The public business before the committee for this afternoon is as follows: minutes; accounts and financial statements; correspondence; the work programme; and any other business. The minutes of the meeting of 14 December 2023 have been circulated to committee members. Does any member wish to raise any matters arising from the minutes? Are the minutes agreed?
Business of Committee
They are agreed.
As usual, the minutes will be published on the committee's webpage.
I will move on to accounts and financial statements. Some 19 sets of accounts and financial statements were laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas between 11 December and 12 January. I will ask Mr. Seamus McCarthy, the Comptroller and Auditor General, to address these before opening it to the floor.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
The first is Pobal's financial statements for 2022, which received a clear audit opinion. The second is the Grangegorman Development Agency financial statements for 2022, which received a clear audit opinion. The third is Microfinance Ireland's financial statements for 2022, which received a clear audit opinion. The fourth is a special account for the Hepatitis C insurance scheme for 2022, which received a clear audit opinion. The fifth is the Health Research Board financial statements for 2022. It received a qualified audit opinion. In my view, the accounts give a true and fair view except that they account for the costs of retirement benefit entitlements of staff only as they become payable. That is standard for many health bodies and it is at the direction of the Minister for Health.
The sixth to the fourteenth, inclusive, are all subsidiaries of Horseracing Ireland. The accounts all relate to 2022 and they all received a clear audit opinion. I do not propose to read all of those out. The fifteenth is the National Concert Hall's financial statements for 2022. It received a clear audit opinion. The sixteenth is Tourism Ireland's, which is one of the North-South bodies, financial statements for 2022. It received a clear audit opinion. The seventeenth is the financial statements for the Competition and Consumer Protection for 2022, which received a clear audit opinion. The eighteenth is the financial statements for Oberstown Children Detention Campus for 2022, which received a clear audit opinion. Finally, the nineteenth is the Corporate Enforcement Authority. This is a new statutory body. The accounting period is 7 July 2022 to 31 December 2022, and it received a clear audit opinion.
Does any committee member wish to comment on the accounts and financial statements?
Can we agree the accounts and financial statements?
They are agreed.
As usual, the list of accounts and financial statements will be published as part of our minutes. Moving on to item three, which is correspondence, 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 committee meetings and published on the committee's webpage.
Some six items of correspondence have been flagged for discussion in public today. The first category that has been flagged is category B, correspondence from Accounting Officers and-or Ministers and follow-up to committee meetings. The first item of correspondence is No. R2272B from Mr. Niall Glesson, chief executive officer, Uisce Eireann, dated 11 December 2023, providing follow up information requested at the meeting of 26 October 2023. I propose we note and publish this item of correspondence. Is that agreed?
That is agreed.
Deputy James O'Connor, who is not present at this point, flagged this item for discussion. If any other committee member wishes to come in on that, they should feel free to do so. It is item No. R2272B and it deals with the issue of wastewater treatment plants provided by developers that have not been taken in charge and what happens there. There is an update on a number of matters the committee raised.
I note there is one piece regarding The Limekiln, in Clogh, Ballacolla, County Laois, and Woodgrove in Portlaoise. The Limekiln is a housing estate in a small village. The developer complied with what was requested by the local authority and put in a reed bed system. I welcome the fact, as it states here, that:
In accordance with existing Government policy guidelines, [Uisce Éireann] is co-operating with the Planning Authorities nationally to assess the taking in charge of residential estates and the transfer of water services assets located in these estates...
It further states that:
These guidelines specifically ... [have to do] with estates with their own wastewater treatment plants provided by the developer... This infrastructure is referred to as DPI, or Developer Provided Infrastructure, and as detailed earlier in the document, DPI is standalone infrastructure which does not connect to the public water and sewerage network for which [Uisce Éireann] is responsible.
The treatment plant within this estate falls within this categorisation and therefore currently it cannot be progressed ...
While it is disappointing, it clarifies the situation regarding where there is a DPI, Uisce Éireann will just not deal with it so it is then back to the local authority to take it in charge. That is the only conclusion I can see from that and that is where it needs to be followed up on.
There is a bit of an irony in that the committee was told that Irish Water would dispense with all of these local authorities.
In fact, they are central to the work of Irish Water.
My views on this are well known over the past 14 years and I think the Deputy's are as well. I mean no disrespect to the people in Uisce Éireann but I think this was a bad day's work. The reason given at the time was that cross-county infrastructure has been dealt with very simply to date by way of memorandums of understanding between local authorities, but it could also have been dealt with very simply in the same way as the NRA. Kildare County Council was the lead authority for the motorway that came through counties Kildare and Laois, namely, the M7-M8. I will not say there were no problems but it worked, the motorway is there and it was put in place. The same thing could have been done with the water system.
In respect of the Woodgrove housing estate, which is next door to where I live in Portlaoise, the correspondence states it is connected to the public system but that at this point there has been no application from the local authority for taking it in charge. I do not want to read out the rest of the response but it appears as though Uisce Éireann would be willing to take the estate in charge if everyone was okay with it. It states that following an application to review and follow up with Uisce Éireann approval, the local authority will bring the estate forward to formally take it in charge. It goes on to state that in the circumstances, Uisce Éireann advises contacting the local authority, which will be better placed to assist. Local representatives can deal with that but it is certainly an issue that has been raised with us and I welcome the clarification on it. If everyone is happy with the response, we will move on to the next item.
No. 2285B, from Ms Aileen Healy, director of administration at the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, dated 22 December, is a response to our request for a meeting with GSOC and An Garda Síochána. It is proposed to note and publish the item and consider it further, as discussed, at our work programme. Is that agreed? Agreed. Deputy Murphy flagged the item. Does she wish to leave it until the work programme?
I am happy to leave it until the work programme but I think Ms Healy makes a very fair point.
I thank the Deputy.
No. 2288B, from Ms Fiona Ross, group chair of CIÉ, dated 19 December, provides information requested by the committee on the CIÉ pension scheme. I propose we note and publish the item. Is that agreed? Agreed. I flagged the item for discussion becuase this is a public body with a pension scheme and the population at large would think a pension scheme at CIÉ would be as safe as the Rock of Cashel, but it is not. We would have thought the pensioners' position would be secure and that they would be protected. The people who depend on what is termed the 1951 scheme, as is clarified in the letter from Ms Ross, have not received any increments, improvements or increases in payments since 2008.
Helpfully, in respect of the state the scheme is in, she has outlined the equities, bonds, properties, cash alternatives, the value of the scheme's assets and liabilities and the current value of the underfunding of the scheme, which is €15 million, but this is a scheme that has a current value of €2.54 billion, which is substantial. The value of the assets is €2.163 billon, so it is substantial. It looks as though that gap in the underfunding of the scheme is narrowing. I do not want to trivialise it but the €15 million figure is relatively small in terms of what we are talking about here. Meanwhile, these pensioners are caught in a very precarious position.
Ms Ross went on to clarify that the majority of CIÉ pensioners who come in under the 1951 scheme do not have a State pension, so they are caught in an especially difficult position. I have dealt with a couple of them personally and made representations for a couple of them. The scheme is not providing for their needs. Everybody else in the country, including pensioners and low-paid workers, has received a number of increases since 2008. These people are outliers and they are the exception.
I propose we write to the Minister for Transport to seek his views on this. Between the Government and the board of CIÉ, something has to give on this. It cannot be that people who have only a CIÉ pension, sometimes amounting to only a couple of hundred euro a week or a little more, have not received increases over the years. We have been in a cost-of-living crisis over the past three years, with Covid and the Ukraine war. The price of a loaf of bread has increased since 2008 a number of times and that is not to mention other goods. The cost of even the bare essentials of life has tripled or quadrupled in some cases and we cannot leave these people hanging. I propose we write to the Minister for Transport to seek his views on it. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Obviously, people signed up to this scheme with the expectation they were going to be covered when they retired, and the fact this is a public body would have given them an additional assurance. We are talking about the case of CIÉ but I have engaged also with people from the likes of the ESB, which is a semi-State company. Issues such as inflation and, in this case, potentially full or partial privatisation have a bearing on the income of the pension fund but some of these pension funds have changed in nature. It is interesting that legitimate expectation is used for certain classes of people, including us politicians, but legitimate expectation tends not to be used as a defence in the case of workers in the likes of semi-State companies. It would be useful to get a response.
A couple of decades ago, there was a feeling that those who were on those pension schemes, who did not get the State pension but had this employment pension into which people paid a lot of money over the years, were well looked after, but in this case those who are the lowest-paid workers in CIÉ are the most significantly affected. It is my understanding they are coming out worst off in this because, obviously, the level of pension they are entitled to is a lot lower than that of higher-paid workers. They are in a very difficult position. At one time people in other forms of employment would have looked on them with envy. Bord na Móna is an example of this.
Yes, the CIÉ pension scheme has gone backwards.
Bord na Móna pensioners receive both the superannuation scheme and the State pension, and while the superannuation scheme might be only €100 or €150 per week, they are still a lot better off than these workers. We will seek the views of the Minister and put those points to him. Because it is these people's sole income, it is a very difficult situation and something has to give.
No. 2291B, from Ms Helena Hughes, programme manager at the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, dated 15 December, provides information we requested at our meeting of 30 November. I propose we note and publish the item. Is that agreed? Agreed. Deputy Murphy flagged it for discussion.
Can we ask the authority for some additional information? The correspondence states that since the individual energy upgrade scheme was launched in 2009, 22,747 homes built pre-1940 have received grants for 31,287 upgrades thereunder. Very often, they fall into a different category because of the nature of how they are built. Can we ask specifically about, for example, protected structures and how many are included in that figure, if that is known? I was talking to somebody recently who lives in an older house and who could not get the wraparound.
It is a brick house and as a consequence, the nature of the build is different. They had to get it done internally and it is not a particularly big house either. There was obviously quite a take on the inside, with wardrobes and things like that. You can imagine the kind of thing. It would be useful for us to get some idea of the challenges as regards what can be done with some of those older properties, including the kinds of works carried out by virtue of the way the houses were built. We should also ask them about protected or listed structures.
Is it agreed that we note and publish the correspondence and seek that follow-up information? Agreed.
We move on to category C, which is correspondence from and related to private individuals and any other correspondence. No. 2283 is from Deputy Alan Dillon and is dated 14 December. It contains a proposal regarding the committee's meeting with the FAI, Sport Ireland and the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sports and the Media, which is scheduled for February. I propose that we note and publish this correspondence and further consider the details of the agenda for this meeting in private session. However, I will allow members to come in now if they wish to say anything in public about it.
There are obvious things. It is always useful to say that the Committee of Public Accounts can invite people in. For example, when we look for the Secretary General of a Department to come in, he or she is required to do so. We should acknowledge again that the FAI is not audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. It falls into the category of organisations that we invite in. I think it will probably determine who should be on the list of people it brings in. We can certainly ask that some former officials come in but we cannot demand that happen, and it is important people understand that is the case. It will be the same with the detail, although I think it will be useful to have the detail Deputy Dillon is looking for with regard to the payments for holidays and so on.
I notice Deputy Dillon has just come online. As this is his letter, does he want to speak to it?
The basis of this correspondence relates to the sports committee's engagement with the FAI before Christmas, and our engagement with representatives of the FAI about undeclared payments to its CEO, Jonathan Hill. During our engagement there were some gaps in the description of how these payments came about. There were certainly witnesses, who were not present, who could have answered questions about what members put to both the former chair of the board of the FAI and its current CEO. On the back of that and the agreement by the Committee of Public Accounts to extend an invitation to the FAI to respond to these payments, I felt it important for us to invite the HR director and the former finance director of the FAI to join our discussions on financial management and governance within their organisation. Further to that, it is important that the committee ask for the emails that detailed the exceptional circumstances under which an agreement for payments of holidays in lieu were made with the former chair of the board, Roy Barrett, its then former director of finance and the HR director who was explicitly told at the sports committee that there was an agreement and emails exchanged. This issue would certainly put to bed the issue of credibility surrounding these payments, who instructed that they be made and who had oversight on them.
Is that agreed? Agreed. We can come back to this issue.
The next correspondence is No. 2306 from an individual and is dated 10 January 2024. It relates to the delivery of the Kolbe Special School in Portlaoise, County Laois. The committee considered previous correspondence from the same person at a meeting on 23 March and in private session on 20 April. The matter was forwarded to the Joint Committee on Education, Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science for its consideration. It is proposed to consent to forward the correspondence to the Department of Education for an update on the matters raised. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I will add one point. This correspondence has to do with the transfer of a small piece of land from the HSE to the school. There is a new building. It is a special needs school for children with profound psychological and physical disabilities. It has been going on for years. The school is housed in awful prefabs. It is getting some new prefabs, which is welcome. There is a site up the road and money has been approved for it. Some of the accommodation work is being carried out. ESB cables have to be moved. Part of the work cannot be carried out because it requires the transfer of this piece of land from the Health Service Executive, which in fairness has agreed to transfer the land into the ownership of the school. That is welcome. However, as anyone who has dealt with HSE estates regarding transfer of land will know, it can be a slow process. The implications of this is that there is a public cost. Each month this is held up it is costing money. I know a bit of the background and while I do not know all of the detail, I know it is costing money. That is not to mention the fact that the needs of the children and staff in chronic need of a new school are not being looked after.
I do not want to get into individual cases here. We cannot do that. However, in the context of the extra cost being placed on the Exchequer, I ask that we send a letter to Bernard Gloster, the new chief officer in the HSE, asking that where land is being transferred from the HSE for schools and urgent infrastructure, he speak with the HSE estates section to try to expedite that. There needs to be a quicker way of dealing with these cases, in particular in the case of facilities that are urgently needed. I do not know if members have ever had the experience of trying to deal with land being transferred from public bodies like that. It can be very difficult. Is that agreed? Agreed.
We move on to the work programme. The draft work programme has been circulated and is on members' screens now. On 25 January, we will continue our examination of the topic of misclassification of workers. We met with the Revenue Commissioners to examine the 2022 appropriation accounts, Vote 9, and the relevant chapters of the Comptroller and Auditor General's annual report. On 1 February, we will meet with the Department of Health with regard to the 2022 appropriation accounts, Vote 38, and chapter 19 of the C and AG's annual report. Members will recall that this meeting was postponed from 7 December. Representatives of the HSE have also been invited to attend that meeting.
At our last meeting, it was agreed to schedule a meeting with the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, Sport Ireland and the FAI for 8 February; to meet with An Garda Síochána and the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, on 15 February - there is a bit of moving around to be done there; and to schedule a meeting with the Department of Justice for 22 February. However, representatives of the FAI are not available to meet us on either 8 or 15 February and the proposed order of meetings has been updated accordingly. GSOC representatives have confirmed their availability for 8 February to discuss the 2022 financial statements. It is proposed that we also examine the appropriation account for Vote 20 - An Garda Síochána. However, An Garda Síochána representatives have advised that they are not available to attend on 8 February but are available on 21 March. Furthermore, in correspondence No. 2285, GSOC has requested that its representatives not appear at the same meeting as the witnesses from An Garda Síochána as they are independent in their function. Are members happy to proceed with a meeting with GSOC and representatives from the Department of Justice on 8 February, with a separate meeting with An Garda Síochána and the Department on 21 March?
Will representatives of the Department of Justice attend both meetings?
Yes. It is a matter of moving things around to accommodate everyone.
Regarding the meeting with the HSE on 1 February, I request that there also be a Tusla representative in attendance. I put in a series of parliamentary questions in November asking how expenditure was being outlined for 2024, particularly in respect of the parent supports programme. I have not had any answers. In the context of what I deal with in regard to mental health and child and adolescent mental health services, CAMHS, in particular, it is really important that we have clarity that the budget is there to support parents and families who are not getting the services but still need urgent help. I have not been able to ascertain what the budget is and whether that scheme is up and running. We absolutely must have representatives from the HSE and Tusla before us who have responsibility for that. The future costs of not dealing with these types of issues mean it would be pure neglect not to do so. The cost is phenomenal. We heard about it at the mental health conference set up by the Minister of State, Deputy Butler, on Tuesday. The economist who spoke said that not dealing with the issues at a young age brings phenomenal cost at the adolescent stage. It is not too late to write requesting that a representative of Tusla attend the meeting on 1 February. That representative should be at CEO level.
Is the Deputy requesting that representation because of the joined-up nature of the two bodies on this issue?
Yes.
I will put that to the committee.
There are a number of issues relating to Tusla. Is it worth having its representatives in on their own on a date following our meeting with the HSE?
I am happy to do that alternatively.
There are a lot of challenges in regard to Tusla and a meeting would be helpful. It is up to the Chair but there are a lot of issues on which we need answers.
Deputy Dillon has indicated.
In regard to the public services account for 2022, could the C and AG give us an overview of what is contained within chapter 18? When we go into an engagement with the HSE, the area of discussion becomes a huge animal and it is very hard to pin down issues of focus. A big issue that always comes up in my area is around buildings, estates and capital projects. Is that included in the chapter or contained within the overall Vote 38?
Before asking Mr. McCarthy to respond, my concern is that any time we have had the HSE in, there are so many issues to discuss. We could spend a whole session on particular individual issues. It is important that we do not spread ourselves too thinly. Perhaps a separate hearing is more appropriate. Will the C and AG respond to Deputy Dillon's question on chapter 18?
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
Chapter 18 deals with the overall arrangements for funding of the HSE, the relationship between it and the Department in how the budget is set and differences that have emerged. It is a technical accounting issue. In terms of the appropriation account, it certainly does include capital funding for the HSE, so I imagine that might cover the point the Deputy is making about capital projects and so on. I would not see a difficulty in bringing that up. Obviously, in respect of the level of expenditure on individual projects, any representatives of the HSE probably need to be put on notice that estates and capital works will be discussed.
There has been a suggestion that we flag estates and capital works as an item on the agenda. Is that agreed? Agreed.
As I said, the FAI representatives are not available to attend the meeting on 8 or 15 February. Are members happy to proceed with the proposal I outlined?
Will the Cathaoirleach clarify what is proposed?
Representatives from An Garda Síochána have confirmed their availability, together with officials from the Department of Justice, on 21 March. For the meeting with the HSE and the Department of Health, we have added another item to the agenda, which is the issue relating to estates and capital works. On Deputy Verona Murphy's proposal that Tusla also be represented at that meeting, it seems the feeling among members, and I am open to correction on this, is that we might have a separate, stand-alone session with Tusla. As has been put forward, there are a number of issues relating to Tusla that we need to engage with and examine. Is the Deputy happy that we do so?
I would rather have the Tusla and HSE representatives in on 8 February than the GSOC representatives. We have far more to lose by letting the issues I mentioned continue and fester. We need to know how the parent support elements of the Sláintecare plan are being rolled out. There are 19 healthy community programmes and we do not know at this stage what funding there will be for them. I have received no answers to the parliamentary questions I submitted in November. There are issues with parliamentary questions not being answered. However, I am subject to the decision of other members on this matter. My view is that we have a lot more to lose by not ascertaining where that €1 billion fund is being spent.
There is a slot on 29 February that we could request the Tusla representatives to attend. Am I right, however, that the Deputy is adamant that a Tusla representative should be here at the same time as the HSE officials?
I would like to swap the scheduled meeting with GSOC on 8 February to a later date and bring in Tusla and the HSE as early as possible.
There are a number of moving parts to accommodate. We agreed previously that we would bring in the GSOC representatives and then the officials from the Department of Justice because of the issues that will arise through the meetings with An Garda Síochána and, separately, with GSOC. That meeting is scheduled for 15 February.
I understand that. The meeting with GSOC is obviously important but is it as important from a value-for-money perspective as the issue I have raised?
Is it not the case that the GSOC representatives have already been invited?
Yes, the problem is that a lot of work has already been done in anticipation of that meeting. If we move it, that might affect the availability of those witnesses on another date.
Sorry, I did not think they were invited. I thought we had the FAI in there and that is why it was in red. I just thought it was not agreed.
We can ask an official from Tusla to attend on the same day as the officials from the Department of Health, if available, if the Deputy wants to address that specific issue with him or her. Would that be adequate?
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
Tusla is under the Department of children rather than the Department of Health, so it is cutting across all kinds of lines.
It is messy.
Okay.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
The committee does have slots on 29 February and 7 March.
What I would suggest to the Deputy, knowing it is not perfect and that she is anxious about these issues, which are important, is that the full slot available on 29 February could be used. It is a leap year, so we could use the extra day God has given us for Tusla, if available. We can check availability for that date, if not 7 March. Obviously, the sooner we can have the officials in, the better, because these are important issues, as the Deputy correctly stated. Would the Deputy be happy enough with that?
Okay. I thank the Chair.
Are the rest of the members happy enough with that?
For 29 February?
Yes. If the officials are not available then, we will go with 7 March.
The Department of Justice has confirmed availability to attend a meeting on 15 February concerning the 2022 appropriation accounts for Vote 21 - Prisons, and Vote 24 - Justice. Is that agreed?
It is proposed we meet officials from the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, Sport Ireland, the FAI, etc., on 22 February. We have dealt with the proposal for 29 February. Have members a proposal for 7 March?
There is a list. Obviously, people have been putting items on the agenda. The key issue is that we should have a purpose. I can see Deputy Verona Murphy has a purpose in trying to consider a particular fund concerning Tusla. I think we need to know what the purpose is. Where there is an issue of concern with any of the accounts or organisations, it should be given higher priority than other issues. I just believe there would be greater value if there were specific things we wanted to address with a Department or agency.
Yes. The opportunity is to include items on the work programme. If Tusla officials are available, that will complete the programme for the next six weeks.
Okay.
Representatives from An Garda Síochána are to be in. There is slot on 7 March, and then there is to be a break for a week. On 21 March, we will hear from An Garda Síochána. There is possibly a slot on 29 February or 7 March, depending on which day the Tusla officials are in. I hope Tusla will take the slot on 29 February.
Deputy Dillon wanted to comment.
On the Department of Justice’s appearance before the PAC, I suggest that another area of special focus be the International Protection Office, IPO. It is starting to ramp up activity in processing asylum seekers and refugees. Maybe that is something to prepare the Department of Justice for.
What is the status of the accounts of Inland Fisheries Ireland for 2022 and when will they be ready? Maybe the Comptroller and Auditor General has an update on that.
On the International Protection Office, I understand that the accommodation part, if that is what the Deputy is talking about, is dealt with through the Department of integration. Was the Deputy talking specifically about the IPO?
That is correct.
Okay, and Inland Fisheries Ireland.
That is correct.
I ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to talk about Inland Fisheries Ireland’s accounts for 2022.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
The accounts have been signed but have not been presented yet. I have not got an update but will get an update for next week on the current position.
That would take us as far as 7 March. If the slots on 29 February and 7 March are filled, that will leave us full up to the end of March. The next available slot would be on 28 March, the one just before Easter. There are really three slots vacant between now and Easter, possibly with Tusla, Inland Fisheries Ireland and the IPO, which has been mentioned.
On the IPO and the provision of accommodation and facilities by the Department of integration, there is talk again about the report issued about two or three years ago on having four to six large centres-----
The Catherine Day report.
The Day report; that is the one. I am referring to the situation regarding that, the expenditure and how value for money is being achieved. Sometimes people come to us to say they have accommodation that the Department is not taking. There may be good reasons for that. There are a considerable number of issues being raised over this. It concerns the Department of integration. I suggest we put it on the list for a hearing in the near future, if that is agreed.
I agree with that.
Maybe we will see when the Department officials are available on the issue of accommodation. Regarding the meeting with IPO officials, I suggest we bring in officials from the Department of Justice on the same day. Deputy Dillon mentioned the IPO but I suggest we add to the agenda a discussion on the efficiency of the assessment of applicants – it is sometimes referred to as screening, which is not a very good word – and on how long it is taking and the efficiency of the system, including the appeals system. Is that agreed?
Agreed
Agreed.
It is to get accurate information on all that.
If we are going to have officials from the Department of children and integration – there is a long list of issues – I think we should narrow the focus to the points-----
The accommodation.
Accommodation is a really big issue, for obvious reasons.
The last item on the public agenda today is any other business. Do members wish to raise any other matter? Since they do not, we will move into private session briefly before adjourning until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 25 January 2024, when we will engage with the Office of the Revenue Commissioners.
The committee went into private session at 2.18 p.m. and adjourned at 2.32 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 25 January 2024.