Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 29 Feb 2024

Business of Committee

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

The first business is the minutes of our meeting of 22 February 2024, which have been circulated to members. Do members wish to raise any matters in relation to the minutes? No. Are the minutes agreed? Agreed. As usual, the minutes will be published on the committee's web page.

We will now move on to accounts and financial statements. Ten sets of accounts and financial statements were laid before the Houses between 19 and 23 February 2024. I will ask the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, to address them before opening the floor to members.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The first set of financial statements relates to Munster Technological University for the accounting year 2021 to 2022. It received a clear audit opinion but I drew attention to a material level of non-compliance with procurement rules. The next set of financial statements is for Oifig Choimisinéir na dTeangacha Oifigúla for 2022. It received a clear audit opinion. The next set relates to the Judicial Council for 2022 and it received a clear audit opinion.

The next set of accounts relates to University College Cork for the accounting period 2021 to 2022. It received a qualified audit opinion. The university recognises an asset in respect of deferred pension funding. That is standard practice for universities and I do not issue a qualified opinion in relation to it. However, in this case the amount of the asset recognised is overstated by €3.3 million. The overstatement relates to an agreement between the university and the Higher Education Authority about pension liabilities arising from added years for transferred in-service. The account is qualified in this respect. Otherwise, the financial statements present a true and fair view. I also draw attention to a material level of non-compliance with procurement rules.

The next set of accounts relates to the financial statements of Technological University Dublin for 2021 to 2022. These received a clear audit opinion but again I drew attention to a material level of non-compliance with procurement rules. The next set of accounts relates to the Commission for Aviation Regulation. These are its final accounts and relate to the period 1 January 2023 to 30 April 2023 and they received a clear audit opinion.

The next set of accounts relates to Inland Fisheries Ireland for the accounting period 2022. IFI is due before the committee next week. I issued a clear audit opinion on the financial statements but I drew attention to four matters in relation to the presentation by Inland Fisheries Ireland. The first is that it outlined the resignations of board members in 2022, which resulted in a consequential loss of quorum for board meetings. Ultimately, this led to the replacement of the board by ministerial nominees in 2023. The second is with regard to a number of progress updates provided in the statement on internal financial control in relation to a number of reviews into governance and other matters of concern. The third is that I draw attention to the findings of an internal audit review on the utilisation of Aasleagh Lodge and cottages, which highlighted a number of control weaknesses in Inland Fisheries Ireland. The fourth is that I draw attention to the disclosure that IFI had to withdraw certain fishery protection prosecution cases following legal advice. There were difficulties with proceeding with the prosecutions.

The next set of accounts relates to the Food Safety Promotion Board for 2022. It is a North-South body. It received a clear audit opinion. The next set of accounts relates to the Property Services Regulatory Authority for 2022. It received a clear audit opinion. The next set of accounts is for Galway and Roscommon Education and Training Board for 2022 and it received a clear audit opinion.

I have a question about the Food Safety Promotion Board. It had a total budget of €9.4 million in 2022.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Correct.

Six North-South bodies were set up under the Good Friday Agreement and this is one of them.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Correct.

I am open to correction but I do not think I have ever seen the Comptroller and Auditor General raising any issue regarding any of them in terms of accounts and financial statements.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

A number of years ago, we carried out a report looking at the Bytel project. It was a technological project and there were a number of difficulties with it. I produced a special report on it.

In general they seem to have their processes-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

They tend to be special purpose and relatively uncomplicated organisations.

Irish Lights is an example.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

They are set up to do one thing and one thing only. Therefore, there does not tend to be so much difficulty.

Is the Comptroller and Auditor General's counterpart in the North involved?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

We jointly audit them.

Do members want to raise any issues?

I want to raise Inland Fisheries Ireland. From the public's point of view, it went well under the radar. When IFI appeared before the committee last year we were in the middle of the RTÉ controversy. RTÉ ended up being on the news instead of Inland Fisheries Ireland. There were significant issues with it. Did the Comptroller and Auditor General have sight of the reviews that were done and are they available? If he did have sight of them, did they show up anything?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

We certainly have seen a number of them that were completed. Some of them are still ongoing. In fact, separate from the audit I am carrying out a further examination of some of these matters that I felt would have warranted more probing by us.

I remember something about vehicles and insurance, which was quite a significant issue. Does that relate to the last item or is that something a review is being done on?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I think the review on that one is completed. They have put a different arrangement in place so that vehicles they take in on lease are automatically covered by their insurance.

As they will be in next week, it is to have a sense of what might be available.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I certainly will outline the issues in more detail in my opening comments next week.

That will be helpful.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

There is quite a bit of information in the statement on internal financial control. We pointed out to them that they needed to provide a significant update on any ongoing matters in order that it would be available for interrogation by the committee.

Is the listing of accounts and financial statements agreed? Agreed. As usual, the accounts and financial statements will be published as part of our minutes.

We will move on to correspondence. As previously agreed, items that were not flagged for discussion for this meeting will be dealt with in accordance with the proposed actions that have been circulated, and decisions taken by the committee in relation to correspondence are recorded in the minutes of the committee’s meetings and published on the committee’s webpage. Four items have been flagged for discussion today. Three items relate to the Kolbe Special School, Portlaoise, so I will read out all three before opening up to the floor.

The first is No. R2401B from Ms Bernie McNally, Secretary General of the Department of Education, which is dated 16 February 2024. It is proposed to note and publish that item of correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. No. R2418B is from Mr. Bernard Gloster, chief executive officer of the HSE, and is dated 21 February 2024. It is proposed to note and publish that item of correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. No. R2402C is from an individual, and is dated 14 February 2024. It is proposed to forward the responses received from the HSE and the Department of Education relating to the school and to inform the correspondent that the committee will now continue to scrutinise capital expenditure of audited accounts at the Department of Education. All three items have been flagged. We would be scrutinising the capital works across the board in any case. The correspondence related to works that needed to be carried out to progress the school. The issue was that it was being held up and the costs were increasing, and the special school could not be built. Those accommodation works have now been cleared out of the way. The HSE owned the land, hence the reason we are writing to the HSE. The Department of Education is obviously involved. I publicly thank the HSE, and Bernard Gloster in particular, for ensuring there was no further hold up, and I also acknowledge the ESB. The ESB could not progress work until the HSE resolved issues around ownership and wayleave. We will continue examination of audited accounts at the Department of Education into the future.

I move on to No. R2419B, which is from Mr. Kevin Bakhurst, director general of RTÉ, and provides legal advice to RTÉ regarding exit packages for former staff. It is proposed to note and publish this item. Is that agreed? Agreed. Deputy Murphy and I have flagged this for discussion.

What is the purpose of having an inhouse legal team that is separate and governed by its own set of rules, and then spending a lot of money on legal fees outside the organisation? The particular firm is a well known and expensive law firm. You are also asking the same people to do the opposite side of the same issue. What is the purpose of the inhouse legal team?

I think there are two issues with that. First, when the legal people from RTÉ were before the committee, they said they had to retain a level of independence because they were governed by the rules of the Law Society and the Bar Council. The other question the Deputy raises is legitimate. I do not know the full extent of the resources RTÉ has in the legal office - whether it is two solicitors or 22. The Deputy can correct me if I am wrong, but her question seems to be why you would go outside for legal advice that cost a lot of money if you have a well-staffed legal office. Is that the question?

It is. I understand there can be things that come from left field with regard to a particular discipline, or somebody with particular expertise on an issue. However, this does not seem to fall into that category. It may well be that they required outside legal advice so it would carry a different authority because it came from outside RTÉ. I am looking at it from the point of view of spending public funds.

I do not think it would be unusual. UCC, for example, which came up today,has inhouse legal advisers but gives a lot of work out to different law firms. The HSE invites companies to tender for its work. I do not think it has an inhouse legal team. A lot of private companies have inhouse legal teams but a lot of work also goes out. It depends on the nature of what is involved. Legal work has now become sub-specialised. If you do not have the expertise inhouse it is therefore probably safer to farm it out to a place where that expertise is available.

That would be workload, speciality and getting an outside view.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

That probably sums it up well. There could be a case that inhouse legals had acted on contracts or deals and if there was a question about that, the board might feel more comfortable with an external firm looking at the work that had been done, and at the obligations then on it.

However, one of the letters states that, "We can confirm that we advised RTÉ in respect of these arrangements". That obviously refers to severance arrangements for former executives.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Well then, my explanation does not hold up.

It might not in this case but I can generally understand that. RTÉ is asking the same firm that did it. I think they should be watching the pennies and the euro.

They should be doing that from here on out. The criteria around exit packages or goodbye money should be clear, the same as it should be for redundancies. If that were clear and were abided by, you would not be getting into all of this stuff relating to legalities, legal advice, public accounts committee hearings and investigations of one kind or another. It highlights one of the things RTÉ has to fix, which is this business around exit packages and redundancy. It should have clear criteria that are uniformly applied across the workforce, whether for the cleaners or for top executives.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I remind the committee that a number of years ago - I think in 2015 - I issued a special report on severance payments in public sector bodies.

I did that because I had seen a number of situations where, if you like, the standard procedures in bodies that I audit had not actually been followed. One of the things I tried to do there was to set out a good practice around severance payments, particularly other than in a severance scheme where the conditions would be standard and would be applied in a standard way. Where there was involvement in a severance package, there would be legal advice that confidentiality clauses would be subject to such disclosures as were required by law and things like co-operation with inquiries after cessation of employment.

What about deviating from the criteria? Was that covered in the report?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Deviating from-----

I refer to deviating from criteria around exit packages. In a lot of cases there is deviation from the criteria. Should there be a clear set of criteria in that regard?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes, that was-----

It should be very clear that there must be a very good reason to deviate from the criteria. There should be an exceptional reason for it.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes, there should be a good reason.

Yes, that is the point I am making.

Could we get the 2015 report?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I can have it circulated to the members of the committee. It may be relevant or useful in the present context.

I think we are okay with No. R2419 B. We will note and publish it. Is that agreed?

I will move on to the work programme, which should be visible on the screens. Members have been circulated with a draft discussion document. Next week, on 7 March, we will engage with Inland Fisheries Ireland on the financial statements for 2022. Representatives of the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications have also been invited to attend. It is noted that they were present on the morning of one of the RTÉ hearings and it was not satisfactory because at the time everyone's attention was in a different direction. We look forward to having Inland Fisheries Ireland in next week, and the Department.

After a week's recess, we will meet with An Garda Síochána on 21 March on the 2022 appropriation account for Vote 20 – An Garda Síochána. Representatives of the Department of Justice have also been invited to attend. We do not know if it will be the Secretary General, Ms Oonagh McPhillips. In any case, it will be a senior member of staff.

I presume it will be the Accounting Officer.

She is the Accounting Officer.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

No, for An Garda Síochána the Accounting Officer is the Commissioner.

Is Deputy Murphy saying it should be the Accounting Officer from the Department?

No. It might not be.

It will be Drew Harris. The Department normally sends an assistant secretary.

Our first meeting after the Easter recess is on 11 April. We will meet with the University of Limerick on the 2022 financial statements. One area of interest is governance and associated due diligence of the university's purchase of a site in Limerick city centre in 2019 and the recent purchase of houses for student accommodation in Rhebogue. Is it agreed to invite representatives of the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science to this meeting?

It will be useful to have them there. On 18 April we will meet with officials from the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth on the 2022 appropriation account for Vote 40. The international protection accommodation services has been flagged as a special area of interest. I ask members to flag with the clerk any other areas of interest they want to raise. We crossed into that area a bit this morning because of the discussions we had with officials. Arising from today's meeting, members may have an issue or two they wish to raise at that meeting.

Members have been circulated with a proposed list of additional meetings which will appear on their screen now. A number of organisations have been added to the work programme but with whom we have not scheduled a meeting. In some cases there are also relevant chapters from the Comptroller and Auditor General's 2022 annual report which the committee has not yet examined.

The proposed engagements include the Department of Defence in relation to the relevant chapter from the Comptroller and Auditor General's 2022 annual report. It also includes the National Transport Authority, NTA, specifically regarding the purchase of buses for companies that are providing public transport services, the provision of bus stops and bus shelters, and the role of the NTA vis-à-vis the role of local authorities. This is an issue that has come up previously. If members have something to add, they should feel free to raise it.

It would be useful to discuss BusConnects.

Yes. Deputy McAuliffe is a Deputy from Dublin and Deputy Devlin is in Kingstown.

BusConnects is not exclusive to the city and county of Dublin.

Will it go as far as Deputy Murphy's place?

Some of it does, some of it does not.

The Department of Education is another one, as is the Office of Public Works. We also have the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications regarding the Comptroller and Auditor General's chapter 9 on cybersecurity, the National Shared Services Office and the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform on chapter 18. A meeting with the Irish Horse Racing Regulatory Board is conditional on the 2022 financial statements being ready. We will meet the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in relation to chapter 10, the Department of Foreign Affairs regarding chapter 7, and the National Treasury Management Agency on chapter 23. Do members have a view on any of those?

One other issue comes to mind immediately that we talked about.

I am just checking as I scribbled a few notes.

That is Irish Water. I know we probably have to bring in the parent Department and Irish Water, but I thought we had agreed on that because there is a huge amount of spend there. That is a body I hope will eventually come under the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It is. There will be an audit for 2023. We hope it will be in the first half of the year. By June or July of this year it will be capable of being called by the committee.

Is that this year?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It is. It depends on it producing its annual report and getting it submitted and so on.

That has been ten years in the making.

It would be good if we could even pencil it in before the summer recess.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I can come back with more of a timeline on completion.

Mr. McCarthy said the audit is for 2023. Does he think it will be ready by June or July?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes. The audit is under way.

That would be excellent. This would be the first opportunity to examine Irish Water.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes. This would be the first time it will be called in its own right.

It is not that we want to load everything on top of the staff of the Comptroller and Auditor General's office but it should have been under the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General from the start. At the time, Deputy Murphy and I were the Opposition spokespeople on it. Was she an Independent or in the Social Democrats?

I might have been an Independent at that stage.

Was the Deputy not a Social Democrat then?

That was in 2015.

We raised at that time the need for Irish Water to be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

I was probably always a Social Democrat.

I am one of them myself. Is Deputy Burke happy enough with the work programme?

We will be able to make changes.

Yes. Could I just touch on one thing? I know I was not present when it was discussed. I refer to the UCC issue. I am not sure whether the Comptroller and Auditor General said in his report he was happy with the explanations given. I apologise for not being here when it was discussed earlier.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The dispute between UCC and the HEA has been an ongoing issue in regard to what a deal they made actually meant in terms of funding. I understand the matter is being resolved and that it should not appear again.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

While I had to draw attention to it, I would not say it is a high priority for the committee.

That is all right. I thank Mr. McCarthy.

That concludes discussion of the work programme. There are two hearings between now and Easter. We have an early Easter. The clerk has to try and line up bodies with their availability. Are members happy with the general order that has been set out?

The engagements that are likely to raise obvious difficulties are the ones we should put higher up the list. That will give us a little more flexibility if we need to rearrange some of the other meetings at a later date.

I propose that the engagement with the NTA be bumped up the list a bit.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Regarding the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board, the issue there is with the financial statements. They have been cleared but there are a number of matters that have to be adjusted before they are finalised. I am waiting for the board to produce the statements.

It could be a month or two before it does.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Let us say a month.

The meeting is conditional on getting them. I generally try to work at least six weeks ahead in order that the secretariat can start lining up the business.

There will be a good bit of meat to go through in our meeting with the OPW as well.

We will ask for that meeting to take place as early as possible after Easter. We have now lined up our business until 18 April. We will all be getting busy at that stage with the local elections. I do not know how all that worked when TDs were running for council seats.

I cannot see how it worked. The clerk has indicated that if members have any other proposals for the list, they should send her an email.

The final item today is any other business. Is there any issue members wish to raise publicly?

We have just got the correspondence from RTÉ.

I did not have a chance to look at it yet.

It was this committee that looked for the business case for Toy Show The Musical. Now, 15 months later, we have the business case.

This may impact a little on the next part of our deliberations today.

The correspondence seems to indicate, as I understand it, that the business case for Toy Show The Musical did go to the board.

I am not sure it did.

I do not think it went to the full board.

I do not think it went to the board.

There seems to be some correspondence about it being given to the board.

The presentation but not the business case.

It is a skimpy enough business case. I have not had a chance to read it.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I think what is being referred to is what was called the combo meeting.

Yes, the combo meeting. We will now move into private session. At our next meeting, we will engage with Inland Fisheries Ireland.

The committee went into private session at 2.03 p.m. and adjourned at 2.49 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 7 March 2024.
Barr
Roinn