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

The business this afternoon is minutes, accounts statements, correspondence, work programme and any other business. We will then go briefly into private session before adjourning until 19 January. The minutes of meetings on 1 December and 8 December have been circulated. Do any members wish to raise matters? Are the minutes agreed? Agreed. They will as usual be published on the committee's web page. We will move on to accounts and financial statements. Eight sets of accounts and financial statements were read before the Houses between 28 November and 9 December. I ask Mr. McCarthy, the Comptroller and Auditor General, to address these before opening to the floor.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

No. 1 is Laois and Offaly Education and Training Board accounts for 2021, which received a clear audit opinion. No. 2 is the Irish Museum of Modern Art accounts for 2021, which received a clear audit opinion. No. 3 is Bord Bia accounts for 2021, which received a clear audit opinion. No. 4 is the National Disability Authority accounts for 2021, which received clear audit opinion. No. 5 is St. Patrick's College, Drumcondra, accounts for the period 2020-21, ending on 30 September 2021, which received a clear audit opinion. No. 6 is the Ireland-United States Educational Fund accounts for 2021, which received a clear audit opinion. No. 7 is the Travellers' Protection Fund investment account for 2021, which received a clear audit opinion. No. 8 is the State property miscellaneous deposits account for 2021, which received a clear audit opinion. The Irish Museum of Modern Art and Bord Bia accounts and financial statements were signed on 24 May and 30 June 2022, respectively. Thus, they are a bit over time in being presented and the committee may wish to follow up on them.

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

Do any members wish to speak on those?

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

I propose that we follow up as suggested by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

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

Is the list of accounts and financial statements agreed? Agreed. The accounts and statements will be published as part of our minutes.

We will move on to correspondence. As previously agreed, items that are not items of 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 on the correspondence will be recorded on the minutes of the committee's meetings and published on the web page.

The first category which members have flagged is category B, that is, Accounting Officers and their Minister with regard to follow-up to committee meetings. The following items were held over from our meeting on 1 December: No. 1582B from Mr. Mark Griffin, Secretary General at the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, dated 17 November, providing information requested by the committee with regard to landfill remediation in the purchase of additional temporary generation capacity. Deputy Carthy had flagged it but he was not present. His office has since advised that he does not wish to speak on it.

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

Which number is that?

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

It is No. 1582 regarding landfills.

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

I am fine on that.

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

It will dealt with as set out. The next correspondence is No. 1600B from Mr. Ray Mitchell, assistant national director of the HSE, providing the following information requested by the committee arising from the meeting with the HSE on 6 October. It is proposed to note and publish the item of correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputies Catherine Murphy, Munster and Carthy flagged No.1660, dating from 24 November, for discussion.

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

This dates from 24 November and I refer to point 10. I ask to be kept informed on this matter. Am I looking at the same one? No, I am not looking at the same piece of correspondence.

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

While Deputy Murphy is preparing her notes, I have two points to make in respect of the briefing note circulated by the HSE.

The first is on the contact with the individuals whose data had been exposed during the cyberattack in 2021. The HSE indicates that it has begun sending out letters to 113,000 individuals. It says that over the 16-week notifiable period, subjects will receive a letter from the HSE advising them that their data were part of the data breach. It indicates that they are invited to register through an online portal to speak to an agent or to log on to a request to view the relevant data.

My concern in this regard is that these are people whose files obviously were in the hands of the HSE and as there will be varying degrees to which the information was sensitive or of concern, I believe there is a need to be proactive in particular instances. One would be where the data which were exposed were of an extremely sensitive nature and the second would where the individuals involved may not have easy access to being able to log on to an online portal. It would be important for the HSE to be proactive in both those instances and it would be worth corresponding with the executive to ask how it plans to deal with those two specific types of issues. If you receive a letter which indicates that your data have been exposed without having any idea as to what the level of exposure was or how sensitive that information might have been; there is a chance that you may not go onto the portal. One may also be dealing with people who have moderate disabilities and who might not be in position to access the written correspondence and follow up accordingly.

The second part of the correspondence where I seek further clarification is point 9 in the correspondence. This relates to the provision of ICU beds. It indicates there is a plan in place to increase the number of ICU beds from 255, as was the case in December 2020, to the 446, which were committed to at that point. The letter indicates that the HSE has now reached 323 beds, which is still a fair distance away from the target. It also states that the number of beds open on a given day varies depending on staffing and other operational issues. It would be useful to get further clarification and perhaps a tabular breakdown as to the actual number of ICU beds that have been available on a daily and weekly basis, have been used by patients, and were available for their use in order that we can get a clearer picture in respect of the implementation of that particular plan.

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

I thank the Deputy for raising the matter. I call Deputy Murphy to speak now, please.

Catherine Martin (Dublin Rathdown, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My intention was to flag No. 1598.

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

Does the Deputy wish to speak to that?

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

I will refer very briefly to point 10 in that correspondence, as I would like the committee to be kept informed. One issue that arose during the year was the number of funded posts and the level of recruitment that happened against that. It fell considerably short of the number of posts which were funded. Point 10 is a case in point and is one which I raised with the HSE. This had to do with bereavement support and social workers for families in St. Brigid’s Hospice, Kildare and a chaplaincy post, which for people who are religious is quite central and an important post. This seems to have been going on for quite a long time and when one talks about bereavement and social workers, for example, where there are children involved, there is a price to pay for not having that kind of expertise there at the right time to support families. These are important posts but I cannot believe that we are still talking about these positions being on panels and where these staff members have not been recruited yet. I would like to be kept informed of those positions.

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

We will ask the HSE specifically in respect of that matter and in respect of the issue raised by Deputy Carthy.

Moving on to point 8, and the vacant properties in Laois and Offaly, I note the replies sent back from the HSE in this correspondence in respect of the Portarlington Primary Care Centre are different to the replies that were given to a colleague in response to a recent parliamentary question. I ask that we seek clarification from the HSE in respect of the Newtown facility, where it is saying that it is not fit for the delivery of temporary health care and that discussions are ongoing with the local authorities. I ask that we get an update on that.

Portarlington Primary Care Centre relates to the correspondence where there was a different answer and where it states that the centre is under active consideration for future healthcare use. In the reply to a parliamentary question last week, or within the past ten days, it said otherwise. I ask that we seek clarification on these points.

I also seek clarification on the Erril health centre. These are the three matters I wish to raise out of the approximately ten in total. On the Erril one, it is stated that it is under practical consideration for healthcare use. I ask the HSE to give details of that and on the timelines for the refurbishment of those buildings because they have been lying empty for years. I have certainly received complaints about one of those buildings, in particular, from the local Tidy Towns committee. They cannot be left empty indefinitely because the longer the building is left vacant, the more it deteriorates. I am asking for a timeline from HSE estates in respect of that and to clarify the uses of these buildings.

Moving onto No. 1605, this correspondence is from Darragh O'Loughlin, CEO of the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board, IHRB, dated 28 November. This provides the information which was requested by the committee arising from the meeting with Horse Racing Ireland and representatives from the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board on 22 September. It is proposed to note and publish this item of correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Carthy flagged this item. Does he wish to comment on it?

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

Yes, point 1 deals with our query in respect of an exit package to the former CEO of the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board. Almost throughout the tenure of that CEO, there were quite regular discussions on how his salary was kept confidential. It was one of the few heads of statutory boards for which the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform had allowed the salary package to be kept confidential and it was never disclosed. There was quite a good deal of controversy around that matter, so much so that the IHRB ensured that the salary of the new CEO is publicly available, which is only correct. It beggars belief that in that context, the IHRB then agreed to an exit package on a confidential basis and subjected both parties, we are told, to a legally binding non-disclosure agreement. This is not the correct way to do business and I suggest in the first instance that we inquire whether the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform agreed to this process being confidential and if so, why?

I also suggest we contact the IHRB to clarify who sought that this provision would be confidential and legally binding as a non-disclosure agreement.

I welcome a number of details in respect of the CCTV installation at racetracks. That is an issue which this committee has raised on a number of occasions. Horse Racing Ireland tells us that it has installed CCTV at six tracks, that these facilities will be installed at 20 tracks by the end of the year, and that the remainder will be installed by the first quarter of next year.

I ask the secretariat to ensure we follow up early in the new year to ensure the 20 tracks have been completed and that we are on course to all of them having CCTV installed by the end of quarter 1 of 2023. In respect of the confirmation that CCTV has been installed across six tracks, the discussions that have been raised were specific to stableyards. It would be useful to have confirmation that the site figures relate to the stableyards within those sites and within the other tracks in which CCTV is due to be installed. We might also ask for a briefing note on who will have access to the CCTV footage, who can request access and in which circumstances it can be accessed by those authorities that have provision to do so.

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

We will follow up on that.

No. 1607B is from Ms Carol Boate, regulator of the national lottery, dated 30 November, providing information requested by the committee on the number of people who commenced a self-exclusion in 2020 and 2021. This was raised at our recent meeting. It is proposed to query why the breakdown of self-exclusionary periods by length is not available and to note and publish the correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. Deputy Carthy and I flagged this matter for discussion. It is important to know why that detail is not available. The regulator sets out in the letter that 1,465 accounts commenced during 2020 but there were 1,515 exclusions during that year. There is a consistent pattern in 2021, with 1,302 accounts commenced and, again, a slightly larger number of exclusions, at 1,339, during that period. The answers given in the letter do not give us the full picture. We will request further information.

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

A number of members acknowledged last week when we were dealing with the national lottery representatives that there was not an obligation on them to be here but that, nevertheless, some of their answers were very unsatisfactory. In response to a number of instances where information was sought, they indicated that the information had been provided to the regulator and would not be provided to anyone else. A number of Deputies were eager for the regulator to be invited back before the committee. We should confirm for the secretariat's benefit that we will pursue that early in the new year.

I put a set of questions to the national lottery representatives in respect of online players,the protections for those who might be spending a lot and the flagging system that is in place in that regard. Mr. Algeo indicated there was a provision in place whereby people would receive online messages, followed by telephone calls, followed potentially by a series of measures the national lottery can take up to excluding or removing a player from being able to purchase online tickets. He refused to outline the number of instances of each, indicating that this information had been supplied to the regulator. I request, in the first instance, that we write to the regulator seeking those figures in respect of online players, including the number who received the flagging messages Mr. Algeo mentioned, the number who received follow-on telephone calls and the number who were excluded from playing online games as a result of the national lottery's player welfare management process.

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

Is the Deputy seeking that information for 2021?

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

Yes.

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

We also asked whether there was any obligation on the national lottery in regard to its welfare spend. Mr. Algeo could not tell us. We might ask the regulator whether there is an obligation for a minimum spend and, if so, what that figure is. Another point is that the regulator said there was a breach. When we asked Mr. Algeo if there were other breaches, he refused to answer other than to say information had been forwarded to the regulator. We need to ascertain whether the regulator is dealing with a number of breaches.

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

I agree with that. In addition, in the course of our deliberations, the national lottery representatives indicated that the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland, ASAI, had contacted the national lottery to clarify information that emanated from our discussions with the regulator. I do not know whether that matter has been followed up since then. It was indicated that as of last week, the ASAI had not contacted this committee, which seems a bizarre way of doing business on its part. It would be helpful to get clarification as to whether the committee has since contacted the ASAI. If not, we should do so. We should also bring to its attention the acknowledgement by the witnesses from the national lottery last week that 90% of money that goes back into the community under its provision includes unclaimed prized money that is diverted towards advertising for the product itself. We should ask whether the ASAI has any intention of reviewing its previous decision on that advertising claim.

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

We will request that information from the regulator.

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

We are seeking an understanding as to why contact was made with a third party in respect of information exchanged between the Committee of Public Accounts and the regulator without also contacting us for a copy of that correspondence and a broader explanation as to whether it is standard practice that contact would be made with third parties to clarify information that is raised in the Oireachtas without also contacting the relevant Oireachtas body. It is one of the most bizarre issues that has come to my attention on the part of a State body.

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

The terms of the licence certainly seem to leave a lot to be desired. The problem is the operator not being accountable to the committee. The regulator is accountable, however, and that is the route we will take with it. We will follow up on that.

The next correspondence is No. 1613B from Mr. Ciarán Breen, director of the State Claims Agency, dated 6 December 2022, providing information requested by the committee on third-party costs in respect of tribunals and commissions of investigations since 1997. No. 1617B is related. It is from Mr. David Moloney, Secretary General at the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, dated 8 December 2022, providing information requested by the committee on the overall cost since 1997 of tribunals and commissions of investigation. It is proposed to note and publish both items of correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The figures are hair-raising. We are looking at almost €525 million between tribunals, investigations and inquiries. At this stage, we should ask the Departments of the Taoiseach and Public Expenditure and Reform what work is being done on finding other ways of carrying out these inquiries, tribunals and investigations. The Mahon tribunal alone cost €142 million. It is mind-blowing that the public must pay such amounts to unearth the truth. The Department of the Taoiseach ultimately oversees these matters but the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform must also have some role in looking at other options, considering whether should there be an anti-corruption office or agency and looking at best practice internationally.

I propose that we request that information from the Secretaries General of both the Department of the Taoiseach and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

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

I have specific point to make before I comment on a similar point to the one the Chair has raised. The Olympic ticketing issue seems like a small one for the commission of investigation to investigate. I suggest that we ask for a full schedule of that, because I would like to look at it in slightly more detail.

On the question of how we do business in this country, other jurisdictions have taken a different approach. The Social Democrats looked at an example in Australia. We proposed an anti-corruption agency on foot of that where there would be the prospect of a permanent office of investigation. After an inquiry is held, we lose the kind of information that would inform our consideration of the question of whether we would do it differently if we were to start it again. The ides of having a permanent office of investigation is about retaining that kind of institutional memory. It looks to us like that worked well in the example that we used from Australia. There are other examples from around the world that are worth looking at. It is a huge amount of money. Sometimes there is a degree of penny-pinching done in regulation in this country. I refer to issues like mica and the regulation of quarries. We pay for this anyway, but we tend to pay it in retrospect and then it appears to be a scandal. This is opposed to the predict-and-prevent approach, which you have to put money into but is a better way for the State to function. There are good examples in other jurisdictions of how they regulate various aspects of public life, including when it comes to planning.

We have not had many tribunals of inquiry. The most recent one was the inquiry into the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation's first and only transaction, which was the sale of Siteserv. The approach taken in that case - it was done behind closed doors because of the bespoke legislation - did not end up reducing the number of legal people who were involved. It ended up not really being equivalent to an inquiry under the 2004 Act, which sought to reduce the level of legal involvement. I am not sure that this is the forum in which this will happen, but I think this committee may well have a view on it. We could write to the Taoiseach about the importance of looking at this issue collectively, learning from the past and putting systems in place. If we put good, robust systems in place, we will reduce the need for inquiries. In addition, when inquiries happen, they should happen in a way that is cost-effective and timely. When they go on for years, it is a huge frustration. Very often, there is a feeling that people are not held to account by virtue of the fact that it is a tribunal. In some cases, a corruption issue should be dealt with in the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, or the corporate enforcement agency we are hearing about now. That was supposed to be in place last January. This is just a case in point. That was supposed to be fully in place, with all of the gardaí in place, last January, but they are still recruiting for the gardaí at the end of the year. That kind of thing is gigantically frustrating. It shows the difference between how we treat white-collar crime and how we deal with crimes of other natures.

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

At the end of many of these inquiries and tribunals, we are left with a big bill. There are bills of €68 million and €142 million and sometimes there are very few positive outcomes. In the first instance, we should write to the Department of the Taoiseach and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to ask them, in view of the fact that we are looking at almost €525 million across all of these investigations and inquiries, if they are actively examining other options, if they are looking at international best practice and if they are considering a better way of doing this in the form of a permanent office or agency or some other means. There may be a better approach out there that we do not know about. We cannot let a situation like this continue. As the Deputy correctly said, at the end of it, after a very long period of time, the public sees a large bill. That is it and we move on. I think we have to break that cycle.

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

We could say that there is a desire on behalf of the Committee of Public Accounts for a collective approach to be taken and for some lessons to be learned from this.

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

It would be good if we could do that. I thank the Deputy.

No. 1615 is from David Moloney, who is the Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. It is dated 6 December and it provides information that was requested by the committee regarding the status of the business case for the relocation of the National Maternity Hospital. I propose to note and publish this correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. Deputy Catherine Murphy has flagged this.

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

We have to remember that quite a sizeable amount of money has been spent on facilities there in advance of the hospital breaking ground. We were also told that we need to learn lessons from previous or current developments, but we have only been looking at the national children's hospital. It would be very difficult to learn lessons from that because I do not know how long it will be before we have its final costings and how that will play out. One thing is certain: you need to have a very good business case and to nail down every screw and piece of wiring that goes into it in advance. The tighter that is, the more you can determine the final cost of such a building.

PwC was hired by the Department of Health to conduct the external assurance process and it recommended that the business case documentation be updated. It would be useful for us to know what shortcomings PwC found because that is the kind of thing we need to understand. We might, therefore, ask the Department of Health for information on the shortcomings that were found. The committee needs to be kept in the loop in relation to the various stages that this is at. The business case, the work that is done by the quantity surveyors and the design, etc., will be important. I have a real issue with where it has been located, but let us park that. At the very least, we need to be assured that we will not walk ourselves into the same situation that we now find ourselves in with the national children’s hospital.

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

Okay. We will follow up on that.

No. 1621 is from Ray Mitchell, assistant national director of the HSE. It is dated 12 December and it provides information that was requested by the committee arising from its consideration of a report entitled Funding and Deficit Challenges in Voluntary Disability Services Agencies. Members will recall that this concerns section 38 and 39 organisations, which we discussed recently.

The correspondence was received late but was circulated yesterday. It is a detailed response. Have members had time to review it or do they want to hold off until January? It is up to them.

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

Yes, perhaps we should hold it over.

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

That is all right. We will hold it over until January. The next category of correspondence relates to private individuals, and any other correspondence. There are three items we are waiting to hand over from the previous meeting and if we can, I would like us to deal with them today. They have been held over already twice. One is No. 1574 from Deputy Hourigan, dated 11 November, and No. 1577 from Deputy Carroll Mac Neill, dated 15 November, both of which have been held over since 24 November. We also have a related piece of correspondence from Deputy Carthy, dated 24 November. The items concern the Charities Regulator and the alleged operation of a body that is not registered as such. I understand that the same matter was raised at a matter of the previous Committee of Public Accounts in 2019. A reference is made to that in the correspondence. I ask Members to bear in mind the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. At our meeting on 24 November we agreed to request the Charities Regulator to respond to the matters raised. I will open the meeting to the floor. Does Deputy Catherine Murphy or Deputy Carthy wish to speak?

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

I will leave it to Deputy Carthy first.

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

We are on No. 1621, which is a charity.

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

As I said previously, I think we should wait until the Deputies who raised this matter are here to deal with it.

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

A letter was received from Deputy Carthy regarding it.

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

I was only forwarding on additional correspondence that had come through.

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

Deputies Catherine Murphy and Carroll Mac Neill raised it. We put it back for two weeks, so I propose that we deal with it today, as has been agreed. It has been put back twice already.

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

My understanding is that we previously agreed to seek a response from the Charities Regulator. I presume that will be an item of correspondence in the new year.

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

We will wait for that.

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

In fairness, it has been a busy couple of weeks, so I can understand why the Deputies who first contacted the committee have not been able to attend meetings. To give them their due, could we include it as an item of correspondence as well at the first meeting in January, regardless of whether we have received a response from the Charities Regulator?

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

My understanding is that it was raised here in 2019 and very clear answers were given at that stage. If that turns out to be the case, we could ask for the transcript of the meetings. We will await that information. If the committee agrees, we can follow up on it at that point.

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

Has the Charities Regulator been contacted already?

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

Yes.

Colm Burke (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If we have written to the Charities Regulator, why is it taking so long for it to come back to us?

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

I do not think the correspondence has gone yet, but it is imminent. It will be going in the next couple of days. It will definitely go this week. Is that okay?

Colm Burke (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay.

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

It is important that we follow up on that. We were hoping that this would come up again today and we could deal with it. We will send the request to the Charities Regulator for its response and then we will deal with it fully at that stage.

We will move on to No. 1584. It has been held over as well. It is from an individual and is dated 19 November. It is a press statement regarding Horse Sport Ireland and the role of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. It is proposed to note and publish this item of correspondence. Deputy Carthy flagged this.

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

There was a query as to the process by which the Minister would appoint members to the board of a company, which is not owned by the Government. With your indulgence, Chair, could I put this matter back until January, just to get my notes together properly?

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

Okay. Yes, Deputy Carthy can firm up on that and we can deal with it. The next item is No. 1619 from Deputy Catherine Murphy. It is dated 9 December. It is proposed to request information from RTÉ, including a business case, regarding expenditure on a musical production. Does the Deputy want to explain what this is about?

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

In actual fact, it is heavily advertised. It is possibly a spin-off from the toy show, but it is in the convention centre. I want to see innovation from RTÉ, and it is a departure, which I hope is successful. I think there was a spin-off in regard to Riverdance as well, but it would be quite useful to see this in terms of the prospect of income from it, so we might just ask RTÉ.

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

Okay, I thank the Deputy.

That completes the discussion of correspondence We will move on then to the work programme. At the meeting of 1 December, we agreed our work programme for the new year, as follows. I know it is a bit away now, but it is hard to have it our heads. The first meeting of the new year is scheduled for 19 January. That is with the Housing Agency and the Approved Housing Bodies Regulatory Authority. That is to examine chapter 7 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's 2021 report on the Housing Agency's revolving acquisition fund. We will also examine the financial statements of both bodies. I understand that the 2021 financial statements for the Approved Housing Bodies Regulatory Authority have been laid and the Department is working to ensure that the Housing Agency's 2021 financial statements are also laid and available to examine before the meeting.

On 26 January, we will then engage with the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage to examine its appropriation account and two chapters of the Comptroller and Auditor General's 2021 report. With the committee's agreement, we will also add chapter 7 on the Housing Agency's revolving acquisition fund. Members will recall that we had a brief discussion around this some months ago. It is open to us to discuss any matter arising from the previous engagement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We are deliberately doing it one week after the other to ensure we will have a better meeting given the fact that there is a follow-up meeting on the same subject. On 2 February, we will engage with the HSE, to resume examination of its financial statements, with a focus on expenditure on disability services, including the provision of disability services by outside agencies, emergency care, and measures to tackle waiting lists.

Further engagements, including with the Department of Health, the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth and An Bord Pleanála, are set out in the work programme circulated to members. I should also mention that the Comptroller and Auditor General has completed a report on emergency procurement of ventilators by the HSE. I understand the report was submitted to the Minister for Health on 7 December and he is required to present the report to the Dáil within three months of that date, at which point it will be available for the committee to examine. Does any Member wish to raise any matter in regard to the work programme? All are happy. That concludes consideration of the work programme.

The final item on the public agenda for today is any other business. Does any member wish to raise any other business? No. We will now move into private session briefly before adjourning until the new year on 19 January.