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

The business before us this afternoon is as follows: minutes, accounts and financial statements, correspondence, work programme and any other business. The minutes of the meeting on 24 March is the first business. They were circulated to members. Are the minutes agreed? Agreed. They will be published as usual.

The next business is accounts and financial statements. Five sets of financial statements and accounts were laid before the Houses between 21 March and 25 March. I ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to address these before I open to the floor.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

The first set of financial statements submitted is the Royal Irish Academy for 2020. It is a clear audit opinion but I draw attention to recognition of a deferred pension funding asset. This is similar to the university sector bodies. It is a standard matter that I draw attention to.

Number two is the fishery harbours centres for 2020. It is a clear audit opinion.

Number three relates to InterTradeIreland, which is one of the North-South bodies, for 2020. It is a clear audit opinion.

Number four is Institute of Technology, Tralee, a dissolved body for which this is the final set of financial statements. It relates to 2019 and 2020, an extended accounting period. That gets a clear audit opinion.

Finally, Galway and Roscommon Education and Training Board 2020 gets a clear audit opinion.

The InterTradeIreland account was signed off on 9 August so there appears to be a delay. The committee might wish to pursue an explanation for that delay.

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

If it goes over six months, I think, was that it-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Three months is the period in which, after signing, they are expected to submit. If it is four months there is a bit of leeway and, particularly with a North-South body, there can be added complication. However, this is from August to March so is a little bit over.

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

Do any members want to comment on any of them? Are they happy with them? Okay, we will ask for an explanation of that-----

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

I support the proposition that we write to InterTradeIreland. The Comptroller and Auditor General has explained this previously but how precisely does the audit process work when the body crosses two jurisdictions? Is he satisfied that the process is sufficiently streamlined and that there can be maximum public confidence in it?

On the Royal Irish Academy and the deferred pension funding asset issue which, as he noted, is similar to the university sector, what are the implications of that? Are there plans to address it or will this just be an opinion we receive on every audit he provides relating to this sector?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

On the cross-Border matter, between ourselves and my counterpart in Northern Ireland, one or other of us takes a lead role in a specific audit. In the case of InterTradeIreland, the lead is the Northern Ireland Audit Office. We co-ordinate on the plan and both offices review the findings of the audit but the work on the ground is carried out by the lead authority. We discuss between ourselves the issues that might arise. It is complicated and there can be further complications if explanations are required, particularly if a body has to go back to parent departments in two jurisdictions. When the explanation comes through, there are processes of presentation of the financial statements on both sides of the Border that may contribute to the delay in submitting it to the Houses.

I refer to the recognition of a deferred pension funding asset. Many third level institutions, particularly universities, have other sources of income apart from grants from the State. They need to recognise that they have accrued pension liabilities but if they did not recognise a matching pension funding asset the picture on their balance sheets would be distorted and it would look like they were insolvent. However, the expectation is that it might be 50 years before these liabilities are drawn down. They are effectively assuming that the Exchequer will meet the pension liabilities as they arise. Because they do not have a guarantee that the State will do that, I am drawing attention to it. It is something we have been doing for many years. If the committee takes the view that it understands that point I will consider whether it makes sense to continue to draw attention to it. I have been reflecting on whether it is necessary.

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

The Comptroller and Auditor General has been giving clear audition opinions on the accounts of the North-South bodies their accounts so far.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Yes.

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

Which is good.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Occasionally there is a matter or an impropriety of some kind in relation to a grant, a fraud or something like that or there could be procurement issues. There have been occasional matters but there has been nothing substantive in recent years.

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

That is good considering there are two jurisdictions. Can we agree and note the accounts?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

One point was raised when we were talking about accounts and statements last week on a payment to a former chief executive of Transport Infrastructure Ireland. Deputy Carthy had a question about the accrued leave that was paid for when the chief executive departed. For the information of the committee, the Department of Finance circular No. 27 of 2003 provides for that kind of payment and it also sets out the framework for carrying forward leave from period to period. It is possible to accrue leave of the amount in this example, which was 41 days. I understand that in this particular case the chief executive expected to be leaving earlier in the year, which was 2020. Due to the Covid restrictions it was not possible for the Department to go ahead with its recruitment competition so his departure got delayed. That was all part of what resulted in that significant payment.

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

I thank the Comptroller and Auditor General for that information. Can we agree and note the accounts and statements? Agreed. As usual, the accounts and statements will be published as part of our minutes.

The next business is correspondence. As previously agreed, items that are 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 relation to correspondence are recorded in the minutes of the committee’s meetings and published on the committee’s web page.

No. 1128B is from Mr. Ray Mitchell, assistant national director of the HSE from 11 March. This is information requested by the committee on additional nursing home charges. We held this over from last week and it is proposed to note and publish that. Is that agreed? Agreed. It was flagged by Deputy Munster and I am not sure if she is present so I propose that we move on. We will take that as dealt with and that correspondence is there if the Deputy wants to review it and comment on it in future.

No. 1137B is from Mr. David Moloney, Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, dated 16 March 2022, responding to the committee’s request that Accounting Officers' remuneration be published as part of the appropriation accounts of Departments and offices. This is beginning with the presentation of accounts for 2021. Members will recall that we wrote to the Department proposing a number of changes to the format and content of the appropriation accounts. The Secretary General agreed to examine the proposal for the 2022 accounts, and it was subsequently requested that, in the interests of transparency and accountability, the remuneration of Accounting Officers should be included in the 2021 accounts. It is welcome that this will be done and that will include a comparator for 2020. The circular giving effect to this change was circulated to members yesterday. I propose that the committee notes and publishes this item of correspondence; requests a progress update by the end of September this year on each of the changes to the appropriation accounts proposed by the committee and includes the matter on the agenda for our meeting with the Department of Expenditure and Reform on 19 May.

I will open this matter to the floor before seeking agreement on those proposals. Deputies Carthy and Catherine Murphy have flagged this item.

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

We sought details to be included in the accounts of the remuneration associated with Accounting Officers. The reference to this was a request coming late in the timeframe for preparation and sign off on the accounts. This is information that is readily available within the Department and the letter and request from our committee was sent on 31 January so I do not accept that there would be difficulties in Departments providing this information.

The second query I would like to make in response to Mr. Moloney is on his reference to the timescale. He stated: "...this disclosure will for 2021 be based on the remuneration associated with the grade." That is not the information we have sought. We have sought the net remuneration received by Accounting Officers. We are aware of the situation in the Department of Health where a public statement was made that an Accounting Officer was waiving a portion of his or her salary. This committee needs to be clear that it is seeking information on how much was paid to the Accounting Officer in each Department. I see no reason that would not, and could not, be provided for 2021. I ask that we request that in clear terms in our correspondence with the Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. We should also inform each Department that we are seeking this information, either in the form of the accounts, or where that information cannot be provided due to the timescale and the preparation of the accounts, it should be provided in a note to the committee.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with Deputy Carthy on the terminology and that the timeframe was late. This is not information that is unknown; it is known. The committee would not view this as an acceptable response. There will be issues and they are linked to this. For example, a precedent was set regarding the remuneration for the Secretary General at the Department of Health. Would that pay scale carry if the person was reshuffled? That is an example of a question that will crop up and we have not had a response yet to the report of the committee that was sent to the Department. We have to keep an eye on that to make sure we get an adequate response.

Mr. Moloney states: "The Department had already agreed to consider a range of possible changes to the appropriation account framework for 2022."

The person who is probably best placed to know the impact of that is the Comptroller and Auditor General. It would be useful to hear whether that has gone far enough. In Mr. McCarthy's opinion, is it a meaningful difference? Could the changes to the framework go further?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

If the Deputy recalls, the committee wrote to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform on 23 November setting out three areas where it was of the view that substantial changes were needed. The Department pointed out it was already making changes in one area relating to legal costs. One of the other areas was pay and staffing. One of the things requested was remuneration details for the Accounting Officer. It is well established as regards chief officers in other organisations that it is the actual payment in the year that is reported. The Accounting Officer who replied regarding that on 6 January stated, in effect, the Department would consider the changes that were laid out but the circular had already issued for 2021. In the context of changes for 2022, the Department is willing to engage in a dialogue and to look at how things might be measured and defined and so on. The committee's subsequent letter was dated 31 January so there was not a major delay in responding to the committee's request that remuneration of the Accounting Officer could be included for 2021. That was the sequence.

The big changes I see are in the other area, which relates to EU claims and funding. There was a suggestion by the committee in November that things such as the gender pay gap would be included. A little work will be involved in arriving at a set of definitions so that everybody is clear what it is we are trying to measure and report.

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

We will request the information Deputy Carthy mentioned. His proposal for 2021 is that the exact amount is included in respect of the net remuneration received by the Secretary General.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

The appropriation accounts have been submitted for 2021. They are already signed off.

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

Deputy Carthy's proposal is that we get a note on it.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Separately.

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

Yes.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are two things. I imagine it is the gross as opposed to the net amount.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It is the gross amount.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Otherwise, that would be looking into the personal circumstances of tax and so on, which would not be appropriate.

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

That is correct.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Regarding the terminology, I would be quite concerned if the Department is saying it will "consider". As a parent, I know what that meant when my children were growing up. You would say "Oh, I'll think about it" or "I'll consider it" and you knew full well you were never going to agree to it. We all did it. The word "consider" comes across as very paternalistic to me. Is there any good reason we should not know this information? The message that is coming across to me is, in essence, paternalistic, hoping we will forget about it and that the Department will not have to do it. I do not find that acceptable.

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

Yes, "consider" can mean a lot of things.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It does, as does, "We will think about it", "We will consider it" and "We will get it done."

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Certainly, it is quite clear that the salary and remuneration package of a chief officer of a State body has to be disclosed in the financial statements. That has been applied and has been the case for a good number of years at this stage. It is probably inconsistent that the same would not happen regarding the chief officers of Departments.

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

Okay. We will look for that information.

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

Deputy Murphy must be a very strict mother indeed. I propose we adopt a strategy my children use, which is to keep coming back until they get the answer they want. The reason I used the term "met"-----

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

It is called pester power.

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

The reason I used the term "met" in the context of remuneration is we know what the stated salary is. In one particular instance, the Accounting Officer in the Department of Health made a very public statement indicating he was waiving a portion of that salary. I want, and what I hope this committee is seeking, the figure relating to the remuneration when that waiver was included in that or any other Department where it happened. It is not necessarily the salary that is assigned for the position but the salary that is actually drawn down.

Of course, I do not intend to seek details of tax or any other deductions from source, but it is crucially important for public trust, and in respect of public statements that have been made, that the committee and the public have access to that information, which we have sought separately from the Department but has not been provided up until this point. It is something we should agree to pursue. Otherwise, it will erode public trust if people make statements of that nature and do not provide the full information.

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

Okay. We will seek that specific piece of information regarding gross remuneration. The other two proposals are to request a progress report by the end of September 2022 on each of the changes to the appropriation accounts proposed by the committee and include the matter on the agenda for our meeting with officials from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform on 19 May. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 1139B is correspondence from Mr. Mark Griffin, Secretary General, Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, dated 21 March 2022, providing follow-up information requested by the committee arising from our meeting with the Department on 10 February 2022. It includes information on the Department’s expenditure on external advisory services relating to the national broadband plan, which amounts to in excess of €16 million since 2020, and a short note on what the Department is doing to decrease its reliance on such services. We also address this in our report on the Department’s 2019 and 2020 accounts, which we will publish next week. It is proposed to note and publish this correspondence.

Deputy Murphy and I wanted to raise this matter. In reading this correspondence before the meeting, I noted that Analysys Mason received €6.852 million, Ernst and Young received €8.251 million and William Fry received €1.3 million. The Department sets out 28,309 interactions in total with the National Broadband Ireland contact centre and outlines the level of work. The note in the correspondence relating to efforts to try to move away from that does not tell us an awful lot. I wonder whether more details can be given.

On the rent and fees paid to other companies by National Broadband Ireland, despite the fact it is year one, there is already a €9.4 million outlay relating to the rental of poles and ducts. That is one we need to keep an eye on in the years ahead as the roll-out of the plan accelerates. It was at a very early stage last year and was only barely starting. That figure will be substantial and the committee needs to keep a watching brief on it. Deputy Murphy wanted to speak on this as well.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is a very long contract. If it was to continue going as it is over its lifetime, it would make it way more expensive.

My understanding is that the Department deals with the administrative side, but the technical side is where we have the serious questions. Providing these services in house may well end up being a better option than employing consultants if the consultants are there in perpetuity. The letter states that since the contract was signed with Analysys Mason, payments of €6.95 million have been made. I think we should ask about the duration of the contracts in each of the three cases, namely, with Analysys Mason, EY and William Fry.

The letter goes on to state that since the contract was signed with William Fry in 2020, payments of €1.32 million have been made in respect of legal advisory services. Would it be possible for those legal advisory services to be got in house? We should inquire about that. This is all going to be within the same range of expertise. It is not as if it will involve, first, buying a house and then opening a road. It could end up being much better value for money if there were in-house expertise, and we should ask about that.

On the final page of the letter, there is a reference to arrangements being in place for effective knowledge transfer between advisers and the core team to mitigate their reliance on external advisers. I would like some more detail on what the knowledge transfer is and whether that has yet been scoped out. That is the kind of detail we will need. The letter goes on to state the Department's core team has expanded over the past year, with seven posts having been filled in 2021 and a further 14 additional posts in the process of being filled to replace some of the external resources, and that more expertise will be brought in house, which is welcome. It would be useful to get a breakdown by technical grade of the incoming staff in order that we will have some marker to see what changes are taking place.

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

I thought the reference to arrangements being in place for an effective knowledge transfer between the advisers and the core team within the Department was skimpy. Nevertheless, it has recruited an additional seven staff and is in the process of filling 14 additional posts. We might ask to be briefed on the timeline for that.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As well as on the technical grades. That will give us some indication of the capacity that is being built. If all the posts are, for example, on the administrative rather than technical side, that will be an issue.

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

Okay. We will request that information and note and publish the item.

No. 1141B is from Mr. Maurice Buckley, cathaoirleach of the OPW, dated 21 March, providing information requested by the committee on the security arrangements for private residences. It is proposed to note and publish the item and to request an explanation for the significant increase in expenditure from 2020 to 2021. Is that agreed? Agreed. Deputy Catherine Murphy had flagged it.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Obviously, this relates to officeholders and that can include judges, Ministers or whoever. It would be useful to get a rough idea of what was provided. It may well relate to CCTV, the building of a wall or something else. Will the OPW at any point remove the safety measures that have been applied? A bit more detail, rather than just the costs, would be useful.

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

What I am not clear about is which type of measures the OPW is talking about. Do they relate to electronic equipment, for example?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

I can confirm, because we have looked at this previously, that it is things like building security features, surveillance, lighting, maybe the removal of certain things that would obscure surveillance and so on, electronic gates and that kind of thing.

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

I do not want anything to be identified, but what types of officials stay in these private residences?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It would tend to be senior people. If there was a threat against an officer at any level, there could be security-----

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

Officers and elected representatives.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It could be, yes. Judges would be the other group, I think, that in the main would be included.

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

Or employees of Government agencies.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Yes, wherever a threat or a perceived threat is made against an individual. In the case of judges who would typically deal with criminal cases and so on, that is what we are talking about.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who would notify the threat to cause the security review that would prescribe what is required?

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

Presumably the Garda.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It would be the Garda, or if a judge were being appointed to deal with criminal cases and had not been dealing with them in the past, the Courts Service could raise the matter. Typically, these would be the kinds of features that it would not be either cost effective or useful to remove at a later stage. They really would not have any other use. It would be a case of taking them away just for the sake of taking them away.

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

The fact the expenditure on the security of private residences during 2020 was only €213,000 and had increased for 2021 by 350%, to more than €700,000, shows that many of things happened last year. It is unfortunate those measures were required-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

I think there was a perception of increased risks to certain people.

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

I hope those risks will reduce and sanity will prevail. In fairness, people are entitled to peace and a level of security within their family home.

No. 1145B is from Ms Kirsten Mey, president of the University of Limerick, UL, dated 24 March, providing information requested by the committee regarding the KPMG review of UL's purchase of a site in Limerick city. The report remains subject to legal consideration but the president expects to provide a further update to the committee in the coming weeks. Representatives of UL will appear before the committee on 12 May and it is proposed to note and publish this item. Is that agreed? Agreed. It was flagged by both me and Deputy Catherine Murphy.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would hope that when representatives of the UL come before us on 12 May, we will have some substance to discuss, although that may be the optimist in me coming out. I suspect that if the matter is subject to a legal review, we could be in for a very protracted process and I am not sure what can be done about it.

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

Ms Mey states in her letter that she wishes to confirm that no further update is available in respect of the KPMG report because it is still under consideration by UL's legal advisers, but that she expects to be in a position to give an update in the coming weeks and will be in contact with this committee as soon as possible. I think we should wait and see what happens in the coming weeks. We are certainly anxious to see the detail.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Surely some of this will crop up in the accounts. Will the Comptroller and Auditor General not then have the benefit of a report that has been completed?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

That depends. If there is legal challenge against a report, there may be a difficulty in looking at it, but it would not necessarily preclude me from looking back myself.

I would like to have representatives of the university before the committee. I will then consider whether it might be useful for my office to examine the issue.

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

The letter suggests we may have some further information before the meeting on 12 May. It is a much-awaited report.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is.

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

That is agreed. The next category of correspondence is correspondence from and related to private individuals and any other correspondence. No. 1152C is correspondence from Deputy Catherine Murphy dated 28 March. It is a request for the committee to make inquiries regarding MetroLink in Charlemont, Dublin 2. It is proposed to incorporate this inquiry into the request for further information from Transport Infrastructure Ireland that was agreed at our meeting last week. Is that agreed?

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Agreed.

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

Does the Deputy wish to comment?

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will wait until we get a response. The issue was drawn to my attention and I thought it appropriate to write to the committee.

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

That is fine. No other items of correspondence have been flagged.

The next issue is the work programme. On 7 April, we will continue our series of justice-related meetings with two engagements. We will examine the financial statements of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission that morning and those of the Policing Authority that afternoon. At our meeting last week, we agreed to have separate speaking rotations for each engagement. The speaking rota and work programme have been updated accordingly.

There are two non-sitting weeks over Easter. Our next meeting thereafter will be with representatives of the Department of Justice and the Irish Prison Service on 28 April. With regard to that latter engagement, I suggest that we request an update on the independent review of the voluntary mess committees in Irish prisons and seek clarity as to whether the report of that review can be available to the committee in advance of the engagement. Is that agreed? Agreed. Members might recall we highlighted that issue in our report.

Our engagements for May are as follows. Representatives of the Department of Finance will be before the committee on 5 May. Representatives of the University of Limerick will be before the committee on 12 May. Representatives of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform will be before the committee on 19 May. Representatives of the Department of Health and the HSE will attend on 26 May. That meeting will relate to a number of issues that are in the public domain. For the meeting with representatives of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform on 19 May, it is open to us to include on the agenda Vote 11 - Office of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Vote 12 - superannuation and retired allowances, Vote 39 - Office of Government Procurement and Vote 43 - Office of the Government Chief Information Officer. Do members wish to include all of the Votes on the agenda for 19 May or would they rather examine any one of those Votes as a separate engagement? Members seem happy enough to address them all at the same time. We examined the Office of Government Procurement separately last year. The Office of the Government Chief Information Officer is a new Vote. How do members wish to proceed? Are they happy that we address all of those Votes at the one meeting? I take it they are.

The Accounting Officer for the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is also responsible for Vote 15 - secret service, which cannot be examined in any substantive way. It is proposed to exclude that Vote from that agenda. Is that agreed? Agreed. That Vote has to do with State security. As agreed earlier, we will also include the format and content of the appropriation accounts on the agenda for that meeting with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

It was noted at last week's meeting that a response has not been received from Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to the committee's request for further information regarding the closure of the Benefacts database. The Department provided a response yesterday and it will be circulated on Monday for consideration at next week's correspondence meeting. It is also proposed to include the matter on the agenda for our meeting with the Department on 19 May. We felt the Benefacts database was an important matter. Is that agreed? Agreed.

As usual, if there is any specific area of interest to members and which they wish to raise, I ask them to notify the clerk so that briefing material can be requested in advance and the bodies can be prepared to engage on the issues. Are there any other matters that members wish to raise for inclusion on the work programme? There are not. A list of subjects that members have mentioned is attached to the documents before committee members, if they want to review it and come back to future meetings with it. That concludes our consideration of the work programme for today.

The final item on the agenda is any other business. Do any members wish to raise any other matters? If not, we will go into private session before adjourning until 7 April, when we will examine the 2020 financial statements of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission and the 2020 appropriation accounts of Vote 41 - the Policing Authority.