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

Apologies have been received from the Cathaoirleach and Deputy Séamus McGrath. Before we proceed, I have a few housekeeping matters to go through. Members are reminded of the provision 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 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 or its precincts. The agenda for today is a discussion of accounts and statements, correspondence and upcoming meetings. We will then suspend before beginning our engagement with officials from the board of Beaumont Hospital at 10.30 a.m.

We now turn to accounts and financial statements. There are no sets of accounts or financial statements to be considered today. We now turn to correspondence. There are a number of B items of correspondence to consider today. These have been received by Departments and public bodies. We will start with the three deferred items from last week.

No. R2026/0306, dated 9 June 2026, is correspondence received from the chief executive officer of the Health Research Board on response to the committee's request for further information on the disposal of premises at 73 Lower Baggot Street. Do members wish to discuss the matter? Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0307, dated 9 June 2026, is correspondence received from the chief executive officer of Sport Ireland in response to the committee's request for further information regarding Longford Town Football Club and the Football Association of Ireland. Deputy Farrelly has flagged this item for discussion.

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

I want to see if the reply is extensive enough. Does it go far enough? I suppose that is a decision for us as a committee. It is worthwhile to get the response. We will just have to wait and see whether this answers the queries that came in initially that got it on the agenda in the first instance.

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

Does the Deputy agree with noting and publishing the item of correspondence?

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

Yes.

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

Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. R2026/0319, dated 17 June 2026, is correspondence received from the Minister for Health related to the committee's meeting with the voluntary hospitals on 23 April 2026 regarding hospital financial performance, oversight arrangements and actions expected of hospitals in managing resources. Deputy Farrelly has flagged this item for discussion.

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

Health?

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

Regarding the Minister for Health.

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

That was not me.

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

It was flagged previously. It was also flagged by the Cathaoirleach but he is happy to allow-----

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

Apologies, that is not my-----

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

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

No. R2026/0313, dated 2 June 2026, is correspondence received from the chief executive of the Child and Family Agency, Tusla, updating the committee on its role in supporting unaccompanied minors, including care, safeguarding and legislative and capacity changes within the organisation. Do members wish to discuss this item? Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0314, dated 15 June, is correspondence received from the Secretary General of the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration updating the committee on the age assessment process for unaccompanied minors, including case outcomes and legislative changes under the International Protection Act 2026. I have flagged this item. Do any other members wish to come in on it? On page two of the correspondence, item three refers to the total number of children. It states that 163 were found to be ineligible for services from Tusla and were returned to apply for international protection as adults. It stated that of the remaining 177 individuals who made applications as adults, three of the 18 referencing their own claim of birth during the process returned to IPO. Eleven subsequently disclosed an adult date of birth and 163 were found ineligible.

I do not believe there is clarity with regard to what the word "ineligible" means. It is the vast majority of the 177. Were they ineligible because they were not adults or were they ineligible for some other reason? That stuck out as not being clear enough. I do not know if other members can provide clarity from their observations.

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

I interpreted it to mean that a determination has been made to the effect that they do not meet the age assessment.

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

The wording does not make that clear. Because the "ineligible" is used, I wondered whether there grounds of ineligibility other than age. That is my only concern. If that is the case, it would seem that 163 of the 177 individuals who ere referred to Tusla were, in fact, not-----

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

I think we can say with a high level of certainty that that is what was intended.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

To give context, I think the Department is talking about the test of age and who is responsible for that. It is also indicates that 177 who applied for services as adults were determined to be ineligible for services from Tusla, which would be services, as it were-----

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

The observation this committee has made is, first, that that is a significant number, and, second, it is a significant burden on Tusla in the context of assessing those grounds. Deputy Geoghegan has spoken about this in the past. It is concerning. As part of our procedures, this type of correspondence should receive priority in future reports.

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

This is an issue that has obviously popped up on our radar a few times, and we realise the impact it has on Tusla. Caring for a child is completely different. It involves a different level of expense, burden of administration and, indeed, risk when it comes to adults being involved. The most compelling aspect is the risk of having an adult where children are. Has Tusla highlighted why it does not know? Is it a lack of paperwork? Is it as simple as someone not bringing paperwork into the country? Surely a person who is applying should have a passport? How does this work and has the matter been highlighted? I would have thought having proper paperwork would be part of the qualification for asylum.

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

Another crucial aspect the Chair flagged is that of subparagraph iii of the correspondence, which indicates that of the 177 who made applications as adults, 163 were deemed ineligible. There is a real question about the process of determining eligibility. That is a worthwhile question to put to both the Department and Tusla. What are the grounds for determining that? If, as Deputy Neville says, neither the paperwork nor the relevant information is available, what is used to inform the process? As the Chair stated, that number, as a percentage of the overall figure, is huge.

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

The committee will be drafting a report about this, because we have had hearings on it. It will likely feature in a draft report, so perhaps we will wait until it comes to us at that point and consider it further then. I will be flagging to the secretariat that the correspondence is important and should be reflected in the draft report.

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

What I am trying to get and what I think we are all struggling with is that addressing this issue has been like pulling teeth from the very start. We have had to highlight it as a live issue and ask what is going on. Even now, we are still wondering what is in the letter. We are going to try to put something in a report in circumstances where we just have not been given the necessary information. It should be very clear, as the Leas-Chathaoirleach says.

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

We should note and publish the correspondence in any case. The question is whether additional questions arise as a result of this correspondence-----

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

I think they do.

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

-----or are we happy to consider it as part of the drafting of a report?

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

My point is that we are putting it in a report, but I do not think we have enough information. What will we be putting in the report? What will we be recommending when we do not even know how this is adjudicated?

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

Does the Deputy have a recommendation?

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

Yes. It is based on what Deputy Farrelly and I said about what is giving rise to the ineligibility. What do the 163 represent? What were they of the 170? What exactly happened? Were they overage and not from here, so they did not have the paperwork and had to go back somewhere else immediately?

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

I propose that we write to Tusla and ask it to expand on that portion of the correspondence in order to give us greater detail.

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

I think so. For example, if we get information on the specific criteria used for assessments, we could make recommendations on that basis. We are trying to support Tusla here.

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

I will bring in the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Having observed this correspondence for nearly a year at this stage, maybe pulling all of the information that the committee has together and summarising it might identify the gaps to follow up on. This toing and froing is a waste of time. If the committee could establish the number of persons who are making applications as children and then being accepted, it would find out how many are on the cusp between child services and adult services. It seems to be a relatively small number. While it is an extremely important issue, it is a not a huge number.

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

The problem relates to the risk involved if an adult is in a room with children and something happens. At that point, everybody would be-----

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

My view is that we wait for a draft report and then decide if we need more information. The concern would be that the latter would be at a late stage in the process and that it would be too late to be asking for additional information. The Comptroller and Auditor General makes a valid point to the effect that if we ask the secretariat to pull the information together, we can then identify whether we need additional information.

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

When that process is undertaken, we will identify that some of the figures supplied by the International Protection Office and Department of justice contradict some of those supplied by Tusla. That is a real issue. Where is the record-keeping for this? We have seen that in the back-and-forth, as the Comptroller and Auditor General said, with the correspondence.

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

Perhaps we might leave the secretariat with that as part of drawing up the draft report. Perhaps we might get some preliminary documentation in advance of that report emerging. We will note and publish this correspondence and reserve the right to ask additional information in the future. Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

No. R2026/0315 is correspondence received from the president of the Atlantic Technological University in response to the committee's request for further information about a proposed student building in Galway and associated write-offs disclosed in the university's financial statements for the year ending 31 August 2024. Do members wish to discuss this correspondence?

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

I will make one point. I flagged this and discussed it last week. Most of the €427,000 seemed to be for planning and architectural services. There was obviously a reason for that. It would have been great if we had got the relevant information at the very start, but we do have the level of detail of suppliers which shows that one individual received over €110,000 for architectural services, which was 25% of the overall cost. It gives us an insight into what it is doing. As the Committee of Public Accounts, it would be preferable if we did not get down the road of spending €427,000, but the information is here, as requested.

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

No. R2026/0316 is correspondence, dated 15 June 2026, from the Secretary General of the Department of Culture, Communications and Sport, responding to the committee's request for further information regarding the late laying of Sport Ireland's 2024 annual report. Do members wish to discuss this correspondence?

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

It was me who flagged it originally. I believe the accounts have been published now, so it is probably dealt with.

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

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

No. R2026/0317 is correspondence, dated 15 June 2026, from the chief executive officer of the National Transport Authority, NTA, responding to the committee's request for information regarding the Fassaroe park-and-ride facility in County Wicklow. This was flagged by Deputies Farrelly and Brady.

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

It would be useful to have a broader conversation about public service obligation routes. Maybe we could agree to go back to the NTA and look for an overarching document about the substantial routes in place and the ways in which they are funded. Are they being operated at a deficit?

Are we seeing that as an investment though? If one park-and-ride facility like this is substantially complete but lying idle because they do not have the funding to operate the route, I wonder are there other examples of that around the country. In a time when we are trying to encourage people to use public transport, while all of those routes will not be what we associate with busy or at-capacity routes, they are still very important cogs in that wheel nonetheless. Can we ask the NTA for a more comprehensive briefing note on public service obligation routes?

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

I have no difficulty with that. Is that a matter Mr. McCarthy has examined in the past in regards to the public service obligation?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

No, not specifically.

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

Okay. Let us ask the question of the NTA. Is that agreed? Agreed. When I say agreed, the Cathaoirleach has asked that we defer it so we will relist it for discussion and in the meantime we will ask the clerk to draft the letter for the NTA. To be clear, is the letter not going until it is considered next week or does the committee wish for it to go in the meantime?

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

Wait for the Cathaoirleach.

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

If that Cathaoirleach wants to have a discussion about it-----

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

That is agreed.

No. R2026/0320, dated 18 June 2026, is correspondence received from the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage in response to the committee's query on the handling of parliamentary questions concerning Uisce Éireann. Do members wish to discuss the item?

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

We had also intended to write to the Clerk of the Dáil in relation to this issue. Did that materialise or did that happen?

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

My understanding is that a letter was issued to the Clerk of the Dáil. We will revert to Deputy Geoghegan and the committee in regards to the outcome of that. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0324, dated 17 June 2026, is correspondence received from the Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, providing a response to matters raised on 23 April 2026 concerning governance, oversight and delivery challenges affecting major rail projects delivered through the Department of Transport and the National Transport Authority. Do members wish to comment on this item of correspondence?

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

Yes, very briefly. Two things struck me in this correspondence. First, with the major projects advisory group, I thought those thresholds seemed quite high. To get on the agenda for that group it needs to be €200 million of a capital budget, or in the case of transport €500 million, before the Department of public expenditure - as I understand it - gets a real hands-on approach in terms of oversight and accountability. Is that worth further discussion or consideration from this committee's point of view, given the amount of waste that we have seen where it would have been helpful for the Department of public expenditure, the OGCIO, or bodies within the aegis of that Department to be much more involved in the oversight of capital projects? I am open to what colleagues think but that €200 million, or €500 million in the case of transport, is a very high bar before the Department of public expenditure really gets involved in oversight.

The second bit in that correspondence is that the Department has acknowledged that it is reviewing correspondence with regard to the Irish Rail piece. Will the Department furnish the committee with what that correspondence was?

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

Will the Deputy repeat that reference?

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

The second bit is when the Department uses it as an example and says it has sought and received some further information on recent developments on the Irish Rail traffic control system, which it is currently considering. I am asking that the Department furnish us with that correspondence.

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

In advance of its appearance.

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

I would like to discuss point three in the letter. It is said in the correspondence that the Department always wants value for money requirements, especially those related to ICT-related initiatives and oversight of digital. From my understanding, and from every Department that we have had in here, there have been serious issues in relation to ICT projects. What hand has the Department had in relation to that? Can we ask for a letter back from the Department in relation to the ICT projects that it has been overseeing and if it went over, what moneys it went over by and what it did? How many times have we brought Departments in here and there have been IT issues? I would like to ask the Department what it is doing to manage that at the moment because there has been a complete waste of taxpayers' money in every Department I have seen since I have come on the public accounts committee. As the Department has put in this letter that it is overseeing that, I would like to see what they are overseeing.

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

We all want to see value for money. It is great to have codes that say we have to drive value for money. The problem is that what we see is not value for money. We are seeing a lack of accountability and a lack of consequences. Until there is proper accountability and consequences we are going to continue to see this. As I said to the Secretary General of the Department of public expenditure and reform, this is an area that is badly in need of reform.

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

We are going to agree to Deputy Farrelly's suggestion to write to the NTA. Is that agreed? Agreed. Deputy Bennett has raised the issue of correspondence with the Department of public expenditure on the issue of ICT projects. The Department's officials were with us just recently. There are items which they will come back to the committee on and we are drafting a report. I am not clear if there are particular questions Deputy Bennett wants to raise. Some of the issues she raised came up in the course of the hearing, but if there was a specific question I would happy to include it.

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

In its correspondence, the Department said it has arrangements for oversight of digital and ICT-related initiatives. I would like see what that oversight is. Perhaps we could get a list of the ICT projects the Department has oversight of. There does not seem to be any oversight in relation to any of the Departments that are coming before the committee. I would like the Department of public expenditure to tell me which Departments have oversight of the ICT projects.

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

Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

It is also what the consequences are when there are overruns. We do not know what correspondence the Department of public expenditure got in relation to the Irish Rail IT project. It may not just have been from the NTA. What we are looking for is all of the correspondence the Department received, be that from the NTA, Irish Rail or wherever.

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

To be clear, we are going to seek the oversight, as Deputy Bennett suggested, and we are also going to seek the potential consequences as well.

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

I think so because that is what we are really missing here. That is why we continue to see-----

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

It is just to be clear for the correspondence. The clerk can revert to Deputies on the specifics of that.

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

On that point again about the €200 million or €500 million threshold, can we first ask the Department of public expenditure to outline the rationale for those figures being the thresholds? I would appreciate a better understanding as to why that is the case.

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

That makes for a very lengthy letter to the Department, but all are important questions. Those suggestions are agreed and the clerk will draft that correspondence. That concludes B items of correspondence due for consideration today.

Moving onto the work programme, the following meetings have been agreed: 2 July with NAMA; 9 July with RTÉ; and 16 July with the NTA and Irish Rail. Members are notified of that.

Moving onto any other business, are there any other items members wish to discuss in public session? No. That concludes session 2 and we will now suspend until 10.30 a.m. when we will meet with the officials from Beaumont Hospital board.