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

Everyone is welcome to the meeting. We have received apologies from Deputies Neville, Boland and Farrelly.

Before we proceed, I have a few housekeeping matters to go through. Members are reminded of the provisions within Standing Order 226 that the committee shall refrain from enquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or a Minister of the Government, or the merits of the objectives of such policies. 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 also remind them of the constitutional requirement that in order to participate in public meetings, they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex or within the precincts of Leinster House.

The agenda is to discuss accounts and statements, correspondence and upcoming meetings. The committee will then suspend before beginning the engagement with the officials from the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA, at 10.30 a.m. Six sets of accounts and financial statements laid between 22 June and 26 June 2026 are due to be considered. We are joined by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, who is a permanent witness to the committee. I now ask the C and AG to address these accounts and statements before opening the floor to members.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

First, we have the financial statements for Waterways Ireland for 2024. Waterways Ireland is one of the North-South bodies I audit jointly with my counterpart in Northern Ireland. The financial statements received a clear audit opinion. However, we drew attention to the fact that information in the remuneration report, which is part of the financial statements, is not fully compliant with the reporting obligations on North-South bodies. This has occurred with a small number of the North-South bodies where the requirements changed and they are not compliant in 2024. We look to see greater compliance in 2025.

Second, we have the financial statements of the National Cancer Registry Board for 2025. These received a qualified audit opinion. In my view, the accounts give a true and fair view except that they account for the costs of retirement benefit entitlements only as they become payable. That is standard for many of the health bodies, and I have drawn attention to it in other cases. Otherwise, the accounts give a true and fair view.

Third are the financial statements of coiste pinsean Thithe an Oireachtais, which is the Houses of the Oireachtas Members' pension scheme fund. The financial statements for 2025 received a clear audit opinion.

Fourth are the financial statements for National University of Ireland, Maynooth, for the financial year 2024-25. These received a clear audit opinion. However, I drew attention to two matters. First, the statement on internal control identifies a material level of non-compliance with procurement rules. Second, it discloses that, following a compliance review by the Revenue Commissioners, the university paid an underestimated benefit-in-kind liability of €47,000 in relation to the president's accommodation for the period October 2021 to January 2025. The financial statements indicated that expense was not being recovered or was not intended to be recovered from the president but, in fact, subsequently, the president had, I understand, undertaken to make good the loss in that case.

Fifth, the financial statements for Mary Immaculate College, Coláiste Mhuire gan Smál, for 2024-25 received a clear audit opinion.

Sixth, the financial statements of the National Council for Special Education for 2025 received a clear audit opinion.

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

On the benefit-in-kind liability for the president of the National University of Ireland, Maynooth, I would like to clarify something. I think Mr. McCarthy said the president has undertaken to make good.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

That is correct. That is the information we received after the audit had been completed.

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

A note we have received on this said the university had paid the additional liability to the Revenue Commissioners and did not intend to recoup this amount from the president.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

That was the situation on the date I signed but, subsequently, there were discussions in the college and the president undertook, as I understand it, to pay the liability.

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

What are the figures? If there is an underpayment of €47,000 on a tax liability for four years, I imagine there is a significant total tax liability, if the €47,000 were to be added on. That seems like a huge tax liability and I am curious as to what the total accommodation cost was. If it was just for a four-year period, I imagine it was a huge amount. Do we have that information? Is that normal practice? I imagine it would be in the hundreds of thousands of euro to have a tax liability of €47,000 plus whatever the additional money was.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Over the four years, I think it would be a substantial figure. I do not recall whether it was disclosed in the financial statements. Perhaps the committee could make an inquiry to the college about what the expense was.

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

Can we do that, Chair?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

It relates to a rented property.

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

Yes. If it is in the several hundreds of thousands of euro, which we presume it to be with a tax liability like that - I understand that has to be clarified - that is a significant amount on an annual basis.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

A number of the traditional universities have a president's house on the campus but that was not the situation in Maynooth.

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

It is quite concerning, first, that the university said it would pick up the tab for the €47,000, that was signed off by the Comptroller and Auditor General and then retrospectively, probably on reflection, it decided she would have to pay it.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

My understanding is that it was her decision to pay it. The errors were made by the university and I think the initial thinking was that because it had made the error, the university should pick up the cost, but a different view was taken later.

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

Yes, but the employee is ultimately liable for benefit in kind.

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

We might have a look at it.

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

Yes, we can absolutely write to get further information and clarification on that. Do members agree to note the listing of accounts and financial statements? Agreed.

I will move on to correspondence. There are a number of B items of correspondence to consider today, which have been received by Departments and public bodies. We will start with one item that was deferred from last week’s meeting. No. R2026/0317 is correspondence received 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, dated 15 June 2026. I flagged this item for discussion. It is an issue of much concern and frustration in Wicklow and I have been trying to get information about it in recent months. I tabled a number of parliamentary questions to the Minister for Transport, which were all referred to the NTA, which subsequently came back to me with these figures and relevant information. It is deeply concerning that €11 million has been spent on this badly needed park and ride facility in Wicklow, at Fassaroe just outside Bray. It provides 388 car parking spaces and a considerable number of electric vehicle charging points and associated services. Despite it being substantially complete since before Christmas, it has remained locked and the NTA, in its correspondence, states it has no money through the public service obligation, PSO, to provide buses to serve this park and ride facility. It will not be opened to the public or made available for use. It goes one step further saying it will spend up to €50,000 to secure the site to ensure it is maintained and kept out of public use.

This is another story relating to the NTA and, ultimately, it is a real failure to plan ahead. Who on God's earth spends €11 million putting in place a facility like this without having the line of sight to ensure buses are in place to make it operational? It is concerning. It follows a pattern we see with the NTA across the board whether it is Irish Rail or the 98 electric buses still in storage because of a failure to plan and make sure electric chargers were in plan. In this instance in Wicklow, the NTA has the brass neck to say it came in under budget. The budget was €12 million and it came in at €11 million. However, what it did not say was that it is not complete. An electricity substation still has to go in on the site. While the ducting is in place for the electric vehicle charging, there is no cabling or anything like that, so I think it will exceed the €12 million.

My understanding was that, in the initial contract, the ESB substation was to go in alongside all this work to ensure when it was open and operational and the whole site would be open and accessible, not just to motorists in normal vehicles, but also those looking to use the charging points. We need more information about this. It is totally unacceptable. Key infrastructure has been delivered, yet members of the public are being denied access because of the failure to have a coherent plan in place. The NTA will be before the committee in a few weeks and I intend to follow this up with it. However, in the intervening time, we need to correspond and get more information about the cost of the electricity substation. The NTA also said it is going through procurement to get someone to operate the facility. I am not sure for what at this time, as no one can use it. We need more information about that as well. However, it is deeply concerning and frustrating.

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

I share the Cathaoirleach's concerns. There has been a litany of issues with the NTA where we are calling into question the management of key projects and resources. Officials are coming before the committee in two weeks. That meeting will be largely focused on the Irish Rail IT system, but it is important we make clear to the NTA that other matters will be raised at the meeting as well, including the park and ride facility the Cathaoirleach mentioned. I also want to raise issues about the expenditure in Cork on the BusConnects project, for example, and the temporary bus depot in Tivoli, which has gone significantly over budget.

The wider issue is that the authority is now saying it has no money for new services. That was announced this week at the Joint Committee on Transport. It has spent significant money on new infrastructure relating to new services, but there is no money to provide those services, so a large debate needs to be had about how that whole process was managed. The Cathaoirleach referred to it in relation there not being any buses to serve the park and ride facility. There are similar issues across the country, so the issue of management, sequencing and planning has to be discussed with the NTA in detail. It needs to be an open forum on issues relating to the NTA when it comes before us.

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

We will include it. All issues relating to the 2024 financial statements are on the agenda. There needs to be a broader conversation about the issues around the PSO, new routes and increased services. In Wicklow, another badly needed route between Roundwood and Bray went out for tender. A contractor was appointed who employed staff and put additional buses in place to provide it - this was last year - and is now being told there is no funding to roll it out. There are systemic failures at every level so we need a line of sight.

Many other routes like that have been publicly announced or promised and have gone through procurement but were not delivered. It is not just the case that this entire process involves a cost. Ultimately, members of the public down who badly need these services are being let down. There needs to be a full explanation regarding this matter. Is it agreed to note and publish this item of correspondence? Agreed.

No. R2026/0322 is correspondence, dated 19 June 2026, received from the head of public affairs at RTÉ in response to the committee's request for further information regarding RTÉ's expenditure on Ireland's World Cup qualifier against Czechia. Deputy Bennett has flagged this item for discussion.

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

Again, it is all about ensuring that taxpayers' get the very best value for their money. The correspondence provides an explanation regarding who attended the match, but I do not think we have a baseline. Given that representatives of RTÉ will be before the committee next week, I ask that we write to the organisation to request a similar breakdown in respect of other World Cup qualifiers RTÉ has covered in order that we might compare the various amounts spent.

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

I am uncomfortable with the wording used on the second page of the correspondence in question. The correspondence states that given that this was the first time Ireland had sought to qualify for the FIFA World Cup since 2002, there was a strong public interest in the match. This does a disservice to Irish football teams, current and past. I am sure every one of the players in those teams would probably attest to the fact they sought to qualify for every World Cup, not just this one

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

This is concerning on a number of levels. While RTÉ has tried to justify the expenditure of €57,000, in my view, the inevitable interest on the part of the public in this match was always going to be there. However, that does not justify the number of people RTÉ sent. Regardless of whatever commercial benefit RTÉ obtained from that, it was always going to be the case. RTÉ did not need to send out so many presenters and staff. To my mind, this was overkill in respect of something that was always going to be there, namely the interest and commercial benefit to RTÉ. It is not justifiable. RTÉ needs to provide answers needed to an awful lot of question. This just adds to the perception - right or wrong - that nothing has changed within RTÉ from the days of barter accounts, attending all sorts of matches using funds from such accounts, etc. This is wrong in so many respects. At the end of the day, €57,000 is €57,000. It is an awful lot of taxpayers' money and TV licence money, and RTÉ asks why so many people are not renewing their TV licences. Again and again, issues like this undermine whatever confidence there is in the State broadcaster. It also does RTÉ no service. Unless anyone else wishes to comment, is it agreed to note and publish that item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0323 is correspondence, dated 18 June 2026, from Mr. William Priestley, principal officer in the maritime transport division at the Department of Transport, regarding a formal notification of a delay in laying the 2025 accounts of the commercial State port companies before the Houses of the Oireachtas. If no member wishes to comment, is it agreed to note and publish this correspondence? Agreed.

No. R2026/0325 is correspondence, dated 19 June 2026, from the Secretary General from the Department of justice in response to the committee's request for further information or detail on litigation cases relating to international protection accommodation. Deputy Bennett has flagged this item.

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

Was it not No. R2026/0326 I flagged?

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

It was No. R2026/0325.

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

I thought I flagged No. R2026/0326. My apologies. It is okay, the Cathaoirleach can move on.

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

I will make a brief comment on this correspondence, which relates to cases taken against the Department by accommodation providers who had entered pre-contractual arrangements. It states that five cases have been taken. When the representatives from the Department were before us, they said that two of the cases had been settled. In the interim, one more case has been settled. In total, three cases have been settled. The Department states that it will not give us any details on financial impacts or whatever, but my concern is that these are test cases. We know that many contracts or pre-contractual arrangements that have either been breached or allegedly breached. My concern is that a Pandora's box has been opened and that we do not have line of sight of the potential liability involved. While the Department refers to sensitivity, etc., around the cases involved, we should be given a bit more information with regard to the potential liability for the taxpayer. Ultimately, there was a failure to put in place proper processes and plans around the provision of accommodation. There are many concerns there. We are going to publish our report on IPAS accommodation and expenditure around that over the next couple of weeks. There is a lot more to come from this.

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

This is a sensitive issue, and the Department does not want to disclose details of settlements. However, I ask that it keeps us apprised of all future cases that are finalised and closed in order that we will know exactly what is going on.

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

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

No. R2026/0326 is correspondence, dated 19 June 2026, from the chief executive officer of the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission in response to the committee's request for further information following our meeting on 28 May 2026. Is it agreed to note and publish this correspondence? Agreed.

No. R2026/0332 is correspondence, dated 19 June 2026, from the Minister for Culture, Communications and Sport in response to the committee's request for an update on the progress of the Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill 2026. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0333 is correspondence, dated 19 June 2026, from the Clerk of the Dáil in response to the committee's request for an update on the Oireachtas broadcasting contract. Is it agreed to note and publish this item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0335 is correspondence, dated 19 June 2026, from the Chairman of the Office of the Revenue Commissioners in response to the committee's request for further information in relation to the Karshan disclosure opportunity. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0336 is correspondence, dated 23 June 2026, from the Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation in response to the committee's request for further information regarding the National Children's Science Centre. Do members wish to discuss this item of correspondence?

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

The Department states that the OPW continues to engage with the promoter of this proposal. We seem to be going around in circles in relation to this issue. The OPW or the Department of public service reform and digitalisation have not addressed it. Somebody needs to step up and get this issue sorted out. It has been going on a long time and is costing the State a lot of money.

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

Does Deputy McGrath wish to comment?

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

The letter makes it clear that the Department is not taking ownership of this issue.

It is stated that the Department understands that the OPW continues to engage with the promoter. It cannot even confirm that. The word used is "understands". Ownership of the matter is not being taken by the Department of public expenditure. That is very obvious. We should engage further with the Department because unless it steps up to the plate, I cannot see anything further happening.

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

In the correspondence and testimony provided by the Secretary General of the Department of Further and Higher Education Research Innovation and Science, the Secretary General of the Department of public expenditure and reform and the chairman of the OPW, there is a lot of messing going on. Let us be frank; it is all jiggery-pokery and letters. It is a load of rubbish. Ultimately, the OPW has this ticking time bomb on its hands and nobody is telling it what to do. It has no direction and nobody is assisting it. There is smoke and mirrors in terms of what the ultimate approach will be. We seem to be the only entity of the State that is actually trying to get a resolution, ask questions and progress the matter. Everyone else is kicking this can as far as they can down the road. This has been going for several years. We are in a different phase now because there has been an arbitration agreement. There is a resolution and direction of travel. There has been a dereliction of duty on the part of a lot of people in getting to the decision-making phase. The committee is going to compile an interim report on the national children's science centre. It is not going to let this lie; it is going to keep going in respect of it.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

On the basis of previous discussions on correspondence, I know that the committee was going to follow up with the OPW about the determination, which is part of the arbitration process. I do not know if that has been received yet.

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

We have not received the determination yet, which is quite frustrating as well.

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

It is deeply frustrating.

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

We have been asking for it for months.

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

We have referenced it now. Perhaps it sums up the entire approach to this white elephant that the Committee of Public Accounts cannot get an important document it has requested time and again. That speaks volumes as to the failures in this case. We need to follow up again in relation to that. We have agreed that we will publish an interim report in light of both the serious concerns we have and the ongoing waste of taxpayers' money. We know the OPW has engaged a firm, at a cost of over €20,000, to proceed with plans and a tendering process to move forward with something that ultimately will not proceed. The OPW has staff working on this who should be working on flood protection scheme designs, etc. The Department of public expenditure is now kicking it back to the OPW and saying it is up to the OPW to tell us what flood protection schemes will not be going ahead. It is the one liable to carry the cost. This is totally unsustainable and unrealistic. We will publish our interim report in the next couple of weeks, prior to the summer recess. There is real political failure in the context of bringing this matter to a conclusion. People sticking their heads in the sand with regard to this issue just puts the taxpayer on the hook for further costs. It is deeply frustrating, but we will follow up with the OPW.

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

Meanwhile, there is a landmark building in a prime location in our city centre that is sitting idle. That is a consistent and persistent disgrace.

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

Absolutely. All members of the committee feel the same frustration and concern regarding this issue. We have invested a great deal of time in it over the course of the past year or so in light of people's level of concern and the failures that have occurred.

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

The national children's science centre board has free space in the building. Rooms could have been used by particular Departments. It has been sitting idle for years. This needs to be addressed as soon as possible. The Government should have acted before now. The Departments need to come together in order to get this sorted out.

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

We will publish our interim report in the next couple of weeks. I am sure we will have an opportunity to touch on all of those points and others at that time. Is it agreed to note and publish this item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0337 is correspondence, dated 23 June 202, from the Secretary General of the Department of Culture, Communications and Sport in relation to the committee’s request for further information in relation to the proposed national flood forecasting and warning service. No action is required on this item. The secretariat has followed up with the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment.

No. R2026/0338 is correspondence, dated 23 June 2026, from the chief executive officer of the National Transport Authority in response to the committee’s request for information regarding bus stop infrastructure in County Leitrim. Is it agreed to note and publish this item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0339 is correspondence, dated 22 June 2026, from the Minister for Health in response to the committee’s request for information regarding hospital car parking charges. Deputy Bennet has flagged this item for discussion.

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

This is an ongoing issue in all hospitals. It relates to the overcharging of people who are in bad health and who need access to hospital car parks. Point No. 1 in the correspondence states that the Minister commits to explore further ways to reduce hospital car parking fees. Point No. 2 goes indicates that the implementation of this has been ongoing since 2018. There is no reference to any new initiative or plan or implementation from the Minister. Point No. 4 indicates that the HSE will keep these matters under review. I would like the committee to write to the Minister to ask her for clarity on whether the HSE is keeping the matter under review, to ask about her commitment and to inquire as to what other initiatives are planned in order to ensure that people do not have to pay extortionate rates in car parks.

Point No. 4 also indicates that parking revenue has increased by 0.3% since 2009. However, correspondence received from the HSE in May shows that revenue increased from €8.1 million in 2020 to €18 million in 2025. That is nearly a doubling of parking fees. Would it be possible to write to the HSE and the Minister seeking clarity? It is additional income for hospitals, but it is not fair that people who are sick have to pay these extortionate rates.

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

Do any other members wish to comment? No. I agree with tall of that. We need to follow it up with the Department and the Minister. It is concerning. Over 2020 to 2025, €17 million was taken in car park charges in hospitals across the State. Despite what the Minister said about a memo being issued in 2018, we know there has been no attempt to curtail or cap car parking changes. Indeed, last year, one hospital increased car parking charges. This is an issue of concern. Hospitals are under pressure financially, but putting their hands in the pockets of patients who need medical services or in those of their loved ones in order to fill a vacuum that should be funded by means of direct funding does not justify car parking charges. There is a commitment in the programme for Government to review car parking charges. We need to be kept abreast of when that review will take place. What is happening is totally unjustifiable. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed. That concludes B items of correspondence due for consideration today.

Moving on to the work programme, the following meetings have been agreed. On 2 July, representatives from the National Asset Management Agency will be with us. On 9 July, representatives from RTÉ will be before us. On 16 July, we will be joined by representatives from the National Transport Authority and Irish Rail. Are there any other matters which members wish to raise?

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

I would like to raise an issue about underspending in Departments. It is not too often that I do so. The Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht is not spending enough on the Irish language. Yesterday it presented to Members in Buswells Hotel on the underspend. I could not believe what I was hearing. In 20 years there has been no increased funding for the Irish language at a time when the Irish language is growing in schools and across the board. There is funding of €100 million a year in places like Wales. We need to do more for the Irish language. I ask that the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht be brought before us as part of our work programme to question the money that is being spent on the Irish language and if more could be spent. It would be very well spent. So many children are going through Gaelscoileanna now and more should be done to increase the spend on the Irish language. I would be interested to hear from the Department how much it is spending on the Irish language. We need to promote our Irish language and encourage the Government to do so as well. It would be good to bring the Department before the Committee of Public Accounts to make sure that does happen.

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

Does anyone else wish to raise anything?

Members may have seen coverage in the news yesterday of an issue relating to 27 vehicles purchased by the Defence Forces back in 2009. These were 27 light tactical armoured vehicles which cost in the region of €20 million at the time. There had been a lot of issues with those vehicles over the time they were in service, including vehicles breaking down, etc., which resulted in many of them not being used to their full potential. I think some vehicles had mileage of only 500 miles per annum. There was reference to these vehicles having been offered to the Ukrainian military for use. Ultimately the message was, “We don’t want your scrap,” and that offer was refused by Ukraine. I want to try to get further information from the Department of Defence on these vehicles – what was the cost; the mileage on each of those vehicles over the course of their years; and what works, if any, had been done. I think these had been in storage since 2024. I would be interested to know what additional work, if any, had carried out on the vehicles before they were offered to Ukraine for use, and what was the cost of that work. The question is what will happen to the vehicles now that they have been deemed not fit for purpose by the Ukrainian military. Will they go to Hammond Lane or where will they ultimately go?

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

There was an issue I heard about yesterday that I would like to raise in relation to pilots for the EV grant scheme. It was announced about a month ago and yesterday morning it opened up. It was limited to 2,000 vehicles – that was all. In the context of taxpayers' money and trying to become more environmentally friendly, 2,000 vehicles was not enough for that pilot scheme. I would ask what the Minister for Transport was thinking when the scheme was limited to 2,000 vehicles when we are trying to ensure that people become more environmentally friendly. The initiative was backed by €10 million, which was not nearly enough to ensure that people become more green and more environmentally friendly. It was a cop-out. More should have been done.

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

With the agreement of members, we might follow up with the Department and get a note on that scheme as to whether it was a pilot or what exactly the intention was there.

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

I have no difficulty following up but, to be fair to the Minister, he did flag that it was a pilot and that he was going to gauge its success with the intention of potentially rolling out further incentives . It was stated that it was a pilot. I am happy to follow up, however.

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

A follow-up letter to the Department.

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

We will look for further information on that.

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

Thank you.

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

Is it agreed we will follow up on the other issues and try to get further information on those? Agreed. That concludes the second part of the meeting. We will suspend for five minutes.