Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Thursday, 29 September 2022
Public Accounts Committee
Business of Committee
9:30 am
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The business for this afternoon is as follows: minutes, accounts and financial statements, correspondence, work programme and any other business.
Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In the session this morning we dealt with the HSE. I have been contacted during the lunch break by someone who has indicated that some of the answers given - while I am not saying they were lies, were less than representative of the truth. I refer to the issue of whether the HSE had contacted families from Garnish House. Families say they have not been contacted. As a relatively new member of the committee I want to know what is the remit of the committee if there is a belief that we have not been given representative answers by witnesses.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The committee will be meeting the HSE again next week. Perhaps Deputy Hourigan could clarify the issue then. We must be careful, given that sometimes people tell us things. I do not doubt the veracity of what the Deputy said, but we must be careful, even when information is sometimes less than 100% accurate. Sometimes it is 100% inaccurate. I ask Deputy Hourigan to use the opportunity of next week's meeting to raise the issue directly with HSE senior management. I heard that she was told specifically this morning that there was consultation with the families. The Deputy might clarify what was involved in the consultation.
Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Can the committee take any action if it is obvious or transparent that the answer was incorrect?
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We can raise it with the relevant body. We can put the issue to the HSE in advance of next week so that people know the Deputy seeks clarification.
Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is great.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Next week we will have a different topic and, like the rest of us, Deputy Hourigan will get her ten minutes. If it was not true, it is not entirely fair to the member to have her time taken up. We should not accept from anybody that witnesses are not candid with us.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I know. That is why I think we should put it to the HSE. We will notify it of the fact that Deputy Hourigan's information is different from what was stated. We will put it to the HSE and let it come back with its position.
Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We can take it from there.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes, we can take it from there, but we must give the HSE the opportunity to respond. We can decide on the approach to take. Deputy Hourigan can do it within her ten minutes, but I am in favour of letting her do it outside of that given the fact that she feels she has grounds for doing so, based on the fact that she information she received was not correct. Deputy Hourigan has raised it now. She will not want the entire meeting taken up with it, as that would be unfair to other members, but we will allow her to clarify the matter.
Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Thank you, Chairman.
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
As a point of principle, we should lay down a marker to the effect that if we bring people before this committee we expect to hear the full facts in response to any question that is put and if it transpires that those facts are in dispute then we will seek clarification. I agree with your approach, Chairman.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Just so we are clear about this: is Deputy Hourigan's information that no consultation was carried out with any families or just with some?
Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Some. I could not answer for every single person involved. That also would not be a fair reflection of the truth.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is important that the communication is worded correctly. The issue is that there was not consultation with some families. I thank Deputy Hourigan for that.
The first item of business is the minutes of our meeting of 22 September, which has been circulated to members. Do members wish to raise any matters in relation to the minutes? Okay. Are the minutes agreed? Agreed. As usual, the minutes will be published on the committee's webpage.
Two sets of financial statements were laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas between 19 and 23 September 2022. I invite the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. McCarthy, to address them before opening the floor to members.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy:
The first of the accounts relates to St. Patrick's College, Drumcondra. The college of education has been incorporated into Dublin City University, DCU, but there are some residual assets and liabilities that remain with the entity called St. Patrick's College, Drumcondra. The turnover was very small in the year 2019-2020. It got a clear audit opinion. I understand that the college is moving towards finalisation of the assets and liabilities and the dissolution of the college in due course.
The second set of financial statements is the motor tax account, which is a sizeable departmental fund account. A total of €907 million was collected in 2021. That received a clear audit opinion. For the information of the committee, I will have a chapter in my annual report tomorrow relating to the collection of motor tax.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What Department does motor tax relate to?
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does the Department retain all the motor tax funds?
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
All of it.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy:
Yes. Effectively, the receipts go to the Exchequer and then funding, more or less equivalent - with some variances from year to year - is distributed back through the Vote for transport. It is not going into the transport Vote as an appropriation-in-aid. It is a longer route to coming back to the Department.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It was ring-fenced as the Local Government Fund from the year 2000.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It changed when local property tax, LPT, came in.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Can we agree to note the listing of financial statements? Agreed. As usual, the listing of accounts and financial statements will be published as part of our minutes. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The third item of business is correspondence. As previously agreed, items that were not flagged for discussion for 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 webpage.
The first category of correspondence under which members have flagged items for discussion is: B - correspondence from Accounting Officers or Ministers and follow-up to committee meetings. We have one item held over from last week's meeting. It is No. 1426 B from Mr. David Moloney, Secretary General, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, dated 31 August 2022 providing information requested by the committee regarding the status of the business case for the relocation of the National Maternity Hospital. We agreed to note and publish this item. Deputy Munster had flagged an interest in this but I do not think she is present. Does any other member wish to come in on it?
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Recently, one of the things that was said was that we need to learn lessons from previous experience regarding big contracts. This is a case in point. There are all sorts of figures about what it will cost to build the hospital before there has been any tender process. That is leaving aside the appalling decision on the land on which the hospital will be located, and its ownership. What year did the project preparation change? The decision on gate 2 is referred to. Did that happen after the national paediatric hospital-----
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Sure. It would be useful if we could find out when the decision-making process commenced? I do not think we learn lessons. We talk about lessons learned but there is plenty of evidence to show that we do not learn.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is Deputy Murphy proposing that the committee looks for that information?
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes, I am. We have had the National Paediatric Hospital Development Board in several times. One of the issues that appears to have been hugely problematic is where there is inadequate preparation. This refers to inadequate preparation in advance of a project.
There are then amendments and claims. We really need to keep a close eye on this process if we are to ensure that with any further major project like this, we do not end up having constant conversations about it here.
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I find it bizarre that we have received a letter from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform that says that it has not received the formal business case for the proposal from the Department of Health in respect of the national maternity hospital considering the ongoing political debate and our constant refrain about learning lessons from the past. Apparently, this is just given as a factual statement from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and not something it is concerned about. I would go back to both Departments to see when a business case is expected to be presented. I do not know who we write to in respect of how the Cabinet came to the decision to make a political decision about it without having that business case to hand. Do we write to the Department of the Taoiseach in that regard? We need to get clarification from somebody.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy:
I think the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform publishes the public spending code and guidance on the development and evaluation of capital investment projects so I think it is the Department with which the committee needs to have this engagement. The committee has signalled that the Department is coming before it in respect of these kinds of issues so that might form part of that discussion as well.
Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Deputy Catherine Murphy has covered most of what I had planned to raise in this regard. I knew it had gone ahead with no formal business case in place. Could we ask the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform if it is standard operating procedure to make a major decision in terms of signing off on contracts with no business case? Could we ask it what its standard operating procedure in that regard is?
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I think it says that for major projects in excess of €100 million, the Department must put in place an external assurance process which will provide independent project scrutiny at the approval-in-principle and pre-tender stages
Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The Chairman is taking that to mean that it is okay to have no business case.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
No. I am only telling the Deputy what the Department is saying.
Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I would like the Department to state for the record that it has moved ahead with this project as a standard and that it is happy to do that into the future because this has implications for other major capital projects.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The fact that the Department had not received a formal business case for the proposal, as outlined by Deputy Carthy, jumped off the page. We have had all the debate over the past couple of years around it, and the project is now that much further on, but this still has not been done.
Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We were assured at the time of the Vote that the business case was imminent - as in a matter of weeks.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes. Well now the Deputy has confirmation in front of her about where it is.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It started off with people saying it was going to cost €350 million. It then went to €500 million and then to €800 million and now there is talk of it being €1 billion without any analysis of it. I think a figure has been picked out of thin air, which is a terrible way to proceed because it involves going to tender afterwards where these figures are-----
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is a major capital project and the fact that this piece of work has not been done at this point is concerning. We will request that information from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. Hopefully, it will shed some light on that. We will note and publish that item of correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 1459 is correspondence from Mr. John Hogan, Secretary General, Department of Finance, dated 15 September 2022, providing information requested by the committee arising from the meeting with the Department on 5 May 2022. It concerns annual reports on the State's transactions with the EU for 2019 and 2020. It is proposed to note and publish this item of correspondence. Is that agreed? Deputy Carthy flagged this for discussion.
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is comprehensive correspondence. I flagged it simply because this committee has an obligation to be aware of the type of figures. We discussed this previously in respect of the oversight of the moneys involved because we are talking about Irish contributions to the EU budget moving towards the €3 billion mark. That is a significant proportion of Exchequer funding. There is no other element of funding allocated by this House that has as little oversight in terms of how it is distributed. I think the latest figures we have are for 2019, which show that we are paying in the region of €500 million more than we are receiving. That is almost beside the point because this covers a multiple of programmes. There are audit processes at a European level but they have been challenged as being ineffective at that level. At the end of the day, this is still Irish taxpayers' money that is being provided through our contributions to the EU. That money should be accounted for in the same way as all other expenditure. As I have said before, I am not sure precisely how we do that. There are audit provisions at an EU level but they have been roundly criticised as being ineffectual. We just need to keep it on the agenda and be mindful of it. Taxpayers and the Irish people have a right to know precisely on an annual basis that we are paying more in and, therefore, there is an increasing obligation every year to ensure the money is being spent effectively.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is the Deputy suggesting we should seek a breakdown of where the money goes?
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In fairness, the report details a bit of that. It might be useful if we had a meeting with the European Court of Auditors and perhaps we could have a joint hearing with the corresponding committee at European Parliament level. It will be an increasing part of our work in the coming years so we should try to get a handle on it as early as possible.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy:
I am very pleased to see this report. The previous committee examined a special report of mine where we suggested that an annual report like this would be published. The committee agreed and it became a recommendation of the committee. This is in response to work of the Committee of Public Accounts and is very useful for the reasons outlined by Deputy Carthy. Perhaps the committee might like to know that recently an Irish man, Tony Murphy, was appointed as president of the Court of Auditors. He visits Dublin from time to time and I am sure he would be happy to come before the committee and talk about the work of the Court of Auditors.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We might put that in our work programme if members agree.
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Sure.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We are going to be a net contributor from the point of view of our overall finances but quite a sizeable amount comes the other way. Seeing the combination of the two would be very useful as well.
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
According to the figures I extracted, in 2019, we received €1.9 billion through EU programmes and paid in €2.4 billion. Even in terms of that €1.9 billion, we need to assess if we are getting bang for our buck because the decision about how that money is spent is not made here. It is made at a European level. It is still an awful lot of money. There is no other area of public expenditure that has so little scrutiny and it will become a larger and larger part of the overall budget.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Irish Water is competing with that in terms of scrutiny.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is coming this way.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is crawling this way - on the top of an iceberg.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Slowly.
No. R1460 is correspondence from Ms Mary Hurley, Secretary General, Department of Rural and Community Development, dated 15 September 2022, providing information requested by the committee regarding Benefacts. We considered correspondence relating to Benefacts from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and the CSO last week and agreed to request additional information from the Department.
We also engaged with the Department on 20 October. It is proposed to note and publish the item of correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. Deputy Catherine Murphy flagged this matter.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There is a disingenuous play on words at points Nos. 1 and 3. It is claimed that they did not have a relationship but they did. It states payment was provided for services. That is, to me, pretty much the same thing. On the third page of the reply, there is reference to the fact that the high-level purpose of the exercise is to explore options for a platform that would reduce the administrative burden on grantees and funders, as well as providing a single source of truth and source analysis on a State-funded community and voluntary grantees, and the investment being made into these organisations. That does not address the use. We received a letter from the CSO last week which allowed us to see the amount of money it is going to have to spend to replicate this. The Department of Rural and Community Development will be constructing something new that is less than the service that was provided by Benefacts. We are going around in circles. Benefacts feels to me like the spinning blue ring on a computer. I cannot allow this pass without comment.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We will publish the correspondence. The service that was provided seemed to be very useful and that has been acknowledged not only by committee members. In the correspondence we got last week, we could see the relatively small amount of money involved. That piece of correspondence will be published.
No. 1462 is on behalf of the Secretary General of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, dated 16 September 2022, providing information requested by the committee regarding a draft report on our examination of the 2019 appropriation account for Vote 30 - Agriculture, Food and the Marine. It is proposed to note and publish this item of correspondence, which will inform our draft report. Is that agreed? Agreed. This item was flagged by Deputies Carthy and Catherine Murphy.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I flagged that item in error. I am happy for it to be noted and published.
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
This goes back to the work of the previous Committee of Public Accounts and special reports compiled by the Comptroller and Auditor General going back as far as 2014. Is that correct?
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It relates to fisheries, harbours and fishery management.
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
From my understanding, there were seven recommendations-----
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
-----in 2019. Is Mr. McCarthy in a position to give us an update in respect of the implementation?
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is it fair to say the fact that Mr. McCarthy did a report in 2019 would indicate that the 2014 recommendations were not being adhered to?
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. Perhaps in his own good time, Mr. McCarthy could provide us with an update.
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is fair enough.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is agreed to note and publish that item of correspondence.
The next item is No. 1466 from Mr. Mark Griffin, Secretary General of the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications. It is dated 15 September 2022 and provides an update requested by the committee regarding recommendations in a report on the examination of the 2019 and 2020 appropriation accounts for Vote 29 - Environment, Climate and Communications. It is proposed to note and publish the item of correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. Does Deputy Catherine Murphy want to raise an issue?
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I wish to refer to appendix 3, which is the estimate of the total cost of remediation for landfill sites where remediation works are still required. Any of us who were on local authorities know this is a residual issue. The landfill site in Kildare was big and growing to become a mountain before it went on fire. It then cost a fortune to carry out remediation works. These situations can be problematic. A total of €191 million has been spent on a programme to identify sites. That was a requirement of the EU. There was an infringement case, ECJ C494/01, broughton the grounds of non-compliance with the waste framework directive. That €191 million is that amount that will be spent by the Exchequer. These dumps were run by private entities and those entities need to be chased to ensure additional money is brought in. This problem does not lie exclusively on the State side. We should be writing back to the Department and asking it to get us the total list of the sites that have been identified by local authorities. The Department states there are 494 sites. Where are they? What are the outstanding issues? Is the Department chasing the people who caused the problem in the first place? Just because there is finance there for remediation, the foot should not be taken off the pedal in going after people who have brought destruction. Very often, there are repeat offenders in that regard.
I remember a high-profile case in Priorswood, somewhere near Coolock or Darndale. It was nearly in the middle of a housing estate. We might specifically ask about that. Dublin City Council had to launch a planning application. Deputy Hourigan might know about this. The council had to launch a planning process to remediate it. As I say, these things do not happen by accident. There must be a penalty for the people who caused the problem in the first place and who have benefited from it.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the Deputy for that. In the response received from the Secretary General, he sets out that it should be noted that in July, the Dáil passed a Supplementary Estimate for the Department to allocate €200 million to a new subhead, B13, in the energy transformation programme area to fund the purchase by EirGrid of additional temporary generation capacity, which included a reallocation of €40 million from subhead B4, the residential and community retrofit programme. The next paragraph explains the breakdown of that. We should write back to Mr. Mark Griffin, Secretary General of the Department, to find out what the situation is with that generation capacity. Has it been secured? Is it on stand-by? What is the cost of it? What is it fuelled by? What type of fuel is being used in the generators? These are temporary emergency generators that are being imported. What is the current update on that? What is being spent on it? What are the generators being fuelled by?
Is it agreed that we write to Mr. Griffin? Agreed.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is worth saying-----
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is just that it is a pity to see €40 million coming out of the retrofit fund.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Sure.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is regrettable.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That Department is pretty good at coming back with-----
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
-----more complete replies after we have had an engagement with it. It is good to see that.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Members will see that the remainder of the issues on which we asked for feedback are dealt with in the correspondence.
No. R1474 is from Graham Doyle, Secretary General of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, and is dated 6 September. It provides information requested by the committee arising from our meeting with An Bord Pleanála on 14 July. It is proposed to note and publish this item of correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. I flagged this item. There is an issue in it regarding analysis of the cost of the judicial reviews of a housing development, including whether additional cost is built in in anticipation of a judicial review. The correspondence states that the committee may wish to be aware that the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland has estimated that the overall construction cost impact of a judicial review could range from €8,000 to €12,000 per unit - per house or apartment - for every year the development is delayed. I am just highlighting this. While we do not want to close off the judicial review process, it is in some cases adding a huge price to the already rapidly escalating price of houses and apartments. Of interest to the committee, from our point of view, is that when An Bord Pleanála challenges these judicial reviews, there is a cost there as well. This system would seem to me to be broken.
Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There are a couple of things to be raised with this. First of all, there is the very dynamic nature of the construction sector at the moment. I am presuming that the society's calculation of those costs is based on the huge level of inflation we are seeing in the construction industry. Second of all, ultimately, this is a function of our move away from local authorities in 2015. There was a much faster, much clearer, much cheaper way of appealing planning permissions we thought were inappropriate, which was to use our statutory planning authority, which is our local councils. The move since 2015 to go straight to An Bord Pleanála is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Therefore, while I accepts the society's numbers, it is not contextualising them in the correct way.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Our overly centralised State.
Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It was never envisaged to be so centralised, and where we found ourselves in 2022 is an aberration.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am at one with the Deputy on that, from the Opposition benches.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I remember saying that very thing at the time, that that was exactly what would happen and that if the function of the planning appeals board were to be changed, people would go elsewhere.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is more cumbersome, it has cost more money and it delays everything.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes, and now it has been dispensed with, but the interesting thing is that an awful lot of those planning applications have not been proceeded with, so-----
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes, all together. It is not just that it costs extra money but also that people are forgotten about.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
On that, I agree with the two previous speakers. The reality here is that the judicial review process is about the only thing keeping our so-called professional planners, everyone from the regulator right down to the town planner, in line. The more successful judicial reviews we have should highlight to the Department the lack of understanding of the law. It is as simple as that. We should be doing continuous professional development for these individuals. That should be brought in by means of legislation. That is where our money is going, and it is not money well spent. If we were to turn what we are paying out in legal fees, not just for An Bord Pleanála but in every Department, to planning and housing, we would actually have a competent set of planners. However, given the amount of legislation that goes through a planning department, be it Irish, EU or whatever else, there is no suggestion that they have to actually upgrade and upskill at any stage, and that is why we have continuous judicial reviews.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Sorry, but I really do not think you can label an entire profession like that. I think there is-----
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. I will qualify my comments.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There are very good examples of good decisions being made. We have completely bypassed, for example, local area plans, whereby the likes of An Bord Pleanála only had to have regard to them without it being in compliance with the plans that the public went through and that were properly considered. Then that was breached. That was an entirely political decision.
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes. Ultimately, however, when they are decided, they are decided on the basis of the law. Judicial review is exactly that, the legal process. When they are decided in favour of the complainant, it means that somebody has broken the law. That is the issue for me. It is continual professional practice. I will qualify my comments by saying that that is my experience at the level of my county.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Regarding that report, there was also a response on today's correspondence list to recommendations in the committee's report on the 2019 appropriation account for Vote 34 - Housing, Planning and Local Government, and related financial matters. That is No. R1465, as members will see. Although it was not flagged, there are a number of issues members might wish to consider proposing that the committee follow up on.
In that context, No. R1465 is correspondence from the Secretary General of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage dated 15 September. It provides a progress update on the implementation of recommendations in our previous report on the examination of the Department's accounts. Members will recall this. There are a few areas which, with members' agreement, we might follow up on. Recommendation 2 in the report notes the impact that the pyrite remediation scheme and the defective concrete blocks grant scheme will have on the Exchequer and recommends the creation of an independent building standards regulator and the re-establishment of the Building Regulations Advisory Body. Progress appears to be slow, and we might request confirmation that it remains the intention to establish a building standards regulator as well as a detailed note on the work involved in re-establishing the advisory board and the reason for the delay. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Recommendation 3 in the report concerned HomeBond. It requested a timeline and quarterly progress updates on recouping the full amount due to HomeBond. I propose that we request confirmation that the proposed agreement with HomeBond will ensure the payment of the full liability due from the insurer and that we follow up with the Housing Agency if we do not receive a further update by November. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Can we come back in on a couple of questions on these items?
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Finally, regarding recommendation 4, there are a number of issues with the information provided, all of which relates to the Residential Tenancies Board, RTB. Three specific actions were recommended by the committee, which were as follows.
The first one was to create a reference number for each property reported to the RTB as unregistered in order that the individual or individuals making a referral have a record of same. While the RTB stated in the relevant minute of the Minister that it "does not disclose detailed information in relation to the specifics of cases", the board confirmed that it will "examine the creation and implementation of a system of reference numbers and a related database for all referrals". However, in this latest item of correspondence, the RTB appears to contradict this commitment. The board confirms that each referral is given a unique internal number; however, it "does not provide updates on referrals and does not comment on the compliance of individual landlords, on investigation cases or on potential prosecutions". The committee's recommendation was that the person contacting the RTB would be given a reference number for his or her referrals. I propose that we express the committee's disappointment at the lack of progress in implementing a system whereby those who contact the RTB are given a reference number for their referral, and I request that the Department clarify this response in light of the minute of the Minister.
The second part of our recommendation was that the RTB establish a target timeframe for resolving each reported case. The RTB has given a timeframe for its response to members of the public upon making a referral, rather than the timeline for resolving each referral.
At best the recommendation has been misunderstood. I suggest we request clarity as to whether the RTB intends to develop a target timeframe for resolving referrals to the board, or any form of performance metric.
The third part of our recommendation was that the RTB should publish a register of tenancies for student-specific accommodation as a matter of priority. While it is welcome that the proposed register of tenancies for student accommodation has been published online, it appears to have been last updated in June 2022. I propose that we ask the RTB to clarify its protocols for updating the register. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I thank members for allowing the time to set that out. It is important that we follow up on recommendations we have made and hold bodies to the commitments made in the minute, which is the key bit, of the Minister, which provides the Government's response to this committee's recommendations.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
A building standards regulator was needed 20 years ago or more and we are seeing historical cases coming through regarding mica and so on that need to be remediated from the Celtic tiger era in respect of apartment blocks, where there are significant problems in some locations. We saw in the concrete levy applied in this week's budget, that there is a price to pay for not having a regulator. It seems to be very foggy as to when that will happen and how it will be funded. I would like us to get more detail on that.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The response is watery.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It does not give clarity. There is a notion that something will cost something, but problems are avoided problems by having the proper regulation to begin with. Australia completely re-regulated its construction sector. People do not get a licence to build if they have not been in compliance and, therefore, there is a penalty for not doing it and problems have been avoided in the future. We keep saying we will learn lessons but when it comes to putting in place the solution that will prevent it happening again, we are slow to do it. When we do put these measures in place, we often do not fund them to the extent required to make sure we do not end up with big bills and torture for people living in the accommodation.
Regarding recommendation No. 4, it would be useful to find out whether most landlords are in compliance and will register with the RTB. The ones who do not are the problem. How do we get to those who do not, so that we have satisfactory standards? Are there databases that should be shared with the RTB? For example, Revenue has a database. It may not be sufficient because it may not identify if something is leased or rented but it might be there. Has the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage or the RTB been in contact with the data regulator regarding an impact assessment on any database that might be useful to them in their work? Databases may exist that get to the point we are looking for without duplication.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In conversation, we have gathered that the RTB has access to the data from the housing assistance payment, HAP, which is social protection. We could request the RTB to clarify whether it has full access to Revenue. The Department of Social Protection still pays rent supplement. Has it full access to the list of properties - obviously not all the information in the database - for the rental accommodation scheme, RAS, and HAP? The obvious ones would appear to be RAS, HAP, the Department of Social Protection and Revenue. We could ask for that to be clarified.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is worth asking if the RTB has asked the Data Protection Commissioner about an impact assessment on any other database. Is the RTB audited?
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I suggest we seek clarity from the RTB regarding those four sources and any other databases it has access to, to try to ensure the accuracy of the registration system.
The correspondence is under category C, related to private individuals and any other correspondence. The first is No. 1484 from Deputy Verona Murphy, dated 26 September. It is a request to the committee regarding the regulation of gambling in Ireland. Does the Deputy Murphy wish to speak on that?
Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes. I do not know whether the rest of the committee has had time to look at and read this or if they have not and want to deal with it in a few minutes. It is about e-gaming and online gaming. There is quite a lot of correspondence in it. It is based on responses I have received to parliamentary questions. Well in excess of €50 million has been spent on e-gaming most years for the past three years. There is no legislation dealing with e-gaming and we are exposing those taking part in it. Revenue is collecting VAT from outside entities on the basis of moneys that it is not entitled to collect. It is an illegal activity and a certificate is being granted by the Department of Justice, which is required to obtain a betting licence, a fitness to practice certificate and then the gambling or betting licence, as we would call it, is being granted. Nobody is policing this. It is not a remote bookmaker's licence and does not fit the criteria. E-Gaming is an illegal activity. I know a regulator has been appointed but she would have nothing to do with this because we have not seen the Bill being brought forward. We should invite the Revenue and the Department of Justice in to explain themselves.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We can consider it at the time but it the sectoral committee may usefully get a copy of this, if the Deputy would consider doing that.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The Comptroller and Auditor General mentioned there is a forthcoming chapter concerning Revenue, VAT and e-commerce. Maybe we can use that as an avenue to address it. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 4 is the work programme. At last week’s meeting, we agreed to proceed with the following engagements: on 13 October, we have the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, though bear in mind next week we have the HSE back again; on 20 October, we will meet the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform; and on 27 October, the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth
On 10 November, we will meet Greyhound Racing Ireland. On 17 November, we will meet the Department of Finance.
As Members will be aware, the Comptroller and Auditor General's 2021 report on the accounts of the public services will be published tomorrow. We might want to prioritise further areas for examination once we have sight of it. I am sure that there will be some issues in it that we have an interest in pursuing. In terms of our upcoming engagements, is it agreed that the secretariat include the relevant chapters from tomorrow's publication on the agendas for the respective meetings? Agreed. They will cover some of the issues that we wish to raise with a number of the bodies that will be appearing before us.
Are there other matters that members wish to raise regarding the work programme? Everyone is happy. This work programme brings us up to beyond the middle of November. As members will know from experience, when we try to plan five or six weeks ahead, we tend to be more successful in aligning bodies with the available dates and so on.
Is there any other business?
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I wish to raise something that will be on next week's agenda. Maynooth University in my constituency levied students to construct some student buildings. A levy of €150 is a large imposition when someone is already paying a registration fee of €3,000. Yesterday, the university decided that it would have to cease building because it did not comply with the public spending code, being over 50% more expensive than the original tender. I believe it is at that point that building must stop. Perhaps we could seek some guidance on this matter. Is it something that the Comptroller and Auditor General has encountered previously?
Mr. Seamus McCarthy:
No, I cannot think of another circumstance like that. I do not have particular details on this specific project, but it sounds like a tender process was under way and, when the offers came in, the project turned out to be much more expensive than the university estimated it would be. That is one of the points of doing a business case, in that you project what the costs will be and you weigh those against the benefits that the project is going to deliver. If the costs outweigh the benefits, that must be considered. There may also be a question of whether the university has the funding to go ahead with the project. It could not commit to a project without having the funding in place.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The buildings are already under construction and that work has now been stopped.
Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Can the students realistically look for their levy payments back?
Mr. Seamus McCarthy:
I imagine it would depend on the terms under which the money was collected. Is it a contractual agreement? Is there a provision in the contract? My understanding is that these are general agreements, not specific contracts. Therefore, seeking recovery of funds is likely to be difficult.
Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Mr. McCarthy.
Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If that is the only matter that members wish to raise, we will adjourn until next Thursday, when we will deal with the HSE's 2021 financial statements.