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

I welcome everyone to today's meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts. We have received apologies from Deputy Geoghegan. Before we proceed, I have a few housekeeping matters to go through. Members are reminded of the provisions within Standing Order 226 that the committee shall refrain from inquiring 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.

Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside of the Houses or an official, either by name or in a such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I also remind members of the constitutional requirements that in order to participate in public meetings, members 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.

The agenda for today is to discuss the minutes, accounts, statements, correspondence and upcoming meetings. We will then suspend and begin the engagement with officials from Inland Fisheries Ireland and the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment.

The minutes of the meeting of 19 March 2026 were agreed by the committee and these will be published on the committee's website. On the accounts and financial statements, there were eight sets of accounts and financial statements laid between 16 March and 25 March 2026, which are due to be considered today. We are joined by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, who is a permanent witness to the committee. I ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to address these before opening the floor to members.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

There was one issue from last week. It was a query about the financial statements of CHI in relation to the contribution of €30,000 towards a Christmas party from a concession holder. Deputy McAuliffe had a query about how it was banked and accounted for. It was actually lodged to CHI's general bank account. It was accounted for as deferred income at the end of 2022 and 2023. When this was queried, the board of CHI concluded it should be returned to the concession holder. That is just to complete that from last week.

On the accounts for this week, first is the account of the Public Trustee. This is a 2025 account. They are beginning to come through now. That received a clear audit opinion. The second is the financial statements of the Royal Irish Academy of Music for 2024. They received a clear audit opinion.

The third accounts are the financial statements of the Food Safety Promotion Board, also called Safefood. This is one of the North-South bodies I audit jointly with the Auditor General of Northern Ireland. These are the financial statements for 2024. They received a clear audit opinion. However, information about senior management remuneration and pension entitlements, which was presented with the financial statements, is not fully compliant with the reporting obligations on North-South bodies. The obligations were increased with effect from 2024. While there is considerable information given, it is not fully compliant and I am obliged to draw that to the committee's attention.

The fourth accounts are the financial statements for Atlantic Technological University for 2023 and 2024. They received a clear audit opinion. However, I drew attention to the writing-off of €427,000 of capital expenditure in relation to professional fees incurred for a proposed project to construct a new student building that did not proceed. The fifth account is the Land Bond winding up account for 2025. That received a clear audit opinion. That is effectively a dormant account. The sixth is the account of the Local Loans Fund. It is again a dormant account and these relate to 2025. That received a clear audit opinion.

The seventh accounts are the financial statements of the Health Research Board for 2024. These received a qualified opinion. The accounts give a true and fair view, except they account for the cost of retirement benefit entitlements only as they become payable. That is standard for many health bodies at the direction of the Minister for Health. However, I drew attention to a disclosure in the statement on internal financial control in relation to the proceeds of €3.4 million from the sale of a property in May 2023, which were liable for surrender to the Exchequer in line with standard public finance procedures. In July 2024, the board sought formal sanction to retain and use the proceeds for a specific project. A decision was still awaited from the Department of public expenditure at the time the financial statements were certified, which was just before Christmas 2025. The funds were lodged in a non-interest bearing current account in July 2023 and were only transferred to a low interest demand deposit account in November 2025. I understand that subsequently, the Department provided sanction for the Health Research Board to retain the funding.

The eight is the financial statements of Inland Fisheries Ireland for 2024. They received a clear audit opinion. However, I drew attention to four matters and I will elaborate on those in more detail in the opening comments. Briefly, I referred to the terms under which the former CEO was remunerated in 2024 but also in relation to 2025. I drew attention to a lack of control of receipts in respect of a salmon research programme operated by the Marine Institute and how that was dealt with by IFI. I also refer again to the costs in relation to a collision that occurred in 2021 involving an uninsured vehicle. There is an ongoing WRC case related to that matter. I drew attention to a material level of non-compliant procurement.

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

I thank the Comptroller and Auditor General.

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

I just have a couple of questions. On the Atlantic Technological University's write-off of €427,000, obviously, that was for professional fees. Was there a specific plan there or did it relate to one item? A figure of €427,000 is a huge amount for professional fees for something that did not go ahead.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It is a lot for something that did not proceed but in the context of a multimillion euro building, that would certainly be the order and significantly more in relation to professional fees, design fees and so on.

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

I know that but it did not go ahead then. You would want to be sure before you spend €427,000 on something.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

That is the reason I drew attention to it.

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

Some €0.5 million was written off with nothing to show for it. Do we know where it is?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It was in Athlone.

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

It was in that specific location.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Sorry, it is not Athlone. This is the Atlantic-----

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

It is a multi-location university and includes Galway and Letterkenny.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Yes. I cannot remember off-hand where the building was intended to be.

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

That is fine.

I have a question about the Health Research Board. With the €3 million, I can understand the board might want to use it and it requested to use it. However, it was just sitting there and the key issue is that it was just sitting there for a couple years and nobody was doing anything while costs might have been increasing elsewhere and it was basically a waste of capital. Obviously, it was not in an interest-bearing account either at a time when interest rates were probably slightly higher.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Correct. It is clear under standard public finance procedures that the body was not entitled to retain the funding unless it had a sanction. In fairness to the board, it requested it but there was a considerable delay. In the meantime, it was sitting in a non-interest bearing account.

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

Is the Health Research Board coming before the PAC at any stage? Is it on our list? No. Could we ask it would come into the PAC? It is just that figure of €3.4 million. If the Department said this was okay and it could just leave €3.4 million sitting in an account for over two years, maybe we should have the Department that sanctioned it in here also. A sum of €3.4 million is a lot of money to be sitting in an account and nobody is being held accountable for it.

I ask that the Health Research Board and the Secretary General of that Department be called in here to see why this money was sanctioned just to sit in an account. So many people are looking-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

The sanction was required from the Department of public expenditure, so maybe the best avenue would be to write to the Department and ask what the reason for the delay was.

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

That €3.4 million could have been used instead of sitting in an account.

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

We can write to the Department as a first course of action. Do any other members wish to contribute?

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

Going back to the Atlantic Technological University, could it be asked to appear before the committee? It may not require its own PAC session but could it be part of another group if there are any other universities or colleges? It would be good to get an explanation so that we understand it. It might be part of a broader day we might have.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It is something that has happened with other third level institutions and I have also drawn attention to those. I can recall at least two where there were similar write-offs.

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

Maybe we could combine a few groups-----

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

In the first instance, I propose that we write to the university in question and also to Department for further education. I am sure there was a comprehensive plan put together around this. We need to know why it did not proceed. Was it a lack of capital funding or were there some other issues there?

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

And maybe set out what the €427,000 encapsulated.

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

We can get a breakdown.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

These projects tend to have a long lead time. I think one of the things that happened with the construction price inflation around 2021-2022 was that projects which had been within a capital envelope suddenly became unaffordable. I think that is what triggered the writing-off of these kinds of funds.

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

We will write to them to get a full understanding.

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

I just want to support Deputy Neville's suggestion. It is a huge sum of money. It would be good to question the management of the project from the very early stages and the decision to then not proceed. What were the key reasons? We do need to investigate that. I support the suggestion that we write initially but we also need to potentially keep in reserve the option of having a session in relation to that.

Can I ask the C and AG about the CHI and the €30,000 relating to the Christmas party? Do we know how long that money was in the possession of the CHI? It was ultimately returned when the board-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It was returned in-----

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

-----became aware of it but do we know how long that process took?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

I think it was returned in 2025.

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

It was received in 2022.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It was received in 2022 or perhaps very early in 2023. I do not have the exact dates.

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

It was in the 2022 accounts.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It was included. It might have come in just at the beginning of January but I take it that it was at the end of 2022. However, I do not have the exact date.

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

This was discussed in our private session. There was a proposal from Deputy Farrelly that we write to CHI in advance of our engagement with it in a number of weeks because the vendor was named yesterday at the health committee. There are serious questions there as to what procurement process, if any, had been ongoing at the time. We need a full line of sight, and we agreed to write to CHI last week looking for clarity around the name of the vendor, etc. Things have progressed. We now know that name, so we will be corresponding with CHI to seek further information on that and a full disclosure in advance with our engagement with it in the coming weeks.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

I am not aware that there was a live procurement at the time. I just want to make that statement.

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

Do members agree to note the listing of accounts and financial statements? Agreed.

We will move on to correspondence. There are a number of pieces of correspondence. I am going to defer most of those bar one that has been flagged. We will defer them until our next meeting. The one piece of correspondence that has been flagged by Deputy Farrelly and by myself is No. R-2026-0152 and that is the correspondence received from the chairperson of the OPW in response to the committee's request for further information. Deputy Farrelly flagged this.

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

I have very briefly seen the correspondence with regard to Hammond Lane that came in from the OPW this week. It states that the tendering process is currently live and that the OPW expects construction to begin in 2027, not to be completed until 2029. It is unfortunate given that we have been speaking about his project for decades now. With that in mind and with a previous request we made regarding the MetroLink project, I propose that the committee requests the OPW, and anybody in charge of and responsible for the delivery of this at construction stage, would provide the committee with quarterly updates about this project given its sizeable nature and importance. There are many questions to be answered with regard to how we have got to this point. Looking ahead, it is really important that we receive those periodic updates regarding the project's delivery.

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

I thank the Deputy for that. There is another issue I want to touch on in relation to the correspondence from the OPW. Following our engagement with it, the OPW gave us updates on the vacant properties within the Phoenix Park and the rent that is charged to tenants availing of properties within its portfolio. There was a lot of concern there. It says it is carrying out a review of the rents charged to tenants utilising the properties, which is welcome and comes on foot of our engagement and the concerns raised by the committee. I have a concern about the former Garda Commissioner's property within the Phoenix Park, which we now know is lying vacant after considerable amounts of money were spent doing it up. It has now been vacant for over six months. The OPW tells us that the review process, looking at the rents and the utilisation of vacant properties, is going to be concluded later this year. That means that property is going to be vacant for at least another six months, along with ten or 11 other properties within the Phoenix Park. That is concerning and is totally unacceptable. We need to communicate with the OPW and request that it keeps us fully informed in relation to the review of the rents being charged and the process that is going to be utilised going forward.

The properties in the Phoenix Park need to be brought back into use, particularly the former Garda Commissioner's property. It was done up and is ready to be inhabited immediately. That needs to be brought forward and addressed. I have deep concerns that it is potentially going to be left vacant for another six months. In my mind, it is totally unacceptable. The committee needs to get an update and to be continuously updated from the OPW in relation to that.

We will defer the other pieces of correspondence and move on to the work programme. On 16 April, the committee is due to engage with the Department of Education and Youth, along with representatives from the Department of public expenditure, to resume discussions on the Department's appropriation account 2024; Vote 26 - appropriation account 2024; the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the accounts of the public services 2023; and chapter 7 - protecting the State's investment in the school's estate.

Moving on to aon ghnó eile, are there any other items which members wish to raise?

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

At our meeting on 26 February, I asked the Department of public expenditure and the Department of education where they had found the €19 million to accommodate the SNAs that were required in all schools. I am still waiting on a response back from them. I asked at the time where the allocation had come from and to ensure that there would be no cuts to any other services. I ask that a letter is sent again to the Department of public expenditure and the Department of education to ask them that question.

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

Is that agreed? Agreed. Deputy Kenny is next and then Deputy Byrne.

Eoghan Kenny (Cork North-Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am happy for Deputy Byrne to come in if it is on the same topic, as mine is on a separate issue.

Joanna Byrne (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also requested all of the correspondence between both entities in relation to where the €19 million was coming from and I asked for the minutes of the meeting where it was discussed. We have not received that either, so can that be followed up on as well?

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

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Eoghan Kenny (Cork North-Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As discussed in private session, I thank my colleagues that the committee has agreed to write back to the Garda Commissioner in relation to a question I put to former Garda Commissioner, Drew Harris, about a chief superintendent and his wife who were based in Dublin and stayed in a five-star Dublin hotel during the visit of former US President Joe Biden. I am glad to say we will be asking when and who the investigating officers from the anti-corruption unit met in relation to their investigation and, if official records were kept at these meetings, to ask for the names, lengths of stay, official base for all gardaí who stayed in the Dublin hotel during the visit, who paid for it, if it was reimbursed by An Garda Síochána and that it provide evidence of the financial account that paid for these hotel stays and documentary evidence of such. It is important that we follow up this case. I am cognisant that public funds were used for these hotel stays, and it is important that full clarification is given to the committee on the investigation or how thorough that investigation by the anti-corruption unit was.

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

That was agreed by members. Are there items under AOB? There are not. That concludes session two.