John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the members to the committee. I wish to remind all of those in attendance to ensure that their mobile phones are on silent mode or switched off. Before we proceed, I have a few housekeeping matters to go through. I remind members of the constitutional requirement that in order to participate in public meetings they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex. Members of the committee attending remotely must do so from within the precincts of Leinster House. Members are further reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice and ruling of the Cathaoirleach to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members are also reminded of the provisions within Standing Order 226 that the committee shall refrain from enquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or a Minister of the Government, or the merits of the objectives of such policies.

We are joined by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, who is a permanent witness to the committee. He is accompanied by audit manager at the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Mahin Fitzpatrick.

The public business before us is as follows: accounts and financial statements, correspondence, work programme and any other business. We will then suspend for five minutes while the witnesses take their seats. We will begin our session with the Department of housing at approximately 10.30 a.m. A total of three sets of accounts and financial statements were laid between 9 June and 13 June 2025. They are due to be considered today. I ask Mr. McCarthy to introduce these before opening the floor to members.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

First, we have the Travellers' Protection Fund, travel agents and tourism operators bond financial statements for 2024. They received a clear audit opinion.

Second, the National Asset Management Agency accounts for 2024 received a clear audit opinion.

Finally, the Credit Institutions Resolution Fund for 2024 received a clear audit opinion

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Are those accounts agreed? Agreed.

Do we agree to note the listing of accounts and financial statements? Agreed. The listing of accounts and financial statements will be published as part of our minutes.

Correspondence between 5 June and 12 June was issued to members in advance. We had some discussion on category B items at our private session. I am not sure whether members want to discuss any of those items any further. There was correspondence from the CEO of Louth and Meath Education and Training Board. Do members wish to discuss that item further?

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

I propose we write to SOLAS to get further information on that correspondence.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed. We will consider category C items. No. R0136 is correspondence from the Peter McVerry Trust, which was due to be called in for today's meeting. A number of members have flagged this. I call Deputy Connolly and then Deputy McAuliffe.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The letter to us is really contemptuous. I say that reluctantly. It is very important that we get accountability. Departmental officials will be before us today. We should have representatives from the board of the Peter McVerry Trust before us today, but we do not. Its accounts are also due. It would be opportune to go back to the trust to ask what the status of its 2023 accounts is, which are very late now. This is 2025. What is the status of its 2024 accounts? They are nowhere if the 2023 accounts are not ready. The board should come before us when those accounts are ready.

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

Like Deputy Connolly, I am very reluctant to say what I am about to say. The Peter McVerry Trust has done, and continues to do, huge amounts of good work, but there is no doubt that when an organisation is the subject of an inspection report, significant amounts of public controversy and, on top of that, the injection of €15 million of public money, there is an obligation on it to communicate that and to come before the Oireachtas. The correspondence the trust provided to us stated that its board appreciates the financial support and oversight arrangements, but the ultimate oversight arrangement in the Oireachtas is the Committee of Public Accounts. I do not believe the Peter McVerry Trust has assisted its own staff, the people who provide donations to it or the Members of this House by not turning up today. In my view, we should exhaust all possible options to have the Peter McVerry Trust before us. I hope we could write to the board today to encourage its representatives to come to a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts and to outline the options we have in regard to compellability and remit.

There is a difference between the trust's public comments on this matter and the letter. Its public comments indicate that it is waiting for the 2023 accounts, but its letter does not reference that in any way. I have to say I have grave difficulty with that. In public, it is alluding that it is willing to come before us but there is no mention of that in front of us. It is a very serious matter when an organisation does not come before the Committee of Public Accounts, whether it is under our direct remit or not. This concerns €50 million or more. We should get answers on it.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Absolutely.

James Geoghegan (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am willing to give the Peter McVerry Trust the benefit of the doubt regarding what it has put in its correspondence and its sincerely held view that it has nothing further to add to our inquiries. However, we have several questions that we want it to answer on foot of the reports that have been published and the work the Comptroller and Auditor General has done. We are using this forum in public session to appeal to the good sense of those who are part of the new governance structures that are now within the Peter McVerry Trust to come before the committee.

I am a former Dublin City Council councillor, as is Deputy McAuliffe. I served on its homelessness subcommittee for five years. I fully recognise that the Peter McVerry Trust, almost alone, is delivering the Housing First programme, but that does not in any way obfuscate or overcome the serious financial irregularities and governance structure failings that been identified in the reports. Most of the public who are watching or listening want to have confidence and trust in the Peter McVerry Trust, but are aghast at the idea that an entity that receives so much money from the taxpayer essentially will not come before the committee of the Oireachtas that accounts for the taxpayer. I urge it to reconsider this decision. As Deputy McAuliffe said, it gave a different explanation to the media from what was given in the letter. We are simply asking for the trust to come before this Oireachtas committee at the earliest possible opportunity. We will make that date available.

Joe Neville (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am very surprised that we have reached this juncture. Peter McVerry and the trust have done a lot of good work over the years. They have called out where there has been inaction from the Government side on homelessness. This was the trust's opportunity to stand over the work it has done over the years but, unfortunately, it has decided not to come in. That leads one to conclude that, at present, it is not able to stand over what it has been doing. It is to be hoped it is getting its numbers together because, as yet, it has not been able to furnish the 2023 accounts. As anybody listening knows, the 2023 accounts should have been in this time last year. They should have been furnished by July 2024. It is a year late with this set of accounts. Once again, that draws severe questions over these sets of accounts and the financial management that is taking place.

People might ask why the committee is pushing so hard on the Peter McVerry Trust. Ultimately, we are pushing hard on the Department of housing. All of us here, even those of us on the Government benches, are giving money to the Department of housing. The money is going to certain places and ultimately we are not sure how that money is being spent. It is difficult to do housing and social housing but we are giving funding to a lot of different bodies to deliver that housing. If how we are doing it and how those groups are doing their business are drawn into question, that ultimately poses serious questions for everyone involved and puts in question the whole format and basis of how we spend that money. We have to ask the Peter McVerry Trust to come in because ultimately it is State money. Questions might be put to us about why a group such as the trust has to come in. Ultimately, it is because it is spending State money. The next phase of spending through the Department of housing is relevant in this context. Money goes from the Department to the trust and, ultimately, groups such as that have to manage it well. The trust should and has to come in. A really strong message has to go out from all of us in this room that it has to come in to explain itself. As I said, it puts the whole process in question and undermines the good work that not only the trust is doing but other bodies like it might be doing.

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with everybody who has spoken that it is totally unacceptable that the Peter McVerry Trust did not come before us today. There is an onus on the Department, the Government and the Minister to ensure that governance is carried out for all charitable organisations that receive money from their Departments. The 2023 accounts have to come before us. The Peter McVerry Trust will have to come before us at that stage as well. It is very disappointing that it has not come here today to let us question it on what has gone on. The Department, the Government and the Minister should be putting in governance structures to ensure that charitable organisations are held accountable.

Séamus McGrath (Cork South-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I reiterate what everyone has said. The thrust of the letter we received indicating that the trust is not willing to come before us is totally unacceptable. We need to implore it to come before us. We are talking about a significant amount of public money. I agree with Deputy Neville that there is a wider issue with the public money put into housing bodies. The Peter McVerry Trust is the one in the spotlight at the moment but a significant amount of our expenditure is directed through housing bodies. We need to explore this further in respect of the Peter McVerry Trust but there is a wider issue we need to look at as well.

Albert Dolan (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I acknowledge the correspondence from the Grangegorman representatives. I thank them for that. I raised the travel expenses a few weeks ago, and I appreciate their correspondence, which has clearly explained it all.

That the Peter McVerry Trust thinks it does not have an obligation to come before us is wholly disheartening. In 2020, its total income was €56.45 million, of which €29.96 million came from the State. In 2021, it received €53 million, of which €38 million was from the State. In 2022, its income was approximately €61 million. There is no guarantee of what the State figure was, but it might have been above €40 million. For the trust to say it does not feel it has an obligation to be before us is a complete and utter joke. I propose we write to the organisation again and adamantly request that its representatives comes before us in good faith and answers the questions we have. If it is the case of a new governance structure, let us ask them what happened under the previous one, what they have learned and how can we ensure it sets out on its intended purpose, namely, to provide housing for the most vulnerable in our society and to support doing that job.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I fully agree with members. There is a real level of dissatisfaction and anger among members, myself included. There have been attempts over the past year to get representatives of the Peter McVerry Trust to appear before the Oireachtas joint committee on housing. Different arguments had been given as to why they could not or would not appear before the committee. We have the ultimate responsibility in terms of oversight and governance as to how taxpayers' money is spent. Members have given figures regarding the huge sums of money received by the Peter McVerry Trust via the Exchequer. There needs to be accountability.

I propose that we write immediately to the Peter McVerry Trust imploring it to come in at the earliest opportunity and that we will be examining what options are open to us in terms of extending our remit. I propose that we engage with the Committee on Standing Orders and Dáil Reform to explore what options are open to us at this point. As members said, it is deeply unsatisfactory and disheartening when an organisation such as the Peter McVerry Trust does not actually take cognisance of the last word in its name: "trust". Public trust is at the foremost here. People cannot have trust in how public money is being spent and the governance around that. That is deeply concerning. Is it agreed that we follow that course of action? Agreed. Are there any other actions relating to the correspondence that members wish to propose? No.

The committee has agreed its work programme until the summer recess. Next week on 26 June, An Garda Síochána and the Commissioner will appear before the committee. On 3 July, Children's Health Ireland and NTPF will come in. On 10 July, the Department of public expenditure and reform with representation from the NSSO will appear before the committee. On 17 July, HIQA and the Department will appear before us. Is that agreed? Agreed. Are there any other items committee members wish to discuss? No.

That concludes our consideration of the correspondence this week. We will suspend briefly and resume with our engagement with the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. Go raibh maith agaibh.