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

No apologies have been received. I welcome Deputy Martin Daly, who has been appointed to fill the vacancy left by appointment of Deputy Catherine Ardagh as a Minister of State. I can tell Deputy Daly that we work well together as a committee. We have a lot to cover, such is the extent of our remit. We have covered many serious issues in light of concerns relating to value for money and waste. If I, as Cathaoirleach, can be of any assistance to Deputy Daly, he should know that my door is always open. I do not know whether anyone else wants to welcome the Deputy.

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

I also welcome my colleague. The Deputy's role as health spokesperson brings a particular level of expertise to the committee. Many of our discussions relate to health matters, whether it is hospitals, the HSE or whatever. The Deputy's expertise in that area will certainly be beneficial to the committee. I very much welcome him on board.

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

I thank Deputy McGrath. Before we proceed, I have a few housekeeping matters to go through. Members are reminded of the provisions in Standing Order 226 to the effect 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 to the effect 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 would also like to remind members 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 for the first part of the meeting is as follows: the minutes, accounts and statements; correspondence; upcoming meetings; and the committee's report. The committee will then suspend before engaging with officials from the National Transport Authority and Iarnród Éireann at approximately 10.30 a.m.

The minutes of the meetings of the 9 July and 13 July were agreed by the committee.

These will be published on the committee's webpage.

Twelves sets of accounts and financial statements were laid between 6 and 10 July 2026, which are due to be considered today. We are joined by Ms Colette Drinan, secretary and director of audit, who is attending on behalf of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is a permanent witness to the committee. I ask Ms Drinan to address these before opening the floor to members.

Ms Colette Drinan:

The first set of accounts we are noting are: the Personal Injuries Resolution Board for the year 2025, which were certified on 2 June and received a clear audit opinion; the Industrial Development Agency Ireland for the year 2025, which was certified on 17 June and received a clear audit opinion; and Enterprise Ireland for the year 2025, which was certified on 17 June and received a clear audit opinion.

Next we have eight sets of accounts the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, prepared, of all which were certified on 29 April. These are: the National Treasury Management Agency's administration account, which received a clear audit opinion; the national debt of Ireland accounts, which received a clear audit opinion; the Post Office Savings Bank Fund, which received a clear audit opinion; the State Claims Agency, which received a clear audit opinion; the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, ISIF, received a clear audit opinion. However, attention was drawn to a loss arising from a fraudulent request from a third party for payment of €5 million under a legitimate investment agreement. A net loss of €2.5 million was recognised in 2025 after accounting for what the agency could recover and the investigation costs that had been incurred. The committee discussed that with the NTMA on 14 May when it appeared before it; the Infrastructure, Climate and Nature Fund, which received a clear audit opinion; the Future Ireland Fund, which received a clear audit opinion; and the Dormant Accounts Fund, which received a clear audit opinion.

The final set out of accounts we are noting are the Child and Family Agency, Tusla, which received a clear audit opinion. They were certified on 15 June. However, attention is drawn to a material level of non-compliant procurement.

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

Do any members wish to comment?

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

Regarding the Child and Family Agency, I ask Ms Drinan to tell us the nature of the non-compliant procurement or what element of the operation it refers to.

Ms Colette Drinan:

It was €3.8 million. It related to a large number of contracts. It was about 50 contracts. The largest items were in relation to services in respect of security and transport.

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

In the context of the ISIF accounts that were noted and come under the NTMA, which we had before this committee. At last week's hearing, when RTÉ was present, it made clear that the only body that is holding it to account in respect of the delivery of its strategy of having up to 400 people, reduction of headcount and meeting a ratio of operating costs versus staff is the New Economy and Recovery Authority, NewERA.

Similarly, we are going to hear from the NTA and Irish Rail today. The Department of Transport is carrying out a third process in respect of the IT project within Irish Rail. It is also consulting with NewERA. We should write to NewERA to see what it can provide to us in relation to how well RTÉ is fulfilling its strategy and meeting its goals because we did not get a straight answer in respect of either of those things. Pending the outcome of this hearing, we might consider bringing in NewERA at the appropriate juncture to hear from it regarding some of these issues that have emerged.

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

I wish to build on the piece regarding the Child and Family Agency. I propose that we write to it to ask for a detailed note on all that non-compliant procurement. What we know when it comes to Tusla is that, in some cases, security means staff. If there are staffing arrangements in place that are non-compliant, that is something we need to have information on. I ask for an explanatory note from Tusla over the recess as to the nature of that and to show that the practice has come to an end.

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

Do any other members wish to comment? No.

Regarding to ISIF and the net loss of €2.5 million, this was an issue we discussed extensively with the NTMA when it was in. It was limited as to what information it could give in relation to that fraud of €5 million. It said it was precluded because it was an ongoing process. There were specific questions asked as to whether there was potentially a State player involved, where it originated from, etc. It could not give any information. What we see now in the accounts is that a decision has been taken now that the €2.5 million is not going to be collected. That would lead me to believe the investigation has concluded. It is extremely disappointing to see a fraud of that level costing €2.5 million. It is welcome that €2.5 million was recovered but it is a considerable amount. I propose that we write to ISIF and find out exactly what the status of the investigation is and whether there is an ongoing Garda investigation and to see if more details in relation to that can be furnished and what lessons have been learned. It said it had learned a lot of lessons but we certainly need a lot more information regarding that.

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

I fully support the Cathaoirleach on that. A total of €2.5 million as a net loss is a sizeable amount of money. If things have progressed from when had that discussion on the matter previously, we should probe it further and try to get as much information as possible. I fully support the Cathaoirleach's proposal that we would write to it in the first instance.

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

Do any other members wish to comment? No.

Do members agree to note the listing of accounts and financial statements and follow up on those proposed course of actions? Agreed.

Moving on 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 one item that was deferred from last week's meeting. No. R2026/0350, dated 30 June 2026, is correspondence received from the Office of the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána in response to the committee's request for further information regarding procurement of cell windows in Garda stations. Do members wish to comment on that? No. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

The next is No. R2026/0353, dated 2 July 2026, is correspondence received from the chief executive officer of Inland Fisheries Ireland, IFI, in response to the committee's request for further information in relation to external media communications training. Do members wish to comment on that? No. I have a brief comment to make. There was a lot of concern when got the breakdown of the figures for media training by IFI before it attended the committee. It was €53,933, which was excessive and extensive. It gave a breakdown and had provided a breakdown in relation to that previously. In this new correspondence, it gives additional costs. The additional legal costs in preparation for that meeting with us were €16,768, excluding VAT. For one appearance before the public accounts committee, it cost over €70,000. That is not including the VAT for the legal costs. It is extraordinary. Given some of the difficulties stemming from our engagements with IFI, it is excessive. There needs to be lessons learned from that. No one is saying that legal advice cannot be taken but when we take it as a whole, over €70,000 for media training and all associated costs is excessive.

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

I do not know why it is giving us the figure, excluding VAT. We are not its accountants. At the end of the day, this was 23%. It was €85,000 or close to €90,000 to attend the public accounts committee. Can we imagine if every single witness that came before the committee spent €90,000 to prepare to come before us? This committee would be a laughing stock in the sense that we would be increasing taxpayer spend just by scrutinising the taxpayer spend.

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

It is extraordinary.

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

It is farcical and frustrating. I do not know what else we can say in relation to this but it is just absolutely appalling.

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

If you calculate the hours spent in preparation for a two- to three-hour meeting, it was probably ten times that in preparing for that, which, in and of itself, as a second meeting, really raises questions as to the sincerity in which IFI came before us the second time. How far are we willing to push this, though, in terms of a recommendation? Should we ask the Department of public expenditure to issue a circular to all bodies saying, "You are not permitted to spend money on training or preparing for Oireachtas committee meetings"? It is not an appropriate use of taxpayer money. It is as simple as that. When you appear before any Oireachtas committee, I am of the opinion that we could ask at least for the Department of public expenditure's opinion on this as a starting point to see if that is what we should do.

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

Yes, absolutely.

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

I refer the committee back to the correspondence we had from the Department of public expenditure - I think it was two weeks ago - in which it said training is provided for members of the public service or the Civil Service appearing before Oireachtas committees. I do not think any of us take for granted that coming before an Oireachtas committee and appearing on live TV is an onerous task that is not part of people's everyday tasks. I therefore have absolutely no problem with people preparing maybe their own training, but what is here is anything but training. What is here is an organisation trying to get its story straight before it comes before this committee, and the same systemic problems it has displayed in so many other areas appear to have been displayed in this correspondence. I just want to separate it out. This is unusual. I do not think this is something that happens for all witnesses who come before us. It is an example of the significant issues that arise in this organisation and why this committee needs to continue to examine them.

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

It is an incredible waste of taxpayers' money that up to €90,000 was spent on social media or for IFI to come in here and appear before us and for everything that happened in advance of that. I want a question to go back: was there procurement? At over €25,000, there should be procurement. I want to see whether other contractors were sought in relation to this because I do not believe there could have been in haste. We want people to come in here and to give us genuine delivery when we interview them, without haste.

I also want to ask what the Government is doing about this. Has a Government circular been sent to every organisation that has government funding? Is there a policy in place for media training? I want to know whether the Government has a circular in relation to all Departments. We have seen this right across the board. I refer to the number of people who have come in here and have had media training. I want to know whether the Government has released a circular in relation to that. Maybe it could be a question that would go out to every Department from this committee asking if the Government has released a circular on media training. If we were to add it up right across every organisation that receives government funding, as to whether they have had media training, the majority have said yes. I want to see if the Government is acting on this, what action has been put in place and what is going to happen going into the future.

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

A lot has been said and I just want to add my voice. It is a disturbing waste of public money, to be perfectly frank, and it brings to the fore a culture of total disregard for the appropriate use of public money, effectively. We need to condemn it in the strongest possible terms as a committee. We also need to send a message that this is going to be a question we will be asking State agencies in future when they come before us, that we will be putting a spotlight on this in terms of the use of public money for communications or other training in advance of appearances here, because we simply cannot tolerate this.

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

I agree with all those comments. It is an insult to the integrity of this committee. Previous correspondents have actually said they got media training because there was nearly an ask from this committee that they review their communications strategy following their first appearance. It was a criticism of their failure to engage the first time they were here. The question was asked, "What media training did you get? Maybe you need to question how effective that was." That was not a blank cheque for them to go out and spend this amount of money on training. It speaks of systemic issues within the organisation and is completely unacceptable. As a committee, we need to look at this issue in the whole because I do not think it is just an issue particular to IFI. I propose that we write to each Department and agencies under their bodies because, yes, we have these bodies coming before us but they also appear before other Oireachtas committees. Is there outsourcing? Is additional media training given before they appear before all those committees? We need to see the total cost to the State for appearing not just before the public accounts committee but before all the Oireachtas joint committees. I propose that we write to each Department asking for details as to what external media training they and the agencies under their remit have received before appearing before any Oireachtas committee. We should look at it. Someone mentioned recommendations. It is an issue of grave concern, and that is not criticising some organisations that do need assistance, but there is assistance given. We have written to the Department of public expenditure in the past and it has come back and provided us information on existing training and assistance that can be provided. As to why that is not being availed of, we need to ask that question.

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

People are looking for accountability on this issue. It is important to remember that IFI has a board, and the members of that board should really be looking at themselves if this issue did not come to the attention of the board as to the appropriateness of that spend. It is supposed to hold to account the executive of that organisation as to how it spends its money. As to how any board member sitting on a State board could think it appropriate to spend up to €90,000 to appear before a public accounts committee, they really have to look themselves in the mirror. This is a new CEO. We should write to the new CEO and ask, "Do you think this was an appropriate level of spend to appear before a public accounts committee?" We should hear from the new CEO. Let us hope that cultural change is taking place, that board members take note of this and that change is happening in IFI, because this just beggars belief.

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

This correspondence is from Dr. Eamonn Kelly.

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

That is right.

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

To conclude-----

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

Just briefly, Deputy Bennett.

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

Can we just ensure that we seek clarity on procurement and on whether circulars have gone from the Government to boards to ensure that they are not spending this amount of money on media training?

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

Okay. I think the question about procurement was answered in IFI's initial correspondence.

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

So did IFI get procurement for this?

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

IFI said it was an existing framework, but we can get clarity on that point.

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

I have a suggestion. No doubt other entities coming before us spend money on pre-session training, and we do not always ask that question because we are often discussing a lot of issues when they come before us. Would it be an idea that, as a matter of course, we ask that question in our pre-session correspondence, "Please provide information on any pre-session training, communications, legal, etc.", to everyone who comes before us prior to their coming before us to provide clarification on that issue? It is something we should consider.

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

That may be an issue when we issue the invite, that we can ask for in communication, whether it is a briefing note or whatever, which all bodies send in advance, and that they can touch on that and the cost. Is that agreed? Okay.

Is it agreed to note and publish the item along with the proposed actions? Agreed.

No. R-2026-0355 is correspondence received 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 following the meeting on 11 June 2026, dated 3 July 2026. Do members wish to comment? No. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R-2026-0356 is correspondence received from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine providing a note of delay of the C and AG's audit of the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board's 2025 financial statements, dated 3 July 2026.

Do members wish to comment? Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0361 is correspondence received 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 capital projects, dated 8 July 2026. Do members wish to comment? Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0362 is correspondence received from the chairperson of the Office of Public Works in response to the committee's request for further information regarding the arbitration determination in respect of the proposed national children's science centre, dated 10 July 2026. The committee discussed this item at a private meeting on Monday, 13 July 2026, and it was agreed to note and publish it. Do members wish to make any further comments on this item? We will discussing our report later on. It was previously agreed to publish that.

No. R2026/0365 is correspondence received from the chief executive of Irish Rail providing a response to information requested regarding the train management system, including the reported scale of expenditure on writedowns and the issues raised in respect of governance, oversight and delivery of the project, dated 10 July 2026. The CEO of Irish Rail will be in attendance shortly to discuss the matter further. Is it agreed to note and publish that item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0367 is correspondence received from the chief executive officer of the National Transport Authority in response to additional information requested by the committee, including a full breakdown of the reported €50 million writedown associated with the train management system, dated 10 July 2026. Again, the CEO of the NTA will join us shortly to discuss this item. Do members wish to comment on that? The NTA gives additional information regarding the electric buses that are in storage. We will have an opportunity to discuss it with the NTA but it is quite concerning that the new information gives a total value of the 98 buses that are still in storage. This is an €58.3 million investment in essential buses for our fleet that are in storage. The NTA also gives additional costs. It says it is expected that it will not cost an additional €1.5 million to store those buses until they become operational. We will be discussing many of the systemic failures within the organisation shortly. It is extraordinary. The NTA has such a valuable asset - not just these 98 buses but the other ones that were in storage as well. It is expected to cost over €8 million over a number of years to store those buses because of a failure to forward plan. It speaks volumes about why the NTA is ending up before us again because of all of those failures.

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

The NTA's witness statement for today states that it is the approving authority while Irish Rail is the sponsoring authority, but I am totally confused when it comes to the buses because the NTA is acquiring the buses. Is the NTA is the approving authority or the sponsoring authority or is it both? The lines are so blurred when it comes to the many hats the NTA wears that it does give us cause for concern regarding governance. Does the NTA have the capacity and expertise required? Does it have a clear understanding of whether it is the approving authority or the sponsoring authority in every different segment of the many hats it wears?

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

This will be an opportunity because the lines are being blurred. It is a key question. Ultimately, it appears that when something does go wrong, the NTA is very quick to throw someone else under the bus, to use that expression. Is it agreed to note and publish that item? Agreed.

R2026/0370 is correspondence received from the Secretary General of the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment in response to the committee’s request for further information following the meeting on 21 May 2026, dated 10 July 2026. Do members wish to comment? Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

R2026/0371 is correspondence received from the Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation in response to the committee’s request for the attendance of a representative from the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer, OGCIO, on 16 July 2026, dated 8 July 2026. Do members wish to comment? I will make a brief comment on this because there was a request from us for a representative from the OGCIO to attend this meeting. We know the role it is supposed to play in terms of oversight of IT expenditure and programmes. It speaks volumes that it has essentially said that it does not see a role for itself in attending this critically important meeting, which will discuss a massive failure of an IT project that has led to a write down of €50 million. For the Department to come back and essentially say that it does not see a role for anyone from the OGCIO to attend here today to answer questions speaks volumes about why we are in the mess we are in.

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

This goes back to a point I raised at our meeting in January with the NTA. This project was not classed as an IT project. It was classed as a building project notwithstanding the fact that the purpose of the building was train control. The software was actually the key part of delivering this project but, for some reason, under the various circulars, it was classed as a building project rather than an IT project. That is a point we raised with the NTA in January along with the Department. Something is seriously wrong with that. It leads us to wonder whether there are any other IT projects that are classed as something else when, in essence, the purpose of them is an IT deployment.

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

Deputy Boland raised a very important point. If we contrast the ICT project in the Arts Council with the ICT project in Irish Rail, as I recall, there was engagement between the OGCIO and the Arts Council as problems emerged. Admittedly, the Department and the OGCIO were very quick to make it clear that, ultimately, the responsibility lay with the Arts Council in respect of that project but there was engagement and there was some kind of formal role. As Deputy Boland said, it is that lack of clarity when it comes to State bodies as to what role, if any, is played by the OGCIO and at what the stage it has any function whatsoever. As Deputy Boland said, it appears with this project, it did not have any role or function and it is not clear why that is the case.

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

I can understand why the OGCIO is looking at the way we are examining these projects and is thinking, "We don't want to be before the public accounts committee every week," but what is clear is that we were inviting it as a representative body. The fact that it would be here and give evidence that there was no engagement or that it had not been consulted is important because many of the issues regarding these schemes result from very poor planning at the outset. I can understand the case the OGCIO is making regarding each body having its own fiduciary responsibility and so on. That was not the remit under which we sought to bring it before the Committee of Public Accounts. We sought to bring it here to provide assistance to the committee. We need to clarify the OGCIO's remit and role with it and make clear why we are inviting it here. It is disappointing that it does not have somebody present.

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

This relates to our work as a committee regarding analysis of ICT projects overall.

We need to include quite a specific piece of work from the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer, OGCIO. It is a common thread in many of the cases, be those ones where, as Deputy Geoghegan said, support was sought but was not forthcoming or where, by way of miscategorisation, it was not involved in the project. We are not learning the lessons if we do not stop and look. Our work examining ICT infrastructure overall is a real opportunity to highlight that. State bodies, including Departments, do not have the intrinsic competency to get briefs right when it comes to ICT projects. That is proven across the board now. My understanding is that is where the OGCIO should step in an provide competency. If is not being utilised or offered, we have big problems here. I ask that we consider that as part of our ongoing work with ICT infrastructure.

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

There is the underlying issue that no one is taking responsibility. The Department of public expenditure and the OGCIO are doing nothing to alleviate this. No action is being taken. As far as I remember, the Arts Council sought support at the time – they did not get that help. It is an underlying issue running across all Departments. The Government has to take responsibility here. This is money that taxpayers have paid into the system that Departments are giving out and for which there is no accountability. Every day we come into this committee, we see it. Ministers need to take responsibility for the Departments they are over. We cannot go around blaming the OCGIO, the Arts Council or any other entity. The Government and Departments need to take responsibility for where Government funding is going.

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

It also says in the correspondence that because Irish Rail is a commercial semi-State body, it does not see a role for itself. That adds another concern. It is an issue we will return to. I will let the Comptroller and Auditor General’s office come in.

Ms Colette Drinan:

It is just to draw attention to the circular that governs the arrangements for oversight of digital and ICT-related initiatives that was issued in 2021. It sets out whom it applies to. It applies to all Votes and centrally funded public services bodies, and then to non-commercial State bodies with a turnover of more than €5 million. Maybe there is a piece there around the applicability of that.

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

What is that?

Ms Colette Drinan:

It is Circular 14/2021.

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

I asked the NTA about that circular in January and was told it did not apply because the project was a €150 million project and it was a building, notwithstanding the fact that the ultimate aim of the project was to deliver the software for the traffic management system. The NTA said it did not fall under that because it was classifying it as a capital build.

Ms Colette Drinan:

If it was classified as ICT, the fact that it is a commercial State body could create a difficulty as well. I take the point.

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

Is it agreed to note the item and follow up on the issues identified? Agreed.

Next is No. R2026/0373, correspondence received from the chief executive officer of Bus Éireann, in response to the committee’s request for information relating to correspondence received from the National Transport Authority regarding Bus Éireann capital projects, dated 15 July 2026. Do members wish to comment?

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

First, I thank Bus Éireann for the reply. It is quite detailed. I raised some issues around the bus depot. Initially in 2023, it was estimated to cost €10.7 million, but it ultimately cost close to €17 million, which is a significant jump. There are some explanations in the correspondence, including the scope of the project increasing and so on. It still raises concerns about the budgeting and estimation process in 2023 setting it at just over €10 million when it ultimately cost close to €17 million, but the response does provide us with some additional information, which is welcome.

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

Is it agreed to note and publish the correspondence? Agreed. That concludes the B items for discussion today. We now move to the work programme.

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

Did the Chairman miss No. R2026/0372? It is Irish Sport for Palestine.

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

We dealt with that in private session.

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

Once we are actioning it, that is fine.

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

It was agreed that we will follow up and get further information.

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

Grand, no problem. Thank you.

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

That was No. R2026/0372, correspondence from Irish Sport for Palestine requesting that the committee investigate the legal risks associated with the FAI’s use of public money to fulfil the upcoming match against Israel. That is dated 14 July 2026. We discussed it. I know the Deputy was absent.

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

No, I was here.

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

The Deputy wants to discuss it now, sorry.

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

I was not sure if it was in the B or C section. There has been significant public debate on whether Ireland should fulfil these fixtures against Israel. We all know that Israel continues to commit genocide and practice apartheid and is in breach of both FIFA’s and UEFA’s statutes. This correspondence from Irish Sport for Palestine rightfully prompts a different conversation in regard to public money in fulfilling these fixtures. The FAI produced a document to issue to its general assembly members in advance of its EGM last week that gave a predicted financial cost to the Irish taxpayer of not fulfilling these fixtures. It was a substantiated figure of between €5.5 million and €10.3 million. It also included the gate receipts of the match going ahead in Dublin even though it had already decided to move it to a neutral venue, so its own figures posed questions in that regard. That, however, was for the delegates and members to decide on. Interestingly, it did not provide a cost assessment of what it would cost the Irish taxpayer to proceed with fulfilling these fixtures. There are legal implications for Ireland in this regard and the use of public money to fund these matches against Israel comes into question. As I outlined in private session, if these matches proceed, there will be a case for the FAI to come before the Committee of Public Accounts to answer in regard to the money aspect. For now, I am happy for us to initiate the process by writing to the FAI and asking for clarity around the legal and financial implications of the public moneys funding these matches.

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

We agreed that the letter would be written but in order that we do not raise expectation, the FAI is not accountable to the public accounts committee. Raising expectations would be unfair to people out there who are very motivated in respect of this issue. It is an issue that a lot of people in Ireland are upset, concerned and frustrated about and I do not want to give false expectations to them because at the end of the day, the only bodies that can come before this committee are those that are accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts.

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

I hear what the Deputy is saying. We have agreed to write and start a process. We will see the outcome.

Moving on to the work programme, the following meetings have been agreed. Today, 16 July, we will meet the NTA and Irish Rail. The committee will return after the summer recess and meet on 17 September to consider business of the committee.

Moving on to reports, the committee is publishing its interim report on the national children’s science centre today. The report examines matters relating to the development of the proposed national children’s science centre. This interim report is being launched following a comprehensive piece of work into this debacle. It is a saga that has dragged on for more than two decades. The report lays bare a deeply concerning picture. More than €4.2 million has already been spent on planning and legal costs, with further legal costs still to be finalised. The estimated construction costs had risen to more than €70 million when last costed two years ago in 2024. This excludes the fit-out costs estimated at around €19 million in 2022 and a further €30 million in State support over ten years for operational and exhibit renewal.

Despite these escalating costs, the project still has no sponsoring Government Department and no funding allocated under the national development plan, and yet the Office of Public Works remains legally obliged to continue progressing the project, with work already under way to prepare for a tender process to be completed by the end of 2026. We know that over €22,000 has recently been paid to technical consultants as part of this process. Every day that this situation continues, more money continues to be spent, despite there being no credible pathway to delivering the project.

The committee's central conclusion is clear that an urgent political intervention is now required. The Government cannot continue, in my view, to bury its head in the sand while public funds are exposed to mounting costs and increasing legal risk. The issues at the heart of this project will not be resolved by the parties currently involved acting alone. Without decisive Government leadership and a clear political decision, the State faces continued uncertainty, further delays and even greater costs to the taxpayer.

We have examined the evidence, published our findings and made very clear recommendations, with six recommendations in total. A couple of the key recommendations include that the committee considers that the matters identified during its examination are unlikely to be resolved through engagement between the parties alone and will require consideration at an appropriate level across government. The committee recommends that the OPW and the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation and other relevant Departments engage directly and as a matter of priority with representatives of the national children's science centre, with a view to identifying a way forward for the project or a way to end any commitment to the project while minimising any cost to the State.

Another key recommendation is that the committee recommends that prior to any significant further commitment of public resources, the OPW undertakes a comprehensive assessment of the project's costs, benefits, governance arrangements, operational model, long-term funding requirements and value for money, including an assessment of the financial, legal and contractual implications of terminating or withdrawing from the project, and that issues relating to sponsorship, governance and funding be clearly identified and assessed.

It is clear that no further public money should be committed until a comprehensive assessment is completed. In my view the responsibility now rests with the Government and, in particular, with the Minister for public expenditure, Deputy Chambers, along with the Minister of State with responsibility for the OPW, Deputy Moran. Ultimately, we cannot continue to ignore this massive and growing liability to the State. Action must be taken now to protect money, bring all the parties together and finally bring this long-running saga to an end, one way or another. I will now open it up to members and invite the Leas-Chathaoirleach, Deputy McAuliffe, to come in first.

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

I thank the clerk and the staff of the committee for putting together this interim report. It is worth noting that it is unusual for the committee to issue an interim report but it was said clearly at one of our hearings that this issue demanded that somebody cry stop. In issuing this interim report this is what the committee is doing.

A number of the observations are worth highlighting. A project that initially started out as a community gain project as part of an overall development has escalated, according to observation No. 6, to a project of nearly €70 million. This has resulted in a creeping obligation which has been governed by the OPW. This was done in the absence of any sponsoring Department or authority. It was done on behalf of the OPW itself. The recommendations lay squarely on the OPW the responsibility of resolving this, although we know it will require Government action for it to happen. Two of the observations refer to the substantial costs of €1.15 million in regard to arbitration and legal fees and a total cost of nearly €4 million in regard to money spent on a project that essentially does not exist.

I have to say I think the recommendations are very strong and the one that is most compelling is recommendation No. 3, which recommends that the OPW engages directly as a matter of priority with representatives from the national children's science museum to find a way either to end the project or minimise the costs to the State. There is also our call to the national children's science museum, notwithstanding whatever legal rights it has, to give consideration to the wider public interest in the pursuit of its mission. I thank the clerk and all of the staff for putting the report together and I know we will continue our work on this issue.

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

I thank everybody for compiling the report and for their hard work on it. There are good recommendations in it. I especially feel recommendation No. 1 is particularly important as it simply states that the committee feels the matter at hand requires consideration at the appropriate level across government. I feel the appropriate level across government would be that the Cabinet and Ministers take responsibility for it. A project that was originally estimated at €14.3 million has ballooned to €70 million. This has attracted attention but there are so many other projects like this for which the Government and Ministers need to take responsibility. As I have said at previous meetings, sometimes I feel the Government and the Ministers leave the responsibility at the door of State bodies, which is not good enough because we see this right across large agencies and bodies in health and justice. Millions and even billions are spent.

The Committee on Public Accounts is crying out for value for the taxpayers' money. The Ministers and the Government cannot wash their hands of this. Somebody needs to take responsibility. We have seen it before with the Arts Council's IT project. It which cried out for help and did not get it, and we were left with a huge loss to the State. The situation needs to be taken in hand and the recommendations need to be considered. They also need to be acted on as there is no point in producing reports if no action comes out of them. Recommendation No. 4 states it is in the public interest, notwithstanding legal action, that some action has to be taken on this.

Recommendation No. 6 states that within three months from the publication of the report we would see some progress from the OPW and the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation. I ask that the Cabinet gets involved in the project. We want to see action. There is no point coming in here and producing reports unless the recommendations are acted on. I would like to see in three months' time that there is action and that it is decided where the project goes, whether it is shut down, and the Government makes a decision on this, or that something happens, but something needs to be done.

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

I acknowledge all of the work that all members of the committee, the clerks and all of the staff have put into producing this interim report with recommendations. One of the most important recommendations is that we want a timely response within the next three months. Long-time observers of this issue may think this is, to some extent, some sort of unique and bizarre story of history that has been running out through a series of Committees of Public Accounts, potentially three or four of them. When they hear the public utterances of the chair of the OPW before this committee, they might be incredibly confused to learn that as of 6 July, according to the correspondence it has provided to us the OPW has contracted and is consulting to get the tender documents prepared to proceed to deliver the project under the terms it is bound to do as per a legal agreement.

That has been our greatest source of frustration. I do not want to speak for the committee but I think it is a shared view when we hear from the chairman of the OPW that this is not a problem of his making but one that has landed on his desk. When he comes before this committee, he talks in terms of there being no funding, no sponsoring Department, that the OPW will correspond with this person and contact that person. I feel that, in public statements at this committee, we have been fobbed off quite regularly on this issue because in the public utterances it sounds like this project is going nowhere, that the chairman does not know what to do, nobody is helping him out and there is no funding, but privately there is a process that is proceeding and under way. There are no delays to it. There is the quarterly report. We threatened the OPW with compellability powers and it provided us with the document. It has made clear it has got Arup consulting, that tender documents are going to be ready and a building information management system is being put together, yet in public utterances we are being told this project is not proceeding, that the chairman does not know what to do and it is either build or breach.

If ever we were at the end of the road for making a decision it is now. We are at the end of the road, so somebody has to tell the public, and the chairman of the OPW as the Accounting Officer for this line budget, what is happening with the taxpayers' money that is owed pursuant to this agreement and the taxpayers' money that could be owed if the OPW does not fulfil this agreement. Then we can enter a space of trying to unwind this charity which, let us be frank, has laudable goals, is not a profit-making entity and wants to do good for children and science. We need to appeal to that better sense of the charity's mission as we get to the final stage of this process so we do not remain in the situation we have been in for the last 20 years where the north wing of Earlsfort Terrace is empty and the taxpayer is being sucked dry because of a legal error that is inexplicable, disgraceful and for which no one was held to account. We have to get to a moment where the OPW tells us what it is going to do and then we can try to appeal to the charity's sense of mission and see if there is somewhere between what the charity is looking for and the taxpayer's legal obligation to spend money. It is about how we can get to that sweet spot. It is something this committee has been so exercised on for a very long time, including in previous Dáileanna. The report we publish today with the recommendations is reflective of the work that has been done on this committee.

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

I echo the thanks to the secretariat staff for their really important work in compiling this report but also to the many witnesses who attended and provided important information, documents and correspondence at various stages that helped us to come to an even more detailed understanding of this.

Without repeating and trying to add to the conversation this morning, all I will say is successive public accounts committees have spent way too much time on this issue. I hope this report brings us very much closer to a final solution with regard to this project. I highlight one piece from the senior counsel who said this project did not need to adhere to the public spending code simply because a cost-benefit analysis, a business case, was never part of the initial agreement. That is unfathomable. It makes no sense that would not have formed part of the discussions or negotiations and now we are left where we are. We need to hear from the OPW, the Ministers and the Executive of this State about the future of this project. It is one of those old situations where every stakeholder needs to get in a room and not leave until there is a solution everybody is okay with. That is what we have been calling for for many months at this committee - to bring everybody to one place. This report will do a lot of that work for us now. Again, my sincere thanks to everybody involved in collating it.

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

I thank all the members and the officials for their work on the report. The report is a summary of a catalogue of failures going back to 2003. It is a shocking example of ongoing mismanagement of a key project, a gross lack of project oversight and, of course, critically, a lack of accountability. That goes back to the very first day when the clause the Chief State Solicitor's Office recommended be inserted - a get-out-of-jail clause, effectively, if the Heuston Gate project did not go ahead - was not inserted into the agreement. Where is the accountability for that decision at that time? It is a complete lack of accountability. There are many chapters to this story but, unfortunately, in 2026, despite our best efforts as a committee, we still do not know what the final chapter will be of this project. We have a situation where the OPW is on the hook to provide a shell and a core of a building and it has no budget to do so even though it is proceeding in that direction. It is quite absurd and incomprehensible but that is where we find ourselves. Recommendation No. 1 is the critical one in terms of an all-of-government approach. This is an acute example of a silo culture within the public service - that it is not my problem but somebody else's - and that is where the core failures occurred here. We need an all-of-government approach at the most senior levels to bring this to a head and to ensure the right course of action is taken at this very late stage.

Martin Daly (Roscommon-Galway, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the report. It is incomprehensible that, in 2003, no conditional clause was included. I am not going to labour that because it has already been talked about. Looking at recommendation No. 4, in what interest is the centre going to proceed against the public interest and what does it hope to gain from it? Engagement is required at the highest level to try to resolve this issue in the public interest and in the taxpayers' interest. Even going forward, we noted in the report that "projected operating costs and any future requirement for Exchequer support have yet to be established". Thus, not only is the €70 million part of it, it would be future operating costs and the business case has never been made for it. I welcome the report and the work that has been done by the committee prior to my joining this morning, but recommendation No. 4 is where we are at. If you go purely on a legal basis, we are on the hook as a State, but these cannot be faceless people serving on this. It is not in the public interest to proceed, and who is going to run this museum, even if they are provided with the shell and core?

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

The report is being laid before the Houses and is now available on the committee's website. A copy of the report is also being issued to the Minister for public expenditure and the chairperson of the OPW. While recommendation No. 6 asks that we get a progress update within three months of this interim report being laid, and the issuing of an interim report is an unprecedented move, I would hope we get a progress update in September for our next meeting after the summer recess given the serious concerns this committee has and our predecessors had. I thank the secretariat staff for all their work in compiling the report. I also thank the Comptroller and Auditor General's office, which also did extensive work to bring attention to and outline a lot of concerns on the issue.

Are there any other items members wish to raise under any other business? There are not. That concludes session 2.