I welcome everyone to today's meeting. We have received apologies Deputies Ardagh and Byrne.

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 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 and to confirm details of our upcoming meetings. We will then suspend and begin our engagement with officials from the Department of Social Protection at approximately 10.30 a.m.

The minutes of the meeting of 11 December 2025 were agreed by the committee. These will be published on the committee's website.

There was one set of accounts and financial statements that was laid between 8 and 12 December 2025 and that is 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 statements before opening the floor to members.

The financial statements that have been presented are those of An Rialálaí Agraibhia, the Agri-Food Regulator. This is a new body. It is the first period of account, running 13 December 2023 to 31 December 2024. It received a clear audit opinion.

I thank Mr. McCarthy for that. Do members wish to comment? No. Is the report agreed? Agreed. Is it agreed that we note the listing of accounts and financial statements? Agreed.

We will now move to correspondence. The following items were received by the committee, and it was agreed to note and publish each one.

No. R0385 is correspondence received from An Garda Síochána regarding complaints made in relation to Israeli-bound cargo flights over Irish airspace and an investigation into moneys disappearing from storage in Garda stations. It is dated 8 December 2025. We had a discussion on this during our private session. It was agreed to write to An Garda Síochána to seek additional information and clarification on the two issues that we got replies to. In the first instance, the response from the Garda stated that there were no complaints made to them in relation to flights of Israeli aeroplanes bringing munitions or weapons of war to participate in the genocide in Palestine. That contradicts information from The Ditch which indicates that this happened on four separate occasions in 2024. The Ditch stated that on 23, 24, 25 and 30 October 2024, it wrote to the Garda National Economic Crime Bureau and provided specific detail on flight numbers of Israeli flights in Irish airspace. This was followed up by an email directly to the former Garda Commissioner on 1 November. That was acknowledged by the Garda Commissioner's office, which seems to contradict the response that we got back from the Garda. When the former Commissioner came before the committee, he stated, in reply to Deputy Bennett, that he had no knowledge of any complaints being made. The new Commissioner appears to have doubled down on that. We need to get clarification in relation to those alleged complaints that were made by The Ditch regarding what happened on 23, 24, 25 and 30 October 2024 and what actions were taken on foot of those complaints. I will let Deputy Bennett comment on that in a moment.

The second is in response to the information we got from the Garda regarding cash that was being held as evidence in Garda stations across the State going missing. This was on foot of questioning from Deputy McAuliffe whereby it was established that the Garda holds approximately €40 million in cash as evidence. I asked questions as to whether there had been any investigations in this regard and whether we could get details of cash going missing. It is quite alarming that between 2020 and 2025, there were 41 investigations into money going missing. Eleven of those investigations are ongoing. That opens up serious new concerns and compounds those that were established at our previous hearing. We need additional information in relation to those investigations.

The Garda states that 30 of the cases have been concluded. We need to establish whether any charges were brought or disciplinary actions taken in respect of those 30 cases. In the context of the 11 ongoing cases, there will have to be due process. We need to establish the cash amounts involved in each of the 41 cases. We need to get clarity from the Garda in that regard. For example, we need to know if money was recovered in any of those instances. We need to establish whether the evidence that went missing in these cases had a knock-on impact on the criminal investigations in respect of which it was being retained as vital evidence.

This matter opens up broader concerns about other evidence being held in Garda stations. When the former Commissioner was before the committee, he gave us a couple of examples of drugs going missing from Garda stations. It was agreed that we would ask questions similar to those we are asking about cash going missing about firearms and drugs being retained in Garda stations that may have gone missing. We agreed to ask about the number of investigations that took place between 2020 and 2025 and about some concerns similar to those I have already touched on with regard to cash going missing. It is agreed we will follow up on those two matters. I will now let Deputy McAuliffe in. He will be followed by Deputy Bennett.

It is very important that we get clarification on the two points the Cathaoirleach referenced. It was fairly jaw-dropping moment when I innocently asked the Garda Commissioner how much cash was being held in evidence - I think I used the phrase "cash in hand" - and he gave us the unbelievable figure of €40 million. I would have hoped that, as a result of our reaction to that information, there would have been a better response in the correspondence. The reality is that, unlike drugs, cash is very easily exchanged. There should therefore be additional protections beyond the normal protections for evidence. I agree with the Cathaoirleach that we should invite the Garda in. The invitation needs to specifically reference that matter and our concerns around storage.

The other key point I want to raise is that some of this money may ultimately come into the public funds after criminal convictions are secured. I want to understand that process because it means that, if the evidence is not being held responsibly, there is the danger that there may be less income coming into public funds. It is a really crucial matter for the committee. It is probably the largest amount of money we have dealt with when dealing with State bodies that hold cash. This is an incredibly serious matter.

With regard to the Israeli planes flying through Irish airspace, it is significant and worrying that the Government has no records of this and that the Garda is not reporting on it.

The Government did not say that. This response is from the Garda.

The Garda should be reporting to the Government, however. This is our airspace. If the Government has no record of this and the Garda is not reporting on it, we will need to go back to the Irish Aviation Authority, IAA. Is it the IAA that controls Irish airspace and reports on who is flying through it? It opens up a far wider issue if the Garda is not receiving reports from the IAA. Who is in our airspace? We need to act appropriately on this matter and make sure that our airspace is being monitored and that reports are being made to the Garda and the Government. There is something going on if the Government does not know who is in Irish airspace. That needs to be acted on immediately. We need to write to the Department of Defence and seek clarity from the Garda as to who is travelling through our airspace. Records from the IAA should be sought immediately in order to get clarity on that matter.

In relation to the €40 million sitting in Garda stations alongside drugs and firearms, as Deputy Geoghegan has said, I do not see any other State body having this issue, for one main reason. However, an immediate policy change is needed here. No State body should have €40 million sitting on hold within Garda stations. That is something the Government needs to act on. An immediate policy change is needed. It is unbelievable. Again, this is directed by Government policy. That is why it has not changed. The Garda should not have the authority to keep €40 million sitting in Garda stations around the country. The Government is in charge. It should say this will no longer happen and immediately remove this money from Garda stations. That should be acted on immediately.

The proposal agreed in private session was that we would write to the Garda in relation to this matter. We had the Revenue Commissioners in last week and they outlined the process they embark on when they come across cash and how they secure it in transit. They deposit it in bank accounts. Questions need to be asked of the Garda. We will be publishing a report on foot of our engagements and members will have the opportunity to put forward proposals and recommendations, which I think should be strong. It is agreed to do that.

We will move to No. R0388, correspondence received from the CEO of the Land Development Agency, dated 10 December 2025. This provides an update on the LDA's review of procurement processes and controls, as referenced in the 2024 statement on internal controls. It was agreed to note and publish that.

No. R0389 is correspondence received from the chief executive of St. James's Hospital, dated 12 December 2025. This provides a detailed briefing on why the hospital paid €1.399 million to a vendor whose directors were hospital employees. It was agreed to seek further detail and to invite the chair of the board to a meeting we have agreed to hold in early January.

I acknowledge the letter. It is very helpful that representatives of St. James's Hospital are going to come before this committee to clarify this issue. However, there is something I would say about the letter. St. James's will have an opportunity to reply in advance or when its representatives are here before the committee. The letter is an attempt to muddy the waters. The Comptroller and Auditor General can speak for himself, but I do not believe for a second that the auditors' report flagging this issue suggested there was not a diagnostic need to be met in respect of women with breast cancer. The issue here is that €1.399 million was paid to a vendor whose directors were hospital employees. There was no public procurement process. It is not at all clear whether the funder, the National Treatment Purchase Fund, was told that the moneys were provided to employees of the hospital. It is also not clear why the directors of this company do not appear to have fulfilled their obligations with regard to disclosure under the ethics Acts. It is also not clear what the CEO knew when this vendor agreement for €1.399 million was made. It is not at all clear who knew what and when. It is not clear what the board was told about this or what discussions were had around it. What is clear is that this is no longer happening. This issue was flagged and there were problems but this letter does not address that in any way. The representatives are coming before this committee to answer as to why €1.399 million was paid to a company whose directors included employees of the hospital, why there was no public procurement process and why those directors did not disclose that they were employees of the hospital when this service was being procured. We are here to account for where the moneys have gone.

It was unanimously agreed that we would write to St. James's Hospital to try to establish answers to all of the points the Deputy has raised and that we would invite the chair of the board, officials from the Department of Health and other witnesses to a meeting. That has all been agreed. It is agreed to note and publish the correspondence? Agreed.

No. R0390 is correspondence received from the chief executive of the Approved Housing Bodies Regulatory Authority, AHBRA, dated 12 December 2025, in response to the committee's request for information, including information on the amount of funding AHBRA has received each year since 2021. Is it agreed to note and publish this correspondence? Agreed.

No. R0401 is correspondence received from the Houses of the Oireachtas in response to the committee's queries on the broadcasting contract and tender.

This was a request the committee made following our engagement with the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission on the tender for the continuation of the broadcasting service in the Oireachtas. Staff working in that service have had long-term concerns about the nature of their work. That contract has now expired. A tendering process went out and no companies were forthcoming in relation to that tender.

The response we got from the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission raises a number of concerns, primarily for the broadcast workers who will leave here after today's sitting and sign on for social welfare over the Christmas period. Compounding the difficulties they face is the fact they have zero certainty as to what January and the remainder of next year holds for them. We know from the response from the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission that there has been a process of engagement between it and the current provider of the service, Pi Comms, with a view to extending the contract for 12 months. There seems to be agreement on that. That will allow the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission to embark on a review of that service going forward. The concern is at no point has either the commission or Pi Comms engaged or communicated with the workers during that process. That is despite repeated attempts to find out what is going on, what the future holds and what January looks like for them.

It was agreed we would write to the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission to establish a timeline for the process of engagement between the commission and Pi Comms on the extension of the contract and find out when that commenced. It was also agreed we would seek the terms of reference for the broader review which is to be undertaken by the commission. It is critical those terms of reference include looking at the prospect of making the broadcasting service an in-house operation and essentially making these workers civil servants. That needs to be fully costed and considered. It was also agreed we would ask the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission and Pi Comms to immediately communicate with the workers, who face a bleak and uncertain future. It is bad enough they have to sign on for social welfare over the Christmas period but the uncertainty in the new year is totally unsatisfactory. There needs to be immediate engagement with those workers.

I agree with the process outlined. This is a very disappointing response from the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. It sends a very poor message out to the country that we have workers in the Oireachtas treated in this way and left in an awful limbo over Christmas. Issues regarding the treatment of these workers by Pi have been raised repeatedly.

The Houses of the Oireachtas Commission called for tender; nobody replied. That closed on 10 October, yet on the final day of the Dáil we have correspondence from the day before saying the commission is actively engaging with the current contractor. Clearly, that is not concluded, or certainly was not concluded yesterday at the time we received this correspondence. Yet there has been no engagement with the workers who have been crying out for a discussion with the commission to make the case for direct employment in the first instance or, at least, to make the case that the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission should make a condition of the tender that there be industry standards in terms of rates and so on, which is not currently the case. It is disappointing from a workers' rights perspective and from the point of view of the spending of public money and the whole way this process has gone. It is important we write to them and seek information.

Along with all the points made by Deputy Murphy, which I agree with, there is an issue for us as a committee regarding our ability to continue to do our work in public session. The communications unit is an important part of how people engage with this committee. There is no certainty at this point that broadcasting can continue. That is concerning in terms of the work of the committee. It is not just this committee. It is something that will have to be addressed by the commission.

Is it agreed to note and publish that correspondence? Agreed.

Last week, the committee agreed to examine the accounts and statements of eight bodies in January and February 2026. The first provisional dates are that, on 15 January, the committee will meet with the National Transport Authority, and on 22 January, it will meet with St. James's Hospital, including the chair of the board.

Is there any other business?

Arising from correspondence received by my office in the past week, I would like to make a clarification regarding one section of my report on governance, internal control and value for money issues in Inland Fisheries Ireland.

At the meeting of the committee with Inland Fisheries Ireland on 4 December, the claiming of travel expenses by a staff member in respect of five journeys undertaken between September and December 2021 was discussed. The facts about the claims are correctly set out in paragraphs 6.31 to 6.33 of the special report. However, I have identified that the heading immediately above those paragraphs is inconsistent with the facts as set out in the texts. The findings described in paragraphs 6.31 to 6.33 emerged from audit testing of travel and subsistence expenses undertaken as part of the audit of IFI's annual financial statements for 2021. That audit was completed in March 2023. In response to the audit findings, IFI disclosed in the statement on internal control that the matter had been addressed with the staff member and the staff member will use an IFI vehicle going forward. This was under the heading "Staff member using personal vehicle when IFI vehicle is available to attend meetings". That would have been an appropriate heading for the special report section also to have used. The focus of the section of the special report is on how inadequate controls in IFI resulted in unnecessary expenditure on travel. It did not conclude there had been irregular payments to the staff member or that there were overpayments that should be recovered. No recovery of expenses was recommended to IFI at the time of the 2021 audit. The report did not seek to make findings in relation to the actions of the staff member concerned and purposely did not identify or provide details that could identify the employee.

I regret that I did not spot the inconsistency between the heading and the text succeeding it when I was completing my report and I regret any confusion arising from that. I thank the committee for allowing me to make this clarification.

I pursued a line of questioning around this matter from the C and AG's report when the IFI was in the committee two weeks ago. I welcome the clarification from the C and AG around the title and headline of that section of the report. That title and headline informed my pursuit of that line of questioning so I appreciate the clarification on that matter. There are still to this day a number of outstanding matters that IFI needs to address. I understand its representatives gave an undertaking here in the committee in response to my questions that they would revert back to the committee on this specific matter and explain it clearly. On that day in the committee, I clearly asserted this was an overclaim. I felt it was an abuse.

I am now starting to question whether I was correct or whether that was the case at all. What we want to achieve in this committee is to get to the bottom of matters. We want to ensure value for money but we also want to ensure fair treatment for every employee and every member of these organisations. I have put down several questions that I know will go in correspondence to IFI and I have shared them with the secretariat of this committee. I look forward to IFI's review of this matter, the answers to the questions and its explanation of same because it is really important that we get to the bottom of this. The C and AG's clarification around the headline and the fact that his report did not believe there was any irregular payments are really important. I will not make any further comment on it but I have expectations that IFI will come back before the committee and discuss this matter again clearly so that we can have clarity and consistency. I do not feel that I got that the last day.

Can I clarify with the C and AG, is it that no irregular payments were made to the former CEO with regard to travel expenses?

No. It is not an issue related to the travel expenses of the chief executive. That was a separate section of the report. This concerned another member. Our concern was that the controls had allowed unnecessary expenditure but not that it was irregular expenditure or that it was improperly claimed.

IFI came back to you to say-----

It changed its practice and ceased allowing the individual to use a personal vehicle when they already had access to an IFI vehicle.

That was the only thing IFI came to you with?

That was the action I felt was warranted. IFI did take that action when the matter was brought to its attention.

There was a sense of disbelief in our last engagement with IFI and with regard to the drip-feeding of information so we have compiled a comprehensive list of additional questions members have submitted. They will go to IFI today and we expect a timely response to those critically important questions. It is also our intention to bring IFI back before us as soon as possible. I also note that the Minister has committed to carrying out a new external review of IFI, which must also be welcomed. I have written to the Minister and the Department to express our concern about IFI and the ongoing issues of governance and to seek clarity around the appointment of the new chief executive and obtain and establish a timeframe for that. It is important that we get sight of the terms of reference for the external review announced by the Minister and get a timeframe for it. I will write to the Minister and the Department to get the terms of reference and the timeline and to restate our ongoing concerns about IFI, the failure to address the serious governance issues and what I describe as the disgraceful drip-feeding of information to us as members of the public accounts committee. We will conclude there and suspend the meeting for five minutes.