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

The business before the committee this afternoon is as follows: minutes, accounts financial statements, correspondence, work programme for the new year and any other business, including a proposal as to how we might address overdue responses to correspondence from the committee. We will then go briefly into private session before adjourning until next Thursday, 1 December, when we will engage with the Department of Social Protection.

The first item is minutes of the meeting of 17 November. They have been circulated and does any member wishing to raise any matter? No. Are the minutes agreed? Agreed. As usual, the minutes will be published on the committee's webpage.

The second item is five sets of accounts and financial statements of the Comptroller and Auditor General which have been placed before the Houses between 14 and 18 November. I ask Mr Seamus McCarty, the Comptroller and Auditor General, to address these now please before I open the meeting to the floor.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

No. 1 is the intestate estates fund accounts for 2021, which received a clear audit opinion.

No. 2 is the Citizens Information Board accounts for 2021, which received a clear audit opinion.

No. 3 is the National Council for Curriculum Assessment accounts for 2021, which received a clear audit opinion.

No. 4 is the National Transport Authority accounts for 2021, which received a clear audit opinion.

No. 5 is the Residential Tenancies Board, RTB, accounts for 2021, which also received a clear audit opinion. However, I drew attention to two matters in respect of the RTB. First, there was a cost overrun and the delay in the delivery of a new ICT-based management system for tenancy registrations and disputes and, second, non-compliant procurement of business processing services, which was related in part at least to the delay in the delivery of the ICT-based management system.

I might also draw the committee's attention to Nos. 4 and 5. Both of those were signed off at the end of June and they have only been presented in November and are actually late in being presented, relative to the standard expectation, which is within three months. The committee, in line with its policy, may want to inquire from those bodies as to why there were delays.

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

Does anyone wish to comment on those accounts or are there any questions around these accounts?

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

On the RTB, I agree with the Comptroller and Auditor General that we should seek clarification, as he has suggested. The non-compliant procurement relates to a business process that costs €2.277 million for a year. Is that correct?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Yes, that is the value of the business processing service in the year. In fact, the non-compliance has been going on for a number of years and the board has been extending that contract. The total procurement, therefore, over a number of years up until the end of 2021 was €7.4 million, which is non-compliant. That is an average of €170,000 per month, and at the time we were signing off on this, the board was projecting that the contract would continue until at least October 2022, which would amount to a further €2 million. One is looking at non-compliance-----

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

Is there any reason for this? I am looking at the original five-year period where the total cost was €5.681 million-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

I believe it was €5.7 million.

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

That works out at approximately €1.1 million per annum, yet for this one year without any procurement, we are looking at well over €2 million.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

As well as being extended in time, the level of activity and expenditure on the contract has gone up significantly.

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

In its own statements, has the board given an indication that it intends to regularise this? I have a fundamental difficulty. I understand that when an urgency arises, sometimes there may be an issue for non-compliance in procurement.

When there is a rolling five-year contract, however, in the sixth year there is not the luxury of being able to say it came out of the blue.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

That is exactly the point, and that is the reason I was drawing attention to it.

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

What can we do about that?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

The board is the only one that can do something about it. As I said, what it had done was extend the contract, up to October 2022. I do not have information as to whether it is continuing with that or whether it has replaced it. I would not expect it would have been able to because, obviously, replacing something on that scale is going to take time.

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

Mr. McCarthy is not aware of any procurement process having been initiated.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

At the time I was signing, which was in June, it left the board with little time to run a competition on that scale.

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

The board had not commenced it at that stage.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

I do not think it had.

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

In that case, I propose we write to the RTB seeking clarification on that.

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

We will write to the RTB about that. We will also raise with it the delay in laying the accounts, and we will write to the National Transport Authority as well. They are the two bodies that exceeded the three-month period.

As usual, the list of accounts and financial statements will be published on the committee's web page. Do we agree and note the listing of accounts and financial statements? Agreed.

Moving on to correspondence, as previously agreed, items that have not been 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 regard to correspondence are recorded in the minutes of the committee's meetings and published on the committee's web page.

The first category, B, concerns correspondence from Accounting Officers and their Ministers in follow-up to committee meetings. No. 1571B is from Mr. Ray Mitchell, assistant national director of the HSE, dated 10 November 2022, and provides information requested by the committee during our meeting with the HSE of 6 October. It covers a range of areas, including the shelf life of alcohol gel purchased earlier during the pandemic and the implementation of recommendations contained in the Comptroller and Auditor General's 2016 chapter on the oversight of grants to health agencies. It is proposed to note and publish the item and request some additional information sought during the meeting that has not been covered in the correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I flagged this item for discussion for a few reasons. We raised with the representatives, when they appeared before the committee, the fact that vast quantities of hand gel are now obsolete, and they have explained that the active ingredient is ethanol, which apparently has a shelf life. That seems to be the explanation they are giving in the correspondence. In regard to other matters that will come before us, they state that in the management and oversight of grants to health agencies, by which I presume they mean section 38 and section 39 organisations, actions have been taken to implement the recommendations. The letter states:

As of 2022 the HSE has fully established Contract Management Support Units (CMSUs) in each of the HSE's nine Community Healthcare Organisation (CHOs). The CMSUs are a key resource within CHOs in terms of enhancing the level of management and oversight in respect of Agencies funded by the respective CHOs. In particular, they assist service managers in the CHOs in terms of managing and documenting all aspects of the relationship with Agencies.

The letter goes on to explain that further. This is something we are going to hear more about in the next while.

Another issue relates to the cyberattack. The letter states:

The ICT & Cyber investment case outlined a €656m cost over a period of 7 years. As part of the service planning process a funding ask was made for year 1 of this transformation programme, and at the time of writing a funding allocation of €40m has been provided for 2023 to progress as a matter of urgency the remediation of Cyber risks to strengthen and secure our ICT & digital infrastructure.

When I read that, I thought the figure for year one was small. Considering the risk to cybersecurity and the fact there has been a cyberattack on the HSE, €40 million being provided in the first year, of a total of €656 million, seems small. We could raise this with the HSE to see whether the figure is adequate and whether there is other funding we do not know about or other resources the HSE is putting into this. While I am limited in my knowledge of computer technology, I would imagine that €40 million of €656 million over a seven-year period is a small start in light of the risk to the State. We could ask whether that is the totality of the funding available to it and whether it assesses this as adequate given the risk posed by cyberattacks and the experience it has had in the past two years, if that is agreeable.

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

I agree with those proposals. On the alcohol hand gel and the fact it seems there will be a significant cost for the disposal of out-of-date hand sanitiser, it would be useful if we could get clarification from the HSE as to whether it has since been disposed of and the full cost associated with that. It is an expensive process to dispose of the hand gel and it would be useful if we could get a sense of what the total outlay is likely to be.

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

We can do that. We will seek that additional information. Another issue that arises in the correspondence, as well as other information that is outstanding, relates to vacant properties. In Laois, there are seven vacant properties and the letter outlines the potential uses of them, including in one case demolition to make way for another development of a nursing unit in Mountmellick. I welcome the fact there are proposed uses for some of these properties, and I will follow up to try to have them brought back into use. We will seek that additional information.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

On that, I reported on the cyberattack on the HSE and the costs associated with that. When the representatives of the HSE appeared before the committee, there was some discussion of the cyberattack and the cost implications of it but I do not think the report was formally examined by the committee. There may be an opportunity for the committee in the future, if it wants to bring in the HSE, to look at that issue and maybe to look, at this stage, at how it sees the plan, the roll-out and the utilisation of that kind of funding.

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

The concern is that given the level of risk and the fact the HSE has experienced a cyberattack, it could seem like a small start.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

The figure €40 million a year over seven years would amount to only €280 million, less than 50% of what is budgeted for.

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

Yes, although perhaps there is good reason for that.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

The ramp-up would normally be a bit slow. An organisation has to do a lot of planning to get to a stage where it can then implement actions and deliver.

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

Perhaps that explains it.

Category C comprises correspondence from and relating to private individuals and any other correspondence. There are two items, which we will take together. No. 1574C is from Deputy Hourigan, dated 11 November 2022, and No. 1577C is from Deputy Carroll MacNeill, dated 15 November 2022. Both items concern the Charities Regulator and the alleged operation of a body as a charity that has not been registered as such. I understand the same matter was raised at a meeting of the previous Committee of Public Accounts in November 2019.

I ask members to keep in mind the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise, or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. For the committee's information, Deputy Catherine Murphy has advised that she submitted parliamentary questions on foot of similar correspondence she received. We will arrange to circulate the responses following the meeting. I will now open the discussion to the floor.

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

In deference to the two Deputies who raised the matter, I request that we keep this on the agenda for a subsequent meeting. The Chairman mentioned that parliamentary questions have been submitted. These might assist the committee. I suggest that we write to the Charities Regulator to ask it for a response. This would help with the discussions when the other Deputies are here.

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

Hopefully we will have a reply from the Charities Regulator and, perhaps, answers to the parliamentary questions, with one or two of the relevant Deputies present.

No. 1578 is correspondence from Deputy Verona Murphy, dated 15 November, about An Bord Pleanála. Since the Deputy is unavoidably absent, I propose that we hold the matter over.

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

May I just raise an associated point on that correspondence?

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

Yes.

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

It relates to masts. We went into some detail in our discussions with An Bord Pleanála. For example, I raised a specific case relating to Glaslough. What occurred is part of a pattern regarding the types of planning applications in question. A local authority refused planning permission and the board's own inspector recommended upholding that decision, but subsequently the board, with very few members present, made a different decision. This kind of activity has led to a considerable amount of discussion and audits, reviews and inquiries that are ongoing. People in the relevant communities are naturally asking about the status of the planning applications and what remedial actions will be taken to ensure nothing untoward has occurred in respect of individual ones. It is appropriate for us to write to the new chair of the board and also the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage to ask what they plan to do in respect of this. What occurred has the ability to completely undermine the planning process. Telecommunications infrastructure is important for communities but so too is the planning process that underpins it. A huge dichotomy arises if, when a local authority decides a mast in a particular location would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity and this is upheld by a board inspector who visits, people who have never set foot in the place can say what has been determined is not the case and that permission is to be granted for it. In one or two cases, there may be peculiarities or particular issues, but what I describe appears to have happened on a wide-scale basis in respect of these types of applications. People deserve to know what will be done about that specific issue.

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

We raised this before in relation to 33 towns and villages regarding which a decision was made by two members of the board. It relates to the same company.

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

In many cases, yes.

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

Most of them, if not all. I cannot remember the detail on that. We can ask about the status and whether a review is being carried out into planning permissions for masts where the same individuals in An Bord Pleanála were involved in making the decisions and where those permissions all related to mobile phone masts. Is the Deputy happy with that?

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

Yes. I thank the Chairman.

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

We will move on to our work programme. A draft of it has been circulated. Next week, 1 December, we are due to have two public engagements. The first, in the morning, will be with representatives of the Department of Social Protection, and the second, in the afternoon, will be with the operator of the national lottery. Members will be aware that a joint sitting of the Houses has been scheduled for next Thursday afternoon at 2 p.m., so the engagement with the operator has therefore been provisionally rescheduled for 1.30 p.m. on Thursday, 8 December. That change had to be made. The President of the European Commission, Ms Ursula von der Leyen, will be in the Chamber on the day and members will probably wish to be in attendance. Is it agreed that we change the date to 8 December?

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

Agreed.

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

On that basis, we will have two public engagements on 8 December: the morning session, with representatives of the Revenue Commissioners; and the afternoon session, with the operator of the national lottery. Therefore, the meeting with representatives of the national lottery will be two weeks away. The final public engagement for this year, with the OPW, is scheduled for 15 December.

At our meeting last week, we agreed to consider a work programme for the new near, and a discussion document on this was circulated yesterday. Members can now see it on their screens. It is firmly based on chapters of the 2021 report of the Controller and Auditor General on the accounts of public services that we have yet to examine, as well as bodies that we have added to the work programme. I have discussed this with the clerk a number of times. Are members happy that we discuss it today? I am mindful that we should not approach Christmas without having meetings scheduled for January. We do not want to come back in January only to discover we have no engagements lined up. It is important that we do some work on this.

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

I agree with that. We have scheduled a meeting with representatives of An Bord Pleanála again for 19 January. Is that agreed?

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

Yes.

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

We have highlighted a significant number of issues. One of the things we agreed to do last year, whose early incorporation I would encourage, was to bring the HSE representatives back in regarding particular aspects of their work. I am very keen to have an opportunity to discuss disability services with them again. In some instances, the services are horrendous. Every constituency office is dealing with cases that are bordering on being inhumane and cruel. I refer to regional distinctions in dealing with the likes of respite care. Where a child lives can determine whether he or she gets respite services because of the criteria being used. Huge sums of money are being invested in disability services by the State but this is not reflected in the services offered to many families. The issue of autism services was raised again in the Dáil this week during Leaders' Questions. I ask that we invite in representatives of the HSE and Department of Health in respect of disability services as early as possible.

Second, we had a long discussion with representatives of the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth Affairs on services for and the accommodation of people seeking international protection. A further meeting on that matter is warranted, having regard to the oversight of the expenditure of what are very large sums of money, particularly through private operators.

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

Is the Deputy referring to the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth Affairs?

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

Yes.

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

Its Secretary General, Kevin McCarthy, was in here a few weeks ago.

It is also proposed that we invite in representatives of the HSE regarding emergency care and waiting lists. We dealt with ambulances and to some extent touched briefly on the issue of emergency care. There is a meeting scheduled for 9 February.

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

Does it relate to emergency care?

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

Yes.

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

That is important but I ask that we also include what I have suggested.

Perhaps we could even narrow it down to children's disability services.

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

We can get more information from the Comptroller and Auditor General about the disability service agencies. It is due from his office next year in relation to the HSE.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Yes, there is a report on ventilators. However, that is an issue for the HSE rather than the Department of Health.

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

Okay.

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

The truth is we could have the HSE officials in every week and we would not even get halfway through.

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

It is a big organisation.

The engagements are listed in a proposed sequence and members might wish to reorder these or propose the inclusion of other bodies. I will go through the draft. The first engagement we have scheduled for the new year is with An Bord Pleanála on 19 January. Members will recall that we examined An Bord Pleanála’s 2020 financial statements on 14 July, and I understand that its 2021 financial statements have not yet been laid before the Houses. Is the Comptroller and Auditor General aware when they are likely to be available to the committee to examine? It would be useful to have that up-to-date information.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

In the next week I am expecting to receive the file for my review. Until I see it, I cannot really say when I would expect it to be signed off. I hope it will be before the end of December. That is obviously cutting it very tight for a 19 January review. It would be in everybody's interest to have the 2021 financial statements if at all possible. We will certainly work to try to achieve that.

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

If we are likely to have them, I would be happy enough to go ahead. If there is a strong possibility that we will not have them, I would be prepared to hold back. Is the Comptroller and Auditor General happy enough that they will be available?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Once I have signed off on them, they will go back to An Bord Pleanála. It then needs to give them to the Department and the Department must submit them. I think it is getting a bit tight.

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

The way An Bord Pleanála is at the moment-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

That was one of the issues. One of the issues was that until very recently there were not people to actually sign off on the accounts.

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

In view of that, we would be better holding back.

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

It should only be for a few weeks. I would not like to give the board any impression. Perhaps we could move into early February. Regardless of whether the accounts are signed off, we should tell the representatives of the board we will have them in. I do not want to provide them with a rationale not to submit their accounts to avoid appearing. I am sure they would never be so cynical.

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

If there are specific areas the Deputy wants to examine, he should submit those to the secretariat. Is it agreed to postpone the engagement?

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

It is down below there that we could-----

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

Agreed.

The next potential engagement is with the Housing Agency and the Approved Housing Bodies Regulatory Authority, to examine their respective financial statements and Chapter 7 from the Comptroller and Auditor General's 2021 report, which concerns the Housing Agency’s revolving acquisition fund. Following naturally from that, it is proposed that we would hold an engagement with the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage to examine its Vote, and the following two chapters from the Comptroller and Auditor General's 2021 report: Chapter 6 - Central Government funding of local authorities; and Chapter 4 - Re-allocation of voted funds. Given that we propose to postpone the meeting with An Bord Pleanála, it might be possible to bring that engagement forward by a week. We could slot that in for 19 January.

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

Should we have the engagement with the Department first?

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

We had An Bord Pleanála pencilled in for 19 January.

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

Then we have the Housing Agency and the Approved Housing Bodies Regulatory Authority.

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

Yes.

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

Is the Chairman proposing we move the Housing Agency and the Approved Housing Bodies Regulatory Authority to 19 January and the Department to 26 January, and then An Bord Pleanála?

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

Yes.

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

I agree with that.

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

After that engagement with the Department of Health, it is proposed to examine its Vote, including expenditure on emergency departments and Chapter 12 on the financial impact of the cyberattack. I understand the Comptroller and Auditor General also has a special report on the procurement of ventilators due in the new year. We could pencil that in. The committee might wish to consider awaiting the report's publication before engaging with the Department or holding a stand-alone meeting with the Department and the HSE to examine the special report once it is available. How do members wish to proceed?

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

I would be happy to do that and maybe request the HSE to attend the meeting I was suggesting regarding disability services, if that was possible.

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

Following that we have an engagement pencilled in with the National Treasury Management Agency in its capacity as the State Claims Agency to examine Chapter 20 on the management of the clinical indemnity scheme. I know this is an area of particular interest to some members, particularly given what has been the topical issue for the last fortnight or so.

Following that, an engagement with the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland is proposed to examine its latest set of financial statements. I originally proposed this engagement for inclusion in the work programme given the importance of some of the expenditure in this area, including on the national retrofit scheme and electric vehicle infrastructure. We engaged with the SEAI in March on its 2020 financial statements and I understand its 2021 financial statement will be available for us to examine in the new year. Are members happy enough to keep that on the list?

I also propose that we include Enterprise Ireland on the work programme for the new year. I am not sure when it last appeared before this committee. It plays an important role, of course. Some members have asked whether representatives of IDA Ireland should also appear before the committee or if we should just deal with Enterprise Ireland as a stand-alone entity. If members feel it would not be a good idea to have representatives of IDA Ireland at the same time, we can always schedule another meeting with IDA Ireland if members are minded to do so.

It is also proposed that we engage with the Department of Rural and Community Development. Again, a number of members have expressed an interest in this engagement and the Department has yet to appear before a Committee of Public Accounts since its establishment in 2018. The Department’s Vote, Chapter 6 on central government funding of local authorities could also be examined as part of the engagement. That would bring us from 19 January to 9 March 2023.

I will open it to the floor for any suggestions on the draft work programme. Members might wish to prioritise a number of other bodies listed that we have previously added to the work programme as well as chapters relating to motor tax receipts and the National Treasury Management Agency. Are members happy to proceed as proposed?

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

Yes, with the proviso on the changes that we have made. It would be useful to bring in officials from the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth to discuss accommodation for asylum seekers some time in March or April. That would be an appropriate time.

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

When scheduling, we need to understand we are dealing with other people's diaries. At least the secretariat now has a draft which it can try to match up with witnesses' availability and everything else. We will do some work on that before next week so that when we come back, we will have a schedule of work set out for the new year.

That concludes our consideration of the work programme for the new year. I hope it will be firmed up a bit for next week.

On any other business, I wish to raise overdue responses to correspondence issued by the committee. Members might recall that we considered an update prepared by the secretariat on overdue correspondence at our meeting on 22 September 2022. It is proposed that the secretariat bring overdue correspondence to the attention of the committee from time to time and that it be included as an agenda item for consideration in public session. Is that agreed?

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

If it is in respect of the committee waiting for replies to our correspondence, yes, absolutely.

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

Some of the bodies which appear before the committee reply in a very prompt manner; some do not.

We do not want to forget about the ones that are overdue. It is easy for them to fade away. It is suggested that the secretariat keep a note of this and that overdue correspondence would be brought to our attention during public session. It is important that we get the answers we are looking for.

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

Absolutely.

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

Sometimes, witnesses do not have all the information we require when they are before the committee. There were a few outstanding items during this morning's session. That is typical of any public hearing of the committee. It is important that we get a follow up afterwards.

Do members wish to raise any other matters? We will briefly go into private session before adjourning until 9.30 a.m. next Thursday, 1 December, when we will engage with the Department of Social Protection.