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

Members are all very welcome to today's meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts. We have received no apologies. 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 accounts and statements, correspondence and upcoming meetings, and we will then suspend before beginning the engagement with officials from the National Oil Reserves Agency immediately on completion of the earlier business.

The financial statements of one body were laid between 27 April and 1 May 2026 and 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 will ask him to address these before opening the floor to members.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

I might point out that almost all of the 2024 financial statements have been presented, and we are now beginning to see the 2025 financial statements coming through. The financial statements presented in the past week relate to the Office of the Planning Regulator for the period of account 2025. It received a clear audit opinion.

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

Do members wish to comment?

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

Are there any bodies that have not produced their 2024 accounts yet?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

There is a small number that have yet to come through. I can bring a note next week and mention those to the committee. We are keeping an eye on it and reminding them if they have an audit certificate and have not presented their financial statements.

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 B items of correspondence today. These have been received from Departments and public bodies. The first item is No. R2026/0206, which is correspondence received from the chairperson of the Office of Public Works, OPW, in response to the committee’s request for further information regarding the proposed national children’s science centre. It is dated 17 April 2026. I had asked for this to be deferred, although there may have been some discussion on it last week.

I have a few comments. I ask other members to feel free to indicate if they wish to come in. Members are aware that it is two months now since we had a very comprehensive engagement on this matter and the delays facing it. There is no sponsoring agency and it is still essentially caught in no man's land. A determination has been made following the arbitration process. We got part of the award. There is a more comprehensive piece that we need to get sight of. That is the final determination. There is a view that legal opinion is being sought by the OPW in relation to giving us that. It is essential that we get sight of that comprehensive determination. We need to immediately follow up on this. We also need to follow up with the Department of public expenditure on where things are. I had hoped coming out of our engagements that there may have been some communication or dialogue, but that seems not to have transpired.

The OPW is locked into a process whereby it has to prepare to move to tender by December. We also need to get sight of the costs incurred by the OPW for that process, which is going to come to a roadblock and complete standstill unless there is an intervention. We need to get sight of the costs for the OPW in preparing that piece of work and get an update from the Department of public expenditure as to what conversations, if any, have taken to place to ensure that the funds and sponsoring authority are put in place and whether a decision has been taken on moving forward or pulling the plug on this. We will follow up on the matter.

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

In the Chair's absence last week, Deputy McAuliffe raised the potential prospect of a trilateral meeting here where we would have the Secretary General of the Department of public expenditure and reform, the chairman of the OPW and possibly a relevant parent Department. I think it was the Department of further and higher education and science that Deputy McAuliffe suggested. I see he is on his feet in the Chamber right now. Maybe we are not making a decision on that at this exact moment, but perhaps that is something we can consider next week when discussing our next agenda of meetings.

Regarding follow-up with the OPW, the Cathaoirleach will recall that it has a quarterly reporting requirement as part of the arbitration agreement. We should write to the OPW and seek clarification from it as to what steps it has taken in the first quarter. Has it provided its first quarterly report to the national children's science centre? It indicated to us that, under the arbitration agreement, it was bound to issue a tender by, I believe, the end of this year. We should get a full explanation from the OPW about what works have been done to date in respect of getting a tender ready, what the costs look like and where we are at in relation to it.

We should reserve our right to have that suggested trilateral meeting of bringing everybody together, including the Secretary General, the chairman of the OPW and, perhaps, the possible parent Department of further and higher education.

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

We have the Department of public expenditure before the committee on 11 June. On 18 June, we have the Department of further and higher education in. There may be something that we can look at there. We can follow up on that. It would be an interesting meeting. It would probably the first time that all of those bodies were in the same room at the same time. That is something that should be happening outside of this committee, but I am certainly open to that.

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

I support Deputy Geoghegan's suggestion. I am struggling to resolve the situation in my head whereby as the situation is evolving, we have the OPW now legally contracted to do something on nobody's behalf and with no budget to do it. This is the bit that I am struggling with. What I said last week was essentially that it was contested that the OPW was not over a barrel. It is now very clearly being held over a legally binding barrel at this point, yet it is suggesting that it does not have the authority or funding from the parent Department to progress this. This is one of the rare opportunities where we can look at what hindsight will afford us in a couple of years’ time and say that someone needs to press "Stop", get the adults into the room and have a very mature conversation. That is what Deputy Geoghegan is trying to get at. It should not be for the Committee of Public Accounts to convene that. However, in the absence of leadership on this issue, we need to prioritise this. Otherwise, the OPW is going to find itself in contravention of that binding agreement despite having no option but to do so.

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

We need to follow up on all of that. I agree. We got the legal cost to date of €1.2 million. We know that some of the legal costs had not been presented following the last round of arbitration. We need to get an update regarding the legal costs and whether they have been furnished as of yet. It is deeply concerning that, unless there is intervention at the highest levels, it could end up in arbitration again with further legal expenditure, which certainly does not serve anyone well, most of all the taxpayers. Is it agreed to follow up on those actions?

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

For clarity for myself, is it the OPW that is out €1.2 million in legal costs so far?

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

The OPW.

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

Where is the science museum committee getting the funds to continue this battle? We cannot find that.

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

It presented its accounts. We had sight of those. The legal costs to date have been furnished by the taxpayer via the OPW.

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

I thank the Chair for that clarity.

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

Is it agreed to note and publish the item and follow up on the issues members raised? Agreed.

Next is No. R2026/0214, correspondence received from the chief executive officer of the National Transport Authority, NTA, in response to the committee's request for further information in relation to the electric bus fleet and BusConnects Cork. It is dated 27 April 2026. I am conscious that there may have been some discussion on this last week. I wish to raise some points to add to the issues that members raised then. I find the correspondence from the NTA quite insulting to the integrity of the public, particularly members of this committee, where it cited that it was practically impossible to align the delivery of these electric buses to the roll-out of the EV charging points. That points to a chronic failure to forward plan within the NTA.

It raises a number of concerns regarding the 110 buses that we now have in storage. For some, this is going on for nearly three years at 900 days. I asked a very specific question of the NTA as to the cost of storage associated with those buses. That information is omitted from the correspondence. I believe that is a considerable amount of money for the storage of these 110 buses. We need to get sight of the costs in respect of each of those buses over that period. We also need to find out and establish what type of maintain contract is in place. How are these buses being maintained? What is the cost of that maintenance if it is being provided? We also need to get sight of the warranties that are in place on these buses.

Every product that you buy comes with a warranty. Some of these buses have been in storage for going on three years. We need to know whether the warranty will have expired when they come into service. We need to get line of sight in relation to hat.

The other concern I have relates to the information technology in place on these buses. We know about the advances in technology, particularly in electric vehicles and electric batteries. I have heard some experts say that the IT on some of these buses may well be out of date because technology has advance so much. We need to get a full briefing note on whether the technology on these buses is still valid and how long that will remain the case.

There are huge concerns here. It is highly insulting to the intelligence of the members of the Committee of Public Accounts to say that it is impossible to align the delivery of these buses with the roll-out of electric vehicle charging. Surely the company can plan it ahead and stagger moving ahead with purchasing and ordering these buses until it knows the expected timeframe for the installation of the charging. I find that statement extraordinary and deeply insulting. Is it agreed to follow up on those points and the points members raised last week and to and note and publish that correspondence from the National Transport Authority?

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

I apologise, Chair, I was just in the Chamber. I understand the committee has dealt with the national children's science museum. If I am right, the proposal is that we would try-----

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

Can we agree on the NTA point first?

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

Apologies. Yes.

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

Is it agreed to note and publish the correspondence? Agreed.

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

There was some discussion last week on the science museum and I wanted to have an input into that. I agree with the proposal that we try to get all the parties into the room. It is serious in terms of the financial obligation that is now on the State that this matter is effectively being left with the Office of Public Works or, ultimately, the OPW's line Department. If I am correct, the suggestion is that we try to bring in all parties, including the Department of public expenditure and the Department of Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science. I would not normally do this, but I suggest that we insist that an official at assistant secretary level appear. I will not suggest that we have to have the Accounting Officer before us but there is almost no point in the committee having the kind of routine representative we often get from other Departments as that would not achieve what we want to achieve. Effectively, we are talking about transferring responsibility from one Accounting Officer to another Accounting Officer. Unless we have people at a senior level in the room, I do not think we will achieve what we need to achieve. That is my suggestion. Members may agree with it or not.

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

As I referenced earlier, we will have the Department of public expenditure in on 11 June and we will have the Department of further and higher education in on 18 June.

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

The proposal is to bring them in on those-----

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

We will have the Secretaries General in from both of those Departments discussing their own accounts. We should move ahead with those meetings in the first instance.

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

Agreed.

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

We have two further slots before the end of the Dáil term that we need to fill. Maybe we can do a little scoping work around this and come back to members next week on whether we can use one of those two slots. There was a suggestion that we bring in the National Shared Services Office, NSSO, and the Department of Finance to fill those two slots. I am open to the wishes of members.

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

Another suggestion made at our private session last week was that if we are to take that route of having standard meetings, we would include the issue of the national children's science museum in the letters of invitation so that the Departments are specifically aware of it when they are coming in. If that is the route we take, I suggest we reference the national children's science museum and use our time during those meetings to ask those questions, and then reserve the right to have a further meeting later on. With those two events, do we need to do the reverse and ask a representative from the Office of Public Works to be here? Is that required?

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

Whatever about the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science meeting, I would say we should consider having someone from the OPW in when we meet the Department of public expenditure. It does not have to be the chairman of the OPW but maybe somebody with relevant-----

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

I agree.

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

We will scope it out and come back to members with a proposal next week. Is that agreed? Agreed?

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

I thank the Chair. I apologise again as I was in the Chamber.

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

That is no problem. We move on to No. R2026/0216, correspondence received from the HSE in response to the committee's request for information regarding Autism Initiatives Ireland, dated 21 April 2026. Some members may have touched on this last week and I asked that it be deferred until this week because there are a few points I want to make. Deputies Bennett and Farrelly have also flagged this correspondence for discussion today.

I have deep concerns with regard to this. There have been some statements and counter statements made following last week's engagement, both from the body, Autism Initiatives Ireland, and the new body that is established now. I have real concerns. Up to €1.5 million of taxpayers' funding was supposed to go to autism services within the State and there is an allegation that it was transferred outside the State. I read with some interest the statement put out by the body in question saying that the HSE was fully aware of this and investigated it in 2022 when similar concerns were raised. We are being told by the HSE that it has serious concerns and is launching a review on foot of the allegations that have been brought to our attention. There seems to be a contrast there, a contradiction nearly. If there was a previous investigation into these allegations, as has been suggested, I ask that we write to the HSE to see what was investigated in 2022 and what the outcome of that investigation was. The HSE has said a new review has been launched and cited serious concerns. We need to get sight of the scope and terms of reference of the review the HSE have launched. We also need to find out how much funding was handed over to Autism Initiatives Ireland in the period between 2022 when the initial concerns arose and the new allegations being made. Deputy Bennett has also flagged this matter.

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

I raised it last week. I agree with what the Cathaoirleach just said.

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

Deputy Farrelly also spoke on the issue last week.

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

Yes, I asked last week that in our correspondence we extend a request to the HSE to consider any other bodies it has service arrangements with to ensure this practice was not present in any of them. I propose that we ask the question to make sure this €1.5 million is isolated to this one body.

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

Is it agreed to note and publish the correspondence with the agreed actions? Agreed.

No. R2026/0221 is correspondence received from the HSE, dated 22 April 2026, in response to the committee's request for further information regarding parking facilities, specifically in relation to Cork University Hospital. I flagged this for discussion. I have real concerns about this. We touched on this issue in our previous engagements with the HSE. It concerns parking charges at all hospitals in the State. We got a graph setting out all of the expenditure between 2020 and 2025. We can see the huge increase in car park revenue being generated by hospitals across the State. Over that five-year period, over €73.5 million in revenue was raised. These charges hit some of the most vulnerable people in the State, namely, patients in hospitals and those going to visit them. It is wrong on so many levels.

In 2018, the then Minister for Health, Deputy Simon Harris, said he was launching a review of parking charges at hospitals across the State.

I would like to ask the HSE what happened with that review and what the outcome of it was. We know from our engagements with a number of different hospitals that different approaches are being taken by different hospitals. Some have practice of charging reduced rates for cancer patients. There are differences in the maximum rates being charged by hospitals. Some are €10 a day and some are €16 or €17 a day. Then we had St. Vincent's Hospital tell us last year that it actually increased parking charges to €17 a day. That is despite the review embarked upon in 2017, and also what is contained in the programme for Government on the issue of car parking charges.

We need to follow up and write to the Minister for Health to get an update on what is going to happen from the Government's perspective. The best way to regulate the issue would to be abolish car parking charges at hospitals. We need to get a perspective from the Government and the Minister and also ask what ultimately came of the review that was embarked upon in 2018 and whether there was any regularisation of the charges across hospitals.

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

I suggest adding to the Chair's input that we know that at these 40 sites, there are essentially 40 different service agreements in place with entities responsible for maintaining or operating the car park. I would like the HSE and the Department to be asked if a business case has been done on whether it would be much more cost-efficient to have one contract signed for the 40 sites. We know the increase in charges is in sharp contrast to what we hear is Government policy, that is, to cap or eradicate parking charges. It is no longer acceptable that people have to keep a parking meter running while caring for a loved one on the third or fourth floor of a hospital. This happened in the same week in March that we found out that the HSE was over budget for the year. There is something structurally concerning about the finances of the HSE and to think that we are looking at these types of measures increasing year on year is simply unacceptable. I would like to see what tangible measures the HSE is considering and what business case has been put forward for having one contract rolled out nationally. That would address consistency but, most importantly, cost-effectiveness for inpatients, outpatients, their families and staff.

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

When I saw this, it raised additional questions for me. I know, for example, the Mater and Cappagh hospitals, which are both close to my area, have car parks but it appears they have no revenue from those car parks. There are questions about whether the patron body or operator of the hospital is benefiting without the HSE being aware of it. In some cases, parking charges are about preventing commuter parking and are applied on a neutral basis. I have particular concerns around those hospitals for which parking revenue is set at zero in the table provided. We should ask the HSE why their revenue is at zero.

In regard to the proposal, the Committee of Public Accounts has the greatest value when it is inquiring into how money is spent and highlighting where money could be better spent or what public bodies are doing with public money. I have a little bit of concern about us drifting into the area of the health committee by suggesting what policy should be. I am not opposed to the point being made - I am very sympathetic to it - but I am trying to think of how we can best lead on it. If we can do some interrogation of how parking charges are filtered into the public finances and whether there are private bodies benefiting from car parks adjoining public hospitals, it might be better than the committee writing to the Government and questioning Government policy. As the Chair notes each week, it is not the role of the committee to question Government policy.

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

I concur with what everybody has said. To state the obvious, increases in parking charges went from €8 million to €17 million between 2020 to 2025. That is an increase of-----

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

The first figure was from during the Covid pandemic. We cannot use numbers as a comparator if they were from the Covid period.

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

Charges went from €8 million to €17 million. To put it on the record, over six years-----

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

I am just saying that is a Covid-----

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

Through the Chair.

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

Forget about Covid. Some €73 million has been taken in over six years. In my constituency of Cavan and Monaghan, that figure went from €69,000 to €168,000 for a total of €679,000 in parking charges. That is not acceptable.

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

That is a Covid number.

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

It is not acceptable that people who have to attend appointments and those who are sick have to pay that amount. To put it on the record again, car parking charges amounted to €73 million over six years. That is not satisfactory or acceptable, and the general public should not have to pay them. They pay enough in taxes.

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

Does Deputy Neville want to come in on that?

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

I am just saying that 2020 is not a good comparator for anything because of Covid. There were far fewer visits and much less activity.

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

Should parking charges be reduced?

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

We can go back further and ask what they were for the previous five years.

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

I fully agree with that.

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

We can ask for particulars for 2015 up to 2020, but it is also very clear from the data we have received that a number of hospitals have only recently implemented parking charges, some as a recent as 2024. Sligo hospital implemented parking charges quite recently. These charges are a cash cow. In this instance, it is ordinary punters and vulnerable people who are affected, including those visiting loved ones and relatives on their sick beds and, in some cases, probably on a trolley. It speaks of a health system that is not working. We know the major issues in terms of the underfunding of our hospitals and this speaks of a health system that is reliant on putting hands in the pockets of the most vulnerable in the State to financially prop up a system that is creaking at the knees. We saw that yesterday when an overspend of €250 million caused a recruitment embargo to be put in place. Going back to the most vulnerable, this is an additional stealth tax. Is it agreed that we ask for that additional information?

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

In 2022, €10 million was spent on parking charges. The figure is now almost €18 million. That is an increase of €8 million in the past three or four years, so never mind Covid.

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

Is it agreed to note and publish this correspondence? Agreed.

No. R2026/0222 is correspondence received from Mr. Kevin O'Brien, Government accounting unit at the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitisation, informing the committee of the appointment of Ms Marion Berry as Accounting Officer for the Office of the Attorney General. It is dated 22 April 2026. Did Deputy McAuliffe flag this?

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

I did.

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

Is the Deputy proposing to bring Ms Berry before the committee? She is only in the door.

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

Not at all.

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

Does the Deputy wish to defer this?

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

I am happy to note it. Perhaps I flagged the wrong matter.

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

Is it agreed to note and publish the correspondence? Agreed.

No. R2026/0224 is correspondence received from Mr. Kevin O'Brien, Government accounting unit at the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitisation, informing the committee of the appointment of Mr. Derek Tierney as Accounting Officer for the Department of Health. It is dated 22 April 2026.

Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0225 is correspondence received from Mr. Kevin O’Brien, Government accounting unit at the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, informing the committee of the appointment of Mr. Doncha O’Sullivan as Accounting Officer for the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, dated 24 April 2026. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0226 is correspondence received from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, in relation to the laying of the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board annual report and financial statements for 2024, dated 24 April 2026. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0227 is correspondence received from the Secretary General of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, providing a response to information requested following the committee’s engagement with Met Éireann on 19 March, dated 27 April 2026. Do members wish to discuss anything there? No. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0230 is correspondence received from the chief executive officer of the Child and Family Agency, Tusla, in response to the committee’s request for further information regarding the use of unregulated accommodation and accommodation for unaccompanied minors, dated 27 April 2026. Do members with to discuss this? Deputy Farrelly had flagged this.

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

I know we discussed this previously once the RTÉ "Prime Time" investigation aired a number of weeks ago. I am conscious of Deputy McAuliffe's points, which are very well made as regards getting into the weeds of policy, but I do think there would be a prudent piece of work for this committee to do with regards to the financial arrangements that Tusla has embarked on with private companies regarding special emergency arrangements. That, very specifically, warrants further investigation by way of a starting point of asking Tusla to provide and furnish the committee with details of all contracts it has been part of over the last three to five years.

While in the last number of months we have seen a reduction in the number of children and young people staying in special emergency arrangements, that was not the case previously. I have questions over value for money and best practice. This is not an issue in isolation and Ireland is not dealing with it alone. I would also like to see what efforts Tusla has made to learn from colleagues in other European countries as to the best-practice approach in the modelling for how we can ensure a needs-based and rights-based approach to accommodation for children and young people, and for those when we cannot be fully sure of their age.

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

Some of the facts provided in the Tusla report really shine a light on an issue that, to my mind at least, first emerged in this committee almost a year ago now, when we had the CEO of Tusla here and the Cathaoirleach and I questioned her about unaccompanied minors, Tusla's responsibility for that and the impact on the agency. If these were any other children, or if there were 300 people in the last four years placed in child-based settings who subsequently turned out to be adults, there would be an absolute national outcry. That is the reality here. The average length of stay for 300 people who arrived into this country seeking international protection who were placed in child-based settings was 60 days. There were over 300 adults over the last four years placed in a very specialised type of accommodation, which is not Tusla's job. Tusla is responsible for looking after some of the most vulnerable, challenged children in this State. We all know, as Deputy Farrell alluded to, the challenges it faces in providing the appropriate accommodation for those children. Of course, there are children seeking international protection in this country who undoubtedly fall within that category of trauma and who should be placed in those types of settings, but in a lot of other cases the type of children arriving seeking protection here create a very different set of scenarios. Their age means it is a very different set of scenarios and their length of stay is very different.

We have to probe this further with the Department of justice. It is clear that the changes that have been introduced have resulted in a shorter period when assessing the age of a person. The Department of justice did not even want to acknowledge that it even had a legal responsibility for carrying out age assessments. It was only that we pushed it. None of the officials even knew they had that legal responsibility and all of a sudden they are now taking it on board, which I acknowledge is welcome. There are two things here. One is financial. This is imposing a significant burden on Tusla, which its officials acknowledged here. When they were before this committee, the officials acknowledged that when they go out to tender to provide certain types of accommodation, in many cases, it is the same providers that are providing the residential-based care that Tusla is providing for some of the most vulnerable children. We really need to examine this further with the Department of justice, get clarity on some of the figures it has provided, which to some extent contradict some of the figures Tusla provided, and establish what the long-term plan is here. Without straying too much into Government policy, although I think it impacts on the financial side of the house for Tusla, it should be the responsibility of IPAS to accommodate most, if not all, children who are seeking international protection. This should not be left to Tusla. These figures starkly illustrate this issue.

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

Yes. It brings together the two previous contributions because they combine. As Deputy Geoghegan says, we have people who it is unclear whether they fall under the age of 18 or not. As a result, they have to be placed, and the indication was that it is a very specific group, in special emergency accommodation. Although we never got a full profile of the type of children who were being placed in that, my understanding was that many of them might have included people who were here either as a result of the war in Ukraine or were on international protection. The figure for special emergency arrangements alone of approximately €750,000 per child was eyewatering. When it is compared to the overall budgetary figure for foster carer payments, which a number of people here referenced, the value for money for the two seemed to be totally at odds.

My suggestion is that during our next private session we draft a list of questions that we might direct to a number of different Departments on this. Deputies Farrelly and Geoghegan have touched on two or three Departments and agencies that have responsibility here and PAC could have a role in trying to co-ordinate what is actually happening on the ground. It is very serious. As Deputy Geoghegan said, we might have adults placed in a child setting. We are still not clear about what settings they are. Are they communal facilities or are they special emergency accommodation arrangements where there is no potential for interaction with children? Perhaps in our private session we should draft a list of questions with the idea of reserving the right to hold a hearing on the matter.

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

Going back to that, of course I want to see the very best for the children, but I am worried in relation to our remit in the PAC. We are here to ensure the general public is getting the best value for money. I do not know if it is within our remit that we should be contacting the Department of justice to make sure it is doing its job. Who is over that? It should be the Minister who is ensuing that is happening and that Government policy is working. As far as I can see, we are here in the PAC to ensure we are getting the best value for money. Maybe I can be guided on that.

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

I think that is what we are trying to do here because there are impacts. The least part of the risk here is probably financial risk, when people are ending up in a Tusla situation when they should not be. There is a financial element to that but obviously the primary concern is the risk to the other children where there are people pretending to be children, gaming the system and maybe seeing a weakness in the system. They see if they come in as children they will have more rights and entitlements. It is a disgrace that is happening by those people. Anybody found doing that should be the first people out the door because they are causing real risk. We have seen what damage has happened in the past.

There should be no truck for any of them. I would like to think any of those 300 people were sent straight back on a plane to wherever they might have come from if they did enter accommodation with children when they should not have, if that is the case. I would like to see what repercussions there were for those individuals but that is a separate point entirely. However, at the same time we have to be very strong on this and there should be zero tolerance of it. With our two hats on, the main hat being public representatives who care for the people and the children of the country, we need to make sure there is not a mix of adults with children where there should not be. To Deputy Bennett's question of what the relevance is for members of PAC, there is that primary relevance but also we have people operating in Tusla and we must ensure funding is going where it should be. It is supposed to look after children, not people pretending to be children as we had in this case.

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

This sets off alarm bells on so many different levels in terms of both regulation and finance. In 2025, it cost the State some €38 million to provide special emergency accommodation right across the State. We need to get sight of that, such as what kind of tendering process was used and what type of facilities. I know from the RTÉ "Prime Time Investigates" programme that some of the accommodation is hotels and there are minors in hotel accommodation over a number of months and, in some cases, years. The other really concerning part of that is the unregulated nature of some of these accommodation settings. That highlights a series of failures in terms of the protection of some of the most vulnerable children within the State coupled with this concerning figure of 300 individuals who presented as minors and who, following a lengthy process, were established to be adults over the age of 18. We have seen some of the potential fallout from that quite recently in one of these centres in Dublin. It is quite concerning. There are the costs and the fact that these are unregulated settings exposing children to potential further risk.

Another concerning element is that Tusla said there is no legal basis provided for in legislation for it to carry out any verification or age profiling. When we had the Department and Tusla before the committee, neither seemed to know who was responsible or what roles were in place. The fact Tusla has been carrying out some of this work makes me question the constitutionality of that, if there is no basis provided for in legislation to do that work. We need to get clarity from the Department regarding that and the role Tusla has played. It is really concerning that 300 adults have been in accommodation. We need to get sight of those individuals, how long they stayed, whether it was mixed accommodation, and what type of accommodation they were in over a very lengthy period of time. The average stay was 60 days, which is really concerning. Do members wish to comment on that? No. Is it agreed to note and publish this item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0231 is correspondence received from the chairperson of the OPW providing a response to information requested following the committee's engagement with the OPW on 19 March 2026. It is dated 27 April 2026. Do members wish to comment on that? No. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0234 is correspondence received from the president of Atlantic Technological University in response to the committee's request for further information regarding a €427,000 write-off in capital expenditure. It is dated 29 April 2026. Is it agreed to note and publish that item? Agreed. That concludes-----

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

Can I just make one comment on that? Will we be getting any further information? It seems a very blah answer, so to speak. It says they spent €427,000 on this, looked at a bit of accounting treatment and wrote it off. I could have told him that before he wrote the letter.

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

Okay. If the Deputy has any specific additions-----

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

I could have written that letter myself.

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

Yes.

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

They spent €427,000, they did not proceed and they wrote it off. That is not good enough. Can we write back for more detail on the €427,000? I want to see a breakdown of the €427,000.

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

They have a breakdown in terms of where that money was spent.

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

No, that is not a breakdown. I want further breakdown and further detail with a line item for anything over €5,000.

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

To support Deputy Neville, I had the same impression when I read the letter. It was not clear either on the exact reasons the project ran into great difficulty. I would like a little bit more detail as well.

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

What was the strategy? Why were they going to proceed and then they changed their mind given these costs? What are the potential benefits of any future costs? That was the ultimate. Were there lessons learned?

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

If they wanted to avoid having to answer the questions in here as witnesses, they would be better off providing the information in writing. That is my suggestion.

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

Maybe we can say to them that if they want to come in and discuss it, they can.

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

We can ask for further information. I have similar concerns. They say if funding is made available in future then the work that has been done will be of benefit at that stage. We know that when it comes to building control and legislation around that, it is constantly changing. I would question whether over a 12-month or 24-month period a lot of that work could be well and truly outdated and it dependent on funding being made available. They cite there were inflationary costs in terms of moving to construction. They could provide additional information. Had they started a tendering process? Had they advanced that far? At what stage in the process was it decided to pull the plug?

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

Can we ask for any information or documents for the final decision to change? I am sure they received a dossier of why they should not go ahead. What documents were provided to them to make them change their mind? If they were going ahead with a €5 million project, would anyone be quick to give them money? No, they would not.

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

Okay. We will proceed to the committee's work programme. On 14 May the committee is due to engage with officials from the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, with representatives from the Department of Finance, to discuss the NTMA statements for 2024. The final item is any other business. Are there any items members wish to raise?

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

Last week we had correspondence to the PAC from the Department of education in relation to an interim special school in County Monaghan. However, when I read that letter, it actually said that will now be the permanent location in County Monaghan. Previously, there was advocacy in Monaghan that it would be a new greenfield site. We are delighted to have that special school in Monaghan but families are worried the greenfield site is not going to happen now. I want to ask the Department when the decision was made that the interim site would become the permanent site. What analysis was it based on? What did the analysis identify as the maximum capacity for this site? Will there be potential on that site for future expansion of the special school in Monaghan? I ask that those questions to be sent to the Department in relation to the letter received last week.

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

Is that agreed? Agreed. I want to raise one issue under any other business, which is the issue that has emerged in University Hospital Kerry where a decision was taken to spend €127,000 on a bike shed on the hospital grounds. We have dealt with the issue of bike sheds before this committee previously, and this is a case of €127,000 being spent on a bicycle shed in a hospital at a time when recruitment embargos are being put in place because of chronic underfunding within the HSE and when there are massive overspends. We have had hospitals in here over the last number of weeks speaking about deficits in funding. We then see €127,000 being spent to provide 40 bicycle spaces in the hospital solely for staff.

I am all for providing bicycle spaces but the information was a number of options were provided to the hospital to increase the 20 bicycles spaces up to the 40 it deemed were required. Some of those options were as low as €6,000. A decision was taken to go with the most expensive option which was over €127,000. I think we need to write to the HSE. I am flabbergasted that this amount of money is being spent when people are really being hammered. We have spoken about car parking charges in hospitals. People would be rightly shocked and horrified at this. We need sight of all the documents – the other options that were being looked at, why the decision was taken not to go with any of those options and why it was decided to go with the most expensive option. Why were the others deemed inadequate? I have seen the photograph of this. It is to my mind an extravagant building to put a bike in. I do not know. I am shocked and horrified given what is occurring within the health service with funding. I propose we follow up with the HSE and get a full explanation why that money was wasted, in my view, on another bike shed. Is that agreed?

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

Agreed.

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

If I may raise an additional item under any other business, there was a report locally during the week about the temporary bus depot in Tivoli in Cork. I know we mentioned the NTA earlier. Can we add this item to the correspondence to the NTA seeking clarification? It is reported the temporary bus depot is now costing over €17 million, which is double the original cost of that facility. If we could seek clarification from the NTA on the increasing costs of the provision of that temporary bus depot in Tivoli in Cork, it would be welcome.

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

Okay. Is that agreed? Agreed. That concludes session 2. We will suspend while the witnesses come in.