You are all very welcome to the meeting. 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 of Standing Order 226 to the effect 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 requirements 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 is the minutes, accounts and statements, correspondence, upcoming meetings and then we will suspend before beginning our engagement with officials from the Department of Education and Youth at 10.30 a.m. or thereabouts.

There are two sets of accounts and financial statements laid between 26 March and 10 April 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 him to address these before I open the floor to members.

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. First, we have the financial statements for An Coimisinéir Teanga for 2024. They received a clear audit opinion.

Second we have the financial statements for Beaumont Hospital board for 2024. These also received a clear audit opinion. However, there were a number of matters to which I drew attention in the audit report. First, I noted the hospital board recorded an accumulated non-capital deficit of €51.3 million at end 2024, which was up from €33.7 million at end 2023. That is a significant increase in the accumulated deficit. Second, the board continued in 2024 to incur a material level of non-compliant procurement. The value of the non-compliant procurement identified was of the order of €17.9 million. At end 2024, the financial statements show payroll overpayments totalling €704,000 identified as due for recovery. This was after payroll overpayments to the value of €195,000 had been written off in the year. Members will recall from when officials from Beaumont Hospital were before the committee, I think in October, that there was some discussion of a new integrated HR and payroll system that was brought into use in January 2024 after some project delays and cost overruns. The final project cost was €4.8 million compared with a July 2022 projected cost of €2 million. In addition, public procurement guidelines were not followed for the procurement of the system and revenue interest and penalty costs of €66,000 had been incurred as a result of payroll processing failures.

I also drew attention to claims to the value of €413,000 which were submitted to private insurers which were not collectable because the hospital had not finalised the claims within the required timeframe. I drew attention to the board having paid €1.5 million to a company involved in providing radiology services that were not competitively procured. Some 20 hospital staff members were directors of the supplier company, of whom only four had made declarations regarding the company in their statements of interests for the year 2024. I drew attention to section 12(18) of the statement of internal control which discloses a number of capital project cost overruns and the steps being taken by the board to address control weaknesses identified in project delivery. I also drew attention to a loss occurred due to supplier bank account redirection fraud to the value of €39,600.

I thank the Comptroller and Auditor General. Representatives of Beaumont Hospital appeared before this committee in October, but, to my recollection, the issue of the €1.5 million paid in respect of radiology services was not discussed with them.

I think that is correct.

This seems to be almost identical to the issues we dealt with in the context of St. James's Hospital.

Yes.

The CEO of St. James's Hospital apologised for what had taken place on the basis of what seem to be identical governance failings in that same area of people not correctly disclosing information as part of their Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, obligations. It seems that this committee has a role in interrogating these issues with Beaumont Hospital in the same way we did with St. James's Hospital. In that regard, we should invite Beaumont Hospital back to the committee to discuss these issues.

I fully agree with Deputy Geoghegan. It is astounding to think this has been realised in the statements, given the justified public scrutiny of another hospital when this was disclosed. For that reason we should make that invitation very soon. This is quite concerning.

As an aside, I just noticed the piece regarding the fraud under the code of practice which amounted to €39,600. Do we know if there is a trend in other bodies whereby detected fraud is reported, but also unsuccessful? Are you obliged to report the unsuccessful attempts at fraud as well? Do we know that? Is it a way we could try to learn a little more about the code of practice and the extent to which fraud incidents are reported, whether successful or unsuccessful?

If there is an unsuccessful attempt at fraud, it possibly means your control system is working. As a result, I do not think it would be necessary. If your control system is what stops an attempted fraud, I do not think it would be necessary to report. That is what the control system is there for. The risk of invoice and bank account redirection fraud is well-established. I have reported on it in a number of the bodies I audit. At this stage, a control system should be well aware of the need to be very careful about any attempt to override the normal controls and to ensure that there are adequate controls in place such that if there is an attempt at fraud, it would be caught or stopped.

When representatives from Beaumont Hospital appears before the committee in October, I questioned them about the payroll system. Is the final cost of €4.8 million inclusive of the €66,000 that has to be paid to Revenue?

No, it is not a project cost.

So there is over €3 million of an overspend for a HR system that did not go to public procurement.

I do not think adding the €66,000 would bring it over that figure. The assessed cost of installing the system is €4.8 million.

Was the first assessed cost €2 million?

That was the original projection.

Then the original projection compared with-----

Compared with the outturn it is €2 million versus €4.8 million.

That is very significant.

A very significant cost overrun.

Deputy Geoghegan referenced the governance failures. The representatives did not provided us with those figures or that information until they were questioned about it towards the end of the October meeting.

That is correct.

There are significant governance issues. The representatives came before this committee knowing that was going to be a significant issue that arose in the next accounts and they failed to disclose it.

Yes. We would have been dealing with them at that stage on the matter. They were here in October, and the accounts were finalised in December.

Yes, so there are a myriad of issues. Over €2.8 million of an overrun on a project cost is very significant for a payroll system that did not go to public procurement.

It is my understanding that the public procurement process did not happen because Beaumont Hospital decided it would just take on the payroll system that the HSE is currently working with. That alone is a significant cause to bring them in before the committee again and really ask the question and stress the issue that they came before the committee knowing this information was going to be available in the next accounts without actually telling the committee that it was there.

The bigger concern is that a programme of capital works is planned for Beaumont Hospital. There is a significant number of capital plans. The HSE capital plan had in the region of €26 million in terms of capital improvements. I do not think that during my time in the PAC I have seen so many noted items in a financial statement. I think there are eight items.

It is unusual.

It is incredibly unusual. For that reason alone it would be important for those matters to be dealt with in public and to be addressed. I support the other speakers.

I fully support it. As Deputy McAuliffe said, a range of issues are highlighted some of which are very significant. I support the suggestion they should come before us. There are significant management and governance issues that need to be probed and questioned further.

There is consensus there that we will bring Beaumont Hospital back in. A significant number of issues that have been flagged by the C and AG, some of which we did discuss back in October, but certainly there is new information here that is very concerning. The IT issue is an issue on which the committee has embarked on a comprehensive piece of work. Hopefully, over the next number of weeks we will be in a position to move forward with that, which will shine a light more broadly and extensively on IT failures across the entire system and the considerable and substantial overruns and failings there.

In relation to a couple of other issues, the €1.5 million payment to a company is a new revelation that follows on from St. James's Hospital. This is identified in the 2024 accounts. Can I ask the C and AG whether we are aware of this company receiving funding prior to that?

Yes. It has been an arrangement that has been in place over a number of years.

Do we have sight of what figures are involved in previous years?

I do not have them to hand but I think the Chair could ask the hospital. They would be able to provide it.

We can ask the hospital. It is a substantial sum over a sustained period, which is concerning. The other issue here is something we see across a number of hospitals, which is the claims being submitted to private health insurers. A total of 413,000 claims were submitted but were not collected, which is concerning and is a trend we see right across a multitude of hospitals. It is an issue we need to give some scrutiny to. I propose we write to the Department and across the entire hospital sector to try to get a full break down, hospital by hospital, as to how much for each year, over the past five years as a starting point, has gone unclaimed due to these failures. There are zero reasons money should not be recouped. If members are agreeable, we will do that to get a greater oversight. There is consensus that we will invite Beaumont Hospital back in. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Can we agree to note the listing of accounts and financial statements? Agreed.

We move on to correspondence. There are a number of category B items of correspondence to consider. These have been received by the Departments and public bodies.

No. R2026/0146 is correspondence received from the chief executive officer of Tusla in response to the committee's request for further information in relation to procurement, financial controls and governance matters across Tusla facilities, dated 13 March 2026. Deputy Farrelly flagged this item.

This is quite interesting. I refer members to question No. 9 where we asked if Tusla had made any updates to financial guidance or operational procedures for aftercare services since 2018. The reply said it has done that in recent years. It has strengthened its procurement card and financial regulation across all services. What came to my mind was to ask what prompted that change. What prompted that update? Had issues arisen and were they escalated through the audit and risk committee? Could we seek clarification from Tusla on that?

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

No. R2026/0149 is correspondence received from the Secretary General of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage in response to the committee's request for further information regarding Uisce Éireann, dated 12 March 2026. Deputy Bennett flagged this item. If members are agreeable, we will defer this in her absence and we can revert to it next week. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. R2026/0153 is correspondence received from the Secretary General of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in response to the committee's request for further information regarding the Tipperary all-weather racetrack, dated 12 March 2026. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0154 is correspondence received from Dr. Donal Reddington, principal officer of the cultural institutions unit at the Department of Culture, Communications and Sport, regarding the timely production and submission of financial statements of the National Library Ireland annual report 2024, dated 12 March 2026. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0158 is correspondence received from the chief executive officer of the National Transport Authority in response to the committee's request for a briefing note on the implication of the High Court order and Supreme Court judgement in relation to the disbursement, approval and oversight of the NTA funding in respect of the local area plan process for Malahide, dated 16 March 2026. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0166 is correspondence received from the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Youth in response to the committee's request for details of the Department's plan and budget for a permanent special school in County Monaghan, including timetables and approved capital allocation for the project, dated 23 March 2026. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No R2026/0174 is correspondence received from Mr Kevin O'Brien from the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service, Reform and Digitisation in relation to the appointment of the Accounting Officer for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, dated 24 March 2026. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No R2026/0175 is correspondence received from Secretary General of the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration responding to the committee's request for further information regarding IPAS centres, dated 24 March 2026. Deputies Bennett and Geoghegan and I have flagged this item.

I will couple this with the correspondence from the Dublin Regional Homeless Executive, DRHE. The Chair will recall that when officials from the Department of justice were here before us both I and Deputy McAuliffe put very specific figures to them in terms of persons who are entering adult homelessness and the proportion of those persons who had come from direct provision. The Department effectively pushed very heavily back on the figures that we put to them. Now it is set out in black and white that 25% of all people entering single adult homelessness in the DRHE in 2025 and to date in 2026 had been granted refugee status, have an entitlement to housing and were in the direct provision system in the previous six months.

The very simple point we were making to the Department of justice is that this should not be happening. The Department of justice should work with the local authority to avoid a situation whereby people who are granted refugee status simply go from one entity to another. I propose that we write to the Department of justice with the DRHE letter and to seek information on it.

In addition, the figures are stark in the reply the Department of justice provided to us. The Cathaoirleach may recall that I probed a lot in relation to the outreach team for people who are not given accommodation on the moment of their arrival and are sleeping in tents. I asked what happens next. According to the reply that was provided, an average of 64 people per week are referred by the charity that does the outreach work and 50 people a week receive a first-time offer. Effectively, everybody is getting accommodated. There is no reason for any international protection applicant who comes to this country to be on the streets. The charity which has the responsibility for carrying out these referrals is being paid €1 million, according to the figures provided by the Department of justice, to carry out a lot of this service. We really need to probe this further with the Department of justice in relation to what services are being carried out. Surely there is a more cost-effective way to accommodate these individuals, quite apart from the idea that they should not be on the streets anyway and a charity should not have to be funded. Based on these figures, clearly it does not need to be funded. There is a dysfunctionality that is persisting and continuing within the Department of justice that it needs to account for. I propose that we write back to it on both of those issues.

I want to reference what Deputy Geoghegan has said regarding the pushback we received. The point we were making was that accommodation was being provided through the international protection service, and accommodation was being provided through emergency accommodation by the DRHE. This is not a question about where any particular burden might lie; it is about the interaction between those two agencies. When the figures were put to the Department of justice, not only did it push back on them but it indicated that these were people who had been placed in tenancies and that somehow the tenancies had failed within a six-month period. That, in and of itself, is very concerning. You would be asking whether people were placed in incredibly insecure tenancies or whether sufficient arrangements were in place. The Department of justice is not necessarily the line Department for the DRHE. We have a role in bringing those two State entities together. I would like to see us probe it a little further. My suggestion is that we put the letter from the DRHE to the Department of justice and ask for a response.

Okay, that is agreed.

Yes, I agree with that. I would add one other thing on the evidence that seems to suggest, as I suspected, that nobody - asylum seekers or anyone else - needs to be rough sleeping. The Department of justice correspondence tells us that we have three entirely empty centres which are designated for Ukrainians, but there is no one in them. There are 271 empty spaces right now. I can understand the argument that if you have a building that is half-full of families, there is an issue with putting - let us say - single men in beside them. If we have entirely empty buildings, when we go back to the Department we should ask why they are not simply reallocated away from Ukrainians, where the need is reducing, to where there is a need at the moment to ensure no one is on the streets.

I will move on to point No. 14 in the correspondence, which gives a detailed breakdown of the cost of chartered and non-chartered commercial flights agreed by the Department in 2025. What we can see now is a total spend of over €3 million to deport 380 or 390 people in 2025. As difficult as it is to leave the ethics and the values of this aside for now, is it too soon to know or understand the procurement pathways initiated by the Department with regard to these contracts? These are significant sums of money. I have a series of questions about the way in which sums of money for chartered flights like this would be agreed. To give one example, a flight to Pakistan is €580,000. A flight to Nigeria is €400,000. I would like to see us correspond with the Department in order that it would provide a detailed breakdown of the procurement correspondence between itself and the companies in coming to such arrangements.

We can certainly follow up on that. Unless any other members wish to speak, there are a number of points I want to raise. On the issue of the flights, I asked for a specific breakdown of the number of gardaí on each of them. I had concerns that on a particular flight to Pakistan in September 2025 there were 79 gardaí, which seemed an extraordinarily high number. The note outlined that the funding for that comes from Frontex and not necessarily from the Department. Nevertheless, we need to get a full breakdown of the cost of providing Garda numbers on all of those flights, as this is not included in the overall costs Deputy Farrelly has just touched on. I imagine that the full cost of each of those flights is considerably more expensive. On the ratio of gardaí, having 79 gardaí on a flight seems an extraordinarily high number. I asked for the process or the metrics that are used to determine the number of gardaí on each flight to try to get a breakdown in relation to that.

I will touch on another issue that I have raised previously. I have asked for a briefing note on point No. 10 in the correspondence. Accommodation at St. Mary's Street in Edenderry, County Offaly, was secured for the provision of Ukrainians. We know that a contract was entered into in August 2024. It was terminated in March 2025 without one individual actually utilising that accommodation. Can we ask for a breakdown on that contract and how much it cost? Considerable work had been done to that premises, which was previously a shoe factory. It cost a considerable amount to convert that factory into accommodation. The Department says it did not fund that. It is my understanding that it was the Department of housing that funded it. Can we ask for a full breakdown of those costs also?

I will touch on the figures we received after we asked for the top ten highest-value payments made in 2024 and 2025 for both IPAS and for Ukrainian accommodation. I think members will agree that the figures for the top ten are stark. The first provider on the list, Mosney Unlimited Company, received over €40 million in 2025. It goes right the way down. There are similar figures for 2024 and for Ukrainian accommodation as well. To get an understanding, I propose that we write back to the Department in respect of those top ten figures to ask what kinds of vacancy rates were in those properties, how many people were accommodated in those properties, what is provided as part of those contracts with those companies and what kinds of services are provided. The point I have made previously is that we have made some people very wealthy out of the whole industry that has cropped up around the provision of accommodation. The Department has said it is moving more towards the provision of publicly owned buildings, premises and accommodation. I propose we get an update on the moves towards that.

Unless any other members wish to come in, we will move on to No. R2026/0178, which we discussed in private session.

Correspondence dated 25 March 2026 was received from Ms Fiona O'Byrne, assistant secretary at the Department, with responsibility for further education, apprenticeship and skills, responding to the committee's request for further information regarding a protected disclosure. Both Deputy Farrelly and I flagged this item. We had a discussion on it in our private session in the context of Skillnet and a very concerning issue that was brought to our attention by the Comptroller and Auditor General. We know it has been referred to the Garda, Revenue and the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement. We have agreed that we will invite representatives from Skillnet to one of our next available hearings, along with representatives from the National Training Fund. Does Deputy Farrelly wish to speak on this?

Given that the Department has received a very heavily redacted version of the report, would it be in our interests to request that the report be furnished to us as well in advance of the meeting?

Yes, that was agreed previously. This is extremely concerning. An investigation was carried out on foot of a protected disclosure that was made in late 2023. We know there was zero co-operation with the investigation. That process took two years to complete. The report to which the Deputy alluded was not provided to the Department by Skillnet. A redacted version was only furnished to the Department at the request of the Comptroller and Auditor General. In my view, that is deeply concerning. A number of concerns arise in terms of governance, oversight and communication with the Department and also with the network that is at the core of the concerns here. Over that two-year period, it continued to receive funding from Skillnet. We need clarity on all of that. When this lengthy process of investigation was ongoing, had funding to that entity been suspended? I propose that we write to those involved and get that information in advance of our engagement with them. We will move on. We are going to write to them also to try to get clarity on what can or cannot be published in that regard.

No. R2026/0179 is correspondence, dated 26 March 2026, from the Chairman of the Office of the Revenue Commissioners responding to the committee's request for further information following Revenue's appearance before the committee on 5 March. Do Members wish to comment? No. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0180 is correspondence, dated 26 March 2026, from the chief executive officer of the National Shared Services Office providing an update in relation to the latter's review of pension-related deductions impacting Ministers and civil servants. Do Members wish to comment? No. Is it agreed to note and publish the item?

I am conscious of the time. I propose to defer some of the correspondence to next week. There are just two items that we should try to deal with here. We will defer No. R2026/0181.

No. R2026/0182, which is correspondence, dated 26 March 2026, from the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Youth, responding to the committee’s request for further information following the Department's appearance at a meeting on 26 February 2026 in relation to special needs assistants. Do members wish to comment on that? No. I have flagged this item for discussion. A number of issues arise. Members may recall the issue of special needs assistants and the additional €19 million in funding that had been promised. I have received correspondence from the Departments of public expenditure and Education and Youth. Unfortunately, the position is probably less clear now than it was previously as to where this funding is coming from and whether it is additional funding to the Department or if the €19 million has to be found within the Department. We will have an opportunity to quiz the Secretary General in our engagement today. This is still an issue of concern. We need to write back to the Department of public expenditure to get clarity.

We did get a breakdown of the cost of litigation cases where families have to go to the courts to try and vindicate their rights in terms of special education for their children. The figures are quite stark. Between 2022 and 2024, €1.769 million was spent in legal fees by the State fighting families trying to vindicate their rights. It does not give a breakdown of the number of cases involved in that period of time. I propose that we try to get clarity on how many cases are involved. The figure of 126 legal cases being initiated was given for the school year 2025-26. They have all been concluded but, again, there is no breakdown of the financial costs. We will try to get clarity on that. I propose that we write to the Department to try get clarity in that regard. Do members have any other issues? No. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0195, dated 7 April 2026, is correspondence from Mr. Barry Fox, deputy chief executive officer of Inland Fisheries Ireland, IFI, regarding the committee's request for details of costs and staff days associated with external media training ahead of that organisation's appearance before us on 26 March. I have flagged this for discussion. Do any other members wish to comment?

I understand the need for people to prepare before they come before this committee, and I would tend to not quibble about that, but this is a shocking waste of public money at an organisation that has had a relentless number of governance failings. Cumulatively, it paid for 18 days' preparation by an external agency to come before a committee to which it is accountable. If that was to happen across the board - in other words, in the case of every entity answerable to the committee - it would have the perverse effect of increasing costs and wasting money on bodies that it is our job to be accountable for the money they spend. There has to be some degree of sense or oversight of this situation. That is like a runaway train. It is beyond a joke.

Ultimately, that is the reason I asked the question. It was one of the first questions I asked when IFI appeared, in order to get a sense of the nature of the preparations it had undertaken. I know other members previously asked a similar question of organisations and bodies that appeared before the committee. I do not understand the logic of either a Department or a body that is funded by the taxpayer paying for training and using taxpayers' funds in order to respond to questions and be accountable to the taxpayer. It does not sit right with me, not to mind the extent of the bill. When asked on the day, it did not have the sum, which is astronomical, just to appear before the committee and account for its actions. Like Deputy Geoghegan, I am worried about what will happen in the future. I do not know what recourse the State has but this is public funds and public money that is being used in order to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts.

I cannot make sense of this. It is nonsensical.

I share the absolute outrage that members are expressing. It is an absolutely breathtaking sum of money. In the context of where we are as a country now and the pressures that people are under, to see €53,933 spent on these totally unnecessary services is shocking and unjustifiable. We absolutely need to follow up on this and find out who sanctioned it, who agreed to it and who requested it. This is scandalous.

It is just one thing after another with IFI. You would be sick to death of talking about it, to be honest. The figure is €54,000, excluding VAT. We are probably talking about in or around €60,000 for what I would consider an unsuccessful 18 days. When its representatives appeared before this committee, it was not so successful. What a waste of taxpayers' money. We talk about people who are homeless in this country. We talk about the need for extra special educational classrooms. Here we have a body going away to spend between €54,000 and €60,000 on media training for a constitutional committee that its representatives have to appear before, considering the amount of damage it has done to this country over the past couple of years. I said at the end that I wished the new CEO well in his job, but he has an awful job to do. Whether the committee will invite them back again in the short term, I do not know, but we must realise and ask who sanctioned that. Did Barry Fox sanction that for him and his colleagues to go away and get training? Was the Minister aware of it? Was it budgeted for or is the Comptroller and Auditor General going to have to point this out the next time the organisation's accounts appear before this committee, which will more than likely be within this Dáil term? It is totally disgraceful. You would be sick to death of IFI at this stage.

I absolutely agree that it is an outrageous use of public money. I did a rough calculation. If everybody who appeared before the committee were to spend a similar amount of money, you would be talking about approximately €2 million extra being spent each year as a result of witnesses coming before the Committee of Public Accounts. That obviously somewhat undermines the whole point of accountability for public spending. We should write to IFI and ask the process by which that spending was agreed. It also proves the benefit of asking the question of everyone who comes before us so that they know they are going to be asked about it and it is going to be exposed, and so on, if they are involved in spending huge amounts of public money.

The point about preparation is fair enough and there is something there about people being able to prepare. However, if people just come in and tell us the truth and do not give us spin, they will not need media consultants to tell them how to do it. That would seem to be the best way to answer questions, and also the cheapest.

People who come before this committee are entitled to receive some amount of training, but I do not understand why there is not a Civil Service training programme online or internal people who can provide this training. Where is the guidance from the Department of public expenditure and reform? There needs to be guidance from the Department of public expenditure and reform on what type of training is appropriate. There should be some online course that people can take and then they can get a small amount of coaching. The Department needs to lead here and ensure there is a consistent approach to training for people who are coming before this committee.

The logic given in the correspondence is that the services were used because of "the complexity and breadth of legal issues" involved. It was not legal training. It was PR training that they received from a communications company. It does raise the question whether we asked if those witnesses received legal training or if other professional fees were incurred in preparation for their engagement with the committee. We asked about media and communication training, but did we ask about other preparatory sessions they may have received?

I think everyone has captured the feelings of all members of this committee. When I saw the figures, I was flabbergasted. More than €54,000, when you include the VAT, was spent on preparing to come before the committee and to be honest and truthful to us by providing the facts, which they failed to do at their previous engagement. The level of waste that has gone on in preparing for the meeting is deeply concerning.

At our previous meeting last year, I asked a similar question about training the witnesses had received. They said they had received training for that meeting, too, so we need a breakdown of the costs for the first round of training, which was completely unsuccessful, in preparing for that engagement. It raises so many concerns. Who approved it? Was the board aware of this? Was it a solo run? We need clarity there. We need a copy of the minutes where this was discussed and approved, if it was approved, by the board.

The third paragraph of the correspondence is deeply concerning. It states that the company that provided the communications training, DHR Communications, delivered the service "through existing contractual arrangements with IFI's legal advisors". That is really bizarre. We need clarity on that. It speaks to some sort of mechanism to get around procurement. Perhaps I am wrong. Was this spending going to be hidden away in legal expenditure as opposed to appearing on the financial accounts under a stand-alone heading and cost? We need clarity on what kind of tendering process and procurement process were in place, if any were, before engaging this consultancy firm. It seems bizarre that a legal firm would have a standing contract with a communications consultancy firm. I am not sure whether that is standard practice within the legal fraternity. I highly doubt it, but I could be wrong. Perhaps we could get clarity on that. There is a whole series of concerns around the procurement of this body. When I saw that figure and considered the witnesses' performance at our meeting, it was less than desirable. The chairperson delivered a monologue. He went completely off script and seemed to do the bulk of the speaking. I would like to get clarity on who availed of this training and how much training each witness received.

A line in the correspondence states, "In addition, the consultants incurred 10 days of training preparation to support the direct training provision". Does that mean that the subjects the company was working with were so poor that it took ten days to prepare them to start the training process? It opens up so many questions and concerns. We need clarity on all of those points.

Is it agreed that we write back to IFI? We should also write to the new chief executive officer, who took up the position this week, to get a viewpoint from him in terms of the engagement with IFI so far, see what views he has and find out if he would stand over a waste of taxpayers' money such as this. Is that agreed?

We should also write to the Department of public expenditure and reform and ask it to ensure there is a consistent approach to the preparation of all the Departments and agencies that are coming before the Committee of Public Accounts.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

There are a number of other items of correspondence that I will defer until next week.

We will move quickly to the work programme. On 23 April, the committee is due to engage with officials from St. Vincent's University Hospital, the Mater hospital and Tallaght University Hospital, and representatives of the HSE and the National Treatment Purchase Fund, to discuss insourcing funding arrangements. In session 1, we will engage with representatives of the Mater and Tallaght hospitals. In session 2, we will engage with representatives of St. Vincent's hospital. Are there any other items that members wish to flag? No. That concludes session 2.