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

We are joined today by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, who is a permanent witness to the committee. He is joined by Ms Josephine Mooney, deputy director of audit. Apologies have been received from Deputy Pat Deering. We will hold over the minutes until the next meeting and matters arising.

The next item on the agenda is correspondence received since the last meeting. There are three categories of correspondence. The first category, category A, deals with the opening statements and briefing documents from today's meeting. No. 1648 A and No. 1660 comprise correspondence received from Mr. Robert Watt, Secretary General, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, dated 15 October and 17 October 2018, providing briefing information and an opening statement for today's meeting. We will note and publish that. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 1655 A is correspondence received from Dr. Graham Love, CEO of the Higher Education Authority, dated 16 October, providing an opening statement for today's meeting. We will note and publish that and deal with it in the afternoon. No. 1656 A is correspondence received from Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú, Secretary General, Department of Education and Skills, dated 16 October 2018, providing an opening statement for today's meeting. We will note and publish that and deal with it in the afternoon.

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

The Chairman says we will publish the correspondence from Dr. Love. A couple of people who are looking for a copy of that. Are we now free to give that?

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

Yes. We have agreed to publish it. We have not come to it but we will in a moment. It is in the correspondence list. I do not think that was the one list. We will deal with it in a moment.

The next category is B - correspondence from Accounting Officers and-or Ministers and follow-up to Committee of Public Accounts meetings and other items for publishing. A number of items were held over from last week's meeting. We will continue to hold them over until we get an opportunity to read them. When we have read them all in detail, we will be able to move through them very quickly when the time comes. I am holding over all the items of correspondence previously held over. I read it out on a second occasion the last time so I will move on to the newer items of correspondence.

No. 1620 B is correspondence received from Mr. Derek Moran, Secretary General, Department of Finance, dated 8 October 2018, providing the following information requested by the committee: additional information relating to cash holdings in NAMA, the impact of negative interest rates, and an update relating to the case before the courts regarding the IBRC liquidation. In respect of the special liquidation of IBRC, the Department is defending the proceedings and confirms that a comprehensive defence to these proceedings will be filed within two weeks. We want to verify that this happens when the time comes. The other item concerned negative interest rates. The Department did not specifically deal with it. It spoke about early access to dividends but the point is covered. We will note and publish that.

No. 1622 B is correspondence received from Mr Ciarán Breen, director of the State Claims Agency, dated 9 October 2018, providing information requested by the committee regarding Thalidomide litigation and the number of outstanding cases. We can note and publish this. We should also note that at the meeting of 12 July 2018, correspondence from the Irish Thalidomide Association was considered and there may have been a suggestion that Mr Breen's evidence was not accurate. In his letter, Mr. Breen states that his evidence was accurate. If further clarification is required, we will be able to deal with it when we engage with the State Claims Agency at our meeting on 8 November. I note that in the letter he sent to us, he did not receive a copy of the letter we received from the Irish Thalidomide Association and, essentially, was replying in the dark, so we want to send it on to the agency.

I am informed that due to the wonderful data protection legislation and so on because that correspondence was marked "Private and Confidential", we need to get permission from the Irish Thalidomide Association to forward it to the State Claims Agency. I presume that was their assumption when they sent it to us but it seems we must verify that consent. That letter was dated 12 July. We need to get it to the State Claims Agency as urgently as possible if they give consent and if they do not, we can do no more about it. I expect that they will but I make the point that we must follow the process.

The next correspondence is No. 1630 from Ms Mary Lawlor, NAMA, dated 10 October 2018, providing the information requested by the committee at a previous meeting. One was a breakdown of the 8,000 units directly funded by NAMA categorised according to occupancy status, social-affordable and private housing developments. That relates to 8,113 houses. We asked for a note on the sale of houses to Cerberus that were then sold back to the Housing Agency. They have given a comprehensive reply saying that it was done on market valuations; there is a note on the meeting between NAMA and officials from the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government held in May 2018 in relation to the development of a new housing project, which we note; and a note on the 7,000 units offered to local authorities including a breakdown by local authority and the reasons given for taking up the units available. That is a matter that has been ventilated on many occasions.

Two items in the letter are of particular interest. The most important question we asked related to note 5. We asked for the €24 billion sale of underlying asset with a geographic breakdown of where the purchasers were located, namely what country they are from. They said they were not in a position to answer and would reply in due course. We must mark that as "Urgent" and follow it up. The next item we must follow up is one of the primary items for which we wrote to NAMA, namely Project Nantes. Was it an off-market loan sale? NAMA says:

The loan sale was one constituent part of the board-approved higher refinancing target which was set for the debtor connection.

Having set the target, NAMA did not specify how it was to be achieved. Therefore, provided Avestus met or exceeded the board approved target, it was free to adopt a variety of monetisation strategies, including the sale of the secured properties and/or a refinancing of the loans.

We asked why was there no publicity following the loan sale, from either Avestus or Clairvue-Nantes.

The refinancing target and exit strategy agreed with Avestus was a confidential arrangement between the debtor and NAMA.

We asked whether NAMA could confirm the portfolio was sold for €26.6 million, with a par value of €352 million. This was one of the fundamental questions asked at that meeting. The response is:

NAMA confirms that the residual portfolio was sold for €26.6 million, with a par value of €352 million. The cash realised by the loan sale was only one constituent part of the overall cash amount received from the acquired Avestus loan and security realisations. The total amount of cash received by NAMA from the overall debtors’ acquired loans was a multiple of the residual loan sale.

NAMA has not given the answer to the question we asked, full stop. We must go back. The main issue is that we asked about that specifically and are none the wiser about the par value of the €352 million and the total realisation that was achieved on that. More worrying, we asked for a note on review of section 172 declaration, which relates to there being no conflict of interest between the people involved, in respect of Project Nantes. The letter states: "NAMA is undertaking a legal review and will revert to the Committee in due course." We found it extraordinary that it had never done a detailed examination on that. It is something that the Comptroller and Auditor General highlighted in the past. All those items must be sent back to NAMA. There may be further correspondence on this but we want all those items to be followed up. The last ones to which we did not get a reply are very significant. Some are on their way but we need comprehensive replies. NAMA is nearly approaching the end of its work and we, as the Committee of Public Accounts, want to do our job by ensuring all those questions as answered and followed up.

No. 1631 B is from Mr. Michael Nolan, CEO, Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, dated 10 October 2018 providing information requested by the committee in respect of excess toll payments. We will note and publish this.

No. 1633 B is from Mr. Mick Long, director of corporate services, Office of Public Works, dated 11 October 2018 providing information requested by the committee for our meeting last week. We discussed this at the meeting of 11 October and we are formally noting it today.

No. 1634 is from Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll, Secretary General, Department of Justice and Equality, dated 10 October 2018 providing the note requested by the committee regarding implementation of change in the Irish Prison Service, which we will note and publish this. Much of that might be relevant to the justice committee.

No. 1635 B is also from Mr Aidan O'Driscoll, Secretary General, Department of Justice and Equality, dated 10 October 2018 in relation to the site acquisition for three new Garda stations in Clonmel, County Tipperary, Sligo and Cork, which we note and publish.

No.1636 B is from Mr. Derek Moran, Secretary General, Department of Finance, dated 11 October 2018 providing the review requested by the Committee on the resourcing of the Tax Appeals Commission. There has been some progress on that and the Minister referred to it in his budget speech. It is out there and there has been an agreement in relation to resourcing of that organisation. We note and publish that.

No.1637 B from Ms Ann-Marie Walsh, Office of Public Works, dated 11 October 2018 providing the managing valuer's report on five historic cases on foot of a preceding submission to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. We discussed this at the meeting of 10 October and we are formally noting it today. We are only noting it and have not agreed to publish this yet. We may well do so but cannot give parliamentary privilege to something which we have not taken a few minutes to look at. I have no objection in principle but there is quite a lot in it and we can agree to publish it the next day, if members wish. However, as Chairman, I must glance through it and other members have not read it in case there is an issue about which we should be concerned.

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

We will hold it over for discussion at the next meeting. We have noted it, we did have some discussion on it, but the question we must deal with next week is whether we give parliamentary privilege to publishing the full document.

No. 1638 B from Mr. Martin Bourke, assistant secretary, Office of Public Works, comprising a property services agreement regarding accommodation for the Department of Health at Miesian Plaza in Baggot Street, Dublin. We discussed this at the meeting last week and we are formally noting it today.

No. 1640 B is from Mr. Timothy Owens, chief executive, Cork ETB, who is replying to our further request for information regarding their employment policies and whether they have a policy preventing people with whom they have reached a legal settlement. Mr. Owens says that there is no general policy and that the matter being referred to was discussed at a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts in July 2015. I will ask the clerk to the committee to circulate this to members, indicating the relevant pages. We can give the committee a report on what was said at the previous meeting. We do not want to rehash the same matter.

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

Oh God, no.

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

I think that was provided to the previous committee. We will dig it out and circulate it to the members and return to it at the next meeting.

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

There was one exception.

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

Exactly. There is no general policy but that they can specifically do things that they do not do generally.

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

The Deputy is correct but what I want to do for now is to circulate the more detailed response that he gave to the previous committee. It is on the record, and we will circulate it to members during the week and return to it. If we are unhappy with his response, we will take it from there. Let us just read the detailed response that he gave to the previous committee. Some of it might answer some of the questions, or some might not, but we need to go through it. We will hold this correspondence over and deal completely with it next week.

The next item is No. 1641B from Ms Martina Bulman, private secretary to the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Skills, providing an update requested by the committee on the publication of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the University of Limerick, UL, and Institute of Technology Sligo . It is expected to be published in the coming weeks. We will note and publish the correspondence.

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

Can we get an update now on what Comptroller and Auditor General reports have either been sent to the Minister or are still in the process of being sent to the Minister in respect of different institutes? Also, what are those reports are about, roughly? That would be helpful for us for today's meeting so that we do not deal with issues to which we are going to come back? Are there two separate reports, one for Sligo IT and one for UL, or is it a joint report?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It is a joint report.

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

Has that gone to the Minister?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It has been with the Minister since the end of August.

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

The Waterford IT report is near completion.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It is very close to completion.

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

I know what the Waterford IT report is about but is the UL and Sligo IT report to do with issues raised by whistleblowers?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Not directly. It has to do with remuneration matters-----

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

We dealt with that in the past.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

-----in both institutions.

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

We agreed that we will publish that letter from the Department of Education and Skills.

The next item is No. 1642B from Mr. Derek Finnegan of the parliamentary affairs division in the Department of Health, providing an update requested by the committee regarding the value for money review of public nursing homes. The letter is essentially saying that it will be next year before the review is completed. I will put the letter up on the screen in order that we can see what it says. He stated there are a number of legal issues that are almost completed and the Department hopes to have this work completed by the first quarter of 2019, so he is saying the end of March. He also says that he is still waiting for an update on the audit of empty beds in public hospitals and he will revert again when he receives that information. We need to mark down that this is only a holding reply. We will note and publish that holding reply.

The next item is No. 1643B from Mr. Paddy O'Keeffe from the Tax Appeals Commission, dated 12 October 2018 responding to information requested by the committee on bringing the 78 appeals mentioned in previous correspondence to conclusion. We will note and publish this.

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

It is an interesting piece of correspondence. If I am reading this correctly, on page 3 there are 17 individuals who are responsible for an appeal to the value of €711 million, which is quite extraordinary.

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

That is why I specifically raised this the last day.

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

This somewhat sits with the Comptroller and Auditor General's chapter on high net worth individuals. Is this something that we could hold over to form part of future discussions because we are going to have Revenue in so are we going to bring in the Tax Appeals Commission as well when we are dealing with that chapter?

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

We would be bringing them in again. I ask members to bear with me because we touched on this the last day-----

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

It is an extraordinary figure.

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

I want to read the highlights of this into the public record so that the public will know what we are talking about. There were three cases listed in a document that we got the last time with the Tax Appeals Commission with amounts totalling €361 million that were in dispute and we asked for a note on each of the three cases. The first case has an amount of €138 million under appeal. The commission says that it is on hold for the next few months as parties are currently in discussions with a view to settling that issue. There is another case involving €119 million and the commission is saying that it is ready to be scheduled for a hearing shortly. There is a third case with a value of over €100 million which the commission says is proceeding through the appeals system. There are three cases adding up to €361 million. Before we come to our periodic report we will need an update on those three cases. We cannot have a situation of €361 million from three organisations hanging out there without the Committee of Public Accounts taking action. We deal with expenditure but we also want to make sure that taxes are collected properly and we want to make sure that is done as expeditiously as possible.

Then we asked for figures for the cases where the amount is between €10 million and €100 million and there are 14 of those. One case is proceeding with a value of €68 million. Four more are on hold as the parties are in discussions and they have a combined value of €100 million. There are six other cases scheduled for hearings with a collective value of €140 million. There is a case on hold pending a linked appeal worth €20 million, another case with determination expected to be completed by the end of this year worth €12 million and a case that has been settled for €11 million. I do not know the outcome of that as the commission just says that it was settled.

It was horrific for me to see that there are 17 cases there involving well over €700 million, only one of them has been settled since we raised it and one of them is expected to be completed this year. The letter is actually telling us that 15 of the 17, which approximately amount to the total of €700 million, will run into next year at least without even giving a suggestion of a closing date. There are 61 other cases with a value of an average of €2.5 million apiece still in the system and only a handful of those have been settled. We will want a timeline on these every second month because we will not sit here with €876 million hanging there without a date even being proffered for when it might be dealt with.

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

It must also be asked how the Tax Appeals Commission got to this point and whether it is likely that there are other examples. That is the responsibility of Revenue as much as the Tax Appeals Commission because it is a sizable amount and anyone who has worked in accounts will know that if tax is not presented, then there is an ongoing dialogue with Revenue. That astonishes me but we may be losing sight of some of the cases that in the overall context seem fairly small but in most of our experiences they amount to quite large amounts of money also. Anything that is in the region of €1 million for example is quite a large bill to be outstanding. I have not gone through this in the kind of detail I want to and I know that money was allocated in the budget in response to the inadequacy in the commission's staffing and IT systems etc. and some time will be needed for that to settle in. The timing in terms of the value we get in having the commission back in again will be important. We must allow it to get its systems in place. It will probably be the beginning of next year before we are likely to have the commission here in any kind of fruitful way but we should have the Revenue Commissioners in at the same time.

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

That is fine and our job is to keep public pressure on this and to keep the Tax Appeals Commission hopping because these things can just rumble on for years. We have a duty to ensure we do that, especially now that resources have been allocated to do the job. We only highlighted the top 67 in our meeting and there are thousands more smaller cases behind in the system, but the 67 cases are where the big money is. I stress that these are estimates, not final determinations, but they are the best estimates we have at this point in time.

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

It is fair to point out that every individual has a right to appeal their tax liabilities, including high net worth individuals, and I have no difficulty with that. Having said that, there are still 17 cases under appeal to the value of €711 million. I hear what the Chair is saying about getting a bimonthly update on whether the cases have been settled because it is essentially a dispute on the amount but I want to get under the bonnet of this to see what is the substance of it and what is the nature of these disputes. One side is obviously saying it does not believe it is liable for the amount of tax in question and Revenue is saying it is but it is a question of what type of issues lead to this scenario. The reality is, especially when this amount of money is at stake, that these are individuals who have the ability to employ tax specialists and other people who can get the type of write-downs that most individuals could not get. While it might all be legal and carried out in terms of tax avoidance there could still be consequences for the taxpayer in it and if there are loopholes there that we need to be aware of, that would also be important. I appreciate the point on staffing because it is important for the commission to do its work but I am more concerned about the number of individuals in question and the amount of money under dispute and whether this is an example of very wealthy individuals simply looking for every possibility to avoid paying their taxes. I am not saying that is the case but I am concerned about that.

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

Would many of these be corporate?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

The screen shows many of the very high-value ones are related to corporation tax. There is VAT and there is customs and excise. There is one income tax case, in respect of which there is a figure of about €19 million. There are a couple of VAT cases. Many of them are in the nature of corporate cases rather than individual cases.

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

Dividend withholding tax is mentioned as well. Then there is some income tax.

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

Whether it is corporate or individual, it still pertains to entities, small numbers of individuals and big money.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Income tax appears significantly more frequently in the €1 million to €10 million bracket. There are figures of over €2 million.

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

We might need a bit more information; that is all I am saying.

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

We might for a recasting of the schedules under each of the tax settings, just to save our overworked staff from having to do it. We have the document here. The relevant authorities have the information on a spreadsheet. We will ask them to break the schedule down and give us the amounts under VAT, income tax, corporation tax and dividend withholding tax. We will ask for a recasting of the schedules because they have the information. It would be very useful for us. It would simplify the matter and it make it easier for the public to understand if they got it in that way. We will write seeking a recasting of the schedule in the manner we have just requested. I call Deputy Shane Cassells.

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

Deputy Murphy asked how we got here. When the representatives of the Tax Appeals Commission were before the committee, we had never heard a set of witnesses willing to offer the woes of their office as much as they did. I suppose that is why the Minister for Finance determined that the matter would be subject to a whole paragraph in the budget speech. When one sees the amounts of moneys subject to appeals and the resources available, one realises this definitely needs further examination. I am glad it is being raised today. Beyond getting an appraisal and a spreadsheet of what we have today and beyond what Deputy Cullinane referred to, we are talking about a sum under appeal in the region of €750 million. How far is the Chairman going to press this? He talked about asking for deadlines. Can we ask for deadlines in terms of how the settlements are arrived at?

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

We will get the information. The €750 million is in the context of approximately €60 billion collected by the Revenue Commissioners every year. Out of the €60 billion, we are talking about less than €1 billion, which is probably much less than 2%. I am not making light of it but putting it in the context of what the Revenue Commissioners do. I am putting the figure in the context of the overall figure but the organisation should have a target timeline for it. It might not meet the target but if it has no targets for dealing with it, I would be very worried.

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

The point the Chairman made is quite right in that while this committee examines expenditure, the scenario where tax income is being left in hiatus for a long time is equally as impactful on the resources of the State. This should be pursued.

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

We will publish this. It will be followed up. We will return to it specifically when we recast the schedule. We will ask for target dates for having the matter concluded. That may not happen because every one of the people affected can go to court at the end of the process, if they like. That is not within anyone's control.

We found a lacuna in the information between the Tax Appeals Commissioner and the Revenue Commissioners. We asked the Revenue Commissioners, when its representatives were in, about cases that went to the Tax Appeals Commission and the collection rate in that regard. Neither of them completed what was sought. The Revenue Commissioners say they just get told by the Tax Appeals Commission what the figure is, and there is no match-up regarding the original Revenue Commissioners estimate. We have found another lacuna. Am I right that there was a gap?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

There certainly has been a history of that. I expect, with the development of the systems within the Tax Appeals Commission, there should be better information and better tracking of individual cases through the system.

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

We have discussed this for long enough and we know we are coming back to it. It was useful to receive the letter.

The next item is No. 1644B, from Mr. Michael Horgan of the Higher Education Authority, responding to the committee's request for a copy of Dr. Graham Love's resignation letter. Since the letter was received, the HEA sent a further email advising that Dr. Love authorised sending a copy of his resignation letter to the committee. This was circulated to members yesterday. We shall note this and it will be discussed in the afternoon.

Next is No. 1665, which we will publish. I am told it has been published. It was in some publication this morning, I am informed, so our publishing it is a bit academic.

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

Someone got there before me.

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

Someone got there in front of this committee. I was just made aware of it recently. We will publish it because it has already been made available.

No. 1645B is from Mr. Robert Watt, Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, replying to information requested by the committee regarding PPP reviews. We will note and publish this and raise it with the Secretary General when he is here.

No. 1646B is from Mr. Robert Watt regarding the view of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform on the Exchequer and Audit Department Act 1866. We will note and publish that. There is a fair response to the issues raised.

No. 1647B is from Mr. Watt and is in regard to our request for a copy of the value-for-money review of Irish public bodies that was conducted. We can raise this with him. He is saying it is up to the Local Government Management Agency to provide a copy to us. He had sight of it but was not the author or commissioner of the report. Therefore, we have written to the agency separately for the report because it commissioned it. We can note and publish the letter.

Regarding group C, one item was held over from the last day and we will continue to hold it over.

No. 1618C is from the individual who corresponded with the committee regarding the review of property transactions in the OPW. This matter was discussed at last week's meeting. We will note that. We want to check some documentation before we decide to publish it or otherwise.

Correspondence 1628C and 1629C, from Deputy Murphy, provide replies to parliamentary questions regarding Garda masts and properties. These matters were raised at last week's meeting. It is very interesting information.

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

It is useful. There is no point in-----

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

It is available, noted and published. It is already on the public record by way of parliamentary question. We will publish it here again.

The next item on our agenda concerns statements and accounts received since the last meeting. There are seven, the first of which relates to the National Concert Hall. There is a clear audited opinion. Attention is drawn to the recognition of an asset in respect of deferred retirement benefit funding for pensions. We discussed this often at length.

The next concerns the Office of the Pensions Ombudsman. There is a clear audited opinion.

The next concerns Transport Infrastructure Ireland. There is a clear audited opinion.

The next concerns residential institutions redress special accounts. There is no turnover. What is left in that account if there is no turnover? Did the Comptroller and Auditor General want to come back to it?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Effectively, it is the account out of which awards are paid to individuals. There were expenses, which are expenses of the Vote in the year. This is just literally the fund that is available to compensate individuals.

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

There was nothing paid out of the fund in 2017.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

That is correct.

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

Is it expected that any will be paid out or is that all done through Caranua?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

I think there are still a number of cases but-----

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

There was none that year.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

There was none that year.

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

We should write to whoever is in charge and ask for a projection in regard to potential future claims to be paid through the account. While there might have been none in the year in question, there may be many in the system. We will write to the chief executive or Accounting Officer asking for an update.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

There may be an indication in the Financial Statements.

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

What we will do then is circulate the Financial Statements among the members of the committee. If we have any questions, we will come back to them next week. We have circulated such information on one or two occasions. It is useful.

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

For clarification, there are still outstanding sums from the religious bodies. Where does that tie in with this fund?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

There is a separate fund, the Caranua fund.

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

That is a separate fund.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

I think the funds would be taken in here, into this fund.

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

Is that from the 2002 agreement?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

From the 2002 agreement, yes.

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

Is that also from the 2009 non-legal agreement?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

If one looks back, it is somewhat confusing as to where the moneys from the different funds were going.

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

It is confusing. The one from 2002 was a legal one-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

That is correct.

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

-----and there are still some funds and property outstanding.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Property.

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

Okay.

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

We are coming back to that because we have asked-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

The Department's brief is updating the committee on a quarterly basis in respect of it.

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

At our previous meeting, we asked that a note be written to the Department. It had informed us in correspondence over the summer that a number of transactions were to be completed by the end of September and we agreed to write to it last week, or a week earlier, to ask for an update on whether this actually happened. This arose out of the correspondence we received. We will get an update on what was to be completed by the end of September and we will see if the Department met its targets, as outlined in correspondence to the committee during the summer. That matter will come back before us by way of correspondence from the Department in the very near future.

The next item is the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on Ciste Pinsean Tithe and Oireachtas. This is in Irish.

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

Iontach. Rinne an Cathaoirleach go maith.

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

Wonderful. It is a clear audit opinion.

The Arts Council also received a clear audit opinion but, in his report, the Comptroller and Auditor General states:

Attention is drawn to weaknesses in the controls over grant payments. The Council has made provision for payments of €196,000 due in relation to grants awarded in 2017 under an arts programme. The Council had provided funding for these grants to an outside agency, now in liquidation, but the agency had not paid over the grants to the intended beneficiaries.

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

The Comptroller and Auditor General states that "attention is drawn to weaknesses". I wonder if it is weaknesses or failures. I am sure there are basic requirements or controls that any organisation should have in place. I do not accept that the term "weaknesses" suggests that the controls are not there. In many ways, the controls are there but they were not adhered to. If I am reading this report right, it is quite extraordinary that the Arts Council gave to a third party €196,000 that was intended for beneficiaries in grants that they never received because the company in question went bust. It is quite extraordinary to say the least. I am aware that the overall budget for the Arts Council is €67 million but we all know that there is not a huge amount of money available in any event for the beneficiaries of these grants, or the organisations that need the money and which run on very tight budgets. Is it the case that these organisations just did not get the money? Was replacement money given to them or are they left high and dry?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

That is effectively the situation. The Arts Council is aware that commitments were given, but the grant funding did not get through the agency that had been given an advance to fund the scheme. The Arts Council is undertaking to provide replacement funding.

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

The follow-on question would be why a third-party agency would be needed to distribute the €196,000. Surely that is why the Arts Council is there in the first instance. I do not understand why one would give €196,000 to a third party to distribute money to grant recipients. If it is a private organisation, it would make money off the back of it. That strikes me as somewhat bizarre.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Okay.

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

Some of the questions relating to replacement funding have already been answered. It may be that some very small entities could fold because of missing out on that kind of money. Was it one scheme or was it an entity that was doing this kind of duplicate work for the Arts Council?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It was actually administering a scheme. I do not have the details but I can read the section from the statement on internal financial control, which is on page 60 of the Arts Council Annual Report 2017:

The Arts Council paid one of the organisations recurrent grant funding of €225,000, funding for exhibition support of €25,000 and €170,000 to fund an arts programme administered on behalf of the Arts Council.

In March 2018, the Arts Council became aware that the organisation had not in fact paid the 2017 grants to the intended beneficiaries. The organisation went into liquidation shortly afterwards.

Following legal advice, the Arts Council has undertaken to honour all payments due. The Arts Council has estimated that a total of €196,000 is due to intended beneficiaries including some amounts in relation to previous years. The 2017 financial statements recognise a provision for the full amount due. The Arts Council has no realistic prospect of recovering these amounts from the grant funded entity, now in liquidation.

In general, the Arts Council prefunds organisations in advance of expenditure being incurred, and has the sanction of the Department of Culture Heritage and the Gaeltacht and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to do so. The Arts Council’s control processes include advancing of funding to organisations in tranches and verification processes to obtain assurance that conditions have been met before the next tranche is advanced. However, the full amount of funding for the arts programme was advanced to this organisation in one tranche in January 2017, and before the 2016 financial statements were received. The Arts Council plans to review its controls over funding to outside organisations in particular where funding is provided in one tranche. It also plans to review its processes for assessing the financial viability of grant funded organisations.

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

How many beneficiaries were involved? Are there other situations where the Arts Council repeats this kind of exercise? I can see the weakness between 2016 and 2017 where the funds were paid before they had received the accounts so they would not have known they were in trouble. That is a very obvious weakness but does the Arts Council also do this with other organisations or other exhibitions and so on?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

What is unusual about this situation is that the grant funding was intended to be forwarded to other organisations, whereas most grant recipients would generally receive funding for their own activities and purposes. This situation was a little unusual in that it was a very niche area of the arts - I believe it was film-making - and, obviously, there was some discretion. A scheme was put in place and it was felt that these individuals were best placed to process the applications within the framework set for the scheme.

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

How many were involved?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It is a small number, perhaps eight or ten. I am not quite sure. I do not have that level of detail.

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

We will get detail. We will write to the Arts Council for a far more comprehensive note on this than that which Mr. McCarthy read from the annual report. It sounds a bit like Console where an organisation was funded and then when it went into liquidation people were left. It appears as thought the situation is a mini version of that relating to Console.

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

On the questions that have been asked, and there were eight to ten groups affected-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

That is just my recollection.

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

That is okay. We should certainly write to them to get the full details. Alarm bells ring when I hear that money is prepaid. How does an administrative body go into liquidation? What has happened here in relation to this? What are the implications for a possible repeat of this? Has this already happened again? During the briefing I heard that in previous years it had not been paid over. What does that mean?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

The funding for 2017 was €170,000 but the total loss is €196,000. This would indicate about €26,000 was related to the prior year.

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

If it related to prior years, then nothing was learned. It is difficult to sit here and listen to this when arts organisations are struggling on the ground. All of this should be done with proper governance procedures, proper internal controls and proper learning from mistakes. We need details on this.

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

We are going to write to the council seeking details. The message is that the council had €196,000 less to give to people who should have got funding-----

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

The Arts Council is now going to make it up.

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

It is going to make it up but the money will have been paid on the double.

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

That is right. That means that other people or groups must be down also

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

The council provided funding to the company that went bust and now it is paying out the money a second time.

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

There is a lesson there. The pot is now smaller.

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

The grant fund programme is down €196,000 for other people because the council had to pay on the double in respect of this one.

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

Is the company that received the €196,000 a private interest or a public body? It it an organisation that is funded?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It was a company and it is now in liquidation.

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

I know. Was it a private company?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

My recollection is that it would perhaps have had charitable status for arts purposes.

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

Right.

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

What we will do is when we get the name of the company, we will get one of the officials or Mr. McCarthy's office to perform a Companies Registration Office, CRO, search to discover whether it was a company limited by share, by guarantee or whatever. We do not know. We will find out about the company. If it was a company, it will be a matter of public record. We will see where we stand in that regard. We are not revisiting the liquidation. That is not our job, but we want to know about whom or what we are talking.

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

The Charities Regulator might have a role here too. If a company has charitable status, it is not supposed to make a loss.

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

We will perform a search in respect of the company and the current state of the liquidation.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Obviously, the first port of call is probably the Arts Council. It could give us a more detailed explanation.

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

We will write to the Arts Council in the first instance. When we get the name, we will take it from there. We want to deal specifically with this issue. The statement that has been read out indicates that the Arts Council is putting procedures in place, but I consider that somewhat woolly. I would like to know what it has done in terms of checking the audits of every other organisation. Given that Mr. McCarthy referred to that in the context of the council's financial statement, we will ask for evidence that it has carried through on its commitment.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Some Deputies may remember the funding for SIPTU, a matter we examined some years ago.

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

Yes, it was a big fund.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

One of the learning points from that was the danger of advancing funding without being specific as to purposes for use and guaranteeing that those purposes would be delivered on. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform issued a circular stating that the exception was to be advance funding, and that exception could only be where there were adequate controls in place. Effectively, many organisations do not have working capital. They are completely dependent on grant funding and, therefore, they cannot act without being funded in advance. That is why the Arts Council has sanction to fund most of those organisations in advance. What one then needs to be doing is funding as one goes, rather than funding in a single tranche. That is a learning point.

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

Is the funding based on receipts or evidence that the money has been used for the intended purpose?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

One advances a certain amount of funding and then one gets evidence that it has been spent for the purpose. One advances another tranche and then one gets evidence rather than putting all of the funding out in one go.

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

There is a similarity to the DIT library contract. Mr. McCarthy stated that the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform issued a circular.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

There is a circular on the matter from 2013 or 2014.

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

So that probably happened prior to the DIT library incident.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It did, but that was a procurement issue as opposed to a grant funding situation.

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

I will draw a comparison in order to clarify the position. It is not unusual for a Department to advance funding to organisations to get them up and running. For example, we are all familiar with community employment schemes. They run for a year. They get funding for the first few months and then they get a payment every month and coming to the end of the scheme they must be audited and then they can be rolled over once that is done. They get funding to get them up and running but the funding for the full year is not given upfront. Funding for a month or two is given and then monthly payments are made thereafter.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It is standard that an organisation would profile its expenditure so that if there is more activity at certain times of the year, that is understood and it is funded accordingly.

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

The last item is InterTradeIreland, which received a clear audit opinion. We note that as well.

We will proceed quickly. The next item is the work programme. Today's programme is in front of us. Next week, we will be dealing with matters relating to housing. On 8 November, we will be dealing with the State Claims Agency in the context of cervical cancer and thalidomide. I want to raise with the State Claims Agency the issue of medical negligence, which is significant. We will write to the agency in advance seeking a breakdown. It will surprise members to learn that the biggest bill facing the State is €2 billion in connection with medical negligence. Not enough attention has been paid to prevention. If we had a fraction of that money for the health service, we would not be in our current position. It is outrageous that there is so much medical negligence. I want to get a report in advance, as soon as is practicable, and we will return back to the issue on every case it has listed with a potential claim for €1 million. I will start at that amount and I will not go below it.

I want to get a breakdown similar to that which we obtained from the Tax Appeals Commission in respect of cases that are in different bands, for example, between €1 million and €5 million and how many are between €5 million and €10 million. In particular, I want to know the number of cases where the same professional is involved. We need to know if a medical professional has eight or ten medical negligence cases in the system and if he or she he is still carrying out medical procedures. The public needs to know. We cannot have people making mistakes on a regular basis, particularly with cases piling up. I do not suggest that is happening, but I do not know. I need a breakdown of the sum of the €2 billion relating to medical negligence. We will start to examine it. We will get the first schedule of figures and see where it takes us. We have a duty to put better measures in place to prevent a recurrence of cases of medical negligence. I know there are systems in place for the notification of each event but the amount is going up by €300 million every year, in addition to what has already been paid out in the past. It would be fantastic if the health service had even half of that money. This is an issue we have discussed in a global sense but we could do a useful service by getting some specific information.

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

In addition to getting information on individual medical professionals, we should also look for information on individual hospitals as well. Certain hospitals are frequently mentioned. It is not just about the very large amount of money that would be available to the health service. We rarely hear people coming out of the Four Courts stating that the money was any kind of compensation for what happened. There is a human cost as well and the money gives us a tracker for that.

On a different point concerning the work programme, could we put broadband on the programme? I think it is at the bottom of the list but I do not think it is slotted in. Perhaps I missed that.

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

It is at the bottom of the list, but there is no date. In the next week or so, we will try to schedule work out to the early part of next year on the basis that we are all here.

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

Is there any chance of dealing with broadband this year?

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

We will discuss it. I am open minded as to our priorities regarding what we want to deal with. We will ask the secretariat to look at all the items that are on our schedule and to draw up a provisional draft.

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

In 2017, the MANs contract was rolled over to 2030. Essentially, there was provision within the contract to do that. The information was in one of the Sunday newspapers. Another entity that was interested in tendering for that contract was BT Ireland. The contract was rolled over and, eventually, it was purchased by the State under the infrastructure fund. It would have been more valuable by virtue of the fact that it was rolled over so we probably paid substantially more. We are likely to have paid substantially more relatively recently and we need to understand why the contract was rolled over.

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

And then sold back to the State.

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

Yes. Originally, 78% was sold back and then the balance only recently, but it would have cost more to buy it back because it was more valuable given that it was a longer-term contract.

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

I support Deputy Catherine Murphy's point about putting the national broadband plan on our work programme.

On the previous issue, the Chairman stated that we need to get a breakdown of the number of cases.

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

Getting a breakdown by hospital is a good suggestion too.

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

Yes, and the number of individuals who are subject to two, three or four cases, for example. If we ask for a breakdown of individuals we may not get that information.

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

We do not want names.

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

Yes, but it depends on how we ask the question.

It should be on the basis of the existence of two or more cases that involve the same individual and, again, in bands. They are more likely to give it to us that way. It depends on how we ask the question.

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

So we will put in bands. If a person is appearing in-----

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

Just two or more.

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

Yes.

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

And then it is two, four, five, six or whatever.

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

There is no question of us asking for names or anything of that nature. I call on Deputies MacSharry and Connolly.

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

I have two matters to raise. The first concerns the work programme. I see that housing assistance payment, HAP, is listed.

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

That is coming up as part of housing.

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

So that is not coming up separately?

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

We said we would deal with housing at two meetings - one concerning construction and the other concerning housing supports, such as rental supplement. The approved housing bodies are not available next week so they will be on the second day. They cannot all attend on the first day. There will be two meetings on housing.

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

HAP must certainly be considered.

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

It will be at the second meeting.

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

We need adequate time for it. The cost now stands at €421 million. In one year, it doubled to €300 million and the allocation in the budget is €121 million so this payment alone is practically €500 million. This is one thing we want adequate time to discuss.

I welcome the Chairman's approach to teasing out the position regarding medical negligence. Open disclosure is not operating. We cannot look at one without examining the other. I do not know how many independent reviews and assessments have been carried prior to any medical negligence case. I have intimate details of one review.

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

A review by whom?

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

It was an independent review by a particular hospital regarding mistakes that happened. That was just one review. We can see the cost of those independent reviews before matters ever get to court. If one leaves aside the internal reviews, one then looks at the different type of external reviews. There are reviews whereby people can be cross-examined or questioned and the reviews - with which, unfortunately, I am now familiar - whereby there is no examination but there is an independent examination involving outside consultants and nurses. There are all sorts of questions regarding whether those reviews are actually independent, not to mention the cost and value for money, before we ever get there. I am just highlighting that because I will return to this matter. I am in the process of asking questions about the actual cost. At no point do I see any of the institutions learning. I see that we are snowed under with governance and with various items of documentation but the actual learning is missing. That is how we end up with medical negligence cases and barristers making money. I see why fees are so high because at no stage in that process do I see learning happening. I see us being snowed under with all sorts of documentation but no learning taking place. This even ties into Charleton tribunal going back to individuals learning-----

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

On that point, I could mention HIQA's statutory review of the maternity unit at Midland Regional Hospital Portlaoise, which found that there had been previous reviews, reports and recommendations but that they had been shared with nobody.

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

The cost.

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

They were shared with nobody - even the conclusions - so there was no learning process because the report was done and put on the shelf.

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

We will come back to the work programme next week to extend it. At this stage, we have completed our work so we will suspend for five minutes while the witnesses take their seats. We will conclude the session with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform when the bells ring for voting.