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

The business before members consists of minutes, accounts and financial statements, correspondence, work programme and any other business. We will then go briefly into private session before adjourning until Thursday, 8 December, when we will engage with the Office of the Revenue Commissioners and the operator of the national lottery. We will end the meeting at 1.30 p.m. because the President of the European Commission will be in the Dáil Chamber at 2 p.m. The first item of business consists of the minutes of our meeting of 24 November, which have been circulated to members. Do members wish to raise any matters in relation to the minutes?

Are the minutes agreed? Agreed. The minutes, as normal, will be published on the committee's web page.

The second item is accounts and financial statements. Ten sets of accounts and financial statements were laid before the Houses between 21 and 25 November 2022. I ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to address those before opening the floor.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. The accounts and financial statements presented are, No. 1, residential institutions redress special account for 2021. That received a clear audit opinion. The National Training Fund for 2021 received a clear audit opinion. The Qualifications and Quality Assurance Authority of Ireland for 2021 received a clear audit opinion. The Medical Bureau of Road Safety is a 2020 account which, for some reason, was not presented on time. When we were doing a catch-up, we identified that it needed to be presented. It received a clear audit opinion. The committee might want to follow up as to why there was a delay. The Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission for 2021 received a clear audit opinion. Longford and Westmeath Education and Training Board for 2021 received a clear audit opinion.

The National Tourism Development Authority, also known as Fáilte Ireland, for 2021 received a qualified audit opinion. This is something I have done for a couple of years. The accounts for 2021 give a true and fair view except in relation to two matters. One is expected future pension funding and the second is recognition of a State grant debtor. Unlike most other State grant-funded bodies, the financial statements of Fáilte Ireland do not recognise a deferred retirement benefit funding asset in relation to some of its pension liabilities on the basis it considers it has not been provided with a statutory or other guarantee in relation to the future funding of this scheme. Many other funded bodies do not have that guarantee either but are recognising the deferred retirement benefit funding asset. The difficulty is it leaves the authority with a net liability situation on its balance but it still presents its accounts on a going-concern basis. It would be more appropriate for it to recognise this because it is a statutory scheme. The employees will have contributed to the scheme over the years, which creates a contractual obligation. Even though the authority does not have this statutory guarantee, it should recognise the asset.

Separately and conversely, the authority recognises a State grant debt of €12.9 million in respect of funding it surrendered in 2019 at the request of the Department to reduce the level of cash held by the authority. It maintains that is a debt owed to it. In my view, it does not meet the standard to be recognised. There are two conflicting recognition issues there. Those are the matters I draw attention to. It is a little technical and there is no difficulty with the organisation and its funding.

No. 8 is the Law Reform Commission. For 2021 it received a clear audit opinion. No. 9 is the National Haemophilia Council. For 2021 it received a clear audit opinion. No. 10 is Pobal. For 2021 it received a clear audit opinion. There is the residential institutions redress special account, which I certified on 15 June. It should have been presented earlier than it has been. The committee might want to follow up and receive an explanation for that.

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

There are two of note among those that have been presented. One is the Medical Bureau of Road Safety. I will ask the secretariat to correspond with it on that. Do any members wish to come in with questions? Okay. We will follow up on the two late ones, namely, the residential institutions redress special account and the Medical Bureau of Road Safety. That was very late. We will correspond with them and seek an explanation. Can we note and agree the listing of financial accounts and statements? Agreed. As usual, the accounts and financial statements will be published as per the minutes.

No. 3 is correspondence. As previously agreed, items 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 its meetings and published on its web page.

The first category of correspondence under which members have flagged items for discussion is B, which is correspondence from Accounting Officers and Ministers and follow-up to committee meetings. No. R1581B was received from Ms Suzanne Eade, chief executive officer of Horse Racing Ireland, HRI, and is dated 16 November 2022. It provides information requested by the committee arising from the meeting with HRI on 22 September 2022. It includes responses to 11 questions raised by the committee at that meeting and includes a number of accompanying documents. It is proposed to note and publish this item of correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. Deputies Catherine Murphy, Carthy and Munster flagged this item for discussion. I call Deputy Murphy.

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

This relates to investigations undertaken by the Garda into the liquidation of a cash-in-transit company for which money was collected from racecourses and went missing. The reply says the investigation was assigned to the Garda National Economic Crime Bureau. There was a further update that, on 10 November, it went to the serious economic crime investigation unit. I ask that we write back asking them to keep us in the loop about that.

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

We will request that. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. R1582 is from Mr. Mark Griffin, Secretary General of the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, and is dated 17 November 2022. It provides information requested by the committee regarding landfill remediation. It includes spreadsheets detailing the current status of all 494 sites, which is a considerable number. Also included is information on the purchase expenditure on additional temporary generation capacity, which the Department states is part of the Commission for Regulation of Utilities programme of actions to ensure security of supply. It is proposed to note and publish this item of correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. Deputy Carthy flagged this. I suggest we hold it back until next week to allow him to come in on it. We will deal with it then one way or the other.

No. R1583B is from Ms Anne Graham, chief executive of the National Transport Authority, NTA, and is dated 18 November. It provides information requested by the committee regarding advertising revenue, fines for non-delivery of service, and an update on the draft greater Dublin area transport strategy. It is proposed to note and publish this item of correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. Deputy Catherine Murphy flagged this item.

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

I ask that we write to CIÉ regarding the paragraph just before the table at the bottom to ask what the advertising income is. We have it from the NTA but not from CIÉ.

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

We will request that information.

No. R1588 is from Mr. Ray Mitchell, assistant national director of the HSE, and is dated 21 November 2022. It provides information requested by the committee regarding governance arrangements for section 38 and 39 organisations. I flagged this one. Reading the response, I was trying to understand the level of compliance.

I propose we write back regarding question No. 2 on the timeframes for submitting financial accounts to the HSE and whether it has a bearing on the funding provided. We might ask about the level of compliance, as the correspondence does not give the figure. Is there 100% compliance, for example?

No. 1589B is from Mr. David Gunning, chief executive of the National Paediatric Hospital Development Board, NPHDB, dated 21 November, providing information requested by the committee regarding penalty clauses on subsectional completion in respect of claims within the agreed dispute management process. It is proposed to note and publish this correspondence. Deputy Catherine Murphy flagged it for discussion.

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

According to the correspondence, regardless of whether it is a penalty relating to subsectional completion of works or the date of substantial completion, insofar as the application of liquidated ascertained damages is concerned, the same principle applies, in that the NPHDB is technically entitled to refer a claim under subclause 10.9 of the contract for moneys it asserts are due, owing in this case on foot of liquidated damages for subsectional works due to a number of outstanding time extensions. This has to do with works not being completed on time. The rate of these liquidated ascertained damages should be based on a genuine pre-estimate of the loss. When were they set out, were they reviewed and was inflation taken into account? We need to know how this works in practice.

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

I read the letter a number of times. I found it-----

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

Confusing.

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

It is not written for a layperson. It is very much written in the type of language used between the contractor and the board and with which they are familiar. It is not that helpful to us.

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

When the board appeared before us, I asked it whether there were time triggers and so on, given that contracts are two-way agreements. This letter is very different from the reply I received.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

When the board was before the committee and the Deputy asked that specific question, the answer she got was that there were no triggers. Subsequently in correspondence, the board acknowledged that there in fact were triggers. This is what the board refers to when speaking about subsectional works and liquidated damages in respect of such works. There are certain aspects of the project that, if not finished on time, could have triggered claims. However, the board also said that it had not submitted those claims and did not feel that doing so would have strategically been the appropriate action to take.

I sympathise with the committee's members, and I am not very familiar with these terms either, but we have examined the contract. It is something we are examining again in the context of the 2021 financial statements. The audit is just coming to completion. Two of the elements we are examining are commitments, figures, the amounts the board is contractually obliged to pay - the board has to make a disclosure in that regard - and the number of claims that have been lodged against contingent liabilities. These are key issues in the finalisation of the 2021 financial statements.

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

I see now that the Department is starting to grow concerned that it does not know how much the hospital will cost. We have also been concerned about this, but we were told not to ask questions about the cost or when it would be completed. Most of us just wanted to ensure there were controls on costs, which is why I asked about the triggers. I reckon the board will run out of money next year and there will have to be a supplementary budget to cover the cost overrun. Are we keeping control of costs if we are not lodging claims? The contractor has no problem lodging claims, but there are no claims coming from the other direction. If this hospital had been finished on time, construction would not have needed to deal with a time of high inflation. It would have been open by now. The inflation relates to materials, which would largely have been used. That the hospital has not been completed impacts on the overall cost.

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

The letter is as clear as mud. We need to-----

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

Ask for it in English.

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

In plain English. The letter uses the type of language with which people in the contractor's office and the board's office are familiar. It is the language they use every day. I am more concerned after reading the letter than I was beforehand. In light of this week's news about the escalation of costs, we need to take a few actions. While we are being denied the real information we need, there are a number of issues we should chase. The public are concerned, we as the Committee of Public Accounts have to do our job to try to keep a handle on the situation, and the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General is trying to do its work. The accounts for 2021 will be due before or just after Easter. While we are waiting for those, we should correspond with the board and say the information in its letter is not accessible for committee members. The letter uses terms the board uses daily in its exchanges with the contractor, but that type of language is not useful to us and does not tell us what we need to know.

We must also enquire into the total spend to date. A figure of in excess of €1.4 billion came out yesterday, but there is also an estimate of just under €500 million in respect of the contractor's claims. We heard the Taoiseach's response to that yesterday. That is fair enough, but we need clarity on what the total spend has been, the number of claims that have been settled and the rate of construction inflation the board expects will affect the project this year and next year.

Is there anything else members wish to add to our correspondence?

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

We need to get the information in plain English. It is important we find out whether the board took construction inflation into consideration. Were the liquidated ascertained damages reviewed and was there a pre-estimate? I am not even sure if the board determined the loss.

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

I read the letter a number of times. I have seen other documents where explanations were given, but this letter is not helpful at all. It needs to come to us in plain language and spell out exactly what the board is talking about. We will ask about the other points as well, including those the Deputy just raised regarding the review.

The next category of correspondence is correspondence from and related to private individuals and any other correspondence. There are three items of correspondence, which we will discuss together.

No. 1574C is correspondence from Deputy Hourigan, dated 11 November, and No. 1577C is correspondence from Deputy Carroll MacNeill, dated 15 November. Both items were held over from last week. We also have a related item from Deputy Carthy, No. 1601C. That is dated 24 November. A number of those pieces have come in together. The items concern the Charities Regulator and the alleged operation of a body as a charity that is not registered as such. I understand that the same matter was raised at a meeting of the previous Committee of Public Accounts. Members will see that from the Committee of Public Accounts in November 2019.

I ask that Members keep in mind the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. At our meeting last week, we agreed to request the Charities Regulator to respond to the matters raised. For the committee's information, Deputy Catherine Murphy submitted parliamentary questions on foot of similar correspondence she received and the responses were circulated to members of the committee before last week's meeting. I will open the floor to Deputy Catherine Murphy, who is the only one I see present out of that group. Does the Deputy wish to come in on that?

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

I have not brought that with me or got the parliamentary question. Perhaps we could look at that again next week.

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

Okay, but I think we need to deal with it then because we do not want to be-----

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

It is a serious matter, and it has come up again. When it came up previously, fairly definite answers were given in response to former Deputy Kate O'Connell at that meeting. It could be a serious matter so we will conclude on it and deal with it next week one way or the other. I thank Deputy Catherine Murphy for that.

Moving on, at our meeting last week we also agreed to hold over No. 1578C. That is from Deputy Verona Murphy and is dated 15 November 2022. It concerns An Bord Pleanála. When the matter was raised last week we agreed to a proposal from Deputy Carthy to write to An Bord Pleanála and the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage to ask if a review is being undertaken in respect of planning permissions granted by An Bord Pleanála for telecommunications masts. Members will remember that at previous hearings here there was reference to a hundred of them together. Deputy Verona Murphy has indicated that she wants to address this.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am happy with what was decided last week. I apologise - I was not here. I am not sure if it is a matter for the committee, but I suppose if we-----

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

Obviously, we cannot get into the individual planning applications, but there was a group of them together and we have looked for a response from An Bord Pleanála. If the Deputy is happy with that, we will await the response.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

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

Members are happy enough with that.

No. 1584 C is correspondence from an individual, dated 19 November. It is a press release regarding Horse Sport Ireland and the role of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. It is proposed to note this item. Deputy Carthy has flagged the item for discussion. We can hold it until next week if members so wish or we can deal with it now. Are members happy enough to hold it back until next week? Okay. We will put it to bed one way or the other then.

The next item is No. 1592 C. It is from Ms Patricia Quinn of Benefacts, is dated 22 November and relates to the funding relationship between Benefacts and the Department of Rural and Community Development. Last week we agreed to include the Department on our work programme for the new year. Deputy Catherine Murphy has flagged this item of correspondence.

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

I wanted to ask two questions of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. Why did the Department form its view on the business case for maintaining Benefacts in existence without consulting the company? I would like the Department to answer that. Furthermore, why was no consideration given to Benefacts's request for Teckal status to be considered, putting it on the same footing as Pobal? If the Department could answer those questions, and if we could build up some understanding before it comes before us, I think it would be useful. It might be useful as well to find out what the business case was for the Department of Rural and Community Development to initiate the exercise, which is creating something similar but not as comprehensive as this. We might ask the Department if there was a business case for it.

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

We will ask the Department for that. Do you want to ask the Department about the potential cost estimate, Deputy?

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

I know that since this Benefacts issue has arisen it has been-----

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

I think we got that before from the Department.

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

We will ask the Department to re-confirm that figure because-----

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

Yes. We will ask it what the up-to-date figure is and where it is at the moment because it-----

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

Benefacts was a very low-cost service in overall expenditure terms. The information it was able to provide was not very significant. We will ask for that.

That concludes the correspondence for this week. Moving on to the work programme, we had a long discussion on this last week. The engagements scheduled to year end are as follows. Next week we will have two public engagements, so I ask members to keep an eye on this. The morning session will be with the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, and the afternoon session will be with the operator of the national lottery. Members will recall that last week we had the regulator in, so it is to follow on from that. The final public engagement of the year is scheduled for 15 December and will be with the OPW.

At our meeting last week, we considered our work programme for next year. A schedule incorporating proposed meetings based on last week's discussion was circulated yesterday and will be brought up on members' screens now. Last week's discussion document was based primarily on the chapters we have yet to examine from the Comptroller and Auditor General's 2021 report on the accounts of the public services and bodies that we have added to the work programme. We made a number of changes to it, and those are reflected in the draft that was circulated for today's meeting. Due to the fact that we have two public engagements next week, we will not return to it until 15 December. I ask members to be mindful of that. Does any member wish to raise any matters in respect of the work programme for the new year?

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

I do not have it with me.

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

It is basically that we do not all go away at Christmas without having fixtures in place for the new year because-----

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

I know.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think we have looked at it every week-----

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

Yes, we have.

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

Members are happy enough with the schedule that has been set out. May I confirm agreement on that? It is agreed.

That concludes consideration of our work programme for today. The final item is any other business on the public agenda members wish to raise. There is none.

We will now go into private session before adjourning until next week, 8 December, when we will engage with the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. Then, as mentioned, we will have the national lottery before us at 1.30 p.m.