Members are all very welcome to today's meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts. We have received apologies from Deputy Ardagh.

Before we proceed, I have a few housekeeping matters to go through. Members are reminded of the provisions 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, they 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 before engaging with officials from the Office of Public Works, along with Met Éireann, in or around 10.30 a.m.

The minutes of the meeting of 5 March were agreed by the committee and they will be published on the committee's website. Ten sets of accounts and financial statements were laid between 23 and 27 February 2026 and 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 Mr. McCarthy to address those before opening the floor to members.

These are financial statements that were presented between 2 March and 13 March. They all relate to the period of account of calendar year 2024.

The financial statements of the Legal Aid Board received a clear audit opinion.

However, I drew attention to a material level of non-compliance with procurement rules.

The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission financial statements for 2024 received a clear audit opinion.

The financial statements of the Health Insurance Authority received a qualified opinion. In my view, the accounts give a true and fair view except that they account for the costs of retirement benefit entitlements only as they become payable. That is a standard accounting treatment within the health sector at the direction of the Minister.

Related to that, the Health Insurance Authority manages the risk equalisation fund. The accounts for 2024 received a clear audit opinion.

The financial statements of the Cavan and Monaghan Education and Training Board received a clear audit opinion.

The financial statements of the Limerick and Clare Education and Training Board received a clear opinion, but I drew attention to a material level of non-compliance with procurement rules.

The financial statements of the Waterford and Wexford Education and Training Board received a clear audit opinion.

The financial statements of the Western Development Commission received a clear audit opinion.

Leopardstown Park Hospital's financial statements for 2024 received a clear audit opinion.

The financial statements of Children's Health Ireland, CHI, for 2024 received a qualified audit opinion. As I explained in respect of a previous case, the financial statements give a true and fair view except that they account for the costs of retirement benefit entitlements only as they become payable. However, I also drew attention to a number of matters, some of which the committee is already aware of from its previous engagements with Children's Health Ireland. I drew attention to the nine resignations from the board during 2024 and 2025. Nine persons were appointed to the board in 2025 by the Minister to ensure the board was in a position to continue performing its statutory functions. In addition, the statement on internal control discloses a number of matters. First of all, CHI has accepted the findings of an independent clinical review concerning the use of non-medical grade implants and of an independent clinical audit of hip surgeries.

I also drew attention to CHI's acceptance of a financial contribution of €30,000 from a concession holder towards the cost of a staff Christmas party that was held in 2022. The related hospitality expenditure was not disclosed in the 2022 financial statements, as was required, and the funding was not recognised as income. The unreleased funding was returned to the concession holder following a query during the 2024 audit.

I also drew attention to a material level of non-compliant procurement. I drew attention, too, to CHI's claims to the value of €200,000, which were rejected by private insurers as they were submitted outside the required timeframe.

Going back to the concession holder item outlined by Mr. McCarthy, had this ever happened previously?

Not that I am aware of.

Was that question asked of CHI? Is it a common occurrence or was it something that Mr. McCarthy just spotted?

No, it is-----

Did CHI offer the information?

It seemed to have been a one-off. We identified an account with funds in it. We queried the nature of those and the explanation that was provided gave rise to concerns, first of all around the event itself, which should have been disclosed in the governance statement, and, second, the propriety of accepting contributions from a concession holder, which muddied the waters in terms of the competitiveness of the award of a concession.

Do not get me wrong, as I hesitate to use the word, but for someone who has worked in procurement, it is almost like a kickback from the company that has awarded the procurement contract.

It raises a concern about decision-making.

It is strange that it was offered and it is strange that it was accepted. It is bizarre.

Do any other members wish to contribute? I call Deputy Farrelly.

I raised the following issue during the private session. Have we seen confirmation that this payment was for the purpose of paying for a Christmas party?

It is my understanding that was why the funding was provided.

If it was payment for a Christmas party in 2022, why was it still in the account in 2024?

It obviously was not applied. Other funds of the hospital were applied to pay for the party, as I understand it.

Would the money have accrued interest in that time if it were sitting in an account?

It may have done. It was probably a low-interest period.

Can we follow up on any other payments that have been received by CHI from other vendors over the past three to five years for the purposes of Christmas parties or team-building events?

We can certainly follow up on that.

When it was brought to the attention of the board of the hospital, its members decided to return the funding.

That was only when the Comptroller and Auditor General-----

Yes.

On risk equalisation, that is a huge amount of money. Some €877 million was allocated. That is nearly €1 billion.

Yes.

What is that role?

It is attempting to equalise the risk that health insurance firms are carrying. Those who have an older population may have higher claims. This attempts to spread the risk across all holders of insurance.

Could we invite the Health Insurance Authority before the committee at some stage?

It is coming in on 30 April. What we can do is write to it in advance and get a note on that issue.

I thank the Cathaoirleach.

I will return to the issue of the bank account with the contribution from a concession holder. The concern here relates to how it interacted with any tendering process for that concession. These are perhaps questions we can put to the organisations themselves. Is the Comptroller and Auditor General aware of any live tendering processes having taken place within that period?

Memories of bank accounts that do not have good governance live large in this committee. Do we know how that account was controlled or governed? Was it established for the specific purpose of receiving this payment or did it exist already?

I do not have the detail in relation to that. I can certainly find out and come back to the Deputy next week when I have more information about it.

Perhaps I could ask a different question. When the Comptroller and Auditor General examined the account in question, was the balance other than the amount that was contributed?

From memory, it was just this item that was held in the account. It was an unmoving substantial sum. That led to us querying why there was an amount that was not moving.

That is an extremely serious issue. The purpose of the hearing is for us to get to the bottom of it. An account that does not have control always raises very serious questions, specifically when it exists for the purpose of one payment, or may only exist for the purpose of one payment, or may only contain one payment. I would have serious concerns about that sum coming from a person who has a contractual relationship as part of procurement. We look at non-compliant procurement at this committee week in and week out, and that stands out as something entirely outside the standard procurement process.

I will have to come back to the Deputy as to whether there were live tenders within the period while the funding was held.

There is general agreement that in the first instance we should write to CHI and get a full explanation and a detailed report on the matter. I am not sure whether the Comptroller and Auditor General can get into any detail without naming the entity that made the payment. Would it be a large provider?

What kind of services would be provided?

I cannot really identify individuals. My focus is on the actions of the bodies that I audit, not of anybody that they engage with.

We can try.

Yes.

It was CHI.

Where?

Obviously they were operating in three or four locations during that period. Again, I have not identified which.

We can try get that level of information when we write to them.

Yes.

It is of particular concern. Do members wish to comment on any of the other accounts? No. Do members agree to note the listing of accounts and financial statements? Agreed.

Moving on to correspondence, there are a number of B items of correspondence to consider today. These have been received from Departments and public bodies.

No. R-2026-0117 is correspondence received from the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána in relation to matters raised at the committee's meeting on 26 June 2025 and 25 February 2026. We did discuss this in our private session. It has been agreed that we write to the Garda Commissioner with some additional questions. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. R-2026-0120 is correspondence received from the director of corporate services and HR in Bord Bia providing a response to the committee's request for details of any conflict of interest declarations from members of the board of Bord Bia, dated 25 February 2026. Do members wish to make any comment on that? No. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R-2026-0123 is correspondence received from the chief executive officer of the National Children's Science Centre, dated 2 March 2026, in response to the committee's request for further information following our meeting on 12 February 2026. Do members wish to make any comment on that? No. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R-2026-0125 is correspondence received from the Secretary General of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, dated 2 March 2026, in response to the committee's request for further information following our meeting on 12 February 2026. Deputy Murphy has flagged this item for discussion.

I would like to highlight what seems to be a low rate of prosecutions for animal cruelty over the past ten years. The letter suggests that there have been 215 prosecutions with the vast majority of those - 153 - related to dogs or dogs and cats. There is one prosecution for a cat alone. It means that the number of prosecutions in relation to farming are 62 over a ten-year period. That seems very low in the context of the number of exposés that we have had both by RTÉ, and the National Animal Rights Association, NARA, in relation to pigs, horses, etc. Can the committee write to the Secretary General seeking an explanation for the relatively low number of prosecutions?

Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. R-2026-0134 is correspondence received from the chair of the Office of Public Works providing information regarding the utilisation of office buildings and land, dated 4 March 2026. Do members wish to comment? No. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R-2026-0137 is correspondence received from the Secretary General of the Department of Culture, Communications and Sport, providing the committee with a quarterly update on the digital connectivity strategy, including an update on the progress of the national broadband plan, dated 6 March 2026. Do members wish to make any comment? No. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R-2026-0138 is correspondence received from the Secretary General of the Department of Defence in response to the committee's request for an update on the implementation of the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report on the Accounts of the Public Services 2022, chapter 12 - stock management in the Defence Forces, dated 9 March 2026. Do members wish to comment? No. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R-2026-0139 is correspondence received from the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána in response to the committee's request for further information, dated 6 March 2026. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R-2026-0141 is correspondence received from the chief executive officer of the National Transport Authority, NTA, dated 9 March 2026, in response to the committee’s request for further information following the meeting on 15 January 2026. Do members wish to comment?

There is quite a bit in this response but there is one part that I would like to query further, if the committee agrees. On BusConnects in Cork, €75 million has been spent to date. One element of that is €44.5 million on infrastructure development bus corridors. To the best of my knowledge, no bus corridors have been delivered yet but €44.5 million has been spent. Can the committee request further information on the €44.5 million, specifically what projects and expenditure that relates to? It is a substantial amount. We have not seen any progress on the ground, that I am aware of but I am open to correction. It is important to query this matter.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I want to raise an item in terms of this correspondence. When we had the NTA before us a number of very specific questions were put to the delegation in terms of the number of electric vehicle or EV buses that had been ordered, which are not currently being used and are in storage or whatever. There was a serious attempt made to downplay the seriousness of the issue. The information that we have received shows that there is 132 buses, each valued at nearly €500,000 each, that are not being used because of the shortage of electrical charging points in a number of locations. The NTA has cited a number of reasons, with planning being one, and its inability to forward plan, which seems nonsensical. When an order is made I am sure at the very start you get the basic necessity in terms of what is needed to charge the buses. The correspondence and explanation by the NTA are totally insufficient. It outlines a timeframe for some of those buses to come into use. Some of the EV buses are not due to come into use until 2027, which is a full year away and is totally unacceptable.

The NTA has also cited that local authorities in two different areas have adopted different approaches to planning. Limerick City and County Council put exemptions in place to roll out the installation of electrical charging infrastructure. Galway City Council used a different approach, which involved going through the full planning process even though it seems an exemption exists within the planning legislation.

I propose that we write to the Minister seeking an explanation for why different local authorities adopt different approaches in terms of the legislation. I mean one local authority grants an exemption while the other insists on following the full planning process. I also propose that we write to the NTA to ask how many additional EV buses have been ordered, the timeframe for their introduction and see what learnings have been made from the serious litany of failures, whereby there are 132 buses lying idle in different locations.

I agree with the Chair. I would also ask them to give us a status update as to the EV charging infrastructure - what has been applied for, what planning permission is in process, how many charging guns that relates to and future charging gun infrastructure.

Yes, that is okay

I agree with the Chair. The key line in the letter is interesting. I heard the item on "Morning Ireland" this morning. Tom O'Connor said:

The time between the placing of an order for and the NTA purchasing a new battery electric bus is typically in the order of 12 to 24 months and there can be up to a year between the delivery of the first bus and the last bus in a single order. As a consequence it is virtually impossible to align the charger installations and bus manufacturing schedules.

That does not make sense. That suggests that there would be a problem having extra sockets. Do members know what I mean? It is okay to have the chargers in place before the buses arrive.

That does not create a problem. The problem arises when you have the buses in place without the chargers. It is put forward as if it is a convincing explanation, but it is not.

We do not have the information. When we are writing back, we could ask when the buses have arrived up until now. We do not have that information. They have arrived in different tranches. Let us see if the NTA can tell us in what month and on what date the various buses arrived. We can, therefore, reach an assessment in respect of how long buses have been present without being able to be used in the fleet.

It is unclear. The NTA takes the buses from the supplier. The supplier is holding the buses in storage until the infrastructure is in place. Perhaps we should ask what buses the NTA and the supplier have in storage.

I would also like to know when the buses were paid for. Whoever is storing them, whether it is the supplier or they have been delivered, it is about when they were paid for and how long have they been not in use, having been paid for. That is the key question.

There is one other area. I listened to that piece on "Morning Ireland". It was stated that a number of older buses have had to be taken out of storage to fill the vacuum, the shortage of buses, because of this failure to have the infrastructure. Perhaps we should ask the NTA how many older, diesel-guzzling buses have been taken out of storage to fill the vacuum. We can also ask that question. Are members happy? Okay.

No. R-2026-0143 is correspondence received from the HSE, dated 9 March 2026, providing a response to the committee's request for further information on hospital debt collection and a briefing note on the patient private property fund. Do members wish to comment? No. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R-2026-0144 is correspondence received from the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána, dated 11 March 2026, in response to the committee's request for further information. It is proposed to include these details in the committee's report and to launch the report after the Easter break. Is it agreed to note and publish that item? Agreed.

That concludes items for discussion today.

Moving to our work programme, on 26 March the committee is due to engage with Inland Fisheries Ireland, IFI, and representatives from the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment to resume discussions of the IFI financial statements 2023 and the Comptroller and Auditor General's Special Report No. 118: Governance, internal control and value for money issues in Inland Fisheries Ireland. Are members happy enough with that?

A new chief executive was appointed this week. Has Inland Fisheries Ireland confirmed its representatives are coming in next week? Who will be representing it?

We discussed this matter briefly in our private session. We are aware that the new chief executive officer, Dr. Kelly, has been appointed. He is not due to take up the position until mid-April, which is obviously after our engagement. That is unfortunate. I will get clarity from the Comptroller and Auditor General, but I think the financial statements are due in.

I have cleared the 2024 financial statements for signing but they will not be ready for the meeting next week.

That is unfortunate.

Do we know who is expected to appear before the committee next week?

We do not have names as yet.

Have we requested that members of the board would also be present or is it just the executive?

We can ask that. We will follow up.

Our next item is any other business. Are there any other items that members wish to raise at this point? No. That concludes session 2. We will suspend briefly.