable cost. However, the ongoing maintenance and the energy and environmental side of things have to be taken into consideration. I am all for these projects, but the reality from the perspective of the Committee of Public Accounts is we are spending huge amounts of money on projects and there are no criteria that I can see in terms of a capacity of a community to support it or a capacity of a community to have a sufficient number of residents within a reasonable distance to access the facility. I question the viability of continuing funding for projects such as these based on good value for money and taxpayers' money being put into projects.

Of course, I am all for these projects, but we really need an injection of reality into the conversation as to whether they can be funded. If we look at other community facilities that have been built, there is one, for instance, in Donabate which required €600,000 of taxpayers' money to keep it from going under a few years back, and that was before the crash I might point out. There are some serious questions that have to be asked as to whether the State can afford to run these projects and whether we might be better looking at public private partnership as an option to keep them running. This is not an ideological thing, it just relates to whether or not it is possible to afford these things. It is something I would certainly like to weigh in on, and I accept it would be a matter, in terms of policy direction, for the line committee and the Minister to look at, but we as a body have a responsibility to look at whether it represents good value for money.

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

I suspect there would be no money in it for public private partnerships so I do not expect that is a likely route.

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

It is just a suggestion.

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

There have been instances where there was public funding for a number of pools in the same location. Even though one was built, it was not viable as a consequence of the area not having the population to support two pools. This is essentially the kind of thing that brings these kinds of projects into disrepute. We have a national standard of one for every 110,000 people. We might as well not have a national standard if we do not have the means and do not recognise that we need to provide sufficient money because carrying a debt in a situation that is very finely tuned means that we are into a difficulty from day one. I question the thinking around this. I will take it up elsewhere.

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

Perhaps it could be the other committee in the first instance. Something might come back to us but it is definitely an interesting note. The line Department is probably the more appropriate one at this stage. We will note and publish that.

The next item of correspondence is No. 1200C from Mr. Robert Watt, Secretary General, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, dated 23 March 2018 in response to the committee's request for a note relating to the business case put forward by the Department of the Taoiseach regarding the establishment of the strategic communications unit. We will note and publish this document. Does anybody wish to comment on it?

Marc MacSharry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What sort of plan on the strategic communications unit exists? I know the Taoiseach is in the room next door as we speak.

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

We previously invited the Secretaries General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and the Department of the Taoiseach along with the head of the unit to appear before us. They are Accounting Officers. That has to happen. The Taoiseach will appear before the Select Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach at 10 a.m. to deal with the Estimates. No doubt, our colleagues on that committee will raise the strategic communications unit at that meeting. As a result of the vote in the Dáil last Thursday, where the Dáil passed a motion requesting the Taoiseach to attend at this committee to discuss it, a letter has subsequently gone to the Taoiseach in my name as Chairman arising from the motion of the Dáil asking him to attend. That is where the committee stands. We received this information note today. There is an announcement. I think the unit is to be closed down by July. We will see what happens in the other committee today. As we stand, the invitation has gone to the Taoiseach directly from this committee. To date, we have not received a response. That is where we are. Is that okay? We will see how our colleagues on the other committee get on during the course of the day and look at the outcome of that. It would probably be better if we held off for an hour or two until we see how that progresses.

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

I am sorry for interrupting. I am launching a report, so I must give my apologies for the rest of the meeting.

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

I appreciate that, and best of luck with the report. I heard the Deputy on "Morning Ireland". The strategic communications unit is an item on our agenda and work programme and we will come back to it.

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

We asked for the business case and we got it.

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

We have it.

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

I know. I welcome that. If there was a business case for this unit and it was a solid business case, why is the unit being wound up? I am delighted it is being wound up but if we are looking at value for money and there is a solid business case that initiated-----

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

The answer is that the Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach produced a report. When he appears before us, because he is obliged to do so, we will put that direct question to him.

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

Does he no longer stand over the business case?

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

A business case was prepared. The Deputy will see that. The Secretary General has since reviewed it. That is a direct question we will put to him because he wrote the report.

Marc MacSharry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is about whether it does what it says on the tin.

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

First of all, there is no guarantee it will be wound down or closed so let us not fall for the spin. We will have to wait and see exactly what is announced. However, there are still questions about money that was spent, which is the reason we were asking him to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts. It was not about future spend; it was about past spend so that invitation should still proceed. We will come back to that in terms of the work programme. A good question was asked, namely, whether Mr. Watt believes there was a solid business case. The point we were making was that there may well have been a solid business case for having a process that streamlines communication within the Civil Service. That is fine. However, the contention from some was that this was not what this unit was and it did something else so we should come back to it and not park it because of an announcement by the Taoiseach.

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

We are not parking it. The invitation is there. It has been issued.

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

One of the things that has happened as a consequence of this is that the amount of money that is being spent across a range of different Departments has become much more obvious. There is no doubt that there is a value for money issue in terms of the efficient use of money. Departments will always need to carry out campaigns in areas such as health promotion. The way this unit was used is one matter that is open to criticism but looking at the various Departments and how they spend money using a very silo-based approach is something that merits particular attention because the same companies keep cropping up in various Departments. It may well be that if there was a more collective approach, savings could be made and those savings are likely to exceed the kind of money that was talked about in respect of-----

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

Essentially, the Deputy is talking about a shared services office for procurement of advertising. There are shared services for lots of things in the public service instead of 30 different organisations doing 30 different jobs. Maybe that is where the conversation will lead.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It is maybe worth considering that a draw-down framework has been put in place by the Office of Government Procurement and is available to all Departments so to a certain extent, the procurement benefit is potentially there already. A mini competition would be run for each campaign within the framework which would probably be required anyway to fit the job to the amount that is to be paid. From a value point of view, what I would really be looking for in examining any expenditure like this would be a clear objective to be identified before a campaign starts and a methodology to figure out whether the objective was achieved. This is what we would generally describe as a soft spend. Wishing to increase the uptake of a particular scheme which may be particularly low because people do not know about it would be an example of the kind of objective that should be set.

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

Is the Comptroller and Auditor General saying that no clear objective was set before this unit was set up?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

I am not making any comment about expenditure I have not examined. I am just making the general point that in order to ensure value, one must have a clear objective that must be measurable in some way. Bord Fáilte Ireland has good methodology in place with regard to how it plans and evaluates its campaigns. The committee might wish to look at this model.

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

It is still on our agenda. The correspondence has been issued and it is an item to which we will return. We will note and publish that documentation.

The next item is correspondence No. 1201C from Dr. Barry O'Connor, president of Cork Institute of Technology, dated 23 March 2018, relating to the mergers of technological universities. Dr. O'Connor provides a breakdown of consultancy and legal fees and copies of minutes from board meetings where key decisions were made relating to the merger with Institute of Technology Tralee. An explanation for the higher costs and effects on student services is provided. Can we note and publish this documentation? I think people were surprised at the scale of expenditure relating to the proposed technological university in Munster as a result of the merger of Cork Institute of Technology and Institute of Technology Tralee.

The cost incurred to date is €571,000 on professional fees, while the cost incurred by the Dublin Institute of Technology, IT Tallaght and IT Blanchardstown is €344,000 and the cost incurred in the south east by Waterford IT and IT Carlow is €49,000.

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

I have one point because I was somewhat critical, or at least I was asking questions around why some of the merger models were incurring more of a cost. When I examined this a bit closer, some of the institutes that are merging are at a more advanced stage, so there is a process. Some of them are behind. I know that in the case of Waterford and Carlow, they are way behind the Munster one, for example. I imagine that might have been one of the issues, to be fair to the institutes involved, because I was one of those asking questions, but when I examined it, I found some of them are much more advanced. They have been involved in the process for an awful lot longer.

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

There are various stages of the process. The committee will publish this item and correspondence No. 1202C from Dr. Oliver Murphy, president of the Institute of Technology, Tralee, in relation to the merger with Cork Institute of Technology. It is the same issue, so I propose that we note and publish these items of correspondence. That concludes that particular item.

The next item is statements and accounts received from the last meeting. We held over two items from the last meeting. The first one was the Legal Aid Board. There were some technical difficulties between what the Comptroller and Auditor General has signed off on, and what was laid before the Oireachtas. Mr. McCarthy might update the committee on the situation.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Yes. We have heard from the Legal Aid Board that it proposes to rectify the error, and I think it was an error, and to resubmit the financial statements in due course. At the moment, it is in its annual report, so there is a process to be gone through of correcting it, retranslating it and getting it back to the Oireachtas, but it should be here on the next occasion the committee sits.

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

The other item we held over from the last day was the University College Cork, UCC, 2016 accounts. There was a qualified audit opinion regarding the pension issue. It did not involve qualification. Highlighted for people's attention were the non-consolidation of the foundation, the non-compliance with national procurement guidelines and the deferred pension funding. Does Mr. McCarthy want to make a quick comment?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

No. I commented last week on the matter. Some Deputies felt that we were under time pressure. If anybody has any-----

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

Is the issue of the non-compliance with national procurement guidelines to the tune of €4.4 million included in UCC's statement of internal financial control?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

There is some information in relation to it. If the committee wants detail on that, it will probably need to write to UCC.

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

We will agree to write to UCC, specifically on non-compliance with national procurement guidelines as mentioned, and for a detailed breakdown.

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

I refer to that issue because there was correspondence earlier on procurement guidelines in regard to DIT. I am sorry I missed the correspondence, which we have probably published, that came from the Higher Education Authority, HEA, on the review it carried out in 2017. It sits with this because it comes up an awful lot, not just in the education sector, but in the health sector and other sectors as well where there is non-compliance. It talks about corporate procurement plans and the national public procurement policy framework introduced in 2005. Then there is a voluntary code of practice. It goes back to what we said last week. All this seems to be on a voluntary basis, not on a statutory basis. There are guidelines, but that is all they are. When there is non-compliance, apart from a note in the Comptroller and Auditor General's summary of the accounts, there is no sanction in place. Can we come back to this as part of the next periodic review?

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

Absolutely.

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

It strikes me that it is quite weak in terms of enforcement. That is the key issue in many of these issues; it is just a lack of enforcement. There is potential for improvements on the enforcement side.

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

I refer to the non-consolidation of the foundation accounts. I understand that this came to the attention of the committee inadvertently through the Comptroller and Auditor General's reports, where we discovered that various universities, not all of them, had foundations. Mr. McCarthy pointed out that they were not consolidated. The universities' explanation was that they do not control them, so there is no reason to consolidate them. Was that accepted by the Higher Education Authority?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

No, I do not think it was. I think the Higher Education Authority backed the recommendation that there be consolidation. Under accounting rules, the universities are not obliged to consolidate, because the way they have structured the foundations fails the test that would require them, and make it absolutely necessary for them to consolidate. There was a gap there. The committee suggested that if a university has a foundation, it should attach the financial statements of the foundation, so that at least those people who look at the financial statements, would then at least be able to see the set of financial statements.

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

Did that happen in relation to UCC?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

No. It did not do it for that year. I looked at the foundation statements. The foundation's office is in the campus, and the president of UCC is one of the directors of the foundation. I am drawing attention to the fact that it did not submit the foundation's financial statements, with the annual financial statements, as the committee had requested.

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

I thank Mr. McCarthy very much for that clarification. It is important because one gets confused. According to the accounting rules, it is not necessary.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It is not obligatory.

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

It is not obligatory. The committee and the HEA feel it is necessary, and that is where it rests. Notwithstanding that, this university has not even given the accounts parallel with its own accounts. The issue of foundations and who controls what is huge. When NUI Galway, NUIG, appeared before us, it very proudly told the committee it had no control over it, so therefore there was no need to do this. Again, that office is on the campus site. It does not pay rent or anything. In fact, the question of why it would pay rent was laughed at.

There is a huge blurring of boundaries here that is not under scrutiny. That is of extreme concern to me. If the university does not control the foundation, it begs questions as to whether the foundation controls the university, the direction in which it is going or the nature of the buildings. Notwithstanding that very good things could come out of a foundation, it has to be done in an open and accountable way. In my view, that has not been done. If the president of a university says the university has no control over it and yet the president and the bursar of that university sits on its board, then there are serious issues. If there is a separate board in America, for example, with the president on that board as well, there are questions that have to be asked if we are to hold a system to account and achieve value for money, in particular when it came across repeatedly that more and more money was coming from the foundations, so the universities were not happy to have them scrutinised. The universities maintained that the foundations were entirely separate. They did not recognise that the universities are what they are because of public money. For the record, it is something I will be keeping a close eye on.

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

Does the Deputy want the committee to include that issue in the letter to UCC and for it to give us its rationale? We understand it is not legally obliged to do it, but in the interests of public accountability-----

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

The committee should ask it for its accounts in relation to it. NUIG, which has a lot more money in the foundation, gave the committee the accounts, so I do not know why UCC is not giving them, or indeed any other college that has a foundation.

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

Not only did it not consolidate them into the figures, it did not even put the information in by way of a note.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

That is correct. That is why I am drawing attention to it.

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

Even if it does not legally consolidate it-----

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

That is what we are asking for.

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

We will write back to say that we understand that they were not consolidated but we will ask why the information from the foundation was not included by way of an information note with the financial statements.

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

There is a mindset issue here on-----

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

We will ask it to do it for the current year and we will request a copy of the foundation's accounts.

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

It is obviously a mindset issue. We had that before-----

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

We will crack it yet. You watch.

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

Hopefully.

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

The next item is Galway and Roscommon Education and Training Board, ETB.

Again, we will write to Galway and Roscommon ETB for a detailed explanation on the non-compliance with national procurement rules for €894,000. The next item is the National Haemophilia Council and a clear audit opinion. Finally, we have a special account established under section 4 of the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal (Amendment) Act 2006 insurance scheme and a clear audit opinion.

Those three accounts were certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General in mid-December and were laid before the Oireachtas three months later. We complain about them not getting to the Comptroller and Auditor General on time. Will he explain to us why there are three months between him certifying them and the accounts being laid before the Oireachtas? It is bad for public accountability and traceability that there is a three-month lacuna. What is the process?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

The process in general is that usually we send the financial statements to the body itself and the body then has to submit them to the Minister with the certificate.

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

We need to write immediately to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform asking for a more streamlined and speedy approach to be looked at and that the certified accounts of all public bodies are published promptly instead of being subject to a three-month delay. I know they probably have to be cleared by the Department and the Minister and possibly noted by the Government. However, it is not good for those organisations that their accounts are not published when they have been certified months ago.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

A circular from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform was issued in 2015 when this matter had arisen and the committee had commented on it. It reiterated the necessity to submit matters quickly. A limit is set to either submit or explain why not. It allows up to three months. For smaller organisations, it would be unusual that the Government would need to note it. In that situation, there is an exemption for a little additional time. As there is an allowance of up to three months, in many cases they take it.

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

We will write for an information note on the circular and we will come back to it. We will probably have to reiterate or reconsider the three-month timescale. We will get information from the Department in the meantime.

On accounts and statements, I wish to update the committee on our efforts to ensure the timely presentation of accounts by public bodies. As decided by the committee, the secretariat wrote to 206 bodies in December 2017 and January 2018 to remind them of their responsibilities. So far, 75% of them have acknowledged or responded to the letter. Members will see the list on the screen. Those in green are the ones which responded.

Some of the bodies explained they had difficulties in getting board approval and in staffing. We will review the list at the end of April with the Comptroller and Auditor General. At the beginning of May, we will see those who have not submitted. We understand there is a month's process to do the audit. However, if they do not meet their obligation of submitting them on time, then that is a function of their corporate governance with which they should comply. We will get an update on how they get along.

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

Are any of them more than one year behind?

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

No. There has been a significant improvement.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

There has been an improvement since we did the first report on the timeliness of accounting presentation of reports to the Oireachtas. At that stage about one third were being submitted within three months of the end of the period of account. We are preparing another report relating to 2016 which indicates that about 50% of them are received by us within three months of the end of period of account. That is a significant improvement already.

With the focus the committee has put on it in the past year when it examined those special reports, we will see a step-up again. I am working on a report on the presentation of accounts for 2016. I hope to have that completed in May.

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

What we will be looking for in the first week of May-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It will relate to 2017.

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

It will just be a list of those who have not submitted. It has nothing to do with certifying or laying the accounts. It is just those organisations which have not submitted their accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General's office. In the first week of May, we will take immediate action. We cannot be writing to State bodies in December telling them to submit their accounts and when they choose not to do so, we ignore it.

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

Will the Chairman clarify what he wrote? I missed it.

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

In December, the committee agreed, as a result of all the work getting them up to date, to write to the chairman and chief executive of every public body on their statutory obligations on the timely presentations of their accounts. We welcomed the progress made by many organisations in reducing delays, but we are still concerned that some organisations had not yet done so. We thanked those which met their obligations in previous years. We asked them all to ensure they would have their accounts ready in a timely manner for the end of 2017.

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

That was in December and 75% replied.

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

They just acknowledged receipt of the letter.

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

However, 25% did not acknowledge it.

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

Up to 75% of the 260 organisations sent back an acknowledgement. We asked for the contact details of the people to contact and 25% of them did not acknowledge the letter. That does not mean that the 75% in question will meet their timelines. We will be coming back to that in a month's time.

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

It is shocking that 25% did not acknowledge the letter.

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

Yes, it is shocking that they did not acknowledge a letter from the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts.

I do not propose we follow that up in the next week or two in terms of using staff time. However, we will follow up in the first week of May. Then, apart from writing a letter to any outstanding ones immediately, we will probably decide to invite the chairmen and chief executives of some of the larger organisations for an immediate appearance before the committee. We will probably schedule a day for that exercise. That will be a good public exercise and all will get the message after the meeting.

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

What power has the committee if one of them refuses to comply?

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

Let the chairman and the chief executive of a body state that here on national television. They will make every effort to make sure they will comply in future. We are not here to issue sanction, but we can achieve results without issuing sanctions. We will come back to that in a month's time.

That list is up there. Those are not the people who submitted their accounts. That is the list of people who have acknowledged the letter we sent to them. I am just bringing people up-to-date on that.

We had a discussion on the work programme on the last day. Some members want other items included on the work programme. In an effort to make things a bit simpler, I propose we condense some of meetings where we had two days set aside into one day. For example, we have the Department of Finance listed on 19 April to deal with its accounts. We have the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform listed on 10 May to deal with its accounts. We have the NTMA, National Treasury Management Agency, listed on 21 June to deal with its accounts and financial statements. On 28 June, we have listed the Tax Appeals Office and the Revenue Commissioners. On 12 July, we have listed the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform on financial reporting and fiscal transparency. These are five meetings. I propose we condense them into two.

The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform officials were to meet the committee twice, so we will have to deal with that in a morning and afternoon. That frees up one meeting. With regard to the Department of Finance, the Tax Appeals Commission and the NTMA, it might be possible to have three slots on a given day. I propose that we do our best to try to have one meeting for that block, although it might require a second meeting. Certainly, we will save at least two days in that regard which we can use for other purposes. That is a suggestion and we can try to work on it. Is that agreed? We do not want to spend five full Thursdays purely discussing the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and the Department of Finance. We need to do our work but we need to concentrate it in a shorter timeframe.

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

I agree with that proposition. I also wish to make suggestion for the days it might free up. We have a provisional date scheduled for RTE's appearance. Is that to be confirmed?

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

We have no response from RTE yet. The invitation has been sent suggesting that date but we have not received a response yet, so it is not confirmed. We will follow up on it.

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

We should follow it up with RTE because that was part of our report yesterday as well. I also propose that we have a meeting with the Higher Education Authority, HEA. There are many issues that need to be pursued. For example, we still have to follow up on the education and training boards, ETBs, public procurement-----

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

The ETBs are not under the HEA. They are under the Department of Education and Skills.

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

Okay. Then it would be the Department of Education and Skills and the HEA, if necessary. That can be done on one day. There are the ETBs, the public procurement issue in the higher level institutes and foundations, which we discussed earlier. We still have the HEA's report on intellectual property. It did a global report so that needs to be examined with the authority. Can the Comptroller and Auditor General say what the position is with his special report on Waterford Institute of Technology and specifically FeedHenry?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

I intend to issue a report. I reviewed it this week and when certain amendments have been made to it I expect it will issue next week to Waterford IT to begin the process of clearance. That may take some time because of the nature of the issues.

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

Okay.

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

When it is cleared it goes to the Minister to be published. It might not be before the summer.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It is probably best not to bank on it being before the summer.

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

It is in the system.

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

We have the global report that was done by the HEA. On a separate issue, we have scheduled a session on 14 June for the Comptroller and Auditor General's special report on the University of Limerick. That is obviously separate from the Thorn report. Are we going to deal with both of those on the same day?

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

We need to combine all our education work. We will probably need two days on education.

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

I am suggesting that if we are going to have a session on the Comptroller and Auditor General's report-----

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

Give us all of your suggestions and we will come back with a revised schedule.

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

My suggestion is that we deal with both the Thorn report and the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the same day.

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

We will not have the Comptroller and Auditor General's report by then.

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

I am talking about the report on the University of Limerick.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

A draft of the report on the University of Limerick is being cleared at present. It is possible that it would be available for June. It will go to the Minister for Education and Skills when I finish it and the Minister then has up to three months to present it. I cannot remove his prerogative regarding when it would be submitted.

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

Perhaps you will let us know when you send it so the committee can ask the Minister to approve it.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

You will be aware.

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

We will alert him about our meeting and ask him to facilitate the publication prior to that meeting.

Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The regulator of the national lottery comes under the remit of this committee, as does the national lottery fund account. Are they the only aspects under this committee's remit?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

The spending of moneys that come from the national lottery is within individual appropriation accounts. It depends on whether it is the spending of it or the raising of it-----

Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have been trying to get to the bottom of an issue in the last few weeks. It is possibly months at this stage. It relates to the selling of the licence to Premier Lotteries Ireland, PLI, and the number of secrecy clauses that were included. For example, we cannot get a figure for the amount of unclaimed prizes. Previously, those prizes went back into the draws. Under the new licence they are supposed to be used for the promotion of the national lottery and special draws, but there is no oversight of that. That is the role of regulator. The regulator has written to PLI asking for the figure and was told by PLI that it does not have to give the figure. I raised it last week with the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, and he is refusing to state what the figure is or what oversight there is in terms of the role of regulator in ensuring that unclaimed prize money is being used as it is supposed to be used under the licence. Is there a role for this committee? I would like to invite the regulator to appear before the committee so I can ask who signed off on these secrecy clauses and whether we are getting value for money.

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

I will try to help you on that, Deputy. In the last Dáil I was involved with the public expenditure committee. That licence was issued directly by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. The regulator was not in situ. The legislation for the regulator being put in place is to monitor the agreement that had been signed before the regulator came into being. Effectively, the regulator's job is to sign the next licence 20 years hence. That is the regulator's first big task. In the meantime, this licence agreement was signed off by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and specific legislation was passed by the Houses. We will ask the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform for a detailed note on the legislation to start with, as I am sure this issue was discussed during its passage, and how that transferred into the licence that the Department issued to PLI.

Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have raised it with the Minister-----

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

The committee will help you follow it up.

Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----on Oral Questions and the reply is that there is a clause in the contract which states that this information does not have to be provided.

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

We will follow up on the questions you asked and we will link it back to the original legislation. I am sure that was debated on Committee Stage of the legislation. I would be shocked if it was not. Let us see what the Minister said on the record when the legislation was being passed. It might not have transferred into the licence agreement, but let us tease it out in every way we can.

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

Can we specifically talk to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform about the unclaimed prizes? I asked some questions on this as well. There is a sizeable amount of money-----

Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is €7 million.

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

-----in unclaimed prizes. Does all of that go into advertising or should some of it go into sports capital grants? Is there flexibility to amend the contract or is it written into the contract? All those questions are critical because it will undermine the viability-----

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

The old national lottery bumped in an extra €1 million on occasion. A special €1 million was added for those purposes in the old lottery. That was all discussed during the passing of the legislation, so let us see if what was said in the Chamber was implemented.

Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My major concern is that the regulator has written to the licenceholder seeking the amount and proof that this money is being spent in accordance with the contract. The licenceholder is quoting the clause in the contract which states that it does not have to reveal that information. How can the regulator do the job if it does not have access?

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

I agree. As I said, that licence was signed by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform in the first instance, before the regulator came into being. We will tackle the Department on it because it is the body that signed the licence. We will discuss it with the Department. I do not know how far we will get but we will do our best.

Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that when the Department's officials appear before the committee?

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

No, we will write to the Department in the meantime. We will not wait until then.

Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that, but when the officials appear before the committee, are these issues I can raise?

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

Yes, it is under that Department. Deputy, you might liaise with the secretariat on the information you have received already. That would help the secretariat to hone the letter to be sent. However, I still refer back to the debate in the Dáil, what commitments were given in that and whether that transferred into the licence that was ultimately signed by the Department.

Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will send the clerk a note.

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

The issue is the unclaimed prizes, their utilisation, the percentages and amounts. We will include that by way of correspondence, Deputy.

We are discussing the work programme and what other items might be slotted into it before the summer recess.

Marc MacSharry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will outline my wish list. On the third level side, we need to have a decent engagement with Cork Institute of Technology, CIT. I acknowledge that the committee secretariat is trying to consolidate hearings in an effort to make progress, but I do not think we should meet any more than two institutions per meeting.

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

Okay.

Marc MacSharry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For example, we might meet UCC in the morning and CIT in the afternoon. As mentioned by Deputy Cullinane, there are a lot of issues arising in terms of the UL reports which might require two meetings. I have a special interest in meeting CIT because I am focused on that area.

On the Courts Service, in respect of which the Chairman mentioned correspondence this morning, we need a specific as opposed to a general discussion on the wards of court issue but we could touch on the issue during our meeting with the Courts Service. We previously touched on the wards of court issue in terms of families having no information in regard to what is going on with funds and so on but we need greater focus on that issue.

The two other areas on which I would like to focus, if possible, is the fair deal scheme and the alleged €700 million in pay owed to consultants.

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

Is the Deputy asking if they are owed money or if they have not been working their hours?

Marc MacSharry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not defending consultants. I am not here to do that.

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

Is the Deputy speaking about the consultants' contracts?

Marc MacSharry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a consultant contract issue. There was a court case and, if I am correct, we are on the hook for a lot of money.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

There is a contingent liability figure, which is in the HSE financial statements. I will have to look back on it.

Marc MacSharry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a lot of money involved so it would be helpful if Mr. McCarthy would do so.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It is a sizeable figure.

Marc MacSharry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Comptroller and Auditor General might forward a note on the matter to the committee.

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

On CIT, is the Deputy asking that we invite it in for a general discussion or are there specific issues in relation to it for the work programme?

Marc MacSharry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are a lot of issues in regard to CIT, including protected disclosures and the KPMG report. I touched on aspects of this during the public private partnership debate last week but there are substantial issues arising around corporate governance, management, how money was spent, who is driving the bus and how it is being driven.

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

Okay.

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

We are awaiting the Thorn report on the University of Limerick. A report is also being done on the Kildare and Wicklow Education and Training Board, which we have to factor into the work programme.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

They are two important reports.

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

Yes. There are two other issues, the first of which we have pushed continuously into the future, namely, the fair deal scheme. We should try to find space to deal with this issue in light of the sizeable amount of money involved. The other issue, which we have discussed on several occasions, is the contingent liability in the HSE in relation to how claims are managed. I think this issue requires particular scrutiny. This, too, involves a sizeable amount. We previously discussed moving towards the open disclosure approach. The current system is incredibly slow such that cases can go on for years. If we do not change the model of how these accidents are managed, which is usually around the time children are born, we will continue to face this large legal expense. This money could be better spent on services. I would like the committee to dedicate a meeting to this issue.

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

Okay. We would probably need the NTMA, the State Claims Agency and the HSE here together. I am slowly coming to the conclusion that management of the wards of court fund should be managed in the future by the State Claims Agency and not by a judges' committee. I do not think the latter is the appropriate body to manage this fund. We now have a State Claims Agency that manages these types of funds. We will include discussion of this issue in the work programme. Long-term, we should not have a particular body managing the wards of court fund given the expertise in the NTMA to manage it, which we are told is the best in the world. We will invite the HSE to the meeting with the NTMA, during which we will ask the NTMA if it would be in a position to manage the wards of court fund if asked to do so.

We are taking Vote 33 - Arts, Heritage, Regional and Gaeltacht Affairs later. We are scheduled to meet the Department of Finance on 19 April. In the context of our discussion to consolidate some of our work, I would suggest that we try to bring forward the meeting scheduled for 28 June with the Tax Appeals Commission and the Revenue Commissioners on outstanding issues. As per the schedule, we are due to meet the Tax Appeals Commission on Thursday, 28 June at 9 a.m. and the Revenue Commissioners in the afternoon. I am suggesting that we ask those agencies to attend the meeting with the Department of Finance on 19 April. We had already decided that we could deal with the Tax Appeals Commission in a two-hour meeting in any event and we have already had some discussion with the Revenue Commissioners on corporation tax so I think we would be able to move quickly through the second half of Revenue Commissioners' business. The issues for discussion with the Department of Finance include Government debt, the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council are routine items to note. We will try to combine our discussions with the Department of Finance, the Tax Appeals Commission and the Revenue Commissioners to one meeting on 19 April in an effort to free-up space for other hearings. We will communicate with the Department of Finance, the Tax Appeals Commission and the Revenue Commissioners in this regard. There is no point in our meeting only with the Department of Finance and concluding our business with it by lunch time if we can complete the work with the other organisations in the afternoon. We need to have this change in place for the next meeting if we are to be able to include other items on the work programme, otherwise we would have to meet on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and I do not think members want to three-day meetings of the Committee of Public Accounts.

The secretariat will work on amending the schedule. The immediate priority is to combine our hearings with the Department of Finance, the Tax Appeals Commission and the Revenue Commissioners. We will move on. Before we invite our guests in the secretariat would like to go into private session for a couple of minutes.

Marc MacSharry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to raise another issue before we do that.

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

Okay.

Marc MacSharry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We had a report yesterday and we dealt with IBRC and the committee of inspection and our recommendations around that. When we had the relevant people before us from the Department of Finance, including Mr. Carville, I mentioned that the previous week a case had been taken by a debt advocate, Mr. Hall and the Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation, against the Minister for failure to ensure adequate oversight in this area. In discussions at that meeting, Mr. Carville said that proper oversight was in place and that the Department would revisit the matter with us when the statement of claim to do with that legal case emerged. I understand this happened in recent weeks. Can we make contact with Mr. Carville to see if, as a committee, we can help prevent this matter being slogged out in the courts at expense to the taxpayer?

I have nothing against the right of persons to take a case but if there is an intention for them to embrace, for example, our recommendations on committees of inspection or they can outline to us that they have sufficient oversight in place, we may be able to save the State money by preventing this case proceeding. I suggest the committee would write to Mr. Carville along those lines and see what comes back before our next meeting. That might inform the discussion.

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

On that, regarding the recommendations yesterday, our report goes to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform for a formal response to this specific recommendation.

Marc MacSharry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

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

That is scheduled to happen in any event, but Deputy MacSharry is saying we could move ahead with that in the meantime.

Marc MacSharry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, because there a lot of hoops to go through. The report goes to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, which distributes the recommendations around the Civil Service, and this time next year we will have a response.

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

We will proceed on that basis. For the moment, we will go into private session for a few minutes before we resume in public session and invite in our witnesses. Is that agreed? Agreed.