COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate -
Thursday, 14 Dec 2023

Business of Committee

An Cathaoirleach

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

The minutes of our meeting of 7 December have been circulated. Do any members wish to raise any matters relating to the minutes? No. Are the minutes agreed? Agreed. They will be published on the committee web page.

We move to accounts and financial statements. In front of members are three sets of public accounts and financial statements that were laid before the Houses between 4 December and 8 December 2023. I ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to address these before we open up to the floor.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach. First, we have the State property miscellaneous deposits account for 2022. This received a clear audit opinion. Second is the Personal Injuries Assessment Board for 2022. which received a clear audit opinion. Third is the National Disability Authority for 2022, which also received a clear audit opinion.

An Cathaoirleach

Are there any questions? Is it agreed to note and list the financial statements? Agreed. The accounts and financial statements will be published as part of the minutes.

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

First is category C. This is correspondence from and relating to private individuals and any other correspondence. We have received several items of correspondence providing further information requested by the committee in relation to our examination of RTÉ. I propose that I will first list the items received and we will then discuss them all together.

No. R2253 C is correspondence from Mr. Richard Collins dated 1 December 2023. I propose that we note and publish this item. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. R2267 C is correspondence from Hayes Solicitors on behalf of NK Management dated 7 December 2023. I propose that we note and publish this item. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. R2268 C is correspondence from Ms Breda O’Keeffe dated 7 December 2023. I propose that we note this item but do not publish it, as per the correspondent’s request. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Is that R2268?

An Cathaoirleach

Yes. We can address it publicly. There is no problem with that if we want to discuss it.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

On the final point in the second question regarding Mr. Lynch and a voluntary exit scheme, all we are told is that she participated in the McCann FitzGerald review. That was supposed to be published about six week's ago and has been delayed. This was one of the things we were waiting for . Can we inquire as to when that is going to be with us?

An Cathaoirleach

It is promised in the new year. There is correspondence today from RTÉ on it. I will ask the clerk to get an update later on that. Members may not have seen it yet.

No. R2275 C is correspondence from RTÉ dated 11 December 2023. I propose that we note and publish this item. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Can I just raise a matter on that?

An Cathaoirleach

I ask the Deputy to wait until I have gone through the formal procedure first and then we can discuss it.

No. R2276 C is correspondence from RTÉ, forwarding correspondence from Ms Geraldine O’Leary, dated 11 December 2023. I propose that we note and publish this item. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Murphy wants to come in.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

It was just those two points I wish to come in on. No. R2275 C is in relation to the various questions. I refer to point No. 4 on the front page.

I raise this because it might be something that could be picked up in a recommendation. It states:

As Chief Executive and an ex-officio member of the Board of RTÉ, as provided for under statute, the former DG had the authority to bind RTÉ to such an agreement. The guarantee was within the capacity of the DG to provide and it is clear from subsequent actions that both the Agent and the DG (and by extension RTÉ) regarded this verbal guarantee to be binding. However, the former DG never sought legal advice on this issue from the RTÉ legal department.

There is probably a power imbalance there with regard to oversight. I will expand on what I mean. On page 5, it states: “Was the Director of Legal Services aware of the draft invoice...? No.” The responses to questions Nos. 20 to 26 clearly demonstrate the point I am trying to make.

When it comes to recommendations, that is one we certainly should consider including in the report.

An Cathaoirleach

Okay. We can do that.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

The second relates to No. R2276 from Geraldine O'Leary. The opening line is: "The evidence supplied by Mr Kelly does not change anything that I have said on the record." It later states:

Separately, in response to comments made by Deputy Catherine Murphy at the Public Accounts Committee on 12/10/2023, I would like to reiterate that the first time I was made aware that there was an issue in relation to the invoices was March 2023 when the CFO advised me that they had been queried by the external auditors.

I draw attention to the email thread in the pack given to us by Noel Kelly and Ryan Tubridy. That would bring me to a different conclusion. I do not know how we can square that circle. I would like the committee to look at that particular aspect again when we write the report.

An Cathaoirleach

I know what the Deputy is saying. I have been reading it as well.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

I do not know if the clerk can bring us to question No. 4, which related to the guarantee and the meeting of 7 May. It appears the response to that question indicates that an agreement was made at that Teams meeting that the guarantee was in place and also that in the advance of the sponsor not being in place, RTÉ would be liable. Having had the opportunity to privately read both the original minutes and the more public version of it, I can find no reference in either of those documents to any agreement taking place at that meeting. Second, many of the items in it clearly state RTÉ’s position that if it were to do that, it would be liable. I think that is why the committee went on to ask whether there were subsequent meetings.

An Cathaoirleach

Just to clarify, the Deputy is referring to the public document.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

Yes, but I am also referring to my understanding of the private document I read. I say that because I want people to believe that in all the sources available to me, I can find no corroborating evidence for the answer that is clearly given in question No. 4. In fact, it is troubling that this reply would be given in the documents provided to us by RTÉ. Of all the different answers, that is the one that jumped out at me most. I saw no evidence of an agreement. I saw clear statements by RTÉ at that meeting in the public note provided to the effect that for RTÉ to do so in writing would be tantamount to a guarantee and RTÉ could not do that. It leaves us with a difficulty of reconciling the answer to that point with the evidence before us. That is my first point. Second, it is worrying that this answer has been supplied, given that the same information is available to those who supplied these answers.

Deputy Colm Burke

I do not accept the answer to question No. 25, which related to a previous response that stated "the reason given was that 'will negate what we are trying to do'". Now they say it was contractual. It is not clear. I am concerned about a few things with regard to the replies. First, the legal person was at meetings but, at the same time, the document states that person did not take part or give advice. What is the point in having a legal person at a meeting if they are not there to give advice? I am sure they are not there to twiddle their thumbs. I am a bit surprised by the reply to question No. 38. While the legal person was there and took notes, they did not give advice because they were not asked to give advice. Surely, the whole reason for having a legal person there is to make sure that everything is done legally and above board. It does not make sense.

An Cathaoirleach

We know from the various correspondence from RTÉ that that person acted as meeting secretary in that they took notes and recorded what happened at the meeting, which was subsequently put into an account and the public document we received. I think we all agree that reflected what was in the private notes.

Deputy Colm Burke

Surely when the person is there-----

An Cathaoirleach

The question is valid. If they were not giving legal advice, why were they there?

Deputy Colm Burke

Even if they were there and were not asked to give legal advice, if they are working for an organisation and decisions are being made that put that organisation at risk, surely they have a duty of care to advise and, for example, tell the meeting participants they cannot go down that road because it is not above board. Surely, that must be their role as well.

An Cathaoirleach

It is one of the major questions around that whole event in RTÉ. What happened in respect of the legal department and its role? What advice was or was not given to the director general or what advice was not sought? In respect of the meeting, it is clear it was not advice. It is one of the issues we will need to address in our report and recommendations. Hopefully, we will do that sooner rather than later.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

It also makes a mockery of the claim that it was privileged when no advice was given.

Deputy Colm Burke

Yes. That is the other thing. That is a very important point.

An Cathaoirleach

I think I said it here and some members would have said it way back. We said that this will be an account of what happened, what was discussed and what was agreed at the meeting. That is really what it is and it turned out to be that way as well. The public can make their own judgement on that. We will hopefully have the report in the first month we are back. We should be able to do it if we have the McCann Fitzgerald report on Toy Show, The Musical, which made a loss of €2.2 million and was basically a catastrophe in terms of corporate management. Hopefully, we will have them early in the new year and we should be able to finalise the report with very strong recommendations addressing some of the issues raised today and previously as well.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

I think all members would have hoped there would be no requirement for any further public meetings. It is disappointing, as we approach the end of 2023, that the decision was made not to make those reports available to us before the end of this calendar year when our specific remit to hold public hearings allows us to do that. It is problematic for us that a decision was made by RTÉ not to make the report in regard to the redundancy scheme available to us before the deadline in order that we could hold the last of our public meetings.

I only say this in the context that, while making no decision, we should absolutely reserve the right to return to the Dáil, should that be required, to look for a very discreet extension if there is an issue. An attempt not to provide the information in the period when public meetings are possible is not helpful.

An Cathaoirleach

I have been thinking of this since it happened. I assure Deputy McAuliffe that, from my point of view as Cathaoirleach, if we need to seek an extension of our remit for another one, two or three months, we will do so if we need to have another hearing. I would say to RTÉ not to delay on this account. I hope the Oireachtas will be favourably disposed to our stance. Throughout the Oireachtas, people want to see this concluded. It is important we are able to report to the Oireachtas and the public on our work. What is more important is we make strong recommendations. I certainly would not want anyone to think that, while Christmas is coming, we have forgotten about this matter. If we need to seek an extension to it in the new year, by all means we should do so if we do need to bring in RTÉ again. I hope that by the time we come back for our first meeting, we may have it in front of us. We will revisit it again.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I agree. It is even more important now, given there is another redundancy proposed which is very large, that there should not be a tale from the previous redundancy going unresolved. It is exceptionally important we look at this.

An Cathaoirleach

And that we understand the process for deciding on these packages, how they are approved, who approves them and what information does or does not go to the board. All of this will be important.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

On the point on the answers to questions Nos. 4 and 39a regarding the provision of a guarantee at the meeting of 7 May, the principal argument of RTÉ is that the guarantee was given at the meeting of 7 May. It has been its position from the very beginning. I cannot recall any primary evidence from anybody before the committee, given that Dee Forbes was not here and many of the people who gave evidence were not at that meeting, of a guarantee at any point. It has to be put to RTÉ that, if this is its principal argument, there must be some evidence this guarantee took place. If there is not, we will have to take this into consideration when we make our recommendations. It would not be a finding of facts, of course, but the fact is that it is the fundamental belief of RTÉ's executives that the guarantee was the reason additional money was paid. After months of investigation, however, we have no evidence an agreement was made at that meeting.

An Cathaoirleach

I accept that. The only thing we are aware of is that it most likely happened in phone calls between two people.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

I cannot reflect on Mr. Kelly's evidence because I do not have all of it and I do not know whether he referenced it or whether he was asked about it. He is the only other person who could provide the information. From RTÉ's perspective, I do not recall any evidence it provided for its principal defence.

An Cathaoirleach

We have that correspondence and I hope we will have the outcome of those two reports very soon in the new year. This concludes our consideration of correspondence and we move on to the work programme.

Members have been circulated with the draft work programme and we had a fairly good discussion on it last week. On 18 January 2024, we will meet with the Department of Social Protection to examine the 2022 appropriation account for Vote 37, the Social Insurance Fund 2022, the relevant chapters from the Comptroller and Auditor General’s annual report, and the misclassification of workers. We will also examine the topic of the misclassification of workers when we meet with the Revenue Commissioners on 25 January to examine the 2022 appropriation account for Vote 9 and the relevant chapters from the Comptroller and Auditor General’s annual report.

Last week it was agreed to reschedule a meeting with the Department of Health on the 2022 appropriation account for Vote 38 and chapter 18 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s annual report to 1 February 2024. It was also agreed to invite representatives of the HSE to this meeting. I hope we will have Mr. Watt, the Secretary General, present on that date. I note he has recovered as he was in attendance last Saturday at the AGM of the Football Association of Ireland. It is to be welcomed that he is back in good health again.

It was also agreed to defer a meeting with the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, Sport Ireland and the Football Association of Ireland to 8 February 2024.

On 15 February, the committee has agreed to meet with An Garda Síochána and GSOC on the 2022 appropriation account for Vote 20 – Garda Síochána, and GSOC’s 2022 financial statements. The timelines for the processing and completion of complaints by GSOC and the resourcing of GSOC have been flagged as areas of interest. This came up at previous meetings with regard to its ability and capacity with budgets and staff.

It was also agreed to meet with the Department of Justice on 22 February. Is it agreed to add both Vote 24 – Justice, and Vote 21 – Prisons to the agenda for this meeting? Agreed.

Do members wish to add anything to the work programme or flag any areas of interest?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Can we add for consideration at some point the Department of agriculture together with the greyhound board?

An Cathaoirleach

I think they are on the list.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

There is a chapter on estate management by the Department of agriculture that would fall to be examined by the committee.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

The Peter McVerry Trust issue warrants discussion with regard to the answers provided by the Secretary General, which indicated the Department and the wider public will be in possession of a larger number of facts following the conclusion of the reports. Depending on the content of the reports, we should consider inviting the Department to come back to discuss this specific topic. I do not know whether members would agree but I believe there are significant issues the Committee of Public Accounts should be raising directly, even though the Peter McVerry Trust is not directly accountable to us. The Department is and we did not have a full opportunity today to explore this.

An Cathaoirleach

We will do this.

Deputy Colm Burke

This goes back to what I said earlier about how the comparable funding now seems to be the same. According to the figures given today on the loans from the HFA, the same amount is going to the local authorities as to the approved housing bodies. There is an accountability issue with regard to the approved housing bodies. Do we not now need to look at this issue? Will we have problems in the long term with these organisations? I know that, in fairness, they are doing a very good job in the here and now but what about in five to 15 years' time?

An Cathaoirleach

We did not get an opportunity to discuss it at the meeting but I spoke to the officials at the lunch break about this. I spoke to Mr. Graham Doyle and some of the other officials about the ones that are unencumbered. What happens when they are out of the finance period? Do they have to take local authority tenants? What rent can they charge? Can they dispose of them? Who owns them? There are big questions. I do not declare to have all the knowledge on this but there are several that interest me. There is supposed to be a working group in the Department looking at these. Deputy Burke referenced the funding being allocated and what will happen in 20 or 25 years' time. Will the State still have a lien on them?

Deputy Colm Burke

They are voluntary organisations in the sense they cannot be sold off to a commercial enterprise. There is accountability from this point of view. The amount of finance they are managing now is substantial. We need to ensure we have some oversight of it.

An Cathaoirleach

We now have tenants in some of the homes that were built under the same schemes. They were housed in social housing. There is another way to commercialise them.

A private company was brought in to manage them and now sets the rent. The people living in those homes have to apply to the local authority for housing. They must let on. The local authority must pretend they are on the housing waiting list. They do not have a social housing need because they are in a social house. The approved housing body, AHB, is unencumbered at the moment and is out of the finance period and a private company is managing them. In theory, the original approved housing body is still there. It is a small scheme. The residents were told that the rent would go up by 50%. That means that they are all pensioners who have to apply to the local authority which, in turn, has to let on that they are on the housing waiting list, HAP, or RAS. The taxpayer is now paying a rent subsidy for housing they built. The allocation of this, or any part of it, does not come from the local authority. On top of that, people are coming into them and are paying their own money. If that type of stuff is replicated across the country, what will happen? There is the fact that they are registered charities and cannot make a profit. There is another way of dealing with that, by bringing in a private company to manage them. In fairness, many of the small housing bodies that set them up are doing good work. The intention was very good. In some cases, the homes need some refurbishment now. The ones I spoke about are actually in good condition. Yet, this is a situation we are heading into. In 20 or 25 years' time when we are sitting in this room, there will be people who will again be scratching their heads and they will be wondering about a bigger problem.

That concludes our consideration of the work programme. Before we move briefly into private session, the last item of business is regarding any other matters the members wish to raise.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

I want to thank the clerk and all the staff. I hope they get a little bit of respite from us over the couple of days at Christmas. I look forward to working with them again in 2024.

An Cathaoirleach

There has been a change in staff. Some people have moved on, moved upwards, or moved sideways. I want to acknowledge the work done by the staff as well, particularly during the period with RTÉ. Much of the public may have thought we were just dealing with RTÉ. Yet, each week, we were also dealing with other matters. There was a separate body before the committee every week. I acknowledge----

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

Some of them were more colourful.

An Cathaoirleach

A lot of work was done late at night and on weekends-----

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

Hear, hear.

An Cathaoirleach

I think people might have a view that there is a lot of inertia in the Civil Service, but certainly the secretariat of this committee was very nimble on their feet, as have the staff in the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Catherine Smyth has come in as the new liaison and I acknowledge her work. She has come in and taken up the position that was held by Shane O'Connor. I acknowledge the other Oireachtas staff, and also Mr. Seamus McCarthy. I ask him to pass on our good wishes to the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I wish them all a happy Christmas. Hopefully, the world will be a more peaceful place in the new year. That is the hope.

Did Deputy Verona Murphy indicate that she wanted to make a contribution?

Deputy Verona Murphy

Yes. I want to reiterate that and wish everybody a very happy Christmas. I thank them for all their hard work and co-operation over the past year.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the Deputy. We can all agree with that.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

We all agree with that. It is like a dawn's silence when there is a consensus.

Deputy Colm Burke

Back in June and July a huge amount of work was done in a very short timeframe. The volume of work that was done in that period of time was tremendous. We could not have dealt with it without the information that was provided to us.

An Cathaoirleach

I remember one particular weekend there was a lot of back and forward. A huge amount of work was being done. I acknowledge that. I acknowledge the co-operation of the members of the committee as well. There were occasions during meetings where I had to make a call with the secretariat. In fairness, I try to reflect the views of the members as a committee and what they want. Yet, sometimes, at a weekend or out of hours, you have to make a decision on something. I acknowledge the co-operation of the members as well. I send good wishes for Christmas and the new year. We will move briefly into private session.

The committee went into private session at 2.05 p.m. and adjourned at 2.23 p.m. sine die.