COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 30 Jun 2022

Business of Committee

Chairman

I welcome everyone to the meeting. Apologies have been received from Deputy Carroll MacNeill. While we usually hold our public engagements in the morning, officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs are unavailable this morning due to the Africa-Ireland Economic Forum 2022, which, I understand, is being held in the RDS. We will, therefore, transact the business of the committee this morning and examine the Department's appropriation accounts at 1.30 p.m. with the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Members of the committee attending remotely must continue to do so from within the precincts of Leinster House. This is due to the constitutional requirement that to participate in public meetings, members must be physically present within the confines of the place where Parliament has chosen to sit. The Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, is a permanent witness to the committee.

The public business before us this morning is as follows: minutes, accounts and financial statements, correspondence, work programme and any other business, AOB. We will then briefly go into private session to deal with some housekeeping matters before suspending until 1.30 p.m.

The first item is the minutes for the meeting of 23 June which have been circulated to members. Does any member wish to raise matters in relation to those minutes? Are the minutes agreed? Agreed. As usual, they will be published on the committee's webpage.

No. 2 is accounts and financial statements. There was only one set of financial statements laid before the Houses between 21 and 24 June 2022, inclusive. I will ask the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, to address these before opening it to the floor.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

As the Chairman said, there is only one set of financial statements for this morning's meeting. It is for the Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology for the accounting period 2020-2021. It got a clear audit opinion.

Chairman

Everyone is happy with that. No. 3 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 and the 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.

The first category of correspondence under which members have flagged items for discussion is correspondence from Accounting Officers and Ministers in follow-up to committee meetings. The first one is correspondence No. 1317B and it is from Mr. Brendan Gleeson, Secretary General of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. It is dated 17 June and provides information requested by this committee regarding the timeframe for laying Horse Racing Ireland's audited accounts for 2021 before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Members will recall that we considered examining Horse Racing Ireland's 2021 accounts before the summer recess but on the basis of this correspondence, we might consider scheduling an engagement in the autumn. It is proposed to note and publish that item of correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. Deputy Carthy had flagged this for discussion. Does the Deputy wish to comment on this one?

Deputy Matt Carthy

I have only a couple of questions. I gather that the 2020 financial accounts were only certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General in April this year. Perhaps I could get clarification from the Comptroller and Auditor General as to whether there was any particular reason for the delay. Was it Covid related or was it matters of concern relating to the accounts? Can we get clarification as to when the 2021 accounts will be available?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I reviewed and cleared the financial statements in November but there were a number of items that had to be dealt with arising from our review. It took some time for Horse Racing Ireland to deal with those matters and we did not end up finally signing off on it until 28 April. There are a number of issues that I am drawing attention to in the certificate.

Deputy Matt Carthy

That will be coming before us, I take it.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It will, in the normal way. I will explain, when the accounts appear, what the issues were that I was drawing attention to and then it is up to the committee to call it in whenever.

Deputy Matt Carthy

For the 2021 accounts, has the Comptroller and Auditor General any sense of a timeline on that? Perhaps we could deal with both at the same time.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Certainly, we are moving to try to complete those much more expeditiously with HRI. I would hope that they will be available, certainly, this year, but whether they would be available, let us say, for September, I cannot really say at this stage. There is certainly the practice in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine that those accounts are brought to Cabinet - it is not the case for every set of financial statements - and there might be a processing time even after I sign off on it.

Deputy Alan Kelly

Why the differential?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I do not know. In some cases there is a statutory reason for it, but that is unusual. It is more a matter of practice and that it has been the convention. Those of some of the larger entities, such as IDA Ireland and Science Foundation Ireland, are brought to Cabinet for noting. Deputy Kelly might be able to tell me more about that.

Deputy Alan Kelly

Actually, I am not allowed.

Deputy Matt Carthy

In respect of that, are the issues that the Comptroller and Auditor General was dealing with in HRI in respect of the 2020 accounts likely to be issues that would arise again in 2021 or were they specific to that year?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I do not want to get drawn particularly. There are issues that I drew attention to previously and it is a continuing matter.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I thank Mr. McCarthy.

Chairman

I suggest that we schedule HRI for the work programme.

Deputy Matt Carthy

For the autumn period, that would be great.

Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed. I welcome Deputy Kelly back to the Committee of Public Accounts.

Deputy Alan Kelly

I second that.

Chairman

No. 1319 B from Mr. Peter Walsh, chief executive, Transport Infrastructure Ireland, dated 21 June 2022, provides further information requested by the committee arising from our meeting with Transport Infrastructure Ireland on 3 February 2022. It includes information on the collection of tolls, the impact of inflation on transport infrastructure projects, and the N2 Clontibret-to-the-Border scheme. It is proposed to note and publish this item of correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. No. 1320 from Deputy Catherine Murphy is also relevant to this item of correspondence. Deputies Carthy and Catherine Murphy flagged this. I call Deputy Carthy.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I ask Deputy Catherine Murphy to proceed as she has correspondence related.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, has provided us with some information in relation to comparators with other countries in terms of exactly some of our toll enforcement applies. The area I wanted to draw attention to is on page 6 of the reply.

That is to do with where people pay more than the due toll at the collection point. The toll roads include the M1, M3, M6 and M7. It is a relatively small amount but the companies can keep those relatively small amounts as revenue. They say they put it back into road maintenance.

I inquired about this and received a reply from the Minister for Transport. This relates to two toll facilities in particular - the Dublin tunnel and one other. In 2019, a sizeable amount was overpaid. That reduced in 2020, which I think was down to level of usage, but continued lower in 2021. That was probably to do with contactless payment and people using tags. The figure has been rounded up in some cases to €2 rather than €1.90 and it is a round figure. That is probably the reason but it is still a sizeable amount that the toll operators get to keep.

They have said this goes back into maintenance but they are not due that money and the way it is treated is a concern for me. It is just treated as their income. We all know local shops routinely get a knock on the door to help with funding jerseys for a local football team but nobody thinks to knock on the door of the toll road companies when they get a sizeable amount that is not earned income.

The only comparison I can make is with Dublin Bus where it ceased giving people refunds because only approximately 10% of people ever went to get the refund where they made an overpayment. Instead, the company put in place a programme of grants for the people in the catchment who would be customers of Dublin Bus. That scheme of grants allows people or groups to make an application for aid. It is a fair process, although it has not been much of a feature in the past couple of years for obvious reasons. Each area benefits from that. I have said it before that such a process would be more appropriate than the toll companies pocketing the money. I have no confidence they are spending over and above what they say they are on maintenance. It is not income they have earned but it comes directly from people's pockets when it should go back to something different.

That is the point I wanted to make. All these companies will have received more than the due toll and some have received considerably more than the toll. It would make a sizeable difference to people in communities. We all know how difficult it is to keep community groups going.

Chairman

The figure for 2019 jumps out at €44.9 million. That is the excess figure for the Dublin Port tunnel alone.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I think it is €45,000.

Chairman

My apologies.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It is just to be accurate.

Chairman

It is still a considerable amount when the various tolls across the country are considered. Adding them together gives a considerable amount. A sum of €44,000 is nice money. It went down to €19,000 in 2021 but it will be interesting to see what way it turns out with the move to electronic payments.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I will comment on the same correspondence. I have a concern in respect of how roads are being allocated funding and the criteria used. I have raised the N2 road scheme from Clontibret to the Border, which is in my constituency but part of a much larger project that would increase connectivity to the north west, particularly counties Donegal and Derry. It has been the subject of numerous Government policies and it is in the national development plan, as all these types of road projects are. It has also been part of several peace process negotiations and included in Our Rural Future: Rural Development Policy 2021-2025 and other Government strategies. Nevertheless, on a whim, the funding for the next phase has just been withdrawn.

We are told Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, makes these decisions based on some form of independent criteria but within this correspondence it confirms that consideration of allocation for future years is subject to review by the Department and any directions of the Minister. There must be further review of the matter. The main criteria under which the projects are assessed include safety, and the project in question has, quite rightly, been rated as highly positive in the impact it would have. That is not surprising, considering that just last Friday there was another accident in the village of Emyvale, which this road would bypass.

On the criterion of economy the project has been rated as neutral. This suggests the road is being taken on a stand-alone basis as opposed to the critical wider N2 and A5 connectivity link between the north west and Dublin. All of this must be revisited. It would be useful if we could ask in the first instance if TII's original proposal included allocation of the funds for 2022 for this road or if the proposal suggested this would be removed. That would be useful. In essence, we must find out who is stalling this road.

We know how it can be revisited because TII has told us that it happens via ministerial direction. Government representatives could get their act together and fight for it, as they have done in other parts of the country. What was the sequence of events that led to it being put on hold in the first place? Did TII initiate that or was it interference from outside that body?

Chairman

A number of figures are in the briefing note. What is the estimated cost of the project?

Deputy Matt Carthy

That is an allocation for this year to allow it proceed to the next phase.

Chairman

Was it €47 million?

Deputy Matt Carthy

In the overall context of the TII budget, it was fairly small. It was required to go through the next planning phase for the road to progress.

Chairman

Okay. What is your proposal?

Deputy Matt Carthy

I propose that we ask TII if its original proposal for the 2022 allocation included this road.

Chairman

Is it agreed we request that? Agreed.

Deputy Verona Murphy

That will probably be the first project that Deputy Carthy gets done when he is in government. We will not have to wait too long for it.

Chairman

That assumes many things.

Deputy Verona Murphy

I concur with Deputy Catherine Murphy's comments. I would like a recommendation from the committee that all toll barriers be removed. It is counterproductive from the perspective of CO2 emissions. We could ask TII what the Environmental Protection Agency has said about Dublin Port tunnel in general about nitrogen oxide, NOx, emissions and CO2. We would find it is way in excess of what the EU allows and, therefore, we are paying fines. We could ask the question of what fines have been paid on foot of the Dublin Port tunnel toll barrier. We are creating NOx emissions traps, and that is apart from anything related to the cost of living.

We cannot discount the fact that when a truck stops, the torque required for the truck to take off costs €1. It is now €2 because it is a litre of fuel. Each way, that is €4 per truck and 20,000 trucks per day is in the region of €80,000 per day. We do have to look at that. We have to look at how that can be passed back to the consumer in a reduction in transport costs. This is what I would like to see. I would like to see far greater savings in the region of €400,000 per week being used on behalf of the taxpayer. I would consider removing toll barriers around the country starting with the Dublin Port Tunnel. I do not buy the excuse that it is a traffic management system. All over the world, there are tolled tunnels that do not use an actual barrier. We need to invest in that technology. It would be an investment in lung health and in the Exchequer in the long run.

Chairman

The Deputy made that point to me a number of years ago when she was wearing a different hat.

Deputy Verona Murphy

I have been trying to get that done for about seven years.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I agree with that from an environmental-----

Chairman

A litre of diesel is what it takes for a truck to get back up again to 50 km.

Deputy Verona Murphy

A litre of fuel each way in and out of that tunnel.

Deputy Matt Carthy

From an environmental point of view, it is nonsensical in that it involves not only HGVs but every user of the road. I know it is also a particular issue for buses. Having to stop unnecessarily in both directions in the middle of an open motorway never mind the Dublin Port Tunnel adds considerable costs, which, of course, are passed on to the consumer so I fully support Deputy Verona Murphy.

Deputy Verona Murphy

It is incumbent on TII to come up with a solution.

Chairman

Perhaps we should send the same correspondence to the Secretary General of the Department of Transport because it is a financial issue but it is also a policy issue.

Deputy Matt Carthy

It would be better if we got rid of tolls altogether.

Deputy Verona Murphy

There are a number of issues.

Chairman

It is a good idea. Deputy Catherine Murphy suggests that we also try to get the excess money used for community purposes. The figure in Dublin Port Tunnel alone last year was €19,000.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

There are other figures we have been given.

Chairman

There is a long list of them. I am just using that Dublin Port Tunnel as a good example.

Deputy Verona Murphy

They could use number plate recognition as is the case with the M50. We no longer have a toll barrier on the M50. Most of Europe uses that system. We are saving Dublin.

Chairman

Garda patrol cars now have number plate recognition. It should not be rocket science.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

One point I wanted to make about the roads allocations. We should be at a point where there is an objective resource allocation model, which should look at things like accident rates and usage. A cost-benefit analysis can be done and allows us to see exactly why projects are selected. We should be asking for the criteria and how they go about modelling that.

Chairman

I have been told previously that it is supposed to take in many of those factors. We will include that in the letter proposed by Deputy Carthy. Is that all right?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Yes.

Chairman

The road to Clontibret might get sorted out soon.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

A great part of the discussions it had with us regarding the metro involved the slippage of timelines. A commitment was given that a railway order would be issued for quarter 2 of 2022. Unless I have been very delinquent in my correspondence, that has not happened. Given commitments were made here and we had such a large discussion around the slippage of timelines even though we are just at the end of quarter 2, it would be appropriate if we wrote to it to say we note that a railway order has not been made by quarter 2 and to ask whether it could provide us with an explanation. It is important that we sit on it with regard to this issue.

Chairman

We will follow up on that. No. 1321B is correspondence from Mr. David Gunning, chief officer of the National Paediatric Hospital Development Board, dated 21 June 2022, providing information requested by the committee regarding the new national children's hospital. It addresses four questions raised by the committee during our consideration of correspondence from the Department of Health on 5 May. It is proposed to note and publish this item of correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. Deputy Catherine Murphy flagged this item for discussion.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

There is one point I wish to raise regarding public procurement for legal services. Essentially, there was a two-stage process, which would be the standard and with which I have no issue. However, the company that wins that has a built-in advantage by virtue of the fact that it wins the contract because it is then the one that designs another legal framework to which it will work. We know that was bespoke to the new national children's hospital. We are seeing the same company adjudicating on some of the issues it would have been involved on the other side of. How do we overcome that? My concern is whether there is potential bias inherent in the process because we are seeing the same named company-----

Chairman

Popping up.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

No. You are going to design it. We all have a bias. We see things from our own perspective but we have a system so that we try to mitigate that. It is not necessarily just this one. This is a good example of where we are seeing that feature.

Chairman

Do any other members wish to come in on that?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I do not know what we can do about it.

Chairman

On arson attacks on site, no figure was given for the cost of those arson attacks. It was said that the cost would be quite small and that it did not expect there to be any impact on the overall cost. We could ask it about the number of arson attacks since construction started on site. For some reason or other, there have been an awful lot of problems with fires deliberately started on the site. It was raised with me the day we visited the site.

Deputy Verona Murphy

My understanding is that BAM is responsible for the operational side in which case it must cover any costs. Arson is not covered by insurance but to my knowledge, it would not be passed back.

Chairman

It is saying here that it is a matter for BAM and the insurance company. This project has been delayed. The issue of the arson attacks was raised twice with me on the day we were there. Is this causing a delay with the project? On how many occasions have there been arson attacks on site? It would be useful to know that. Is everyone happy with that?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

McCann Fitzgerald was appointed after the two-stage process. I am not alleging it did anything inappropriate or wrong. McCann Fitzgerald was then involved in advising and designing how the claims will be handled. The National Paediatric Hospital Board then used the Office of Government Procurement framework to run the tender for legal services during the construction phase. That same company then won this tender. That is the point I am making. Is there an inherent bias in-----

Chairman

I suggest that we write to Mr. Robert Watt, the Secretary General of the Department of Health, and ask him that question.

It is peculiar to say the least. We can ask that question on the process and how it is the same company that-----

Deputy Catherine Murphy

How can we ensure there is a fair process when the people who design it then win it?

Chairman

Is the Deputy happy enough with that?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Yes.

Chairman

We will ask the Secretary General that question.

We move on to correspondence from and related to private individuals and any other correspondence.

No. 1311C, dated 16 June 2022, was circulated by the secretariat for members’ information. It contains an overview of Ireland's electric vehicle incentives and a comparison with international peers, which was published by the Parliamentary Budget Office. It provides useful objective information. We have corresponded with the Department of Environment, Climate and Communications on the matter. It is proposed to note and publish this correspondence.

We raised this question with departmental officials when they appeared before the committee. Many of the vehicles being purchased were very large ones, including Range Rover, BMW and Mercedes vehicles, with most of them being bought in the greater Dublin area. One could draw the conclusion that they were not doing very long journeys whereas the people down the country who are travelling longer distances in diesel or petrol cars could not afford to purchase electric vehicles. The explanation here is peculiar. It confirms that financial support for electric vehicles is regressive and tends to benefit those at the higher end of the income distribution. We should ask the Department why we continue with the grant system we have if it acknowledges that is the case.

Since the introduction of the EV grant, 27,546 vehicles have been supported at a cost of €130 million, which is a substantial amount of money. There is also €166 million forgone in VRT. Altogether, that is almost €300 million and much of that is being spent supporting people to purchase very large vehicles. Do people spending €80,000 or €100,000 on an enormous SUV really need the EV grant? The committee should question departmental officials when they also acknowledge it is regressive. Is it agreed that we correspond with the Department on that?

Deputy Matt Carthy

A number of committees need to look at this issue. From the perspective of the Committee of Public Accounts, there is a value-for-money issue here. The international evidence is clear: without grant support, electric vehicles will not be purchased to a great degree. When Denmark started to withdraw grants, the sales immediately dropped. It is a given. We need to see increased use of EVs and we need a grant scheme that supports their use. My difficulty with the current grant scheme - the figures bear this out - is that it is disproportionately used by wealthier people living in areas with public transport as opposed to the very people we should be incentivising, those who live in areas without electric vehicles. The irony is that they are subsidising the new cars through being forced to pay carbon tax because they have no choice other than to drive diesel or petrol cars. There is an inherent unfairness.

It does not make sense to pay out so much in grants to private individuals while we still have tens of thousands of vehicles owned by public bodies which are not EVs. Many local authority vehicles are not EVs, yet we are giving grants to private individuals. We still have Garda vehicles that are not EVs. We cannot just say that this is how it works and this is how we will operate. We certainly cannot take the position of the SEAI that in the long term poorer people who are currently being penalised will be able to buy second-hand vehicles from the people who got the grants for the new cars. That appears to be the long-term strategy. That is inherently unfair and not achieving what we need from an environmental point of view. I agree with the Chairman that this needs to be analysed before we end up spending €1 billion on EV grants while doing little to reduce transport emissions.

Chairman

There are a few issues there to point out to the Department. Between VRT foregone and the direct grant, it is costing €300 million. As Deputy Carthy said, in a year or two €1 billion might have been spent. The scheme needs to be refined because it is clear it is not achieving its original objective. Previous information the Department supplied indicated there is now a cap on the value of a new vehicle of €60,000. A vehicle costing more than €60,000 does not qualify for the grant, which helps. As I recall it, when the Secretary General appeared before the committee, I put it to him that it should be reduced further. We should not be subsidising large vehicles. The people who are not benefiting are the very people who are paying the bulk of the carbon tax, have to drive the longest distances and do not have public transport. We will point that out to the Department in terms of public expenditure.

No. 1315 is from Mr. Tom Boland, chairman of Benefacts, dated 17 June 2022. Having reviewed the committee’s correspondence with Departments and State agencies, which we have published, Mr. Boland states that he has written to the committee to correct the record on correspondence we have received from the Departments of Public Expenditure and Reform and Rural and Community Development on the closure of the Benefacts database. Mr. Boland contests a number of statements made by the Departments, including the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform’s statement that it “does not intend to establish a similar database, as it has no business need for one (it is not in itself a user of Benefacts’ services).” Mr. Boland states that in 2018 Benefacts was contacted by the pay and pensions unit of the Department and asked to provide a detailed analysis of the pay, pensions and PRSI profile of all non-profit organisations receiving funding from any State source, and that in 2021 an updated version of these data sets was requested by the Department.

The Department of Rural and Community Development’s statement that it “never had a funding relationship with Benefacts” is also contested. Mr. Boland states that at the request of that Department’s social enterprise unit, Benefacts was funded to produce a detailed data set to assist officials in identifying non-profit organisations that might be capable of being recognised by the Department as social enterprises. There are a number of other contested statements.

As well as our correspondence with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, we included the closure of Benefacts on the agenda for our meeting with officials from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform on 19 May this year. Some members have expressed concern over the termination of the database, given that it is reported that it provided oversight of about €7 billion of public funds that goes to the non-profit sector each year. The correspondence we received from the Central Statistics Office, No. R1246, on the closure of the database gave rise to further concerns.

It stated that the data it received free of charge from Benefacts was a valuable data source for the CSO across a range of areas and "helped the CSO fulfil important statistical reporting required under EU legislation". In the absence of the Benefacts database, the CSO states that it will need investment across a number of areas.

We have requested sight of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform's business case for, and the value for money review of, the Benefacts database. We have also brought the matter and the CSO's correspondence to the attention of the Minister for Public and Expenditure and Reform. I propose we request the consent of the correspondent to bring the correspondence to the Minister's attention and ask that he review the matter, and that we also request the correspondent to consent to publish the correspondence, except the Indecon report, which is marked "Strictly confidential and not for publication".

I will open the floor to members before putting the proposal to the committee. Deputy Catherine Murphy raised this issue.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I did. It is quite a useful and comprehensive letter that raises a number of issues. The number one issue is value for money. Some €6.3 million of public money was invested in this database and €250,000 was spent on shutting it down. There will also be a cost for the CSO, which we can see. It may be useful to write to the CSO, or the relevant Department, to find out exactly what the nature of the investment would be to allow it to fulfil the EUROSTAT requirements under EU law.

Additional money is now being spent on the Department of Rural and Community Development to scope out the creation of a database that would be more limited than that of Benefacts, but that would be an additional cost. There are serious value for money issues here. The Indecon report indicated a number of issues that have been referred to, including if it was a question of Benefacts being superseded by another entity, there would be a requirement to have some sort of interim arrangement so we do not have a loss of the information that has been captured in that database, which was used by State and individual organisations. Many people used this database. It included audited figures, it was reliable and it was open source.

There has been a lot of misinformation. I was quite shocked by what we were told on that particular day, before the database was closed down. I asked the Secretary General if he had read the Indecon report. He told me he had not but that he had been briefed on it. We probably all have a copy of the Indecon report. It is not a difficult document to read; neither is its executive summary. It well summarises some of the issues. It states that, when it comes to a cost-benefit analysis, the benefits of the database outweigh the costs, which is not what we are being told. It really annoys me that we are not getting accurate information.

I raised this matter in the Dáil yesterday with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, who took Leaders' Questions. It is important we note how Benefacts was set up. According to page 2 of the document before me, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform's conditions for providing funding include that Benefacts was incorporated as a not-for-profit company; it was limited by guarantee without share capital at the Department's behest, which reflected the public benefit purposes for which it was established; and this meant that the company had no beneficial owners in the commercial sense and that, unlike a for-profit enterprise, was unable to make any medium- or long-term plans based on equity or borrowings. In his reply to me yesterday, the Minister said that none of the Departments had an interest in contributing towards the funding of this, but he also said they could have raised money from other sources. There was philanthropy involved in setting Benefacts up but the way the company is structured means it is not open to it to raise money in the way a normal enterprise would. That was at that Department's own behest.

I question why this was shut down. There was a significant volume of publicly available information. Sometimes funding comes from multiple sources. It was very valuable to be able to capture the range of sources of funding. The more limited thing being talked about by the Department of Rural and Community Affairs does not have that broad look. We are fixated on the silo-based approach. Benefacts was the opposite of that. It took an overview. That was incredibly valuable. It is not something that can be captured in value for money terms, but there are aspects of value for money that can be captured.

The thing about the Charities Regulator that was repeatedly referred to during committee meetings is disputed in the correspondence. I would believe what Benefacts is disputing because of the timelines. The relevant legislation dates to 2009 and the Charities Regulator was set up in 2014 around the same time as Benefacts started. Benefacts had proof of concept when this proposal was put. Several things are disputed throughout this document. It is very thoughtful correspondence, but I feel there was a decision to close Benefacts down even before the Indecon report was commissioned. I cannot see why we would want to end up with a less transparent arrangement relating to public funding that will cost more. This is something we should not let go.

Chairman

It is curious. What I found strange about it was that in May 2018, when then Minister for Finance and Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, launched the Benefacts second analysis report at the Royal Irish Academy, he expressed the admiration and support he and his Department had for the Benefacts project. He stated that he was willing to say he believed the output was crucial and the key thing was that all of this was possible only because Benefacts had done a huge volume of work to assemble all the information that is needed regarding what is happening in the non-profit sector, including the sources of income, the scale of the sector and the output that the sector generates. He went on to say that what Benefacts allowed us to do was bring a fact-based approach to understanding how that money is used, what the totality of funding was, what the disclosure levels in the organisations were and who were the recipients of that funding. I found that incredible. We know from the earlier hearings on this that the benefits of this database were immense.

Deputy Neasa Hourigan

I agree with what has been said. In fairness, Deputy Murphy has done a good job in giving a comprehensive review of the situation. One of the issues is it was repeatedly implied during our previous conversations around it there was going to be a similar equal. It is now clear there is not going to be a similar equal.

I do not think we should let that go. It sets us back to square one and we need to look at it with fresh eyes. Most matters have been dealt with but I will raise two minor items. In the agreements for funding, one requirement, as well as not having private beneficiary arrangements, is making data freely available to Departments. Do they keep any notes on that? We are saying that we do not need it anymore. How often do Departments use that information in various reports? That is important. If we had used it as part of evidence-based policy-making and now we do not have it, where does that leave us?

We are relying on the Indecon report. There is an issue relating to tendering and involvement in Indecon. As far as I am aware, this is not the first time that we have come across reports undertaken by that company that have not necessarily gone out to public tender. Will the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform indicate how often reports are commissioned from economic consultants without going to public tender?

Chairman

That is a separate question but we can ask the Department to answer the question on that company specifically. Is that agreed? Agreed. It can sharpen up the proposal.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

It indicated that there was a derogation until 2017 to provide information on not-for-profits, then we ran out of road. Benefacts then fulfilled that obligation. It was regarded by EUROSTAT as reliable. We will have to provide EUROSTAT with information. We do not have a source to gather that information. That is why the Central Statistics Office, CSO, requires additional investment. What investment is it seeking and which Department is it seeking the investment from to bring itself up to the point where it can provide EUROSTAT with the information? We are required to do that under EU law.

Chairman

We have not been informed that there is a definite replacement for this.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

The Department of-----

Chairman

From the point of view of the Committee of Public Accounts, we will ask them to provide all the data and information.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

A competitive tendering process was led by Amárach Research in collaboration with Social Enterprise Republic of Ireland, SERI, and the Irish Local Development Network. Social Enterprise Republic of Ireland started work on baseline data collection. The Department of Rural and Community Development has a budget of approximately €100,000 plus VAT for this data-gathering exercise. It has spent approximately €40,000 plus VAT to date. It is spending that on an element of what Benefacts collected.

Chairman

It will not cover the whole range of data.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

It will not. I think I was told that in a reply to a parliamentary question. We see a duplication of spending. I do not think any of us is arguing that there should not have been a process. There was an issue of whether these were public goods or market goods. I think they were public goods because it was open source and so on. I do not know why that was not considered. I do not think any of us is married to this being something that can only be provided by one entity. It was well provided for by that entity. We know that from the level of usage. We need to find out about the CSO. We already know that there is money and that there is no point in going after the Department of Rural and Community Development, because we know what it has spent. It would be useful to know what the scope of that is. That would be the only question worth asking. I think we have to send this to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to address the issues that have been disputed. A number of issues have been disputed. Deputy Hourigan and the Chair referred to issues. The Minister made some remarks and we were provided with a document on communications. It is about where the Department will get information that allows it to make good decisions in the absence of this. It would be worth asking the Department where the comparable information will be made available. There are many questions. We can ask some in parliamentary questions.

Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed. We will move on to No. 1320C from Deputy Catherine Murphy, dated 21 June. We have dealt with that already. It relates to toll plazas. The next is No. 1334C, dated 28 June. It is a submission from Deputy Neasa Hourigan and is about consideration of correspondence relating to the closure of the Owencurra centre which was before the committee last week. It proposes that the committee ask a number of questions of the HSE. Does Deputy Hourigan wish to speak?

Deputy Neasa Hourigan

It is fair to say that we have moved past the Owencurra issue, because that discussion has brought up a number of questions about the choices relating to money, spending and capital investment by the HSE. Members could say this about their own constituencies. It has been incredibly difficult to get information on that issue. This is particularly relevant to the Committee of Public Accounts. When a cost-benefit analysis of capital spending is done, it is done by building, not necessarily by service, on a CHO basis or by region. I have broken it down into a small number of questions, with referral notes at the end if people are interested in where those questions came from. If one is running a regional area, one cannot move people around like chess pieces on a board because of capital investment decisions. These are people's lives. However, we are only doing cost-benefit analysis by building and we are not looking at all the buildings as a community when it comes to mental health, disability, or whatever else it might be. That seems to be the case with this CHO. Is the HSE okay with this on a national basis?

If we move to Sláintecare and a more regional model, will we continue to do cost-benefit analysis and capital investment on a piecemeal basis instead of looking at particular regions and how everything slots together? One can see quickly from the notes I have attached that bits and bobs are happening all over the place, with an investment here and a rental there. There does not seem to be any joined-up thinking. When thinking of cost-benefit analysis, every regional area is almost like a campus and should be looked at as a whole. That is what I want the HSE to answer in those questions.

Chairman

There is a carbon copy of it in south Laois.

Deputy Neasa Hourigan

I would say one could go to every single constituency and there would be questions about why it is doing something in one building and something else in another building.

Deputy Alan Kelly

I thank Deputy Hourigan for raising this. I am sorry that I was not available when witnesses were in. I am quite familiar with the issues raised about Cork. It is a good example to bring us into a larger issue. This is a topic that we should get our teeth into. In the analysis, you will probably see that some regions are very different from others, which is not acceptable. That means there could be different strategies, views or policies depending on who is in charge, which is a whim more than anything. This needs much analysis. There is a huge amount of work to be done. This has to be thought about from the capital side and service side, then be broken down by discipline, whether mental health, disability or any other.

You have got to break it down by discipline, whether it is mental health, disability or otherwise. You will probably see that, in some cases or regions, it may be done quite well. In other disciplines, it might not be, depending on the make-up or priorities. This is a good way of kicking it off. However, we should probably focus on one discipline first because, if we throw the net too far, we might not get very far. If we tighten it up and maybe go across the CHO regions in relation to-----

Deputy Neasa Hourigan

Mental health.

Deputy Alan Kelly

Whatever. In fairness to Deputy Hourigan, she sparked this. Mental health is probably the one. Maybe we could go from there. That is what I would suggest as an add-on.

Chairman

Could I suggest that we add Erkina House-----

Deputy Neasa Hourigan

Yes.

Chairman

-----and do a similar examination because it is going through the same process at the moment? It has been paused for a review, which was not done prior to the decision being made to close it and move the people out of it.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I would actually agree about narrowing the focus. We had representatives of the HSE in to discuss mental health not that long ago. The problem is that you could have representatives of the HSE in here every week. You could have them in for a month on one topic.

Chairman

Once a week.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

The problem is that you are not getting to the structure. With different parts of the country, it is like a postcode lottery. This is probably a matter regarding which we could even focus on one particular region, even one CHO area, and do a granular examination, bearing in mind the wider sense of value for money. As has been defined, it is not just about what we spend; it is also about the services and the quality of the services we get for what we spend. We tend to put big-ticket items on the agenda. When we have HSE representatives in, we often leave feeling pretty frustrated. It would be better if we did one thing and did it really well in terms of drilling down into the value for money. We would be able to compare with other areas if we had a full sense of the inner workings. We should be thinking about doing that in the autumn, but let us explore the particular questions so we will have gathered sufficient information to put a shape on that.

Chairman

Putting a focus on it is correct but, with Erkina House, it is so simple and there is so much of a correlation. The two cases are classic examples of where these types of issues arise. They are very similar. I am not totally au fait with Owenacurra. Except for the information coming before this committee, I would not have the information that the local public representatives have. However, from what I know about it, there are many things that tally in respect of Erkina House. I will submit some of the information I already have to the committee. That is the best thing, just to give members a flavour of it, if that is agreed.

Deputy Alan Kelly

What was agreed?

Chairman

That we look at Erkina House.

Deputy Alan Kelly

In fairness and just to be clear, I thought we said we were going to narrow it down to mental health. Are we narrowing it down to one CHO or two CHOs?

Chairman

It is mental health. I suggest that because it is such a carbon copy in so many ways, it would be useful to see whether the issue is systemic across the HSE. It would be very similar-----

Deputy Alan Kelly

Then can we name the two CHOs, just to be clear?

Chairman

CHO 8.

Deputy Alan Kelly

In fairness, the spark here was down in Cork, so obviously that is one CHO. If we are adding a second one, let us agree to it.

Deputy Neasa Hourigan

If we structure a meeting or go back to those concerned, I will be a bit wary about having national representatives from the HSE who say every single time we ask them that a deep-dive or granular examination was something that happened at local level. Therefore, I am wondering whether we could structure the meeting to stitch in the heads of the two specific CHOs so we will not end up going around the houses and so there will not be a very easy way of not answering the questions, if that makes sense.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Deputy Kelly will remember that we had representatives of the education and training boards, ETBs, in. I think we had three of them in. To be honest, I think two of them were awful and one was a real shining light. There was not equality across the ETBs. We saw there was no uniformity and that there was best practice and what was less than best practice.

Deputy Alan Kelly

It is not a question of whether we request but of who we request. Basically, we should be requesting those who are responsible at CHO level. If we have two of them in here, or three, if we decide that, we can do-----

Chairman

OK. I do not see Deputy Colm Burke’s hand signal but it has been brought to my attention that he wants to contribute. Could he hand-signal when he wants to contribute?

Deputy Colm Burke

Yes. With regard to bringing in people, there is a huge variation in disability services. It is a case of identifying at least two where there is variation regarding mental health. We had a problem in the Cork–Kerry region, which is a huge challenge now. It is a matter of bringing in representatives of another area where mental health services seem to be working far better. It is about doing the comparisons because I am not sure why there is such a variation in how cases are managed in different areas of the country.

Chairman

That is one of the questions here. There is a proposal with two parts. One is that we submit the questions submitted by Deputy Hourigan to those concerned. The second is that we do a piece of work on mental health services in CHO 8 and the Cork CHO, which is CHO 4. Is that agreed? Agreed. I thank members very much for that.

To move on to the work programme, we have representatives of the Department of Education in next week, on 7 July, and also a representative from the Department of Further Education, Research, Innovation and Science.

A meeting with An Bord Pleanála is scheduled for 14 July. It is our last scheduled sitting for this term. A representative from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage will be in attendance at that meeting.

I propose that we-----

Deputy Verona Murphy

I do not know whether to interrupt now or at the end.

Chairman

Just wait until the end. I know the Deputy might want to contribute on this.

I propose that we consider our first few engagements for our return in September at our next meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Verona Murphy

On the meeting with An Bord Pleanála on 14 July, it is paramount we do not have a representative from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. I would like to see the Secretary General, Mr. Doyle, back here. This is sufficiently serious and we have a lot of stuff to get through. The matter is high on our agenda. Particularly with the adverse media coverage, it is paramount that the Committee of Public Accounts be seen to take it seriously. It should be the Secretary General and nobody else.

Chairman

What is the Deputy proposing? Is it that there be a representative from An Bord Pleanála without anyone from the Department?

Deputy Verona Murphy

No. I am proposing that there be someone from the Department, but at the level of Secretary General.

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy Verona Murphy

I do not want to see any principal officer who does not have answers.

Chairman

The Deputy does not want a principal officer. That is OK. My document just refers to a representative from the Department.

Deputy Alan Kelly

In 2015, in a previous life, I commissioned the only ever analysis and review of An Bord Pleanála. There was quite a volume of recommendations. I have been keeping an eye on the recommendations and the number that have actually been actioned and implemented. In advance of the meeting on 14 July, we should ask the secretariat to write to An Bord Pleanála so it can give us, a week in advance, a spreadsheet with a status report on all the recommendations. Surely, within seven years, it could have implemented them all.

Chairman

How many recommendations were there roughly? Was it 20 or 30?

Deputy Alan Kelly

No. Treble that, I would say.

Chairman

It is a detailed piece of work.

Deputy Alan Kelly

It is not that detailed a piece of work.

I and other Deputies have looked for status updates over years; so it is a rolling thing. An Bord Pleanála has this work - Deputies should trust me when I say that - but it should, in advance of the meeting, update the schedule. Then we can all, in a timely manner, look at all the recommendations to date and see why An Bord Pleanála has not implemented some of them. If it had implemented them, we may not have ended up in the situation we are in.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Obviously, what is disappointing about the meeting we will have on 14 July is that we will not have the benefit of the report that has been done by Remy Farrell. That will be problematic for our hearing.

The other thing is that there were significant changes after that review. I am not saying that every one of the recommendations should not have been implemented, but there have been significant changes to An Bord Pleanála's remit in respect of strategic housing developments, which is where many of the issues are focused. We are going to have some difficulty having a satisfactory meeting in advance of the publication of that report. I know that the regulator is doing another review of the structures and procedures of An Bord Pleanála. We do not know when the regulator will complete that or whether or not that will be a public document. It might be worth writing to the regulator - whether that is appropriate or not is something we might consider - just to see exactly what the intention is there. The checks and balances should not be down to an individual; they should be down to the structures being robust enough to make sure that issues do not arise. I am sure that is why the regulator is in there. The regulator is going to be important in the context of the current issues. One of the issues we talked about the last time was the fact that one third of An Bord Pleanála's budget is now being spent on legal challenges in respect of judicial reviews. Even where An Bord Pleanála is successful with those, the costs tend to be paid by An Bord Pleanála.

Chairman

The vast majority of the challenges have been lost by An Bord Pleanála. Can we agree on Deputy Kelly's proposal in respect of the review of local government that was carried out by the Department at the time?

Deputy Alan Kelly

It was actually an independent review.

Chairman

Was it? But it was instigated by the Department.

Deputy Alan Kelly

Yes

Chairman

It is a matter of getting that spreadsheet. It is always useful to measure these things. Was the review accepted by An Bord Pleanála at the time?

Deputy Alan Kelly

Yes.

Chairman

It was agreed that An Bord Pleanála would act on it. Can we get this agreed?

Deputy Matt Carthy

I support Deputy Catherine Murphy's proposal in respect of the Secretary General of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. I get the Deputy Murphy eile's point about the review that is ongoing. Notwithstanding that, I recently took the opportunity to read back over the transcript of our last hearing with An Bord Pleanála and I recall, even as far back as my time as a councillor, that the issues that have arisen were flagged up as very likely scenarios. When you have a system whereby a group of people - in some cases very small groups of people - sit behind closed doors making decisions and are not accountable for those decisions unless somebody has the funds to take them to the High Court, there needs to be the maximum level of accountability and transparency. There is clearly a governance failure and a culture failure within the board that needs to be challenged. There is plenty for us to engage with, and the Department is an important component in that.

I suggest that we keep our work plan flexible enough that if we need to bring An Bord Pleanála back before the committee after the publication of the report, we can do so. As Deputy Catherine Murphy said, this is about tens of millions of euro spent on legal fees in fights against what was ostensibly the exact same position of the board, with the board losing every single time but continuing to go back. It appears that nobody within An Bord Pleanála said that this needed to be analysed and assessed and that nobody within the Department asked what was going on here. Yet representatives of An Bord Pleanála came into a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts, where we deal with every Department and have limited time to go over documents, and several members were able to point out issues. The board dismissed the potential of an issue, and now we find out about all sorts of further reviews that will probably cost further millions in their outworkings. It will be one of the most important hearings of our term to date. I suggest we ensure that we create the capacity to have An Bord Pleanála before the committee a second time if necessary.

I have another suggestion for our future work plan if the Chair is dealing with them now.

Chairman

Hold it until we have dealt with this issue.

Deputy Verona Murphy

May I ask a question of the Comptroller and Auditor General? Do we have the option to invite the regulator or-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes. I audit the regulator.

Deputy Verona Murphy

We should do that now. The correlation between the legal fees being incurred under judicial review between the three bodies is such that it is something we need to flag and to investigate because the amount of public money that is just going into a black hole for no good reason is just - I cannot even put a word on it. It is atrocious.

Chairman

As I recall, it was more than one third of An Bord Pleanála's annual budget.

Deputy Verona Murphy

The Chair will remember my robust questioning the last time. I said we would be looking at €20 million very soon. We await the judicial review and the legal position. I asked the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage last week for its submission on anything to do with legal matters. It might take us longer than one session to correlate between these different parties and to find out why we are not getting housing and why all we are getting is legal bills. If there is-----

Deputy Alan Kelly

I suggest we come back and-----

Chairman

Hold it for just one second. I want to let in Deputy Colm Burke.

Deputy Colm Burke

I am a bit concerned about the 14 July meeting. I am concerned that, because there is an inquiry ongoing, people who come in will start using it as a mechanism not to give us answers on a number of issues. That is one of the problems we will have on 14 July. We need to make sure we can get the information we require, even if there is an inquiry going on.

The second issue relates to the judicial review. We need to have full details of the number of judicial reviews, the number that were successful, the number that were not successful, the number of appeals from the High Court to the Court of Appeal and so on because that is important information.

The other issue is that where people who bring judicial reviews are not successful with them, there is no mechanism for the recovery of costs. There have been a number of judicial reviews that were used just as a process for delaying the whole planning mechanism. We should find out what needs to be done to tighten that up in order that people do not do that, knowing full well that they will not be responsible for any costs.

Deputy Verona Murphy

I do not agree.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I do not either.

Deputy Verona Murphy

That is a narrative that has been put out by the sitting Government that it would like to limit-----

Deputy Colm Burke

No, that is not true.

Deputy Verona Murphy

I am just saying-----

Deputy Colm Burke

I know of some of those judicial reviews-----

Deputy Verona Murphy

Be fair, Chair. The mechanism is there.

Deputy Colm Burke

-----where they were used as a delaying process by competitors of the people who were trying to get planning.

Chairman

I call on Deputy Verona Murphy to respond briefly. We will not get into a discussion about this.

Deputy Verona Murphy

Out of 34 judicial reviews that I am aware of, the Government has lost 30. One was not heard and three are pending. I do not think people bringing forward reviews just to delay planning is a significant issue. Clearly, the Government is not acting within the law.

Chairman

That is a debate for another day. Deputy Kelly wishes to come in.

Deputy Alan Kelly

As regards bringing focus to this, having the regulator before us subsequently would be better. We want to differentiate, but it would be a good idea to have the regulator before us post 14 July.

Chairman

There is an internal inquiry ongoing in An Bord Pleanála along with the other ones so, while An Bord Pleanála will be before the committee on 14 July, we will have to have the board back before us in the autumn period.

Deputy Neasa Hourigan

Could we ask An Bord Pleanála to provide to us anything that is not in the public sphere but that relates to the conduct and the appointment of its own board? Would that be possible? Could we ask, if the board has any internal documents, that it release them to the Committee of Public Accounts?

Chairman

We can certainly ask.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

If the appeals process is taken away, people have no option to go to the courts in circumstances where they have legitimate concerns. The Aarhus Convention requires that people are consulted on planning issues. If we cut the public out of a process, we cannot then criticise people for taking judicial reviews in situations where they feel one is merited. Anybody considering a judicial review would not be going into it thinking he or she will not end up with a cost. It is not for the faint-hearted to go into the High Court. We really should not accept that kind of narrative.

Chairman

Given the success rate of-----

Deputy Colm Burke

I agree with Deputy Murphy about the lack of an appeal process. I fully accept that judicial review is the only option available for people where the initial application is made to An Bord Pleanála and not a local authority. I am talking about cases that have gone through a local authority and An Bord Pleanála before ending up in a judicial review.

Chairman

We can ask that question. I will move on. That is the line-up on 14 July. As has been suggested, I am of the view that we consider having representatives of the Office of the Planning Regulator in subsequent to that. We need to chalk in space for An Bord Pleanála to come back again. I hope some of the investigations will have been completed by then. Are there any other matters members wish to raise under the work programme?

Deputy Matt Carthy

I know we have much in our work programme, but something we mentioned today has been useful. In respect of health matters, we should be more specific than the previous practice of just bringing in representatives of the HSE and the Department of Health for a general discussion. It would be useful to have the type of engagement we had in respect of mental health or accident and emergency services, for example, over the course of the autumn. It has been topical in recent weeks. There are two many differences in regional operations and the level of service people are receiving. It would be useful for the Committee of Public Accounts to have that type of debate.

Chairman

Would it be cumbersome to put the ambulance service in there?

Deputy Verona Murphy

It is an area I would like to see debated.

Chairman

There are major issues with the ambulance service.

Deputy Matt Carthy

Absolutely.

Chairman

I have ambulance staff from different parts of the country contacting me regularly.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I am sure the ambulance service could be tied into the emergency departments and their management.

Chairman

The accident and emergency service is a really important topic, as is the ambulance service.

Deputy Matt Carthy

They are connected.

Chairman

We need a more focused approach. Judging by our experience in the past year and a half, the witnesses we bring in must try to cover everything as well. We are trying to cover a range of matters so there is a lack of focus.

Deputy Verona Murphy

The National Ambulance Service is deteriorating rapidly. I have received an amount of complaints. I am sure everybody here is the same.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Are there any special reports under way that we should be factoring in?

Chairman

We have a specific item on next week's agenda for the future of the work programme. If there are specific reports, we can deal with them next week. Is the Deputy happy enough with that?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Yes. I am concerned that we are becoming reactive rather than being strategic in how we set up.

Chairman

We react to serious matters.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Absolutely.

Chairman

I take your point. It has been brought to my attention it is the assistant secretary who has been designated to come in for the debate on An Bord Pleanála.

Deputy Matt Carthy

We should ask the Secretary General, as the Accounting Officer, to come in.

Chairman

That is fair enough.

Deputy Verona Murphy

We want the Secretary General. We do not want somebody writing back to say the Secretary General cannot make it. I expect some very good reason if the Secretary General cannot come.

Deputy Matt Carthy

It is part of the role to account to the Committee of Public Accounts.

Chairman

The Accounting Officer is the Secretary General. If a senior official is coming, it should be the Secretary General. That concludes the consideration of the work programme. If members do not wish to raise anything else, we can go into private session.

The committee went into private session at 10.55 a.m. until 11.15 a.m. and resumed in public session at 1.30 p.m.