Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Thursday, 26 January 2023
Public Accounts Committee
Business of Committee
9:30 am
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The business before us this afternoon comprises the minutes, accounts and financial statements, correspondence, work programme and any other business. There is a substantial body of work, so I ask for members' co-operation. We will try to move along through the business efficiently.
The first item is the minutes of the meeting of 19 January. They have been circulated. No member wishes to raise an issue. Are the minutes agreed to? Agreed. As usual, they will be published on the committee's webpage.
The second item is the accounts and financial statements. Seven sets of accounts and financial statements were laid before the Houses between 16 January and 20 January. I ask Mr. McCarthy, the Comptroller and Auditor General, to address these first.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy:
The first set of financial statements is that of the Medical Council for 2021. It received a clear audit opinion.
No. 2 is the statement of City of Dublin Education and Training Board for 2021. That received a clear audit opinion but I drew attention to non-compliance with procurement rules. I think the figure in that case was about €2.5 million. There is some detail given in the financial statements about that.
No. 3 is the statement of Kerry Education and Training Board for 2020. There was a delay in the completion of the production of the accounts. It received a clear audit opinion.
No. 4 is the statement of the Adoption Authority of Ireland for 2021. That received a clear audit opinion.
No. 5 is the statement of the National Economic and Social Development Office for 2021. It received a clear audit opinion.
No. 6 is the statement of the Environment Fund for 2021. It received a clear audit opinion.
No. 7 is the statement of the Climate Action Fund for 2021. It received a clear audit opinion.
There are two sets of financial statements that were, it appears, presented late. Those of the Medical Council, which were certified by my office on 30 June, were presented only on 16 January. Those of the Adoption Authority of Ireland, signed at the end of June, were presented only on 19 January. In line with the committee's policy, it may want to seek an explanation in relation to those.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Do we allow three months?
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We are looking at seven months here. Do any members wish to refer to the accounts and financial statements?
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
City of Dublin Education and Training Board has a big budget – €564 million. Therefore, the amounts we will be talking about are relatively small in terms of overall expenditure. I acknowledge that and certainly do not want to diminish the very good work done. The figure for audiovisual equipment is €240,000, that for cleaning contracts is €259,000, that for learner support is €512,000 and that for school meals is €366,000. These are not the kinds of figures that would normally jump out at me. I realise there is a real issue in terms of the amount provided for school meals and under-provision in terms of the real cost. I would have thought these figures related to the kinds of services you would tender for. They have jumped out at me. I completely understand that if something turns up on a Friday or a school has been broken into, you might have to get security or some such service, but these figures do not seem to fall into that category. It is disappointing to see that.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy:
That is why I am drawing attention to it. These are things that can in most cases be sorted. That is really why you need a specialist, particularly in a very big education and training board like the one in question. One reason the expenditure of City of Dublin Education and Training Board is so high is that Student Universal Support Ireland, SUSI, grants are paid.
There are actually two businesses in there. From memory, one is approximately €350 million, so by comparison with other education and training boards, ETBs, we are looking at maybe €250 million.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Why do the SUSI grants go through the City of Dublin Education and Training Board, CDETB? Is it a historical issue?
Mr. Seamus McCarthy:
When SUSI was set up, effectively there had been a decentralised grants application, allocation and payment system but that was centralised when SUSI was created in 2012 or maybe 2013. One of the vocational education committees, VECs, or ETBs was looked for to take it on and the City of Dublin ETB won the application.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
For how much is that?
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Mr. McCarthy for that communication. There are two bodies we have to write to, the Medical Council and the Adoption Authority of Ireland, regarding late supply and we have the issue of the CDETB. Is Deputy Murphy making a proposal regarding that?
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We now have the additional information. Is it correct that the overall body that co-ordinates the ETBs is based in Naas?
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is there a mechanism for doing procurement for all of the ETBs through that body?
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is agreed that we will write to the other two bodies and note the listing of accounts and financial statements. Agreed. As usual, the listing of accounts and financial statements will be published as part of our minutes.
No. 3 on our agenda is correspondence. As previously agreed, items that were not flagged for discussion at this meeting will continue to be dealt with in accordance with the proposed actions that have been circulated to members and decisions taken by the committee in relation to correspondence are recorded in the minutes of committee meetings and published on the committee’s webpage.
The first category under which members have flagged items for discussion is category B, correspondence from Accounting Officers and-or Ministers and follow-up to committee meetings. The following correspondence has been held over from our meeting on 19 January. The first is No. R1640B from Mr. Mark Griffin, Secretary General of the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, dated 21 December 2022, which provides information requested by the Committee regarding the ownership of National Broadband Ireland and an update regarding the national broadband plan. It is proposed to note and publish this correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. This correspondence was held over so I propose we deal with it today because Deputy Munster is not here. I propose we follow through on that action. There is a lot of information in it which members may find useful. I am sure they have read the correspondence and will take further time to examine the matter because it has been of concern to the committee. I hope the reply was beneficial.
No. R1654B from Mr. David Moloney, Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, is dated 10 January 2023 and provides information requested by the committee regarding Benefacts. It is proposed to note and publish this correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
On the review referred to in the first sentence, instead of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform trying to convene the various interested parties, the approach that appears to have been adopted looked at individual organisations, units of Government or Departments in isolation. I think that was a test that almost predetermined the outcome. We saw that the Central Statistics Office, CSO, relied on the data sources and collection that Benefacts had done, whereas another State body would never use Benefacts. It was important to look at this collectively rather than individually and that is not what happened. It is useful to see that as a process and understand that this can be a deficiency if something like this happens again. At this stage, we know there is another proposal from the Department of Rural and Community Development. We should request the Department's business case for that and also the proposal for the scope of Pobal. We could usefully ask the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform for a copy of the two reports done by Benefacts. It compiled research on behalf of the Department on people working in the non-profit sector regarding pay and pensions. It would be useful to see those. Obviously, in a modern public service, information is important for making good decisions. In fact, if I remember rightly, the point that good quality information delivers or assists with good governance was made in the Indecon report. That is the point I have been trying to make throughout our discussions on this issue. I ask that the committee make those two requests.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is that agreed? Agreed. We have raised the issue of a business case regarding the Benefacts decision a number of times and we have not seen one to date. For a relatively small amount of money, Benefacts provided a large amount of information across a wide area. It was a great go-to service for Department officials and public bodies.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The Indecon report stated that if the service was to be dispensed with-----
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is right.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
-----there should be something in place beforehand. Now we have a vacuum of information and obviously the CSO, for example, will be relying on the information it had from that source for several years. However, at some point, the information will not be accepted by EUROSTAT. Then there is the cost involved. I cannot get my head around the way this was handled.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes, it was an interesting decision. I have not heard the logic for it yet. The committee has discussed the matter many times. We will persevere and seek information in the two areas outlined. We have agreed to note and publish No. R1654B regarding Benefacts.
No. R1657B from Ms Eeva Leinonen, president of Maynooth University, is dated 11 January 2023 and provides information requested by the committee regarding a proposed student centre and student levy fund. It is proposed to note and publish this correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. I note the correspondence states that the projected costs were more than 50% of the original contract, which would mean a breach of public procurement rules would be likely. That seems to be the rationale. Deputy Murphy has indicated she wants to speak on this matter.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I know something about this issue. It relates to a facility that was to be built for students. A levy was collected for a considerable period and then increased. Students agreed to pay it in return for getting this facility. When the contract was awarded and work had started, it was discovered that the costs exceeded the original contract amount. I do not know how the tender system worked to allow that to happen.
We have been told in this response that members of the governing authority are drawn from the staff, students and graduates and external organisations. I am not sure who the decision maker is in this regard. The students seem to have been blindsided by this decision. I met with them afterwards. We are being told it is the governing authority that has responsibility. Was the governing authority the decision maker in this case? I am not sure. I think students would have known if they were represented on that body and they did not seem to know.
Further on, it is stated that following a decision by the governing authority to terminate the contract, the university is currently considering the scope for legal redress against certain parties involved in the project with a view to cost recovery. I refer to the contract being already terminated. I presume it is possible when something is terminated to still proceed with cost recovery if it was not within or deviated from the contract. It is difficult to understand this.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
On the next page of the document, regarding the next steps, it is stated that following the decision of the governing authority to terminate the contract for the construction of the student centre, a student facilities project advisory group was established to make recommendations to the governing authority on the development of student facilities for the immediate, medium and longer term. The group comprises students and staff. There seems to be some duplication here. Is the governing authority the decision maker? The students are represented on it. I do not understand this process. The real question is what happened to the levy moneys that were specifically collected for this project, which has not been delivered and it certainly does not appear that it is going to be delivered in the short term.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The table on page 3 of the document is labelled as giving a detailed summary of student moneys collected and expended on student facilities. It is certainly not clear to me and the Deputy is also not happy that this provides the answer.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The levy had a definite purpose. It is being mentioned that little pods will be put in here and there and outside seating and that kind of stuff. The university has grown and there have been some great additions made to it to date. The number of students has increased in recent years from approximately 5,000 to about 15,000 now. Student facilities should be improving as the institution grows. What is a university without students? Catering for their needs is part and parcel of this context. The understanding regarding this levy was that it was being collected for the delivery of a building.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The Deputy's questions concern how much money is there, who has it and what it is going to be used for.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy:
The letter states that none of the levy funds have been used on the project to date and therefore the university is recognising, certainly from what is stated in this letter, that it does have an accumulation of student levy funds. Reference is made to €11 million having been collected to date.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes, but it was scaled up in about 2015 or 2016. I cannot remember exactly when that happened.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
People will have paid this levy, gone through the university and possibly even ended up doing a PhD, never mind being undergraduates. There must be some certainty about how this money will be spent.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We will look for that information. We will move on. No. R1658B, from Ms Dee Forbes, director general, RTÉ, dated 11 January 2023, provides information requested by the committee regarding expenditure on a musical production, Toy Show - the Musical. It is proposed to note and publish this correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Regarding this matter, further correspondence has been received today, dated 11 January 2023. I have not had a chance to read it because I only got it in the last few minutes. Members can take a moment to read it.
The one thing that became clear from reviewing the correspondence yesterday was that it sets out very little information regarding numbers, data or any information of substance. Commercial sensitivity is cited, but what the committee needs to know is how many shows were originally scheduled and how many went ahead. I understand some were cancelled due to illness. Generally, some shows will have a provision for that, but what provisions did RTÉ have? Were there understudies in place? I am sure the events were insured. RTÉ indicated that many television shows have taken several years to bed in and for the investment to show whether it has been successful. I would like RTÉ to advise the committee if it is considering proceeding with Toy Show - the Musical in 2023.
RTÉ has indicated that it has tried to balance its response with the committee's legitimate interest in understanding the rationale for the project. From what we have seen in this response, the organisation has failed to do that. It has provided little or no information of note in terms of what we need to know in respect of this committee's task. RTÉ states in its letter that its remit covers more than commercial activity and that the organisation has a balance to strike in respect of providing clarifications. While it is good to receive this information back from RTÉ, I do not think it tells us anything and does not answer any of the questions we had. I call Deputy Catherine Murphy.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Chair, should we just ask a specific question like what loss was incurred or if there was a loss incurred in the production?
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We can do that.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I originally raised this issue when the show was being advertised and I do not think that it had commenced so it was not in the time when there were difficulties with illness or things like that. RTÉ repeatedly told us in its letter how cash strapped it was and said, "We must try new things, to grow and sustain all we are obliged to do." I have no problem with innovation and trying new things. However, I would expect that there would be some degree of a cost-benefit analysis beforehand and I am not sure if that has happened.
RTÉ has a specific remit. On the last page of the letter, it states that RTÉ "will of course conclude a much more detailed analysis of Toy Show the Musical in due course. As would by typical of musicals of this scale and ambition, our aim is to bring the show back over a number of years to recoup our investment.” So it does appear the intention is to repeat the musical. It would be useful to see if RTÉ will conduct a review in advance. I am sure that venues must be booked a long time in advance but it would be useful to see the review. I think that it would be quite useful to ask RTÉ if it has included the cost of promoting the musical in its cost-benefit analysis. I ask because the event was heavily promoted and there may be opportune costs in terms of where they slot that in when it comes to other advertising.
I shall outline one of the things that has been brought to my attention. With live shows there is always a risk and sometimes they do not work out as people would like because people can get sick and we know that this winter has been particularly difficult. RTÉ needs to learn a few lessons such as telling people well in advance if there is a risk that a show may not happen. I say that because people were in their seats awaiting the musical to begin having bought all their stuff in the shop beforehand and it was only then they were advised the show would not start. I know ten people who spent €500 in the shop and then took their seats but then everyone was advised that the show was not going to start so all of their popcorn and everything else was added to the cost. There were people, for example, who had booked hotel rooms and made travel arrangements, etc. Many people were disappointed when the show was cancelled. All of that must be factored into the associated risks. RTÉ should demonstrate fair play by telling people about the risks well in advance and I hope that it has learned its lesson.
The committee should seek the review that has been mentioned. I have no problem with RTÉ being innovative, trying different things and trying to earn cash in different ways but I want to know was a cost-benefit analysis ever considered. We are likely to have RTÉ in again this year and it would be useful for us to see the review as part of its profile.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The Deputy has asked a number of questions. First, if RTÉ is proceeding with another musical will it conduct a review first? RTÉ has indicated that so it looks like RTÉ will proceed and we must get it confirmed whether a review will be carried out. The Deputy raised the issue of giving notice of cancellations and asked a very legitimate question. She asked how many shows were originally scheduled for last Christmas, how many shows went ahead, was there a loss and has a cost-benefit analysis been carried out. Her questions capture all that we need know and I thank the Deputy.
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I respect anyone's right to raise any issues here at a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts. I am thinking of the scale of the task ahead of us. Commercial semi-State organisations must make commercial calculations so inevitably with such a remit there will be losses as well as successes. Let us consider the scale of public spending in the HSE, for example, which is more than €20 billion. I think that we could have multiple meetings of this committee on that budget line alone. I wonder whether investigating what happened with the show is the best use of our time. I think that Deputy Verona Murphy is right. The context of this discussion should be when RTÉ seeks public funding in the context of a licence fee and so on. I hope that I am not wrong about this but I am not sure that RTÉ is directly responsible to the Committee of Public Accounts.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
No, it is not. RTÉ is not directly responsible but substantial funding goes from the Department to RTÉ, which obviously has a hugely important programme. The Deputy is correct that what this committee is debating here concerns hundreds of thousands of euro here as opposed many billions.
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
This week, we celebrated four Irish actors being nominated for Oscars. Is the committee going to start analysing every investment that Screen Ireland has made?
Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We have already discussed that as part of the work of the Committee on Budgetary Oversight.
Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I do not know if the PAC is the correct forum. I am not saying this issue is not important. I just think that, on balance, in terms of the scale of work that this committee has, we would be better spending our time elsewhere.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The context is that RTÉ is faced with substantial financial challenges thus leading to a number of questions. This committee has had RTÉ in here a number of times as there has been a number of issues that we have been concerned about. Both the work that this committee has done and some of its recommendations have been useful. Of course we, as a committee, have encouraged RTÉ to broaden its commercial activity and increase the amount of commercial funding coming in. All that is true but context is everything. RTÉ, as the public sector broadcaster, has an important role and, by and large, it has fulfilled that role fairly well. In terms of context, we must ensure that the State broadcaster is on sound financial footing. RTÉ has gone through a rocky period and we want to make sure that it is coming out of that space. The Deputy is right that we should not tie up our days and nights with this stuff. However, I believe that we would be negligent if we did not keep an eye on RTÉ and I thank the Deputy for pointing out that. We will seek clarification on the points raised and I hope that will give us further information.
The next item of correspondence is R1677 from Ms Oonagh McPhillips, Secretary General, Department of Justice, dated 13 January, providing information requested by the committee regarding non-compliant procurement. It is proposed to note and publish this item of correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. Deputy Matt Carthy flagged this item for discussion. Does any member wish to comment on R1677? No. We will note and publish the item of correspondence.
The next item of correspondence is R1678, which concerns big money, from Mr. David Gunning, Chief Executive, National Paediatric Hospital Development Board, dated 13 January, providing information requested by the committee regarding penalty clauses on subsection completion in respect of claims within the agreed dispute management process. It is proposed to note and publish this item of correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. Deputy Catherine Murphy and I flagged this item for discussion.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
On point 4, do we have anything to gauge these rates of LADs?
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes. I presume that this relates to the contractual obligation on the other side, which is an issue that I have raised on several occasions. I recall that we have been told that this will not adjudicated on until the whole thing is completed.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is not going to be done on an incremental basis.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am just wondering. We are being told that this is going to be one of the projects and that it will be closely looked at for learning lessons from other similar projects. Some will be lessons about how not to go about a tendering process. Largely it will be about that, but it would be quite useful to know if there are similar projects in other jurisdictions so we could see how that kind of thing worked and the kinds of safeguards that could be done on a phased basis rather than waiting until one gets to the very end. A lot of the delays on this, for example, were at the beginning of the contract. This is what delayed on the delivery to achieve the 2022 completion of the hospital. I do not know where we would look for similar projects in comparable jurisdictions, or whether the Department has looked for that. I believe this could be a benefit when we come to look at the overall review of this. If we are ever going to learn the lessons we have to know how other jurisdictions handle projects of this nature and not make the same mistakes again.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The correspondence we have here sets out that in December €1.2 billion had been spent. A question we need an answer to is whether the National Paediatric Hospital Development Board, NPHDB, can advise as to what the allocation was for budget 2023 so we could see how close they are to the €1.7 billion estimate, and if we will reach that this year.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay, so it is €1.4 billion.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is the €300 million for the three hospitals in Children's Health Ireland?
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Are they likely to run out of money this year?
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We will ask them that because if it is €1.4 billion-----
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I may well have asked this before, but how is that handled? Is there a Supplementary Estimate if they were to run out of money in July, for example? I am just picking that month out of thin air.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy:
The Supplementary Estimate would only kick in if the capital funds available in the Vote were insufficient for the demands from the HSE overall for their capital programme. At each level there would be a budgeting for the year. It seems to me that the obvious question to ask, in the first instance, is what is the provision for 2023, and to ask the HSE if that is within their own budget. Then if they believe that the allocation in the budget is likely to be insufficient, due to inflation or whatever, the committee can ask where they are going to find the rest of what is required this year. It could end up requiring a Supplementary Estimate.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
This probably does not take-----
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Or it could be squeezed out of other capital projects.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Without going near the Vote.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That €1.2 billion that they are up to at this stage does not take account of some of the additional claims.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We had here a couple of weeks ago-----
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is the figure. It is minuscule what is being settled. Some €520 million is disputed, which are verified as claims and accepted as claims at this point but have yet to be settled.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is the word.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy:
There is a difference between a claim that is signalled. We will have a claim in relation to a certain item, and then the substantiation of it is where they put forward an explanation and the detail of the basis for the claim. That is the substantiation. A verified claim is a different thing. It comes much later in the process.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I believe there could be more than €600 million in claims signalled. This is really big beef. We are talking about big money if it is in addition to the figures we have here. We can ask the HSE the question next week. We will ask the secretariat to note this and request information from them. We will ask what the budget is and if it will be sufficient, particularly in light of the pending claims, some of which we hope would be settled this year. Some of these might end up in the High Court. We can tease that out with them. It must at least be signalled for discussion.
On the completion date, there was a date of March 2024. We must ask the board about the nine-month period for fitting out and for activation. It would be useful to find out from the board if they are still tied to that figure.
Another question that I am not clear about is on the moratorium on claims. At what point does that stop? I do not know the answer to that and perhaps we could find this out from the board. Are members happy enough with that? We will note and publish the item of correspondence.
I shall now move on to correspondence from and related to private individuals and any other correspondence. The following items are related. We agreed to hold them over until a response was received from the Charities Regulator. This has to do with the provision or otherwise of abortion services. The correspondence is: R1574 C, from Deputy Neasa Hourigan, dated 11 November 2022; R1577 C, from former member of the committeem Deputy Jennifer Carroll MacNeill, now Minister of State, dated 15 November 2022; and R1601 C from Deputy Carthy dated 24 November 2022. Last week I proposed that we would deal with these as they have been held over for a while. The items concern the alleged operation of a body as a charity that is not registered as such. I understand the same matter was raised at a meeting of the previous Committee of Public Accounts in November 2019.
I ask that Members keep in mind the longstanding parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise, or make charges against a person outside the Houses by name or in such a way as to make them identifiable.
The Charities Regulator confirms an application for registration has been received from the body in question. It is a long time coming but that is what the confirmation is. There is useful information in the correspondence regarding how the registration process works and it is also stated that this can be protracted in certain situations. I am proposing to note the item. I do not believe it is appropriate to publish this correspondence because the body is referenced. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Would any member wish to come in to discuss this? Is the committee happy enough? One of the items of correspondence was from Deputy Hourigan. Does the Deputy wish to comment?
Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes. I was just reading the items.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The Deputy's item is No. R1574 C. The three letters are fairly similar anyway.
Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The length of time it has taken for this process to play out is of concern to me.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes I agree.
Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What the letter raised is an issue that significantly damages people's lives in real time and in very quick order. The solving of that issue took an incredibly long time, and I am unhappy with that. I do not know when the last time was that we had the Charities Regulator in front of us.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am not aware. It was not in my time.
Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is years. Could I make a proposal for the work programme that we talk to the Charities Regulator?
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We can put it on the list for consideration.
Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is who we would want to talk to about this because it is for it to say if somebody is acting in an inappropriate way. I am trying to be very careful with my language based on the Chairman's comments.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I understand it was raised by at this committee the then Deputy Kate O'Connell. That is going back a few years now. The point was well made that there are issues that have to be dealt with quickly because we are talking about people's health and well-being. It is an issue of concern that it has taken so long. The Charities Regulator was last before the committee on 21 November 2019.
Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay, so not in the time of this Dáil.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It was raised by then Deputy O'Connell with the chief executive of the Charities Regulator, Helen Martin, at the committee on that date. That is how far back it was.
Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is quite far back. From the correspondence it looks to me, although maybe I am reading into it or inferring, that they are not particularly happy with that situation either. Maybe it is something we could discuss with the regulator. Maybe there is a legislative issue we can outline or bring light to. It would be worth adding to the work programme.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I would suggest in the short term that we correspond and ask why there was such a delay. I have not seen the transcript of that meeting. What we have here is a report on the transcript from a number of individuals, including Deputy Hourigan herself. I do not have the benefit of actually seeing the transcript. I suggest we ask the Charities Regulator why in this case it took so long - over three years - and if this is accurate. I do not know whether it is or not but the chair of the Revenue Commissioners, Niall Cody, was very strong on this matter and matters needing to be legal or if matters were legal or illegal. In view of that, we should look for clarification from the Charities Regulator rather than waiting for it to come in later.
Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That would be a good first step.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That concludes our consideration of correspondence. The next item of business is our work programme. At our meeting on 19 January, we agreed our work programme for January and February. We want to continue the practice of trying to plan at least six or seven weeks out to give everybody, the witnesses and the secretariat, a chance to get their ducks lined up.
Next week, we will engage with the HSE to resume examination of its 2021 financial statements, with a focus on expenditure on disability services, including the provision of disability services by outside agencies, which are generally section 38 and 39 organisations; emergency care; and measures to tackle waiting lists. At our meeting last week, we agreed to include GP services, in particular out-of-hours services, and funding of voluntary disability services agencies on the agenda. Members may recall I mentioned at the last meeting that I have been told there are six different models for providing that out-of-hours service. The Taoiseach confirmed the other day that it is a bit ad hoc. I do not want to misquote him but he seemed to indicate it is very fragmented. I remind members that we agreed to defer consideration of the business of the committee for 2 February 2023 to facilitate attendance by members when the President of the European Parliament, Ms Roberta Metsola, will be addressing a joint sitting of the Dáil and the Seanad.
On 9 February, we will engage with the Department of Health regarding its 2021 appropriation account as well as chapter 12 of the report on the accounts of the public services 2021 on the financial impact of the cyberattack. We have advised the Department that a specific area of interest is expenditure on emergency departments.
On 16 February, we will resume our engagement with the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth with a specific focus on direct provision expenditure, international protection and emergency accommodation. Members have billions there to get their teeth into, in case Deputy McAuliffe thinks we are dealing with small change here. His point was well made.
On 23 February, we are planning to engage with the Central Bank and to request representatives from the Office of the Revenue Commissioners and Department of Finance. The Central Bank has been notified and the secretariat has not yet received confirmation regarding its availability.
Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
On the Central Bank issue, I understand that under the new rules, we need to tell witnesses if we want to talk about something. Could we put on the list issues around things like Revolut and so on, because they do not come under the Central Bank? Can we not do that?
Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. Thank you.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
People need to be thinking about whether there are issues. I am a bit concerned because that is four weeks away. I do not want a situation where we are trying to fill that gap next week, which would be within a 21-day period. I suggest that we revert back to that later in the meeting and members have a think about this. I am concerned about that date. The Central Bank has not confirmed the engagement yet and we are just four weeks away. I am going to hold that back and we will revert to it later in the meeting.
On 2 March, we will engage with the State Claims Agency in relation to its financial statements 2021 and chapter 20 of the report on the accounts of the public services, on management of the clinical indemnity scheme.
Does any member wish to raise any other matters regarding the work programme? Deputy Hourigan has suggested putting the Charities Regulator on the list.
Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes. I have one more suggestion. Given the work we did on greyhounds and the current discussion around Coillte, and as we cannot have Coillte in, it might be an idea to invite the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is that regarding Coillte?
Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Coillte and greyhound racing.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The Deputy would like to invite the Department regarding greyhounds and forestry.
Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. I suggest that given the scale of things and what is playing out at the moment, we would deal with the issue of forestry first.
Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Absolutely. I am happy to do that.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I noted this somewhere on one of the hundreds of pieces of paper around the place. The Deputy is correct that it is something that needs to be looked at. It is agreed that we have the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in regarding forestry in the first instance? Agreed. The other issue is to add the Charities Regulator to the list. If members agree, I suggest we prioritise forestry over the Charities Regulator. That issue is very important but I think that is what we should do, given what is happening at the moment and the concern across the Dáil and the Parliament over that issue. Is that agreed? Agreed.