I welcome everyone to today's meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts. We have received apologies from Deputies Bennett, Boland, Eoghan Kenny and Ardagh. Before we proceed, I have a few housekeeping matters to go through. Members are reminded of the provisions in 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 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, and we will suspend our meeting and begin the engagement with officials from the Corporate Enforcement Authority at 10.30 a.m.

The minutes of the meeting of 22 January 2026 were agreed by the committee and will be published on the committee's website.

There are seven sets of accounts and financial statements that were laid between 19 January and 23 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 address these before opening the floor to members.

First, there are the financial statements of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland for 2024. These received a qualified opinion. The accounts, in my opinion, give a true and fair view except that they account for the cost of retirement benefit entitlements by staff only as they become payable. That is a standard accounting presentation for health bodies.

No. 2 is the financial statements for Mayo, Sligo and Leitrim Education and Training Board for 2024. These received a clear audit opinion.

No. 3, the Legal Services Regulatory Authority financial statements for 2024 received a clear audit opinion. However, I drew attention to a material level of procurement non-compliance. From memory, the figure in that case is €780,000 for procurement.

No. 4, the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies financial statements for 2024, received a clear audit opinion.

No. 5, Coimisiún na Meán financial statements for 2024, received a clear audit opinion.

No. 6 is the broadcasting fund, which is managed by Coimisiún na Meán. The accounts for 2024 received a clear audit opinion.

Finally, the Parole Board financial statements for 2024 received a clear audit opinion.

I thank the Comptroller and Auditor General. I want to inquire about the Legal Services Regulatory Authority, which is a relatively new State agency. I have looked at the accompanying note, which states, as the Comptroller and Auditor General has said, there was €738,989, excluding VAT, relating to legal services. Is that the state of non-procurement? The authority spent €738,989 and it did not go through public procurement. Do we know what type of legal services were provided to the authority? Was that to a solicitor firm or what was it in relation to?

I do not have the detail.

Chair, can we write to the Legal Services Regulatory Authority and ask it to provide greater clarity as to the extent of this because it is quite a sizeable amount for a new State agency? If it was supposed to have done it through public procurement and there is no real explanation as to why the authority did not procure that amount of services, then we need to understand and must get a formal note from it.

We can do that, Deputy. Do any other members wish to comment? No. Can we agree to note that the listing of accounts and financial statements is agreed? Agreed. We will follow up on Deputy Geoghegan's suggestion as well.

The committee has received the following B items of correspondence. These are items of correspondence from Departments and public bodies.

No. R2026/0027 is correspondence received from the Secretary General of the Department of Climate, Energy and Environment in response to the committee's request for further information regarding Inland Fisheries Ireland, dated 16 December 2025. Do members wish to comment on this piece of correspondence?

Only to acknowledge that we have decided that we are going to invite the IFI back in following the previous hearing. Clearly, as we have said on so many occasions, there have been so many discrepancies between what we were told at that meeting, by the people who were present, versus what is plainly stated in the documents that they have subsequently supplied to this committee. Therefore, it is really important that we tease out these issues. I look forward to IFI officials returning and, I hope, giving a full and frank explanation for some of the key issues that we touched upon.

I welcome the IFI's response. I want to make the following abundantly clear. On 4 December, when the IFI delegation was here, I pursued a line of questioning around an IFI's former board member's and staff representative's expenses. Based on the answers that I got that day from the IFI, I continued on that line of questioning and asserted that there had been overclaims on the mileage. Based on new information, including the clarification from the Comptroller and Auditor General and the correspondence that we have received now from the IFI, it is clear that the responses that I got from the IFI on that day did not line up with the actual situation. Ultimately, neither the IFI nor the Comptroller and Auditor General regarded these mileage expenses as overclaims. In light of that, I wish to withdraw my remarks on that issue and set the record straight.

I thank the Deputy. I agree with the comments that have been made about IFI. In our private session, we had an open conversation among the members here on the IFI and our ongoing concerns about governance within that organisation. In the correspondence received from the Department, it has laid out the current situation with regard to the filling of the position of chief executive and how the board has nominated an individual to fill that position. That is currently with the Minister. We have expressed concerns with regard to how essential it is that the right person goes into that position to help address the serious ongoing issues within the organisation. We await a timeline for the appointment of a new chief executive. There are also outstanding pieces of correspondence that we need to get sight of from the Department. When we do bring in the IFI, we have agreed that we will also bring in the Secretary General from the Department.

We need to work out a process or system so that we get sight of the reviews that were carried out. I note that in the correspondence they say that reviews have been carried out on foot of protected disclosures. It is absolutely essential that we protect anyone who brings forward a protected disclosure, but it is critical for our work that we do get sight of that review and all reviews that have been carried by the IFI. It is an issue. We have agreed to explore 26 March as a possible date for that engagement. Once we have confirmation of that, we will revert to it. Is it agreed to note and publish this item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0028 is correspondence from the Secretary General of the Department of Social Protection in response to the committee's request for further information following our meeting on 18 December, dated 16 January 2026. Do members wish to comment on this piece of correspondence? No. Is it agreed to note and publish? Agreed.

No. R2026/0029 is correspondence received from the Chief State Solicitor in response to the committee's request for further information, dated 16 January 2026. Do members wish to comment on this correspondence? No. Is it agreed to note and publish? Agreed.

No. R2026/0030 is correspondence received from the chairperson of the Office of the Revenue Commissioners in response to the committee's request for further information, dated 16 January 2026. Deputy Byrne has flagged this item for discussion.

I thank the Chair. I refer to the last paragraph around the discretionary trust tax, and the last line in particular:

Due to the manner in which claims for the exemption from the discretionary trust tax are made, statistics on the number of claims made are not readily available.

I find this a bit concerning. I am not entirely sure how they can apply the exemption and ensure they are applied correctly, not allowing tax avoidance if they do not have it. I ask that we go back to it, look for further clarification on that and, perhaps, go on step further and request a complete list of the claims that are made, if that is possible.

Do any other members wish to make comment on that? No. We can certainly agree to try and get that information. Is it agreed to note and publish the item and pursue the agreed action by Deputy Byrne? Agreed.

No. R2026/0033 is correspondence received from the Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation in response to the committee's request for further information regarding the Oireachtas broadcast workers, dated 20 January 2026. Do members wish to comment on this? No. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0037 is correspondence received from Ms Elaine Gunn, the Clerk of Dáil Éireann and Secretary General, in response to the committee's request for an update on the current arrangements for the provision of broadcasting services within the Houses of the Oireachtas, dated 23 January 2026. Do members wish to comment on this correspondence? No. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0039 is correspondence received from the office of the Secretary General of the Department of Culture, Communications and Sport, enclosing a copy of the expert advisory committee independent review of the governance and organisational culture of the Arts Council of Ireland, dated 26 January 2026. Do members wish to make comment on this? I know it is an issue we gave extensive scrutiny to.

It did strike me that there were lots of things in the review that were ultimately different to the testimony given by the Arts Council when it was before us. Perhaps I should have said this during the private session but I wonder, when we get an opportunity to digest what is contained in the report, that perhaps the Arts Council should come back and address some of those issues, particularly in regard to how it is going to implement some of the recommendations found in the review. Maybe the timing for that is when the Comptroller and Auditor General has completed the accounts for the Arts Council. The review is comprehensive and certainly does contradict a lot of the testimony we heard from the Arts Council in relation to how it managed the information technology, IT, project, versus what these independent investigators actually found.

Okay. In regard to this report, certainly some of it - particularly around the information and communications technology, ICT, project - highlights some of the issues we had identified in here. Quite interestingly, some of the recommendations within the review are, from my perspective, commonsense. It highlights a lot of inefficiencies within organisations such as the Arts Council to take on comprehensive and fairly detailed ICT projects without having the necessary skills. This review and the recommendations should feed into our comprehensive piece of work around ICT projects across all Departments and agencies under their authority. It is an issue we will revert to when we are looking at our own piece of work, particularly the recommendations contained in it.

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

Bouncing back for one moment to the correspondence in relation to the broadcast workers and the correspondence from the Clerk of the Dáil, there is a consultation process there with regard to the future of broadcasting in the Oireachtas. The deadline for submissions was last Friday but there is scope for us, if members wish to do so, to put in a submission with regard to the future of the broadcasting unit within the Oireachtas. It is an issue we have held a hearing on and I know members have strong views. I will open the floor to see if members think it is something we should do. I certainly have views on it and I would be interested to hear the views of other members.

I thank the Chair and I am sorry for being late this morning. I was not aware the deadline was last week, so apologies for that but if there is an opportunity for us to make a submission, I do not know how far our submission could go. Like the Chair, I would have very strong opinions on what the future of broadcasting onsite should look like, specifically with regard to the working conditions of those doing this work and the contracts under which they are employed. They should be brought under the Houses of the Oireachtas as employees because it is going to be a long-term service that is provided. We have seen, at best, a partial costing and comparison of what the service would look like when it was outsourced to a private organisation versus what it would like otherwise. There is scope for a more indepth piece of work to be done on that. That would probably show the cost-benefit analysis as very much favouring staff members being employed to provide the services. We know the unsocial nature of it and the flexibility required. We know the notice given at times to workers - that they were or were not working, or the significant times of recess, for example. I would be very supportive if we are in a position to make that submission with that in mind.

Do any other members wish to comment? I will leave it open to members then, if they want to come back with content for a submission, maybe by early next week. We will agree on it and look at putting in a submission then as part of the process. Members might revert as soon as possible with suggested actions.

We will move on to No. R2026/0040, which is correspondence received from the Secretary General of the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment in response to the committee's request for further information regarding Inland Fisheries Ireland, dated 27 January 2026. Do members wish to comment? No. I think we have more or less discussed that. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0041 is correspondence received from Mr. Barry Fox, deputy CEO of Inland Fisheries Ireland, providing an update to the committee dated 28 January 2026. Do members wish to comment? No. Is it agreed to note the item? Agreed.

Do members wish to discuss any other items of correspondence before we move on? No.

The committee has agreed the following meetings in January and February 2026. Next week, on 5 February, the committee will meet with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. The committee has also agreed to the following engagements in February and March. On 12 February, the National Children's Science Centre; on 19 February, the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration; on 26 February, we are looking at the Department of education; on 5 March, the Department of Social Protection and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners; on 19 March, we are again looking at the Department of education in regard to different areas within expenditure; and on 26 March, we are going to look at bringing in Inland Fisheries Ireland, along with the Department's Secretary General.

Are there any other items members wish to raise at this point under any other business, AOB? No. That concludes session 2 and we will now suspend the meeting until 10.30 a.m. I thank members.