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

The public business before us this afternoon is as follows: minutes, accounts and financial statements, correspondence, work programme and any other business. The first item is the minutes of the meeting of 25 May, which have been circulated to members. Do any members wish to raise any matters regarding the minutes? No. Are the minutes agreed? Agreed. As usual, they will be published on the committee's web page.

We move to accounts and financial statements. Three sets of accounts and financial statements were laid before the Houses between 22 and 26 May. I ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to address these before I open them up to members.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. As you said there are three sets of financial statements. They all relate to periods of account ending in 2022. After a few weeks of not having accounts because those for 2021 had finished, the 2022 accounts are starting to come through. The first one is the Health Information and Quality Authority for 2022. That received a qualified audit opinion. The accounts give a true and fair view, except that they account for the cost of retirement benefit entitlements of staff only as they become payable and that is not consistent with the true and fair view standard, but it is routine for bodies in the health sector.

Second is the National University of Ireland, Maynooth for the accounting year 2021-22. It received a clear audit opinion. However, I draw attention to the write-off by the university of costs totalling €1.682 million following termination of a contract for the construction of a student centre. That is an issue the committee has already discussed and corresponded with the university about.

Third is the Commission for Communications Regulation. Again, it is for the accounting year 2021-22. That received a clear audit opinion.

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

I thank Mr. McCarthy. Do any members wish to come in on those?

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

On Maynooth University, obviously a lot of the funding for that came out of student contributions and there is still a need for student facilities. The university is growing all the time. It would be useful for us to write to Maynooth University and look for an update on where that stands, including the status of the project relating to the delivery of the new student building. The university stated that a temporary building or temporary measures were being put in place. Given that it is showing up here, there is a likely to be write-off. We should also ask if that write-off will be coming from the student contribution.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

I think the disclosure in the financial statement says it is not coming from the student levy, that that is protected and so it is coming from other college funds.

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

All right. That is not ideal but I am happy to hear it is not coming from the levy. If we could look for an update that would be helpful.

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

Was the €1.68 million that had been committed in respect of work that subsequently was not carried out because the contractor terminated the contract goodbye money? If not, what was it?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

I do not have the full detail on that, or at least it is certainly not disclosed to that level of detail. My understanding is the bulk of it is related to works that were undertaken or there could be design elements in that. The university procured a contractor, but then the contractor was unable to finish and the contract was terminated.

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

Okay.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

There was a difficulty with site conditions. As a result, a conclusion was drawn that the university could not use what had already been done, so it wrote off the expenditure.

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

It was at a very early stage. There was an issue with it being over 50% of the State spending limit. I am referring to the conditions that are set.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It communicated something like that in the previous correspondence to the committee.

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

Okay. We will seek that information. Are the accounts and financial statements agreed? Agreed. As usual, they will be published as part of our minutes.

The Comptroller and Auditor General has to leave us early today, so I thank Mr. McCarthy and his staff for attending the meeting and assisting us.

We will move on to correspondence. As previously agreed, items that were not flagged for discussion for this meeting will continue to be dealt with in accordance with the proposed actions which have been circulated. Decisions taken by the committee with regard to correspondence are recorded in the minutes of the committee and published on the committee's web page.

The first category of correspondence under which members have flagged items for discussion is correspondence from Accounting Officers and-or Ministers, and follow-up to committee meetings.

No. R1906 B is from Mr. John Callinan, Secretary General in the Department of the Taoiseach. It is dated 22 May 2023, and provides information requested by the committee regarding tribunals of inquiry and commissions of investigation. It is proposed to note and publish this item of correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. Deputy Catherine Murphy has flagged this item.

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

Yes. In the first paragraph it states "in so far as the Department indicates that it is not, at present, undertaking any particular research on international best practice in respect of Tribunals of Inquiry and Commissions of Investigation". There is a lot of discussion about this, but no action. We need an effective way of having inquiries. The commission of investigation model was selected because the tribunals were a very expensive approach, and there were a lot of lawyers involved. The commission of investigation was designed to "de-lawyer" it. The most recent one was obviously the Cregan commission of investigation into the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation. The final report was published this week, and that was set up as a commission of investigation. There was bespoke legislation which really widened the scope of a commission of investigation, partly because there would have been privilege around banking and other areas. It has the effect of introducing legal teams again. This committee may well put something on the work programme regarding several Departments, including the Department of the Taoiseach, where there have been various inquiries. It may well be worth selecting some of those with a view to looking back and seeing what approach should be taken.

I know that the Social Democrats, as a party, put forward a proposal back in 2015 that there should be a standing inquiry. I note that is one of the recommendations by Mr. Justice Brian Cregan with regard to the most recent commission of investigation. The Taoiseach made the point that a better approach would be to go to the Corporate Enforcement Authority. I am all in favour of catching things in real time and negating the need to have inquiries in the first place. There would not be the capacity within the Corporate Enforcement Authority to take that on, unless there was a commitment to really beef it up.

This is an area in which we could do a meaningful piece of work by picking out three or four different Departments and ending up with a report which would go to one of the Departments - perhaps the Department of the Taoiseach - to try to get the ball rolling on making some recommendations for the future. We need an effective mechanism for inquiries. There will probably always be a need for inquiries, but we need to do it in a way that is timely and cost-effective. We also need to look at what recommendations have been made in the past following the conclusion of some of those tribunals and inquiries

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

I thank Deputy Murphy. I know that we totted up the cost of these here before going back over the last 25 years, and it has come to a large sum. There may be a need for standalone body, but if there is already a body there which can be beefed up, and its role expanded, it would be better. Most people would be happy enough to see that we would get a cost-effective way of dealing with it, but also one which can deal with it in good time, because they seem to drag on and on. Some of them have gone on for nearly a decade. By the time we get to the truth, the people who are involved have moved on, or they could even be gone to the next world. That is not acceptable.

It is really the Department of the Taoiseach that will have to move on this. That is my own opinion about it. This correspondence goes on about the Department of Justice. To give it high importance, we should write back to the Department of the Taoiseach. We had a figure here before for the cumulative sum spent on inquiries over the past number of years. We should point out our dissatisfaction, and the fact that - as Deputy Murphy has summed it up - a lot of debate, discussion and commentary on it, and it has been raised at different times within the Houses of the Oireachtas, both within the committees and the Dáil and Seanad Chambers as well, I am sure. We are just not seeing any progress on it, and it is an issue we need to get hold of. It is important to emphasise to the Department of the Taoiseach that we need a system that will deal with matters in a timely manner, ensure there is a high standard and that there are fair procedures, but also that it is more cost-effective. Is that agreeable? Would the Deputy be happy enough with that?

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

I think we could consider after that, if we were going to have a session or two, it may be that the Department of the Taoiseach would be the lead Department with, perhaps, a number of other Departments. For example, the planning tribunal and the lessons from it would be relevant to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. The Moriarty tribunal is another one. We might have other Departments as well.

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

Okay, we will take that as agreed. I will move on to No. R1907 B, which is from Mr. Ken Jordan, principal officer at the Department of Rural and Community Development. It is dated 24 May 2023, and it is providing information requested by the committee arising from the meeting with the Department on 30 March 2023. It is proposed to note and publish this item of correspondence with the exception of item 5, which the Department has requested not to be published. Is that agreed? Agreed. Deputy Murphy wanted to comment on this.

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

I wanted to comment specifically on page 30, and the proposal regarding the development of a database. Why did the Department commission Pobal to research a single, reliable and accurate source of information on State funding in the community and voluntary sector, when Pobal was aware that Benefacts had already built Who Funds What, which would be the database it is talking about. That is one question I would like us to ask the Department.

Why, in the report, did Pobal say: "As things stand, multiple systems exist across Government Departments and state agencies creating dispersed sets of data that cannot easily be compared, shared or analysed in a holistic or thematic way"? That is a direct quote. It is aware that Benefacts Analytics had that service, and obviously, it was dispensed with. Why was Benefacts Analytics being used in 2020 and 2021 by Tusla in its financial management processes? Why was that not considered as the basis for further development?

Those are my three areas. I do not know if the committee is aware, but the Carmichael Ireland Centre had a launch last Friday, which I attended.

I do not know if any departmental officials attended that but this is an attempt to retrieve something of what Benefacts did but it would not replicate it. It proves that there is a need for what was there and dispensed with. We are looking at a quite a sizable cost of €4 million, on that page. Total operations costs by year five would be almost €2 million on that table. It seems that if we are looking examples of wasting money, we need not look any further than this because there was already a very satisfactory system in place. I would like to put those questions to the Department.

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

I saw in correspondence relating to the Carmichael Centre that it was trying to put in place a replacement system. We also need to get a reply from the Department regarding the rural regeneration and development fund. There is a huge differential in what has been received by counties. For example, County Mayo put in an application for a total of 13 approved projects and received €30 million. County Laois put in an application for 18, was approved for four and received €3.9 million. County Offaly put in an application for 18, was approved for five and received €3.8 million. If members have other examples they want to raise in relation to the funding received by counties, please do so. The table on page 3 of the correspondence shows the differences, which are stark. Laois and Offaly submitted 18 projects each and they received €3.9 million and €3.8 million, respectively. County Mayo submitted 30, with only 13 being approved but they received €30 million. I am not trying to take away from Mayo because it is a large rural county with many challenges. However, we need clarity from the Department on the huge variation in the allocation. Were the applications from Laois and Offaly deficient or was information missing? By the way, Deputy McAuliffe should know that Dublin did not get anything under the fund.

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

Does that come in through the local authorities?

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

Yes, that is my understanding. County Kildare got just over €9 million.

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

There is a quarter of a million people living in Kildare. The population of Mayo is only half of that.

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

I am sure Deputy Dillon would argue the case that Mayo is a remote county with many challenges. We will request information on the matter.

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

On that point, some of the changes that are going to happen this year to the baseline funding for local authorities are going to be very important. Some local authorities have capacity for matching funding. For the ones that have grown rapidly in recent years - Laois would be a case in point as would Kildare and others - the baseline funding has not grown, so in actual fact the scope for looking for projects and putting in matching funding, retracts. This is inhibiting some local authorities. We should be looking at that in the context of this. If that is the impediment, it is giving a double advantage to areas that already have a baseline. Deputy Munster raised the fund for some of the schemes for people with disabilities and repairing and refurbishing housing this morning. Some of that has to do with matching funding as well. That is sometimes at the core of this problem, rather than the applications themselves.

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

Okay, we will request that information. I do not want to be too parochial about it but only a quarter of the submissions from Laois and Offaly were accepted. We need to ascertain the reasons for that and the wide variations in the total amounts allocated.

No. R1908B is from Mr. Mark Griffin, Secretary General at the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, dated 23 May. It provides the information we requested regarding the number of public buildings connected to the national broadband network. It is proposed to note and publish this correspondence. I flagged this for discussion. Any progress is welcome on this because it is badly needed. They said the design work is completed in townlands across every county with in excess of 384,000 premises surveyed. More than 40,000 fibre broadband connections to premises have been completed across all counties. Some 151,000 premises across all counties can place an order. From that it looks like 40,000 households now have fibre broadband connections.

With regard to the overall targets, the correspondence states that the final remedial plan under the contract was concluded in December 2002. There were a couple of changes before this. The targets were revised downwards. National Broadband Ireland, NBI, is committed to delivering a cumulative target of 185,000 premises to be passed by the end of January 2024. The original target for January 2023 was that a figure in excess of that - 204,000 - was to be passed. We know Covid took three to four months out of the schedule but it still seems to be way behind. When we have that Department in again, we need to ask questions about the pace of the roll-out The reply is putting the best foot forward but the reality is that by next January we will not even have reached the target that was set for last January. I estimate that the company is 15 months behind with the national broadband plan, as it stands. I just wanted to flag it to members. A large cost is involved. It is estimated that 600,000 premises in total between farms, households, businesses, public buildings, etc. are to be catered for. There is a big spend and it is moving quite slowly. The company is missing the revised targets but it missed the original targets by 15 months. Approximately one quarter of this could be explained by Covid but not any more than that.

I will now move on to correspondence from, and related to, private individuals, and other correspondence. At last week's meeting we agreed to hold over the a number of items for consideration today.

The first is R1888C, dated 12 May from an individual. This regards concerns about the regional racecourses. It is proposed to request the correspondent's consent to forward the letter to Horse Racing Ireland, HRI, and to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and to request a response on the matters raised. No. 1888 is from the United Irish Racecourses, UIR. This is a group of smaller, regional racecourses. It comprises five members: Kilbeggan, Sligo, Roscommon, Limerick and Thurles. They are raising the issue of media-derived finance for the racecourses.

They are raising the issue of finance derived from the selling of media rights and data rights for racecourses. They set out very clearly in their document that on the basis of the current HRI configuration, the racecourses they represent are being left behind. There is a table on the second page from which members will see that, in respect of the capital grants disbursed by HRI – obviously, this would form a part – Thurles got only €8,000 and Kilbeggan got €28,000, whereas Leopardstown, which happens to be owned by HRI, got €7 million, and the Curragh, in which HRI has a sizeable share of just over one third, got €12 million. That is an issue that we need to address. HRI negotiated the media rights on behalf of the racecourses. Basically, the deal was changed. I am referring to the deal to receive a fixed fee rather than 7% of total revenue. It has resulted in HRI receiving €14 million between 2015 and 2020. UIR is alleging that the money was subsequently invested in major capital projects at four of the largest racecourses in the country. I understand that Leopardstown is completely owned by HRI and that HRI has a sizeable share in the Curragh. I think it is one third.

In 2016, HRI agreed to facilitate an independent review of media rights and money, but that has not happened. My information is that HRI has not entered into a service level agreement with the racecourses for the bidding process, despite having been requested to do so. HRI is refusing to appoint an independent arbitrator to resolve the matter. As a result, I suggest that we write to HRI to ask it to consider appointing an independent arbitrator to help resolve the issue, that there be a service level agreement with the racecourses in respect of the bidding process and that the review of media rights that I am informed was agreed to in 2016, although I am open to correction, now happen. If members are happy enough with that, we will see what response we get. It is important to the viability of racecourses that are on the back foot that they get a fair divvy-out. Some of them are in need of capital funding. Is that agreed? Agreed.

There are two more items of correspondence. I propose that we deal with them in private session. We will come back to them in a few minutes.

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

Which ones?

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

They are No. 1900C, which concerns an individual, and No. 1913, which relates to the Committee on Remit Oversight.

I shall move on to the work programme. At our next meeting, on 15 June, we will engage with representatives of Sport Ireland. On 22 June, we will engage with representatives of the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media and on 29 June we will have representatives from the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board. On 6 July, we plan to engage with representatives of Inland Fisheries Ireland, subject to its financial statements for 2021 being available. We plan to engage with representatives of Uisce Éireann in the last week before the summer recess, on 13 July, pending the decision of the Committee on Remit Oversight.

Does any member wish to raise any other matter?

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

Could I raise the issue of the National Treatment Purchase Fund? It has overall responsibility for negotiating under the fair deal scheme. As the Chair knows, up to €1.5 billion, which is up from €1 billion, is now being expended on nursing home care. This matter also concerns work sent from the HSE to private hospitals. I am not sure whether we can get in witnesses from the fund but the item should be put on the agenda. The fund is now in charge of nearly €2 billion. It would be appropriate to have representatives in to ensure we are getting value for money from the work they are doing.

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

I thank the Deputy for that. We can add to our programme a meeting with representatives of the National Treatment Purchase Fund, if members agree.

Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to follow up on a matter in this morning’s discussion that both Deputy Catherine Murphy and I touched on, namely, the value for money of the housing assistance payment, HAP, and the rental accommodation scheme, RAS. There was extensive engagement on these this morning but this committee could probably do work on value for money and the procurement element. It was very clear from the conversation this morning that the policy was of its time, in part. It is very clear that there is poor value for money. Also, the most vulnerable people in society are effectively procuring billions of euro in State spending because it is the individual person who procures it. There is obviously an impact on the market as well. We could devote a little time to this matter, which represents a portion of the work the Department does. We could have a very good report on it and we might be able to get something out the other side. I do not know where this fits into our overall work programme, but there was cross-committee interest in the matter today. This might be something we could work with.

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

I am sure the Secretary General would love to come back in again. Every time the witnesses have come in, the issue of housing expenditure has come up. It came out of the old rent supplement arrangement and the HAP made it more permanent. I totally agree with the Deputy on what needs to happen with the RAS. I understand the RAS was to be phased out but I do not know what happened in that regard. There was some talk of it over the past couple of years. We can add this to our work programme. It will probably happen that another member will have a housing issue that dovetails into this. There is a big piece of work to be done on this in a report.

Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is obviously the departmental element but there may be various agencies with a view on it. I realise we do not want to stray into the area of the housing committee but there is a very clear case for a value-for-money argument in regard to a particular policy.

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

I agree that we need to examine this issue. When the scheme was introduced, over 20 years ago, I felt it would never work. It was fine when rents were reasonably low but it did not factor in the situation when rent would start to rise. It was a little different from about 2008 and 2009 on, when there was no money to buy housing, but the circumstances have now changed totally. There is now money to buy and build property, so there is no reason we should continue to pay to lease in the long term. We should be buying.

The same thing was done with schools 20 or 25 years ago, when the State started leasing premises where extensions for schools were needed. I came across a school more than ten years ago that was paying approximately €160,000 a year in rent, which was dead money because it had nothing at the end of the ten years. It had paid €1.6 million in that time but had nothing to show for it. Likewise with housing, at the end of ten or 20 years there is nothing to show for it except a lot of money paid out in rent. It is an issue we need to consider.

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

There is approximately €1 billion a year going into HAP, RAS and leasings. It is more than €1 billion a year at the moment.

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

And there is nothing to show for it.

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

When the Act was going through in 2014 there was a very heated set of debates in the Dáil and I and others pointed out that this was going to become unsustainable if it was not accompanied by a big building programme; it would just become the de facto solution, if you like. The Secretary General stated this morning that the Department had carried out value-for-money analysis. Maybe a start could be made by asking for copies of that analysis to see what it has done in terms of cost-benefit analysis in respect of value-for-money audits specifically on HAP, RAS and leasing. If we had that, we could shape the session we will have later this year and have a more informed point of view.

Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would also be useful to have the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform in the discussion but it is reluctant to comment on other Departments before us. It has refused to do so previously. The suggestion made by Deputy Murphy would be a good start.

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

We will make that request. With regard to the meeting with Sport Ireland on 15 June, I propose to add the 2021 financial statements of Sport Ireland Facilities back onto the agenda. It is a subsidiary of Sport Ireland that maintains and operates the Sport Ireland campus. If members are agreeable, we will add that to the invitation. Is that agreed? Agreed. That concludes consideration of the work programme. Are there any other matters members wish to raise on public business? The committee will now go into private session before adjourning until 15 June.