COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate -
Thursday, 27 Oct 2022

Business of Committee

Chairman

The business before us this afternoon is as follows: minutes, accounts and financial statements, correspondence, work programme and any other business.

The first item of business is the minutes of our meeting of 20 October, which has been circulated to members. Do members wish to raise any matters in relation to the minutes? No. Are the minutes agreed? Agreed. As usual, the minutes will be published on the committee’s web page.

We now move to accounts and financial statements. Six sets of accounts and financial statements were laid before the Houses between 17 and 21 October 2022. I will ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to address these before opening the floor to members.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

No. 1 concerns the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council for 2021. This is a clear audit opinion.

No. 2 concerns the national lottery fund for 2021. This is a clear audit opinion. Members will probably recall that there is a chapter in relation to the national lottery fund. This may be of interest to members to examine. No. 3 concerns the Regulator of the National Lottery. These two are published together. While this is a clear audit opinion, I draw the committee's attention to note No. 10 on pension provision. This discloses the reasons why accumulated pension liabilities, totalling €3.2 million, have not been recognised in the financial statement, and that the regulator is awaiting a decision of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform about pension proposals submitted in 2015. It has been ongoing for a number of years. They have not finalised liability for accumulated pension entitlements.

No. 4 concerns the Medical Bureau of Road Safety for 2021, which is a clear audit opinion.

No. 5 concerns the local loans fund for 2021, which is a clear audit opinion.

The committee may want to note that it is a nil account; there is no activity on it. The fund is now effectively dormant. The final one is the land bond winding-up account for 2021. There were no transactions in the year. The balance in the fund is €137,000. It received a clear audit opinion.

Chairman

What exactly is No. 6?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The land bonds were issued to fund the purchase of land many years ago; nearly 100 years ago, I think.

Chairman

By the Land Commission?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes, by the Land Commission.

Chairman

That is what I thought.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Effectively, moneys were put into this fund to redeem the bonds but at this stage, there is probably little additionally out there so it is unlikely that the €137,000 will even be required.

Chairman

I call Deputy Carthy.

Deputy Matt Carthy

On the last two, Nos. 5 and 6, is the €137,000 in a separate bank account, I take it, under the auspices of this account?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes.

Deputy Matt Carthy

Are there bank charges?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The accounts are there if the Deputy wants to have a look at them. I do not think there were any charges, that is why it is a nil account.

Deputy Matt Carthy

In respect of the local loans fund, is it the case that there are no funds in that?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

No, the local loans fund involved loans that had been issued to local authorities up to, I think, 1982. With the establishment of the Housing Finance Agency there were no further loans issued, so it was a question of collecting up the outstanding amounts. I think the final receipts were in 2020.

Deputy Matt Carthy

Why do these entities still exist?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

That is a good question.

Deputy Matt Carthy

Whose responsibility would it be to wind them down?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I think both are the responsibility of the Department of Finance. It is a question, I think, of passing legislation to wind them up or completely abolish them.

Deputy Matt Carthy

It would be appropriate for us to write to the Department to ask if it has the intention to do that. On the Regulator of the National Lottery, I think we touched previously on this issue in respect of the pensions and that there is a liability of €3.2 million in terms of pensions. I presume that is accruing on an annual basis?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It is the total accrued so far. When the regulator was established, staff came in from other parts of the public service and they would have already had entitlements to pensions. That is what the issue is, namely, whether the regulator should take on liability that had previously accrued in other occupations and in other employments.

Deputy Matt Carthy

What would the standard practice usually be in those instances?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The standard practice in public sector bodies is called a "knock for knock". So if someone transfers in to you, all of their service effectively comes with them. If somebody transfers out, all of their service goes with them. For a regulator, where it is effectively charging the national lottery fund for the costs of operating the regulator, an overhanging liability is a difficulty. I think it is trying to resolve that, as to who is going to pay for the prior-accumulated pension liability.

Deputy Matt Carthy

What does it mean when Mr. McCarthy draws attention to something but gives a clear audit opinion? What responsibility is there then or is there an added responsibility due to the fact that he has flagged that?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It gets a clear audit opinion because it properly presents the information. In this case, I am drawing attention to a liability that is hanging over the entity and there is a question mark around it. I am drawing the committee's attention to that, if it wanted to pursue and discuss it with the regulator or with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform-----

Chairman

The Department will be coming before the committee in a few weeks' time.

Deputy Matt Carthy

It would be useful if the committee got a note from the Department about what it considers to be the solution to this.

Chairman

Most of the universities are like that as well, as I recall, regarding liability. Does Mr. McCarthy know what the liability would be?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It is slightly different in the universities but pension accounting and liabilities and so on is a messy situation across these accounts.

Chairman

That is the accumulated total, that is just there as a liability-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

That is the accumulated total, that figure of €3.2 million. The figure in the year obviously was not-----

Deputy Catherine Murphy

The national lottery was sold. The regulator is still the regulator. Is an income coming in to the regulator from the national lottery?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes, there is. It is €1.5 million in the year. That comes out of the normal operations of the fund.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Are the pensions on the basis of pay-as-you-go? It is not a fund in a bank account?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I would have to look at the account again to refresh my memory. It is certainly not a bank account. There is not a figure of €3.2 million sitting there.

Deputy Verona Murphy

There is quite a big gap between 2020 and 2021 regarding the liability, in the notes, from €287,000 up to €401,000.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

There may be additional staffing, which could be one reason for the charge in the year going up significantly. There could also be what are called actuarial assumptions moving. The charges in a year would be based on the expectation into the future. A movement in interest rates could have an effect or there could be other actuarial reasons. That can result in significant swings from year to year.

Chairman

Is the listing of the accounts and financial statements agreed? Agreed. As usual, the listing of accounts and financial statements will be published as part of our minutes.

The next business is No. 3, correspondence. As previously agreed, items that were not flagged for discussion for this meeting will continue to be dealt with in accordance with the proposed actions that have been circulated and decisions taken by the committee in relation to correspondence are recorded in the minutes of the committee’s meetings and published on the committee’s web page. The first category of correspondence under which members have flagged items for discussion is correspondence from Accounting Officers or Ministers or both, and follow-up to meetings of the Committee of Public Accounts. The following two correspondence items were held over from last week. The first is No. R1497B from Mr. Paul O'Connell on behalf of Mr. David Moloney, Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, dated 6 October 2022, providing information requested by the committee arising out of last week's meeting. These are internal working documents and the Department has requested that they not be published. Deputy Catherine Murphy flagged this item for correspondence.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I have not brought that with me.

Chairman

Okay.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Sorry, I have not brought that with me. I will follow that up separately.

Chairman

It is okay for you to follow it up separately?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Yes.

Chairman

We will note that.

No. R1498B, from Mr. David Moloney, Secretary General, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, dated 7 October 2022, is the minute of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform in relation to our report on our examination of Vote 29, the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, programme B, broadcasting, for 2019, and Vote 33, the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, for 2020. The minute of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform is the official response to the recommendations of this committee. I raised this matter with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform last week as the minute is not in line with the Department’s own circular, that is, Circular 01/2011. That circular provides that the minute should respond to every recommendation, stating whether that recommendation has been accepted or not and the reasons for same. That has not been done in regard to any of the recommendations in our report. The Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media cites RTÉ’s independence under the Broadcasting Act but many of the recommendations are to the Department rather than RTÉ, and are not directly addressed.

It is open to us to take the matter up with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. We could also write to the Accounting Officer of the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media to request an official explanation of the poor quality of response. It is proposed to note and publish this item. I will open the matter to the floor in order to discover how members wish to proceed. Deputy Catherine Murphy and I flagged this for discussion today, and even last week. Members will see that the response provided is totally inadequate. I am not happy with the fact that the Department seems to be brushing away the recommendations of the committee. I propose that we write to the Minister and the Secretary General of the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media about the matter.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I spoke about the main issue last week just before we went into private session. I am okay with this. I do not disagree with the Chair's points but I do not want to add anything.

Chairman

I feel the Department is brushing the committee off with that type of response. I am not happy with it. We must set a standard as to what is and is not acceptable. Is that Agreed? Agreed.

No. 1513B, from Mr. David Moloney, Secretary General at the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, dated 14 October 2022, provides information requested by the committee regarding the national children's hospital. It is proposed to note and publish this item of correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. Deputy Catherine Murphy flagged this matter.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I will make a point rather than propose a message to send back to the Department. We seem to be going around in circles on the National Maternity Hospital. If we are going to learn lessons from that, the place to start is with the national children's hospital. We are being stymied in our attempts to see the business case and so forth. That is the main issue I would raise.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I agree with that entirely. There is a lot of talk about learning lessons. Every Department that comes before the committee is learning lessons from some previous debacle, yet new debacles are always beginning. None of those is bigger than that relating to the national children's hospital. At some point, someone - whether it is this committee or someone else - will need to look at how we got this so wrong on so many different levels such that the outlay to the taxpayer was far beyond what anybody would have dared suggest at the outset. I have no doubt that one of the problems that will be identified is the level of secrecy and lack of transparency throughout the process. In order for this committee to be vindicated, we need to continuously record our dissatisfaction with the way in which information is being withheld. This correspondence from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform informs the committee that the Department of Health has stated that the information relating to costings is commercially sensitive. I propose that we write back to the Department of Health again to express our view that the information should be provided to the committee and requesting that this should be done, if for no other reason than to ensure that it will be on the public record that the committee did everything to try to have throughout the process the accountability that has been sadly lacking.

Chairman

I agree with both Deputies. The issue I am concerned about is that we were told that we are more than 70% of the way through this contract and there is no final price. We do not even have a ballpark figure for the final price. We have made numerous efforts in respect of this matter. It is two years and three months since we started trying to shed some light on it. If a person was three quarters of the way through building a house and still did not know the final price, it would not be a good place to be. I am not too sure what you would tell the bank in such circumstances. The bank in this case is of course Joe Public. I suggest that we write to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to ask whether it knows what will be the final cost. We do not know; we are not being told. As Deputy Carthy correctly stated, the letter dated 14 October 2022 indicates that in light of the fact that a commercially sensitive contract is in operation, any queries about final costs of the project should be directed to the Department of Health. I propose that we write to Mr. Moloney to ask whether he knows and also write to the Secretary General of the Department of Health, Mr. Robert Watt. Mr. Watt was the Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform when this contract for the national children's hospital was put in place. I propose that we ask them whether they know the final figure and if they are satisfied with it. Is it acceptable to do that and to include reference to the other issues we have already discussed?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

We know the figure we were given at the start for the build and fit-out costs. We are not far from exhausting the money for the build cost, but the hospital is not yet built. We are likely to see a Supplementary Estimate in respect of the final cost. I imagine that will happen next year because that is when the money will run out. How does that happen? It will have to be estimated at that stage. I presume the matter will come before the Dáil.

Chairman

I presume it will be HSE capital or capital from the Department.

Deputy Colm Burke

I am probably coming to this from a different angle. Having looked at similar projects abroad, there are two issues. One is that the main infrastructure has now been built and there is a major issue regarding disputes between the contractors and the project team. However, one of the issues that is out of the way relates to the substantial increase in building costs. We are lucky that the main infrastructure was in place before we ended up with a major increase in costs. If we had started this project last year, it would have increased by much more in a shorter timeframe. The problem we have relates to the various issues under dispute. My understanding from the previous discussion is that there are 700 or 800 issues and that these have been parked. When will they be dealt with and when can we get an overview of the real cost of those disputed items? When representatives from the Department were last before the committee, they more or less indicated that those items had been parked and that nothing will be done in respect of them for some time. We need to get clarification about when those matters will be dealt with and an indication as to the timeframe relating to when we will get results in respect of those issues. A substantial claim has been made but we will not know the extent of it until the Department starts to deal with the matters in question.

Chairman

Some of them may become the subject of court proceedings.

Deputy Colm Burke

I accept that, but I am worried about the fact that they have all been parked. I accept that the reason for this is in order that those involved can get on with the project. If everything has been parked, I am obliged to wonder when we will get the final figure. Will it be in 12 months, two years or five years? Some of these disputes can go on for quite some time.

Chairman

The far side of the next general election.

Deputy Colm Burke

That may well be.

Chairman

If members agree, we can include that question about the claims. It is a valid question.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I will make another point. Deputy Burke mentioned that construction inflation has increased dramatically.

We hope since most of the building work has been completed although the contract itself burdens the entire cost of any inflation over 4% on one side. It is mind boggling how so many people looking at a contract could not see a danger in that When we first raised it which is not that long ago only since 2020 and inflation had started to creep up at that point. We were told by the Board that they did not envisage this coming into play at all, that we would reach 4% of construction inflation. The figure of 4% sounds lovely, right now because we are into multiples of that. An estimate from the Department in respect of how much that particular clause is going to actually cost in terms of construction inflation and hopefully Deputy Burke is right that most of the actual costs in terms of building materials had been incurred prior to the most recent taxes.

We hope that was since most of the building work had been completed, although the contract itself burdens the entire cost of any inflation over 4% on one side. It is mind-boggling how so many people looking at a contract could not see a danger in putting the entire onus on one side. When we first raised the issue in 2020 and inflation had started to creep up at that point, the board told us that they did not envisage this 4% figure of construction inflation coming into play at all. A construction inflation rate of 4% sounds lovely right now because we are into multiples of that. An estimate from the Department in respect of how much that particular clause will have an effect in terms of construction inflation would be helpful. Hopefully, Deputy Colm Burke is right and most of the costs in terms of building materials had been incurred prior to the most recent impacts.

Chairman

A figure in excess of 4% would have to be carried.

Deputy Colm Burke

I have dealt with building contractors in relation to the project in Canada. It was interesting that they had decided the project was going to take so much time and had actually built in 15% increased costs per annum as the project was developing. They started their project in 2019 and it was a five year project. The 15% increase per annum was a huge increase. The project is also a children's hospital. It is costing 3.6 billion Canadian dollars. We are very lucky that we have got the main infrastructure built now and the question now is trying to control costs at this stage.

Deputy Matt Carthy

The difference is that in that case, that percentage was built in to the original contract. What happened here was that 4% in construction inflation was built into the original contract with a proviso that everything above that, regardless of what it was, would be borne by one side. How it works with social housing projects, as we know, is that if costs go beyond what could have been envisaged, there will be a sharing of the burden. There is no sharing of the burden in this instance. It is all falling on the Irish taxpayers and that to me is mind-boggling.

Chairman

I will include Deputy Colm Burke's points as well in relation to the claims timeline for that and if there are any updated figures on it.

We will move on to No. 1526B, which is from Mr. John Callinan, Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach. It is dated 19 October 2022 and is providing information requested by the committee regarding the overall cost since 1997 of tribunals or commissions of investigation under the responsibility of the Department of the Taoiseach. Across two tribunals of inquiry and four commissions of investigation, we are approaching €100 million in costs, with some costs yet to be settled, legal fees for third parties etc. I assume that is what was being referred to in that case. I propose to note and publish that item of correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Catherine Murphy and I have flagged the one in relation to the Tribunal of Inquiry into certain Payments to Politicians and Related Matters. That was established in September 1997 and to date, €67 million has been paid out on that. Is that concluded or are there other costs still to be settled in that case? I do not know the answer to that.

Deputy Colm Burke

We might get some clarification regarding the pending claims. What are the pending claims outstanding? I am not saying they can say that we are liable for this amount but what is actually outstanding that it is still not resolved?

Chairman

We can request that. I am going to let in Deputy Catherine Murphy first and then I will let the Deputy back in.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

There is a wider issue here regarding the fact that we deal with a lot of these issues by way of inquiry; we do not catch them in real time. There is a perception of a saving, by virtue of the fact that we do not have organisations like for example, the Corporate Enforcement Agency that has been set up, properly resourced. It was guaranteed 16 members of the Garda but only has seven at the moment. It still does not have its full complement. It cannot do its work if it does not have the resources. If we do not have organisations that can properly regulate and enforce, we will then end up paying in retrospect by way of inquiries. We really have to grasp the nettle on this.

I have a previous response that I got from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform going back to 2019 on this issue. The cost of inquiries at the end of 2018 was €457 million, almost half a billion euro, and it lists those costs down. That is right across all Departments, where each would have been the parent Department, whereas this is exclusively related to the Department of the Taoiseach. Some of them were included in this response. I can look at the response this committee got in 2019 and at the one we are discussing at the moment. The investigation into certain matters relating to An Garda Síochána is down at €3.5 million. When I look at this reply that I got previously, it makes me wonder if it was the same inquiry. I am not sure if there were two. This one is about a tribunal of inquiry into certain gardaí in Donegal. That may well be a different one but that was €68 million. The point I am trying to make is that I am not sure whether we are getting a full overview with this. There is a list here and we probably need to get that list from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform in respect of the entire overview, if we are going to compare like with like, because some of the figures do not make sense.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

On the larger figure I think it was a major inquiry into matters in Donegal, whereas I am not sure what this one is. I just cannot recall offhand.

Chairman

I will point out that the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform was asked to provide the full list of all inquiries and tribunals and the costs of them. It said that it was not a matter for the Department. Access is a matter for each separate Department. My understanding is that the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform did compile that list in the past on one occasion.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

We are not a silo.

Chairman

No, absolutely not. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is the Department that oversees public spending. We should get back to it and ask for the full cost of everything at this point. Perhaps we also might seek a list of which ones on which there may still be outstanding fees or liabilities due.

Deputy Colm Burke

And outstanding claims as regards-----

Chairman

There is also the issue of third party costs.

Deputy Colm Burke

Even at the end of that letter, it is saying that this excluded any third party costs that may arise. Are they still pending? The other issue is, I presume a lot of these cases would be dealt with by the Chief State Solicitor's office or the Attorney General's office. The work may have been farmed out to private legal practices but surely we should have an idea of what is actually outstanding. When a bill of costs comes in, someone within the Chief State Solicitor's office or whoever is dealing with it on the other side would have to deal with it.

Chairman

Is the Deputy suggesting that the Chief State Solicitor's office is also involved?

Deputy Colm Burke

I am not sure.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I think that third party costs are probably being dealt with by the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, and the State Claims Agency. I think they took on that function, rather than continuing tribunals where the substantive matters were dealt with.

Deputy Colm Burke

Would the State Claims Agency be able to give us the information?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It might be able to give members something.

Chairman

I would hope that there is some Department able to tell the committee how much has been spent over the past three decades on inquiries and tribunals. I would be very surprised if this cannot be done. I cannot see why that figure should not be available.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

We have been given a figure for the very first item, which is the Tribunal to Inquire into Certain Planning Matters and Payments, which we are being told is €6.6 million and it started on 4 November 1997. The document we were provided with was the Tribunal to Inquire into Certain Planning Matter and Payments, Mahon 1997. I presume that is the same one.

Chairman

It is.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

We are being told €6.6 million. The figure on this list is €135 million. This is not really giving us the information. There is a huge difference in those two amounts. My understanding is the State Claims Agency is used to advise the commissions rather than do the work. It is down to the parent Department. It is supposed to have the information. The State Claims Agency is not doing that work. It is advising on that work. That is my understanding. If we were able to be provided with this information before, we absolutely need to have an update on that.

Chairman

That came from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

It came from that Department, yes.

Chairman

What date is on that, Deputy?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

It is 28 February 2019.

Chairman

I suggest we write to Mr. David Moloney, the Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, pointing out that these have been collated in the past, giving him the date of that letter, asking for the updated position on the costs of all inquiries and tribunals, and asking for an estimate of what is outstanding at this point.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

It is not just a question of having the information. If we are talking about inquiries we need to ask how other countries do it. We have looked at other countries, like Australia, for example. They have an anti-corruption agency and an embedded inquiry system in what is quite a large agency. What it cost to set up was recouped in the first year. In fact, the particular agency we looked at has transformed the way governance is done. We are looking for value for money.

Chairman

We have not been doing it very well.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

No, we have not.

Chairman

These have dragged on for years and years, with very little product at the end of it.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Some of these are not going to be the same, but where there are people with deep pockets who are being inquired into, it can be problematic. It is not all like with like when it comes to looking at inquiries. However, the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, IBRC, one, for example, was not under the commission of investigations heading. There was bespoke legislation and we need to have a look at how that ended up being a tribunal behind closed doors, as opposed to a commission of investigation.

Chairman

That is a discussion we can have, but I suggest we look for those figures from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and refer to the fact these were provided in 2019 and reference the date of what the Deputy has in front of her. Is that agreed? Agreed. We do not want to be fobbed off on that one.

The next item is No. 1527B from Mr. John Hogan, Secretary General of the Department of Finance, dated 19 October and providing information we requested regarding the economic identity of Irish Water when it separated from Ervia. It is proposed to note and publish this item of correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Obviously progress has been made. I received a reply from the Department of Finance about the public side of it being audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. That is quite a large account that requires auditing. Somewhere in the region of €1 billion was invested. What additional resources would be put into the Comptroller and Auditor General's office in relation to a big account like that coming in? Is that kind of thing planned when the legislation is being decided as part of a regulatory impact assessment?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It is certainly something we are concerned about. The expectation is there will be two sets of auditors. A lot of the work will be done by the commercial auditors, and then we will seek to rely on their work to the extent it is appropriate. If we want to do additional work under a value for money, VFM, mandate that would be a resource we would provide ourselves. If it looks like there will be a significant additional workload for us, then we will have to seek additional resources for that.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

The private auditor is to do with the commercial side. Is that correct?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

They will do a standard commercial audit. It will be of all of the financial statements of Irish Water. However, to the extent that I am required to give an opinion on those as well, I will seek, in the interests of efficiency not to duplicate the work, to rely on the work the commercial auditors do. I am entitled to do that as an auditor. We do it in other circumstances, for example, in the universities. They appoint auditors so we review their work programme and findings. We draw our own conclusions. If we feel there is additional work to do, then we undertake that ourselves.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Has this been factored in for next year?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I think next year will be the first year where there will be an audit, but that will not come into play until 2024.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Okay.

Chairman

The next two items, Nos. 1528B and 1525C, relate to the national broadband plan, and I will take them together. No. 1528B is from Mr. Ciarán Ó hÓbáin, assistant secretary general at the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, and it is dated 18 October. This is a further update on our recommendations to the Department that we work to develop in-house expertise with regard to the national broadband project. It is proposed to note and publish the correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. The second letter on the same subject is No. 1525C from Deputy Catherine Murphy, dated 19 October. It is a proposal for the committee to make inquiries regarding the change of ownership in respect of the national broadband plan. Does Deputy Murphy wish to come in on that?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

When the Department was before the committee a couple of weeks ago, I pursued it on this particular topic and it looked like the new entity was nearing completion. The Department told us at the time it could not give us the information. I do not see that there would be any reason we could not have full disclosure at this stage, a couple of weeks later. That is what I am seeking from the Department. There were things like clawbacks and shareholding. I raised some of those specific issues with the Department and it was not able to respond because things had not concluded at that stage.

Chairman

There is substantial change of ownership taking place. It would be interesting, given there will be substantial changes on the board and to clarify the day the departmental witnesses were here, to get figures for the breakdown of what the board may look like. The other question is whether there will be any proceeds to the State. I know some elements of the contract for the national broadband plan contained a piece that where the contract has been sold and there is a gain in that, there is a clawback for the State. We might look for that to be clarified at this point as well.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

One of the points I raised with the officials was whether there was a payment to-----

Chairman

We asked them about that.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

-----to those who formerly had a stake and will not longer have a stake.

Chairman

We will request information on whether there was any benefit to those individuals and also whether the State receives any benefit from this.

The next category of correspondence is category C, which is correspondence from and related to private individuals and any other correspondence. No. 1516C is from an individual and is dated 16 October 2022. It is further correspondence to the committee regarding the social welfare appeals office and requests that the committee take further action as regards the further classification of certain workers. The issues raised have been considered by the committee and the Joint Committee on Social Protection, Community and Rural Development and the Islands. We have also provided the correspondent with a copy of our report on the classification of workers, whether employees, employers or contractors, as well as related correspondence. We have advised that we will examine the Comptroller and Auditor General's chapter on the classification of workers for PRSI purposes with the Department of Social Protection. That meeting is scheduled for 1 December. I am open to members' suggestions. I propose that we note the correspondence and proceed to examine the chapter in due course.

Deputy Colm Burke

Can I raise one issue on that?

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy Colm Burke

It is regarding the employment of people who provide home tuition. They are paid by the Department of Education but are regarded as self-employed. Even though they are classified as self-employed, if they put money into a pension it is not tax-deductible. They are having serious problems as regards what they can and cannot do. While the money is paid to them to by the Department of Education and all their PAYE and PRSI is deducted by the Department, they are still regarded as self-employed. This is a very relevant issue.

Chairman

Do they pay a stamp?

Deputy Colm Burke

Pardon?

Chairman

Are they paying PRSI?

Deputy Colm Burke

I understand they are on an S stamp.

Chairman

I just wanted to clarify that.

Deputy Colm Burke

Yes.

Chairman

We have sent on the report and correspondence that we believe would be helpful to the correspondent. Officials from the Department of Social Protection will be before the committee on 1 December. Are members happy to deal with it then? Agreed. The correspondence we sent should be helpful to the correspondent.

On the separate issue raised by Deputy Burke regarding the classification of teachers who provide home tuition, I suggest he send a brief note on it to the clerk. We can consider it and ask the Department of Education to try to rectify the matter.

Deputy Colm Burke

I have raised a number of questions on this over the past 12 months and will continue to raise them because it is causing huge problems.

Chairman

I thank the Deputy for making the committee aware of the matter. We will note and publish No. 1516C.

No. 1522C, dated 19 October 2022, is from an individual and relates to the use of public funds to support Ukraine. The correspondent takes the view that the State is participating in the war and is, therefore, breaching Article 28.3 of the Constitution which states "War shall not be declared and the State shall not participate in any war save with the assent of Dáil Éireann." This matter has been raised in the Houses and is one for the Dáil and Seanad. The role of this committee is to examine related expenditure of the relevant State bodies once their accounts have been circulated. I propose to advise the correspondent of that. I have flagged up the issue. The correspondent quotes the Constitution, on which I think all members have a handle. The issue is whether it is the role of the committee to decide whether neutrality has been breached. To substantiate his case, the correspondent supplied a copy of extracts of what he said were from a speech by the Minister for Defence, Deputy Coveney. I suggest we write to the Minister to ask for a response because the correspondent quotes him making certain statements on 29 April 2022 at an event in the John Fitzgerald Kennedy centre in Boston. Is it agreed that we send the correspondence to the Minister seeking a response? This is not really the role of the committee. It is a matter for the Oireachtas to define, make rules and decide on our position on neutrality and it is up to the Houses to interpret and define neutrality and decide whether we are going beyond it. I heard part of a discussion this week in the Dáil. It would be useful to get clarity on that because funding is being provided, we want to be clear on what it is being used for. The Minister is entitled to an opportunity to respond. We have these quotations. I was not familiar with the speech the Minister is quoted as having given on 29 April. We will ask him for a response. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Moving on to our work programme, next week is a non-sitting week due to the Hallowe'en bank holiday. We will engage with Greyhound Racing Ireland on 10 November. On 17 November, we will engage with the Department of Finance. The regulator of the National Lottery will attend on 24 November. On 1 December, we have two engagements. The first is with the Department of Social Protection and the second will be on the operation of the National Lottery. On 8 December, we will have the Office of the Revenue Commissioners before us. The final engagement, on 15 December, is with the Office of Public Works, OPW. We have also agreed to engage with An Bord Pleanála in the new year. Are there any matters members wish to raise regarding the work programme? No. That concludes our consideration of the work programme for the day.

The final matter on the public agenda is any other business. Do members wish to raise any matters? No.

The committee went into private session at 2.28 p.m. and adjourned at 2.42 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 10 November 2022.