David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

From an accounting perspective, I can fully understand how one would and could label it as non-Exchequer funding sources. From a financial or accounting perspective, that is fine. We know there are multiple income streams, separate from State funding, for institutes of technologies and more so for universities. The difficulty, as Teachta Kelly said, is that there is an added liability to this being met by the institution. Even if we take the line that it is coming from non-Exchequer funding sources, that means the money is not being spent on other services. It is sleight of hand in some respects. It is still money that is spent by an institution that is primarily funded by the taxpayer. Contributions from parents and students have also increased substantially in recent years. Any added liability as a consequence of actions taken would obviously raise concerns for us and for those who pay the fees.

The Comptroller and Auditor General might be able to help me unpack some of the language. The document states, "This treatment is not in accordance with the requirements of FRS 102 Section 21 [whatever that is] 'Provisions and Contingencies' because the receivable is contingent in nature." Will Mr. McCarthy explain to us what that means in layman's terms? The document also refers to "the non-consolidation of Cork University Foundation DAC, which had accumulated reserves of €4.1 million". Teachta Connolly has raised issues about foundations before. Is that a qualified opinion because the consolidation did not happen as quickly as it should have? Is that what the issue is?

Reading the final reference in this section of the document, here we go again with procurement. Going back to the point made by Teachta MacSharry on procurement, there is no sanction or penalty. We have said this over and over again. It is becoming really frustrating. What is the point in having all of these accounts presented to us? Almost every week, there is some public body that does not follow procurement guidelines. Notwithstanding whether they are watching their backs in terms of being sued or if there is a party that did not get the contract that might sue them, that is separate in my view. In terms of breaching guidelines set down and there being no penalty except a slap on the wrist, it really is becoming a joke. Did we make recommendations in any of our periodic reports in this respect? One of the things we can do is recommend to Government, to Departments and to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, DPER, that they should apply sanctions in this regard.