COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate - Thursday, 23 Mar 2023

Business of Committee

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

The public business before us this afternoon is as follows: minutes, accounts and financial statements, correspondence, the work programme and any other business. The first item is the minutes of our meeting of 9 March, which had been circulated among members. Does any member wish to raise any matter? Are the minutes agreed to? Agreed. As usual, they will be published on the committee's webpage.

We will move on to accounts and financial statements. There were ten sets of accounts and financial statements laid before the Houses between 6 and 17 March. I will now ask the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr McCarthy, to address those.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The set of financial statements relates to the Ireland-United States Commission for Educational Exchange, which is probably better known as the Fulbright Commission. The accounting period is 2021 to 2022. It received a clear audit opinion.

No. 2 comprises the financial statements for InterTradeIreland for 2021. This is one of the North–South bodies. It received a clear audit opinion. Members might want to note that the statement was certified on 30 September 2022 but only presented on 8 March 2023, so there is a delay in respect of that one.

No. 3 is for University College Cork, UCC, for 2020–21. The accounts received a qualified audit opinion. In most respects, or in almost all respects, the financial statements presented a true and fair view, except in one respect. The university recognises an asset in respect of deferred pension funding. That is standard practice for universities. I draw attention to it, but that is not the basis of the qualification. The amount recognised includes €11.4 million in respect of liabilities related to professional added years for transferred-in service. In my view, this is an estimated €3.4 million more than is provided for in an agreement between the university and the Higher Education Authority, HEA. Therefore, the account is qualified in respect of that. I have reported and qualified in previous years that it is an ongoing, unresolved matter that I have drawn attention to.

The second aspect, which again does not go to the qualification, is that I draw attention to the disclosure of a material level of non-compliance with procurement rules. Does the Cathaoirleach wish to refer to that?

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

Could the Comptroller and Auditor General explain the €11.4 million in respect of liabilities related to professional added years for transferred-in-service?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The total liability in respect of these added years for transferred-in service is about €14 million. The agreement was that it would be funded on a 50:50 basis between the HEA and UCC, but UCC believes the agreement goes beyond that and that three quarters of the funding will be met by the HEA. That is not borne out, in my view, by the agreement that was put in place with HEA. The value of the overstatement, in my view, is €3.4 million. It is an ongoing issue. It does not affect any other university.

No. 4 is for Ordnance Survey Ireland for 2021. It received a clear audit opinion but I do draw attention to the assumptions underpinning the recognition of a deferred pension funding asset, which, as with the universities, is standard for bodies with substantial non-State income.

No. 5 is for the Beaumont Hospital board for 2021. It received a clear audit opinion; however, I draw attention to a couple of items. The hospital board acknowledges that it did not carry out a review of the effectiveness of the system of internal financial control in the manner required by the code of practice for the governance of State bodies, and it outlines how it is taking steps to rectify that for the future. There is also a disclosure of a material level of non-compliant procurement by the hospital.

No. 6 concerns the account of Fís Éireann, or Screen Ireland, for 2021. It received a clear audit opinion.

No. 7 is the account of Tipperary Education and Training Board for 2021. It received a clear audit opinion; however, I draw attention to the disclosure of a material level of non-compliance with procurement rules.

No. 8 is the account of Limerick and Clare Education and Training Board for 2021. Again, there is a clear audit opinion, but I draw attention to the disclosure of a material level of non-compliance with procurement rules.

No. 9 comprises the accounts for fishery harbour centres for 2021. A clear audit opinion was received.

No. 10 is the account of the public trustee for 2022. That received a clear audit opinion. It is a small account. The turnover in the year was €30,000, the total value of the funds at the year's end was €1.8 million.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

What is the value of the material level of non-compliance in relation to the Tipperary, Limerick and Clare education and training boards?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The figure for Tipperary Education and Training Board is €800,000, including VAT. That for Limerick and Clare Education and Training Board is just over €1 million.

Let me put on record the figures for Beaumont Hospital. The compliance level remained at 89% of expenditure of €195 million. There was non-compliant procurement to the value of €20 million.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

I propose that we write to the three bodies and ask them for an explanation as to what measures they are putting in place to deal with this. I know there is an issue with the education and training boards in that they have explained to us that they are trying to improve their procurement-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Progress has been made.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

-----through individual procurement officers or teams of people. Nevertheless, we will make the request. Is that agreed?

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

With regard to Beaumont Hospital, it might be worthwhile to have the Comptroller and Auditor General look at the matter again, having regard to the purchase of the site adjoining the hospital and the value.

That is something that the Comptroller and Auditor General might examine. If he feels it is appropriate, it is something we could explore at a future date.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I do not recall the timing of the purchase or when the issue was raised but I will bear it in mind-----

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

There was some newspaper coverage.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

-----when we are looking at the 2022 financial statements.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

Can we agree to note the financial statements? Agreed. As usual, the financial statements will be published as part of our minutes.

We will move on to correspondence. As previously agreed, items of correspondence 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. Decisions taken by the committee in relation to correspondence are recorded in the minutes of the committee’s meetings and published on the our web page. The first category of correspondence is category B, correspondence from Accounting Officers and-or Ministers and follow-up to committee meetings. The first item in this category was held over from our last meeting and I propose to deal with it one way or the other. No. 1764B is from Mr. John Hogan, Secretary General of the Department of Finance, and is dated 27 February 2023. It provides information requested by the committee arising from the meeting with the Department on 17 November 2022. It is proposed to note and publish this item of correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. Deputies Munster and Catherine Murphy had flagged this item for discussion. Deputy Munster is unavoidably absent, so I call Deputy Murphy.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

The Department has responded to an issue I raised in note 6, which relates to development contributions received by local authorities. I wanted to know whether restrictions were still in place on spending. The correspondence includes a table setting out the amount of income and the audited date available in respect of development contributions for the financial year ending 31 December 2021. In that one year, there are very large sums in respect of some local authorities where there are high levels of development. The third paragraph of the note states:

When a commencement notice is received, contributions collectable within the next 12 months are usually treated as income by the relevant local authority.

However, according to a later paragraph:

The spending of development levies is spending on reserves and impacts on the general government balance [this is the part I was getting to] and was restricted following the financial crisis.

They can take it in but they do not have the freedom to spend what they like at will. It continues:

Local authorities have been directed that, similar to their revenue account activity, capital expenditure should not exceed capital income within the reporting year.

The following paragraph states:

However, within those overall limits, there is capacity for the expenditure of built up capital balances and own resources, or expenditure supported by borrowing...

It seems to me that you can borrow against what you are owed in development levies but you cannot spend the development levy. Am I reading that right? There is a difficulty. If there is a very high level of development in an area and the local authority needs to put in works associated with that development, it has the development contributions but it cannot spend them or it is restricted in how it can spend them. That has been the case since after the crash. In my area, where there is a consistently high level of development, people complain that you get the housing but not everything else; if it follows at all, it comes much later. We see here that when there is money available, there is a restriction on the local authorities from spending the money. Given that the cost of borrowing may get unattractive, this is a balance that cannot be spent but can be offset against borrowing. Maybe I need an interpretation of this or a further interpretation by the Department. As well as the 2021 development levy income, I would like the Department to provide the committee with the 2022 income, when it has it, and to provide us with what is in the local authorities' accounts that is on deposit, as it were. That information would allow us to get a proper picture on this.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

The note referred to by the Deputy states:

Local authorities have been directed that, similar to their revenue account activity, capital expenditure should not exceed capital income within the reporting year. Development contributions are recorded in the capital account of local authorities. The precise manner in which capital and current accounts are managed in order to achieve the overall balance necessary...

I would not read that as there being huge restrictions on them. I think it is saying that the authority's expenditure on capital should not exceed what it has coming in as income, or what it has as income.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I know there has been a difficulty with the freedom to spend the money, particularly in the years since the crash. That has been the case in the local authority of which I have most knowledge.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

I would support that. That would also be my experience. The capital has to be spent in a certain way and often within a very specific geographic distance.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

Of the development?

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

Yes. My only worry is that this relates to local authorities, which do not necessarily fall within our remit. Also, it is probably a policy issue for the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage. Deputy Catherine Murphy's point is very valid because I have seen it for myself in Dublin City Council.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Very often an authority can apply for local infrastructure housing activation fund, LIHAF, funding to open up a piece of land if there is an impediment to development but it might have money sitting in an account that it cannot spend. I am not sure what the restriction is. The restriction is far more likely to apply in areas where there are very big amounts of money. For instance, Dublin City Council has €40 million, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council has €40 million and Fingal County Council has €48 million. It is not surprising given the level of development there.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

The note states:

In reviewing requests for sanction, consideration is given to ensuring that priority infrastructural investment can proceed, that contractual commitments and ongoing projects can proceed; and that development contributions already collected and aligned to specific capital projects can be utilised efficiently.

It seems to be the case that local authorities interpret it in a certain way. That is what seems to be happening. It does not seem to me that the position as set out in those few paragraphs imposes any restrictions. At the very least, it gives the local authority a fairly free hand. When development levies are set out, the scheme for development levies sets out that there will be a focus on roads, water, amenities, recreation or whatever else. Once it is under those headings, it is the scheme of the local authority-----

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Practically, I remember there being over €1 billion sitting on deposit and the local authorities could not spend it. This was straight after the crash. We asked for the amount that is on deposit with the local authorities in order to give us a clearer picture of whether they can spend it. It is fine for them to have it on hand but if they cannot spend it-----

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

My understanding was that every pot of money was being sat on in the years that followed that, but-----

Deputy Catherine Murphy

But the Department is telling us in the third paragraph that it was restricted following the financial crisis.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

That is right.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

It is not saying that the restriction has been lifted.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

Let us clarify that.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Yes. We also need to find out how much is on deposit around the country.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

That is a valid question.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

Some of it was to ensure that local authorities did not get hooked on development either. There was an effort to ensure they were not giving development that might otherwise not be appropriate on the basis that they were getting income from it. I think some of the restrictions were there for a good reason as well.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

The income in 2021 alone was €266 million.

We will ask how much is in the total pot now and clarify the situation with the restriction.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

We can ask for the figure by local authority as well so that we can see the profile. When the Department has the 2022 figures, it might provide them to us.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

That would be useful. Some local authorities may be more restricted than others.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I believe it was strictly applied.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

I have seen local authority members deciding where it is spent. That has been my experience. We will seek clarification. Obviously, what happens varies from place to place.

No. 1772 B, from Mr. David Moloney, Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, dated 3 March, provides the information we requested regarding the final cost of the national children's hospital. It is proposed to note and publish this correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. Deputy Munster and I flagged this matter for discussion. According to the letter, it remains the position that a definitive estimate of the final cost, including the extensive costs arising from construction inflation, will not be provided by the Department. Similarly, the timeline for claims management is a matter for the Department of Health. With the hospital being completed in the next 12 months, this will be the stock answer for now, but we should seek an update within the next few months. This reply is not satisfactory as it is unacceptable that we are not at least getting nearer to an estimate. I know the Department cannot tell us what the final cost will be - members will accept that - but what about a definitive estimate of the final cost? We should be moving into a phase now where the hospital is 85% constructed. I suggest that we re-examine the matter in the coming months.

Deputy Matt Carthy

The letter answers a question that was not asked. At least, I do not believe we asked for a definitive final cost. We asked for an estimate of the final cost. The Department's response refers to a definitive estimate, though, which is a contradictory term in itself. Something is either definitive or an estimate. We asked for an estimate. It is not feasible for the Department to say it does not have an estimate and that the Department of Health is managing the situation. What is the purpose of the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform in the first instance if it is not monitoring one of the largest and most expensive public expenditure projects the country is undertaking? We need to revert to the Department. To be clear, we are asking for its latest estimate of the final cost, understanding that there may be variations upwards or downwards.

It is not the person who wrote this letter who will be paying for the hospital on his own, nor will it be the Department. It will be the taxpayers – the public – of Ireland, and they have an entitlement to know what the end cost will be. This matter is particularly pertinent because we know that, as part of what was arguably one of the worst public expenditure contracts ever signed, the State is on the hook for inflation costs on everything above 4%. There will be no sharing of them. That is the agreement which the State signed. The position of the Departments of Health and Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, stated before this committee, is still that this was a good contract. They are the only ones in the country who believe that, apart from the developers. It is reaching the point where we need accountability in this matter. I propose we write back to the Department.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

We can take that proposal on board.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

As the board reaches the point where it tries to buy out responsibility, that process might be rushed. Will value for money be obtained in the rush to get that security? There is a great deal of pressure to get the hospital delivered on time. I am concerned that, in this final period, value for money issues could arise due to seeking to buy out options, inflation and other matters. We have no line of sight or ability to query that until the whole thing is finished, but it will be too late by that point. While the overall cost is a significant factor, I am focusing on the current period where we are buying out options in the contract. Is value for money being secured in that process?

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

In the haste to do that.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

Exactly.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

Is Deputy Carthy's proposal agreed? Agreed.

Correspondence No. 1773 B is again from Mr. Moloney, providing information we requested arising from our meeting with the regulator of the national lottery on 24 November. It is proposed to note and publish this item of correspondence. Deputies Catherine Murphy and Carthy have flagged this matter.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Two items of correspondence are associated – Nos. 1773 B and 1781 B. I wish to inquire about Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan, which is looking to get out of the lotto licence. It acquired the licence in 2014 for €405 million. Is there an exit penalty and who would handle the licence's sale? I presume it would not be put up for open sale. How would it be sold? An Post is a junior partner. Would the sale have consequences for it?

The lottery licence was sold to fund, in part, the building of the national children's hospital. It will be doing well to fund the overrun, never mind the initial cost. Has that funding gone into the children's hospital and how much of the €405 million has been collected for that purpose?

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

Does Mr. McCarthy wish to reply?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

As I recall, the proceeds of the sale were brought into the Exchequer. The Exchequer forms one fund. There is no subdivision called "the children's hospital fund". The money was received into the Exchequer, though, so the State got its value. It was notionally described as being ring-fenced for-----

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Public consumption.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

-----the children's hospital, but there is no technical way of doing that.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

Does Mr. McCarthy remember what the figure was?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I believe it was in or around €405 million.

Deputy Matt Carthy

According to the evidence we have received, the purchasers have made that back and more over the nine years. Is that not correct?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I do not want to comment on-----

Deputy Matt Carthy

I believe that was the evidence. My understanding is that whatever the organisation manages to sell the licence for is clean new profit, which raises significant questions about the competence of the people who privatised the lottery service in the first place.

We should ask whether consideration is being given to purchasing the licence. There are 11 years left in its life, as it is nearly halfway through its term. Knowing it has been profitable for the organisation that purchased it, it would seem eminently sensible that the licence be brought back into public ownership. We can seek clarification on this. At a minimum, we should seek clarification of the role of State agencies in terms of who will be overseeing same and what roles the regulator and Department will have. Clarifying all of these points would be useful.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

And if there is an exit penalty.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

Okay. We will request that information. We should also request information about the policy on protecting online players.

There were clearly breaches of it and the system to stop it failed on a number of occasions. I propose we write to the lottery regulator asking for clarification why there were no penalties issued for the breaches that occurred on a number of occasions. Members may recall from when the regulator was before us and from the correspondence that the issue came up a number of times. I am not clear on why there was no response when there was a clear breach of the policy. The clerk is telling me we agreed last week to request information on what penalties were issued following the breaches. We will see what happens with that. I am open to correction, but my understanding is no penalties were issued. If we get a reply saying no penalties issued it would be interesting to know why, because I do not understand it.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I think we all had a feeling the engagement there was very unsatisfactory, and that is an understatement. There was some justification given at the meeting, but it was not satisfactory to us.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

The effectiveness of the regulatory system in place was lacking. It did not seem to be cutting it. We looked for that information and we will see what comes back. If it is negative we try to ascertain what the reasons for that are.

If everybody else is okay on the national lottery, we will move to No. 1776 from Darragh O'Loughlin, chief executive officer of the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board, IHRB. It is dated 6 March 2023 and provides information requested by the committee regarding the exit package for the former chief executive officer. It is proposed to note and publish this item of correspondence. Deputy Carthy flagged this.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I am trying to pull up the original letter we received. The questions we asked related to the fact a package was provided to the former chief executive officer. We subsequently got a figure for that, did we not?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes.

Deputy Matt Carthy

What was it?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It was in or around €380,000. I do not have the figure in front of me, but from recollection it was about €380,000.

Deputy Matt Carthy

It was in breach of the-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It was in excess of the early retirement terms that were on offer.

Deputy Matt Carthy

That the individual concerned had actually-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Would have been entitled to.

Deputy Matt Carthy

-----signed off on.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes.

Deputy Matt Carthy

There were terms in place for all other members and staff or the board, but the former CEO received above and beyond them. We need to know why that happened. We have no understanding of it as yet, and we need to find out. This is a body that is 100% publicly-funded. It is funded by Horse Racing Ireland, HRI, via the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. It is a strange relationship, because the Department provides a grant through a unique mechanism to HRI every year through the Horse and Greyhound Racing Fund. The first unique aspect of the funding is it is divided between two distinct organisations on an 80:20 split regardless of what either annual plan is and there have been questions about that. HRI is funding the body that regulates it from its own funding, as opposed to the regulatory body being directly funded by the Department.

Within that, the IHRB decided to pay a former CEO more than it was legally obliged to and more than was required under its own early retirement package. The IHRB has sent us correspondence talking about the sensitivity of the situation and what have you. I want to know how and why the board came to that decision. What financial rationale was there for paying an individual more than they were entitled to of public money? This is not a semi-State body where there might be arguments about other income, but a 100% taxpayer-funded body that is under a lot of scrutiny for its performance. I will not let this matter drop until the IHRB, HRI or the Department stands over this and explains how we got to this point. I ask members to do likewise.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

I suggest we also write to the Department.

Deputy Matt Carthy

For sure.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

We do not know whether or not someone in the Department provided sanction for this. If they did, why was that?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I do not believe there was Department sanction for it because the Department was not obliged to do so. I think the IHRB itself had the authority to determine the remuneration package.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

Okay. I would like the Secretary General's view on what has happened here though, as the Accounting Officer. Was the Secretary General aware of it? If not, what is the Secretary General's view of what happened and what has the Secretary General done to take the matter up with the IHRB?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

This came up the last week or the week before.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I think it was presented last week or maybe the week before.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I think we were told in general terms. There were 14 or a dozen retirements or something and we had not got the breakdown. We might have already asked some questions, so I assume there are not going to be duplicate questions. We need to double-check that.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

I do not recall that one.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I think the Deputy was referring to the fact there were a number of early retirements. Is that right?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Yes.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

And there was an aggregate figure of in or around €700,000.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Yes, and we did not know who got what. Then all of a sudden we saw-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Exactly. There is not any further disclosure other than the aggregate amount. I think it does not say the number of recipients, but within that there was this figure of in or around €380,000 to the former chief executive.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I have one other point. We are constantly told hypothecation, which I think is the word, though I would just say ring-fenced, is not generally how Departments do things. However, this is a clear example of how a Department did that. The Minister for Finance at the time this fund was set up was Charlie McCreevy, who was a strong advocate of horse racing. The next time I am told something cannot be ring-fenced I will answer that it can be and cite this as an example of it.

Deputy Matt Carthy

Just to remind members, in May 2021, the then CEO of the IHRB announced to all members of staff that there was an early retirement and voluntary redundancy scheme available. Between 11 May and 11 June he himself applied for early retirement, but on 11 June, one month after the rest of the organisation were informed of the terms, a formal agreement was concluded providing for the termination of his employment with effect from 30 September. That amounted to a payment, as Mr. McCarthy has said, of €384,000, which was €141,000 above the terms that would have applied under his own scheme. As I said, somebody needs to explain how and why that happened. The former CEO applied for it and then apparently there was a separate negotiation strand taking place. It does not make sense on any basis. I know of no other organisation where such a process would be allowed apply.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

We will see what comes back from the Department. A letter went to it about this. Maybe we need to be more specific. I would certainly like to know what the criteria were in this case, because a difference of €115,000 is-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It was €140,000.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

That is even worse.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I am looking for the exact figures. For the record, the terms of the agreement with the chief executive included a termination payment of €384,870. That was €141,880 more than the amount payable if the scheme conditions had been applied as stated.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

We will see what the Department says in relation to that. I would be interested in examining it.

Deputy Matt Carthy

Other heads of State boards earn less than the €141,000 this gentleman was given, on top of the scheme he should have applied for, on an annual basis. I cannot understand how the Accounting Officer of a Department, which, through a convoluted process, gives money to a body that represents 100% of that body's funding, can just sit back and accept that this is something it has done.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

In the interest of time, we will await the reply and see what comes back in that regard. We may need to probe the matter. This discrepancy and the amount by which the payment exceeded what it should have been - €141,000 - give rise to serious questions. We will see what comes back and take the matter from there.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

While I will not be as specific as Deputy Carthy was in explaining, it is about who and why.

Deputy Matt Carthy

It is also about who is going to be accountable. This is the usual craic we get in this committee where we are told the person is gone and there is nothing we can do. We cannot call him in and whoever comes before us says it was the previous board or CEO who agreed these terms. It is the public who are after handing over this exit package of almost €400,000.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

We will look for that specific information. I ask for members' co-operation because there is a substantial amount of correspondence. I suggest to the committee we put back No. R1777B from the Department of Social Protection, which was raised by Deputy Munster, to give her a chance. She is unavoidably absent today. We will ask for her co-operation with that.

No. R1779B, from Ms Katherine Licken, Secretary General of the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, dated 7 March 2023, provides information requested by the committee regarding the costs of the commission to investigate Olympic ticketing in Rio de Janeiro 2016. It is proposed to note and publish this correspondence. Deputy Catherine Murphy wishes to comment.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

This relates to Pat Hickey and the ticketing scandal at the time. We were given €312,000 as the grand total for the Moran inquiry. Are there further third-party fees or is that the end of it? Can we ask that?

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

We can ask that. There is a very detailed breakdown of barristers' fees and solicitors' fees of approximately €180,000 for both. We will make that request.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

It would be interesting to know if barristers' fees related solely to the inquiry or the costs of people who participated in the inquiry.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

Third parties.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

That is the point; there are third-party fees.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

Obviously there is also a fee for sole member of the inquiry team. We will note and publish this correspondence.

The next correspondence is No. R1781B, from Mr. Andrew Algeo, chief executive officer, Premier Lotteries Ireland, dated 8 March 2023, providing information requested by the committee regarding player protection measures, expenditure on player welfare measures and clarification in relation to contact made between the Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland and Premier Lotteries Ireland. It is proposed to note and publish this correspondence. Is that agreed? Deputy Catherine Murphy wishes to comment.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Would it be possible to defer that?

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

We can defer it until next week.

No. R1784B from Mr. Jim Breslin, Secretary General, Department of Further and Higher Education, Research Innovation and Science, dated 8 March 2023, provides information requested by the committee regarding Whitehall College of Further Education. A further item from the Department of Education was received and will be included on the correspondence list for next week’s meeting. A further related item from the Office of Public Works, OPW, is also due. I have just been informed that has been received and will be on next week's agenda. Do members wish to comment?

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

It would be interesting for us to see all of the correspondence together. By making these inquiries, I wanted to help build a case for my fellow committee members that there was an area of public spending we needed to examine as a committee and to clarify who would be best to come before the committee for that purpose. The site is Whitehall College of Further Education on the Swords Road. It is a significant building that is deemed not fit for purpose. There is a contractual issue in that regard with Western Building Systems. Contractual and legal issues are trundling along in the background, which are costing money. The education and training board, ETB, is also developing a significant site adjoining the college and there is also Home Farm Football Club. Different decisions are being made on the broader adjoining area due to the metro alignment by the National Transport Authority, NTA. This site prevented it from making good strategic decisions. It was proposed to reallocate a pitch but that could not happen because of the legal issues on this site. This matter needs to be brought to an end. There needs to be some accountability for what happened, whether that lies entirely with Western Building Systems, the procurement process or elsewhere. Without prejudice to the other documentation coming to us, I would like there to be a committee hearing at some point related to it. I appreciate other committee members may wish to see the correspondence from the OPW.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

There is an ongoing legal case in the High Court on this matter.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

There is and the frustration is that it precludes any sort of accountability for this.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

That is why I am flagging it.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

That case could go on for a significant period. What mechanism is available to the committee to achieve accountability, even just for the legal process and the legal strategy alone?

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

We will look at the two when we get the other correspondence. We will revert to the matter then.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I referred to No. R1781B with No. R1773B, so I do not need it deferred.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

Okay. We will note and publish No. R1784B.

No. R1787B, from Mr. Kevin McCarthy, Secretary General, Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, dated 9 March 2023, provides information requested by the committee arising from the meeting on 16 February 2023. It is proposed to note and publish this correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. Deputy Murphy and I flagged this. The question concerns the number of beneficiaries of temporary protection per 1,000 population each country is taking in. I understand this refers to Ukrainians. It is right that we do that and it is good we are playing our part. As a small country, we have done a huge amount. It is great that we are able to provide sanctuary for people, 81% or 82% of whom are women and children who had to flee war-affected areas in Ukraine. There is an issue that needs examination, which I raised with Mr. Kevin McCarthy when he was before the committee. We need to be fair to the Mediterranean states because they have an influx from north Africa and other countries in the Middle East which we do not have on the same scale. It is clear there are a number of other central or northern European countries which have not been taking the same numbers.

France is a case in point. France has been taking roughly the same amount as ourselves, or very slightly more than us, but with a population in excess of 50 million, and with a bigger economy and a bigger country. None of what I say should be taken as an argument for turning anyone away. That is not what I am saying.

I propose that we write to the Minister in charge of this brief to ask what has been done. I asked Mr. Kevin McCarthy this when he was in before the committee and he said that some of it is flagged up in discussion between officials but we must ask the Minister specifically whether he is flagging this up with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and at European Union level. Given the discussion this week in the Chamber, everybody knows that our housing situation is dire. We want to help the people who are coming here. We do not want people sleeping rough. As a host country, for every 1,000 of the population, we are taking 1.4% and that is as it should be. There are a number of other European countries, including northern European countries, that are way below that in terms of the percentage. What discussions are taking place at European Union level regarding that? In the context of managing the public finances and finding the resources to provide accommodation, and all of the other things that must be provided, there are issues that will arise. I propose to the committee that we write to the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, to ask him that. Is that agreed? Do other members wish to comment on any other aspect of that?

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

What are we asking the Minister?

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

If we look at the tables in pages 2 and 3, we can see the figures that we have taken. The population is 5.1 million, and then we see the number of active temporary protection registrations as of 9 January was 70,000 in Ireland. It has gone up substantially since then. As I have said, it is great that we have been able to help those people. It has, however, put a strain on. We have had to do our work to help that, and rightly so, including all of us and the Departments. It is safe to say that the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth is under significant pressure. From the day they were in here, anybody who sat through that meeting with the Department could not have come away from it without realising that. I believe it would be worthwhile, from a public accounts view and from a financial management perspective, to flag this up with the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, and ask whether he is raising this with the Department of Foreign Affairs and with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and if he has had discussions with his European counterparts on this matter. It is clear when we look at the ratio that Ireland is taking in 1.4% of our population and when we look at other areas, we can see that some northern European countries are at 0.5% and some others are also very low. We must excuse the Mediterranean countries because they have a problem in a different way, in that they are trying to cope with the huge influx from the Middle East and from North Africa. Countries like Italy, Greece and Spain are under significant pressure in that regard. There is no sign of matters improving in Ukraine in the near future. It is important that we continue to do our part and that we stretch ourselves as far as possible to do that and to provide every assistance. It is the right thing to do for these people but we want to be able to provide for them. We do not want people coming here who might end up homeless. It is important to remember that we probably have one of the worst housing crisis in Europe and that the matter should be flagged up with the countries that have capacity still. Do any members wish to comment on this? Is it agreed that we just ask the question of the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman?

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

I am not sure. I heard the Cathaoirleach's response but are we asking the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, if he is aware that other countries may be taking more or fewer people than Ireland?

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

Yes. We will also ask if it is being addressed with European counterparts. When the Department was in before the committee, we could see that they were under significant pressure. They admitted that what they are providing is not always satisfactory. We all know that but we want to try to help people who are coming and we ought continue to do that. There will be more people coming. When we look across the figures for the rest of Europe in this regard, some countries have taken huge numbers, which is to be applauded, and Ireland has done it. It is the right thing to do. I do not want anything I say to be construed in any other way but there does need to be a conversation with others in relation to what can be done to spread the capacity or the burden, and to take up where there may be spare capacity. This is not a blame game here but by any standards we are facing into a significant housing crisis. We are all under pressure on it. I certainly do not want to see people sleeping on the streets or footpaths, either people who are seeking international protection or people who are already here. That is not acceptable. It is about asking the questions, that is all. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. R1790 B from Mr. Niall Cody, Commissioner, Office of the Revenue Commissioners, is dated 9 March 2023 and provides information requested by the committee arising from the meeting with Revenue on 8 December 2022. It is proposed to note and publish this item of correspondence. Deputy Munster had flagged this item for discussion. We have a choice. We can put it back until next week or any member who wishes may comment on it now.

Deputy Matt Carthy

We should put it back.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

Okay, if members are happy enough to do that. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. R1795 B from Mr. Mark Griffin, Secretary General, Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, is dated 14 March 2023 and provides information requested by the committee regarding Inland Fisheries Ireland. It is proposed to note and publish this item of correspondence. Deputy Catherine Murphy flagged this item for discussion.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

There is a paragraph in the middle of the front page of this letter that says "As Secretary General and Accounting Officer for the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications I am responsible for, inter alia, ensuring that there is a clear framework for control (including financial reporting) and accountability for public funds"" The next page, however, has quite an extensive list of items:

critical to the functions of Inland Fisheries Ireland remained to be performed and could not be performed [including]

i. Sign off on Statements of Internal Control for 2021 and 2022;

ii. Approval of use of Inland Fisheries Ireland HQ, Citywest Business Campus,Dublin for current emergency to house refugees;

iii. Sales and acquisitions of property;

iv. Sign off on financial statements for 2021;

It strikes me that to date, there has been a very hands-off approach around this. Serious issues have been raised under correspondence at a number of meetings. In the same way that we received information on Meisian Plaza, we need to receive a quarterly update on this from the Department. We are waiting until the board is in place so the accounts can be signed off, so the Comptroller and Auditor General can audit the accounts but there appear to be other issues of governance that do not strike me as being very hands-on.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

It is a substantial list there of the functions that "remained to be performed and could not be performed". We can look for that if agreed by the committee members. Two commissioners have been appointed to that body to oversee it. I believe it is two former county managers. This was as a result of the collapse of the board and governance structure there. Hopefully they can get on top of this. We will, however, look for quarterly updates. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

On the financial statements, they have in fact signed them and we have received them. I am due to do my final review and sign-off in the next days.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Will they then go to the Department?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Then they will go to the Department.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

It will depend on the Department then how quickly they turned the accounts around so that we can see them. Are those accounts for 2021?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes, for 2021.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

We will note and publish the item of correspondence.

We move on now to No. R1801 B from Mr. Ray Mitchell, assistant national director, HSE, dated 15 March 2023, which provides an update in relation to information requested by the committee regarding administration of the health repayment scheme, which is the nursing home charges. It is proposed to note and publish this item of correspondence. Deputy Matt Carthy and I had flagged this item for discussion.

Deputy Matt Carthy

This letter is entirely unacceptable. This relates to a number of questions, but there was one particular question I asked, which was on the numbers of people who were affected by sections 28 and 29, if I am correct, and the disability services accommodation. We had asked for this in a number of engagements with the HSE.

I remind members that on 2 February, I asked specific questions in respect of the numbers affected, including the number of individuals, the number of centres affected, the number of people who had appealed and who had not appealed, etc. These are people who, it subsequently transpired, were eligible for the long-term payments but were never informed that they were eligible, or their representatives were never informed that they were eligible. On 2 February, we asked for those figures by the end of the meeting, and Mr. Stephen Mulvany said it would not be possible to get anything before the end of the meeting. The Cathaoirleach asked if we could have a reply within two weeks. I asked why Mr. Mulvany would not be able to get that information on the day. He said:

We have to have some time to consider it. We will absolutely comply with the two-week requirement.

The following week, we had the Secretary General of the Department of Health, Mr. Robert Watt, before us and again we tried to get answers in that respect. I was told last week that people would revert to me, but we have not received further information. Mr. Watt said: "I believe they said they would revert within two weeks", and he actually went on to quote the Cathaoirleach and reiterate the position of two weeks, which would have been a week after that meeting or 16 February. Here we are receiving a letter, a full month after that, which indicates that the HSE is currently engaging with the Department of Health, stating "You will appreciate that many of the records are old by nature, and hence we need to allow this process to conclude before responding to more detailed requests." I understand that the Department has advised that this process will take a number of months.

This is stonewalling again. The entire debacle and scandal around the long-term nursing home charges re-emerged in January as a major issue, because it implicated many serving members of the current Cabinet, and we have found that there has been a policy of obstruction and denial of people in respect of what they were entitled to. In this instance, and particularly regarding the questions I put, we were talking about people who through the process that was put in place at the time were found to be eligible. These were people with profound disabilities in what were described as voluntary nursing homes. I do not think it is acceptable, and I ask that we write to the Secretary General, Mr. Watt, relaying what he told us on 9 February, and asking him for that information by the end of this month. If not, I propose that we change our work programme to invite Mr. Mulvany and Mr. Watt back to the committee's first meeting after Easter because they committed to providing us with information that has long been denied to people who have been denied their entitlements. They committed to the committee that they would have it, and now they are coming back two months later to say that this will take a number of further months. It is not tolerable.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

There is another point I wanted to raise. During that meeting, we were promised a reply within two weeks regarding nursing home charges for medical card patients for items that were normally be available under the medical card scheme. As far as I know, we have not received that clarification yet. I ask that we would include that in it, because-----

Deputy Matt Carthy

Could I suggest, if this is agreeable to members, that when we write to seek this information, we put them on standby for the meeting following the Easter recess.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

That slot is taken. I am anxious to have them back in as well if this happens, and if we do not get a satisfactory response.

Deputy Matt Carthy

They are depending on us being busy. When is the next available slot?

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

We are looking at two weeks after Easter before we get into that territory.

Deputy Matt Carthy

Who do we have the first week after Easter?

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

Can the Deputy Carthy hold that until we come back to the work programme? I do not want to get into a discussion about the work programme. We have the Central Bank on 20 April and An Bord Pleanála on 27 April.

Deputy Matt Carthy

So we have hostile witnesses for two weeks. I was looking on the basis that we might have an organisation that might be willing to facilitate us in this instance. Could we organise a special meeting?

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

We can do that. I am in the committee's hands on this matter. If members want to do that, I do not have a problem. I am always open to doing that, subject to committee room availability.

Deputy Matt Carthy

Does the Cathaoirleach see that there is an issue here, particularly with the HSE and anything to do with the health services? Every question that is put to officials, they run down the clock. When we follow up with correspondence, they take a long time to come back. Then they deploy delaying practices. Oftentimes, they answer questions that they were not asked, and they bombard the committee with information. This is a very specific issue that was put to them going back as far as February.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

I suggest one way to deal with it. We have the HSE pencilled in for 4 May, so one way of dealing with it is to would bring in the Secretary General of the Department of Health on the same day, if the Deputy wanted to do that.

Deputy Matt Carthy

Okay, we should do that, but that does not mean that we are saying that the committee is willing to wait until May.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

Yes.

Deputy Matt Carthy

We asked for this information on 2 February. On 9 February, to avoid having to answer the questions, the Secretary General said we would get the information next week. It was a week into a two-week process at that point. If it was clear that this was going to take a long period, it would have been evident at that stage.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

I want answers ion another matter as well, which is the services, material and items normally provided under the medical card scheme in nursing homes. We were promised a reply on that. This has come up a number of times, and it is really frustrating. One issue around that needs to be clarified relates to the contracts that the HSE has with the private nursing homes. The officials were supposed to clarify that, and they have not come back with it. I have not seen clarification in that regarding, or how it is policed and managed. There seems to be a problem with that in respect of people who have medical card entitlements. That would mean the majority of patients in private nursing homes, while people over 70 are automatically have them in many cases. think the thresholds are higher. Those questions have not been answered for us. I ask that, if it is agreed by the committee, we would request that information as well, along with Deputy Carthy's proposal.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I am wary about leaving these guys until May because----

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

I know. If it is agreed by the committee to have a meeting-----

Deputy Matt Carthy

If the Cathaoirleach recalls the questions that were included-----

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

Let us be clear about this. If it is agreed by the committee to have a special meeting, I have no problem with that.

I agree with the Deputy. The can is being kicked down the road on it, and we need to try to catch hold of it and stop it. We are being fobbed off there and we just need definitive answers within the timeline that was promised.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I suggest, as well, is that we let them know that these are answers we expect them to have, if it is 4 May. We want to have it beforehand but on 4 May, these questions will be put to them. If the Accounting Officer does not answer the questions, we will need to ask the Minister for Health to come before us to answer questions on how he is standing over a Department whose officials are coming before a committee, committing to providing information, and then subsequently refusing to do so.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

No. 1785 is correspondence from an individual regarding the Kolbe Special School, Portlaoise, County Laois. It is proposed to request information from the Department of Education on the matters raised regarding public expenditure and request the correspondent's consent to forward the correspondence to the Joint Committee on Education, Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science also for policy considerations. Is that agreed? Agreed.

This is an individual item. I had not seen the correspondence until I came in this week. Kolbe Special School is one of the schools that were prioritised for a capital build in the schools building programme and is one of the 58 put on hold. A former Minister for Education said to me yesterday they cannot fathom why it is one of the ones put on hold or taken off the priority list. There was a public meeting on it last night in Portlaoise and it was packed to the rafters. If anyone doubts me, they should go and look at the conditions the school is in. It has been passed over for years. A significant number of new schools are being built in the county, all of which I welcome, but for some reason, the 43 children who are in the school and its staff have been passed over. They have profound difficulties. The equipment used by even two students would not fit into a small circle. Parents brought the equipment used by one of the children to the meeting last night. It would take the size of an average-size sitting room to house it. The school is operating out of small prefabricated buildings. There are eight prefab classrooms and only one solid classroom, and four roofs were leaking throughout the winter. It is intolerable and there are health and safety issues and everything else.

While I do not want to be too parochial about it, this is an extreme situation. I ask that with the committee's indulgence, we write to the Secretary General of the Department of Education and ask her these questions regarding the financing of the school. In my understanding, there is €160 million in the capital budget this year. What are the financial criteria used for removing a school from the priority list or putting it on hold? What basis was there for removing Kolbe school from the list? Who decides it? Is it a unit within the Department, is it the Secretary General and the Minister or is it a combination of that? Perhaps a principal officer is involved. A reappraisal is happening because some of the 58 schools may or may not make their way back onto the list. As I understand, a financial reappraisal of the 58 projects is being carried out. Who is doing that?

In summary, the questions relate to the financial criteria for selecting the 58 schools and the basis in the case of Kolbe. It is not a huge school. Who decides it? Is it the Minister with the Secretary General, a principal officer or other officials, or is it just at a political level, or is it a combination of that? Who is conducting the reappraisal to see which of the 58 schools can be got back on track? We will also ask the Department to clarify how much money is available. My understanding is there is €860 million for capital works this year and something like €650 million in a fund for remedial and smaller works over the next five years.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I support the Cathaoirleach in all he said. It is so callous, in many respects, to cite increases in building costs for removing what were commitments in respect of 58 school buildings. The primary reason we are waiting, during this inflationary period, for these schools to be built relates to the Department of Education having been so slow historically at progressing schools building projects. A Gaelscoil in my constituency has been on a school building programme for almost 30 years, in a similar situation to that which the Chair described, in entirely prefabricated accommodation, waiting and listening to promises for years. It has now received word it is to be taken off the list because of an apparent cost review by the Department, which ensured it was not built at a time when the costs would have been much lower had there been a little bit of efficiency within the Department.

In respect of the Cathaoirleach's proposal, we need to correspond also with the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, given it has been cited in the Department of Education releases in this regard to the effect that there is a joint process or that the decision in respect of the removal of the 58 schools was made at the level of that Department. We need to get clarification in that respect and write to both Departments. It is ironic that at the same meeting where there is correspondence from the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform indicating it does not know how much the children's hospital, which is near completion, is going to cost, we are denying children in 58 schools, as well as the staff and the wider communities, the opportunities to progress their much-needed school buildings. I agree with all the Cathaoirleach said in respect of the questions but we should also write to the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

I visited that school in Monaghan more than 20 years ago as part of a vocational education committee, VEC, delegation seeking to set up a Gaelscoil in Laois. Mr. Duffy, as I recall, was the chairman of the board. Is that correct?

Deputy Matt Carthy

Mr. Duffy is on the board of management at the moment.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

Yes, I remember his name. That school was in prefabs at the time.

Seeing the conditions at Kolbe is believing. It is intolerable. We will copy our correspondence to the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. The Deputy is correct to say that Department was cited. The issue of construction inflation arose at the meeting last night regarding projects that have been put back and what will happen with tender costs and so on. I told them not to worry on that front. People were worried that inflation could run at 4% or 5%. I said inflation is running at 100% on the children's hospital and we are still ploughing ahead with that, so it should not stop the school if the same rules apply.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I think there is a public spending code that applies when costs exceed a certain figure. That was certainly the case in respect of the student accommodation in Maynooth and it stopped that building, but there were other contractual issues in respect of that. I am dealing with a similar case that is not a million miles away and is not yet even on the building programme, namely, St. Raphael’s Special School, which is housed in prefabs that are disintegrating. It is important for us to get an overview of why this happens. There is a convoluted system of getting to the various stages before schools are allowed to build, and it is not just these 58 schools. Any other schools that are on that building programme are going to be worried about what the impediment will be to getting to the next stage. Certainly, in my constituency-----

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

I have been dealing with a school since 2018 that has been told a lack of money will not hold up this project and that money is available.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I am wondering whether there will be a places for kids in my constituency. There are dozens of them without school places, even for September.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

There are significant pressures.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

We might see whether it relates to the public spending code-----

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

Yes.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

-----and what impact that would have, not just for these 58 schools but also whether there will be an impediment to additional schools. If building is being held up for these schools, we can understand why people would be concerned. It is only the start of something bigger.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Stanley)

I thank the Deputy. We will request that.

That concludes our consideration of the correspondence for this week.

Moving on to the work programme, at our next meeting, on 30 March, we will engage with the Department of Rural and Community Development in regard to its appropriation accounts for 2021 and chapter 6 of the Report on the Accounts of the Public Services 2021, relating to central government funding of the local authorities. That Department has been administering significant grant funding, so there may be a number of areas of interest to Deputies. If there are, they might submit them to the clerk.

On 20 April, we will resume our meeting with the Central Bank, the Department of Finance and Revenue regarding the insurance compensation fund and the Comptroller and Auditor General's section 2 report on the unauthorised release of funds from the Central Fund.

The members will be happy to know that the Governor of the Central Bank and the Secretary General of the Department have confirmed attendance. We will engage with An Bord Pleanála on 27 April regarding the 2021 financial statements.

At last week's meeting, we agreed to schedule a meeting with the HSE to examine the Comptroller and Auditor General's special report on the emergency procurement of ventilators by the HSE, which was published recently. The National Treatment Purchase Fund and waiting lists will also be on the agenda. There are a large number of important items but I would give a word of caution. We have discussed before the difficulty of loading the HSE agenda too much. I agree with putting the items discussed earlier on for clarification, but if there is something else that members want on it, please flag it up.

Deputy Matt Carthy

If the HSE is concerned about the number of items, I agree these meetings are better when they are specified. Just to clarify, all I want are answers to questions that were put to the representatives the last time they were here. If they are provided to us beforehand, there will be no need to touch on them at all. If they had done what they had promised, it would probably have shocked me, but we need to send them a very clear message, including on the issues which will be discussed on 4 May. When we ask questions, everybody understands if they do not have the answers, although when I asked the questions on 2 February, I believe they did have the ability to answer them at that meeting, and certainly by 9 February, the Secretary General knew the answers to the questions I put. It is not as if they are down in a basement trying to find an old set of documents. They have these answers and they should do this committee the courtesy of providing them.