I welcome everyone to today's meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts. Apologies have been received from Deputy Kenny. Before we proceed, I will go through a few housekeeping matters.

Members are reminded of the provision within Standing Order 226 that the committee shall refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or a Minister of the Government or the merits of the objectives of such policies.

Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I also remind members of the constitutional requirement that, in order to participate in public meetings, members must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex. Members of the committee attending remotely must do so from within the precincts of Leinster House.

Today's agenda is to discuss the minutes, accounts and statements and correspondence, as well as to confirm upcoming meetings. We will then suspend the meeting and begin our engagement with officials from the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. The minutes of the meeting of 4 December 2025 were agreed by the committee and will be published on the committee's website.

Eight sets of accounts and financial statements were laid between 1 and 5 December 2025 and are due to be considered today. We are joined by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, who is a permanent witness to the committee. I ask him to address these accounts and financial statements before I open the floor to members.

I will deal first with the financial statements of the Commission for Communications Regulation for the accounting period 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2024. It received a clear audit opinion. I draw the committee's attention to the fact that the accounts were certified on 27 February 2025. It has been nine months since they were certified before they were presented. The committee's approach in the past has been to seek an explanation in circumstances like that.

No. 2 is the financial statements of the National Museum of Ireland for 2024. These received a clear audit opinion. The accounts were signed off on 26 June and they were presented after five months so, again, the committee may wish to seek an explanation for that delay.

No. 3 is the accounts of the Climate Action Fund for 2024, which received a clear audit opinion. No. 4 is the Irish Museum of Modern Art for 2024, which received a clear audit opinion. No. 5 is the Medical Bureau of Road Safety's financial statements for 2024, which received a clear audit opinion. No. 6 is the Medical Council's financial statements for 2024, which received a clear audit opinion but I drew attention to a material level of procurement non-compliance. In addition, the accounts were signed off on 27 June 2025, so there is a five-month delay in the presentation. Again, the committee may wish to follow up on that.

No. 7 is the financial statements of Pobal for 2024. It received a clear audit opinion. No. 8 is the financial statements of the National University of Ireland for 2024, which received a clear audit opinion.

I thank Mr. McCarthy. Do members wish to comment? Is it agreed that we write to those bodies that were late in presenting their accounts to seek an explanation? Agreed. Is it agreed that we note the listing of accounts and financial statements? Agreed.

I want to refer to one item of correspondence, which was received from the Peter McVerry Trust in response to additional matters raised at the meeting of 20 November. Is it agreed to note and publish this item? Agreed.

I will move on to the work programme. Next week, the committee will have its final meeting of 2025 and will engage with the Accounting Officer of the Department of Social Protection.

The committee has agreed to examine the following accounts and statements in January and February, with the dates to be confirmed. We are looking at engaging with the national science centre, the Department of justice - to look at Ukrainian accommodation expenditure, St. James's Hospital, the Corporate Enforcement Authority, the National Transport Authority and the Department of agriculture. We also are looking at doing a comprehensive piece on the classification of PRSI for workers with the Department of Social Protection and Revenue. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Are there any matters that members wish to raise under any other business?

I just want to briefly comment on the publication of an article in The Currency this morning that concerns Inland Fisheries Ireland, IFI, which was before this committee on Thursday last. What is most concerning about that article is the documents that were provided to The Currency under freedom of information, which were quite clearly in the possession of the IFI and known by persons who were in the room here last Thursday. It was self-evident last Thursday that we were not being given full and frank answers to some very basic questions we asked about who knew what and when in relation to a very serious allegation that a prosecutorial agency of this State knowingly provided false information to An Garda Síochána. It was very clear we were not being given full and frank answers. We looked for a series of documents at the last meeting, which are also in the possession of the IFI. I know we are going to follow up in relation to that. Those documents should be given to us immediately or as quickly as can be done. The IFI has already handed over documents to a news publication. We discussed in an earlier session that this is something the committee must inquire into again and that we must have the IFI back before the committee. I am extremely conscious that there is a live process going on in relation to the new CEO of the IFI. It is important that we put a line under issues that have been going on for more than four or five years. This is the forum in which to do so.

I thank Deputy Geoghegan for that. I agree with him. We did have a comprehensive discussion on this in our private session. Following last week's engagement with the IFI, I am on record as saying it was one of the more difficult engagements that I have had in my tenure as a member of this committee. The drip-feeding of information at that meeting last week was deeply concerning. What is even more concerning is the information that has come out in the publication, The Currency, this morning, in the article by Niall Sargent, which was alluded to by Deputy Geoghegan. The information contradicts a lot of the testimony that was given to us last week and calls into question timelines and who knew what when. It is deeply concerning.

What is probably more concerning is that some of the witnesses were actively involved in the compilation of documents for the FOI request for the particular journalist. That information had only been signed off in the days in advance of our engagement with IFI last week. That information was fresh in the minds of a number of our witnesses. To my mind, there is no reason inaccurate information should have been given, or was given, to us at the public accounts committee. It is my intention, with the agreement of members, that we bring IFI back in the new year. It is critical that the information we have requested, and the documentation, correspondence and reports we have requested and will request of IFI, are made available to us as soon as possible. We are finalising a comprehensive list of documents and files that we will require and it is critical that we get this information as soon as possible.

I also agree in terms of the ongoing process in the IFI to put in place a permanent chief executive. It is my intention to write to the Department and the Secretary General to outline the work we are embarked on and the concerns we have in relation to the governance within Inland Fisheries Ireland and not just over the past year. IFI has come before the Committee of Public Accounts over the past number of years and it is deeply concerning that, unfortunately, there is a continuation of serious issues that have been identified going back as far as 2020, and this is deeply concerning. I will correspond with the Department expressing our frustration and concerns and to get an update on the process. There is a role for the Minister in signing off the appointment of the incoming chief executive. We will seek an update on this. It is deeply concerning and it is an issue in which we have a keen and deep interest here in the public accounts committee.

I fully agree with the Cathaoirleach and Deputy Geoghegan. It was a very difficult session last week. It was very difficult to extract information for some of the questions. It has now transpired that a lot of the information was contradictory, in terms of information that has come to light now. Absolutely we need to bring IFI back before us again. A lot of further probing is required and a lot of questions that need answers. I fully agree that we need to provide an update to the Department on the work we are doing and intend to do as the public accounts committee in relation to IFI. There is a long way to go on this yet to get to the bottom of some of the issues. I fully support the request.

It is incredibly disappointing to see documents published today that contradict evidence that was only given last week. I said at the opening this was IFI's opportunity to put a line under what had happened over the past number of years and to allow the organisation to move on with the incredibly important work it is doing. It is very important for it to know its next appearance is crucial in terms of the issues. The idea that documents could be released a week after a hearing and that there could be contradictions there is not acceptable. We have to make it aware of our disappointment in regards to this.

As there are no items members wish to raise under any other business this concludes session 2 and we will suspend the meeting for five minutes.