Members are all very welcome to today's meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts. We have received apologies from the Cathaoirleach, Deputy John Brady, and Deputy Eoghan Kenny. Before we proceed, I have a few housekeeping matters to go through.

Members are reminded of the provisions of 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 to discuss the minutes, accounts and statements, correspondence and upcoming meetings and then we will suspend before beginning the engagement with officials from Children's Health Ireland and the National Paediatric Hospital Development Board at 10.30 a.m. The minutes of the meeting of 23 April were agreed by the committee in private session and these will be published on the committee's website in due course.

Three sets of accounts and financial statements were laid between 20 and 24 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 will ask him to address these before opening the floor to Members.

First, we have the audited financial statements for the Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority in relation to the 2024 period of account. These received a clear audit opinion. However, I would point out that the audit report was issued on 12 June 2025 but the audited financial statements were only presented on 23 April 2026. In line with policy, the committee may wish to follow up with the IAASA as to why there was a delay.

Second, we have the financial statements of the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board for 2024. It received a clear audit opinion.

No. 3 is the financial statements of the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman for 2024. It also received a clear audit opinion.

Do members wish to discuss any of the financial statements before us? Are the agreed that we will follow up with the IAASA in regard to the delay in the presentation of the audited financial statements? Agreed. Do members agree to note the listing of accounts and financial statements? Agreed.

There are a number of B items of correspondence to be considered today. They have been received by Departments and public bodies. The first is No. R2026/0205, which is correspondence received from the Secretary General of the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration in response to the committee's request for further information in relation to the processes in place for people applying for international protection as unaccompanied minors, dated 16 April 2026.

Deputy Bennett has flagged this item for discussion.

It is very relevant at the moment especially with what we saw on television a few weeks ago in relation to unoccupied minors who are seeking international protection with Tusla. As the Department said that this is a matter for Tusla, can the committee ensure that the item was referred to Tusla to answer? Has that happened or will it happen?

This correspondence really reinforces issues that first arose in the committee when we had the CEO of Tusla here and her concerns of her organisation's capacity and ability to deal with the growing numbers of unaccompanied minors seeking international protection in Ireland. As the Chair knows, there is a new Act in place and the Department of justice referenced that in its letter. The letter stated that every new unaccompanied minor will be treated under a new system where the age assessment process will in fact be carried by the Department, something it found very difficult to give us an answer on previously.

What is quite stark in these letters - and we should write back to the Department for a clarification - is that 181 people who were referred by the International Protection Office, IPO, to Tusla as being children, subsequently applied for international protection as adults. I do not know if some of those people aged out or were they people who purported to be children and were subsequently discovered to be adults and were mingling in child-only settings. The Department needs to clarify that. It also reinforces the need to really examine what is the appropriate body to house unaccompanied minors in this State. Is this really something that should be the responsibility of Tusla? Should this not really be responsibility of the Department of justice and the IPO? That is perhaps something we might come back to in this committee, but in the short term can the committee write to the Department to clarify if the 181 people were misidentified as being children or how many of them aged out.

I would appreciate if we also asked the Department in the correspondence what preparatory works it has done in preparation for when the new Bill comes into force? What work has it done? What funding has it to take full responsibility of this? What will be the nature of that process? It would be interesting to see what type of work the Department has done to prepare for that.

We will ask the clerk to the committee to take on board those questions that have been raised and we will correspond with the Department of justice in relation to them.

With regard to Deputy Bennett's questions, Tusla was before us and it will be again. Does she propose that we put additional questions to Tusla?

I want to put additional questions to the agency on this. It says in the letter from the Department of justice that it is a matter for Tusla, but I want to know what Tusla's response is to this.

Is it agreed that the committee will circulate the Department's response to Tusla and ask it reply? Is that agreed? Agreed. It is agreed to note and publish this item of correspondence.

No. R2026/0206 is correspondence received from the chairman of the Office of Public Works in response to the committee's request for further information regarding the proposed national children's science centre, dated 17 April 2026.

I am just getting a quick read through this now, but I see that an interim award was granted based on the evidence to date of the arbitration. How much is the award and who was awarded it? Could I get clarity on that?

The correspondence speaks in stark contrast to the way this was discussed in the committee meeting whereby the national children's science centre rejected the idea that it had the OPW over a barrel. This correspondence shows that it is a €1.2 million barrel. There is further information needed because those settlement costs are not full and final. We should seek confirmation from the OPW or from the children's science centre as to the extent of the nature of any further costs liable to come as part of this.

The findings are fairly stark in terms of what the determination is. A lot of that was teased out, though reluctantly, from the OPW when we pushed its representatives on it. We should write to the OPW to seek an update. The members may recall that there is a reporting requirement as part of the arbitration agreement. Has the OPW given an updated report? What is in that updated report? The members may also recall that the chairman of the OPW told us in the meeting that it was getting all of its preparatory work together for actually getting it to a tender stage notwithstanding the fact that it did not a parent authority. We are getting towards estimates of budgets next year. How will that impact on the OPW's budget? These are reasonable follow-up questions that the committee should hear from the OPW on and perhaps we should write to it on this basis.

We will ask the clerk to the committee to follow up on those suggestions.

I fully agree with all of that. The other element here is the Department of public expenditure. When it was present at the committee, many of us felt it had a critical role in this. We should also contact it to seek an update from its point of view.

We will ask the clerk to the committee to follow up on the correspondence.

For clarity, has the national children's science centre board won this case? Is it going to be awarded €1.2 million?

No, it is not an award. It is just the recovery of its legal costs for taking the arbitration.

Is it from the OPW?

The OPW will pay-----

The OPW will have to pay the board of the national science museum €1.2 million. Is that correct?

The OPW has the recoup the board's costs to it. That is the figure we are talking about here. It is obviously not the cost of building the museum, which the OPW has been ordered to do in this award.

The board has taken this on itself. It keeps pushing forward with this and now the OPW has to pay it €1.2 million.

It has to put the board in funds to pay its legal bills.

Just reflecting on the meeting, it was clear that very late in the meeting we were given the information that the tender was progressing and being prepared, and that the chairman of the OPW had no option but to proceed with constructing this centre. Does the committee have a role in trying to identify a parent authority? It is obvious that this is a legal obligation on the State, and we have been made aware of that. Do we have an obligation to alert others that this obligation exists? That is something that we might consider with further discussion in private session. In the meantime, we will ask for the full determination. This was agreed in private session. We will ask for the full determination so that the committee has that before us as well. We will also follow up with the items of correspondence that were suggested by members. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Can we also ask for an update on the engagement between the OPW and Department of public expenditure? The OPW chair was quite clear that he had to fulfil his legal obligations and proceed with a tender. What is the purpose of that, if there is no funding stream? The Department of public expenditure is absolutely central to this whole issue.

I support Deputy McGrath's proposal. From memory, the chairman said that he had engagements with the Secretary General of the Department of public expenditure and reform but that there were no minutes, records or notes in relation to any of those engagements. At this stage, there needs to be some documentation in relation to this. If there is not, perhaps we should bring the Secretary General of the Department of public expenditure and reform in with the chairman of the OPW at the appropriate moment to tease these issues out.

Does the committee publish a report based on its findings and then put that report out there? It could then be put to, as Deputy McGrath said, the Department of public expenditure, the OPW and perhaps even the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, or do we have an additional hearing which includes all of those bodies?

Given that the Chair has indicated that he wants to contribute on this, we might defer our final decision on that until the next meeting. That gives us time to seek the additional correspondence that we are going to request. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy McGrath's point about additional Departments is key to this.

To be clear, will it be coming up again next week?

This will be an item of correspondence next week. In advance of that, we might draft the correspondence that has been requested here and we can sign off on that next week.

I would certainly be of the view that we will need a further hearing on this as opposed to a report at this stage. A further hearing is necessary.

That would be my view too. We will wait for our Chairman to come back and we will finalise that decision, but I think there is a consensus there.

No. R2026/0213 is correspondence received from the Minister for Transport, Deputy Darragh O’Brien, in response to the committee’s request for further information regarding the roll-out of electric buses, dated 11 April 2026. Is it agreed to note and publish this item? Agreed.

I want to complain about this. I actually highlighted this issue with the buses at the time. I can say I was actually told an untruth here in this committee. I was told that these buses were not in use and there was no need for them, and that is why no infrastructure was put in place at that time. I believe we had the NTA in at the time. I would like to go back to the NTA and ask it for an apology in relation to that. Its representatives sat there and said to me that there were buses in storage that were not in use, but they were supposed to be in use at the time.

The Deputy will be familiar with her own question. She might reference that particular interaction and highlight it with the clerk. We will then consider writing to the NTA on it.

I questioned it at the time and I was told no buses were sitting idle, but there were buses sitting idle.

The Deputy might correspond with the clerk on that and we will examine it then.

Is the Leas-Chathaoirleach referring to the NTA correspondence there?

No. It is correspondence from the Minister for Transport, Deputy Darragh O'Brien.

We have yet to come to the NTA. Okay.

Darragh O'Brien is right in relation to the buses and that is why I am raising it.

There is a lot more information in the NTA's response on the number of buses, when they were received and so on. It is damning and goes back to 2023.

I do not want to say it is a complete cover-up, but somebody is hiding something.

Is it agreed to note and publish the letter from the Minister for Transport? Agreed.

No. R2026/0214 is the item of correspondence, referenced by Deputy McGrath, received from the chief executive officer of the National Transport Authority, in response to the committee’s request for further information in relation to electric buses and BusConnects in Cork, dated 17 April 2026. The Cathaoirleach has asked to defer final action on this but I will open it for discussion. Does Deputy McGrath wish to-----

I just think the information there is damning. In the Dublin metropolitan area, 56 buses are not commissioned going back as far as 2023. In Limerick and Galway, there are a further 54 buses. It is quite stark information that these buses are received and effectively not in use for that period of time. I know we are deferring action here but I think we need to do further work on this.

Does the Deputy have any proposed actions to be considered at next week's meeting?

The Chair obviously wants input into this but I think we need to bring the NTA in again on this issue, to be perfectly frank.

I agree. I would like to see the NTA back here as well. On top of that, while the buses were in storage were they being charged? How much is that costing the State? There are a lot of issues here that need to be raised that were not raised last time. I was told a mistruth that the buses were not in storage. That is what I have to go back on.

As well as storage costs, I suspect there were maintenance costs as well. If a bus is sitting idle for two years, you cannot just start to use that bus. I presume there are issues there in terms of the functionality of it that would have to be addressed. A lot of questions need to be answered there.

The Deputies raised very valid points. One suggestion we should bring forward for consideration next week is that the NTA should come before us. We will not sign off on a final decision but I think we should agree with that, pending Deputy Bennett's correspondence with the clerk in regard to her suggestion that she was misled. Obviously, the NTA may dispute that but we will examine that as well.

No. R2026/0215 is correspondence received from the chief executive of the Health Insurance Authority, in response to the committee’s request for further information on the risk equalisation scheme and the Health Insurance Authority’s role in its administration, dated 20 April 2026. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0216 is correspondence received from the HSE, in response to the committee’s request for information regarding Autism Initiatives Ireland, dated 21 April 2026. Deputy Bennett and Deputy Farrelly have flagged this item for discussion. The Cathaoirleach has also flagged it for his contribution next week.

Last week I raised a very similar issue. In this instance, an Irish charity transferred €1.5 million in funding to its counterpart in Britain. Last week, I raised the specific issue of sections 38 and 39 organisations and I asked the C and AG about oversight not happening. This is exactly what has happened here. Because there is no oversight and the C and AG does not have a part to play in sections 38 and 39 organisations, they are going right under the radar and are not being audited. I said last week we needed to find a way to ensure that all Government and State-funded bodies were being audited by the C and AG. It is very relevant that this has come before us. I ask how we can engage and hold this correspondence to ensure that sections 38 and 39 organisations are audited? This would not have happened if they were audited under the C and AG. Again, Government funding is being handed away to different entities that are not being audited. It is happening right across the country. Last week there were loads of mentions of county councils and different charitable organisations that are getting funding from the State and it is not being audited. I would like to see that changed but I just do not know how we go about that. Maybe we can ask the C and AG for his advice.

I might bring in Deputy Farrelly.

This is quite sad, actually. I have spoken to families engaging these services. They are genuinely sad about what is evolving in the news cycle about this. The HSE said in its correspondence that it was not notified nor did it approve beforehand or retrospectively any decision taken to take money and transfer it. Part 2 of that correspondence states that in terms of service arrangements, external audits are undertaken annually but that those external audits do not extend to verifying compliance with service arrangements. I suggest that we ask the HSE to consider extending external audits to those service arrangements. That would be an important step we might consider confirming next week.

The HSE needs to come out and confirm that no other entity has been engaging in similar practice. While there has been a review of Autism Initiatives Ireland, the HSE needs to extend that review to all service arrangements it has.

I echo what Deputy Farrelly said. This is a very sad set of circumstances. For a charity, which is ostensibly providing such important services to people with autism, to be dragged through the mud contributes to false narratives about the funding of charities and how those services are being provided when, in many cases, many of these providers are providing absolutely essential services that people depend on. Nonetheless, the issue is exceptionally serious. What really shocked me is that this is an issue that has been out in the ether for a very long time but the HSE is only now acknowledging the seriousness of the matter. A review is only taking place now when this dates back to such a long time ago. At the end of the day, it would be remiss for the committee not to have the HSE before us. I hear what the other Deputy said about this charity not being subject to the Comptroller and Auditor General, but the HSE is. The relevant officers should come before this committee and be answerable for all the issues surrounding what took place here - who knew what and when, and how this happened. It is not satisfactory that the review is only taking place now.

We might break down that discussion a bit. I think Deputy Farrelly has suggested to include two items within an item of correspondence to the HSE.

We might ask the clerk to draft that and have it ready for final consideration next week when the Chair is here. Deputy Geoghegan has suggested a hearing and I do not think he is wrong on that. The questions are when can we fit that into our work programme and whether the Charities Regulator also should be present at such a hearing. We will allow the Deputies to put that again at our meeting next week. It looks like there is some consensus to do that.

Deputy Bennett has asked a specific question to the Comptroller and Auditor General in regards to the auditing of section 38 and section 39 organisations, as well as other charitable organisations. Does Mr. McCarthy want to reply to that?

I will reply briefly. I would draw a distinction between section 38 and section 39 organisations. The section 38 organisations are part of the public service. They deliver services on behalf of the HSE and they are funded accordingly. Obviously, there is a long history around why some of the section 38 organisations are audited by my office and some are not. We can go into that if the committee wishes. As I explained last week, I have audit remit in relation to five of them but there are about 35 more that I do not have an audit remit for.

With the section 39 organisations, there are hundreds if not thousands of section 39 organisations that are delivering ancillary services and are funded by the HSE. At one level, there is a practicality issue with my office auditing so many bodies. What this committee is reliant on for assurance on how money is used is the system of oversight the HSE has. I have drawn attention on a number of occasions to what seems to be slippage there in relation to the effectiveness of their systems. Last week, we heard about delays in the signing of agreements almost until the year of account has passed, or afterwards in some cases. That is a bit unsatisfactory.

It is probably not practical for the HSE to individually audit all of these bodies. It is a requirement that all of them are independently audited by commercial auditors. That provides some assurance to the HSE if that is happening on time and if it is comprehensive enough. There was a suggestion from Deputy Farrelly around getting a broader type of assurance from independent auditors in that circumstance. That will certainly drive up the cost of the auditing work very substantially because for an independent auditor to be in a position to give the level of assurance that was suggested would be a very expensive process. In fact, you might not even get auditors who would be willing to take on that kind of responsibility.

It is not the first time that questions have been asked about the affairs of a charity that is acting as a section 39 funded body. The HSE has quite a well-established and effective internal audit where if questions are asked or there are matters that maybe should be followed up, the internal audit can go into a section 39 funded body specifically to address questions. If there had been questions about Autism Initiatives Ireland, AII, maybe the HSE could explain why it has not used that mechanism to go in and look to satisfy themselves if it has questions around it, if the HSE has been aware of the matter for a number of years. That might be something the committee could ask the HSE to respond to.

There were a number of useful suggestions from the Comptroller and Auditor General that we might include in our draft to the HSE. Is that agreed? Agreed.

On Deputy Bennett's point, I remind members that last week, we agreed to establish a subgroup of the Committee of Public Accounts to examine section 38 organisations, section 39 organisations and local authorities and how we might have some greater role there but also how other jurisdictions examine them. That group will be there and we have asked people to express an interest if they wish to join that subgroup. I remind committee members of that. Is it agreed that we defer this item for final decision until next week? Agreed.

No. R2026/0217 is correspondence received from the chief executive officer of Children's Health Ireland in response to the committee's request for further information regarding CHI's financial statements for 2024, dated 21 April 2026. Deputy Farrelly has flagged this item for discussion.

If CHI was not in today, I would be rattling on for quite a while but I think I would be wasting the committee's time so I will just hold onto this until we have CHI in before us.

No problem. Is it agreed to note and publish that item of correspondence? Agreed.

No. R2026/0218 is correspondence received from the Secretary General of the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment providing clarification regarding a matter that was raised during the Department's recent appearance before the committee, dated 21 April. The Secretary General has stated that he wishes to clarify a point arising from statements made at the meeting by the Secretary General. He states:

In my remarks, I referred to a letter issued by the Department to Inland Fisheries Ireland on 27 April 2025 and to the subsequent resignation of the former Chair, Mr. Fintan Gorman. For context, that context informed the then Chair that the Minister was of the view that the functions of Inland Fisheries Ireland were not being performed effectively and that he intended to appoint a person to undertake an internal review pursuant to section 18(3) of the Inland Fisheries Act 2010

He goes on to state:

I noted at the time that both events predated my tenure as Secretary General of the Department and that I did not necessarily consider them to be linked.

Following my appearance before the Committee, I have received correspondence from the ... Chair confirming these two events were not, in fact, related. I am therefore pleased to provide this clarification to the Committee so as to ensure the record is accurate and to avoid any potential misunderstanding.

He trusts the clarification is of assistance and he remains available to provide further information. Is it agreed to note and publish the correspondence from the Department? Agreed.

Our final item is No. R2026/0219, 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 number of prosecutions under the Animal Welfare Act 2013, dated 21 April 2026. Is it agreed to note and publish this item? Agreed. That concludes the B items for discussion today.

With regard to our work programme, on 7 May, the committee is due to engage with officials from the National Oil Reserves Agency with representatives of the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment to discuss the National Oil Reserves Agency's financial statements for 2024. Are there any other items members wish to raise now under any other business? No. That concludes session 2. We will now suspend the meeting until 10.30 a.m., when we will resume our discussion with Children's Health Ireland.