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

The business before us today includes minutes of previous meeting, accounts and financial statements, correspondence, including that received in respect of An Taisce, the work programme and any other business. We will go into private session before adjourning. The first item is the minutes of the meeting from 27 January, which have been circulated to members. Do members wish to raise any issues or matters relating to those minutes? If not, are they agreed? Agreed. As usual, the minutes will be published on the committee's website.

The second item is accounts and financial statements. Four financial statements and accounts were laid before the House between 24 January 2022 and 28 January 2022. I will ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to address these before opening the floor to members.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Four sets of financial statements, all relating to 2020, have been presented and are now available in the Oireachtas library. No. 1 is Dublin Dental Hospital. It gets a clear audit opinion, but I draw attention to non-compliant procurement. No. 2 is the National Museum of Ireland, which gets a clear audit opinion. Again, I draw attention to some non-compliant procurement. No. 3 is Water Safety Ireland, which gets a clear audit opinion. No. 4 is the State Examinations Commission, which gets a clear audit opinion.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In respect of non-compliant procurement as regards Dublin Dental Hospital and the National Museum of Ireland, perhaps the Comptroller and Auditor General would detail how much money was involved and whether we are satisfied the explanations for non-compliance were logical. Is he satisfied that procedures are in place in order that they will not recur?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

In the case of Dublin Dental Hospital, the amount was €534,000. In the case of the National Museum of Ireland, it was €759,000.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Were they both for single services or single contracts?

.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:No. In the case of the museum, it was substantially in relation to additional security. That could be related to staff not being on site. I believe it extended the contract. Steps are being taken in both cases to address the non-compliance and undertake competitive procurements.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

No. In the case of the museum, it was substantially in relation to additional security. That could be related to staff not being on site. I believe it extended the contract. Steps are being taken in both cases to address the non-compliance and undertake competitive procurements.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have one other issue with regard to the State Examinations Commission, which has a turnover of €23 million. How much of that would be in respect of fees for examinations? The Minister for Education, Deputy Foley, announced earlier that the fees will be waived this year. The questions most people have are how the hell did we ever charge people to sit the leaving certificate in the first place and what happens if somebody cannot afford the fees? Could Mr. McCarthy give us an indication of how much that would be? What would the shortfall be if the decision to waive were made permanent?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

I will get the exact figure of the Deputy. The overall turnover was down by approximately €40 million on the prior year because of Covid-19 and the suspension of examinations. Much of the expenditure would relate to payments to invigilators and so on. The figure for fees in a normal year would be somewhere in the region of €10 million to €15 million.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How much of a proportion of the income of the commission would that represent?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

If it was €10 million out of €60 million-----

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So, €60 million is the actual income.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

In a normal year.

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

Is it agreed that we note the accounts and statements? Agreed. As usual, the listing of accounts and financial statements will be published as part of our minutes.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

I am sorry, Chairman. The total examination and other fees for 2019 was €10.2 million. My understanding is that there are exemptions or waivers of fees for children who are entitled to medical cards. That is just from memory; I could be wrong. That might explain why not all people who sit the examinations would necessarily be paying fees.

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

What is the total income of the body? Is it approximately €60 million?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

In 2019, the total income was €75 million, of which €10 million was fees. The rest of it was Oireachtas grants.

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

Okay. Moving to correspondence, as previously agreed, items not flagged for discussion at this meeting will continue to be dealt with in accordance with the proposed actions that have been circulated, and decisions taken by the committee in respect of correspondence are recorded in the minutes of our meetings and published on the web page. The first category of correspondence under which members have flagged items for discussion is B, correspondence from Accounting Officers and-or Ministers and follow-up to meetings of the committee.

No. 1017B is correspondence from Ms Oonagh McPhillips, Secretary General of the Department of Justice, dated 20 January 2022. It provides further information requested by the committee in respect of non-compliant procurement in the Irish Prison Service. The Secretary General of the Department is the Accounting Officer for the Department and the Prison Service. The initial response we received, No. R0932, contained very little detail on the reasons for the non-compliance and this is a more thorough response. It is proposed to note and flag the item. Is that agreed? Agreed. It has been flagged by Deputy Catherine Murphy.

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

They are described as rollovers. That feeds into it. The one relating to CPL Healthcare Limited and locum nurses is substantial. It is more than €3 million. To frame a question to send back to the Secretary General, the Deputy wants to know how the Prison Service projects-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

That is why it is important that bodies have a dedicated procurement officer if there is substantial procurement. Once there is a procurement in place, there is a need to be planning for the next one for the same service. Three years is a very short period in that regard. That is where mistakes get made. The difficulty is that a tendering process is a very elongated process in itself. If one makes a mistake at some point and has to go back to the start, that is when one ends up having to extend contracts or roll them over.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It has, yes. The Office of Government Procurement, OGP, was established to try to short-circuit some of that so that not everybody had to start from the very beginning. Having framework contracts, it should be a shorter period, but sometimes there is not a framework in place when one wants a particular service. Members will see the explanations that are given. An explanation often put forward is that there was not an OGP framework in place, so a contract was extended for six months or a year to await the contract being put in place. It is very complex and a challenge, but it has to be approached professionally.

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

We will note that and request further information.

No. 1018B is correspondence from Mr. John McKeon, Secretary General of the Department of Social Protection, dated 20 January 2022. It is in response to our request for quarterly updates on the investigation of the employment status of workers engaged by RTÉ. The Secretary General outlines the information provided to the committee to date and how the investigation will proceed, but states that the Department does not normally comment publicly on the status of any individual claim or investigation. This is to respect confidentiality and data protection obligations and to protect the integrity of the decision-making process. The Secretary General also raises concerns that "any public comment on specific cases could lead to any decision being challenged or could undermine the sustainability of any decision that may be appealed". However, he does offer to provide the committee with an update on completion of the investigation later this year or early in 2023. It is proposed to note and publish the item and to accept the offer of a further update on completion of the investigation. Is that agreed?

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

It has been flagged for discussion by myself and Deputy Carthy.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The difficulty is that we are dealing with what is, essentially, a State-funded body, namely, RTÉ, and the Department of Social Protection, but the committee does not have a good overview of the final implications of the practices of misclassification of the workforce in RTÉ. We know a substantial payment has been made to Revenue and that there will be claims from individuals involved, albeit RTÉ has not confirmed it will resolve those issues. We know the Department is carrying out this work. The point I am making is that this is different from other cases. It is not the same as the Department carrying out an examination of a private individual, or even a private company, because at the end of the day it is essentially the public who will be expected to meet whatever the shortfall is. My concern is the timeframe that is given at the end. There is reference to completion of the investigation later this year or early in 2023. I fear we are into how long is a piece of string territory there. In general, when we get vague timeframes such as that, it means these things roll on even longer. I propose the committee write again to the Department. We can take it from this letter that it will not give us quarterly updates on the investigation. We should ask it to provide us with the step-by-step process of the investigation or what elements the investigation will take up and a likely timeframe for each stage of the investigation so that we can have a sense of when the work will be completed and will be able to adjudicate at various points whether it is on track to meet the target date.

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

Reading the correspondence, it seems that the committee never looked for fine details of the status of any individual claim or investigation. The letter states:

By way of background the Committee will be aware that the Department does not normally comment in public or at committee on the status of any individual claim or investigation - whether that be in respect of an individual's entitlement to a benefit, a fraud investigation or an employer inspection.

The committee never looked for the details of any individual or any particular worker. The Secretary General states the Department has to respect confidentiality, and rightly so. We agree with Mr. McKeon on that, but he seems to be mistaken in that I certainly do not want to see a worker-by-worker account of what is happening in this investigation. I do welcome the fact that he goes on to state in the letter that:

I also advised that as all decisions of the inspectors will be retrospective in impact to the correct date without limitation as to time, all workers in respect of whom social insurance status might be modified will get the full benefit of that changed social insurance status notwithstanding that adherence to due process in the investigation may mean that it will take some time to reach any determination.

I suppose, in fairness, they are going back a long way. He goes on to state: "In addition, the Department will pursue recovery of any social welfare insurance contributions due for the full period where social welfare insurance status may have been misclassified." I welcome that because we want it clarified how far this would go back, for example, three years or five years. What the Department is saying here is there is no limitation. Whatever they deem to be the correct time that the wrong classification started, they can go back to that.

I take on board the Deputy's point regarding a timeline. It is a little vague. We should look for something more definite, but there is obviously a big piece of work being done here. Workers certainly will welcome that there is no limitation on how far they are going. The committee should look for a more definitive timeline.

I would request as well with the agreement of the committee that we would point out to them - I do not know if any other member of the committee was looking for it but I thought the committee had reached a consensus - that we were not looking for any individual's details. If I am wrong on that, I am open to correction.

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

There is substantial work to be done by the Department. We will ask for a more definitive timeline and also point out the committee's position regarding confidentiality.

No. 1021B from Ms Oonagh McPhillips, Secretary General, Department of Justice, is dated 21 January 2022. It provides information requested by the committee into reports of unofficial strike action by senior officers in An Garda Síochána, and its impact on the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission's, GSOC, investigations. This was raised by members here.

The Secretary General states that while both GSOC and An Garda Síochána are statutorily independent, the Department is engaging with stakeholders with a view to resolving the issue. The Secretary General advises that the Labour Court has held a hearing on the matter and recommended further engagement between the bodies with the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC.

I remind members to bear in mind that this is a live dispute and it is important that we do not prejudice it. It is proposed to note and publish the item. Deputy Carthy had flagged this item.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is always a difficult one whenever we seek information relating to the Garda or associated bodies. The Department of Justice will come back and say these are independent bodies and at the same time indicate that it is engaging Garda management on the issues without specifying what "engaging" means - it is a broad term.

The WRC was scheduled to meet on 26 January. Perhaps we could seek an update. I do not know who we ask for the update - maybe the Chair can give us clarification on that - as to whether this issue was resolved.

The particular issue relates to the operation of GSOC. From the correspondence we received, people make a complaint to GSOC, GSOC then "employs" - I use that term broadly as well - members of the Garda to carry out parts of the investigation and, in some cases, the commission has its own investigators. It would be useful, because we have the commission coming before us in a number of weeks, to ask it for a breakdown of the complaints that it dealt with and the investigations that it carried out, for example, even last year, as to how many were carried out by the commissions internally and how many were carried out by members of the Garda at its request. Clearly, in this instance, when there are senior gardaí who have been refusing to engage with GSOC, it is having quite an impact on the delivery of GSOC's already poor timeframes for addressing investigations.

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

We will ask for an update on the outcome of that 26 January hearing and what progress has been made on that.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Second, I am asking GSOC for a breakdown of who conducts its investigations before the commission appears before us. It would be useful for our hearing.

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

Okay. We will make that addition.

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

Okay. The next correspondence, which I mentioned earlier, is No. 1023 B from Mr. John McKeon, Secretary General, Department of Social Protection, dated 24 January 2022, providing information requested by the committee arising from our meeting with the Department on 9 December 2021. It provides information on: applications for disability allowance in 2020 and 2021; the public services card and MyGovID; and the extent of welfare fraud since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is proposed to note and publish the item. It has been flagged by Deputy Munster.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This relates to the number of applications for disability allowance and the number of refusals. We will all be aware of the cumbersome process from our constituency offices. My recollection of the hearing was that a fairly decent number were approved after additional information was sought. The Department, given the volume of refusals, needs to look at updating its systems and not have it as cumbersome as it is.

Perhaps we should write to the Department to see if it is putting a plan in place to make the application process less cumbersome and more efficient. The delays when people are applying for disability allowance that they are entitled to can go to six or eight months at times. It would be no harm if we asked if the Department had a plan in place to reduce the number of applications that are required to go to appeal before they are even accepted and to speed up the process in general, even if it was only a further letter with the application if they made that available in the application form itself specifying all of the additional to be submitted with the form. It is so cumbersome and so frustrating for people. I just thought it might be an idea to write to the Department to see if it has such a plan in place or it is putting a plan in place for that.

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

Could I suggest regarding the form that there is a lot of repetition? One I saw recently had the same question asked a number of times. Members of the public will be handed these application forms in an office or be sent them by the Department. It is not that long ago that I remember most of those forms were two or three pages. They are now looking at 24 to 26 pages. While I understand the necessity, we might ask the Department, in the interests of efficiency and fairness, to try and make the form more concise. There is good reason for many of the questions and it is important that the Department gets as full a picture as possible but people ask why are they are asked the same question, again and again, throughout the form. They could be simplified for applicants.

Other government forms have been simplified.

Work was done with the National Adult Literacy Agency on putting them into plain English and removing jargon. While that is welcome, further progress could be made on claim forms for disability and invalidity payments. We will seek that.

No. 1025B, which is from Ms Katherine Licken, Secretary General-----

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

Overpayments.

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

To be specific, the Deputy is asking for a breakdown by scheme of what was fraud and what was overpayment.

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

Much of the time, it is overpayment.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

My understanding is that these are overpayments that have been recorded and have been attributed to fraud. There is a substantially higher figure of overpayments recorded that are due to, for example, administrative errors or whatever. The specific information in this instance refers to fraud or suspected fraud cases.

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

The amounts in some cases are not that large. There is a popular view-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

I believe they amount to €20 million.

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

Yes. Despite the number of people on jobseeker's allowance, the figure in this context is just over €7 million for a whole year. Obviously, fraud should not happen. The figures in respect of the State pension and carer's allowance are €1.5 million and just over €1 million, respectively, and include overpayments. People would be surprised to learn that fraud does not amount to hundreds of millions of euro. It comes to approximately €19 million across all schemes. This figure needs to be reduced, but it is not large.

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

We will move on to No. 1025B, which is correspondence from Ms Katherine Licken, Secretary General of the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, and dated 26 January, providing information requested by the committee arising from our meeting with the Department on 25 November. It is a detailed response to 17 issues raised during the meeting and includes a number of attachments, including the Galway 2020 evaluation report. It is proposed to note and publish this correspondence. Deputy Catherine Murphy has flagged it for discussion.

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

I call Deputy Sherlock.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I raised a matter with the Department at our meeting. I am still trying to understand what the future of arts and antiquities storage will look like for the State. We were given chapter and verse on the current regime in north County Dublin, but what I am failing to understand is where future-proofing is taking place, given the involvement of local authorities, local museums, national museums, national collections and so on. Is there anything in the language of the letter that gives us, as per our questions, comfort in respect of the future-proofing of what I euphemistically call the national collection, be that arts and antiquities, statues or anything else? I am not sure that we have been given the answer, but I remain-----

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

I suggest that we review what we have in front of us and revert with a proposal at next week's meeting or send one to the clerk.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the Chairman can tell, I am asking his advice and I thank him for that, but how would it be articulated in practical terms short of bringing someone back to the committee? I presume it would be done via further correspondence from this committee to the line Department.

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

The Deputy's point has to do with there being various public bodies involved, for example, the National Museum, Departments, local authorities, the Office of Public Works, OPW, etc., and how, in the future, those who come after us may want to look for the fossils of those of us who were here before them.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am in the late fossilised stage myself now.

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

The Deputy is looking for a policy or statement from the Department setting out an overview of the situation.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman.

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

There are local museums as well, some of which are voluntary in nature.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We can anticipate that there will be an exponential increase in the types of works. New technologies are constantly emerging, which may necessitate the need for a permanent and fixed venue or venues, but we do not have a permanent and fixed venue now. It is on a leasehold basis. I will take advice from the Chairman and the secretariat, as I wish to pursue this matter further. Forgive me if I am slightly ignorant of the facts in this case, but what does a sustainable stand-alone site that is in the ownership of the State and is future-proofed and cost effective look like?

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

It will be costly. Of the two buildings beside us, one has been reroofed and the other will be reroofed. The best approach is to correspond with Ms Licken on the issue and ask that question of her. It is a valid question because many artifacts and valuable works are held by various bodies. The Deputy wants to know how they will be managed and protected.

Members will note from the correspondence that we asked for a note outlining how and when the issues surrounding the employment status of a number of workers at RTÉ had come to the attention of what was then the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment, which had responsibility for this function at the time. Members will see in the correspondence the reply to what we were looking for. It provides the explanation.

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

We will look for that. The next item is correspondence from and related to private individuals and any other correspondence. No. 1020 C is correspondence from an individual, dated 20 January 2022, regarding outstanding Caranua cases. Members will recall we made representations on a number of individuals' cases. The Department of Education gave an undertaking to engage with the individuals concerned and we decided to note and publish the most recent update from the Department - No. R0843 - at our meeting on 4 November last. It is proposed to request a further update from the Department, including a timeline for resolution of these cases, the estimated costs for completing all outstanding applications and the balance remaining in the fund. Before I put that proposal to the committee, Deputy Munster, who has flagged this item, wishes to contribute.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This has been ongoing. My office received correspondence. It is possibly appropriate to engage with the Department seeking an update as to its willingness to engage with the committee and seeking an update on these cases and information regarding what has been requested by Ms Fox. This has gone on for so long and has still not been resolved. I propose we engage with the Department this week.

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

When the Deputy says engage with the Department, will she clarify whether she is saying we should send correspondence to it?

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, I suggest we seek an update on its willingness to engage with the committee but also an update on the cases and information regarding the information requested by Ms Fox. This has still not been resolved.

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

It is a small number of cases.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We know that but they are still outstanding and Caranua has all but wrapped up.

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

That was supposed to come forward in the autumn. I did not see it. We will look for that and ask for progress in terms of drafting that legislation to wrap up Caranua and the transfer to the Department of Education.

Finally, members will recall we had requested information from 11 bodies that provide funding to An Taisce and agreed to consider those responses together today. At our meeting last week, we agreed to hold over consideration of the responses pending receipt of further information from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage regarding its heritage function, for which it now has retrospective responsibility. The response - R1044 PAC33 - was received and circulated yesterday. I will now open the floor to any member who might wish to address this correspondence.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I raised the issue in the context of seeking to understand how each of the line Departments operates its relationship with An Taisce. I thank the committee for holding this item over until this week. I wanted to get a deeper understanding of how the service level agreements operate between nine Departments that are funders through the education silo of An Taisce. When I looked at the 2019 accounts and the various circulars relating to the operation of the relationship between the line Departments and An Taisce, the correspondence coming back to us reflected a concern in respect of seeking clarification regarding the 2019 accounts. An Taisce's 2019 financial statements stated that a change in An Taisce policy will result in a stipulation for a small allowance for organisational costs and innovation in all funding agreements going forward. That set off an alarm bell in my mind because I was not sure whether some of the funding that is specifically for programmes that are well notified to us, such as the Green Flag, Investigate Forests, Clean Coasts and the Blue Flag, was being brought out of the educational silo of An Taisce, which delivers many of the programmes, and into the main An Taisce body. That was the concern I had and I wanted to seek clarification.

Based on the correspondence we received back, it seems there are very specific engagements between the funders and An Taisce in respect of buttressing or strengthening service level agreements or reviewing current service level agreements or contracts in respect of that funding. That provides one with a degree of confidence. In the case of one Department, which I think was the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, the Department clarified this was not compatible with public financial procedures, stating the grant moneys must be spent entirely on the programmes the Department has agreed to fund within the specific conditions of those grants and that failure to adhere to these conditions could result in funding being withdrawn and possibly the recoupment of unapproved expenditure sought or other legal enforcement.

The impression I had was that, quite literally, An Taisce was taking a bit of a tranche of some of that funding-----

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

Allocating it for a purpose.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and allocating it to An Taisce, which I understand is essentially a membership organisation. When we look at the delivery of the programmes I referenced, we can see they are excellent programmes and we are very lucky to have an organisation like An Taisce to deliver them. I just wanted to seek clarity on that. Based on the correspondence, it seems individual line Departments are taking a rigorous approach to interrogating that relationship and the 2019 accounts.

I am not a financial or management accountant. If An Taisce is a membership organisation, from a public purse and financial probity point of view, do each of those line Departments, the State, the Government or, ultimately, the taxpayer have a right to look at the financial strength or otherwise of the parent organisation when they are funding that organisation?

In other words, does the parent organisation have to be in a solvent position before it can receive funds? That is just a curiosity of mine. The reason I am curious about that is because if, on An Taisce's previous year's financial accounts, auditors were saying that - and I am quoting from its financial accounts - for organisational costs and innovation and all funding agreements, that an allowance would be made and there would be a movement of some of the moneys then, one wonders, why that is the case if An Taisce is a financially robust organisation. Hopefully, that can be clarified for me. It may not be within the remit of this committee to have that clarified. Again, I seek the Chair's wisdom on that.

It serves a vital function in terms of the delivery of its excellent programmes, and it permeates out with citizens proactively involved in delivering those programmes. It has built a consciousness and awareness and set of programmes that have had a massive impact in communities at the most local level. It is important that we preserve that and protect it in every way that we can. It does a vital piece of work. However, at the same time, I imagine that we should satisfy ourselves that everything that is being done is absolutely with financial probity in mind.

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

There is a note here that I will read first. The nub of the point the Deputy is making is that, before the parent organisation would provide funding to a body such as An Taisce, it would check the financial position of that body. My dealings in seeing money coming from Departments to bodies such as this show they can be fairly rigorous. Is it in all cases? I do not know but I would imagine so.

I will read the note:

Following on from the committee’s request for information on Exchequer funding provided to An Taisce, the Committee has now received all the necessary responses.

The responses from the 11 bodies vary In the detail provided due to the level of funding disbursed to An Taisce by these entities. The Secretariat have reviewed all of the responses and have ascertained that the level of oversight of An Taisce by the entities is proportional to the level of funding that they provide, and the required service level agreements in place are in line with Circular 13/2014 [this is the important one] - Management of and Accountability for Grants from Exchequer Funds.

The responses also vary in relation to the funding entities’ knowledge of the restatement of the 2018 figures within the 2019 financial statements. The entities that provide the higher levels of funding to An Taisce were aware of the restatements and placed reliance on the unqualified auditors opinion. The remaining entities that were unaware of the restatement have made enquiries of An Taisce and will be carrying out the necessary reviews in order to ensure required compliance. In some instances Departments noted that they withheld funding from An Taisce until they were satisfied with the responses received from their enquiries into the 2018 restatement.

Finally, in relation to the funding authorities satisfying themselves as to the intended use of the Exchequer funding, the responses received stated that regular meetings were held and An Taisce’s reporting requirements under the various agreements were proportionate to the level of funding provided to An Taisce. Some responses also noted that the majority of the funding on certain schemes run by An Taisce was on the basis of vouched expenditure.

I thank the secretariat for scrutinising that and the Comptroller and Auditor General. That gives us a very good level of assurances. I hope that answers the Deputy's point. It was a valid point he raised. If he is happy with it or, if he need something additional, could he please tell me?

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to hear other members' perspectives.

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

I propose to bring in other members on it. I call Deputy Carthy.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome that note. That will be circulated, I take it?

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

Yes, it can be circulated.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A table would be useful as well, because it is quite elaborate, and I am not aware of any other organisation like this. I believe there are nine Government Departments that provide funding to An Taisce, for very specific and distinctive reasons, it has to be said.

I wrote to the Chair on this yesterday, so perhaps we can deal with this now. Just to get clarification, does the secretariat's briefing note cover the Government Departments and the non-departmental public agencies as well? I am aware, for example, that the National Transport Authority provides substantial funding to An Taisce as well. If it does not, could we incorporate that in terms of having an overall view, as we would with any organisation that is in receipt of substantial State funding? The word that is being used in terms of oversight is that it is "proportional". What we are dealing with is a large number of relatively small funding mechanisms. However, together, it is quite a substantial funding mechanism. If the funding was coming from one source, perhaps the oversight arrangements would need to be broader so it would keep that in.

It is all the context of public probity, that we ensure that any body receiving taxpayers' money is ensuring that it is going for its intended purpose and that everything is fully accountable. I am not aware, just be very clear on the record, of any suggestion that is not happening in this case. Within the remit of this committee, it is important that we can satisfy ourselves that is the case.

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

We will ask for that table and information from the various Departments. There are nine, I believe.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As in the State agencies.

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

Yes, and any other State agency. I call Deputy Hourgian.

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the secretariat for that overview. It was very helpful. From the 2018 restatement, I have to say it does not appear to be a major financial issue, rather a kind of accounting error.

Just for clarity, we are talking about many agencies. We made inquiries and we got responses back from them as follows. The Department of Rural and Community Development had no significant issues and was satisfied as was the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, which had no significant issues. None of the following raised significant issues either - the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Education, the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, the Office of Public Works, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and Failte Ireland. Usually, when something comes to this committee, it is because there has been a significant issue identified.

This week, and I think it is important to have this on the record, a senior EU official, Aurel Ciobanu-Dordea, who oversees governance, enforcement action and compliance on EU environmental legislation, called Ireland out not only - and I know it was well reported - on the cost of observations in terms of environment protection but he also talked about the climate of discussion in Ireland when it comes to environmental protection.

That is what we are really talking about here. It is the work that An Taisce does, funded by its members. As we all know, it does not use Government funding for this. It funds this from its members to observe on issues such as cheese factories and environmental projects that might go ahead. One of the things he said that is of particular concern to the EU is an increasingly aggressive stance being taken against environmental campaigners in Ireland. I quote:

There is evidence not only of increased use of (strategic lawsuit against public participation) SLAPP suits, but also negative reporting in mainstream media, and even from politicians – like threatening to cut off funding to certain NGOs... or negative reporting (of such).

Just in today's session, we have had discussions around whether it is solvent and the financial strength, or otherwise, of parent organisations. There has been a characterisation of the strengthening of the legislation or the wording in SLAs, as arising from something that has happened within An Taisce, which is absolutely not the case.

Here we are today, watching this being played out. We have not identified any wrongdoing in terms of public funds and An Taisce. What we are doing today is undermining that organisation and fomenting suspicion around the operation of a body for wholly political reasons.

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

We are considering information that came back to us from An Taisce. I welcome the information. I do not know of any member of the committee that did not welcome it. It is appropriate that any organisation receiving State funding be open to scrutiny.

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I never suggested otherwise.

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

Let me continue. Some of the programmes An Taisce runs are excellent. That is a bigger political issue on all sides of the debate. I am not going to allow to be opened up here a debate between people who believe the earth is still flat and people on the other side. I am not going to go into that or allow it. The point, however, is that legitimate questions be asked. Every committee member, including me, has welcomed the very comprehensive responses that have come back. Simply asking a question about funding is not casting any aspersions. Deputy Carthy actually prefaced his remarks by saying he was not casting any aspersions in respect of the misappropriation or alleged misappropriation of funds. That is the-----

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The point I was making is that the undertaking of a project like this is usually based on some kind of evidence or reporting, and that this is not the case here. Therefore, I am wondering what exactly is going on.

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

I will allow Deputy Sherlock to comment. There is a very strong debate between both sides. We do have to reduce our carbon emissions but that is a bigger issue and it is not for this chamber. There is a fair amount of political consensus in this country on it. It is a matter of how we do it. Most sensible people agree that we have to move on with it. There is no disagreement on that, but that is for another day.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have no political agenda to undermine any organisation. I feel I have to put that on the record. Clean Coasts Ballynamona is in my constituency. I raised many a green flag myself when I was a Minister of State. The Chairman will know from the tone of the language of my questioning that it was not with a view to seeking to undermine any organisation. I stated very clearly on the record the great work that An Taisce does in respect of the delivery of the programme but since I am not a financial or forensic accountant, I have to rely on the guidance we receive from the secretariat and the correspondence we receive from the Departments. We are fully entitled, as I understand it, to ask a question of any organisation. I am merely posing the questions and am entitled to do that.

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

Absolutely.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

However, I do not want it inferred that, because I have asked the question, there is a certain political motivation. I take grave exception to that. It is wrong that it should be inferred from my questioning; it is unfair. I feel aggrieved by the fact that I would be impugned in that way consequent to my line of questioning. My question was asked with a view to seeking clarification.

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

As Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, I stand over the fact that the Deputy’s questions were fair. I do not believe that he is in any way out to undermine-----

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely not.

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

-----or to damage in any way the work of An Taisce or make any false allegations against it.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely not.

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

Nowhere in his contributions today or prior to today have I heard him do so.

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

Our job is to examine the finances-----

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

-----and answer questions-----

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am really taken aback by Deputy Hourigan’s position on this issue. I would like to think that if there are items of clarification that might be of use to us in ensuring public money is spent to deliver value for money and for its stated purpose, we would ask the relevant question regardless of the issue or organisation before us. I am an agriculture spokesperson. I do not get involved, and have not passed public comment on, legal cases, even where there were Ministers on both sides, with one criticising and another supporting the legal action. I do not pass judgment one way or another; I never have done. As agriculture spokesperson, I deal with farm organisations whose objectives and mission statements I support but I would never consider those bodies to be above questioning by me on any matter requiring clarification.

Part of the problem we have had in this State for too long is that when politicians support the objectives of an organisation, they move to the point where they believe the organisation is beyond question. That is a dangerous and unfortunate position. I hope this committee is above that. I do not believe that, in my time as a committee member, the questions asked and inquiries made were for anything other than to pursue the stated aims of the committee. In most instances, I have been pleasantly surprised by the fact that Government representatives on this committee have been willing to support reports, questions and lines of inquiry that are very critical of Government Departments. That is the way we should pursue our business here. We should deal with every organisation in a courteous manner and ask questions when necessary. We should accept the assurances that are given, but I agree with Deputy Catherine Murphy that, when talking about public money, we have a right to know whether an organisation is drawing down substantial amounts such that members of the committee can be absolutely satisfied regarding it and say with hand on heart that we have done our job without fear or favour. That is how I approach all these issues. I will continue to do so.

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

There are Accounting Officers from a range of bodies who were questioned robustly here in the not-too-distant past. I do not believe anybody would say there was a desire to undermine the bodies they were representing. It is simply a matter of dealing with public money. Our dealing with that does not mean we are trying to undermine any organisation.

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For clarity, before what I said becomes mischaracterised, not for one second did I say we should not be able to review any body, group or organisation that is receiving public funding. Nobody is suggesting that. However, I was outlining the fact that there was no significant wrongdoing found here. There are no questions raised by any of the many Departments asked about the matter; yet we are sitting in a room in which the terms "public probity" and "solvency" were brought into the discussion.

Our words have value, and it is not a benign or objective undertaking to introduce such phrases into a conversation. I am happy to look at any organisation but-----

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

I am not------

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----it is not a benign undertaking, if you are going to introduce those kind of terms into the conversation.

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

Just a second. As Chair of the committee I am not going to lecture individual members of the committee about what words they can or cannot use-----

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not asking you to.

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

The Deputy has to look at things around the discussion. I am not allowing this to be turned into a broad political debate. We looked for information. We got it. It has been welcomed. It has to do with the finances. It is legitimate. Every member of the committee who spoke as I recall has welcomed the good work done by An Taisce across a number of projects. I call Deputy Sherlock.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I used the word "solvency" because I am seeking to find facts in regard to the process as to how this organisation is funded. I do not see how the Deputy is loading the basis by asking that question. It is merely with the purpose of finding fact. For that word to be weaponised now, in some fashion, I think is quite patently wrong. It does me a disservice when all I am seeking to do is find facts. In fairness to the secretariat, it has put together a very comprehensive response. I want to state for the record that the responses we got from the Departments have also been extremely comprehensive. We accept those.

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

I have to ensure that each member of this committee, regardless of who he or she represents, whichever party, be it Independents or anybody else, has the same opportunity to ask legitimate questions. Some wriggle room may be given but in general for the members here, whether from the Opposition benches or the Government benches, I will adhere to that. I will acknowledge that. The Deputy has a proposal. Just crystallise that briefly.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In regard to the work done by the secretariat that we would incorporate other public bodies if they will provide funding as well as the Departments so that there will be a full review of public moneys.

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

I thank everybody. Hopefully that clarifies matters. The fourth item is the work programme.

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

The minutes reflect many of the issues that have been raised in this Chamber.

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

In the normal course of events it would wait for the correspondence to come before the committee. I am aware of that. I was contacted in regard to it and I suggested that the correspondence come to the meeting here. Deputy Murphy has come as well, and that is fair enough. However, in fairness we should wait until it comes before the committee. It will be before us next Thursday.

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

We will send a letter to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform asking it to comment on the ongoing matters in regard to this issue.

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

I thank Deputy Murphy for that. Next week, on 10 February we will examine the expenditure on the national broadband plan with National Broadband Ireland, NBI, and the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications. Please note, as previously agreed we will engage with NBI, and this is the part members need to watch, from 9.30 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. and with the Department from 1.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. Correspondence will be circulated as normal but will be held over to the following week, 17 February.

We then have a series of housing related meetings scheduled, starting with the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage on 17 February, the Residential Tenancies Board on 24 February and Home Building Finance Ireland on 3 March. I will ask the clerk - I raised this at last week's meeting - domestic refuge provision is an issue that cuts across several Departments. There are nine counties, including County Laois and County Offaly, that do not have a domestic refuge. I will use that opportunity. It is an important issue. We all know why it is important that at least we give advance notice and that we get an opportunity to deal with it, with the agreement of the committee.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the issue?

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

The provision of domestic violence refuges. There are nine counties, of which I think Cavan and Monaghan are two, as well as Laois and Offaly. There are a number of counties. So I ask that that be included in those engagements.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just for clarification on next week, there are two sessions. Is the rotation moving to the second session?

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

Yes. You have me. I will come back to that later and work that out. There is a solution to it in terms of the double header that day. It should be satisfactory.

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

We will have to agree a way of dealing with that. Whatever the committee agrees to, that is what it will be at the end of the day. Normally it is 15 minutes. If we are taking them as two separate bodies then there is the option of dealing with the same rotation and counting them as being two meetings, or the option of one.

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

Two separate meetings. We will come back to that. Next week we have that, 10 February. The timeline is 9.30 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. and the afternoon session with the Department. The agenda for the engagement with the Department is the 2020 appropriation accounts and from the Comptroller and Auditor General is the 2020 report on the Accounts of Public Services, Chapter 3 on the central Government funding for local authorities and Chapter 8 on the oversight of the housing assistance payment, HAP. The Department has also been advised that the committee may wish to discuss the cost rental expenditure, expenditure on women's refuges and EU findings on the Derrybrien windfarm. Briefings will be requested on these areas.

In regard to the engagement with the Residential Tenancies Board, RTB, and Home Building Finance Ireland please let the clerk know if there are any particular areas of concern or interest to be brought up in regard to their financial statements. This will allow a briefing to be requested in advance of the meeting and allow the witnesses to prepare for the engagement in those areas on the day. Availability has been confirmed for all these engagements. Is it agreed to proceed as outlined? Agreed. Thank you. That will allow the secretariat to make the necessary arrangements and avoid any scheduling difficulties. I call Deputy Munster.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In regard to the work programme. No doubt everyone on the committee recognised that mental health services in this State are wholly inadequate. We have seen in the media coverage of the report on south Kerry CAMHS that 227 children were exposed to risk of significant harm and that 46 children suffered significant harm.

We have seen coverage in the media of the report on CAMHS in south Kerry and the 227 children who were exposed to risk of significant harm and the 46 children who suffered significant harm. I expect there will be an inquiry into what occurred there.

The committee could play a role concerning our mental health services more broadly. We could invite representatives from the HSE to appear before us to address specific issues in the mental health services. We could seek to get detailed notes on those aspects beforehand, as well as having the relevant senior officials here, to allow us to engage on this subject.

I recall that it was only in December that we heard that €1.8 million of mental health funding was diverted to purchase electric vehicles for the HSE. If the committee agrees, I think we should make this issue a priority and ask HSE officials to appear before the committee at the earliest opportunity to address it. It is up to the committee, but perhaps we could set aside one of our meetings on a Thursday afternoon in the next few weeks for that purpose, if that might be possible.

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

I thank the Deputy for that suggestion. With the agreement of committee members, we will ask that representatives be invited from the HSE and, presumably, from the Department for a session to discuss our mental health services. We will have to try to work out the schedule, because there can be problems with what we have planned when it turns out that people cannot attend. Perhaps a slot like that could be filled with the session Deputy Munster proposed. Her request is that we should bring in witnesses to discuss this issue soon. Is it agreed that we will invite representatives from the HSE to discuss the mental health services? Agreed. Equally, we should try to do this in a timely manner. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I call Deputy Catherine Murphy.

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

I call Deputy McAuliffe.

Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with Deputy Catherine Murphy. We must ensure this proposed slot is used well and that we know precisely the areas we want to cover in it. Of the overall health budget, €1.1 billion is for mental health services. Will this proposed session be specifically related to CAMHS or will it seek to cover mental health in general? How broadly do we wish to address this issue? It is a short timeline for a broad subject. Equally, a significant amount of public spending is allocated to this area. A sum of €1 billion is not small, so how can we act in a precise way that will allow us to get into the meat of this topic?

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

I call Deputy Carthy.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support this proposal and the principle of what Deputy Munster is saying. Part of the problem here was evident when we met representatives of the HSE for two or three sessions last year to deal with the health services in their entirety. Therefore, there is no way any one area would get the level of scrutiny it probably deserves. In talking about bringing in witnesses to talk about the mental health services, Deputies Catherine Murphy and McAuliffe have rightly pointed out that even within that category we could probably use all our meetings for the rest of the year to scrutinise a specific topic. The first thing we must do is to expedite this endeavour as quickly as possible, because there has been serious public interest in this topic.

This week alone, I have heard four senior Government representatives say in the Dáil that money is not an issue in this regard. Clearly, then, we must find out what is happening with all this money that is apparently being allocated to our mental services if we as public representatives are dealing with people every day of the week who are telling us they cannot access them. I suggest that we invite the senior management of the HSE, including the CEO, to appear before the committee as soon as possible, as proposed by Deputy Munster. We can clarify in our private sessions what aspects we will be dealing with. I do not envisage this being a once-off meeting. We will probably need to follow it up with more sessions.

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

I think there is agreement. I call Deputy Munster.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the members for supporting my proposal. As others said, we are continuously told that money is no object, and yet it is not transferring down into the delivery of services. Regarding the massive budget we are told is there, we must find out, not only from the perspective of service provision but also that of the public purse, where the money is going and why it is not delivering services on the ground. The crisis in mental health is increasing weekly. It is imperative to have representatives from the HSE appear before the committee. As Deputy Carthy suggested, we could have a private meeting ourselves to set out what exactly we need to know. The general topics, however, would include the budget, a breakdown of it and information on the delivery of services, including details of service provision in each CHO area. We will need all that type of information. It will be a minefield, but despite the amount of money we are told is being thrown at the mental health services, not one person could honestly put up his or her hand and say that he or she can see the results on the ground.

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

I understand that funding for mental health services constitutes 6% of the overall health budget. In accordance with international best practice, that should be increasing to 11% or 12%. I just note that. I will go through the schedule and we may have an opportunity to slot in this proposed session. We have meetings arranged already and people-----

Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support Deputy Carthy's proposal. Similar to what we are doing on the issue of housing, it might be beneficial for us to have several sessions together devoted to the topic of mental health. We could parse in our private sessions what we want each meeting to deal with. If that means we must create a new slot in the private-----

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

If the Deputy will allow me, I will run through what is scheduled already. That is the best thing to do, and may be helpful. Several difficulties arise when trying to schedule meetings. As we have seen over the last year and a half, we can have difficulty scheduling meetings with representatives from organisations because of availability, diary conflicts or the time needed to prepare. It is difficult to arrange the schedule as we would wish it to be. The secretariat works diligently in this regard. It is not something done just once a month. The secretariat works not only weekly but daily, indeed, to engage and to try to keep things moving along. They do that six, seven and eight weeks in advance. It will be noted that it was difficult to schedule meetings at different times during the pandemic because we were not even sure if we would be able to have meetings. Arrangements cannot be made fortnightly or every three weeks, because if representatives from one organisation do drop out, then it will not be possible to fill that slot at short notice. It is necessary to give people a month's notice to allow them to prepare. I ask the committee members to bear that point in mind. Moving one meeting will have unintended consequences for people in other areas. I ask the members to be mindful of that aspect as well.

To outline the schedule, we have matters nailed down until 3 March. Commitments have been sought and given, and the preparation work has been done. To allow the secretariat to make the necessary arrangements and to avoid any potential scheduling difficulties, I will set out the work programme up to 5 May, as outlined in the work programme document circulated for today's meeting.

From 10 March, we will move into a series of justice-related meetings. We are scheduled to engage with the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, on that date. Last week, we agreed to engage with the Policing Authority the same morning.

The following week, beginning 14 March, is a non-sitting week. On 24 March, it is proposed to schedule an engagement with An Garda Síochána, and on 31 March, with the Department of Justice. If, for example, we schedule the meeting on mental health issues for 10 March, it will mean changing that arrangement again. I hope I am reflecting accurately that it is the committee's wish to get those issues relating to justice and the Garda, that is, with GSOC, the Policing Authority and An Garda Síochána, within the same block. We agreed last week that we will try to do it over two weeks. If we move the meeting of 10 March, it will mean kicking the can down the road on meeting those three bodies again. I do not know whether the committee wishes to do that, but I am just pointing out that it could create a difficulty.

I am also mindful of the point raised by Deputy McAuliffe, namely, that it may be better to try to cover this mental health piece in a series of meetings. There may have to be two or three related hearings on mental health-related issues. I ask members to bear that in mind, although I am open to suggestions about how we deal with it. As it stands, we will start those justice-related meetings on 10 March. Lá Fhéile Pádraig is 17 March and the next public meeting after that will be held on 24 March, when we will deal with An Garda Síochána. That will then conclude that set of meetings. I appreciate the urgency of this and I agree with Deputy Munster on the area of mental health services. We have had representatives of the HSE before us a number of times and, unfortunately, we have not had an opportunity to deal with mental health services. The issue requires and deserves a proper examination. We need to be careful that we do not knock everything else off the schedule.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would it be possible, as Deputy Munster suggested, for us to have an initial meeting with the HSE and the Department of Health on mental health in the broadest terms on a Thursday afternoon, in lieu of our correspondence meeting, in order that we could double up on a particular week? That would not negate following through on what Deputy McAuliffe mentioned, namely, holding more in-depth meetings as a later stage?

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

We could schedule it for a full session on 10 March. To get a proper hearing, we will have to have the witnesses before us in the morning also. If it is an important issue for us - I think that is accepted - we do not want it to be pushed onto the tail end of the day. That would not do it justice, for want of a better term. I suggest we try to slot in the meeting for 10 March and push everything else back by one week, if that is agreeable.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps we should be asking this when the committee secretariat is in a position to respond, but I would like to get a sense of the principle of us having meetings in the afternoon. Is it too logistically cumbersome to deal with two different issues on the same day?

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

It creates difficulties for administration.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Chairman will be aware how I loath I am to do such a thing.

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

It does create problems, although I will not get into that now. It is not open to the clerk to the committee to contribute right now but dealing with two issues in one day would create difficulties and I am conscious of that. We need to be realistic about what we can cover. The preparation for a meeting in any given week is considerable, as members will know from the work they put into meetings along with their personal assistants, the secretariat, the Comptroller and Auditor General's office and everyone else involved. It is not as simple as just scheduling a meeting and the meeting happens. Weeks of work go into the build-up.

We need to move on. The option is there and I propose we return to it when we can allow the secretariat to comment. We will try to deal with it that way. For now, the schedule up to 3 March has been nailed down and there is a provisional schedule beyond that.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To clarify, is the Chairman saying the meeting with the HSE on mental health will be held on 10 March?

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

I would suggest that is not a bad option but I want to allow the secretariat to comment and I cannot do that in public session. Provisionally, there is a suggestion we go with that. It is widely recognised that what the Deputy has proposed is worthy and needs to be dealt with as an urgent issue. I ask her to bear with us until we deal with the rest of the meetings. I think she will be happy with what we decide. We will come to a conclusion that will meet the needs of the committee, which is the important thing.

Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate there is a difficulty in that we are in public session and we cannot engage with the officials in that format, but I am not clear as to what the agreement is. It is such a serious issue that we could even examine community mental health as a stand-alone issue, dealing with the various organisations where there are service level agreements with the HSE as well as dealing with CAMHS. It is too broad an area to cover in one meeting. Is the suggestion that we would have the meetings on 10 and 24 March? There was a separate proposal that we would discuss in private session which areas we will cover. I am worried about agreeing to a time for a meeting whose scope we have not yet outlined and for which we have not decided who will appear before us.

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

I ask members to be helpful on this. I will return to it soon, given it will not take very long if we allow it to happen. There was a suggestion that we would have two meetings but that would add a further complication. I ask members to bear with me while we nail this down conclusively. I qualify this by saying that, if we decide to take 10 March as the meeting on mental health and if we accept the Deputy's suggestion to hold a further meeting on 24 March, that will push other issues a week or two down the road.

I reiterate what has been agreed. Last week, we agreed we would schedule a meeting with the University of Limerick, UL, and include in our invitation a request that the chancellor, Mary Harney, would attend, given the nature of her position and the duration of her tenure, along with the president, who is the accountable person. That is on 7 April. UL's financial statements for the year 2019-20 should be available to us at that point.

In accordance with our work programme, we would then engage with the Department of Finance on 14 April and with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform after the Easter break, on 5 March. I ask members to agree to that on the basis that we will sort out later what we will do about the meeting on mental health, that is, whether we should introduce it for the meeting of 10 March or whether we should schedule a double meeting for 10 and 24 March. I am not asking members to agree on the exact dates but rather I propose we take them in that order, subject to sorting out of the business of the mental health issues. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I propose we go into private session before adjourning until Thursday, 10 February, when we will engage with National Broadband Ireland and the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications in respect of expenditure on the national broadband plan.