I welcome everyone to today's meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts. 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.

The agenda for today is to discuss the minutes, accounts and statements, correspondence and upcoming meetings, and then we will suspend and begin our engagement with officials from the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration at 10.30 a.m. or thereabouts.

The minutes of the meeting of 12 February 2026 were agreed by the committee and these will be published on the committee's website.

There are 13 sets of accounts and financial statements laid between 9 and 13 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 will ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to address these before opening the floor to members.

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh.

The financial statements of Kildare and Wicklow Education and Training Board for 2024 received a clear audit opinion.

The financial statements of Dublin and Dún Laoghaire Education and Training Board for 2024 have received a clear audit opinion. I drew attention, however, to a material level of procurement non-compliance in that case.

The financial statements of Donegal Education and Training Board for 2024 received a clear audit opinion.

The financial statements of Louth and Meath Education and Training Board for 2024 received a clear audit opinion.

The financial statements of Tipperary Education and Training Board for 2024 received a clear audit opinion.

The accounts of the Health Service Executive consolidated patients' private property accounts for 2024 received a clear audit opinion. The committee may wish to be aware that the turnover of the overall accounts was €43.8 million at the end of 2024. The balances held were €105 million.

The financial statements for 2024 of the special account for the purposes of the Health (Repayment Scheme) Act 2006 recorded nil turnover in the year and received a clear audit opinion.

The financial statements for the health repayment scheme donations fund for 2024 are a related account. Again there is a nil turnover in the year of account. Those received a clear audit opinion.

The financial statements for the circular economy fund for 2024 received a clear audit opinion. The balance in the fund at the end of 2024 is €18.5 million.

The Qualifications and Quality Assurance Authority of Ireland financial statements for 2024 received a clear audit opinion. However, I drew attention to a voluntary disclosure made to the Revenue Commissioners by the authority in relation to payments made to assessment panel members who should have been taxed under PAYE rules but were instead taxed under withholding tax rules. This disclosure resulted in a settlement with Revenue of a net €456,300.

Regarding the financial statements of Horse Racing Ireland, the group accounts for 2024 received a clear audit opinion.

The financial statements of the Loughs Agency, which is one of the North-South bodies, for 2024 received a clear audit opinion. I audit that jointly with the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland.

The financial statements of Cuan or An Ghníomhaireacht um Fhoréigean Baile, Gnéasach agus Inscnebhunaithe received a clear audit opinion also. This is a new body and it is the first period of account.

Thanks for that, Mr. McCarthy. Do members wish to comment or ask any questions about those accounts?

I have a question about the tax disclosure to Revenue. Is this common? Is this all related to the Supreme Court dominos, so to speak, for people who previously thought they were self-employed but found they were not? A lot of clubs are being forced to do this is as well. Sports clubs are now making voluntary disclosures.

I think that is in the background to it. From memory, this may have preceded the Supreme Court decision. I think that was a 2024 opinion and this actually happened in 2024. It may have been in anticipation of it. I think the Supreme Court reaffirmed the position in relation to how such matters were to be determined. The authority made a disclosure. It identified it should have been applying a PAYE regime but it had been public sector withholding tax. The reason I am drawing attention to it is because the authority had been taxing the matter in the wrong way and it ended up paying €456,300 extra. If it had been doing it correctly from the beginning, the tax would have been paid by the individuals in receipt of the payments.

It was funded by the Department of higher education. I think when you go into the note that is how the tax payment was actually settled.

Effectively, yes, by additional funding. It is an additional expense.

Is this an issue that is arising or coming forward in some of the other bodies Mr. McCarthy audits? I mean disclosures about wrong taxing.

I cannot recall any other cases where something similar has happened. It happens from time to time and, generally, I will call it out if it results in additional expenditure. If it is a matter that the tax liability is recovered from the employees, then it does not affect the body and it does not affect the Exchequer.

In relation to the Dublin and Dún Laoghaire Education and Training Board, will Mr. McCarthy highlight the nature of the non-compliant procurement? Also, will he indicate if the overall value of the health service patient property fund is different from any previous year? He also mentioned the circular economy fund. I do not think we have had those responsible for that before the committee and I would appreciate a little more information, perhaps through the liaison officer, on the nature of that work. I believe there are a number of funding streams for that, like the plastic bag levy and possibly the coffee cup levy, and it would be worth examining.

It is the repurposed environment fund, so it would have been examined previously because I have referred in particular to a case involving the plastic bag levy. The committee has examined it with the Department of the environment in the past but we can certainly provide additional information. The financial statements themselves give a reasonable overview and a history of the account.

As for the Health Service Executive consolidated patients' private property account, this is money that belongs to people who are resident in long-stay care which is managed by the Health Service Executive on their behalf. As I said, the balance in the fund at the end of the year was about €105 million. I do not think it is that different from previous years. It would have been of the order of €100 million or maybe €98 million or €95 million in previous years. It is going up incrementally. A lot of the funds would originate from welfare payments to individuals that are kept on their behalf, but it is private funding at this stage.

Regarding the Dublin and Dún Laoghaire Education and Training Board, the total amount of non-compliant procurement disclosed is €1.37 million. Some examples of what that is made up of include €770,000 for cleaning services paid to one supplier, expenditure of €177,000 for ICT hardware paid to one supplier, €142,000 for static security paid to one supplier, €114,000 for ICT field engineering paid to two suppliers, €96,000 for ICT support services - it does not say how many suppliers in that case - and then expenditure of €65,000 for minor repairs and painting. Again, it does not-----

Was part of the nature of the non-compliance that there was an absence of a tendering process?

Exactly, where there could have been. A lot of the steps that are being taken are effectively to run procurement competitions for that particular supply.

On the fund for long-term patients you referred to, Mr. McCarthy, there was a report this week about €33 million, I think, held in accounts by the HSE from former patients who had passed away. Would that be in this? Are you familiar with that?

No, I did not see that report but I can certainly have a look at it and we can come back to it.

I think it was a huge figure of €33 million or something like that. The process for families to claim that money back was a little obscure, so it might be something to consider.

For estates, there may be moneys that are held up while probate is being progressed, but obviously it would have to be the legal representative who recovered that funding. I will have a look and come back to you on it.

Okay. Are members happy to move on? Do they agree to note the listing of accounts and financial statements? Agreed.

We will move to correspondence. There are three B items of correspondence to consider. No. R-2026-059 from the Department of justice provides details of the costs for continued maintenance of sites no longer considered suitable as IPAS centres.

Members are acutely aware the Department will be in with us shortly. If there are any issues raised in that correspondence, members can bring them up at that point. Is it agreed to note and publish that item? Agreed. Deputy Farrelly has flagged item No. R-2026-0063 from the Office of Public Works for discussion.

I thank the Cathaoirleach. I will be very brief because I know we are probably up against it, time-wise. In the correspondence provided, I noted an item regarding Hammond Lane and the much-awaited family courts project that is under way there. Before Christmas, the Government confirmed it is due for completion in 2027. I propose we write to the OPW seeking more details on that project, such as cost, delivery, the public-private nature of that and the expected timeframe associated with it from the agency's perspective.

Is that agreed? Agreed. On the topic of the OPW, it gave us more details about vacant OPW properties within the Phoenix Park. It states there are 11 vacant properties there which require upgrading, refurbishment or are not currently suitable for occupation. We need further information on those. What plan is in place to bring them into use and what is the timeframe for that? What is the estimated cost and purpose? The OPW also states that the vacancy periods vary, depending on the condition of the property, ranging from the early 2000s, which is 25 years ago now, to September 2025. That is important because we had a lot of discussion about the use of one of the properties in the Phoenix Park by the former Garda Commissioner, the process around the identification and the use of that property but also the cost involved in bringing that property back into use. More than €400,000 was spent bringing the property back into use and over €200,000 was spent for additional, enhanced security measures. The former Commissioner ended his tenure in September of last year. We need further information on the property, as they gave a range from the early 2000s to September 2025, which seems to correlate when the former Commissioner finished his tenure. The concern I have is that the property that had extensive work carried out to it is now possibly vacant. That would be a scandal on top of a scandal. We need further information from the OPW as to whether that property that extensive work had been carried out on is now lying vacant. If that is the case, what is the rationale for that and what are the plans to ensure that comes to an end and the huge expenditure on it means it will be put back into use. We need further information on that.

In addition to that, could we also ask how much rent the OPW is getting for each of the properties that are rented out? Could we expand on that in the letter?

Yes. Are members happy to agree the proposed action of writing to the OPW to get that further information and publish the item? Agreed. No. R-2026-0068 is from the Health Service Executive. Deputy Farrelly has again flagged this item for discussion.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and I again will be very brief. Eyebrows were raised on my behalf when I saw the level of bad debt write-off from the HSE in the financial year 2023-2024. The detail of that merits further scrutiny on our behalf, especially when that coincides with information that we received that the HSE and hospitals continue to employ debt collecters to chase these fees. There is a lot of information absent about this very specific piece with regards to the HSE. I was also drawn to the point near the end where the HSE has included there is significant work under way to standardise and modernise their financial processes nationally. Could we request a note from the HSE about what that means in practice? What processes are under way? Who is doing that work for the HSE, at what cost and when does it expect those processes to be fully complete and rolled out?

Do members agree with that proposal? Agreed. Do members agree to publish the item of correspondence? Agreed.

We will move onto the work programme. Next week, on 26 February, the committee will engage in the first of its meetings with the Department of Education and Youth. We will discuss a number of items, including funding and governance matters relating to ETBs. The committee will later engage with the Department on 16 April and focus its examination on capital funding and expenditure relating to school properties.

We will move on to any other business. Are there any other items members wish to raise at this point?

Can I come back to the Cathaoirleach on the query he had about the patient private property fund? The media article was about these accounts. There is a disclosure that €33.5 million related to deceased or dormant account funds held at the end of 2024. There is €26 million in respect of 1,688 clients where estates have not yet or have failed to be identified. A sum of €8.9 million was paid out in 2024 in respect of such cases. There is €1.8 million in dormant client funds in respect of 6,654 clients whose whereabouts or status is unknown. Effectively, the funds remain suspended. On interest earned, there was €5.7 million in interest accumulated over the years, which has still to be distributed to 15,861 deceased clients or dormant accounts. In relation to that, €561,000 was paid out in 2024. There is a substantial part of that fund where, effectively, there are questions over who owns it.

Okay. On foot of that information, I propose we write to the HSE. Is that who we should write to, Mr. McCarthy?

It is a feature of these accounts. It has been a feature over a number of years. I am not sure what the proceeding year figures would have been but they would have been substantial. It is just in the nature of the matter. Ultimately, there is a question over what point does it come to be surrendered as unclaimed funds.

We should write to get further information. There is a number of issues there and we will try to get clarity on them, such as how long some of these cases are and what point is it determined that it will not go back to the estate. We might write to get further information. Is that agreed by members? Agreed.

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