COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 11 Apr 2024

Business of Committee

The committee stood adjourned at 9.56 a.m. due to the absence of a quorum until 11.30 a.m.

An Cathaoirleach

We have received apologies from Deputies Cormac Devlin and Marc Ó Cathasaigh. We are joined today by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, who is a permanent witness to the committee. Members are reminded of the provision in Standing Order 218 to the effect that the committee shall refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or a Minister of the Government or the merits or objectives of such policies. Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

There have been some changes. We are down a couple of people. On behalf of the committee, I congratulate Deputy Alan Dillon, who is in the Chamber taking questions at the moment in his new position as a Minister of State, and Deputy Colm Burke, who has also been appointed as a Minister of State. I thank them for their contributions as members of the committee and wish them well in their new roles. They were two diligent members of the committee and made significant contributions during their four years on it. I ask that notes wishing them well be send to the Deputies on behalf of the committee. Do any other members wish to comment on this matter?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Just to make that point.

An Cathaoirleach

We will send them good wishes in the context of their work in the future.

This morning, we were due to engage with the University of Limerick, UL, regarding its financial statements for 2022. We flagged the purchase of a number of houses for student accommodation at the Rhebogue site as a matter of particular interest to the committee. It has been widely reported that UL paid far in excess of the market value for these homes and used public funds in that regard. We issued an invitation to UL to attend on 23 February. That was the official invitation. There was contact with it before that too. However, the president of UL wrote to the committee on 22 March to advise that she was incapacitated and not in a position to attend.

We sought further information. On 4 April, the chancellor advised us that the president, who is the accountable person to the committee, is on certified sick leave. The new chancellor, Brigid Laffan, who was appointed late last year, stated that she has no intention of frustrating the committee in its work with delays and assured the committee of UL's intention to be utterly candid with members of the committee. She requested that the meeting be deferred to the week beginning 6 May and stated that if the president is not available, the accountable person function will be delegated before then. I understand that the Higher Education Authority has also requested that the governing authority of UL now undertake a review of governance and other matters at the university in accordance with the Higher Education Act 2022. It will be on site in UL later this month for its examination of matters of governance and everything else.

I wish to put on the record my disappointment that this is the third time in six months that public engagements with this committee have had to be postponed due to the absence of Accounting Officers and accountable persons. I acknowledge that this can be due to illness or other personal circumstances. However, in the interests of public accountability, which is what is important, and to ensure that the committee is not impeded in scrutinising the expenditure of public money, those accountable to the committee must make every effort to ensure they are present when requested to account for the expenditure of taxpayers' money under their watch. Having to postpone meetings at short notice because key personnel are not available is highly unsatisfactory and uses up precious slots at the committee. Obviously, we cannot at short notice move other people, witnesses, or bodies that we want to bring in.

In the case of UL, it is audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and is directly accountable to this committee. For my part, and I am sure members of the committee will share this view, it is important for it to appear here. We want it here. I will open the floor to members now. I propose that we issue an invitation to UL to attend the committee. There is a slot on 9 May, which was for the OPW. We can push the OPW out another bit. We could use that slot on 9 May to bring UL in and highlight that this committee will expect full transparency and accountability in its examination of public expenditures and funds by UL. I also propose that we invite the president and chancellor to attend as part of that delegation, as well as representatives from the Higher Education Authority and the Department. I am asking that we put the Dunnes Stores issue on that agenda as well. It is relevant to the issue of the spending of public moneys and the fact that there were issues relating to the Dunnes Stores site and its purchase for an amount in excess of the valuation provided. I am opening the floor for members to comment.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

It is incredibly frustrating. First, I agree that we should slot UL in at the earliest possible opportunity. If that is 9 May, then we should do that. I agree with the Cathaoirleachon on the list of people he proposes to invite. It is really important that we have the HEA in because this is not the first time this has happened. Obviously, the Cathaoirleach referred to the Dunnes Stores site. What jumped out at me from what the Cathaoirleach read out is that it is going to put a new governance arrangement or governance oversight in place. I would have expected the HEA to have already done that after the last debacle with the Dunnes Stores site and to have made sure that what happened then could not happen again. Indeed, I would have expected UL to have done so.

There is a similarity between what happened in this case and what happened with the Dunnes Stores site. There were weaknesses exposed in the context of getting valuations done and with the kind of oversight within the governing authority. Looking at the letter from the HEA on governance issues, it appears that the university actively progressed the Rhebogue acquisition in the absence of a formally approved property acquisition policy. That jumped out at me because that is exactly what was expected, that is, that there would be a formal acquisition policy. I believe we were actually given that assurance and now we are finding out that is not the case. It appears there is a discrepancy between the purchase price the governing authority understood it approved on 3 August 2022 and the contract price. In the case of the Dunnes Stores site, there was an absence of choice when it came to valuations at the time.

Another point that is made based on the document-----

An Cathaoirleach

We will be dealing with that correspondence, Deputy, when we move to the next part of the meeting. Tthere is that correspondence and there is a related letter there from UL as well. I ask that we keep that-----

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I am nearly finished. There are three or four things in terms of governance failures to which attention is being drawn. I would have expected them to be addressed after the previous significant issue arose. To be perfectly honest, I understand that people get sick and have to be afforded time for leave, but there has been a pattern here. A significant issue arises and a person becomes unavailable because he or she is on sick leave. It cannot be a pattern that we allow to persist. One way of doing that is to ensure that people know they will be back here again and again until we get this resolved.

An Cathaoirleach

That is certainly my feeling about it.

Deputy Imelda Munster

I agree with the proposed date of 9 May. It gives UL ample time to prepare and to furnish us with all the information. As Deputy Murphy said about a pattern emerging, it is important that people know the committee has the power of compellability. There are serious concerns in respect of management, or lack of management, and serious governance failures. They have to be accounted for. If we go with the 9 May, we should press on UL the importance of this issue. Maybe it does not care, but avoiding attendance does not show it in a very good light. If it wishes to put forward its case in respect of governance and management, or lack of management if that is the case, then its opportunity to do so is on 9 May.

An Cathaoirleach

It is a publicly funded body here with turnover of hundreds of millions of euro per year. As I said, it has a direct line of accountability to the Committee of Public Accounts and there is a clear means for us to ensure there is transparency here. I think we are on the one page in this regard.

Deputy Imelda Munster

Has the Minister been made aware of this?

An Cathaoirleach

I do not know.

Deputy Imelda Munster

It might be no harm to flag it with him and bring to his attention that we have scheduled a meeting for 9 May.

An Cathaoirleach

We can do that. Is the date of 9 May agreed? Agreed. We will deal with the work programme later on.

The public business before the committee this afternoon is minutes, accounts, financial statements, correspondence, work programme and any other business. As for the minutes, there are minutes from 21 March. They have been circulated to members. Do any members wish to raise anything relating to the minutes? No. Are the minutes agreed? Agreed. As usual, they will be published on the committee's webpage.

Moving on to accounts and financial statements, there are a good few of them. There are 12 sets of accounts and financial statements that were laid before the Houses between 4 March and 5 April 2024. I ask Mr. McCarthy to address those accounts.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

No. 1 relates to the Children's Health Ireland for 2022 which received a qualified audit opinion. In my opinion the accounts give a true and fair view, except that they account for the costs of retirement benefit entitlements of staff only as they become payable. That is standard for many health bodies. In addition, I drew attention to two matters. The first was significant non-compliant procurement, which was of the order of €5.1 million. The second was claims to the value of just under €184,000 from Children's Health Ireland were rejected by private insurers as they had been submitted outside the required timeframe.

No. 2 is the Citizens Information Board accounts for 2022. It received a clear audit opinion. No. 3 is the accounts for Fís Éireann or Screen Ireland for 2022, which received a clear audit opinion. No. 4 relates to the Mayo, Sligo and Leitrim Education Board 2022 accounts, which received a clear audit opinion. However, attention was drawn to significant non-compliant procurement.

No. 5 is the Horse Racing Ireland group accounts for 2022, which received a clear audit opinion. However, I drew attention to an additional loss of €1.4 million in 2022 related to Horse Racing Ireland's investment in an associate company, Curragh Racecourse Limited. The cumulative loss on that investment to end 2022 was €9 million.

No. 6 is the National Gallery of Ireland for 2022, which received a clear audit opinion. No. 7 is the Public Trustee Account for 2023, which received a clear audit opinion. No. 8 is Waterways Ireland. These financial statements relate to 2021. It is one of the North-South bodies and there was a delay because of a change in the accounting treatment of the canal infrastructure. Those accounts received a clear audit opinion.

No. 9 is the Criminal Assets Bureau and these accounts relate to 2022. They received a clear audit opinion. No. 10 is the Insolvency Service of Ireland for 2022, which received a clear audit opinion. No. 11 is the Legal Aid Board for 2022, which received a clear audit opinion but attention is drawn to significant non-compliant procurement.

No. 12 is Údarás na Gaeltachta for 2022. The financial statements received a clear audit opinion but I drew attention to a write-off of capital costs of €661,838. This relates to costs incurred for a planned building renovation project that did not proceed because anticipated co-funding had not been secured.

An Cathaoirleach

I will ask a question about No. 5, Horse Racing Ireland, HRI. This issue has come up before with regard to the investment of public funds in the redevelopment of the Curragh racetrack. There is an expectation that the Curragh would be a premier racecourse. There has been huge development there in recent years. As I understand it, Horse Racing Ireland has a 35% share in that. Is that correct?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes.

An Cathaoirleach

Here we are again with another €1.4 million loss and a cumulative loss of more than €9 million.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

That is correct

An Cathaoirleach

There is a short note on the investment in an associate. I am trying to understand what exactly is happening that this money has been lost. Is HRI taking corrective action to try to address that?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It has set out the way in which it has addressed this. The losses have required Horse Racing Ireland to provide additional lending to the joint venture. Other investors have equally provided additional funds.

An Cathaoirleach

Is Mr. McCarthy referring to the 2020 convertible loan of up to €9 million?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Correct, as of January that was being converted into additional equity in the company. The bottom line is that €9 million has effectively been incurred as a trading loss already in the venture.

An Cathaoirleach

Horse Racing Ireland will appear before the committee in the coming weeks.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I have a question about Údarás na Gaeltachta. The project in question did not go ahead. I think it is the last one on the list.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes, it is No. 12.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Some €661,838 capital and related costs were incurred for the planned building renovation project that did not proceed. What was that spent on?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It was spent on planning and design.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Is it a reusable amount?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Potentially, but there is not any immediate prospect of the project going ahead. It was being designed for a purpose but then that purpose did not attract funding so Údarás na Gaeltachta has effectively written it off as an investment at this stage.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Was there no business case? I would like to know a little more about that.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

There was a business plan because it was submitted to funders but it did not succeed in attracting the support from the funders.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I would have thought Údarás na Gaeltachta would have had an outline done first and then tested it to see if there was likely to be interest in funding it before it spent €661,000, which is a very large sum of money. Údarás na Gaeltachta would have had to spend some money but-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

In fact, that is the money that it spent. The note explains that in 2019 funding of €415,000 was approved by the Department of Rural and Community Development to develop a business development plan for a project in the Kerry Gaeltacht. The total amount spent was €661,000 but because the business plan did not end up with a successful or sufficiently attractive project, the investment did not proceed any further. The initial work was quite expensive in itself and effectively that is what has been written off.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Are there lessons to be learned about taking a more robust approach in advance of taking on a project that did not end up progressing? If we start to look at projects that have started - the metro is a case in point, as is the interconnector - and where money has been spent in advance but it then does not proceed, some of the work is still usable and some is not because it will have to be repeated. Sometimes it will happen but it needs to be avoided if at all possible because we are getting nothing for a very large amount of money.

An Cathaoirleach

I think we should request more information about this case because what jumped out at me was that €661,000 was spent on what was only a renovation project.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Yes.

An Cathaoirleach

It is not as though it was a new build project that would have a big design and planning element to it. It was a building renovation project. I propose that we write to Údarás na Gaeltachta and ask for details on what exactly the building is, where it is, what would be the nature of the renovation and what was the budget.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

We should ask about the intended use.

An Cathaoirleach

Yes. It seems daft that €661,000 could be spent on an application that failed. There needs to be an explanation of what was going on there.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I suppose, in a way from a value for money point of view, it is better to do a thorough initial appraisal. If you learn that this is not a project that has a feasible future, you are better to cut it at that point and write off the expenditure. Still, it does not actually say in the note what the envisaged total expenditure would be.

An Cathaoirleach

It should not take €661,000 to get to the point where you know whether something is a good idea or not.

That is the problem here. If it is agreed, we will send a letter to them asking for an explanation on the building - what building it is, where it is and its purpose and why they ratcheted up so much expenditure by the time they decided it was not a runner.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

From memory, on a previous occasion - I cannot remember if it was last year or the year before - I did draw attention to another project were cost overruns. From memory, that was in Ráth Chairn, the Meath Gaeltacht. Again, it is in the same space of projects that somehow lose their way and more money gets spent than was originally envisaged.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

You often wonder is there a mindset that because it is public money, it is Monopoly money and that it is not real.

An Cathaoirleach

What was the figure for the Ráth Chairn project, roughly?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I think it was of the order of €3.5 million. I cannot remember if that was the excess spending.

An Cathaoirleach

Was that the projected cost of the development?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I do not remember the detail of what it was originally supposed to cost. We can find out and come back on it.

An Cathaoirleach

Okay.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I am always intrigued by some of the ones on the list. What are they? Take "Public Trustee Account".

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The public trustee is an official of the Department of agriculture. The function was created under the Land Act 1903. Effectively, there were sums of money that were being held in trust. I think there is a total of 148 trusts. They are obviously small at this stage but they would have been moneys put by for purposes under the Land Act such as, for example, protection of embankments where there may have been a risk of flooding or whatever. The sums of money are quite small. The total value of the trust is only about €1.8 million but they still exist and the turnover, as the Deputy can see, is very small. It is interest income on those trusts. To a certain extent, maybe it has been eclipsed as time has gone on. There might be a case of reviewing it but because it is set up under statute it can only be closed or discontinued under statute.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Okay. Thank you.

An Cathaoirleach

Are the financial statements agreed? Agreed. As usual, the accounts and financial statements will be published as part of our minutes.

Moving on to No. 3, correspondence, as previously agreed, items that were not flagged for discussion for this meeting will be dealt with in accordance with the proposed actions that have been circulated and decisions taken by the committee in relation to correspondence are recorded in the minutes of the committee meetings and published on the committee's web page. The first category is B, correspondence from Accounting Officers or Ministers and follow-up to PAC meetings. The first item is No. 2435 from Mr. Niall Cody, Cathaoirleach of the Revenue Commissioners and is dated 28 February. It provides follow-up information requested by the committee at its meeting of 25 January. It is proposed to note and publish this item of correspondence. It is that agreed? Agreed. Deputy Catherine Murphy had flagged this.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I am happy to just note and publish this.

An Cathaoirleach

There was just one issue in the letter. In relation to appendix 5, on rent tax credit claims, I am not sure about the explanation for this. I would have thought it would have increased. For 2022, there were 265,715 claims for the rent tax credit but for 2023, that fell by 54,000 to just over 211,365 claims. That was a significant drop. The letter states that as outlined, certain tax credits may be claimed in real time during the tax year. But the problem here is that the tax year is over and that has not happened. I propose we send a note to Mr. Cody, Chair of the Revenue Commissioners, seeking an explanation as to why there has been such a drop in renters claiming the tax credits between 2022 and 2023, particularly as they are under pressure. I would have expected it to go up because there is a greater awareness of that tax credit now. I do not know what the explanation is.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Plus, it relates to individuals. More than one person in a house can claim it.

An Cathaoirleach

Yes. And that information was coming out last year.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It may be that 2023 is still in arrears and it is still available for people who might submit a claim after the year whereas with 2022 you are a year further on and they may have already claimed. It may be as simple as that but it may also be an awareness issue.

An Cathaoirleach

You would imagine with the awareness being up it would be higher. I propose we send a note to the Revenue Commissioners asking about that.

The next item is No. 2436B from Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh, Secretary General of the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, dated 28 February 2024, which provides an update on the work of the expert advisory committees carrying out the reviews of governance and culture and of contractor fees, HR and other matters at RTÉ. It is proposed to note and publish this item. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The letter is short enough. It says the Minister has been advised that a review of governance and culture will shortly undergo - this is dated 24 February - the necessary fact-checking processes, as well as the processes necessary to ensure that fair procedure is followed. It is expected that these processes will take at least three years.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Three weeks.

An Cathaoirleach

The letter stated it is expected that the review of the contractors fees and other matters will be finalised this week. That would have been the first week in March. On that basis, and in light of the complementary nature, the Minister expects that both reviews will be submitted during March. I do not know if there is an update on that. Sorry, it is three weeks, not three years.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Yes, I thought the Chairman said three years.

An Cathaoirleach

I had the Deputy worried for a second. The letter notes that on that basis, and in light of the complementary nature, the Minister expects that both reviews will be submitted during March. I do not know if that has happened or not. We might check that. It has not happened to date and we are well into the month of April now. I propose that we get back to Mr. Ó Coigligh and ask about the delay on that because I would have expected that we would have it then and it is a month over that now.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

We might ask him to let us know when it arrives. Because it may arrive at a different time to when it is published.

An Cathaoirleach

Okay. The next item is No. 2437 from Mr. Niall Gleeson, chief executive officer, Uisce Éireann, dated 1 March 2024, provides clarification around questions on vaccination programmes which arose at the meeting of 26 October 2023. At the meeting of 26 October, when asked about its vaccination programme, Uisce Éireann stated that it had one. At the meeting of 25 January the committee agreed to seek further clarification in relation to this from Uisce Éireann and read the response into the record. In this item of correspondence, Uisce Éireann has clarified that “At that time, we had agreement for a vaccination programme and we were offering all staff seasonal vaccines through an existing provider.”

The correspondence goes on to state that:

We have an interim process in place where staff are provided with guidance on safe practices while working near biological agents. Following the guidance the staff can decide to accept or decline the relevant vaccinations which will be provided by a specialist supplier. In tandem with this we are currently in the process of procuring a comprehensive occupational health provider in order to roll out an enduring programme to deliver the registration, monitoring and management of booster immunisations – which includes more specialised and role-specific vaccinations. Vaccinations remain voluntary for all staff.

It is proposed to note and publish this item. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 2456B is from Inland Fisheries Ireland, dated 14 March, with regard to the rescheduling of an engagement with that body. It is proposed to note and publish that item of correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. Members may wish to raise that issue in private session as well. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 2488B is from Ms Brigid Laffin, the new chancellor of University of Limerick, UL, dated 12 March, with regard to the deferral of the meeting scheduled for 11 April 2024. Attached is the letter from the Higher Education Authority, HEA, address to UL. Is it agreed to note this item of correspondence, and, pending the consent of the HEA, publish its letter as well? If the HEA does not consent to the publication of its correspondence, it is proposed that we only publish the letter from UL. Is that agreed? Do any members wish to comment on No. 2488B?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Yes. That was the one that I was talking about earlier. Why do we have to seek the HEA's permission to publish a letter?

An Cathaoirleach

University of Limerick attached a letter it received from the HEA.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Okay, so it was not to us.

An Cathaoirleach

UL is corresponding with us but it attached this letter, which is helpful to the committee. However, protocol would dictate that we would have to seek the permission of the HEA to publish that because it is the HEA's letter to the university; it is not a letter to us. That is the difference.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I would have thought University of Limerick should not have provided it to us if it did not have the authority to do so.

An Cathaoirleach

UL is seeking the okay from the HEA for that to be published. That has been requested. It is not the HEA's letter to us; that is the problem. The Deputy should feel free to comment on it, however.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

The points I picked out from it were on governance. The letter states:

Based on the evidence provided by UL, it would appear that the University actively progressed the Rhebogue acquisition in the absence of a formally approved property acquisitions policy.

When we are talking to representatives from the University of Limerick, we might ask why they did not put that in place and why the HEA did not insist that was put in place after the Dunnes Stores issue. It was actually recommended, and this is noted in the KPMG report. We had much discussion about that at the Committee of Public Accounts. It goes on to state:

Based on the documentation provided by UL, it appears there is a discrepancy between the purchase price the Governing Authority (GA) understood they approved (3 August 2022) and the contract price agreed between UL and the Vendor ... [which was] 12 August 2022).

Therefore, somebody went off-----

An Cathaoirleach

That issue also arose with regard to Dunnes Stores around what information was given to the governing authority.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Absolutely. It is the same pattern here.

An Cathaoirleach

I notice in the conclusion of the letter that there was a discrepancy regarding the purchase price and what the governing authority was told.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I would have thought the governing authority was utterly cracking the whip here. The letter further states:

Based on the documentation provided by UL, the Contract amendment, approved by the President (17 May 2023) was not brought to the attention to the Executive Committee, Finance, Human Resources, Asset Management Committee (FHRAMC) or the GA, with the supplemental agreement between the UL and the Vendor signed on 2 August 2023.

It seems like somebody was privately doing stuff in the university. It continues:

Based on the documentation provided by UL, it would appear that the extent of the due diligence commissioned by UL in respect of planning matters, was not disclosed to the Executive Committee ...

There is a similar pattern to RTÉ whereby a small cohort of people were deciding to do things without going through the proper channels. It is an absolute failure of governance. When the staff were brought together, and there were several media articles about it, we could see they were infuriated by this. It is very obvious that reputational damage is not something to which there are boundaries. It actually impacts on the wider university. Representatives from University of Limerick must have appeared before the committee three or four times and very serious issues are just being repeated here.

One of the issues, and it is a fair comment, is about the funding of universities and third level education. It certainly does not help the case when we start seeing public money being thrown around and people paying way above the odds for something and not going through the right processes. That undermines the case and it actually impacts on the wider university system, not just University of Limerick. When some of these issues came to light a few years ago in the previous Committee of Public Accounts, the university sector took up way too much of this committee's time. It was one of the areas in which there were many weaknesses. One would have expected that those weaknesses would have been addressed. It is hugely frustrating to see that is not the case. What has been outlined in that letter pretty much demonstrates that.

An Cathaoirleach

The HEA's preliminary examination, as it is called, is to me a damning indictment of the lack of governance and lack of proper process. The fact is that the governing authority, where the buck actually stops, was given misleading information, denied information or had information withheld from it. It is shocking. That letter shows there has been a complete failure here. The disappointing thing is that this is coming off the back off the debacle around the purchase of the Dunnes Store site. This actually presents a worse picture to me.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Yes.

An Cathaoirleach

This is actually worse than Dunnes.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

It is as bad as anyway.

An Cathaoirleach

It is far worse. The fact is that there were contract amendments that were not brought to the executive committee or governing authority and the absence or extent, or non-extent, of due diligence was not disclosed to the governing authority at key stages, and it goes on. It is shocking that UL did not demonstrate compliance with the public spending code and did not provide evidence of systematic appraisal of alternative options and the cost-benefit analysis or absence of it. There was no evidence of such an appraisal being provided to the HEA. The HEA should have been asking questions as well-----

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Yes.

An Cathaoirleach

-----under all those headings of value for money, due diligence and accurate information going to the governing authority. There is a whole list of failures. I look forward to the representatives appearing before the committee. I am also interested to hear the HEA's explanation as to how this debacle came about.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It is worth noting that the HEA is now in a stronger position vis-à-vis the university since the Dunnes Stores site as a result of the Higher Education Authority Act 2022.

An Cathaoirleach

It was new legislation.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

If you like, the system has learned something from the events around the purchase of the Dunnes Stores site, even if the college did not learn what it should have learned.

An Cathaoirleach

Yes.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Chair-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I had been preparing a report looking at the purchase of the Dunnes Stores site. An aspect of that was going to be looking at the changes in the college, if you like, arising from the events of that. Obviously, then, as we looked at it, the purchase of the Rhebogue property raised further questions. I will, therefore, be reporting on both of those. Obviously, that will be working in parallel with other inquiries that are ongoing. We will try to progress it as quickly as possible, however.

An Cathaoirleach

Okay.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Can I go back to a piece of correspondence? It is No. 2477. I did not indicate it.

An Cathaoirleach

The Deputy can go ahead and comment on No. 2477.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

It is quite useful in advance of our meeting with the Department. This is one particular facility. We are being given information that we do not generally see. Members will remember that the residents' association wrote to the committee. It was dissatisfied with the response and made the point that this is public money, that procurement rules were not properly followed, etc. I reiterate that this is not an issue between the residents' association and the people who are housed in this facility. There are few issues between the residents and the residents of that house. It is about issues around that.

We have quite a sizeable amount of information and some of it is quite alarming. One of the issues the residents complained about related to planning issues. A closure notice was issued by the local authority on foot of there either being inadequate fire safety or an inadequate fire assessment. The fire assessment is included in the correspondence. The assessment report relates to Ryevale House. It states that the stable block outbuildings will be dealt with by means of a separate fire assessment. The report refers to the fact that the house had been in operation as a bed-sit and guesthouse since before 1993. That is factually incorrect and the Department must know that. This should have required a planning application and the Department of housing confirmed that to me and to one of our colleagues. It was confirmed that planning permission was required because it is a protected building. Any material changes to the inside of a protected building would require permission. The house was never used as a guesthouse. One of the outbuildings was used as an Airbnb, but not the house itself. This house was built in the 1760s. There were issues when people were in the building for six months and those issues necessitated the local authority providing a closure notice as a result of an inadequate fire assessment. That was rectified some week later on foot of that action by the local authority. The interesting piece is the inspection report we have been given for Ryevale House. We are told in the document that each of the facilities where people are housed is inspected. This is the information that will be useful for the committee's meeting with the Department. Our understanding is-----

An Cathaoirleach

The committee will meet representatives from the Department next week.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Yes. We all get these documents, and the Chair will recognise that. We get documents before people are going to be accommodated. The Department tells us the number of people involved and so forth. Our understanding was that there were to be somewhere in the region of 90 people accommodated in this facility between the outbuildings and the house itself. There was an amount of money, in the order of €250,000 per month, for that. When there were fire drills, however, the house was evacuated of fewer than 50 people on two occasions. It is not at all clear how many people are in the house.

This is also drawing attention to some awful stuff about the monotony of the food. People have been complaining about it, saying they have been treated more like children or prisoners. There ware several damning things in this report. It states that complaints were received from residents in respect of alleged racism from the centre manager. Other residents stated that he is not appropriate and makes them feel as if they are children or prisoners. One particular resident stated that the manager became annoyed when the resident raised an issue in respect of the cleanliness of the communal toilet. Some residents stated they were sometimes not afforded privacy in their own rooms.

An Cathaoirleach

I will say to the Deputy that there are many legitimate complaints. The relevant witnesses will be before the committee next week.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

There are pictures of mould. I have asked parliamentary questions about this particular house and about other facilities, not necessarily only in my own constituency. I got replies stating it would not be in the public interest to give me the information in respect of the renewal of a contract or whatever else, or even telling us the amount.

An Cathaoirleach

The fire certificate would be in the public interest, as would planning.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

They should be.

An Cathaoirleach

Those issues are in the public interest.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

We are relying on the Department to give us accurate information. The reality is that this does not have the benefit of an exemption from planning permission. In reply to parliamentary questions, I have been told that this house specifically requires planing permission. There is an enforcement notice with the local authority. To be honest, I have no problem if exceptions are there to be used. There are exemptions for particular buildings. However, when those parameters are not observed, people have a right to recourse. I do not necessarily think the Committee of Public Accounts is the vehicle through which that has to happen.

An Cathaoirleach

I agree. Local authorities are there to enforce planning conditions. If the statement that it does not require planning permission is based on the false information that it was previously a guesthouse, that needs to be rectified. Can we come back to that next week? We are deviating from the agenda. I take on board the Deputy's points. I do not know the exact location of the house. It has come up and I have been following the correspondence. It is clear there are problems. There are supposed to be inspections done for the welfare and treatment of the residents. The Deputy has raised a number of issues. Those types of issues can be raised directly with the Department. In the context of the issues around planning and the fire certificate, there can be no deviation. One certainly cannot deviate from a fire certificate. The Deputy has raised the issue consistently and she is concerned about it.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I am not sure how it could have been open for six months.

An Cathaoirleach

There are usually approximately 50 people in it.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

There are supposed to be 90 people. There is an issue for the Committee of Public Accounts. What contracts were awarded? Do we know the number of people for whom there are contracts to provide accommodation? Are those contracts dependent on people being in the facilities? If it is contracted for 80 or 90 people and there are 50 in it, then things do not stack up in the context of the report I am looking at. There is supposed to be one washing machine for every 25 people but there is one washing machine for every 50 people. We also know there is supposed to be more than 50 people in this house. I am concerned about those kinds of things. It is difficult to get the information from the Department and I am not sure we are going to get that next week.

An Cathaoirleach

Let us talk to the Department about the inspection of these types of premises in general. Does the Department go in and check that these premises meet requirements, including the need for washing machines, etc.?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I am also interested in the number of people contracted for and the number of people who are in the facility.

An Cathaoirleach

This has also arisen in other facilities. Is there a clear correlation between the number of residents for which payment is being made and the numbers in the residence? This is an issue we should raise with representatives of the Department when they come before the committee. Is that okay?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Yes.

An Cathaoirleach

We will come back to that issue next week. It is agreed to note and publish item No. 2488, pending the consent of the Higher Education Authority, HEA. If the HEA does not consent to the publication of the correspondence, it is proposed to only publish the letter from UL. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We will move on to category C, which is correspondence from and relating to private individuals or any other correspondence.

The first item is No. 2454, which is from Senator Craughwell and has been flagged for attention. The problem I have with this is that it is a two-sentence letter saying that he would be obliged if the Committee of Public Accounts would carry out a full investigation into the funding of NGOs and what benefits accrue to citizens of the State from this funding. We can see in the image below that just one NGO was funded to the tune of €1.085 million. There is a list, and he copied it onto the page. Is it agreed to note that item of correspondence? It is not clear. He said the Committee of Public Accounts should carry out a full investigation into every NGO, but I think we should write back to him and ask him if there is one particular on which he wishes the Committee of Public Accounts to carry out an examination. I am not clear about what he is asking of us here. He said he wants a full investigation into the funding of NGOs and benefits. How many NGOs are there?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

There are thousands.

An Cathaoirleach

That is what I thought.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I have an observation on the clip that is included in the email. A number of years ago, the Department of public expenditure directed that any body in receipt of funding from multiple sources would have to disclose the range of public sources of its funding. The idea behind this was that this would at least help people to understand what the funding was for in cases where there were multiple sources of funding. Also, all public bodies that are providing funding would understand that there are other sources and would be able to query that. Certainly, if we look at many of the NGOs, charitable bodies, etc., that are providing services, they will have a table like this that will list the various tranches of funding they are receiving.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Is that not one of the things that Benefacts did?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes. That was all part of that initiative. It went back to the report to the committee that looked into the funding of SIPTU.

An Cathaoirleach

He seems to indicate in this letter that there is one specific NGO, but he asks about the "funding of NGOs". He did not mention a specific NGO. I think we should write back to him to ask him to clarify.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

We might point out the remit of the Committee of Public Accounts as well.

An Cathaoirleach

Absolutely. That goes without saying. There are thousands of NGOs, some of which do good work. There are obviously always questions about certain things, and that is fair enough, but it is not clear in this letter.

Let us move on to No. 2455, which is from Deputy Verona Murphy and is dated 13 March. She forwarded correspondence seeking certain information in relation to the school transport scheme. Bus Éireann is not accountable to the committee. However, the Department of Education is, and the issue of school transport has been flagged as an area of interest for a meeting on 16 May, when it will be before the committee. I propose that we write to the Department of Education to seek an update on the recommendations of the Comptroller and Auditor General Special Report 98: Provision of School Transport, which was on value for money. It is proposed that we request information on the number of students, the total spend and the amount paid to Córas Iompair Éireann, CIÉ, ahead of the meeting on 16 May. Is that agreed? Agreed. I am not inclined to defer this issue because it will be before the committee on 16 May. I think the committee is agreeable and we should do that. We should leave it until then.

Let us move on to the work programme. Next week, on 18 April, we will meet with officials from the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth in relation to the 2022 appropriation accounts, which is Vote 40. International protection accommodation services have been flagged as an area of interest. I also propose that we flag the resourcing and staffing of Tusla as an area of interest. There was a big issue with that on the day representatives of Tusla were here. I also raise the issue of the Department's role and what can be done in relation to that.

On 25 April, we will meet with Inland Fisheries Ireland in relation to its 2022 financial statements. Members will recall that this meeting was rescheduled from 7 March. We will be joined by the deputy CEO, who has been delegated the functions of accountable person to the committee, because the CEO is on leave.

We will engage with the National Transport Authority on 2 May 2024 in relation to its 2022 financial statements. BusConnects, the purchase of buses by companies providing public transport and the provision of bus services have been flagged as areas of interest. On 9 May, we have agreed to meet with the Office of Public Works, OPW. Deputy Dillon was a member of the committee until yesterday, but he is now the Minister of State. I propose that we defer this meeting until 13 June and reschedule a meeting with the University of Limerick instead on 9 May. Is it agreed that representatives of the Higher Education Authority, as well as the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, be invited to that meeting also?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

It is agreed. I presume that the rota will move up.

An Cathaoirleach

Yes. Everything will move on by one week.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I refer to the rotas of the members who are leading.

An Cathaoirleach

Yes, that will roll over.

On 16 May, we will meet with the Department of Education in relation to Vote 26. The following areas of interest have been flagged: the running costs and demand management for schools, the school building programme, school transport, the disposal of assets of religious orders, and Caranua.

On 23 May we will engage with the Department of Defence in relation to Vote 36 - Defence, as well as chapter 12 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's annual report in relation to stock management in the Defence Forces. Is it the case that that will include all stock?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes, military stock is an aspect of it.

An Cathaoirleach

The quartermasters will be busy.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Hardly in advance of the meeting, but they are busy anyway.

An Cathaoirleach

They will obviously prepare for this.

On 30 May we will meet with the National Paediatric Hospital Development Board in relation to the 2022 financial statements. It is proposed that we request a representative from the Department of Health to attend this meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Is it agreed that we engage with the OPW in relation to Vote 13 - Office of Public Works on 13 June? That is the one we are pushing out. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The Department of Transport and Waterways Ireland have also been agreed as part of our work programme. Is it agreed to schedule our next two meetings for those two bodies, if possible? The Department of Transport and Waterways Ireland meetings will be held separately. Is that agreed? Agreed. Do members wish to make any comment or flag any other areas of interest on the work programme? No. I take it that the work programme is agreed. That concludes our consideration of the work programme for the day.

The last item of business on the public agenda is for any other business. Do any members wish to raise any other matters? No. We will now go into private session very briefly, before adjourning until 9.30 a.m. on 18 April, when we will engage with the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth.

The committee went into private session at 12.38 p.m. and adjourned at 2.49 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 7 March 2024.