I welcome everyone to today's meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts. 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 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 firstly to discuss the minutes, accounts and statements, correspondence and upcoming meetings. We will then suspend and begin our engagement with officials from the National Children's Science Centre. The minutes of the meeting of 5 February 2026 were agreed by the committee and these will be published on the committee's website. Four sets of accounts and financial statements were laid between 2 and 6 February 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 him to address these before opening the floor to members.

First we have the financial statements of the Criminal Assets Bureau for 2024. These received a clear audit opinion. Second are the financial statements of the National Gallery of Ireland for 2024, which received a clear audit opinion. Third are the financial statements of the National Library of Ireland for 2024, which received a clear audit opinion. Fourth are the financial statements of the Sport Ireland Facilities Designated Activity Company, a subsidiary of Sport Ireland. Those financial statements for 2024 have been presented. The financial statements of Sport Ireland, which is the parent of that entity, were also signed at around the same time but have not yet been presented.

Do members wish to make a comment? No. Do we agree to note the listing of accounts and financial statements? Agreed.

I will move on to B items of correspondence from Departments and public bodies. One B item of correspondence has been received by the committee. It is from Mr. John Conlon, chairperson of the Office of Public Works, and it is dated 4 February 2026. It is an outstanding response in respect of the information requested following the meeting on 27 November 2025. I have flagged this item for discussion. There is information provided in that correspondence about under-occupancy of OPW buildings across the State. It alludes to a random audit of 20 properties in which it carried out an inspection. In the majority of those, there was under-occupancy. I think there was an occupancy rate of 30%. It seems quite strange that it would only carry out a random audit of 20 properties. It raises more serious concerns as to why it does not have an inventory of all its stock, both assets owned by the State and leased properties, and why only a random selection of 20 properties was audited. We need more information on that.

We need a proper breakdown of publicly owned State assets and also private leased assets. I have been given information and I am sure others have been. We had engagement here with the OPW on different premises. In the past, the Comptroller and Auditor General highlighted under-occupancy of buildings left lying up for years, costing millions of euro to the State. We still have a very sloppy process in my view. We need to get more information on it and we need to get a clear breakdown in terms of that random selection of 20 properties, which is bizarre and totally unsatisfactory. We need a breakdown of public versus the leased and the costs involved. Do members wish to make any comment on that?

I concur with the Cathaoirleach. I have heard of OPW buildings where staff are not in attendance in the buildings. Some buildings are lying completely idle most of the time. I would like to see that analysis carried out on all OPW buildings, irrespective of whether they are in use and what is going on.

I think there has been a new regime in since the beginning of 2025. I think there is an obligation on public bodies to report actively to the OPW on the use of their buildings. It seems to be dragging its heels on analysing and publishing it. What I said was that it should publish the information with comparatives. It seems to be hanging on to the comparative thing to delay publication for another year. It seems to think it has to have two years to compare one year with the other. That is a bit disingenuous. I cannot remember if it was last January or this January, but I think it would be in order to encourage an earlier report to the committee on what has been reported to the OPW.

I echo what the Comptroller and Auditor General has said there. In its reply to the letter, the OPW stated the first returns should have been in in January 2026 and that it will seek to publish the information in 2027.

Today, we are going to be dealing with a building owned by the OPW that has been empty for over a decade in the National Concert Hall. The public are incredibly frustrated by any idea that in the current crisis we are in, the State is not maximising the buildings it owns both on the commercial side and on the housing side. The idea that we would only hear in 2027 about information that it already has now is ridiculous. We should ask it for the information and it should give it to this committee.

I totally agree with that. As well as buildings, we should look for information on new sites. I am aware of landholdings in the possession of the OPW which have been sitting there for years. I think that is a relevant question as well. I would add that to buildings.

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

The next item is No. R2026/0056, correspondence received from Mr. David Gunning, chief executive of the National Paediatric Hospital Development Board, dated 5 February 2026, providing an update on the construction of the national children's hospital. Do members wish to make comment on that? No. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

The next item is No. R2026/0057, correspondence received from Ms Anne Shaw, chief executive officer of the National Transport Authority, dated 5 February 2026, in response to the committee's request for further information following the committee's meeting on 15 January 2026. This item has been flagged by Deputies Murphy, Bennett, McGrath and myself.

I will be quick. Basically, we need to follow up further on the issue of the electric buses. It was something other members and I were asking about. The answer we got is that a further 65 buses for the Dublin area and 47 buses for other cities have completed the manufacturing process and will enter into the operational fleet over the coming months, which effectively does not answer the question as to how many buses, electric buses, are sitting there not currently in operation because the facilities are not there for them. We should write back to them asking for more detail on when they will be operational, what date they were manufactured, when they were ready for use, how long they have been in storage, and whether a lack of charging capacity has been a factor in delaying their deployment or it is lack of drivers or another issue.

I have a few things to raise in relation to the NTA. I have noticed it has legal costs of €4.164 million. These are unaudited. I am wondering why they are not audited and if we can get a response to that from the Comptroller and Auditor General.

They are 2025 expenditures. The audit will be undertaken this year. That is what it means.

For 2024, would it have spent a similar amount of money?

I cannot recall what the figure is in relation to 2024, but these will be presented. The draft financial statements would be expected to be presented by the end of February to us for audit. The audit will probably be carried out around May or June. I would expect to have the audit completed by then. I would not necessarily expect that the figures would change very much. I think it is just signalling that there may be a minor change if something comes up in the course of all that.

Is €4 million quite a large number?

That is quite sizeable, but considering the complexity of the business of the NTA, it is to be expected. It has huge contracts, and a lot of very precise contract negotiation and so on would be required. Planning issues would also be a huge issue for it.

I also noticed, in relation to software and IT systems, it was proposed that €175 million would increase to €205 million. That is €30 million of an increase in relation to an IT project.

No, I think that is for the whole train control system. I think the point it is making is that it expects it well be spending more than it originally budgeted. It expects the figure to be somewhere between €175 million and €205 million. Its current estimate is €189 million or €190 million for the final project. There is a very significant increase for the software element, but it is not of the order that the Deputy mentioned.

That is okay. In relation to the electric buses, I brought this issue to the committee the last day. I asked the witnesses at that meeting if there were any electric buses sitting idle that were not in use. The answer I got on that occasion was "No". I was told there were no electric buses not in use, but now we have been led to believe that a further 65 buses and, separately, another 47, have completed the manufacturing process and will enter the operational fleet. These buses, are far as I can read from this document, are sitting idle and not in use. Would I be correct in saying that?

I have no more knowledge than is in the letter. It is not clear what time it takes once the bus is delivered to get it into use. That is the point the Deputy is after.

I remember that interaction. We were essentially given the impression there was nothing to see there, but there clearly is. I agree with both Deputies that we need to question that issue further. In relation to the legal costs, I take the point they are not audited yet, but it is a sizeable sum. Can we ask for a breakdown of the legal costs? Can we go back and look for a breakdown of €4.1 million in one year? With the permission of the committee, can we also ask for an outline of other professional fees that the NTA has incurred? I know the Comptroller and Auditor General may have seen those figures for 2024, but is it within our scope to look for those figures from 2025? Is that something we can do?

The Deputy can certainly ask. Obviously, it will have a schedule behind the legal fees. The Deputy might want to specify what kind of breakdown of fees he wants. Is it a further breakdown by category of case or by supplier of legal services?

I think by case type. Perhaps we could add other professional fees. What I am getting at there is external consultants and so on. Maybe we can ask for a breakdown of what the NTA is spending on an annual basis in relation to other professional fees as well. There is a response in relation to the TFI app. We are all frustrated about how long it is taking to upgrade the TFI app and so on. Can we ask how much has been spent to date in relation to the upgrade of the TFI app? I think that is a relevant question.

I have a further question, if I may. To be fair, I asked this question on the day. We did not ask for it in subsequent correspondence. However, it indicated on the day that it spent €75 million on the BusConnects project in Cork. I would like to ask for a further breakdown of that €75 million expenditure, if we may.

We will agree to those.

I have a couple of points from my own perspective. The information we have received in relation to the electric buses seems to be conflicting with the information that was received via a parliamentary question. The response to the parliamentary question seems to indicate that there are currently 48 buses lying unused in Galway due to a serious failure to have the proper infrastructure in place and delays in the planning process to get approval for the charging points. That conflicts with the information that we have received via the NTA. To me, it is a serious issue if we are not being provided accurate information, or if we are getting information that conflicts with information that people are getting via parliamentary questions. We need to write back to the NTA and seek accurate and full information and disclosure on that issue.

In my view, the information given with regard to the steps at Deerpark and the serious expenditure there raises further serious concerns.

There are a number of areas I would like to get clarity on. If one reads through the correspondence, the timeline and when the requests came in for additional funding for what turned out to an extortionate amount of money for a few steps, value for money has not been delivered. The timeframe given shows work was completed on those steps in January 2025. Subsequently, in May 2025, an additional request came in for €400,000. That followed the completion of the work. That raises serious questions as to what kind of process was in place. Was this an afterthought? Did the NTA approve funding after a flawed process, which in my view there clearly was? We need further information. The correspondence also alluded to a completion report that was to be carried out by Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council on completion of the works. Those works have been completed for 13 months and that completion report still has not been furnished. We need to seek an update on that report. Is it agreed to take those courses of action? Agreed. Is it agreed to note and publish that item of correspondence? Agreed.

No. R2026/0058 is correspondence received from Ms Josephine Ryan Leacy, chief executive officer of the Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, in response to the committee’s request for information regarding insourcing payments from the National Treatment Purchase Fund, dated 6 February 2026. Do members wish to comment?

This continues our line of inquiry into this issue. I know both the Mater hospital and St. Vincent's hospital are going to appear before the public accounts committee. We have some figures here in terms of the insourcing. They are very large. We do not know if there were issues similar to what we saw in St. James's Hospital in relation to declarations. It is important that we put the two hospitals on notice that that will be an obvious line of inquiry for this committee in terms of asking about governance issues arising from any of these insourcing payments and that they should be prepared to come to the committee and provide that information. The figures involved are really significant, at €9 million in 2024 and €16 million in total. It merits further investigation. I look forward to hearing from both hospitals when they come before the committee.

Is it agreed to note and publish that correspondence? Agreed. Do members wish to discuss any other items of correspondence? No. Before we move off the issue of correspondence, we had a brief discussion earlier about the additional information we received from An Garda Síochána. We issued a letter to the Garda following our engagement with it last year. We issued correspondence on 9 January and we expected all the additional information requested to be received within ten working days. We still have not received that information. We sent follow-up correspondence on 22 January to remind the Garda of its obligations to furnish that additional information. We still have not received that information. For me as Chair, and I am sure for members also, it is deeply frustrating not just in this example but in any example when correspondence is late coming in to us. In this case, it is slowing up the publication of our report, which is essentially complete at this stage. We have parked it until we get this additional information form the Garda. It is deeply frustrating. I do not think as a committee we should allow any witnesses to tie the hands of our committee with the slow furnishing of information. I send this message out to all witnesses, past and future. We expect information to be sent back in a timely fashion.

As Vice Chair, I support the Chair in this matter. It is an important matter for the committee that we get timely responses from those accountable to the committee. There has been significant engagement on this. This report deals with probably the largest amount of cash the committee has ever come across in the custody of an agency responsible to us. There are significant questions about its security, its storage and how the State might get the best value for public money from that cash. It is important we get a response. We want the right information and for it to be factual and so on, but we have afforded the matter enough time. It should be concluded quickly.

As no other members wish to comment, it is agreed we will write again to the Garda to express the dissatisfaction and frustration of the committee and to highlight the fact it is impeding the completion a really importance piece of work following comprehensive questioning, the serious issues that stem from those engagements and further information in regard to investigations and sums of money that have gone missing from Garda stations. It is really important information that will help to complete that report. We will write to the Garda expressing our frustration. It is not the first time. This is the second time we have had serious delays with this accounting body.

We will move on to our work programme. Next week, on 19 February, the committee will meet the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration. Are there any other items members wish to raise?

Coming back to Deputy Bennett's question about legal fees by the NTA in 2024, from a note I have here it seems expenditure in 2024 was €2.2 million and in 2023 it was €3.3 million.

It doubled from the previous year, therefore.

It doubled from the previous year, yes, in 2025.

Will Mr. McCarthy be asking for a reason for that when he audits the accounts?

Certainly, we will look to understand why the increases were there. In 2023, the figure was €3.3 million, so substantial cases can certainly result in substantial legal expenses.

That concludes session two. We will now suspend the meeting for five minutes.