COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate -
Thursday, 19 Apr 2018

Business of Committee

Chairman

The Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, is present as a permanent witness to the committee. He is joined today by Ms Olivia Somers, senior auditor. Apologies have been received from Deputy Kelly.

Are the minutes of the meeting of 29 March agreed? Agreed. No matters arise from them that will not also arise by way of correspondence or in the course of the meeting.

I want to move straight on to correspondence received since our last meeting. There are three categories of correspondence, the first of which, category A, relates to briefing documents and opening statements and covers correspondence items Nos. 1226 and 1235 from Mr. Derek Moran, Secretary General of the Department of Finance, which enclose a briefing as well as an opening statement for today's meeting. We will note and publish that.

Next is category B, correspondence from Accounting Officers following up on previous meetings of this committee. The first item of correspondence is No. 1204B from Mr. William Beausang, assistant secretary at the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, enclosing the circular requested by the committee regarding the publication of post-project reviews. This also refers to public-private partnerships. We had a brief discussion on this matter previously. We will note and publish this correspondence. All Departments have been instructed to carry out such reviews.

Next is No. 1207B from Mr. Mark Griffin, Secretary General of the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment, enclosing information requested by the committee regarding the waste directive and a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union dated 26 April 2005. It is a voluminous document at 68 pages. We will note and publish it, and if anyone wishes to comment, he or she is free to do so. It is an old document and members are free to use it in any way they choose after the meeting.

Next is No. 1209B from Mr. John McCarthy, Secretary General of the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government, dated 29 March, providing follow-up information requested by the committee on the funding of local authorities, matters related to housing and the cost of producing the national planning framework. There is a substantial briefing document in this regard. Deputies Cassells and Murphy wish to contribute.

Deputy Shane Cassells

The Chairman is quite right about this being a significant document. It is a pity that much of this information was not provided at the time of the hearing, given that it was easily accessible to the officials concerned and would have been helpful in the course of the discussion on the day, since the questions posed could have been anticipated.

There is an overdependency on our rates system, as illustrated in the pie charts. Now, 36% of local authority funding is dependent on commercial rates. Due to the combination of the revaluation process that is taking place across the country and the equalisation process, whereby many urban areas are being brought up to county rates, major pressure is being placed on small businesses, yet these statistics show that this crutch is growing even larger. I asked repeatedly on the day whether that was sustainable, but it is not.

Along with other Deputies, I asked about the per capita funding. The graphs are very illuminating in this regard. My county of Meath has one of the largest populations in the Dublin commuter area with nearly 200,000 people, yet we have the lowest per capita spend by a long way at €522. We are also the least staffed county. These statistics are damning of the system and how it is funded and structured. It is structured on an historical basis and did not keep pace with the population explosions of the 2000s. It is a sad indictment of the Department as an institution that it has not been able to react to this situation. It is an outdated Department when it comes to reacting to the pressures facing counties like Meath, Louth, Wicklow and Kildare. The statistics show that. If they had been available to us on the day, they would have given more credence to the arguments that we were making. A spend of €522 per capita is a sad indictment of the manner in which local government in County Meath and, indeed, other counties is structured.

Section 4 relates to direct build provision. We debate the issue of housing day in, day out in the Chamber. The statistics show that the level of provision is not meeting the crisis. The front page of today's Irish Independent highlights this. Some 2,100 homes have received full or partial approval from the Department and have still not proceeded. That front page story is a sad indictment of where we are.

These statistics paint a very different picture than the spin and bluster with which the committee is being presented. I reiterate the point that, when we deal with Departments, the full suite of statistics must be available to us so that we can do our job properly and hold people to account. The statistics tell a different story of what is happening.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I echo many of those comments. The counties of Meath, Kildare and Wicklow have a greater combined population than the whole county of Cork. That is not appreciated. The model for distributing resources dates back to four censuses ago and does not factor in more recent ones. We were told on the day that questions could not be answered because the Minister was imminently going to make an announcement about a rebalancing and a more transparent approach to how local government funding would be allocated, but there has been no announcement. Obviously, this is a critical point.

The document relates to a number of issues and we should probably hold it over. For example, it has useful information on Irish Water and the 2015-21 business plan.

As we cannot interrogate Irish Water directly, we must have time to consider the information we have been given.

On the funding allocation to local authorities for unfinished estates, some of that money was to be recouped once the ghost estates were finished and sold and so on.

Chairman

I ask Deputy Murphy to clarify that point. Sometimes there were bonds in place and the bonds-----

Deputy Catherine Murphy

No, it was in regard to ghost estates that required funding to be finished.

Chairman

To make them safe, etc.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

To make them safe and then for some to be sold on. If it was possible to recoup some of that money-----

Chairman

We will note that issue.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

It has not been followed up to the extent that it should. There are a couple of quite important issues dealt with in this document. We should hold it over and come back to it.

Chairman

Yes, there is a lot in it.

Deputy David Cullinane

I wish to raise a more fundamental point in regard to this correspondence. It is fair to say that when Accounting Officers come in and we put very detailed and specific questions to them, they will not always have the necessary information at their fingertips, so it is reasonable that follow-on information is sometimes needed. Most are very helpful in that regard and we get the information very quickly. There is a difference between such situations and Accounting Officers having basic information prior to meetings or, sometimes, purposely not having it so that we cannot discuss certain issues. That makes the work of the committee very difficult. This is not the first time for very simple, basic questions to be put on issues that the Accounting Officer should know and have anticipated or been given a heads-up are the type of issues we want to discuss. However, when we ask the questions, the information is not available but we get a very comprehensive document afterwards. As I have said previously, there is no point getting a comprehensive document afterwards when the issue is to be discussed on the day. That is unfair to the committee. Perhaps we should consider seeking more detailed notes in advance on key issues we know will be topical and the basis of the discussion. That would be of assistance to the committee. We receive many such documents afterwards, many of which answer the questions we want answered but not in a way whereby we can probe the Accounting Officers. They leave the committee meeting and send on a detailed report. We then read the report, criticise the officer and are upset and that is the end of it; we move on and the same thing happens again. It is in our power to change that if we wish to do so. If an Accounting Officer does not have the required information, he or she should be told to return to the committee the following week or whenever. We may have to make examples of some Accounting Officers. In fairness, most have the necessary information and there have been some recent examples of very good exchanges. We need to manage the meetings a bit more and do more planning before witnesses come in. This document from the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government is fantastic but it would have been great to have had the information before the meeting.

Deputy Kate O'Connell

I support the comments made by Deputy Cassells on rates. I am aware from my time on Dublin City Council that the over-reliance on commercial rates to fund the city's business has always been an issue. There has been a lack of understanding of the pressures on small fledgling businesses. Many of the vacant units in our large urban centres have been taken over by large multinationals rather than small indigenous artisan businesses because the rates bill in the first few years is an unwelcome bill which people cannot afford. The emergence of many rates-exempt charity shops in smaller towns in rural Ireland shows that the cost of rates is a fundamental part of starting up a new business. While I was on Dublin City Council, many were of the view that businesses would suck it up and get over it and that everyone in small business had plenty of money to pay bills. We must be very conscious that if we continue on this trajectory, businesses such as Waltons will move online, leaving vacant units. It is a bit late to have waited ten years to act. One can see the evidence of it in the large urban centres. I was recently in Tullamore, in which there has been an emergence of charity shops. It is too late to act when the horse has bolted.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I will not repeat points already made but I concur with my colleagues that the chapter is excellent and we must consider it. On page 20 it states that a final breakdown of the direct build for 2017 is not yet available; it is currently being finalised and will be published. We should seek that information before making any decision relating to the chapter.

Chairman

Members have raised a fundamental issue. There have been a couple of examples of Departments sending us information a month after the meeting which should perhaps have been included in the briefing material made available prior to the meeting. It was well flagged that we wanted to know the funding model for local authorities and local property tax, LPT, equalisation. That information should have been in the original briefing note such that we could have debated it rather than it being sent to us some time later. We have now been provided with the information.

A similar situation pertained at the meeting on public private partnerships, PPPs. The witnesses had no information at the time but we are now receiving reams of pages. How much of it is relevant is another point. However, everything that has been sent to us to date on PPPs should have been available to us prior to the meeting. We will come to that later on.

We have received a reply from the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, in respect of a report on our earlier committee report following our complaint that we were unhappy with the initial reply and would discuss it in detail. We have now been provided with a huge amount of information.

As Chairman of the committee, I propose that we request the secretariat to examine information received after a meeting to see if it could reasonably have been provided before the meeting. Issues will always emerge during the course of a meeting which could not have been foreseen. Perhaps members could flag potential issues of interest to the secretariat in advance. We might put in place a system to identify two or three topics which should be addressed in briefing material. We may do that in regard to our work programme. It is a point to which we must return.

As regards the document received from the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government, members have asked for further information on direct build. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked about ghost estates and wants more information about recoupable money and whether that has been recouped.

I wish to have a more extensive note on the mortgage arrears resolution process and information on how many houses have been repossessed by each local authority. Laois County Council has repossessed more houses in County Laois than banks have. Most were voluntary surrenders whereby the occupants handed in the key but they still had to go through a legal process to complete that. It is very widespread and involves people in social or affordable housing and various issues. We must have those figures for each local authority.

I also wish to have information on the mortgage protection insurance charge to local authority borrowers for each local authority. I have this week submitted a parliamentary question on that issue and have looked at it in the past. The charge is several times more expensive than similar insurance available from the private sector. I wish to have a full breakdown of the current arrangements in that regard and a comparison to the private sector offerings.

To follow on from Deputy Catherine Murphy's comment on ghost or unfinished estates, unfinished housing developments are dealt with on page 24. Members may find it instructive that at 9 a.m. yesterday morning, I went into my local authority because Laois fared particularly badly in a report on the number of housing units in unfinished estates issued last week by the Department. I went into my local authority to run through the report. This is not about Laois; it is a general comment. I told the director of services that it was the first time I had left a council building more confused than I was when I went in. My confusion was caused by the different definitions of what constitutes an unfinished housing estate.

Sometimes, several different descriptions are used. If an estate is half built and nobody has occupied a unit, and it is just fenced off, it is not included in the statistics because there is nobody in it. If unfinished houses are fenced off on an estate in which units are occupied, that is not considered an estate unfinished because remedial work has been done, to which the Deputy referred. Houses are almost complete on some estates but a number of local authorities take the view that they are only waiting to be sold and, therefore, the estates are finished, even though they are not. We need a clear definition and explanation regarding what an unfinished estate means. It means something different every time the question is asked. The committee wants a detailed note on this. There are myriad descriptions such as ghost estates, unfinished estates and incomplete estates which confuses the public.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Money from this fund was used on very few unfinished estates in Kildare because there were strict criteria governing the estates that qualified.

Chairman

No path to the front door was one.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

There were four different tests. They should be easy to isolate. Some estates might have been demolished but others were sold.

Chairman

I will ask Mr. McCarthy to come in. We want details. Every time we ask for information, we want it by local authority from the Department and not just a global figure.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

When an Accounting Officer comes here, it is to an extent a one-off and the information the committee is going to get in that situation will be more detailed, but it is perfectly reasonable for the committee to consider as well whether organisations are publishing key performance information or relevant key data on a routine basis that is properly defined and validated and so on. That applies both to performance and the financial information that they provide. It touches on what we will talk about later in respect of fiscal transparency and so on. Having good information in accessible forms that means something to users of the information is probably a legitimate and reasonable concern of the committee.

Chairman

In the meantime, we will write back seeking the additional information requested. If anybody has any requests, please pass them on to the secretariat before the letter is sent. When we get information back in a week or two, we will come back to the document. We will hold over a discussion on it and we will come back to it.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

Will the Chairman clarify what he is looking for regarding unfinished estates?

Chairman

I want an explanation for the categorisation of unfinished estates such as an estate that is half complete and not occupied versus an estate that is partly occupied and partly fenced off.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

So a definition.

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy Shane Cassells

There was a categorisation under the local property tax, LPT. When adjudications were made on what was exempt, the Department set down criteria. Estates that were fully occupied were exempt from the charge based on commercial units not being finished as part of the overall development such as an apartment complex.

Chairman

Yes, and they might be finished now and liable for LPT.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

The sites that qualified for Government funding are in a different category. We want to see that the State will get the back money back.

Chairman

Exactly. We want the details as well of the taking-in-charge of local estates. Funding for that is mentioned and we want the figure for the allocation by each local authority in 2016, 2017 and 2018. The fund has ceased but let us get the figures clarified.

There is some other information. Members can read the work programme and list two or three topics they want included in the briefing note in future. That might help us as well. We will hold over that correspondence until we get additional information and then we will have a fuller discussion on it at that stage. We will note and publish it but we will hold over a discussion on it. We will not keep the document under wraps.

No. 1210B is correspondence from Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú, Secretary General, Department of Education and Skills, dated 29 March 2018, in relation to the meeting of the committee on 22 March 2018. Mr. O Foghlú believes that his treatment by Deputy MacSharry at the meeting was unfair and it was suggested that Mr. Ó Foghlú had not honoured a commitment in 2014 to revert to the committee on matters relating CIT discussed at a meeting in May 2014. No. 1127, dated 12 April 2018, is also correspondence from Mr. Ó Foghlú, which includes a copy of the letter sent to the committee in 2014 in which he addresses the matters relating to CIT. Mr. Ó Foghlú asks the Deputy to acknowledge that his remarks in relation to an alleged non-response by Mr. Ó Foghlú were not accurate and that the remarks about his attendance at a particular party were unwarranted. Does the Deputy wish to respond?

Deputy Marc MacSharry

I am not sure that I did looking at the transcript but normally before I start questioning, I tend to point out to witnesses that we use a robust, adversarial style at the committee and we often cut in on people. We tend to qualify an apology in advance if anybody feels threatened by that. All questions at the meeting were relevant to the subject of the day, which was public private partnerships, PPS. I asked about two PPPs at CIT, including the national maritime college. I wanted to know specifically about the contract manager and his qualifications. From my research, when a question was asked about this at the committee in 2014, an answer had not come back. My search did not show that. I appreciate that Mr. Ó Foghlú did send it in. Now that I have seen it, it makes the relevant questions all the more pertinent because that document was prepared following the meeting in 2014 and it alluded to the 37 years' experience of the particular individual specifically relevant to PPPs. That is simply not the case. This person was appointed as a department head in 2004 and had a science background.

With regard to the questioning, we had established the last day that there were serious problems with that particular building. That is the reason we were asking about contact managers. We established that if they were looking for a contract manager with expertise, they would not be looking for a scientist. They would be looking for architects, mechanical and electrical engineers with a suitable background. This person did not have this and that is pertinent to the fact that we were dealing with €110 million of the people's money and, as it happens, the project did not go that well.

I also specifically mentioned the fact that there was a whistleblower's report, which was produced after an investigation with terms of references set by the Department. We were concerned about it last June when it came up. When we get to the work programme later, I will seek to have CIT included again because it is not included currently. There are serious governance questions in the college.

On the PPP, I mentioned that the individual did not have the appropriate background, expertise and professional qualifications. That seems to be confirmed by the document, which I accept was sent in. It did not come up in my search but Mr. Ó Foghlú clearly responded in June 2014. I also had a concern that this person and another person had retired and come back a couple of days later as consultants. That was not done in the normal way and only retrospective approval was given by the HEA and the Department of Education and Skills, which, again, is not good practice. It is bad governance and raises the question as to why were they brought back and in what role. The Secretary General was not in a position to tell me the role. Was it connected to the PPP because there was such a good job being done on it or was it connected to another area? I happened to know from my own research that a retirement function was held for this individual. I simply asked Mr. Ó Foghlú whether he attended it because we have a precedent where he attended one for the president of CIT, which came up briefly last June, and, hopefully, it will be dealt with when we get to CIT again. However, I wanted to get a picture of this. There was a retirement function and the following Monday, the person was back in at €21,000 a year. The expertise that he was allegedly supposed to have did not play out that well when it came to the marine college.

The Chairman misunderstood me by thinking that I wanted to return to discussing the retirement function for the CIT president that made all the headlines, including a reference to ice sculptures and so on. That was not my intention at the time.

Let me outline another thing that I said. The KPMG report referred to a missing page of the documentation that was-----

Chairman

Which KPMG report?

Deputy Marc MacSharry

The KPMG report was into the whistleblower's report-----

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

-----about various things at CIT that made references to public private partnerships, PPPs, and problems with them. I asked Mr. Ó Foghlú whether he had the missing page 14. He said that he did not have the stuff with him and was unsure. I think that is what he indicated. I replied that I had page 14, which specifically alluded to things to do with the PPP, the lack of succession which, in fairness, the Comptroller and Auditor General had identified as well, and some other issues. I offered to make the page available to the Department if the officials did not already have the page. I have it here and they can have same.

While there is no questions in this regard, I am happy to say "Sorry" but I looked for the report on the qualifications of the individual but could not find it, which suggested to me that there was no response. I fully accept that there was a response at that time. The response now, having read it, looks like it was written, following the meeting in 2014, to facilitate the end of the story. It does not and it creates more questions. Clearly, Mr. Ó Foghlú, and I am sad to say we were very frustrated that day, and another Secretary General who was present did not like the robust questioning. They did not like the adversarial style. I pointed out that I was not here to make up numbers but ask questions about public money, and sometimes I must ask difficult questions. I am paid a lot of money to do so and the officials are paid even more to do their jobs. The precious reaction to the style of questioning is endemic and characteristic of the sort of stonewalling that we get here on a consistent basis. Whether that is the gardaí, the Department of Justice and Equality, the Department of Education and Skills, or whatever, there is a culture of containment and the approach adopted is there is nothing to see here and shutters are pulled down. Mr. Ó Foghlú was more interested in getting an apology from me as to the style, delivery and presentation of my questions instead of approaching me immediately after the meeting and asking for the missing page. Nobody has asked me for the page but maybe he has it already.

I asked a number of questions on the last day. I suggested that the officials could come back to me on some matters, and specifically why the consultant was brought back on the following Monday. Has Mr. Ó Foghlú supplied the information?

Chairman

We have written and we can-----

Deputy Marc MacSharry

Why do we need to write? I asked Mr. Ó Foghlú and he said that he would come back to us on that.

Chairman

For the benefit of members and viewers, when we have a meeting various remarks and requests are made.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

Right.

Chairman

It is normal procedure for the secretariat to go through the transcript and specifically list-----

Deputy Marc MacSharry

To pick out what we are looking for.

Chairman

Yes, such that we will get-----

Deputy Marc MacSharry

Did the secretariat do that?

Chairman

That has been done and we will circulate a copy.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

Yes. Mr. Ó Foghlú specifically referred to a system that he has, which ensures that he never misses coming back.

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

I have a thick skin and do not mind taking a bit of criticism from Mr. Ó Foghlú, the public or anybody else. We are all in here to do the best job that we can. I have to say in the two years that I have been a member of this committee the precious nature of certain people in certain State bodies is inconsistent with their responsibilities to the people. I could equally write to the Secretary General or the head of many a State agency who has been in here over the past two years and take issue with their lack of candour, presentation and answering questions on pertinent issues regarding taxpayers' money. Again, I say there is no question, including in regard to my reference to the retirement party for somebody who returned the following Monday as a consultant. My question was totally relevant to the PPPs. Again, the Chairman misunderstood and thought that I was referring to the meeting with the CIT president.

Chairman

Okay.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

The bottom line is I am sorry. I know there was a response but I could not find it. Beyond that, I hope that the same enthusiasm and attention is put into dealing with the issues that we raise here. Our questions are not personal; it is just business on behalf of the people. When €110 million is dished our for a building that is falling down and when a scientist oversaw that, it causes concern.

We need to be conscious that a big portion of the exchange was on the fact that we cannot identify somebody. I did not name anybody. Why can a person who is in charge of public money not be identified? I did not use the person's name. I asked probing questions to find out what went on and it is quite likely that people will be able to identify the person involved. What is the problem? The person works in the public sector and is paid public money. The details of my salary and expenses are available for everyone to see on the Internet. I imagine that the same applies to the salaries paid to Secretary Generals and so on. We are not talking about Joe Blogs or a private citizen. I appreciate the practice of not naming people-----

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

-----or trying not to identify people. In terms of people who are in receipt of public money paid by the State, we are stretching the practice and the rules.

Chairman

I wish to discuss one point with the Comptroller and Auditor General. In the discussion in 2014, which followed on, did he refer to the project manager?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes.

Chairman

The point is well taken. The person had already been clearly identified at a previous meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

A contract manager, not the project manager.

Chairman

Was the person a contract manager?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes.

Chairman

Right. The PPP contract manager had been-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes.

Chairman

-----identified earlier.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

It would also be appropriate for me to point out the following.

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

I am sure that this person was at the cutting edge of brilliance in terms of their career and academic qualifications.

Chairman

I urge the Deputy not to get personal about the individual.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

I am not being personal. I just wanted to put that out.

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

It would be an abdication of responsibility if we did not establish, from the expertise the last day, what sort of qualifications and experience would we look for in a PPP contract manager, which we did. We compared him or her with the person in the post. It cannot be lost on us-----

Chairman

Right.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

-----that this did not work out so well.

Chairman

Okay. I thank the Deputy. I want to bring this issue to a conclusion.

I call Deputy Connolly.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I have heard Deputy MacSharry. This is a letter from a very senior person in the Department of Education and Skills. He states on paper that he has received unfair treatment. That is serious. He has told us that and we heard Deputy MacSharry's response. I think we should take this matter seriously.

I am concerned about the last line in the letter which states that he would be happy to meet the Chair and the clerk to discuss how this might be achieved. I do not think that should happen. We need to decide independently, as a committee, that we are satisfied with the way we question people, and it should not be as a result of meeting someone outside of that. That is my only comment on that sentence but I certainly think it is a serious letter.

Chairman

I thank the Deputy.

I have listened to Deputy MacSharry. We have the letter from Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú, which will be published and put on the public record. I will make a few observations. First, I agree with the Deputies. I do not intend to meet the Secretary General to discuss the particular issue as I accept it is a broader issue for the committee. We must acknowledge that the witness believed that there was unfair treatment, as an invited witness to the committee. He has stated that in his letter.

My concern the last day was that we might have, in some way, reflected not on the qualifications but on the competence of the particular PPP contract manager in CIT. That is a comment on his personal character rather than his professional character in terms of his ability. I want to make the point that we have not yet established whether the faults were the fault of the PPP contractor and whether the PPP contractor is obliged to correct the faults. Perhaps the faults in the building are all attributable to the contractor who may have to deal with the matter out of the PPP contractor's own costs, and not from the Exchequer. I would be more concerned if the costs of the difficulties in the building were to fall back on the taxpayer.

If the contract drawn up, which was overseen by a contract manager, was robust enough to ensure that any faults would have to be met in full by the PPP contractor, then I would say that is an indication of good competence by the person, on the public side, to make sure that anything that went wrong would have to be dealt with. I want to deal with that one point. Let the Comptroller and Auditor General come in on that point. Does he get my point?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes.

Chairman

There was innuendo that the incompetence may have been due, in some way, to the contract manager.

However, it might have been due to the contractor, who has to go and fix it. It was not established as to who was incompetent.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

My understanding is that any expense involved in rectifying the building will be the expense of the PPP company, the supplier. As the Chairman has said, that is what one would expect a contract negotiator to achieve, namely, that where there are defects, they will be rectified by the supplier. It has happened in other PPPs, not necessarily in this jurisdiction. I am aware of significant difficulties with school contracts in Edinburgh, where the gable wall of a building fell down and a number of schools were closed. One of the key issues about getting value in PPPs lies in ensuring that risks are carried by the private sector supplier.

Deputy David Cullinane

I just wanted to make one point on this because this could happen again. If an Accounting Officer feels that he or she was treated unfairly, we could have correspondence arriving again. This is unusual and is the first such letter I have seen. I am not sure if during the lifetime of the previous Public Accounts Committee similar letters were sent. First, I do not have a difficulty with the Secretary General writing to us. If he felt that his professional reputation was being called into question then he has an absolute entitlement to say that and in fairness to him, he has put it in writing. I agree with Deputy Connolly that we should take it seriously. I have no difficulty whatsoever with robust questioning of witnesses. I can be robust myself, as can other members of this committee so I have no difficulty with that. The point I want to make is that it is the job of the Chairman to make sure that a person is treated fairly. That is why the Chairman is in the seat. If, on the day, questions are being put and a witness feels that the questions are unfair then-----

Chairman

It is up to me to stop-----

Deputy David Cullinane

I think in that instance, the Chairman did stop a number of questions that were being put. That is the only way we can control issues like that. In fairness, on the day I think that was done. I am not going to get into the rights or wrongs of what happened. People can make up their own minds on that but I do not think we can just cheaply dismiss his letter. It probably took a lot for him to write that letter. It is very rare that an Accounting Officer would do that so he obviously felt that he was treated very unfairly. We should take that seriously. Equally, it is the Chairman's job to mediate meetings.

The final point that Deputy Connolly made is very important. If one goes through the letter, it almost suggests that if he is treated like that again, he may not come before this committee in future. We need to be careful in terms of how we respond to that. My main point is that it is the Chairman's job to make sure that witnesses are treated fairly and by and large, he does that job well. I do not see any difficulty-----

Chairman

I take the point the Deputy makes.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

Just on that point, I was not insinuating that he would not come before us again. I said that we should take it seriously and that we should not meet in the manner that has been suggested. As has been clearly articulated by Deputy Cullinane, that is the Chairman's role.

Chairman

He does say in his last line that he would like to request that I would make sure that at future meetings he is not placed in an unfair position again. He feels that it was unfair to the extent that I did stop the conversation. As Chairman, I will be more strict. I will require two things. I will want witnesses to answer questions but I will also want committee members to treat witnesses with respect. We cannot be haranguing witnesses although I am not saying that happened on any particular occasion. We will expect answers to straightforward questions and at the same time we will treat witnesses with respect. It is my job, as Chairman, to ensure that happens. We will expect a level of candour. On that particular point, the specific question that the Deputy put, in terms of whether the Secretary General attended-----

Deputy Marc MacSharry

He answered that.

Chairman

Did he?

Deputy Marc MacSharry

Yes.

Chairman

He said he was not at that-----

Deputy Marc MacSharry

He said he was not there but that was part of a broader situation.

Chairman

Okay, fine. We will not reopen that matter now.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

The party was hopped on as the big thing. It was suggested that it was all about the party but it was not all about the party.

Deputy David Cullinane

Could I say something, having re-read the final paragraph of the letter again? I do not think, to be fair to Mr. Ó Foghlú, that he was suggesting that he would not come in again. He was making the point that he does not want to be placed in a difficult position again. I just wanted to clarify that, to be fair.

Chairman

Members will have to bear with me now because I need to read one page from a letter that came in to us because it is central to the issue at hand. We have discussed this PPP contract manager situation at length and I must put this on the public record in the interests of fairness. I am now going to read from a letter that was sent to this committee on 10 June 2014 and resent to us last week. There has been a lot of talk about the PPP contract manager and I believe that as Chairman, I must be fair and balanced on this. I will now read Appendix Two of the aforementioned letter which details the qualifications of the PPP contracts manager in CIT, as follows:

Academic Qualifications

B.Sc (1st Hons) - NUIG

H. Dip. Ed (1st Hons) - NUIG

M. Sc (Research) - NUIG

M. Ed (1st Hons) - UCC

Relevant Experience

The PPP Contract Manager at CIT has 37 years experience in third-level education. He was Head of a Science Department at CIT for 14 years and has been Vice President for Development since 1996. He has extensive experience in public sector procurement and the development of major infrastructure at the Institute over that period.

Specific Experience of PPP Contracts

The Contract Manager led CIT's input into the contract negotiations for both PPP projects at CIT (the National Maritime College of Ireland and the CIT Cork School of Music) from the outset, and worked closely with the DoES officials, the NDFA and their advisors in developing the detailed brief and specifications for each of these projects.

Of particular relevance to the current role as a Contract Manager, is the fact that he had a major input into the User Requirements, Output Specification, Service Requirements and Facilities Management Agreements for both projects. This understanding of the Project Deliverables left him very well placed to monitor the Operators' delivery and compliance with the requirements of these contracts during their Operational phases following the Service's Commencement date at project handover.

The Contract Manager is also supported in his role by the Building & Estates Office and the Finance Office at CIT.

Within CIT, this individual also led the development of CIT's very successful Rubicon (Innovation) Centre - currently housing 55 start-up companies - and a number of significant R&D facilities funded under the HEA's Programme for Research in Third Level Institutions (PRTLI) among other infrastructure projects.

There is also a detailed schedule running to one and a half pages outlining the duties and responsibilities of the Minister's contract manager but I do not propose to read that out now. These duties and responsibilities were approved by the line Minister at the time. The document I have just read out indicates that the contract manager was fully competent in respect of those duties and responsibilities. I just wanted to put that information on the public record, in fairness to the contract manager. People felt that there were questions around this and the aforementioned letter provides the answer to those questions and needed to be put on the public record. I will close this topic now-----

Deputy Marc MacSharry

I would like to come back in first.

Chairman

Very briefly, please.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

I understood from the meeting the last day that costs for repairing the building would stand to the company and not the Exchequer but that is not the point, quite frankly. It is important that we have the right expertise in the right place doing the right job. I have nothing personal against this individual. Clearly his qualifications are there, as a first-class academic. We did establish the last day that it would not be the normal practice, in terms of procuring somebody. It is good that those details are on the record but that document is dated 2014, is that not correct?

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

At that time he would have had 37 years' experience but he was appointed in 2004, when he would not have had that amount of experience. The description contained in that document, which I read carefully today, includes everything that he was involved in and undertook as contract manager. It does not refer to any experience before his appointment as contract manager. I am just saying that this was a legitimate line of questioning and a legitimate point.

A Secretary General from any Department or any agency meeting the clerk to the committee or the Chairman in order to pre-empt, design or influence the manner or content of anything that goes on in this room would be wholly inappropriate. I am glad that we will not be doing that because I would have a problem with it.

Reference was made to the Secretary General's letter indicating or suggesting that he might not want to come in again.

He has no choice.

Chairman

We know that.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

I know he did not say that.

Chairman

There is no suggestion-----

Deputy Marc MacSharry

People who are employed by the State in this context have to come in here if they are called in here. I will not be adjusting my style of questioning people. I invite anybody who wants to visit my Facebook page to view and read this. If this is unfair and is going to procure or invite complaints from precious individuals in the public services, we are going to be putting the bar very low in terms of how we do our business.

Chairman

Okay. Fine. I am proposing two things. As Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, of course I am not responding to that. I am making it very clear that as Chairman of this committee and as an elected Deputy, I meet Secretaries General who happen to be Accounting Officers as part of the normal course of my business. I am not being restricted from doing my normal work. I will not be doing anything that will influence the-----

Deputy Marc MacSharry

I am talking about something that might influence the Chairman's handling of a meeting.

Chairman

There is zero prospect of that. As Chairman, I have to point out that the Accounting Officer is obliged to come here. He is normally accompanied by several members of staff to assist him. None of those staff is obliged to come here. The only person who is obliged to come here is the Accounting Officer. I have seen some of the more junior staff members who have presented here, having been under no obligation at all to come here, being put severely and unfairly under pressure by certain members of the committee. We had to stop it on a previous occasion. There is no question about the Accounting Officer. We want full co-operation from all departmental staff. I am making the point that there is a distinction in this regard.

As Chairman, I will consider the opening note I read at the beginning of each meeting. I will discuss it with the secretariat. I will probably put in a paragraph to the effect that we expect answers to questions and candour from the witnesses who appear before the committee, and that they can be assured they will be treated with respect by members of the committee when they are here. That is the jist of it. The topic is closed.

The next item of correspondence is No. 1217B from Mr. Jerry Grant, who is the managing director of Irish Water, enclosing a note requested by the committee regarding the public private partnership post-project reviews that have been undertaken by Irish Water. I suspect people can note and consider that.

The next item of correspondence is No. 1122B from the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Donohoe, providing additional documentation in respect of the Minister's minute in response to the Committee of Public Accounts report on the examination of financial statements in the third level sector. There is a considerable amount of information in this correspondence. I suggest we note it. I have a few observations to make on this issue at this point. It ties into our earlier discussion. When the Committee of Public Accounts issued a formal report on third level education, the Minister was obliged to give a formal reply to the committee. We were dissatisfied with the reply we received and we wrote back to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to say we did not accept some of what was in it. This committee challenged the response that was received from the Minister with voluminous documentation. I want to refer to that documentation in public, but I have no intention of reading it. We talked about the commercialisation of intellectual property, public investment in spin-out companies and the number of spin-out companies planned in 2008. The Minister has provided a detailed note on each of those topics. We also raised the obligations of third level institutions under the Standards in Public Office Act and the non-compliance with procurement guidelines referred to in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

In response, the Minister has provided detailed statistical classification of the universities from the Central Statistics Office, detailed information regarding the severance arrangement circulars, the updated code of governance for the higher education sector and the revised reporting framework for 2016 and 2017. Appendix 1 contains detailed information about the Enterprise Ireland commercialisation fund in respect of every one of the third level institutions for each of 2015, 2016 and 2017. The figure runs to €44.286 million. All of that information should have been provided to us long before now. We should not have had to reject the earlier reply. This information was in the system. It should have been given to us on day 1. If we had glanced over the initial reply, we would be none the wiser today. I understand the Comptroller and Auditor General is looking at spin-out companies. I hope he has all this information. As Chairman, I believe we should have received this comprehensive and useful information on day 1, rather than at this late stage.

Before I call Deputies on this issue, I want to refer to two other documents that came with the documentation: a document reviewing intellectual property management and conflict of interest, which was printed in November; and a letter sent by the Higher Education Authority to all the higher education institutions about this committee's report on the higher education sector. An assessment of the sectoral classification of universities in Ireland under the EUROSTAT rules was mentioned the last day. The CSO has assessed that the seven universities should be classified as publicly controlled market producers outside the general government sector. That is the decision.

I would like to mention something intriguing that I was delighted to receive. We had a lot of meetings on the institutes of technology. We asked about corporate governance. We received a report from the Technological Higher Education Association of Ireland. Its code of governance for the institutes of technology was published on 1 January 2018. It sets out the codes of governance for all the third level institutions. A reporting note in respect of universities was also provided to us. They are all obliged to confirm that foundations and trusts have been or will be incorporated in financial statements in the future. I will explain what I found interesting about that. I ask Deputies to bear with me for a moment. I had never heard of the Technological Higher Education Association of Ireland. It seems that the association sets out the corporate governance rules for the institutes of technology sector. The existence of this organisation was never mentioned during our discussions on corporate governance. I immediately arranged for a search to be done to ascertain what this organisation is. I found out that the Technological Higher Education Association of Ireland essentially comprises direct representatives of the institutes themselves, which is fine. I have no issue with that information. I do not think it is widely known among the public. The institutes of technology provide the members of the board of the association. In effect, they write their own corporate governance rules.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

Does the Chairman have details of its membership? I am looking for numbers and for the gender breakdown.

Chairman

The directors are-----

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I do not need their names at this point. I am looking for the numbers.

Chairman

There are five or six ladies among the 18 directors who are listed. I am not sure of one of the names.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

Okay. That is all right.

Chairman

The important point I am making is that the Technological Higher Education Association of Ireland receives €1.1 million in direct funding from the institutes of technology to fund the organisation. It helps with corporate governance. It is a private company listed as a charity. We have received its accounts from the Companies Registration Office. I want to move on to my next point. When I heard that this organisation provides corporate governance guidance to the institutes of technology, I asked whether there is a similar organisation for the universities and - lo and behold - I found out that there is an organisation called the Irish Universities Association, which I understand comprises the presidents of the various universities. This association receives €2.7 million in-----

Deputy Catherine Connolly

They are the magnificent seven men.

Chairman

Are they?

Deputy Catherine Connolly

They are.

Chairman

The Irish Universities Association receives €2.7 million directly from the universities to fund itself. It has a corporate governance role. It was not mentioned to us at all. We have spoken about this issue at length. This organisation mirrors the organisation for the education and training boards, Education and Training Boards Ireland, which receives €1.6 million. The organisation for the institutes of technology, the Technological Higher Education Association of Ireland, receives €1.1 million. The organisation for the universities, the Irish Universities Association, receives €2.7 million. This means that €5.4 million in public funding is going directly to organisations that are listed as private charities and are outside our remit. They have a fundamental role in establishing corporate governance for the entire third level sector - the education and training boards, the institutes of technology and the universities.

In all of our discussion with the people we have had in from the Department of Education and Skills, nobody saw fit to alert us that there was another group dealing with corporate governance. This is one of the issues in the Department of Education and Skills. The colleges and universities are financially independent but now this other tier has been established between the colleges, universities, ETBs and the Department. The Department is creating a hands-off situation by putting an intermediary body between us. Then there is the Higher Education Authority as well. We are not here to deal with policy. However, the €5.4 million has been spent by all these public bodies - all of it taxpayers' money - to put a cloak or a shield between them and the Department. This is one of the problems we have. They refer to their own organisation for corporate governance. The Department tells us it has no role.

I make this point by way of information for the public. It was interesting for me to come on it this week. It is a point we cannot ignore but we do not have to decide now how to deal with it. It is probably a good organisations but not a good staff. They seem to have an invisible hand in the education sector and no light seems to have been shone on it yet. I call Deputy Cullinane. Forgive me for talking for a few minutes but it can be seen where our work leads us. It was purely by accident, when I saw this report, that I wondered what this organisation was. I am thankful for the report but it would have been nice to have been told about these organisations in all the sessions we had up to now.

Deputy David Cullinane

It has been fascinating for me and, I imagine, for the committee to shine a spotlight on this whole area of intellectual property in institutes of technology and universities. I think the Chair is right about the Technological Higher Education Association, THEA, because we had a global report from the HEA that looked at governance of intellectual property. I have to go back over the report again. It may have mentioned the THEA. I do not, however, remember or recall it being in it. I was interested in this issue and I read the document. It may have been mentioned, but it certainly was not prominent. There was not much public scrutiny in this whole area anyway. For the first time this committee shone a spotlight on it.

If we recall, a number of media reports and press releases went out from organisations working in this world that called into question our competence in and our understanding of this whole area. That was disingenuous because the subtext of what was being said was that we were against commercialising intellectual property. However, there was a complete lack of awareness of our role which is to focus on processes and procedures and then make sure that taxpayers, institutes of technology and universities are protected. The problem with this whole area is that there is a mix of public money and private money. That it not the problem in itself. The issue is how to follow the public money. How much public money goes in to supporting those companies from incubation and conception onwards, as opposed to what the institutes and universities get at the end of it. Getting information was like pulling teeth. We were being pushed back on this issue an awful lot for a while. That concerned me and that is why I kept at this. It is important we get it right.

In regard to governance, there is the HEA, SFI, the THEA - which is the first time I have seen that and I was going to raise it myself anyway - and the policies of the different institutes and universities. The policy was different depending on the institute. Some had robust policies and some had less robust policies. The document that we got from the Minister of Finance, Deputy Donohue, is interesting. Some of it might be okay because it deals with the policy side of it and refers to publishing common national principles. The difficulty I have is that it depends on whether those principles are robust and can be enforced. I am concerned we will gloss over this, make a few cosmetic changes and nothing will really change. I have substantive concerns.

I propose that we hold over any correspondence we have, including from the Minister and the HEA, in regard to intellectual property, and that we come back to it when we decide we will come back to it. We will be in a better position to put questions with as much information as possible. I remember the first day I raised this issue with Dr. Graham Love, the head of the HEA. There were no plans whatsoever to review this area. He was talking about the HEA's work programme on reviewing governance across a range of different areas in the third and fourth level sectors. Commercialising intellectual property was nowhere to be seen.

To be fair to this committee, we have at least shone a spotlight. It has brought us a place where there are more questions than answers. We need to come back to it. I find all of the information we have and the clear sense of what is happening - and all of the different layers to it - fascinating. We will go into private session later to deal with a specific issue in relation to spin-out companies as well as reports we are still waiting on. I know Mr. McCarthy is working on a report on this topic in an institute which we will talk about later. It is fascinating but it has also been an experience in respect of it being almost like pulling teeth to get information. It is unreal.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I express my thanks for all the work and follow up in respect of this. I appreciate it and it arose directly from the previous sessions. I have the information before but I cannot say I have read it in detail. I usually do but I have not on this occasion.

Chairman

There is a lot in it.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I support the suggestion from Deputy David Cullinane that we come back to it. I want to place this in context. We have had repeated calls for fees - we actually have them for universities but they are called registration charges - and claims that universities are starved of money. To make a judgment, we need all the information. We have never gotten that. However, the one-sided mantra has gone out that they need money and are starved of funding. There has been no open public discussion on the use of public facilities for private gain. What is the public getting back? I am no expert. All we can do here is simply seek to highlight it with the help of the Comptroller and Auditor General in respect of value for money. However, there is a role for other people in our civic society, including journalists. Our committee does not have enough support. I do not know how the staff manage all of this.

It is a work in itself to read the stuff never mind where we are going with it. One of the key issues for me are the foundations - they have come up repeatedly and those accounts have still not been consolidated or given in a manner the HEA would agree with. We also need a discussion at this level, and outside of here, on the use of public land, public money and public facilities for private gain. I refer to seeing where the gain comes back to the public. I have a final point about the spin-out companies. It comes as a surprise to me that Galway comes top of the list I have looked at. It certainly did not come out when we had one of the magnificent seven before us.

Chairman

We will move on. Deputy Aylward had indicated earlier.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

The Comptroller and Auditor General mentioned €5.4 million involving two other governance bodies.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Three other bodies.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

Has he looked at those? Are their accounts subject to scrutiny here?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

No. In respect of the specific document that the Chair referenced, a rebranding may have occurred. I am aware of Institutes of Technology Ireland but I think it changed its name. That is just incidental. Perhaps in earlier documents there may have been a reference to it.

The Chair is correct. There are these three entities. We do not audit them. We do have engagement with them from time to time. I refer, in particular, to when there are issues around the financial statements of institutes of technology, universities or ETBs. We engage with them in the interest of ensuring that our requirements are met when we come to audit and that published financial statements are as comprehensive and compliant as possible. The codes of governance that they produce are reacting to the revised code of practice for the governance of State bodies which was published in 2016. It was a significant document. It touches on the point that there are these kinds of significant documents, that turn on how public bodies account for their performance.

The committee should be alerted to that and have the opportunity to understand what changes are happening and why and ensure that all matters of significance to members are addressed in them. There is a bit of tailoring going on with the code of practice to take account of the specific terminology and issues that arise for institutes of technology and universities. It is a matter which is significant. There are contributors to the system and framework in which third-level bodies account for their performance and it would be better if there was more involvement of those and greater visibility of them to committees like this.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

Can the Comptroller and Auditor General insist on getting those? We do not know where the €5.4 million was spent or on what.

Chairman

I will circulate them. They are private companies and they are all privately audited.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

It is taxpayers' money.

Chairman

Yes. It is a bit like section 38 and 39 bodies to which the HSE provides funding. We have got a copy of all of their financial statements from the Companies Registration Office. The companies are limited by guarantee, have private auditors and are listed as charities. We have them. It is a point. It is all public money but at one step's remove. They cannot make any case that it is private money or anything like that. It is something we will come back to.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I cannot audit them but I could, if I had a concern about the way public money was being used by those bodies, look at carrying out an inspection to determine whether public money was used for the purposes intended. That is subject to the 50% rule.

Chairman

They all meet that.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I think so. However, I do not have any particular reason to be concerned about those organisations and their operations.

Chairman

We will move on. We will note and publish the large document but we will hold it over for further discussion as part of dealing with the third-level sector.

Next is No. 1123, a document in which Mr. Michael Nolan of Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, provides follow-up information on PPPs, cost variations and value for money. We will note that.

Deputy David Cullinane

No. I have serious problems with this and want it carried over.

Chairman

We will do that.

Deputy David Cullinane

I have a question for the Comptroller and Auditor General. This document is the response to further information requested on 22 March. It is from TII. On page 4, there is an analysis of one PPP project and, basically, it sets out that traditional procurement with tolling would cost the State €227.780 million, whereas the preferred tender option would cost €10 million. With respect, here is a bit of sleight of hand going on here and, potentially, voodoo economics in that it pretends the State would have to come up with the money upfront if it were to proceed by way of traditional procurement. In fact, most of this would come from borrowing and the money would be paid over time in any event. It seems odd, to say the least, that TII says the total risk-adjusted cost to the public sector would have been €227 million, had it proceeded the traditional way, as opposed to €10 million. There are a lot of other issues with this document that also concern me. I would definitely hold it over.

There is a great deal of information before us now. As the Chairman said, an encyclopedia of information has come back on PPPs. This is the point we were making to the Accounting Officers when they were before us. Notwithstanding the issues around post-project reviews not being published, or even carried out in the case of the Department of Education and Skills, they have been published since and we now have information overload. We have to go through it all. This is an issue we have to come back to, with respect. This was a day on which a number of Accounting Officers from a number of organisations were before us. We were not in a position, however, to get to the bottom of most of the issues because we did not have the information. Now we have it, but they are gone. I would be in favour of bringing them back on the basis of the information we have now. I do not want to be unfair to any individual; this is a general observation.

I have real issues with this document. I have read it several times and have fundamental difficulties with the analysis and what it suggests to the committee about PPPs and I would love an opportunity to put these questions to TII. We need to come back to it as part of the work programme.

Chairman

We will come back to it.

Deputy David Cullinane

Has the Comptroller and Auditor General read the document?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I will have a look at it and may talk to the Deputy separately about it.

Chairman

This makes the point again. It is the third or fourth point. The meeting with those Secretaries General was on one specific issue, namely, PPPs. They should have provided this information to us in advance of the meeting. There was no other item on the agenda that day. Yet, it is now that we are getting most of the information. We note it.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I wish to raise a practical issue, albeit I cannot remember the exact details. On the Gort-Tuam scheme, there was a question of a particular body in Europe examining that among other schemes. Documentation was not given over because it was asserted that there was no obligation to provide it.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The Court of Auditors was examining PPPs across the system. The point was that no public funding had been contributed to the Gort-Tuam scheme.

Chairman

There was no EU funding.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Sorry, no EU funding. EU funding was provided, however, from a funding source to the private sector partner. It was a lender to the private sector partner for the project. The Court of Auditors wanted to get information from TII on the project from TII's perspective. However, it did not have an audit remit to do so and it was therefore decided not to co-operate with the audit.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

It was left like that. TII said it would not provide the documentation.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes. That was the situation.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

As I said on the day, I find that extraordinary. This was put forward. We are talking about transparency and later we will be discussing fiscal transparency. We are learning all of these beautiful words. This was an example where TII could have shone, given over the documents and said, "This is a wonderful project which has come in ahead time". It is strange. I wonder what the Court of Auditors will do about it.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It was not happy. I imagine there was probably a concern that a precedent might be created. That is all I can suggest. It might be an issue where the Deputy, if she wants to get a definitive view, could submit a request to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

Chairman

Will the Deputy think about that and come back? TII said it did not have an obligation and was not opening up its-----

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I remember that but, on the European side, they said they did and that the private company came under that.

Chairman

Absolutely. We note and will come back to that item. We will note and publish that.

No. 1128 is from Mr. John McKeon, Secretary General of the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection, and relates to an internal audit report on the activation and family support scheme. We will note and publish that.

No. 1229 is correspondence, dated April 2018, from Gerard Cahillane, a deputy director of the NTMA, providing a look-back exercise on PPPs. It is noted but we have not concluded on our deliberations the PPP issue yet. We will note and publish the correspondence.

The next item is a letter from Mr. Martin Fraser, Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach, on his attendance at the upcoming meeting of 3 May to discuss the strategic communications unit. There are three significant documents here. Mr. Fraser is the Accounting Officer. As is normal for the Accounting Officer of a Department, he is coming in to speak to us that day and will be accompanied by officials from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform who have responsibility in that area. I suggest we follow our normal procedures and refrain from inviting a second Secretary General. We do not normally bring in the Secretary General of a different Department. We will proceed as we normally do. The Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach is fully answerable to the committee and he will be accompanied by officials from his Department as well as from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. Officials from the latter are always here. There is no specific need to go any further than that. We will reserve the option of inviting the Taoiseach. We can come back to that.

The Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform will appearing before us the following week, on 10 May, in any event so we can put any questions that arise to him on that day. We will give him notice if that arises.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I looked at the documentation. Where is the business case? Am I missing it?

Chairman

We have already received it from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. It is in our previous correspondence.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

As a business case.

Chairman

Yes. We have received that.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

Is it easily identifiable?

Chairman

Yes. We received that earlier. It can be recirculated.

No. 1173, dated 1 March, is a request for an extension to the tax relief scheme for drivers and passengers with disabilities. This relates to a specific case. It is not a matter for the committee to deal with a specific case. We will just note it.

The next item, No. 1197, is from Professor Patrick O'Shea, University College Cork, in response to information sought by the committee in respect of Cork Opera House. Deputy Alan Kelly, the Vice Chairman, who raised this issue, asked that the matter be held over until the next meeting because he cannot be here today. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 1208, from Mr. Brendan Ryan, CEO of the Courts Service, concerns information provided in respect of the management accounts associated with the court poor box. The committee had written suggesting the payments made directly to the charity or payments made via the Probation Service be accounted for. The Courts Service points out that this is an area where a judge exercises control and it has no role in the matter. The CEO points out that legislation is expected in this area to bring about consistency or uniformity, or a total reassessment of the court poor box system. That is an issue members can raise at the time in question. We shall note and publish the correspondence.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

There are a few aspects about which I am curious. Based on the analysis we have been given, more was paid out than taken in during 2014. Is there a residual fund?

Chairman

Yes. It carries over from year to year. The account does not cease at the end of the year. Does the Comptroller and Auditor General audit that?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

No.

Chairman

Who audits it?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The poor box does not come within my remit. I am aware that there are balances held by the Courts Service. It does refer to them in its Appropriation Account.

Chairman

The Courts Service deals only with the cash handed in to the court poor box. What we are really highlighting is that there were two other lines of funding, directly to charities or local organisations or via the Probation Service, that do not go through the poor box at all. That is the essence of the question.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

There are many poor boxes.

Chairman

Each District Court has its own.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Each one is managed by a District Court.

Chairman

The local judge has the say in that.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

In the disposal of it.

Chairman

The next item comprises Nos. 1211, 1214, 1219, 1220 and 1224, correspondence from a company called Drumderry Aggregate relating to St. Conleth's community college, Newbridge, and a number of health and safety. The matter was dealt with on several occasions. The Department has stated that the mandatory tests in respect of St. Conleth's were provided and the Health and Safety Authority has verified that all concerns have been addressed by the contractor. It appears that this matter is subject to a High Court action and a Garda Síochána investigation. I propose that we forward the correspondence to the Department for its consideration and further action, if any is required by it. We should ask the company to deal directly with the Garda and Department on any future concerns. It is not for this committee to get involved.

No. 1212 is from Donal McElwain, municipal district co-ordinator, Monaghan County Council, requesting the committee to make inquiries regarding malpractice regarding providers of private pensions. Private pension providers do not fall within the remit of the committee. I propose we forward the correspondence to the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach for any action it deems necessary. Is that agreed? Agreed. We will tell Monaghan County Council that also.

No. 1213, dated 5 April, is from an individual in response to requests from the committee for further information regarding PRSI misclassification of employees. The individual provided considerable documentation earlier, which was considered at our meeting on 29 March. The matter is complex. However, I propose that we write to the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection enclosing a copy of the material and ask for an initial response. We can assess that and decide what to do when we get a response from the Department.

No. 1215, dated 29 March, is from a prison officer and concerns an incident in Portlaoise Prison a number of years ago. The individual takes issue with the Minister for Justice and Equality's response to the committee on matters relating to an escape attempt and an associated shooting incident in the prison. The clerk received another item of correspondence in this regard in the past 24 hours. I propose that we hold this over because-----

Deputy Bobby Aylward

That has been going on for years. The man has contacted me several times.

Chairman

The man was dismissed by the Government.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

That is right. An accident happened during an escape attempt. What can we do about that?

Chairman

He wrote again yesterday.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

For how many years has this been ongoing?

Chairman

Probably ten or 15. He wrote again yesterday. We want to look at yesterday's correspondence, which I received only last night-----

Deputy Bobby Aylward

Have we a role to play or a remit in this?

Chairman

It is very limited. It was a Government decision. The matters in regard to the dismissal of a prison officer went before the Cabinet. The individual has been informed of that.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

I advised him to take the legal route but he keeps coming back this route.

Chairman

We will look at the other information. I do not see the role for this committee, to be truthful, but we will not close off the case until we consider yesterday's correspondence.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

What are we going to do now? Are we going to send it to the Minister?

Chairman

No. We just received correspondence last night and have not read it yet. The man has written to us three times in the past week. We did not get an opportunity to read the two items that arrived in the past couple of days. When we do so, we will come back to the matter next week.

No. 1216, dated 7 April, is from an individual and concerns St. Angela's College, Sligo, Limited. Can we note that item? Noted. This type of issue has arisen before.

No. 1221, dated 9 April 2018, is from Mr. Michael Donnellan, director of the General Prison Service, and relates to a request from the committee in response to a case taken by an employee who won at the Workplace Relations Commission. Mr. Donnellan updates the committee on lessons learned and action taken. We shall note and publish the correspondence. We shall redact the name of the individual in the case in which it is mentioned. His name has been in the public arena and national media in recent times as a result of the Workplace Relations Commission's adjudication.

No. 1225, from an individual, was forwarded to me regarding matters associated with alleged illegal dumping. While the local authorities are not within the remit of the committee, the individual asked that EPA representatives be invited to appear before the committee. I expect they will be before us in the autumn. We can write to the EPA for a response in the meantime. If members want to raise the matter at that stage, they may do so.

That is the end of a long list of correspondence.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

By the autumn, we will have forgotten about that correspondence. Will the Chairman remind us?

Chairman

The secretariat will. That is guaranteed. Just for the record, that was just today's bundle of correspondence.

The next item is statements of accounts received since the last meeting. It is very straightforward. The NTPF has a clear audit opinion. There is a reference to the pension costs.

On the Legal Aid Board, there is a replacement of an incorrect version we referred to last week. There is a clear audit. There is nothing significant since last week. The board incurred material expenditure that had not been produced by way of a competitive process. I believe we have written to the board asking for details. If we not, we will.

There is a clear audit opinion for Ordnance Survey Ireland. The issue of pensions is referred to.

The Adoption Authority of Ireland has a clear audit opinion.

Why do some public bodies have a deferred pension funding asset issue while the Adoption Authority of Ireland does not? Has it a commitment that its requirements will all be honoured by the Department?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Ordnance Survey Ireland raises funds by selling in the market. It sells maps and other services. Therefore, it has a second source of funding. Effectively, what it is doing in its financial statements is taking a view that the State will meet the liability for pension funding.

Chairman

The whole lot.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Although it will continue to be operating. It will be raising funds so the State is not fully on the hook, or is unlikely to be fully on the hook, for the pensions.

Chairman

The next item is the work programme, which has been circulated. There is no significant update since the previous meeting.

RTÉ has confirmed its representatives are attending and members can see the full details of what is planned. Attendance has yet to be confirmed in relation to a few of the later items. There is nothing new on that. Next week, we are engaging with the Department of Justice and Equality on its ICT systems. We will move on.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

I do not see CIT there. We were anxious to deal with that.

Chairman

CIT is at the back where we have the outstanding matters. We have ETBs, the Cork spin-out companies and a full group of education issues on the back page. There are one or two gaps and we have to decide how we will combine all the education issues over a couple of meetings.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

We are also waiting for the Thorn report.

Chairman

We have one meeting scheduled for third level education on 14 June. Some of those will come in on that date.

Deputy Marc MacSharry

I have concerns because various Deputies have raised important issues on the education sector. To the greatest extent possible, we should not stuff it all into one day. Certain colleges need a session on their own while others which are less problematic could be taken together.

Chairman

As a committee, we will try to agree how to handle those colleges.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

Following up on our meeting on 29 March, which I acknowledge is a long time ago, the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht was before us. It was to come back to us, in fairness to it, on Foras na Gaeilge and a business case.

Chairman

That has been requested.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

That is okay, as long as we are following up on it.

Chairman

Deputy Cullinane, who is not here, had asked to deal with something in private session. As he is not here, we can deal with it later if the opportunity arises. Alternatively, we can hold it over to the next day. There being no other business, we will suspend for a moment to allow the witnesses to take their seats.

Sitting suspended at 10.43 a.m. and resumed at 10.49 a.m.