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

You are all very welcome to today's meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts. We have received apologies from Deputy Ardagh. Before we proceed, I have a few housekeeping matters to go through.

Members are reminded of the provisions of 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 the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I remind Members of the constitutional requirement 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 and statements, correspondence and upcoming meetings and then we will suspend before beginning the engagement with officials from the Mater Misericordiae University Hospital and Tallaght University Hospital from 10.30 a.m. until 12.30 p.m., followed by an engagement with St. Vincent's University Hospital from 1 p.m. until 3 p.m.

There is one set of accounts and financial statements laid between 13 March and 17 April 2026, which are due to be considered here today. We are joined by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, who is a permanent witness to the committee. I ask him to address these accounts before opening the discussion to members.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. The only set of financial statements presented in the past week relate to the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Board, also known as Caranua. These relate to 2024. They received a clear audit opinion. The board is in a process of wind-down but there is an outstanding legal case and that is the reason it continues in existence, although the level of turnover is very small and there is very little resource left in the fund.

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

Do members wish to comment? No. Do members agree to note the listing of accounts and financial statements? Agreed.

There are a number of category B items of correspondence to consider today. These have been received by Departments and public bodies. The first item is No. R2026/0149, which is correspondence received from the Secretary General of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage in response to the committee's request for further information regarding Uisce Éireann, dated 12 March 2026. Deputy Bennett has flagged this item.

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

The response fails to acknowledge that, in the case of many State agencies that are independent in their functions, Departments do refer questions to bodies under their aegis. In this case, with the HSE, the National Transport Authority and plenty of others, parliamentary questions are a crucial part of the work of elected representatives. Ministers come before the Dáil for oral questions and Members can appeal non-answers to the Ceann Comhairle but the Department's refusal to answer questions creates a system where a whole swathe of the public sector effectively has less public scrutiny. Can we write to the Department of public expenditure and reform and ask that all Departments adopt a position of formally referring questions to bodies under their aegis so we can get a response on them? I have come across this on numerous occasions. Irish Water, for one, is not answering us. EirGrid does not answer us and the Department of public expenditure and reform does not answer us. The Government actually gives money to these bodies, which are under its aegis. Parliamentary questions should be responded to. They should be audited as well. Is the C and AG auditing Irish Water?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Yes.

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

Is he auditing EirGrid?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

No.

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

I wonder why it would happen that he would not be auditing these when they are under the aegis of the Department and their money is coming from it?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Historically, the C and AGs have not audited commercial State bodies. The 1993 legislation sets out a listing of commercial State bodies that do not and cannot fall within my remit. It is a statutory matter. A different approach was taken with Uisce Éireann, not when it was set up but in more recent legislation. It was brought within my audit remit and, therefore, it is also answerable directly to the committee.

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

Can we get direct parliamentary questions answered for us as well?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

I do not really have any view in relation to that. That is a policy matter.

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

Mr. McCarthy does not have anything to do with it. Maybe we can write to the Department of public expenditure and reform and ask it if that is a possibility.

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

There is a context in which this letter comes to us. As the Chair will recall, when Irish Water and the Department were here before us, I asked this question about parliamentary questions and I asked the CEO of Uisce Éireann would it be amenable to being subjected to parliamentary questions. He was almost surprised that it was not. He thought that it was and there was a kind of a strange system where, if you were a Member of the Seanad and you put down a Commencement matter, the Department would go directly to Irish Water, put that reply in and then it would be read out by the relevant Minister. As the Comptroller and Auditor General has just outlined here, the Comptroller and Auditor General audits Irish Water. It is accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts. We can all engage with the dedicated Oireachtas email address in Irish Water and, to be fair, I have seen some improvements in how it responds, certainly compared with what was the case about six months ago.

What this letter kind of hints at is that maybe it is within the gift of the Houses of the Oireachtas and us as Members to regulate this in such a way that you would not necessarily need primary legislative change. Maybe some of this is slightly outside the remit of the Committee of Public Accounts but, ultimately, we are the committee that holds people to account in governance. I would suggest that, following on from this letter, perhaps we write to the Clerk of the Dáil, or maybe it is the Ceann Comhairle - I am not sure which - who would have a remit over the Standing Orders, to explain that the Committee of Public Accounts would like to see Irish Water amenable to parliamentary questions, and to ask if anything could be done by way of Standing Orders, which, obviously, will ultimately be matter for the relevant committee. Could it advise us on what is within our gift to try and make this a reality?

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

That is a reasonable ask and it is something we have touched on previously, as Deputy Geoghegan said. I think we will have a look at who the most appropriate person or body would be to correspond with. I refer to that governance and oversight piece. While the C and AG audits its accounts, Irish Water should also be answerable to elected Members within the Oireachtas vis-à-vis parliamentary questions. That is something we will follow up on. Is that agreed with members? Agreed. Is it agreed to note and publish that item of correspondence? Agreed.

No. R2026/0175 is correspondence received from the Secretary General of the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, responding to the committee's request for further information regarding IPAS centres, dated 24 March 2026. We discussed this last week. I raised a number of questions and issues. I know Deputy Bennett had also previously flagged it but she was not present. Is there anything she wishes to add?

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

I wanted to flag the issue, which I raised previously, in relation to the domestic violence refuge in Cavan and Monaghan. I do not think I got correspondence back in relation to that, so I would ask them again to send additional correspondence on the number of refuge units and safe home units by county in Cavan and Monaghan, when this is planned for, and when it intends them to come on stream. I want to get a formal response on paper, please.

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

Okay. Is it agreed to do that and to note and publish this item of correspondence? Agreed.

No. R2026/0181 is correspondence received from the Secretary General of the Department of Social Protection, responding to the committee's request for further information following the Department's appearance at a meeting on 5 March 2026. It is dated 26 March 2026.

Do members wish to comment on that? No. Is it agreed to note and publish that item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0184 is correspondence received from Dr. Donal Reddington, principal at the cultural institutions unit of the Department of Culture, Communications and Sport, in relation to the late laying of the National Gallery of Ireland's annual report and financial statements 2024, dated 27 March 2026. Do members wish to comment? No. Is it agreed to note and publish that item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0185 is correspondence received from the Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation responding to the committee's request for further information following the Department of Education and Youth's appearance at the meeting of 26 February 2026. It is dated 27 March 2026. Do members wish to comment? No. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0187 is correspondence received from the Secretary General of the Department of Transport responding to the committee's request for further information and a quarterly update on MetroLink expenditure, dated 27 March 2026. Deputy Boland has flagged this item for discussion.

Grace Boland (Dublin Fingal West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In relation to the metro, it is important that the Department is suggesting the report it sent to us is a template, but a couple of things are missing. First, they do not tell us when they expect the procurement process to award the tender. Second, I want a category for challenges. Given what we have seen from the national train control centre, we need to make sure challenges are being highlighted to us when issues occur.

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

Okay. Is it agreed to note and publish this item? Agreed.

Grace Boland (Dublin Fingal West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

And to write to the Department.

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

And to write, absolutely.

No. R2026/0188 is correspondence received from the director of the Dublin Region Homeless Executive responding to the committee's request for information, dated 30 March 2026. This issue was discussed last week in the context of writing to the Department of justice on DRHE's statistics and requesting a response. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0189 is correspondence received from the HSE responding to the committee's request for further information in relation to the oversight framework for section 38 and section 39 bodies, dated 1 April 2026. Do members wish to comment on that? No. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0190 is correspondence received from the HSE responding to the committee's request for further information in relation to respite centres in County Monaghan, dated 1 April 2026. Deputy Bennett has flagged this item.

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

Rainbow Lodge has been renovated on a temporary purpose. There is a response on the back of that letter - a briefing note. What I would say in relation to the integrated healthcare area, IHA, manager there is to ensure the Rainbow Lodge respite centre in Urbalkirk, County Monaghan, remains open after all the money has been spent - there could have been €6 million or €7 million spent on that - and to ensure taxpayers are getting the best value for money. Can we write back to ensure that?

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

Is it agreed that we write back? Agreed. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0192 is correspondence received from Mr. Kevin O'Brien from the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation informing the committee of the appointment of a new Accounting Officer for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Vote 5, dated 1 April 2026. Do members wish to comment? No. Is it agreed to note and publish that item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0201 is correspondence received from Mr. Seamus McCarthy, Comptroller and Auditor General, regarding the Library and Research Service's briefing paper on the remit of the Committee of Public Accounts, dated 10 April 2026. Do members wish to comment on that? No.

I thank the C and AG for the information he has sent over on that. It is particularly useful. It goes along with the library and research piece we asked to be carried out. It is a fairly comprehensive piece of work looking at our role and remit and at international best practice. It ties into some of the issues echoed earlier in relation to bodies outside the remit of the C and AG and the Committee of Public Accounts, whether commercial semi-States or other bodies that receive substantial funding but do not fall under any scrutiny from this committee or the C and AG. This information is really useful and ties into comments Deputy McAuliffe made last week on this and on outreach work in terms of public accounts bodies in other jurisdictions. The Deputy proposed looking at a subcommittee within public accounts to look at this, see where we go with it and see what the next stages are, whether an informal hearing, more outreach or what exactly we want to do as a committee moving forward. Do members wish to make any comments or suggestions on that?

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

Is there is an amount of money a semi-State body can get without coming before the C and AG or producing documents?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

The standard rule is that if more than 50% of the funding comes from a voted source or public moneys, then it would fall to be audited by me.

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

Okay, so somebody can acquire 50% or, say, 49% of State funding and you have to-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

There could be situations like that where it is, let us say, 49% public funding and 51% from charges to the public or whatever, in theory.

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

So 49% would be going unaccounted for. The Government and State would not know where that money had gone. How is that 49% audited?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It would depend on the structure that was handling the funding. Typically, it would come under company law and have commercial auditors appointed by the board.

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

Like PWC or Deloitte or someone. It is a standard audit.

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

Legislation specifically precludes some named semi-State bodies from scrutiny by the C and AG. A common theme of members in here and more broadly in the House is issues in local authorities. There has been a long-standing goal, certainly from my perspective, to bring local authorities under the remit of the C and AG and ensure there is proper scrutiny and oversight from this committee as well.

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

What would the process look like to have local authorities in?

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

It needs a change of legislation in the first instance. That is outside the remit of this committee. There is a process here. There are some valuable pieces of work done. A peer review was carried out by the C and AG tied in with that library and research piece we asked for.

I would follow what Deputy McAuliffe proposed last week. Do two or three members want to come together, have a look at this and see where we go next with it? Is it worth a series of hearings to explore further? If anyone has a particular interest, let the clerk know and I will liaise with Deputy McAuliffe, as he is the one who proposed we go that route. Is that agreeable, Deputy Bennett?

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

Yes. I would have an interest in that. Could we also get a list of semi-State bodies that actually get 49% Government funding but are not held accountable by the PAC?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

We can ask the liaison officer to circulate a list of bodies under the aegis of Departments that I audit and a list of those I do not audit. That will give the Deputy an idea of the bodies out there that do not have a direct line of accountability to this committee.

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

It is all taxpayers' money and no one is being held accountable for 49% of it here.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Even the section 38 hospitals whose representatives will be appearing here later receive the majority of their funding directly from the HSE. I audit none of the three but I do audit certain other section 38 hospitals. Perhaps there is a bit of inconsistency in that.

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

The Comptroller and Auditor General audits the HSE.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Yes, that is correct.

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

However, when the HSE gives away that money, it is not audited.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It is always audited but-----

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

It is not audited by Mr. McCarthy.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

-----there is a difference as to whether it is audited by me and whether there is reporting to this committee or to the Oireachtas. I do audit St. James's, Children's Health Ireland and Beaumont Hospital. They are three of the big six. The committee will be meeting the other three of the big six today. They are not audited by me.

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

Let us try to move things forward. Important work has been done today. Let us try to move things forward a little bit and see where we go with it. Is it agreed to note and publish that item of correspondence from the Comptroller and Auditor General? Agreed.

No. R2026/0202 is correspondence received from Ms Anne Shaw, chief executive officer of the National Transport Authority in response to the committee’s request for follow-up information following the NTA's attendance at the meeting on 15 January. This correspondence is dated 12 March 2026. This item has been flagged by Deputies Boland and Bennett and myself. Does Deputy Boland wish to speak on it?

Grace Boland (Dublin Fingal West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a few comments to make. I am very struck by the NTA's nonchalant tone in its status report in relation to the train control centre versus the serious concerns expressed by the board of Irish Rail in its minutes. It is essential that these status reports contain the relevant minutes so that we get the full picture. I find the NTA's position a bit alarming given that this project has been re-baselined so many times that the NTA cannot actually put a figure on it. Some €36 million has already been given to the contractor and yet the date of 2024 for the full commissioning has long since passed. We are now looking at 2027 for the most basic phase, with significant concerns expressed as to the contractor's ability to deliver.

Also in relation to the NTA board minutes, this project, which is valued at over €100 million, came to the board in 2019 and did not come before it again until halfway through the year in which the project was supposed to have been fully delivered. That is a serious corporate governance issue. I find that deeply concerning. We need to go back to the NTA to express these concerns. We also need to know what is the internal cost to Irish Rail of this project since its inception. We are talking about €36 million to the external contractor but what is the internal cost to Irish Rail since the inception of this project and versus the budget? We need an update from that meeting of 30 March 2026. We cannot wait for another quarterly update given the serious concerns expressed by the board. This again underscores the fact that something went seriously wrong in the procurement and due diligence processes. Not only was the project set up for failure but we can see that there is a track record of this particular contractor having significant issues in delivering elsewhere. That is simply not good enough.

Again, this is a matter for the NTA and Irish Rail, but it is also one for the Department of public expenditure and reform. This is one of the things we need to ask that Department about when its representatives come in here. These projects are not being procured properly. What weight is given to the contractor's ability to deliver?

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

In relation to the NTA, when its officials were here, I inquired about the Leap card. I notice in the document that the authority believes "next generation ticketing" is an accurate title when investing in the technology that it is now going to bring on board. I am wondering how much money the NTA has spent on Leap card technology when most other countries throughout Europe, America and everywhere else allow people to just tap their cards on the machine. How much machine has the NTA spent on Leap card technology? Has that been a waste of taxpayers' money when people in every other country in the world are just tapping their cards to use public transportation? Could we write to the NTA on that?

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

From my own perspective, I am absolutely shocked by the rosy picture the NTA has tried to portray, particularly in relation to the train management system and its roll-out. The Minister for Transport has described this as the brains of the rail network. Already, the very first phase, CP1, is two years behind schedule. It was supposed to be rolled out in 2024. The initial expected cost was €19.5 million yet here we are, two years after it was supposed to be rolled out, and the cost has now jumped to €36 million. There are huge concerns there. The minutes we have received are alarming to say the least. The project manager, Mr. Lacey, states that he has no confidence in the ability of the contracted body, Indra, to deliver this scheme. It is stated that CP1, which relates to the network between Bray and Rosslare, is the easier element to deliver but even that is two years behind schedule. I can only say that Mr. Lacey has zero confidence in Indra's ability to deliver what he describes as the more complex phases, CP2 to CP8. There are huge concerns here in relation to the impact or potential impact this will have on the expansion of the rail network throughout the State. We need to ask that question of the NTA because this is the brain of the rail network and, without it, what limits will be put on the likes of DART+, which is badly needed, and the expansion of the DART to Wicklow town, which it is hoped to deliver by 2029?

There is another line of interest in these documents. The board meeting of 30 March is referred to. It was expected that an update would be delivered at that meeting. I suggest we try to get a copy of those minutes. This is all of concern but there is a line in here from the minutes of the meeting of 30 June. It says that, after discussion between the executive and the directors on the risk of meeting the delivery date for CP1, the CEO advised that it was critical that CP1 go live on the agreed date. He noted that there was a risk that issues could impact train services between Bray and Rosslare but advised that, once the system was live, Iarnród Éireann would be clear of the issues. It talks about the risk of issues impacting train services between Bray and Rosslare. That is deeply concerning when we are talking about risks to the rail network. We need to establish what those risks are and the potential impact of not delivering CP1. We know that it has not been delivered and that there are concerns that it will not be delivered anytime soon.

When we write back to the NTA, it is also incumbent on us to write to the Minister because this is of serious concern in terms of not just the financial impact, but the impact on the delivery of the rail network across the State. We will write to the NTA requesting the minutes and get a more in-depth briefing note but it is also incumbent on us to raise our concerns and to get the views of the Minister and the Department.

Grace Boland (Dublin Fingal West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree. It is also important that, when we write to the Minister, we note that the same contractor is the contractor that is to deliver next-generation ticketing, a project that has a much bigger budget. There can be no cost over-runs on that project. It is already a phenomenal budget compared with what other European cities and countries have put in place. I am not sure whether that is appropriate or not but there can be no slippage. After what I have seen on this project, I have serious concerns about this contractor's ability to deliver.

To be honest, I have not been filled with any confidence by the NTA or the Minister that has alleviated those concerns.

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

I agree. There are concerns about that entity's ability to deliver, given the serious missed targets and objectives in the rolling out of CP1, etc. All of those critical timelines have been missed, so there are serious concerns, in my view, about its ability to deliver the next generation ticketing system. We discussed that with the NTA previously. While it tried to portray a rosy picture, we should ask for more thorough minutes of meetings to do with the next generation ticketing. I hope not, but I fear that there may well be a repetition of the same issues we are seeing with the rail management system. Is it agreed that we carry out those actions, namely, writing to the NTA and the Department? Agreed. Is it agreed to note and publish this correspondence? Agreed.

That concludes the B items for discussion today. Next is the work programme. At the committee's next meeting on 30 April, the committee will engage with Children's Health Ireland, CHI, and the National Pediatric Hospital Development Board.

The next item is any other business, AOB. The committee has agreed to publish and launch its report on Vote 20 - Garda Síochána on Tuesday, 28 April 2026. Are there any other matters members wish to raise at this stage? No.

In private session, we discussed the harrowing "RTÉ Investigates" programme last night about Tusla and the use of emergency accommodation. We have seen the impact on individuals, including minors. We heard some very harrowing first-hand experiences of the failures of the State. It is an issue we questioned Tusla on when we had it in previously. From my perspective, there are a number of concerns about governance, oversight and compliance with procurement, but there is a huge financial issue as well. Some of the figures we had established previously were echoed again last night on the "RTÉ Investigates" programme, namely, that keeping a child in unregulated accommodation was costing up to €14,000 a week. There are serious issues there with vetting and a multitude of other issues as well.

I spoke to the Comptroller and Auditor General prior to our meeting about Tusla's accounts. For the purposes of the meeting, he might give us an update on when we expect the next set.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

The pattern has been that we normally sign off on the financial statements around the end of June and the annual report on financial statements would be presented some time in July. After that, they would be available for examination by the committee.

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

Okay. We discussed this in our private session. Given that tight turnaround, it may well be after the summer recess but I think there is agreement that we will bring Tusla back in before us. In the interim, I know that members have a series of questions they wish to put to Tusla. I ask them that we compile a list of questions in advance of lining up that next meeting with Tusla so as to try to get responses to them all. Is that agreed? Agreed.

That concludes session 2.