Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The business before us this afternoon is the minutes, accounts and financial statements, correspondence, the work programme and any other business. The first item is the minutes of our meeting of 27 October, which have been circulated to members. Do members wish to raise any matters in regard to the minutes? If not, are the minutes agreed? Agreed. As usual, they will be published on the committee’s web page.

The next item is accounts and financial statements. Three sets of accounts and financial statements were laid before the Houses between 24 and 31 October 2022. I ask Mr. Harkness to address these before I open the floor to members.

Mr. Andy Harkness:

The first accounts relate to the National Concert Hall, which received a clear audit opinion for 2021. Attention is drawn in the audit report to the recognition of the deferred funding pension asset, which occurs in a number of bodies. The second is the Insurance Compensation Fund for 2021, which received a clear audit opinion. The third is the Social Insurance Fund for 2021, which, again, received a clear audit opinion. The Comptroller and Auditor General drew attention to a number of matters that were detailed in his recent annual report on public services. The first is the chapter on welfare payments and excessive entitlement. The second is the Department's process to recover social welfare payments from compensation awards. The third is an examination of the classification of workers for PRSI purposes and related matters. I understand those chapters will come before the committee in due course.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With regard to the final point on the Social Insurance Fund, chapter 14 of the report on the accounts for public services for 2021 examined the classification of workers for PRSI and related matters, as Mr. Harkness outlined. What did his office find in that regard?

Mr. Andy Harkness:

I would have to check as I was not directly involved in that.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I suggest we hold that back for approval at a further meeting in order to get clarification. It is fine if Mr. Harkness does not have that information today. Does Deputy Verona Murphy wish to come in?

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I am happy with that.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are the first and the second parts of the financial statements agreed? Agreed. As usual, those two will be published as part of the minutes. We will hold back the third one until next week.

We now move to correspondence. As previously agreed, items that were not flagged for discussion for this meeting will continue to be dealt with in accordance with the proposed actions that have been circulated to members. Decisions taken by the committee in relation to correspondence are recorded in the minutes of the committee’s meetings and published on the committee’s web page. The first category of correspondence under which members have flagged items for discussion is that from Accounting Officers and-or Ministers and follow-up.

We begin with No. 1532 from Kerstin Mey, president, University of Limerick, UL, dated 20 October 2022. This is information requested by the committee regarding non-compliant procurement. The committee has a standing agreement to request explanations for instances of significant non-compliant procurement which the Comptroller and Auditor General has drawn attention to, that is, procurement in excess of €500,000 in a given set of accounts that is not in compliance with procurement rules and guidelines. This response provides an explanation for, and steps taken to address, non-compliant procurement in UL, which amounted to €551,000 in its 2020-2021 financial statements. It is proposed to note and publish this item of correspondence. Is that agreed? I note Deputy Devlin is contributing remotely. Does he wish to raise anything on this point?

Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I am fine. I just want to confirm that I am here in Leinster House.

Colm Burke (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Likewise, I confirm that I am in Leinster House as well.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a table outlining the issues involved. There were several issues, including one in regard to website hosting. I asked why that was not previously tendered. UL said it is under review but I want to ask what the term “under review” means. In any given locality, there are a number of people who do website hosting. Another point concerned occupational health assessments, occupational therapy assessments and safety officers’ reports. UL is currently reviewing that and it is said that it will be progressed. Another issue concerned landscaping works to a value of €30,000, which was also to be progressed. I want to ask why it was not tendered up to date. We want an update on those three issues of website hosting, occupational therapy assessments and the turf and landscaping suppliers. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next category is correspondence from and related to private individuals and any other correspondence. First is No. 1549 from Deputy Hourigan, dated 27 October 2022. It is a proposal for the committee to consider reports of the HSE’s former CEO being approached by a consultancy firm. It has been reported that while approaches have been made, there are no commitments, although the consultancy firm is reported to have stated that there may be some advisory work next year. We could write to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to request information regarding what is termed a cooling-off period, which I think is two years. There was a lot of talk about this a few years ago.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry but I asked the Chair yesterday whether we could look at contracts having exactly such a cooling-off period. That is not what they are called but it is the same thing. I do not know how it has not arisen in all of the reports that this might be undertaken. It does not make any sense to me that senior executives can apportion contracts and be involved in tender processes and then go to work for those who benefited from them. It is outrageous.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What does the Deputy propose?

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is effectively the same thing.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The former chief executive of the HSE was here with the committee fairly recently, just a few weeks ago. Deputy Hourigan wrote to the committee to raise the engagement of the former chief executive of the HSE, Mr. Paul Reid, who stepped down last month, with the consultancy firm Ernst & Young in respect of advisory work.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am saying we should consider the appropriateness of the timing. It is outside consultancy rather than direct employment in this case. Even if it is not prohibited, it certainly should be for the future. We probably need to look at this. One way or the other, we need to write and find out if it is.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We can seek clarification as to how long the cooling-off period is supposed to be and on the specific question the Deputy is asking, which is whether there is a differentiation between employment and contract consultancy.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Correct.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will include that question and try to get a reply on it.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One former senior official in the HSE is already in employment in EY. Is that not correct?

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not know.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I refer to a former colleague of the CEO. I am not mentioning the name because it is irrelevant.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not aware of this but we will get clarification from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform on those two matters. It is important that we do so. That other person might have been in a different body, perhaps a health-related body.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thought it was-----

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I do not think so but I do not want to venture there because-----

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It does not really matter. The point is that we need to be aware if people from a given sector are involved with contracts or tendering with anybody in a Government Department.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That it is particularly so when they move into an area related to their work here. That is fine. There is one other matter in respect of correspondence. It has not been flagged for consideration but I just want to mention a response we have received from St. James's Hospital, No. R1534B, dated 19 October. It concerns a request for an explanation of non-compliant procurement. The reply states that €395,000 is accounted for but non-compliant procurement noted in the Comptroller and Auditor General's audit certificate amounted to 14% of €207 million, amounting to the sum of approximately €29 million. The hospital has given us tables relating to €395,000. The problem is that what we are actually seeking clarification on procurement in the region of €29 million. Members will see on the table attached to the reply that a breakdown is given of six different items or services that were procured but, as I have said, this expenditure only comes to €395,000 whereas the actual figure we are seeking clarification on is the full 14% of non-pay expenditure, which is a figure in the region of €29 million. Does any member wish to address this? I propose that we write back to the hospital seeking an explanation for that because we got an explanation for €400,000 when the figure is €29 million. In fairness to the hospital, there may be legitimate reasons this expenditure cannot be tendered for. It may be a case of sole suppliers or specialised services that are only available from one provider. That may be the case but we need to know.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do we have an issue with procurement and tendering if a UK company is involved? Are such companies outside the system because the UK has left the EU? While there may not be an issue for us, it might be more difficult. Does it make any difference?

Mr. Andy Harkness:

The same rules apply.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The full tendering process still applies. They would have to do the same thing. We will get the secretariat to write back to seek a full explanation of that. Is that agreed?

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Agreed.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is agreed. That concludes our consideration of correspondence. Moving onto the work programme, there are five public hearings between now and Christmas. Next week, on 17 November, the Department of Finance is to come before us. On 24 November, we have the Regulator of the National Lottery. We have two public engagements on 1 December. In the morning we have an engagement with the Department of Social Protection and, in the afternoon session, we have the operator of the national lottery. There is a differentiation there. We will have the regulator in one week and the actual operator the following week. On 8 December, we have the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. The final meeting for this year is scheduled for 15 December and is with the Office of Public Works. We also agreed to meet with An Bord Pleanála in the first sitting in the new year, on 19 January. Are there any matters that members wish to raise regarding the work programme?

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I do not think so. We have been through it a few times now.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Next week's meeting with the Department of Finance is a big one. If there are specific areas on which members wish to raise matters - they may come to mind over the coming days - I suggest they notify the clerk, who will flag them with the Department of Finance and its Secretary General for when they come in. That concludes consideration of the work programme for today. The last item on the agenda is any other business. There are no matters under that heading. We will briefly go into private session before adjourning until 9.30 a.m. next Thursday, 17 November, when we will engage with the Department of Finance. Go raibh míle maith agaibh.