You are all very welcome to today's meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts. We have received no apologies.

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 also 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 should do so from within the precincts of Leinster House.

The agenda for today is to discuss accounts and statements, correspondence and upcoming meetings. We will then suspend the meeting and engage with officials from the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science at approximately 10.30 a.m.

Four sets of accounts and financial statements laid between the 8 and 12 June 2026 are due to be considered today. We are joined by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, who is a permanent witness to the committee. I ask him to address these before I open the floor to members.

First, we have the financial statements of Home Building Finance Ireland for 2025. They received a clear audit opinion. Second are the financial statements of Home Building Finance Ireland Lending designated activity company, which is a subsidiary of Home Building Finance Ireland. Again, these are for 2025 and received a clear audit opinion.

Third are the accounts of the Hepatitis C and HIV Compensation Tribunal special account for 2025. They received a clear audit opinion. Fourth is a related account, the financial statements of the Hepatitis C and HIV Compensation Tribunals reparation fund for 2025. They received a clear audit opinion.

Do members have comments on any of those?

On Home Building Finance Ireland, the figures for both are exactly the same. Has Mr. McCarthy just repeated the figure or why is it the same amount?

It is the same amount. The subsidiary, for legal reasons, does most of the transactions, so when they are consolidated with the group financial statements, all of the activity is happening in the subsidiary, or through the subsidiary.

What does Home Building Finance Ireland do?

It, basically, is a source of lending to developers who may not be able to raise funds in the market but who are able to satisfy Home Building Finance Ireland. The amount that would be lent would be multiples of the turnover figure there. I have in my mind a figure of the order of €300 million, but I can check and see if I can get a figure for the Deputy on that.

I would be interested in having the organisation before the committee at some stage, just to delve into what actually happens within it.

That is Home Building Finance Ireland.

Yes. Is that possible?

After the summer recess, I would like to do a thematic series of meetings on housing, the financing of housing, etc. That could certainly be one of those engagements. Do any other members wish to comment? No. Do members agree to note the listing of accounts and financial statements? Agreed.

There are a number of B items of correspondence to consider today. These have been received by Departments and public bodies. We will start with the four deferred items from last week's meeting.

No. R2026/0280, dated 26 May 2026, is correspondence received from the chief executive officer of the National Oil Reserves Agency in response to the committee's request for further information following the meeting on 7 May 2026. Do members wish to make a comment on that? No. Is it agreed to note and publish it? Agreed.

No. R2026/0287, dated 2 June 2026, is correspondence received from the chief officer of the National Paediatric Hospital Development Board, NPHDB, in response to the committee's request for further information following the meeting on 30 April 2026. Deputy Farrelly has flagged this item for discussion.

I know this project is proceeding at a snail's pace but elements of it can move quite quickly. Given that this correspondence is dated 2 June, it is probably outdated in terms of its relevance at this point. Can we go back to the board to seek an update specifically regarding the review of the BAM report it is awaiting from the employer representative group in order to ensure compliance? Can we have an update from the board as to what the outcome of that is? There is still no substantial completion date. Could we get an update on that?

Do any other members wish to comment on that? No. I agree with the Deputy. From my perspective, it is concerning that we are six or seven weeks on from that engagement with the NPHDB and there is no new or revised 18th or 19th completion date. That is deeply frustrating, not just for committee members but, more importantly, members of the public. At our meeting with the NPHDB, I asked questions because one of the new issues that had arisen in the hospital was dust in the ventilation system and the potential repercussions of that in terms of further delays. I also had concerns about the impact dust in the ventilation system could have on the medical equipment that had been installed. We know a high percentage of the equipment has been installed in the hospital and I wanted to know about any potential impact the dust would have on the equipment. Also, that equipment has been installed for a lengthy period of time at this stage and I wondered whether the warranty on some of it will have expired before it is even utilised. I also wanted to get a note from Children's Health Ireland, CHI, and the National Paediatric Hospital Development Board on those issues. Is it agreed to note and publish the item and proceed with those proposed actions? Agreed.

No. R2026/0289, dated 29 May 2026, is correspondence received from the HSE in response to the committee's request for further information regarding Rainbow Lodge Respite Services in Monaghan. Do members wish to discuss this item?

I welcome this letter and that the HSE has said Rainbow Lodge Respite Services will remain open until 30 September 2028, when the new respite centre at Ballybay Road, Drumbear, will be open. I am shocked to see it was the Talbot Group that purchased the interim home for residential care. How much was the Talbot Group paid for doing something as part of an interim process, rather than the HSE purchasing the building outright at the start? How much was the Talbot Group paid for the interim service? Can we send a letter back to the HSE?

Is it agreed to note and publish the item and take that proposed course of action? Agreed.

No. R2026/0290, dated 28 May 2026, is correspondence received from the Secretary General of the Department of Finance in response to the committee's request for further information at the meeting on 14 May 2026. Do members wish to discuss this item? No. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0292, dated 3 June 2026, is correspondence received from the deputy director and head of public affairs and communications at the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, in response to the committee's request for further information following the agency's appearance before the committee on 14 May 2026. Deputies Bennett and Geoghegan and I wish to discuss this.

There was €429,000 spent on investigative fees. Could the committee get some more information on this? How many individual investigations does the figure relate to? Did all of the investigations relate to individual cases or to a class of case? That relates to point 1 of the correspondence.

In regard to point 2, I raised the prize bonds savings scheme at our previous meeting. The NTMA said at the time that prize bonds do not remain dormant. I ask that the NTMA provide data on the oldest current and active prize bonds. Are the prize bonds decades old and has there been any engagement with the owners over the decades? Does it seem appropriate to the C and AG that there could be, in effect, a fund of money being held, potentially for years, that nobody has claimed, and that there is money in a pot that will never be claimed? Also, how is that building up?

In relation to point 6, the NTMA provided information about staff attendance at an investment fund conference in Cannes. It indicated that these staff were joined by colleagues from the Departments of housing and finance, and IDA Ireland. Can the committee write to the NTMA requesting information on how much this cost, as well as the value of any subsidiary trips that were provided for private investors?

On point 16, I want to put on record that I find it absolutely disgusting that in 2024, in the midst of Israel's genocide in Gaza, the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, ISIF, actually increased its investment in Israeli war bonds by €1 million.

The Government says that it is a matter exclusively for the ISIF but I just want to say that I think each and every person who has been part of investing in Israel's genocide on behalf of the people of Ireland should be utterly ashamed of themselves. That should not have happened.

On point No. 17, I also noted that Palantir is not one of the companies referenced as it is not listed as present on the UN database of those deriving profits from their activities in the illegally occupied Palestinian territories. It is, however, separately referenced in the UN reports as having profited from genocide, and that has also been discussed in these Houses. I understand that Ireland first invested in Palantir around 2020 to 2021. Will the NTMA outline the number shares purchased and sold and their value in each year, if Ireland has derived any profits from any other mechanisms such as dividends by year, and the number of shares currently held and their value?

In relation to the payouts from the State Claims Agency and the breakdown it gave of the €500 million, we had the NTMA and the State savings agency before us in May, and one of the points made by the director of the State Claims Agency was that if the pre-action protocols, which are regulations that are the responsibility of the Department of justice, were brought into being, they would resoundingly reduce future expenditure of the State in settling clinical claims. Will we put those comments to the Department of justice and write to it in relation to the escalating costs of claims, a huge portion of which relate to legal costs? Will we also inquire from the Department of justice as to where those pre-action protocol regulations are, and when are they likely to be published, so that we can start bringing plaintiffs out of very lengthy, difficult and adversarial processes, and give them the resolutions that plaintiffs are entitled to and, most importantly from the work of this committee, reduce the overall cost to the taxpayer? With the agreement of the committee, I suggest that we write to the Department of justice seeking an update in relation to that.

In relation to the correspondence, can we get the updated list of companies that ISIF has shareholdings in? It is quite concerning that we still have any shares in any companies that are critically important in allowing the illegal expansion of colonial settlements in the West Bank. While the genocide is continuing in Gaza and in the West Bank, we hear further announcements around the expansion of those illegal settlements week in, week out. It is deeply concerning that between 2020 and 2025, we invested in 18 companies that appear on that UN database, which to my mind is certainly not a full picture of the companies that provide those critical services to those colonial expansions of those settlements. The list should and could be more extensive. It is a comprehensive, short list but the fact is that we had €76 million in shares in 18 companies since 2020. The State has divested from a number of those companies, which is welcome, but it is quite concerning that we still have shares of €6.744 million in five companies that are complicit in that colonial expansion of those settlements. It is a breach of international law, and we are complicit in that. I would like to get a full explanation as to why we divested from some but not all of the companies that appear on that UN database. There is legislation that I brought forward, and I am going plug it here, that would mandate the ISIF and the NTMA to divest from all shareholdings in any companies that have made the Irish taxpayer complicit in genocide. That ultimately needs to progress to force the State to divest its shareholdings. We need a note from them as to why they only divested from some and continue to have shares worth nearly €7 million in five companies, which is deeply concerning.

Unless any other members have any other comments, is it agreed to note-----

For clarity, can we agree to write that letter as indicated by Deputy Geoghegan?

Is that agreed? Agreed. Is it also agreed to note and publish the item, along with the agreed course of action? Agreed.

I asked the C and AG a question in relation to the bonds.

The prize bonds continue to enforce in perpetuity until they are redeemed. People can get back the face value of the bond. I have one prize bond. It is definitely decades old. I have never heard anything from the prize bond company, so I can personally say that there is no communication on a regular basis. However, it does maintain details of addresses and so on, and when a ticket wins, there is communication with the prize bond holder. In a small number of cases, there might be prizes that have not been issued but I do not have details in relation to that. If the committee is minded, it might follow up with the NTMA as to what is the value of any prizes that remain unclaimed. They do not come under the normal dormant accounts legislation, so the value is not swept up into the Dormant Accounts Fund.

That money is just sitting there. Nobody is doing anything with it. It is sitting there, and nobody gets to reclaim it-----

It is effectively a form of borrowing, so the value of it is sitting there and it is available for an individual to reclaim but the money is part of the national debt, and therefore I do not think it is quite correct to describe as just sitting there. The value will always be there for the bond holder but the money has actually been used by the Exchequer.

It was used by the Exchequer but the Exchequer is not passing on any of the profits in interest that are sitting in that account to the bond owner.

The way it is modelled and structured is that the interest value is converted into the prizes. That is what pays for the prizes.

I thank Deputy Bennett. It might be helpful to get some clarity on that process as to how it contacts the winners if someone wins a prize because like the Auditor and Comptroller General, I am sure that people have prize bonds going back many years, and they have probably moved address multiple times. I do not think they are linked to PPS number or anything like that. The company might outline the process of how it identifies where a person is living and how the contact is made. I do not think it is as straightforward as going to the register of electors or anything like that because it is not linked to PPS numbers or whatever. There is a lot of ambiguity there, so a little bit of clarity on that might be helpful. Is it agreed to publish and note the item with the agreed course of actions on that? Agreed.

Moving onto No. R2026/0293, which is correspondence received from the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Youth, providing follow up information in relation to the Department's appearance before the committee on 26 February 2026, dated 4 June 2026. Deputy Kenny and I have flagged this for discussion.

I am raising concern in relation to the fact that €1.3 billion has been spent since 2020 on modular accommodation, which are ultimately prefabs. I hate using the term "modular accommodation" because I do not know why we moved away from using the word "prefab". In the renting of accommodation and land, as well as the purchasing of modular accommodation, the fact that we have spent €1.3 billion in five years is a significant investment in modular accommodation and in what I think is inefficient accommodation for students to be learning in and teachers to be teaching in.

I was in modular accommodation when I was a student, and it is an inefficient way of learning. I taught in modular accommodation, and it is an inefficient way of teaching. It is not an environment which any teacher or student wants to be in. The way the Department is phrasing this is that it is an efficient way of providing accommodation to schools, particularly in emergency situations. It has to be accepted that in emergency situations prefabs may be needed, and that is fine. The route we are going down here now is that we are quickly moving away from bricks and mortar. We are going down the route of providing long-term modular accommodation to schools.

If we were to speak to any school that has been given modular accommodation - I am sure all of us in this committee room will have viewed and visited modular accommodation in our constituencies - we would clearly see that modular accommodation is not a long-term solution to the problems being faced by schools in terms of the level of demand for classrooms. In some cases, we have children with specific learning difficulties and special needs who are learning in these environments. It is an inappropriate and ineffective way of trying to almost house students in their school communities.

I have significant concerns relating to the fact that it costs over €367,000 for each small primary school classroom, excluding VAT. I have concerns about the value for money there. I have concerns too in relation to the procurement process. I am not sure whether the Comptroller and Auditor General may have something to say on this issue. Are we using the same company every time that we purchase or rent one of these prefabs? Are they coming from Ireland or are they being shipped from elsewhere? Are the shipping costs included in this total of €1.3 billion spent since 2020?

If we spoke to any school principal, I do not think they would choose prefabs over bricks and mortar. My fear is that, in the long term, the Department is quickly moving towards providing prefabs to schools as opposed to providing long-term solutions. They are a blight on communities across this country and on school communities. It is an ineffective way for students to be learning, and it is unfair on students and parents. It is particularly unfair for teachers, former colleagues of mine, to be almost put into sheds to teach in. I do not agree with it.

This committee has to investigate whether these prefabs offer value for money. Schools are being given prefab after prefab to try to provide accommodation for their students, but we do not know if schools receiving a significant number of prefabs, including replacement prefabs, are getting brand-new prefabs or second-hand prefabs. I have concerns in relation to procurement and the overall cost of small primary school classrooms. There is a reference in the letter to 82 sq. m. The Department has come back, as was said previously, in relation to the efficiency of these prefabs, but I have concerns regarding their efficiency. Specifically regarding the remit of this committee, I have concerns about the value-for-money aspect of these prefabs.

I support what Deputy Kenny has said. The evidence shows us now that the Department is deploying a short-term fix to a long-term problem. This approach is fiscally irresponsible. We have seen many examples in County Kildare, like St. Patrick’s national school, for example, where the lifespan of these prefabs simply fails the children and the teaching community in those schools. The prefabs were meant to have been there for five to ten years, but 25 years later, they are still there and the walls are crumbling around you. The problem is that another short-term fix will be to replace older prefabs with newer prefabs, without, as we heard, bricks and mortar being put in place.

From the perspective of the public accounts, serious questions must be asked of this approach. It is not going to work. We are going to see it used continuously. The State is not building these units. It is either buying or leasing them. We cannot stand over this from a value-for-money perspective. For that reason alone, I think more information is required. As was said, the Comptroller and Auditor General might comment on whether this matter warrants a chapter in and of itself in respect of considering the approach from a procurement perspective.

I agree with my colleagues. We have seen examples, and not only in respect of the temporary accommodation. We have two things going on here. There are additional modular units at permanent schools. Obviously, they have to be replaced. We also have greenfield or brownfield sites, where new schools are to be put in. Locations are rented, and these become temporary accommodation. This temporary accommodation can go from five years to six years. As Deputy Farrelly said about St. Patrick’s national school, there was a five-year plan to run from 2008 to 2013, allegedly, but here we are now in 2026, and the same place is crumbling. Notwithstanding the work going on now, this speaks to the short-term focus of what we are delivering.

I think it is important that we do look specifically at what returns we are getting, the costs and the length of term. Ultimately, it is a loss to the State if we have to go and replace these locations so soon. I do not mind focusing specifically on this matter. I think it might be due a specific piece of work.

I thank the previous speakers for raising this issue. I think we have to be a little careful in terms of the language we use. We should be focusing on the words "temporary" and "permanent", rather than on "modular" and "prefab", for all the reasons that Deputy Kenny suggested. In housing, we are using modular building now and modern methods of construction, MMC. They are a very efficient and effective way of delivering permanent buildings. This is different from what Deputies Kenny, Farrelly and Neville have spoken about, which is the provision of temporary buildings in locations. I think we should be trying to stick to that language.

I have a particular concern regarding the provision of special education accommodation. A huge attempt has been made to try to meet the unmet need of children, in particular, who require an autism spectrum disorder, ASD, class. As we know from this committee, when there is that type of emergency response, often issues around procurement and value-for-money can be set aside. There may be valid reasons for that, but from the perspective of the Comptroller and Auditor General, I have seen some significant amounts of money paid for very modest accommodation. We should be examining that matter. Whatever issues Deputy Kenny and the other Deputies have raised, I ask that we also include the special education provision, especially during the last two years when huge numbers of facilities have been rolled out. Some of that has been done through temporary accommodation measures.

I reiterate what everybody has said. I believe it is a complete waste of taxpayers' money. A total of €20 million was spent on modular accommodation in 2020. It was €19.7 million in 2021; €28.2 million in 2022; €29.6 million in 2023; €30.5 million in 2024; and €25.1 million in 2025. Those are all millions of euro spent renting modular buildings. It is a complete waste of taxpayers' money. That money could have been invested in building good, structurally sound buildings, instead of wasting it on modular buildings that are going to disintegrate. These buildings are also only being rented, which is a shocking waste of taxpayers' money. It is completely shocking. In my constituency, a special needs school has been requested for years. The Government has now said it is going to put additional classrooms in modular buildings, which is not what was promised at all. A new school was promised and not modular buildings. I reiterate that it is a complete waste of taxpayers' money. A vast amount of money has been wasted since 2020, and it is on rentals as well.

I concur with the comments from all the members. I am very concerned that €1.3 billion has been spent over the last five years by a Department that we know has had an overrun in its budget. This has had implications for other Departments right across the board because levies are being imposed. We then see this €1.3 billion being spent on this type of accommodation. What led to this, ultimately, in my view, was a failure to plan for the future. This has led to having to rent buildings, land and these modular prefabricated structures.

What is captured is only a small picture because the Department admits it does not have a full picture of what the school buildings look like right across the State. It is carrying out an audit of that to give a full picture. I cited in our engagement with the Department a school in Wicklow that has prefabs going back 40 years which are in a dire condition. That school is in the school build programme and under the revised sectoral national development plan a number of schools that were in a lengthy, cumbersome process have been deprioritised. Schools that are caught at the 2B stage have not been given priority. Many of those will be captured within these costs. Some, like the school I referenced, are not captured because they are using a prefab going back 40 years, which is well past its sell-by date. We need to get a copy of that full audit once it is completed. The Department also says it is carrying out a review on the examination of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the current prefabricated accommodation rental agreements. We need to get sight of that once that is completed. It cites quarter 4 of this year for completion of that. Once we see that review, it is an area we must come back to because this does not represent value for money. Communities, teachers and, more importantly, students are being let down. From a personal perspective, one of my children started primary school in a prefab and went on to secondary school in a prefab. She went on to be a teacher and was educated in a prefab in teacher training college and only ended up in a new school once she became a primary school teacher. That is a failure. An awful lot of people, communities and children have been failed and the value for money is not there.

Is it agreed we will write back?

Has the Comptroller and Auditor General ever raised concerns about the procurement process for rented accommodation? As Deputy McAuliffe said, sometimes it is emergency accommodation when a school burns down, for example, and something has to be rented or purchased immediately. Has the Comptroller and Auditor General ever raised concerns about the procurement process itself?

Not that I can recall. We would have looked at procurements of that nature over the years and if there was anything significant, I would have called it out and drawn it to the attention of the committee. Deputy McAuliffe's point is especially valid. Separating the emergency response or temporary response, if you like, and providing prefabricated accommodation may be with the intention of it lasting for a short time is possibly a different issue to the development of whole schools or extensions using modular, because modular is obviously a new technology. I would expect the Department, in choosing to use modular accommodation, which is intended to be in place on a permanent basis, to be able to demonstrate it is value for money and properly procured. When we looked at modular accommodation for Ukrainian refugees, it was evident there were many suppliers of modular accommodation and that they were supplying good accommodation as well, so I would not jump to a conclusion that modular is necessarily substandard. We would, over the years, have considered the figures for rent of prefabricated buildings and kept that in view but in total the figure for 2025 is showing there is €37 million. That is in the context of an overall budget of €10 billion, so we have not picked it out as something to investigate but certainly we will consider it when we are looking at the programme of work we do.

On the purchasing of the accommodation, it is in one sense difficult to understand. Let us say a school building burns down and we purchase modular accommodation with the intent, maybe, of building a brand new school with bricks and mortar. What happens with that modular accommodation after it has been purchased? We have no idea if the Department is getting rid of that modular accommodation or providing it to a different school. Is it being stored? Is the Department buying that modular accommodation with a view to it being the permanent fix to an emergency situation at the time? The word "temporary" is also very vague. To me anyway temporary suggests a very short period but to the Department it seems like 25 years.

We can get clarify from the Department on those issues.

To give my understanding of it, there is a significant bulge moving through the school population and so if it was the situation that you were looking at needing accommodation to deal with a bulge for maybe three or four years in a particular location you might decide to use temporary accommodation. That is using prefabricated, which is modular, but I do not think that is what the Department is talking about when it talks of using modular technology to deliver permanent accommodation for schools. It will be fixed in place. That is my understanding of it. On the prefabricated accommodation, I think when we were looking at Kildare and Wicklow ETB there was a situation where prefabricated accommodation was located on one campus for a period, and there was obviously expense in plumbing it in, providing electricity onsite and so on. Then it was moved to another campus where there was a need for temporary accommodation, let us say while a school was growing or permanent accommodation was being provided. Thus there is certainly capacity to move prefabricated temporary accommodation from one site to another and to use it. However, I understand most of that is on a rental basis, so the company that owns the property would be involved in the movement.

I seek clarity on that. We are talking about rental going on for ever and the schools never owning these buildings. This is rental of these modular units.

Rental should go on for the period that you are contracted, so------

But that means forever, whereas if you owned the school building you would own it forever.

For the period that it is contracted for.

Yes. That is a value-for-money proposition as well. I imagine a prefabricated building has a shorter life and you would be expecting it to be in use for perhaps ten or 15 years. I am not sure how long exactly. Looking at the economics of that, the Department should be able to explain over what period it makes sense to rent prefabricated accommodation and at what point it makes more sense to buy it. If you are likely to be using it for maybe eight years then you should buy it.

There is a significant difference in the cost of renting it. I think about €222 million has been spent on renting land and modular accommodation since 2025. Would that be correct?

No. If the Deputy looks at the screen at the moment it says rental of land and buildings. That is for the provision of temporary accommodation. That could be that you rent maybe a car park of a sports club to put accommodation in place.

I meant the renting of buildings and land. Rental of land and rental of modular.

For the total with renting of modular - the actual accommodation - we are looking at €37 million in 2025.

Yes, in 2025 but in 2020 it was €29.3 million and in 2021 €29.2 million.

Yes.

So it is about €220 million since 2020.

Probably. If you tot it up, it would be coming to that.

I suppose it is in and around €1 billion in relation to the purchasing of accommodation. I would say the Department is looking at modular accommodation as a long-term solution to providing accommodation. Perhaps we are moving towards that, particularly in relation to housing as well. I am wondering about the viability of modular accommodation, for students to be learning in and teachers to be teaching in. What is the value-for-money aspect of that?

The Department should be able to demonstrate that. I have no difficulty in considering doing a piece looking at that but the Department has the obligation because it is spending the money.

Exactly.

They have got to satisfy themselves and they should be able to present-----

Try to satisfy themselves.

-----to this committee an analysis that demonstrates that this type of methodology is a better way to provide permanent accommodation, where we choose to go the modular route as opposed to the traditional brick-build, block-build or whatever.

Deputy Farrelly is looking to come in. The Department cites that it is carrying out a review, which should be completed by quarter 4, looking at those issues around efficiency, effectiveness and economy. It is an issue we will certainly return to. We will follow up with the Department and get clarity on all of those points.

To pick up on the Comptroller and Auditor General's point, this issue is making project managers out of principals, who should be focused on running internal school matters but are ringing round each other asking, "Are you finished with that modular unit? Can we get it transferred to our premises?", and having to look at the logistics of that and the costs associated with it. Where that review will be criticised, in my opinion and without prejudging it, is that when a school is languishing at stage 2a of a capital building programme for ten or 12 years, obviously it will be more cost-effective to have the modular units for five to eight years because at least they have these units. That review needs to look at the whole piece in the round, as in the length of time it says. The Department says the average duration of a school build is eight to ten years but that is simply inaccurate in many cases. What we are doing is drawing on our internal HR resources in schools and asking principals or senior members of staff to become and play a completely different role than they are qualified to do. It is not right. That is why the greater emphasis we as a committee can bring to this would be beneficial.

I call Deputy McAuliffe. We need to move on then.

If we are to write to the Department, I reiterate the point about the words that we use. Even in this conversation, we are all using the words interchangeably and they all mean different things. In some cases, it means a unit that is manufactured off site, installed as a permanent building on the site and purchased by the State. That is a very different thing than renting temporary so-called "prefab" accommodation. We are using the word "prefab" for both of them but they have a totally different impact on the State's costs. We need to be careful in the room here about what we are asking the Department because as the committee will be aware, sometimes we get answers back that are a little vague. We need to be specific in what we are asking, and also specific in where our concerns are because some people in the room will have concerns around rental and some people, as Deputy Farrelly said, will have concerns about value for money for permanent construction.

Is it agreed to note this, publish it and follow up on the course of action that members suggested? Agreed.

No. R2026-0301 is correspondence received from the chairperson of the Office of Public Works, responding to the committee’s request for further information regarding the national children’s science centre, dated 9 June 2026. Both Deputy Farrelly and I have flagged this for discussion.

What we see now is more detail as to the legal costs incurred by the State in trying to defend the indefensible, where we have €1.1 million plus. Now we have the information from the Chief State Solicitor's office of €377,000. Everyone is having to go and try to defend a decision that was made that is legal. From the science centre's perspective, this is a catastrophic failure, in terms of an experiment here. This is really not the way to go.

My concern is we are getting consistent correspondence, when we all know the elephant in the room is that there is no parent Department to drive this project. We will see consistently, over the next coming months and years while this deadline approaches, that more money will be spent on trying to litigate and defend the indefensible. At some point, this committee needs to press pause. What I would advocate for is that we issue correspondence to the Department of the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the OPW and the Department of public expenditure and reform saying this is a crisis at this point. A parent Department must be found in order to deliver this project or else we will not learn anything from this. We will only continue to waste public money in areas that will not make any child's experience of this centre any better. We are where we are. The next steps are critically important now.

This is an issue that has bounced around in here for the past year. I am sure it bounced around before this group were here as well in PAC. Last week gave me less comfort about the whole thing than I had, not that I ever had any comfort in what has gone on. The decision is made and nobody can follow through on the decision.

Strangely, last week in the room we had the two key stakeholders who could have given us any clarity and answer. We had the Secretary General of the Department of public expenditure and reform who gave us nothing on it and then we had an official from the OPW who did not want to talk about it in front of the Secretary General of the Department of public expenditure and reform, so we were none the wiser. That was shocking, but I am not shocked at the same time because it summed up the whole thing. Everybody is putting their head in the sand. Nobody wants to make a comment. Nobody wants ownership, yet the bills keep ticking. Essentially, somebody has the State over a barrel to a degree because of a legal document being signed. We are sitting here waiting for the fallout but the costs continue. I do not know where it will end.

If you were to ask me when I got elected what would be the number one issue on the doors we would try and resolve at the public accounts committee, I am not sure the children's science museum would be the one that any of us here would have picked, but all of us have identified something here that is clearly wrong. I was flabbergasted last week that we had the OPW and the Department of public expenditure and reform here in the room and there was not even any indication of where strategically the State will proceed on this.

I have a question for the Comptroller and Auditor General. There appears to be an obligation on the OPW, which has a separate Vote from that of the Department of public expenditure and reform to the Dáil. Perhaps I was wrong in thinking that because the parent Department of the OPW is the Department of public expenditure and reform, there would be in some sense a shared responsibility for that legal obligation but because there are two separate Votes, the indication was given here that it is a commitment the OPW entered into legally and it is for the OPW to resolve it. That is perplexing. It would mean that any State Department could enter into any legal commitment without having the financial back-up and then every other Department, and the Department of public expenditure and reform in particular, can back away from it. I wonder could the Comptroller and Auditor General help us untangle that issue of the two Votes but essentially the one Department. I am sorry for putting the Comptroller and Auditor General on the spot now.

No, it is okay. This does raise fundamental questions. How can a body enter into a legal commitment without having the sanction of the Department of public expenditure and reform? The Secretary General of the Department of public expenditure and reform spoke about this last week. What is the point of sanction and does it have no legal effect, if somebody can actually sign a commitment? That is actually what happened here and the people who made that commitment were in the OPW. If they have got a problem, they made it themselves.

I tend to look at these things as much from an economic point of view. The reason that none of the obvious candidate Departments want to touch this is they have a limited amount of capital to spend in the next three to four years.

For the Department of education to pick three schools that are not going to be built so that this museum can be built is a big ask. That is what people are talking about when they are sitting around trying to decide who will fund it. The OPW has to fund it if nobody else is willing to pay for it. Looking at it from an economic incentives point of view, if the Department of further and higher education, for example, felt that this museum could actually be an interesting thing and it would not have to pay for it because the OPW had to, it would throw up huge questions about how control operated in the expenditure system. The committee has an opportunity to comment on that. It goes to the crux of everything.

I have frequently drawn attention to situations where spending has happened without the sanction of the Department of Finance. The body will have found the money and paid it, but the sanction was not there. What does it mean? What is the comeback? The comeback in this situation for the Vote holder sees the Accounting Officer in the OPW with a problem. He has to deliver something on the one hand and, on the other, he has to find the money, or somebody who is willing to give him the money, to do it. The problem is remaining with the OPW.

That is really useful. The alarming thing is that, since February when the OPW was with us, it has spent another €20,000 preparing documents for a building that no Department wants to build. This committee needs to press a button and say "Stop". We need to communicate to the OPW following the meeting last week that it needs to present a solution for this issue. We cannot have a situation where we get to the end of this year and have spent €30,000, €40,000 or €50,000 on technical documents for a building that we are never going to build.

We are all really frustrated about this. I have huge concerns - we saw it here last week - about accountability. There are no consequences. The OPW clearly made at least two very bad decisions, but it is taxpayer who is picking up the bill. Whatever about the refurbishment of the building, the long-term operating cost of something like this is huge. I have more than three schools in my constituency that are 20 years in the process of getting new school buildings and upgrades. No matter the merits of the legal argument, I have a serious issue with people who are well off and, on the face of it, being philanthropic pushing the State on this. If they really want to be philanthropic and advance the needs of science in this country, there are many other organisations that they could be investing in. I have a serious issue with the State being compelled. I accept that the OPW has made several wrong decisions and I have a serious problem with the Secretary General of the Department of public expenditure washing his hands of it, but we need to resolve this. It is not just about the building, but also the long-term operation and whether it would really be of any value to the State when we have a whole school building estate that is badly in need of upgrade and the delivery of new buildings.

Deputy McAuliffe used the word "Stop". By the end of this Dáil in November 2029, we could still be in a position where that legal obligation has not been met. As a committee, we have identified this as a significant issue in the middle of 2026. Does it fall under our remit as committee to be able to say to the Department of public expenditure that if it is not committing to it or it cannot commit to it, taxpayers' money is at stake over the next three years? Can we tell the Department to stop spending that money now and put a resolution in place, be that to completely stop and pull out of the agreement and, therefore, perhaps pay the legal costs if necessary or to fully commit to delivering the project and find the money somewhere? My fear is that, in three years’ time, we will still be going through process. A significant amount of money has been spent over the past three years. Deputy McAuliffe mentioned that €20,000 had been spent this year alone. Do we as a committee have to look back and say that we had a chance in the middle of 2026, following significant questioning of the Departments and Irish Children's Museum Limited, ICML, and we did not stop it from happening? What remit do we have here? Do we have a possibility of providing an opportunity to the Department of public expenditure or the OPW to say that we recommend it do this?

I wish to make a few proposals and comments. I echo the concerns here. It is like Groundhog Day. We know what needs to happen. I have said it repeatedly. There needs to be a political intervention. There is a legal obligation that has been established now through arbitration hearings, with significant costs. We do not have full sight of the final legal costs from the ICML's perspective. Those still have to be furnished. A total of €1.1 million has been spent on legal expenditure to date. That is going to increase substantially because over €800,000 of that €1.1 million has gone to cover the legal costs of ICML. I would not be surprised if those legal costs hit €2 million, which would be an absolute waste of money. On top of that, the contract has been signed with the technical consultants, with €22,000 for designing a scheme to bring it to tender, which is ultimately going nowhere.

There are many concerns here. It may have been an off-the-cuff remark, but when Mr. Conlon was in, he said that if the OPW was forced to do this, it would have to look at flood protection schemes not progressing. The C and AG cited schools possibly going unfunded or not going ahead. That is the prospect that the OPW is looking at because of the political intransigence that is occurring around this. The OPW has a team of people working on this as well. They should and could be working on flood protection schemes and other necessary programmes. We do not have sight of those costs. There are so many failures on so many different levels.

I will repeat another deep concern. Other members and I have repeatedly asked for the final determination document. We still do not have sight of it. It is going to be critical because it will go into more detail in terms of the cost, timelines, etc. The final award can only be adjudicated on in tandem with that. It is unbelievable and totally unacceptable that we still do not have that despite a full engagement with plenty of notice given to both the Department of public expenditure and the OPW in our engagement last week. We should have had that well in advance of last week. Here we are a week later and we still have not got sight of it. We need to get that immediately.

We need to try to bring this to a head in whatever way we can as the public accounts committee from a financial point of view and in terms of a further wastage of money. Ultimately, we will draft a report on this with a series of recommendations. We should look at drafting an interim report quickly, one with a strong recommendation, with a view of bringing that interim report before the members as quickly as possible to put that pressure on. The longer this head-in-the-sand approach takes, the more exposure there is to wastage for taxpayers' money for a process that, ultimately, is going to end up in litigation again unless political intervention is taken.

I propose that we write back and ask for immediate access to the final determination document. I also propose that we work on an interim report with a series of recommendations, with a view to having that agreed and published before we break for the summer recess.

I agree with that.

I went up to the National Concert Hall site to see the venue. UCD left that building between 2007 and 2009. When one walks the corridors of one wing of the National Concert Hall building, there are still posters on the wall from when UCD left that building. There are corridors with books in classrooms.

Even if nothing ever happens with the national children's science museum, there is still an entire wing of the National Concert Hall that is not subject to the renovations, as far as I am aware, and is lying idle under the auspices of the OPW. Even if it does nothing with the children's science museum or if it comes up with an alternative strategy or whatever, the idea of such a large part of a national building right in the middle of the city has been lying idle for nearly two decades while we perhaps may have been renting Government premises elsewhere and other things, is one element of it. Even outside of the children's science museum, this is a portion of a very important building - literally where the Dáil sat - that has been lying idle for a long time and the OPW seems to have no plan for it.

I made an observation on this when we were examining the chapter. I feel part of the reason the OPW got into this was it had a building and was looking for a purpose for it. In fairness, it wants to develop a landmark building and facility there and there is an element of the OPW also pushing the project to solve the problem the Deputy is talking about.

On the other hand, having left the building empty for 20 years - or whatever the period was - it does not mean no other purpose could have been found for it. As that building could be in use, there is a cost associated with some facility that could have gone in there and have been using it for the past ten or 15 years. That opportunity cost has been incurred.

I would also mention just one economic concept, which is sunk cost. What you have already spent does not matter; you have got to look at what you have to spend in the future to use that facility and to meet your obligations.

We need to move on. I call Deputy Farrelly.

I support the Chair's two actions, and I would go back to the point he raised regarding political intervention. I come back around to the idea that this needs to be at the Department of the Taoiseach and at the Tánaiste's desk quite soon to ask for that intervention in order to bring everybody involved into a room they do not exit until there is a plan. The State has been told it must fulfil on this obligation, so it now needs to act on that.

Notwithstanding everything else that happens, I ask that we request a meeting be convened between the stakeholders, chaired by whoever that is, to progress an action out of this. We can do that chapter, which I absolutely support, and we can write to the OPW. However, the OPW made it clear that it will do this if it has the money to do so in its defence, there is no hesitation on this. It does not have the money and will not get it, yet it will be tarnished with the reputational damage associated with it not fulfilling its legal obligation. That is not okay. We need to have a grown-up conversation now.

Somebody, whether that is the Department of the Taoiseach or the Tánaiste, as Minister for Finance, needs to get involved in this now.

If it is agreed by members, we can write to the Department of the Taoiseach with the ask that people get together in a room to try to bring closure to this. In tandem, we will work on an interim report with a series of recommendations. Is that agreed? Agreed. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

Regarding the next couple of items, I propose to defer Nos. R2026/0306 and R2026/0307, as well as the last item, No. R2026/0319. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Moving onto the work programme, the following meetings have been agreed: on 25 June, we have the board of Beaumont Hospital; on 2 July, we have NAMA; on 9 July, we have RTÉ; and on 16 July, we have the NTA, along with Irish Rail.

Moving onto any other business, are there any other issues or items members wish to raise at this stage?

I might come back to Deputy Bennett on the question she asked regarding Home Building Finance Ireland. The amount of loans out to developers at the end of 2024 was €397 million, which was up from €291 million at the end of 2023. That gives an idea of the scale of the operation of Home Building Finance Ireland.

Are there any other items under any other business? No.

I have one quick item. Members will have seen some of the commentary around the allegations of public consultants in hospitals getting gifts for delivering babies, which were coming from private consultants. At first, it was mainly in reference to the Rotunda Hospital but I think it is more extensive than that, or it appears to be so. I propose we write to the HSE. It is an issue of serious concern, particularly with consultant contracts, which have been widely discussed. We might get a note from the HSE on that. Is that agreed? Agreed.

That concludes session 2. We will now suspend for five minutes.