We will resume in public session. I thank everyone for reappearing. I hope that, in a week's time, they can end shoving dinners down their necks and so forth. They might even be able to have a glass of wine and take a little longer digesting their dinners, sleep better, etc.
We will be joined this afternoon by Ms Ramona Quinn of the Office of the Parliamentary Legal Advisers, OPLA. We will now move into private session.
The business before us this afternoon is as follows: minutes; accounts and financial statements; correspondence; the work programme; and any other business.
The minutes of the meetings of 22, 26 and 29 June have been circulated to members. Is everyone happy with them? Does any member wish to raise matters regarding them? Are the minutes agreed? Agreed. As usual, they will be published on the committee's webpage.
Twelve sets of accounts and financial statements were laid before the Houses between 19 and 30 June. I will ask the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, to address these before opening the floor to members.
First on the list is the Charities Regulatory Authority's financial statements for 2022. They received a clear audit opinion. Related to that, and managed by the Charities Regulatory Authority, is a charities fund account that also relates to 2022. It received a clear audit opinion.
Third is the motor tax account for 2022. It received a clear audit opinion.
Fourth is the export guarantee account. This is effectively a dormant account but it still exists and, statutorily, an account is required to be prepared and I am required to audit it. It relates to 2022. There were nil transactions and it received a clear audit opinion.
Fifth is the National Asset Management Agency for 2022. It received a clear audit opinion.
Sixth is Enterprise Ireland for 2022. It received a clear audit opinion.
Seventh is the Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority for 2022. It received a clear audit opinion.
Eighth is the Loughs Agency, one of the North-South bodies jointly audited by me and the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor General. This relates to 2021. It received a clear audit opinion. By law, the annual corporate business plans of North-South bodies require the approval of the North-South Ministerial Council. As the council has not met, a budget increase of £422,840, which the agency received in 2021, has not received the council's approval. We, as the auditors, draw attention to the irregularity. There is nothing illegal but it is a necessary part of the approvals for that increase in budget.
Ninth is Inland Fisheries Ireland, representatives of which were at the committee this morning. For 2021, the accounts themselves received a clear audit opinion but I drew attention to several matters, which I outlined in my opening comments this morning. I do not think the committee needs to hear them again.
Tenth is the residential institutions redress special account. It relates to 2022 but there were nil transactions. It received a clear audit opinion.
Eleventh is the Marine Casualty Investigations Board for 2022. It received a clear audit opinion.
Twelfth is Houses of the Oireachtas Commission for 2022. The committee will be glad to know it received a clear audit opinion. As I said, there was a period when accounts were not coming through but one can see that the 2022 accounts are now beginning to flow.
In relation to the Loughs Agency, it is unusual. Every one of the accounts that came before us for the six bodies had a clear audit opinion, which I welcome and acknowledge. Regarding the situation that the Loughs Agency is caught in, if and when - I hope it is sooner rather than later - the Executive is up and running and, as a consequence, the North-South Ministerial Council is in operation, can it give retrospective sanction for this, in Mr. McCarthy's opinion?
It is a legal point. I would imagine it possibly can. There is no question of illegality in this case. It is a requirement in the statutes that the North-South Ministerial Council approves. If you like, the law presumes that the council continues. There was a case several years ago in which appointments to some of the boards of the North-South bodies had to be made by the North-South Ministerial Council, which was more significant because it meant that there was a danger of bodies coming into an inquorate position. That would be a difficulty. So far, the departments supplying the funding are satisfied to continue to supply it.
The Executive must be in place for North-South Ministerial Council to sit, but having the Executive in place does not guarantee that, as we know - in the last term, the Executive was meeting but there a block was put on North-South Ministerial Council meetings. Some people were not willing to attend.
It is in sterling; I presume it is funding from the UK side, is it not?
No, the accounts are presented both in sterling and in euro. The funding was provided on a 50:50 basis. It was a total of £422,840. Divide that by two and 50% came from the Department on our side in this State and 50% from the Northern Ireland Administration.
Are we precluded from spending that money on this side because the institutions are not sitting?
No, the spending has gone ahead. The increase has been provided. The money has been provided, but the budget was never approved by the council.
Regarding the 2022 accounts for the Inland Fisheries Ireland audit, when it is likely to be completed?
The audit has been under way, I think, for about a fortnight. It is a bit earlier than the audit last year. I would imagine it will move faster than the 2021 audit. That is certainly my intention. Separately, I have somebody examining several issues on which I may report separately. I hope, by having that vehicle, I will not need to delay the financial statements audit. I expect in the autumn we will have a completed audit for 2022.
I would like to ask about the process with the additional report, if it does materialise. In my view, as a member of the Committee of Public Accounts, this morning's engagement was beneficial but not fulsome. I heard in Mr. McCarthy's statement that the additional report may materialise. If it does, I propose, on foot of the additional report, that we may engage on that separately as it deals retrospectively with the 2021 period and perhaps even a bit before that. If needs be, IFI can be brought back to the committee on foot of the report. Then we can examine the audited accounts for 2022, which seem to be a bit more straightforward than Mr. McCarthy's previous engagement.
Realistically, the financial statements will probably be ready before the report. I am doing the report, or at least the examination of the issues, under the value-for-money mandate. There may be some kind of governance and oversight issues raised in that as well. I do not have full control over the presentation of the report; there could be a chill period even after a report is produced. I imagine that the financial statement for 2022 will be ready. The obligation will be on the administrators, as they are the moment, or a board to ensure there is a comprehensive statement on internal control in relation to 2022 and continuing up to the date the financial statements are signed. If there are further issues it needs to present, it will have to present them in the statement on internal control. There may be substantial and further issues to report.
It is the audited accounts prior to the report, if the report does-----
That would be my expectation.
We will do that then.
I know this does not fall under Mr. McCarthy's remit, but I raised this morning the issue of one State agency stopping another from going ahead with something, with a cost to the taxpayer as a result. Is there guidance in the organisations-----
Is this relevant to what we are discussing?
It is relevant in the sense that IFI objected to a Department of Education project and, as a result, an additional cost of about €2 million has-----
I will allow Deputy Burke to come in afterwards. We must keep the meeting moving. I know it is an important question and Deputy Burke was right to raise it this morning - I heard him raise it. We need an answer to that. Can we agree and note the listing of accounts and financial statements? Agreed. As usual, the listing of accounts and statements will be published as part of the minutes.
Moving to correspondence, as previously agreed, items that were not flagged for discussion for this meeting will continue to be dealt with in accordance with the proposed actions that have been circulated, and decisions taken by the committee in relation to correspondence are recorded in the minutes of the committee’s meetings and published on the committee’s webpage.
We have 12 items of correspondence to consider this afternoon. The first category of correspondence under which members have flagged items for discussion is correspondence from Accounting Officers or Ministers or both, and follow-up correspondence to meetings of the Committee of Public Accounts. The first is No. R1943B from Dr. Kerstin Mey, president of the University of Limerick, dated 19 June, providing information requested by the committee arising from the meeting with University of Limerick on 18 May 2023. It is proposed to note and publish this item of correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. Deputy Murphy and I flagged that for discussion.
The key point is the last line of the second-last paragraph on the third page, in which Dr. Mey states, "I request that the PAC consider giving a statutory direction in relation to the McKenna Report to enable me to comply with your request." We should seek that statutory direction.
We have to do that and apply for it.
Okay. Do other members wish to contribute on this issue? No. There was also an issue concerning expenditure on the appraisal of the opera site. Some figures, tables and other information have been set out in this correspondence regarding our discussions which may be of interest to members. It is proposed to note and publish this correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. R1949B is from Mr. Brendan Gleeson, Secretary General of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, and is dated 22 June. It provides information requested by the committee regarding an early retirement payment for the former CEO of the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board, IHRB. It is proposed to note and publish this correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. This has been flagged by Deputy Catherine Murphy and me.
On the second page, reference is made to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy McConalogue, having written to the chair of the IHRB to state his concerns regarding the former CEO's early retirement payment. Can we seek a copy of the responses?
We can. It states in the document that the Minister had written to the chair of the IHRB stating his concerns that the former CEO's early retirement package exceeded the maximum amount set out in the IHRB's early retirement and voluntary redundancy package. This is one of the relevant aspects here.
I have a few other ones.
The letters have been supplied. I think they have been circulated.
Were they?
The Minister's letter and that of the Secretary General are both available to the committee.
Okay. I will have a look for them. The Minister, Deputy McConalogue, also pointed out that his Department would be conducting a review of the governance arrangements around the horse and greyhound fund. Can we request a timeline for that? Reference was also made to the service level agreement between Horse Racing Ireland, HRI, and the IHRB, dated 11 May 2023 and if this could be reviewed in the context of the matters raised in the Minister's letter. Can we look for the terms of reference in this regard?
We can.
No. R1960B is from Dr Úna May, CEO, Sport Ireland, and is dated 26 June. It provides information extending an invitation to the committee to visit the Sport Ireland campus in Blanchardstown on a date of the committee’s choosing. The members will remember this from the day we had Sport Ireland with us. It is proposed to note and publish this correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. Does anyone wish to comment?
I visited the campus before and it is impressive.
We will take up the invitation.
If we are going to do this, we might include the Football Association of Ireland, FAI, which is based on that campus as well.
Okay. We will visit that body as well. I thank Deputy Murphy.
No. R1972B is from Ms Oonagh McPhillips, Secretary General of the Department of Justice, and is dated 27 June. It provides information requested by the committee arising from the meeting with the Department of Justice on 25 May 2023 in relation to the justice Vote. It is proposed to note and publish this correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I flagged this because some detailed breakdowns are provided concerning the effectiveness of the systems the Department has in place, their efficiency in respect of immigration and responses from the Department. I bring these points to the attention of the members.
No. R1986B is from Mr. Kevin McCarthy, Secretary General of the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, dated 29 June. It is providing further information requested arising from the meeting with the Department on 16 February 2023. It is proposed to note and publish this correspondence, apart from R1986B (iii), which contains commercially sensitive information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Is that No. R1986B?
Yes.
I had flagged that.
The Deputy is not down as having flagged it, but she may go ahead.
I am sorry. I thought I had. The last paragraph of the section on due diligence undertaken regarding the sourcing of accommodation states that the items reviewed included the Companies Registration Office, CRO, number, the tax clearance certificate, where relevant, insurance and fire safety documents, accessibility to amenities, the competitiveness of rates and service provision standards. Some of those elements are straightforward. There is a problem here, however, and it will emerge in future. A deep dive is not done regarding the companies to which these contracts are allocated. It may be that in some situations, for example, the directors are not the directors. On the tax clearance certificate, for example, it is possible to have the Criminal Assets Bureau, CAB, following a person. If that person makes a settlement with CAB, it will then be possible for him or her to get a tax clearance certificate. A tax clearance certificate, therefore, does not tell us much about the organisations concerned.
This is an area that is highly likely to be used by people, and in saying this, I am certainly not casting aspersions right across the board, who will take advantage of this situation. I do not believe that enough rigour is being brought to the vetting of people offering accommodation. I refer to determining who they are and undertaking background checks and things like that. It is possible for people to comply with the tax clearance certificate requirement and have a CRO number but also have other things that would make them entirely unsuitable to be involved in providing accommodation. I am not happy that there is the kind of rigour needed here. We are talking about very vulnerable people being put into situations. I think this will cause a problem in future. I suggest we write to the Department to express our observation that there is insufficient rigour in this regard.
I flagged this because of the general condition of some of the premises being used.
I know it is an emergency and an emergency demands emergency action, but this can often be below par. This is the reason I flagged this correspondence for today's meeting. We agreed on 15 June to write to the Department about doing more extensive due diligence on providers. We already did that a few weeks ago.
Okay.
Hopefully, that covers this off. We will see what happens. The sensible thing for us to do is to await the outcome of our correspondence.
We could come back to it then.
Yes. Is the Deputy okay with that?
Turning to category C, correspondence from and related to private individuals and any other correspondence, No. R1931C is from Deputy Verona Murphy and is dated 12 June. It is regarding issues arising from the committee’s report on engagements with the Department of Transport, the National Transport Authority, NTA, and Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII. This report was launched on Tuesday this week and the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform is required to formally respond to the recommendations through the minute of the Minister. It is proposed to note and publish this correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed.
This was held over from 22 June. Deputy Verona Murphy had flagged the matter previously. Does any member wish to comment? I propose that we defer the matter until next week. I am not sure Deputy Verona Murphy was aware this was going to arise so quickly and she may have had to leave. Are members happy enough to defer this correspondence? Is that agreed? Agreed.
There is a long letter from Deputy Verona Murphy about that. No. R1952 is from Deputy Catherine Murphy and is dated 23 June-----
It is No. R1947C.
I think we dealt with No. R1947 C. We are now on No. R1952C. That is the next one that has been flagged.
Sorry, I thought I raised No. R1947C as well.
That is okay. Can Deputy Catherine Murphy hold off on that until next week?
Okay. I will hold it until next week.
We will flag it with the secretariat.
No. R1952 C is from Deputy Catherine Murphy forwarding correspondence in relation to Horse Sport Ireland. Horse Sport Ireland is not accountable to this committee, but it receives funding from Sport Ireland, which is accountable to it. I propose we note and publish this item of correspondence. Is that agreed?
It is agreed. Can I hold this over until next week as well?
Yes. That is no problem. No. R1966C from Deputy Catherine Murphy, dated 27 June, regarding the allocation of funding by the Arts Council. I propose we note and publish this item and forward it to the Arts Council for a response. Is that agreed?
Yes, that is agreed. I am okay with that.
That is okay. We are doing nicely.
No. R1988C from the clerk to the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach, dated 29 June, requests that, following our examination of the topic, this committee would report on any outstanding matters that we believe are within the remit of the joint committee, such as those relating to code of practices or accountability. I propose we note and publish this item. Is that agreed? Agreed. Is it agreed to notify the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach should any issues arise in our engagements with RTÉ that we consider to be more properly dealt with by the joint committee? Agreed.
The following three items relate to future meetings, so I propose we discuss them together. These are Nos. R1991C, R2006C and R2008C. No. R2008C is from Deputy Dillon and I think we have dealt with it. We have also dealt with No. R2006C. Again, we have put to bed the subject regarding No. R1991C, which is on future witnesses from RTÉ. Is all that agreed?
It is agreed.
That is okay. It was all agreed that in private session.
There is another item. Given how things have evolved this week, and even in the last 24 hours, we have agreed to defer our engagement with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, which incorporates the Workplace Relations Commission, on 13 July. We have rescheduled that meeting to meet with representatives of RTÉ instead. Is everybody okay with that?
Okay. There are no problems with that.
Finally, No. R1947C has not been flagged for discussion. However, due to an administrative oversight, no proposed action was included on the correspondence list. This item is further correspondence to the committee in relation to accommodation for applicants of international protection in Leixlip, County Kildare. Is it agreed to note and publish this item of correspondence? Agreed.
Previous correspondence on the matter was considered at the meeting of 25 May and it was agreed to advise the correspondent to write to the relevant joint committee. At the meeting of 15 June, further correspondence was considered and it was agreed to request that the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth provide details regarding what due diligence is undertaken in relation to potential providers of accommodation for applicants of international protection and what checks and balances are in place. It was also agreed to inform the correspondent of this decision. I propose we write to the correspondent to reiterate that the committee has written to the Department in relation to this matter. Is that agreed? Agreed. Does Deputy Catherine Murphy want to make a brief comment?
I do. I have spoken about this on a number of occasions. They are speaking about the misuse of Exchequer funds. They are speaking about the breach of planning laws. There is an enforcement notice on the building. What happened was that it was permitted to be used, but I think there was some confusion about whether it was permitted to be used. The council sent a warning letter. There was a reliance on the provider to provide planning. The planning advice that was given to the provider to the Department was taken above the statutory planning authority, which had also given advice. There was a warning letter and an enforcement letter. The criticism here is in relation to public funds and the breach of planning law. As I have said on several occasions, there is not any issue with the people who are living in the accommodation. Yet, the Minister cannot essentially breach the law and rely on planning advice from the people who will be the beneficial interests in the contract, over and above the statutory planning authority. That is what has happened here. This letter responds to the first letter they received. Was there another piece of correspondence from them that we referred to the sectoral committee?
We can check that.
Yes, but we will be writing to the joint committee anyway.
Yes. We will advise them to write to that committee.
Right, that is okay.
That clarifies that.
I propose that we do not open up a discussion on the work programme after many members have had to leave. I remind members who are present that there are a number of engagements to be filled in the autumn. I will ask members to review the list for next week. We may have to stay a bit later to do this. It is important that we nail down the work programme before we go away for the summer break. I, therefore, ask that members try to hang on next week. Do not book any parties, do not book any constituency clinics and do not ride off into the sunset too quickly. We must try to get a work programme in place. Proposals can be circulated. I propose that we hold off over No. 4 until next week. If there is no other business-----
I just wanted to ask a question about the obligation of one local authority, or one State authority, costing another State authority money. I wonder what-----
I ask the Comptroller and Auditor General-----
I know there are no rules and regulations, but-----
There is guidance in relation to it. The code of practice for the governance of State bodies recommends against this, or at least recommends taking whatever steps can be taken to avoid one State body suing another. I think there has been-----
This was an objection to planning. Even though the school board tried to engage with the fisheries board, it refused to engage and took it all the way to An Bord Pleanála. It delayed the whole project by 18 months, and the costs shot up during those 18 months.
I think there is even more recent guidance from the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform in relation to the matter. I will track that down and get it for the committee.
I appreciate it.
Obviously, there may be circumstances, particularly where regulatory functions are involved, where guidance will not trump a statutory obligation on a body to take legal actions. It is a difficult area, but generally, bodies are encouraged not to resort to legal proceedings if there is any other alternative way to resolve matters.
That concludes the business of the Committee of Public Accounts for today. The meeting is adjourned until next Tuesday at 11 a.m. We will meet in private session at 10.30 a.m. next Tuesday morning, which is 11 July.
