Everyone is very welcome to today's meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts. We have received no apologies.

Before we proceed, I have a few housekeeping matters to go through as follows. 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.

The agenda for today is to discuss the minutes, accounts and statements, correspondence and upcoming meetings. We will then suspend the meeting and engage with officials from the National Transport Authority on conclusion. The minutes of the meeting of 18 September 2025 were agreed by the committee in our private session and these will be published on the committee's web page.

There are 13 sets of accounts and financial statements, laid between 15 December 2025 and 9 January 2026, which 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 the Comptroller and Auditor General to now address these before opening the floor to members.

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. All of the financial statements that are presented relate to the calendar year 2024.

The financial statements of Fís Éireann, also known as Screen Ireland, received a clear audit opinion.

The financial statements of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces received a clear audit opinion.

The Health and Social Care Professionals Council received a qualified audit opinion. In my view, the accounts give a true and fair view except in one respect that they account for the costs of retirement benefit entitlements of staff only as they become payable, but that is a standard presentation for many of the health bodies.

The financial statements of the City of Dublin Education and Training Board, CDETB, received a clear audit opinion. Members will be aware that the City of Dublin Education and Training Board is also the entity that is mandated or empowered to administer the national student grant system or Student Universal Support Ireland, SUSI. I drew attention to a number of matters disclosed in the financial statements in relation to that system. First, I drew attention to student grant overpayments totalling €5.18 million, which were outstanding at 31 December 2024. The financial statements disclosed that €2.2 million of that is considered by the board as outside the time limit for recovery. The second point I drew attention to is an ICT project being undertaken by CDETB to develop a new grant processing system. This commenced in 2015 with an initial approved budget of €2.2 million, including VAT. By the end of 2024, the project, which has now been branded MySUSI, had incurred costs of €6.4 million and remained in a pre-project or initiation phase. I also drew attention to the finalisation of matters in relation to a data breach in respect of the SUSI website. The data breach occurred in 2018. It has ultimately resulted in administrative fines totalling €125,000 being imposed by the Data Protection Commissioner.

Separately, more generally, for CDETB, I draw attention to a material level of non-compliance with procurement rules. The amount in question is €700,000 which is over the materiality level for me to draw attention to. Do members want to ask questions about that?

There are some concerns in terms of another ICT project causing considerable concern and overruns. This has been going on for 11 years. We are probably none the wiser as to where the project is at. The initial budget was €2.2 million and now it is up to €6.4 million. That is deeply concerning. It sets off numerous alarm bells – it is over €4 million over budget. I have serious concerns. Does Mr. McCarthy have more information on where that ICT project is at?

As I indicated, my understanding is it still remains in a pre-project or initiation phase where they are still trying to prove the concept. There is a page and a half of further detail in relation to the project in the financial statements presented on pages 11 and 12 if Deputies are interested in looking at some more of the explanation provided by CDETB.

I had a look at that. It is quite concerning. Does Deputy Boland wish to comment?

I agree. We really need to write to the organisation to get further information. It is outrageous that three times the original budget has now been spent yet it is still at pre-project phase. Clearly, this is another project that has not been set up for success, was not properly scoped and does not have key milestones. The project team clearly does not know what it is looking for if it is at this stage. I am very interested to know what the oversight arrangements were.

It is related to the SUSI system which is not typical of the work of an ETB. It is more in the nature of a standard grant payment system. It may be that particular oversight arrangements were required in relation to that. On this specific point, it is operating under the aegis of the Department of further and higher education. The Department may have a view on that project.

We should also write to the Department, Chair.

It is deeply concerning. Eleven years later and it is still in the pre-project, initiation phase and we are none the wiser other than that the costs seem to be going up. We need to do more. In our previous meetings we spoke more generally about ETBs and agreed it is an area we need to have a look at and call in witnesses and bodies. I will propose they should be at the top of that list. On the ICT theme, we have embarked on a comprehensive piece of work that is nearing conclusion. It is an issue we will return to given the serious concerns across the board in terms of projects not being delivered on time and going substantially over budget. That fits in. I propose that we look at returning to this next week when we discuss our work programme with a view to bringing in the City of Dublin ETB at the earliest opportunity to discuss this and other matters. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Will I continue with the list?

The Insurance Compensation Fund received a clear audit opinion.

The Grangegorman Development Agency received a clear audit opinion.

The National Concert Hall, received a clear audit opinion.

The Heritage Fund received a clear audit opinion.

The Housing Agency received a clear audit opinion.

Oberstown Children Detention Campus received a clear audit opinion.

The accounts of Ciste Pinsean Thithe an Oireachtais i gcomhair Comhaltaí received a clear audit opinion.

Water Safety Ireland financial statements received a clear audit opinion.

The special account for the hepatitis C insurance scheme received a clear audit opinion.

Do members wish to comment on any of those? No. Can we agree to note the listing of accounts and financial statements? Is that agreed? Agreed.

I will move on to items of correspondence received by the committee. No. R2025/0403 has been received from Tallaght University Hospital in response to the committee’s request for further information regarding insourcing payments from the National Treatment Purchase Fund dated 19 December 2025. Deputy Geoghegan spoke about this in the private session. Does he wish to make a comment?

I want to acknowledge the amounts. We have done a lot of work on this in the Committee of Public Accounts in respect of insourcing both from the National Treatment Purchase Fund and a funding scheme that is similar through the HSE. St. James’s Hospital will be before the committee next week. It is important that we continue our inquiry and close the loop. The figures are quite staggering in the level of insourcing taking place. There are other figures from correspondence from St. Vincent’s Hospital which are very large as well. This requires further probing. I hope we will get the opportunity to have both Tallaght University Hospital and St. Vincent’s Hospital in. I think it is also our intention to write to the Mater Hospital to establish the position there and most likely we will invite it in as well.

Is that agreed? Agreed. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

The next item of correspondence, No. R2025/0404, has been received from the Secretary General of the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration in response to the committee’s request for further information dated 19 December 2025. I flagged this item and spoke about it in our private session. It is a response to a specific query in relation to the site for IPAS emergency accommodation provided in Newtownmountkennedy which ceased to be used a few short months after it was set up at considerable cost. It closed in December 2025. There was considerable expenditure to get the site ready. It was deemed unsuitable in December 2024. Any occupants were moved off the site. The information we have now received from the Department shows that during 2025, when the site was unoccupied, security costs were incurred of €1.3 million on what is essentially a vacant field. The Department clearly indicated in the correspondence that it has no intention to use it to provide any accommodation in the future given the unsuitability of the site. It causes serious concerns about high levels of expenditure - €1.3 million in this case - to provide security on a site that is not being used and will not be used in the future. Other costs include €38,000 for fuel for a generator onsite for a vacant site. It was agreed in our private session that we would write back to the Department to get further information in relation to that but also to ask if there are other sites similar to this that were used for emergency IPAS accommodation, have ceased to be used for that purpose but ongoing costs are still incurred, whether security or other costs such as fuel as in Newtownmountkennedy. It is very concerning given the high level of expenditure when there is no plan to use this site in the future. Is that agreed? Agreed. Is it agreed to note and publish this item? Agreed.

No. R2025/0405 has been received from the Department of Culture, Communications and Sport in response to the committee’s request for further information dated 19 December 2025. Is it agreed to note and publish that item of correspondence? Agreed.

No. R2025/0406 has been received from the Secretary General of the Department of Culture, Communications and Sport regarding the refurbishment of tennis courts in Kilmore Quay, County Wexford, dated 19 December 2025.

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

Next is No. R2025/0407, which is correspondence from St. Vincent's University Hospital providing information on insourcing payments for the National Treatment Purchase Fund in response to the committee's request for further information dated 19 December 2025. Is it agreed to note and publish that item? Agreed.

No. R2025/0408 is correspondence received from the Chairman of the Office of Public Works providing additional information following the meeting on 27 November 2025 dated 22 December 2025. A number of members spoke about this in our private session. Does Deputy Byrne wish to comment?

On the OPW's management of the State's property portfolio in the Phoenix Park, there has for some time been reluctance and probably resistance from the OPW and the Minister of State with responsibility for it to disclose the amounts it was charging and who was availing of minimal rents in these properties. We can see why, given the disclosure of the sums in this correspondence to us. Annual rates of rent ranging from €670 to €4,160 per annum fly in the face of the reality of what people are living in the depths of the housing crisis. Whether this has happened by design, lack of oversight or mismanagement of the OPW in relation to these properties, or however it has come about, the time has come for these nod-and-wink arrangements to end. As I expressed in the private session, I feel very strongly about this and am asking that the committee write to the OPW to request an immediate review of this arrangement and an immediate end to this practice. Whether they are current or retired civil servants, those availing of these minimal rents are not in the emergency services so there is no need for them to have to roll out at a moment's notice and there is certainly no need for them to be getting perks the rest of the people in the country are not receiving. It is something I feel very strongly about and I appreciate the committee's support on this.

I thank Deputy Byrne. Deputy Bennett.

Question No. 7 asked of the OPW was to clarify that it paid Deloitte €86,556 in 2024. Only €20,500 of that was used to commission a report on the overspend of €300,000 on a bike shelter. I want to know what the additionality was for Deloitte. What was it paid for? I would like us to get a breakdown of that and also of what additionality Deloitte was paid in 2025.

I would also like to ask about questions Nos. 8 to 10, inclusive. Mr. Buckley received severance pay of €224,173. He also received €40,000 for an 18-day training course in Paris, as well as a subsistence payment. I would like an exact breakdown of all this expenditure. Can we write back to the OPW on the severance pay? Can we write to the Taoiseach and the Department of public expenditure to ask who signed off on the €224,173 severance pay and how that happens with all public servants and Secretaries General?

I thank Deputy Bennett and call Deputy Kenny.

Going back to what Deputy Byrne said about the rents, obviously a significant issue arose with the rent being paid by the former Garda Commissioner and that is not outlined here in the response by Mr. Conlon. The issue is that when I raised that when he and the OPW appeared before us, he informed the committee it is a policy of the OPW to do a market value on properties they own every number of years but he did not outline how many years had to pass before the office did another market value. I think it is clear no market values are being done on properties within the OPW's remit. If people are paying €670 per annum, it showcases that this policy is not being implemented by the OPW, whereas I guarantee if this was an ordinary member of the public there would be a significant issue with paying rent. The Chair has previously referred to how, if someone is in social housing the rent review is now done on an annual basis, nearly. There are significant people in this country who have earned a considerable amount who are perhaps paying, as the Chair said, nearly €13 per week. It does not make sense and the OPW is failing in its remit to implement the policy on market values of properties in its remit.

Okay. I will return to a number of issues I brought up in the private session. Of the 55 properties in the Phoenix Park the OPW holds in its portfolio, nearly half are vacant. It is a scandal in its own right that in the midst of a housing crisis State assets are left lying unused. We need to get a comprehensive response from the OPW about how long those properties have been lying vacant, what the plan is to bring them into use to ensure somebody, maybe a family, can get a roof over their head and make the best use of those. The rents are also a serious concern. There does not appear to be a comprehensive or clear approach to how these rents are calculated or applied. The OPW gives a range of between €670 per annum - which equates to €12.88 per week to avail of a State asset and raises very serious concerns - up to a maximum rent of €4,160, which equates to about €80 per week. For anyone in social housing privy to a differential rent scheme, which applies to the income to the house, there is a clear and fair approach to establish the rent to be paid. If we look at the private sector, people are paying €2,500 to €3,000 a month for rent. We need to get under the bonnet of this sweetheart deal that has been applied to get an explanation and full detail. The OPW did not give figures for how many of these properties are being provided rent-free. We need to get a full scope on how many, if any, are being provided rent-free and when are these agreements reviewed, if ever.

The other issue there, which Deputy Kenny touched on and I brought up in private session was that while the OPW gave the parameters of €670 to €4,160, it told us there is an arrangement between it and the Garda that rent has been paid. Are we to take from that response that those are the parameters between which rent is being paid by the Garda to the OPW? We need clarity on that. How much rent is actually being paid? As Deputy Kenny said those are certainly nowhere near what market value should be applied there, which is deeply concerning. I will make one more point about the response and then let Deputy Farrelly in. I am referring to the figures in relation to the former Chairman of the OPW, Maurice Buckley, and concerns I raised about his self-approval of his attendance at a course in Paris, which he attended on three separate occasions at a cost of nearly €40,000 to the taxpayer. It is quite concerning that the response says:

Mr. Buckley applied for a place on the programme [himself] and later raised his intention to attend with the OPW local Human Resources Unit. The HR unit advised Mr. Buckley of concerns regarding the cost of the programme, the associated [travel and subsistence] costs, the time away from the office and the short term left on his contract ...

Despite the HR unit raising these very serious concerns with Mr. Buckley, he took it on himself to self-approve his going on this course. That sets off serious alarm bells. The response then gave a breakdown of how those costs were split between different bodies.

We need more clarity on this because I do not think it is right or proper that any Secretary General or anyone who is head of any of the agencies should have that remit themselves to approve travel and subsistence costs to travel on schemes like that. That is not to take away from the need, right or practice of someone looking to better their skills or qualifications but it raises serious concerns of governance. We need to write to the Taoiseach’s office. It should not be left up to each Department to have a system in place, as was alluded to by the current chairperson of the OPW who said the OPW had now changed its practice and it has new practices in terms of clearing someone’s attendance. We need to get clarity and communication from the Taoiseach’s office in relation to this.

It is also agreed that we write to each of the Departments and the agencies under their remit to see what courses or travel has been approved by the Secretaries General for themselves to travel on courses such as this over the last five years, as well as a full breakdown of travel and subsistence costs. That is not to take away from the merit. We are not calling that into question in any of those cases but it is to see what processes each Department has to clear these. I do not think it is right because it causes some level of concern if someone has that remit to self-approve. I know the Comptroller and Auditor General spoke on this earlier. I am not sure whether he would like to make a comment on the merits of someone having the right to sign off on something like this.

No, other than to say that, as a general principle, it is not appropriate for someone to be signing off for benefits that accrue to themselves. It is always better that there is an independent third party signing off on those.

It was agreed that we follow that course of action. Is it agreed to note and publish that piece? Sorry, Deputy Farrelly wishes to come in.

I wish to briefly raise a piece I flagged in private session regarding question No. 6 from the OPW where it confirmed the process and policy it follows for the disposal of properties within its ownership that it no longer has use for. What we have agreed is to hopefully get a similar confirmation from the OPW that it undertakes the same approach when it comes to sites that it no longer has use for. We will also request from it an inventory or list of sites or properties that it currently intends to dispose of and the stages they are at.

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

No. R2025/0405 is correspondence received from the Department of Culture, Communications and Sport in response to the committee’s request for further information, dated 19 December 2025. It was agreed to note and publish that item.

No. R2025/0409 is correspondence received from Uisce Éireann providing additional information following the meeting on 6 November 2025, dated 22 December 2025. Deputy Farrelly flagged this and spoke about it in private session.

I will speak briefly. We are going to do some work on this as a committee, but I just flag the thorough correspondence we have received from Uisce Éireann outlining its model of PRA pay-related benefits for staff. What stood out to me is that, annually, we have upwards of 94% or 95% of Uisce Éireann staff getting their full totality of PRA. Anecdotally, what we feel is that, as an organisation, it is certainly not reaching its goals on an annual basis with regard to infrastructure development and, ultimately, quality water supply, certainly around the constituency I work in. We are looking to see whether a comparison can be made if there are other bodies of a similar structure to Uisce Éireann that employ the same approach. If not, maybe we can get to the bottom of the ways in which targets are set for staff because it seems almost 95% or 96% of people are reaching those. Ultimately, as others have said, this is a significant amount of money on top of what are quite often impressive three-figure salaries.

Obviously, it came up during the previous meeting as well. We need clarity about the terms and conditions of people coming over from county councils and how that ties in with these bonus structures. If a lot more than the 7% come over, how does that work with regard to them keeping their old terms and conditions and possibly being linked in with the new conditions? As there is no comparative body within the context of the public accounts committee, it is worthwhile setting out the original basis, whether it was the Department of public expenditure or whoever was involved with that agreement, on how that bonus structure was agreed and arrived at. We probably just need to widen the scope a bit to clarify.

It was agreed that we are going to write back to Uisce Éireann and embark on a piece of work around that. It was agreed that we note and publish that item of correspondence.

Moving on to No. R2025/0410, which is correspondence received from the CEO of the National Shared Services Office, NSSO, in response to the committee’s request for further information, dated 24 December 2025. It was agreed to note and publish that item and write to get further information in that regard also.

I wish to come in for a second. There seems to have been a miscalculation in relation to salaries and payments for senior civil servants and Government Ministers, totalling nearly €360,000. One single servant was overpaid by €280,000. I welcome the correspondence from the NSSO that it is committed to recouping for the State but it concerns me that the majority of the Ministers have not signed up to the recoupment plan yet. I would like to know how many have signed up and how much money has been recouped. If we can get a breakdown of that I would really appreciate it.

Yes. It was agreed to try to get that information. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R2025/0411 is correspondence received from the Secretary General of the Department of Transport in response to the committee’s request for further information, dated 16 December 2025. We discussed this earlier. Does Deputy Bennett wish to speak?

No. I was going to hold it.

Sorry, we deferred that. I know Deputy McGrath raised an issue there.

I wish to reiterate two points on which I would like further clarification. We questioned the penalties imposed on the bus service providers, Bus Éireann in particular. Certain figures have been given to us. For example, for Bus Éireann, it amounts to €5.5 million in 2024. It does not give us a geographical breakdown so I am asking whether we can seek a geographical breakdown. I am particularly interested in Cork because we have ongoing issues in relation to bus services. I would like to know the specific penalties imposed on Bus Éireann.

I have a separate issue in relation to pre-construction professional fees paid by TII on a number of projects, including Cork Luas, Finglas Luas, the metro and so on. It is €61 million. I would like a breakdown per project. We have not been given a breakdown per project. It is important we get that breakdown.

It was agreed that we will write to it and defer that item until next week. Deputy Bennett will speak on it.

Finally, there is one item of C correspondence that was discussed, that is, No. R2026/0011. It is a proposal from Deputy Farrelly to write to the HSE, which was agreed. Does Deputy Farrelly wish to make a comment on that?

The information that I received from the HSE is that, over the last three years, hospitals paid debt collection agencies €1.2 million yet the HSE could not tell us in that practice how much that activity recouped for the HSE in terms of what it actually brought back into the organisation. Parking the ethical side of this practice to one side, from a cost-benefit analysis, it is incumbent on the HSE to be able to tell us, in the years 2022 to 2025, when it has cost the taxpayer well in advance of €1.2 million to do this, how much this has brought back in.

It was agreed to write to the HSE. Moving on to our work programme, the committee has agreed the following meetings in January and February. The first provision of dates is that on 22 January, the committee will meet St. James’s Hospital.

On 29 January, the committee will meet with the Corporate Enforcement Authority. On 5 February, the committee will meet with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. On 12 February, the committee will meet with the National Children's Science Centre. On 19 February, the committee will meet with the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration.

Moving on to any other business, are there any other items that members wish to raise at this point?

Can I raise the issue of special needs? In Monaghan, we have a special school. It is built on a temporary purpose. There is €4 million already spent on that temporary purpose. Last week, we heard that there was going to be six prefabs added on to that temporary purpose school which will cost an additional €4 million to €5 million. I consider this a waste of taxpayers' money when a permanent school on a permanent location was identified and this temporary school is only a temporary measure. I just want to raise that. I ask that the Department of education would come in at some stage to explain that but maybe we can write to it in the meantime and ask why this money would be spent on temporary buildings while permanent buildings are still waiting to happen.

It is also happening in respite centres in Monaghan. Rainbow Lodge was renovated on temporary purpose. Now the Department of Children, Disability and Equality is renovating a permanent respite centre at Drumbear in Monaghan. Why are we not just going straight for permanent measures? The respite centre is a necessity, as is the special school in Monaghan, but we should be going permanent.

There is a significant waste of money happening in using temporary measures instead of going straight to the permanent measures, so I would like to write to both Departments, that is, the Department of Children, Disability and Equality and the Department of education, and ask them why are they implementing temporary measures and spending so much money on temporary measures instead of going straight for the permanent measure.

Is it agreed that we write and try to get some information in relation to those issues? Agreed. We will now suspend the meeting for five minutes.