COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate -
Thursday, 9 Feb 2023

Business of Committee

Chairman

The business before us this afternoon comprises minutes, accounts and financial statements, correspondence, the work programme and any other business. We will then go into private session briefly before adjourning until 16 February.

The first item is the minutes of the meetings of 26 January and 2 February. They have been circulated. Since no member wishes to raise an issue, are the minutes agreed? Agreed. As usual, they will be published on the committee's web page.

The second item is the accounts and financial statements. Seven sets of accounts and financial statements were laid before the Houses between 23 January and 3 February. I ask Mr. McCarthy, the Comptroller and Auditor General, to address these before I open the discussion to the floor.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The first set of financial statements relate to the Housing Agency for the 2021 accounting period. It received a clear audit opinion. In the audit report, I draw attention to chapter 7 on the accounts of the public services 2021, which examines the use of the Housing Agency's revolving acquisition fund. This is something that the committee has already examined with the Housing Agency.

No. 2 is the Property Services Regulatory Authority, PSRA, for 2021. It received a clear audit opinion. No. 3 is the Property Services Compensation Fund for 2021. It received a clear audit opinion. No. 4 is the Heritage Council for 2021. It received a clear audit opinion. No. 5 is the Judicial Council for 2021. It received a clear audit opinion. No. 6 is the Legal Services Regulatory Authority for 2021. It received a clear audit opinion. No. 7 is Water Safety Ireland for 2021. It received a clear audit opinion.

I draw the committee's attention to the Heritage Council. Its financial statements were certified on 27 June, but they were only presented on 31 January. That would appear to be something on which the committee might wish to follow up. It may be that, as has happened in other cases, an annual report was being prepared and the financial statements were held so that they could be published together, but the optimum would be to have the annual report ready at the same time as the financial statements. That should not lead to a delay.

Chairman

Seven months of a delay. Since no members wish to contribute on these accounts and financial statements, are they agreed? Agreed. As usual, they will be published as part of our minutes. The secretariat will follow up on that matter with the Heritage Council.

We will move on to correspondence. As previously agreed, items that are not flagged for discussion for this meeting will continue to be dealt with in accordance with the proposed actions that have been circulated. Decisions taken by the committee on the correspondence will be recorded on the minutes of the committee's meetings and published on the web page.

The first category that members have flagged is category B - correspondence from Accounting Officers and Ministers as a follow-up to committee meetings. No. R1694 from Mr. Darragh O'Loughlin, CEO of the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board, IHRB. Dated 20 January, it provides the information requested by the committee regarding the exit package of the former CEO and updates about the installation of CCTV at racecourses. I propose that we note and publish this correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Members will note that the correspondence shows us for the first time a definitive timeline for the installation of CCTV. It sets out that the ducting and enabling works have been completed at each of the 25 racetracks, that 398 cameras have been installed and are working across 20 of the racecourses, and that the remaining five - Roscommon, Kilbeggan, Tipperary, Bellewstown and Listowel - will be completed between now and the end of February. We have been chasing this matter and been active on it as a committee, and this is the first time we have seen a finishing line. It is good. Deputy Catherine Murphy has flagged this matter. I will call Deputy Carthy afterwards.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Regarding the terms of the exit package, the correspondence states that it was mutually agreed by the board of the IHRB and the former CEO that the terms of the CEO's retirement would be kept confidential in the interests of discretion and in light of the sensitivity of the situation. How is this reflected in the accounts? Where does it fit into the financial statements?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I do not wish to speak about the 2021 financial statements because they have not been presented yet. The standard expectation in the code of practice for the governance of State bodies is that information about a settlement agreement, severance agreement or early retirement package be provided in the financial statements. I cannot speak specifically about the IHRB in 2021 until it has presented.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

In the normal course of events, it would be transparent.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I welcome the additional information on CCTV, although it is difficult to fathom how we do not already have CCTV in place. This has been going on for far too long. CCTV is necessary if we are to maintain the integrity of, and public esteem in, the sector.

A number of issues arise with the exit package of the former CEO. According to the correspondence, it is a standard feature of settlements that are made in the termination of employment. The public discourse suggested that the former CEO stood down, but this comment suggests something different happened. Could we ask the IHRB what the position was and how the termination of the CEO's employment came about?

If we have learned anything in the past couple of weeks, I hope it is that just because something was done secretly for many years does not mean that was the correct way of doing it. The CEO and board agreed that the terms of the CEO's retirement package would be kept confidential in the interests of discretion and in light of the sensitivity of the situation. We could do with clarification about what was so sensitive about this situation. An ongoing issue was raised at this committee and others about the then CEO's salary package not being disclosed. That position has changed with the new appointee, but the correspondence confirms that a conscious decision was taken to keep the exit package confidential. This is public money and the public are entitled to know the terms of a payment to a senior officer. This is not a redundancy package that is being provided on general terms to staff members. This is a CEO's exit package outside of the statutory redundancy measures that are in place.

The taxpayers are entitled to know. My two questions concern getting clarification regarding the circumstances that led to the termination of employment and also clarification as to the sensitivity of the situation. It was said that it was mutually agreed between the board and the CEO that the terms would be kept confidential. Is this legally binding? If so, what is the basis for this legal provision?

Chairman

There are three questions there. I thank Deputy Carthy. I call Deputy Verona Murphy.

Deputy Verona Murphy

It is my recollection that when the representatives were here and this issue came up, there was no indication that there was a sensitivity surrounding the exit of the employee. Perhaps I am wrong. I will go back to look over the video of the committee meeting, but I am not aware there was any sensitivity. It was agreed to provide the-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I do not think they did.

Deputy Verona Murphy

At that time, I thought they just agreed to submit the information to the committee, but there was no intimation that-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

No. When I spoke earlier, I referred to the code of practice and the expectation in this regard. It is a standard expectation and happens in most public bodies. The IHRB was not disclosing the salary of the chief executive in previous years. As I said, I cannot comment regarding what happened-----

Deputy Verona Murphy

About this departure.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

-----in 2021 until such time as the financial statements have been presented.

Deputy Verona Murphy

Okay.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I think the sooner the committee has these financial statements the better.

Chairman

Okay. Meanwhile, is it agreed we will seek answers to those three questions? Agreed. We move on to R1695 B, from Ms Orla Twomey, chief executive, Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland, ASAI, dated 20 January 2023, which provides information requested by the committee regarding national lottery advertising. Regarding this issue, it will be recalled that we had representatives from the national lottery in with us, as well as the regulator. It is proposed to note and publish this correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. This item was flagged by Deputy Catherine Murphy.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I find this unsatisfactory. Several of us raised the issue of misleading advertising. The public certainly would read this situation very differently from the way the regulator read it. In this correspondence, we are being asked to note that it is open to the committee to make a complaint about the relevant advertising. The ASAI could then investigate that complaint in accordance with the code. I think the committee should do that and confirm this is a complaint, because I do not think any of us felt the reply we got was satisfactory. This is the organisation that governs the standards for advertising.

Chairman

I am of the opinion we should do so. We raised this issue at those two meetings with the regulator and the representatives of the national lottery. This correspondence sets out that we can make a complaint on three grounds. If the committee confirms it wishes to make a complaint, the ASAI will treat our correspondence as a complaint and commence the process. We are requested then to set out the grounds of the complaint and to provide such further details as the committee wishes to be considered in connection with this complaint.

The first area in this regard concerns 90% of funds being returned to the community. We know that prize money was included in that total. The public, members of this committee and Members of the Dáil would have thought that if it was stated that 90% of moneys were returned to the community, we would not have been talking about the prize money. The second ground concerns the misleading information. I feel it was misleading anyway in relation to the unclaimed prize money and what happens to it. I think we have strong grounds for a complaint and that we should proceed with it. We will work on this. I call Deputy Carthy.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I agree with that assessment. I must again say that I am often astounded by the number of regulatory bodies we have that will do anything to avoid regulating. What the committee shared with the ASAI was an anomaly that found that its previous finding was incorrect. We dispute the assertion, and I think most reasonable people would do so as well, that prize money and commissions paid to retailers can be classified as giving money back to the community. Even if we were to accept that claim, within the allocation of prize money we have found that a portion of it, in fact a substantial proportion of the unclaimed prize money, is invested in marketing, which even the ASAI accepts does not constitute giving money back to the community.

Even if we were to accept what has been classified as a very broad definition of returning money to the community, we have raised with the authority and brought to its attention a technical detail that finds its previous finding was not valid factually. I would have thought a regulatory body such as the ASAI would welcome this information. Instead, it is doing what seems to be the default position of many of these bodies, which is to pass it back and hope it goes away. I agree, therefore, with Deputy Murphy's proposal that we submit this as a complaint. We should make it clear we are disputing the authority's previous finding based on the information this committee gleaned from our engagement with the representatives of the national lottery and the regulator.

Chairman

Okay. The word "community" in my political life is one I have found much misused. That is the word I will use. We will follow up on this issue. It is important we submit this complaint on the grounds as outlined.

We move on to R1716 B, from Mark Griffin, Secretary General, Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, dated 30 January 2023, which is a quarterly report requested by the committee regarding the national broadband plan, NBP. It is proposed to note and publish this correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. I have flagged this item because the original targets were that 115,000 premises were to have been reached by January 2022 and 204,000 by January 2023. We then had remedial targets. Sometimes we find we are being taken on a bit of a merry dance. The remedial targets were set at 60,000 for January 2022. This was because of Covid-19. National Broadband Ireland, NBI, only achieved 30,000 by that date. A second remedial target was then set because it was revised. This was to be 102,000 by January 2023 and NBI hit 85,000 by September 2022.

Regarding the connection rate, I am a bit puzzled by the reply. It is stated that 27,682 premises have been connected to the broadband network. It is mentioned that it is successful that this has happened. When I looked at the figures, this is just roughly 5% of the overall number of homes and businesses to be reached. At this point, in the context where we are putting just short of €3 billion into this project, having approximately 27,000 or 5% of the overall number of premises connected two years into this scheme would not seem to me to be a very positive picture. I propose we write back to Mr. Griffin and ask him to clarify the situation regarding the number of homes and businesses actually connected. I propose this because having roughly 27,000 premises connected now is, by any stretch of the imagination, very small. This is being held up as a success and we all want it to be successful. It is the number of homes and businesses that get connected to this broadband facility which will determine whether this project has been successful. I have great concerns about this project now. I propose, therefore, that we write back to express concerns to Mr. Griffin regarding the low number of premises connected. It is stated in this document that 25% of premises, or just over 100,000, have been passed and have the potential to connect to the network, which is exceeding expectations, and that this figure is increasing. If this is the expectation, we should write back to Mr. Griffin and point out to him that we feel that figure is very low. If other members wish to come in on this matter, they should feel free. I think, however, that having approximately 5% of premises connected, of the overall 500,000 premises to be passed in total, is a very low total two years into the project. Does anyone wish to comment?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Regarding the number of premises passed, it is not possible to make people connect.

Chairman

Absolutely not.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I would have thought it was in the business case in regard to what the expectation might be against the number of premises passed. We need to be clear on that.

Chairman

The Deputy and I raised these issues in the Dáil four or five years ago, given many people in the intervention areas already had a service with another provider and we asked would there be a take-up. We did raise these issues with Ministers at the time, and I certainly raised them with officials at meetings as to whether there would be a substantial take-up. I would have concerns at this point if it is 5% that are connected two years in. We will ask them to clarify what the business case was and if they think the 5% is good enough. I would also ask what connection level they expect by the end of this year and the target for 2024. We need some idea of where we are going with this. There is a lot of money going into it.

No. 1720 is from David Moloney, Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, dated 30 January, providing information requested by the committee regarding the volumetric modular homes pilot. It is proposed to note and publish the correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. Deputy Catherine Murphy wanted to comment.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

We are going to have the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth at the committee next week. It would be useful for us to have some information in advance in regard to the modular homes, if it can be got from the Office of Public Works, OPW, given it is the OPW that is taking the lead on that. It is just to see what the expectation has been up to now and for the rest of the year. We could ask for that. It would be useful to prepare the Department that there are likely to be questions on accommodation contracts and the process around that at next week's meeting. It would be useful to flag it to them at this stage.

Chairman

I am advised that the Department is the approving authority and the OPW is the sponsoring agency. It would be useful if there was a representative of the OPW present at next week's meeting, a senior official who can deal with this particular issue. That would help us in our work.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

That is a good idea.

Chairman

No. 2172 from Joe Hackett, Secretary General of the Department of Foreign Affairs, dated 1 February 2023, providing a response to the committee regarding a constitutional matter raised in correspondence. The following item was not flagged for discussion and I am raising it to seek the committee's agreement to redact personal information prior to publication. Is it agreed to redact the name of the individual referred to in the letter in advance of publication? Are members okay with that? Okay.

Deputy Verona Murphy

I want to make a suggestion. The HSE responded. Is that the entire correspondence that we have received or have we received more since they were here? Is that the extent of it in respect of No. R1717?

Chairman

I will check No. R1717.

Deputy Verona Murphy

If the Chair recalls, I asked Mr. Mulvany for the briefing in regard to how many cases the HSE had in the Workplace Relations Commission.

Chairman

A commitment was given to come back to us in two weeks.

Deputy Verona Murphy

That is fine.

Chairman

That is agreed.

We move to the next category of correspondence, which is from private individuals, and any other correspondence. We agreed to hold over several items from our meeting of 26 January. No. R1687C from Deputy Paul McAuliffe, dated 18 January. It is correspondence to the committee regarding Whitehall College. It is proposed to note and publish this item. Deputy McAuliffe is not here. He asked a specific question regarding No. 1687 and Whitehall College. The best thing to do, with the agreement of the committee, is to hold off until he comes back. It is very much a local issue but he has a right to raise it here and he may want to give a further explanation of what is in the letter. Having read the letter, it is my opinion it is something the committee should follow up on. We will wait until next week to deal with it. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The following two items are related. The first is No. R1690C and the second is No. R1692C from Deputy Alan Dillon, dated 19 January, and is correspondence to the committee in regard to inland fisheries. It is proposed to note both items. A further item of correspondence was received from Deputy Dillon in regard to inland fisheries which will be discussed later in private session. The floor is open to Deputy Dillon and Deputy Catherine Murphy. I call Deputy Dillon.

Deputy Alan Dillon

I am raising concerns brought to my attention in the context of Inland Fisheries Ireland, IFI. This agency has responsibility for the protection, development and management of over 74,000 km of rivers and streams, together with 128,000 ha of lakes. For my part of the country, it is crucial that this agency is running in line with good governance, transparency and accountability. I know how important it is to the great western lakes programme within my own county and surrounding areas.

The first issue I will raise relates to the board of IFI. The board is now down to five people, including its CEO and staff representatives, with no chairperson currently in place. Five people have resigned from the board of IFI since the end of April 2022, including two chairpersons. We can imagine the concern at present. The Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, Deputy Eamon Ryan, has yet to replace any of them, and the Secretary General has not conducted any type of investigation into what is happening within this State agency. At this point, I might bring in the Comptroller and Auditor General in regard to the Accounting Officer of IFI presenting the accounts for 2021.

Chairman

I will ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to come in, but this is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

We have carried out the audit of the draft financial statements for 2021. I signed off on those statements on 12 December. There are matters to be addressed arising from my review. The difficulty we have is that the final financial statements have to be signed off by the board, and there is a difficulty with the operation of the board at this stage. In a way, I am caught. I cannot finish the audit and sign off on it without an effective board in place. I have spoken to the Secretary General in regard to the matter to see what action they can take. There is nothing further I can do other than to undertake an examination, let us say, a value for money examination of certain matters that might be of concern. I am certainly prepared to consider that but the optimum solution is that there be a set of financial statements presented so the body can be called and examined by the committee.

Chairman

To clarify, there should be a ten-person board and, at the moment, there are five, with no cathaoirleach.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

There is no cathaoirleach, and, as I understand it, there is a quorum requirement that they are not able to meet.

Deputy Alan Dillon

There is no quorum.

Chairman

Is there an acting chairperson?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I am not aware of an acting chair.

Deputy Alan Dillon

Issues were raised with the Comptroller and Auditor General in March 2021 regarding statements of internal control. It was the opinion of the board that these issues were not satisfactorily resolved, so this is where the issues align. Some of these issues related to uninsured vehicles. For instance, there was a three-car crash in Donegal. I raised this matter previously-----

Chairman

The Deputy should not make allegations against specific persons.

Deputy Alan Dillon

-----at one of our meetings with the Secretary General of the Department. The Secretary General was unaware of it.

That still has not been resolved with regard to the liability to the taxpayer and what the costs will be. I have raised this in correspondence. We need to seek information on this from the Secretary General and the chief executive officer of Inland Fisheries Ireland.

I have other correspondence with regard to a well-known facility, Aasleagh Lodge in Leenane, and its current use with regard to what was presented to the board and what transpired afterwards. I have recently received information on a construction project that is under way there. I would love to understand who has authorised the activities that are happening there. Some of the rooms are being transformed into office areas. It is a substantial project. Who on the board signed off on it? A number of questions need to be answered. We need to bring the CEO of Inland Fisheries Ireland before the Committee of Public Accounts as a matter of urgency. Certainly there are questions raised from the 2021 accounts and there are also questions relating to 2022.

Chairman

We should also write to the Department with responsibility for the body.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I have had fairly similar contacts and complaints. My understanding is that the board is supposed to sign off on anything of a capital nature above €50,000. In actual fact, it appears that in December a €150,000 office upgrade was sanctioned in the absence of the board. I would have thought these were fairly serious issues. A number of people have left. There is much feeling of disillusionment. There is a feeling that the people who ask questions are those who are gone. We want people on boards to make a nuisance of themselves sometimes to make sure the board is properly run. I have very serious concerns about the governance. I echo the call that has been made on bringing before the committee the appropriate people to deal with this. Dealing with the accounts would be the same as asking how long is a piece of string if we do not have someone to engage with. This could go on for a considerable period of time. I imagine it is the Accounting Officer at the Department who has ultimate responsibility to make sure this is in compliance. If it is not in compliance, what would normally be done to deal with a body that is not functioning or is functioning below an acceptable standard? Is the Comptroller and Auditor General aware of what type of engagement happens in such a case?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It has arisen in different circumstances in the past. It depends on the legislation and what it provides for. I cannot quote offhand what is in the existing legislation. As I said, I spoke recently with the Secretary General. Perhaps it would be better if the committee addressed a query to him so that he can explain what powers are available to him or to the Minister and explain what action is planned to be taken.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I propose that we do that.

Deputy Alan Dillon

I have a question on future Vote accounts, the allocation of funds to the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications and its allocation to this State agency without proper sign-off of previous accounts. What is the obligation on the Secretary General to issue a call to the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform on funds being made available without scrutiny of previous accounts?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The funding is made available in the Vote for the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications. It is probably different to a grant situation where there is no ongoing oversight. There is no necessity that funding be stopped to generate the financial statements or the submission of the financial statements. The difficulty now that there is not an effective board that can sign off on the financial statements. If we had an automatic trigger whereby funding stopped because the financial statements did not arise, there would be a lot of people who would not get paid. That is the difficulty.

Chairman

Additional to the issue raised with regard to the letter, Deputy Dillon wants us to write to the Secretary General of the Department to get information on what powers he has and what normally happens in these situations.

Deputy Alan Dillon

Can we find time in the programme of work for this?

Chairman

We will come to that later and of course we can.

No. R1710C, dated 28 January 2023, is on governance matters at the Citizens Information Board and funded service companies. It is proposed to note and publish this correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. We should ask the Citizens Information Board and the Department for a response regarding the €8 million reported as being withheld without notification. We should point out that we are concerned this may not have been the first time. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

I may have missed this issue being raised. It relates to No. 1687. Can I speak on this issue now?

Chairman

Please do.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe: I thank the Chair. It is a simple enough matter. I would like us to get a response from the Department on this. It refers to the Whitehall College of Further Education building constructed by Western Building Systems. There is a legal dispute that has resulted in the building not being occupied for several years. To start our work on this, I propose that we write to the Department. I use the word "Department" loosely because at the time we had the Department of Education but now we have the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science and the Department of Education. We also have the Office of Public Works which was responsible for construction. Would it be possible to ask the three entities that I have referenced for a response regarding this? Substantial public investment has been made. There are clearly legal challenges but it is not clear why they are not being resolved. It would be a good body of work for the committee to get its teeth into depending on the replies that we get. If we get agreement to send this correspondence, it would be useful.

Chairman

That is a straightforward request of the committee. Is it agreed that we do that? Agreed. I thank Deputy McAuliffe.

I will now move on to our work programme. Next week we will resume our engagement with the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth with specific focus on direct provision expenditure, international protection and emergency accommodation. On 23 February, we will engage with the Central Bank, representatives from the Office of the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Finance in relation to Chapter 14 of the Report on the Accounts of the Public Services 2020: Assessment and collection of Insurance Compensation Fund levies and a report compiled under section 2 of the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993 on the unauthorised release of funds from the Central Fund of the Exchequer. On 2 March, we will engage with the State Claims Agency in relation to its financial statements for 2021 and Chapter 20 of the Report on the Accounts of the Public Services: Management of the Clinical Indemnity Scheme. On 9 March, we will engage with the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland regarding its financial statements.

If there are particular issues that members want to raise with any of these bodies I ask them to flag them well in advance with the secretariat and we will endeavour to have them on the agenda. The bodies should be aware of such issues before they come before the committee. Does any member wish to raise any other matter? Deputy Dillon has raised the issue of Inland Fisheries Ireland and asked that it be put on the work programme. We will put it on the list and we will try to get a date that is suitable.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Can we include the names of the lead speakers in our information?

Chairman

Yes. We can ask the secretariat to do that.

That concludes our consideration of the work programme.

Deputy Matt Carthy

There are a couple of points to be added to the list based on what we agreed previously. We agreed the lottery regulator should been invited. Again, I think there may have been a change of personnel. I am not sure whether that will have an effect.

The issues we have been dealing with concerning the HSE and Department of Health will also require re-examination by this committee as more information becomes available. I hope that, in the next few weeks, we will agree to bring back appropriate officials in this regard, particularly to address legacy issues in respect of nursing home payments and disability payments.

There is an issue I want to raise that would also include a proposed addition to our work programme, but I do not know whether the Chairman wants me to raise it now or as part of any other business.

Chairman

The Deputy may raise it now.

Deputy Matt Carthy

It is in respect of the immigrant investor programme. This is the programme whereby non-EU nationals can secure residency in Ireland and, therefore, the UK by becoming involved in investments or philanthropic endeavours. We are talking about substantial sums of money but, relatively speaking, there is an argument that it is a small amount of money for a big cost in terms of what the State has given up. A number of media articles in this regard should be of concern to the Committee of Public Accounts. Arthur Beesley has done some good work this week. Barry Whyte has been following one issue I raised in the Dáil today. It is in respect of the owners of a hotel in my constituency, the Nuremore Hotel. It is owned by one of the biggest brokers for the cash-for-visas scheme, a Mr. Kai Dai. Very serious concerns in respect of that individual case that might point us towards examining this issue more broadly. There have been several occasions over the past year on which staff have gone for several weeks without receiving their pay. There have been situations in which bills have not been paid.

Chairman

I do not want the Deputy making specific allegations against an individual or entity.

Deputy Matt Carthy

These are not allegations; these are statements of fact, and I can stand over them. The hotel is currently closed. It closed on 1 January. Staff were given a temporary layoff notice, ostensibly for the hotel to be renovated, but no renovation works have taken place.

The immigrant investor programme is a public programme. There are many concerns. There are several bodies that I believe we should write to in the short term in respect of the issues I have raised regarding the Nuremore Hotel, including the Revenue Commissioners, the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, the Health and Safety Authority and the Workplace Relations Commission. All should be keeping a close eye on this because it could result in a significant outlay for the State.

On the wider issues concerning the immigrant investor programme, my understanding is that it operates under the Department of Justice. My proposal on the work programme is that we include that Department and ask for staff from the relevant section that deals with the immigrant investor programme to be represented, because more general issues that have arisen. As I have said, there would potentially be a big financial outlay for the State if these cases were to unravel and cause reputational damage to the country, as well having immediate financial implications for insolvency-----

Chairman

We will take that into consideration. We agreed to asking representatives of An Bord Pleanála to appear as well. The meeting of 23 February was postponed. We should try to pin down a date with them as soon as possible. It is one of the meetings we agreed on previously.

That concludes our consideration of the work programme for today.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

May I mention our timing in relation to the nursing home and disability issues? We are aware of the timeline the Department or Minister is working to. Maybe we should timetable our meeting for when the reports are likely to be produced, because at least then we will have a substantial amount of information to go on. There is no point in doing anything in advance of the publication of a document that could be of value to the committee in its considerations.

Chairman

Of course.

Deputy Verona Murphy

I agree with that. As much as we want answers, we will probably be told that-----

Chairman

If they are invited in too soon before the reports-----

Deputy Verona Murphy

They will probably say they are in the middle of that. Did they not say they had not instructions as yet from the Minister?

Chairman

The last item on the public agenda is any other business. Since there is none, we will move into private session briefly before adjourning.

The committee went into private session at 2.25 p.m. and adjourned at 2.41 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 16 February 2023.