Everyone is welcome to the meeting. We have received no apologies.

Before we proceed, I have a few housekeeping matters to go through. Members are reminded of the provisions within Standing Order 226 whereby 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 them 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 or within the precincts of Leinster House.

The agenda is to first discuss the minutes, accounts, statements, correspondence and upcoming meetings. The committee will then suspend before beginning the engagement with officials from RTÉ. The minutes of the meetings of 25 June and 2 July were agreed by the committee and these will be published on the committee's web page.

Seven sets of accounts and financial statements, laid between the 29 June and 3 July 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 now address these before I open the floor to Members.

First, we have the financial statements of the National College of Art and Design for 2024-25. They received a clear audit opinion.

Second are the accounts of the Ireland-United States Commission for Educational Exchange, better known as the Fulbright scholarship scheme, for 2024. They received a clear audit opinion.

Third, the financial statements of the external oversight body of the Defence Forces for 2025 received a clear audit opinion.

Fourth, the financial statements of the Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority for 2025 received a clear audit opinion.

Fifth, the financial statements of the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board for 2025 received a clear audit opinion.

Sixth, the financial statements of the Corporate Enforcement Authority for 2025 received a clear audit opinion.

Seventh, the financial statements of Uisce Éireann for 2025 received a clear audit opinion. However, in that case I drew attention to a disclosure that the Commission for Regulation of Utilities has proposed a €31 million penalty in the form of a future revenue adjustment. The commission considers that in the period 2020 to 2024, Uisce Éireann underperformed in achieving key targets for water leakage reduction and the collection of non-domestic revenue.

I thank Mr. McCarthy. A number of members are indicating. I call Deputy Farrelly first.

In truth, I am left scratching my head a little bit on this because Uisce Éireann confirmed to the committee that 93.5% of its staff received their full performance-related award, PRA, for the year 2024 because they had reached performance targets, yet the CRU has said the agency missed many of the targets for the period 2024. That is notwithstanding the unique position the body is in, in terms of trying to attract a workforce, who are doing phenomenal work on the ground. How can an agency be fined for underperformance to the tune of €31 million, as highlighted here, and pay out close to €18 million in 2025 in pay-related bonuses? I am struggling to solve that equation in my head. Is there a precedent for this from the C and AG's perspective? We have this culture of paying significant sums of money, only to find out that they are not reaching their targets or performing to the extent that was set out. How can both things happen in parallel?

To be quite honest, I do not know. The performance-related bonuses are quite an unusual situation among the bodies that I audit. There are very few that have schemes of that nature. It reflects the history of the development of Uisce Éireann. There are good questions to be answered there.

I should say that Uisce Éireann has strongly defended its position in relation to this revenue adjustment. It is challenging the methodology for the calculation of the targets. It has outlined elements outside of Uisce Éireann's control that have not been considered as mitigating factors, specifically the Covid pandemic and demand growth driven by population increases. There are obviously two sides to the question of whether the revenue adjustment is appropriate. Uisce Éireann will have an opportunity to explain those matters when it comes before the committee.

I just want to echo what has already been said. When we had Irish Water before this committee, we were told that 93% of its staff get bonuses. I asked what they got the bonuses for. I have been looking back over the transcript of the meeting. The answers were hard won, but what Irish Water basically outlined at the time is that they were for clean water, fewer boil water notices and spending money on major capital projects. The CEO went on to say that, additionally, the person has individual targets relating to his or her job. How can it be justified that every member of staff gets a bonus and then the regulator for Irish Water imposes a €31 million penalty for not meeting the water leakage reduction targets and not collecting commercial revenue from people who have to pay water charges? It is just crazy. It makes absolutely no sense. Early in the new term after the Dáil returns, we should have Irish Water back before the public accounts committee to account for these issues.

That has been agreed by the committee already. Irish Water is on the list to come in very soon after the summer recess.

Similar to everyone else, I recall I specifically asked Irish Water about the performance-related pay scheme. I am pretty sure I highlighted, in particular, the leakage of water from pipes, etc. If I am honest, the response was a little bit "nothing to see here" and that the staff were all meeting their targets. It would be good if we wrote to Irish Water and asked it to set out the details of the scheme, because the huge penalty just does not add up with the level of performance-related pay.

Has Irish Water assessed whether the performance-related scheme is appropriate in its current climate because maybe it is too easy to satisfy the terms of the performance-related scheme?

I have a question for the Comptroller and Auditor General. Some €31 million has obviously been paid. Is that in the 2025 accounts?

No, it is going to affect its future revenue.

So the 2026 accounts.

Yes, and subsequent years.

Where does that money go?

It is basically revenue that it cannot collect. It will not be allowed to.

From whom?

I do not have the detail of it. I think Irish Water would be better placed to explain how this is likely to expect its cashflow in the future.

It is a very strange accounting and financial concept, that it will not be able to collect-----

It is not a fine. It is a revenue reduction.

It is not a fine. It is a revenue reduction next year, which means it will not be collecting revenue from someone.

Exactly, so it will have to tighten up on the expenditure side to compensate for the lower revenue that it is allowed to collect.

The CRU has increased prices for next year for Uisce Éireann commercial customers. That leaves it all a little bit colder, if it realises that there are leakages, yet the Commission for Regulation of Utilities is actually putting up the prices. On the one hand, it is saying that Uisce Éireann is not doing its job and yet on the other hand, it is saying that it needs more money to do its job, so it does not really make sense. I am disappointed with the CRU's increase in prices almost awarding Uisce Éireann for its inefficiencies, yet one of the key issues that I raised here with Uisce Éireann was that it was not even aware of people who were using its product, no more than people in a house are aware of a person taking their water. It has almost no knowledge of where its water goes and it has leakages too. The CRU has a role to play in this too.

Absolutely. I audit the CRU.

Can we get it in too?

Obviously. The committee can call the CRU. It could be that whatever mechanism the CRU is using to adjust prices for the future disallowed further increases that might have been applied.

That is really important to know, because if people are looking on from a commercial perspective, is this something that may be a reduction in their bill, or is that already included in the future pricing that has been set out?

I cannot-----

I know Mr. McCarthy does not know and almost cannot know but I think we need to know that.

There is the point to make about the performance-related bonus scheme. If the sum of the individual performance targets does not align with the organisation's targets, then, inevitably, there will be underperformance by the organisation but everybody meeting their individual targets, so it may be a question of whether the personal targets were sufficient challenging.

I refer to the correspondence I sent to the committee about the chief executive's pay. There are two parts of the discussion. When Irish Water comes before us, it says that its system of bonuses is a cheaper alternative to the public service increment system. In the public service, people receive increments each year because they have been in that post for a longer period of time, and there is no connection with any performance, delivery of targets, or any of that. It is based on increments and length of service. Uisce Éireann suggests that its bonus system, which is a horrendous word, is a less expensive version of the public service increments system. If that is true, we need to see not just its rationale for that but a detailed breakdown of its argument, in comparison with the current information, because that might have been the outline in 2011 but there might be a different case for or against it now, in 2026.

I acknowledge that Deputy Murphy said in advance of Irish Water coming before us, we should ask it to outline in detail the rationale for the system of bonuses rather than increments. The ESB currently has a similar system. Its argument is that if the organisation delivers its services, 93% will get their bonuses. In most public bodies, 100% of staff get increments and there is no connection with bonuses. As a body, we need to be able to balance those two systems.

A totally different discussion is the increase in salary of the chief executive. I note that because of a Government decision in 2011, the chief executive was precluded from receiving bonuses, and I can understand the political reason for that in 2011, but it has now resulted in an increase of nearly €118,000, a 43% overall increase. There might be an argument for that but that is a very significant amount of money and a very significant increase, although with political sign-off on it, which is something we should raise with Irish Water too, because the board has to request that. If the body is getting fined, the chief executive holds a unique responsibility. For them to make a case to increase salary when those things are not being done is totally separate from the ordinary workers. I would have no issue with people getting their normal increments if that is what they are entitled too.

It is an extraordinary waste of €31 million of taxpayers' money. Uisce Éireann has a huge turnover of €1.8 billion. It is a huge amount of money and it wastes €20 million of that on water wastage and another €11 million on uncollected fees. It is incredible that the taxpayer is being put through this. Whenever Irish Water's targets are not met, we have to be realistic about how the Department of housing is over Uisce Éireann. What is going on in the Department of housing and with the Minister that they are not overseeing this? This should be overseen. A Minister should see what is going on. There is a severe lack of housing in this country, with upwards of 17,500 people homeless. There is a severe lack of housing and the Minister cannot even get to grips with Uisce Éireann and its vast underspend and overspend. It has a €1.8 billion turnover. This has to come back to somebody and somebody has to take charge. We cannot blame everything on Uisce Éireann. There is a Department and a Minister in charge of this Department, and it has to come back to there to stop.

I fully agree with the point initially raised about the gross contradiction of a €31 million penalty being imposed on an organisation and having a very strong bonus culture in place at the same time. In the Comptroller and Auditor General's wording, he said the CRU proposed, and he referred to Uisce Éireann challenging that. Is this determined?

That is not a capacity of mine, but in the interests of transparency, Uisce Éireann was putting it on record that this is a likely or potential implication.

So it can challenge it and there is a process for it to appeal this.

At the time I was signing off, it was still in that process.

So it is not a final determination.

It had not been finalised.

When was it signed off, for clarity?

It was 29 April.

It is important that it is not a final determination as such. It is proposed.

I do not have the information but obviously Uisce Éireann could pretty quickly give the committee an update.

Nonetheless, all the points remain, and we need to probe it with Uisce Éireann when it comes before us.

I have a few comments. We can call it what we want, a revenue reduction, a fine, or a penalty. To me, it is essentially a fine on the organisation. We need to get clarity, if the accounts were signed off on 29 April, as to whether Uisce Éireann has or is appealing this. It is deeply concerning, given the bonus culture within Uisce Éireann. We see the huge volume of performance-related bonuses where, in 2025, we saw the bonus payments for staff increase by 36.5% to €17.84 million in 2025.

As alluded to, the overall pay package for the CEO, Niall Gleeson, increased by 43% to €391,953. That is extraordinary, given all of the failings which ultimately led to a fine of €31 million, coupled with other failures in relation to investigations by the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA has prosecuted Uisce Éireann on 35 separate occasions over wastewater discharge. We know that 59% of the State's existing treatment plants have consistently failed to meet the standards set by the EPA's licences to prevent pollution. That paints a picture of chronic and systemic failures within the organisation. If staff are receiving bonuses for that level of failure, I would hate to see what the bonuses are for delivering successfully. I think they would be extraordinary figures.

This is deeply concerning. We need to get clarity from Uisce Éireann but there is also an issue here for the Minister and the Department. We need to get a briefing note from the Department on the bonus structure within Uisce Éireann, as to whether it is within the Minister's remit and if a review has been carried out. Unlike many other agencies, we know the bonus structure in place in Uisce Éireann. It is incumbent on the Minister to carry out a review of its structures.

I reiterate that this matter is deeply concerning. We need clarity on what the implications of a €31 million fine will be for Uisce Éireann in terms of service delivery, which is questionable. One of the most common complaints that my constituents mention to me relate to failures by Uisce Éireann in terms of communication and delivery. The situation is totally unsatisfactory and we need clarity. Representatives of Uisce Éireann will appear before this committee after the summer recess and we need to get this information beforehand. Do members agree that we follow up the various courses of action suggested? Agreed.

Where are we with the Commission for Regulation of Utilities? Can we invite the CRU to appear before us as part of the same trip?

Yes.

I suggest the committee send a letter to the Department asking if the Minister has reached all his key targets in respect of Uisce Éireann.

We can ask for a briefing note from the Department around the whole structure of Uisce Éireann.

I will move on to correspondence. 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 one item that was deferred from last week's meeting. No. R2026/0340, dated 22 June 2026, is correspondence received from the Health Service Executive in response to the committee's request for a briefing note relating to Autism Initiatives Ireland. I flagged this item for discussion. It is an issue that I brought to the attention of the committee a number of months ago arising from the concern around allegations of funding to that organisation being given to the parent organisation across the water, in Britain. There were serious concerns around that, which have subsequently led to an investigation being carried out by the HSE.

This correspondence gives us a breakdown of the finances received by Autism Initiatives Ireland. It shows that since 2022, €46 million has been received by the organisation. We know that concerns had been raised about issues within the organisation, which led to a review and an investigation being carried out in 2022 in the organisation. It is quite concerning that an investigation was conducted in 2022 but we do not know what its outcome was or what its terms of reference were. We need to get that information because if an investigation has been carried out and if, subsequent to that despite €46 million going into the organisation, new and additional issues have come to light, that calls into question how thorough the initial investigation was in 2022. We need to ask for the terms of reference of the investigation in 2022 and its outcome.

In the correspondence, the HSE stated it is using the information and findings to look at other organisations. It is not in a position to say, in respect of the issues of concern relating to Autism Initiatives Ireland, whether there are any other organisations in similar circumstances. We need clarity on that. Is it agreed that we write to the HSE and try to get that information?

Do we have any background information on it?

Does the Deputy mean the organisation?

Yes.

Yes, we do.

It is important to learn what this organisation is, what its activities are and what its key performance indicators, KPIs, are. That is a huge amount of funding every year. It is over €10 million.

Yes, €46 million is a huge amount of money.

It is more than €10 million per year and the amount has increased every year.

Yes.

Has somebody just ticked a box and handing over millions of euro each year without checking up on what the organisation is doing?

We can try to get more information on that.

Thank you.

Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0341, dated 25 June 2026, is correspondence received from the Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation in response to the committee's request for further information relating to the application of the levy to be applied to Departments to reprioritise funding to education. Do members wish to comment?

The new education levy will mean a huge cut in funding to every Department. It sounds like the Department of public expenditure has asked for efficiencies and reforms. For example, it has asked the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to cut spending by €26 million. The health group, which I presume is the Department of Health, has been asked to cut spending by €175 million. I ask that the committee find out from each Department, before the budget, where it is going to make these cuts. I would like to see exactly where the cuts will be implemented and what services will be cut. Huge cuts will be made in every Department for budget 2027. I ask that we get a report on where the cuts will happen in every Department.

I also have some concerns about this. I was led to believe that certain Departments would be exempt from these cuts, for example, the Departments of health and housing. It is clear from the information provided that cuts will be made across the board in terms of the levy being imposed. It seems the cut in the Department of Health, at €175 million, will be the biggest one. I agree that we need to get clarification on this. Statements have been made that certain Departments that are under intense pressure, such as the Departments of health and housing, will not have this levy imposed but that does not appear to be the case now.

We need to be a little careful. It is not normally the remit of this committee to establish the budgetary priorities for the Government. As regards this levy, and I have an issue with the word "levy", essentially there was an unexpected need - it should not have been unexpected - largely for children with additional needs and that resulted in more money being needed for the Department of Education and Youth. As a result, the Government is reallocating money from other Departments to the Department of education, which will be largely spent on children with additional needs. I am happy to have that debate. I am happy to say that that is where I would put the money. I want the money to go to children with additional needs and if that means reductions elsewhere, we can have that debate. However, such matters are not normally a discussion for this committee. Every week, either the Chairman or I reads out the line that we are not here to direct Government policy. We need to be conscious that this is a budgetary issue and a matter for the budgetary oversight and finance committees. I do not believe it is a matter for the Committee of Public Accounts.

I would like to respond to that.

I am on the budgetary oversight committee. I want to push back slightly against what was said. There was a gap of €461 million in the budget. There just was. The Department of education entered the budget process in a context where it needed to make €460 million in cuts during the year to make up the amount of money being given to it. As it turned out, the Department of education could not do that, and that number increased to €671 million. It is probably an issue with the budget process. I know the SNAs were part of it. That was part of the increase. At the same time, though, it did start off the year.

I do not know if the Comptroller and Auditor General wants to point out the situation to us and to Deputy McAuliffe. I think he might ultimately agree with the Deputy, and I possibly do too, because it is the budgetary oversight aspect really. The question is whether this is a case where there was an issue almost at the start. It was similar to when the Secretary General of the Department of public expenditure was here a few weeks ago. I asked him if the Department entered into the budget with the wrong numbers. This is a question in itself.

It is.

I will let the Comptroller and Auditor General respond.

I think that is the distinction I would make. How the budget was wrong in the first place might be the main focus of this committee as opposed to how the gap is going to be plugged.

It is, therefore, a matter for the committee.

It is about how the mistake was made in the first place and the ability of Departments to put together a proper Estimate. Effectively, when we look at the structure of an appropriation account, it is all about explaining why the figures turned out to be different from what was sought and granted by the Dáil Éireann.

I would like to elaborate a bit on this. The Comptroller and Auditor General referred to the ability of Departments to run their budgets. We have had representatives from Department after Department sit in front of us with similar issues. We posed these questions to them in relation to budgets, deficits and overruns. There is no acceptance that anything is being done wrong, evasively or not planned correctly. On the back of there being no acceptance of that from the Departments, and the Secretaries General, who ultimately report to Minister after Minister, there is no accountability. How do we tackle this as a committee? This is just one issue in this regard being flagged to us here today, but this is an issue across the board in various Departments nearly week in and week out in this committee.

To be quite honest, I do not know. That is, obviously, the discussion that the members need to have as a committee. As I said, the structure is there. When an Estimate is presented, it is represented that this is what is needed to deliver these services in the coming year. The structure of the appropriation account is to say, okay, you told us you needed X, but you spent Y. Note 3 in every appropriation account is giving explanations. We have pushed for meaningful explanations to be presented. If the Departments are getting their Estimate wrong, then they need to do something to improve their capacity to forecast what they will need in the following year.

Okay.

When the HSE was here, or maybe it was when some of the hospitals were here, the committee had a discussion around a service plan being put forward which is costed. What comes back then is that the organisation can take X million out of that figure, and then it is left to figure out how it is going to do it. Effectively, this is what is happening across the board here with other Departments. They now have to find savings.

Briefly, on the Estimates, and I give a stupid question alert, are Departments putting forward what they think it will cost or are they being told what they have? Are we all working on the assumption that what is being put forward is an accurate costing for the year ahead or is it what has been appropriated for Departments so that is what they will ask for? I ask this because I think there are two different things there. The culture across the board, whether it is the HSE or different Departments,shows us that year on year the overspending may be beyond the Estimate, but actually this is the amount we have to give to the Department concerned, and then in quarter two, we will come back to that Department with a Revised Supplementary Estimate.

There is a process. It has gone on since the foundation of the State. I would expect that there are certain things that are clear, quantity-driven and, unless the price being paid for something is changed, or the quantity, this is what is going to have to be spent the following year to maintain existing services. That is the concept. If the budget or Estimate as presented does not properly cost, then there are going to be either shortfalls in services or additional money will have to be sought through a Supplementary Estimate. The Dáil as a whole does not have to approve a Supplementary Estimate. That is a choice. Not approving it, though, would mean that services would have to be cut, and probably very late in the year.

I ask again if we can write to each Department and ask where their cuts are going to happen. As the Comptroller and Auditor General said, we do not want shortfalls in services. As he said as well, the different hospitals were in here, and they are already underfunded, and now the Department is talking about underfunding them again by €175 million in that one line, while all the other lines have cuts too. I would like to know where the shortfalls are going to happen in services right across every Department. If we could get a note from every Department on this, that would be fantastic.

There clearly are issues here. We have this briefing note that clearly shows the level of the revisions and how this is going to impact on the Estimates for each of the Departments. The Standing Orders say, "The Committee may suggest alterations and improvements in the form of the Estimates submitted to the Dáil and shall bring any such suggestions as reported to the Dáil to the attention of the Committee on Budgetary Oversight." For us to be able to consider the issues raised with us, the Revised Estimates and the allocations to each of the Departments, I think it would be acceptable for us to write to each of the Departments and ask for a note on the level being imposed on them and what impact that will have on their Estimates in future. I propose, then, that we write to each of the Departments in this regard.

I thank the Cathaoirleach.

Is that agreed? Agreed. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0342 is correspondence, dated 9 June 2026, received from the Secretary General of the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment in response to the committee’s request for information regarding arrangements in relation to governance and oversight of public funding provided to the European Consumer Centre Ireland, ECCI. Do members wish to comment on this item? Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0343 is correspondence, dated 26 June 2026, received from the Secretary General of the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment in response to the committee’s request for further information following the Department’s appearance before the committee on 21 May 2026. I have flagged this item for discussion. I want to bring some attention to Whitestown illegal landfill, which goes back a long number of years. It dates back almost 20 years. At this stage it is probably over 20 years. It was described at the time as the largest illegal landfill in this State. The correspondence gives us a breakdown of costs to date. This shows that nearly €18 million has been spent in remediating or trying to remediate the site at Whitestown in my constituency of County Wicklow. We know Wicklow County Council has received grants and funding from the Department of €7.88 million, which leaves a shortfall to be met by the local authority of €10 million. That is a substantial amount of funding for any local authority to bear. Further additional costs are given from this point forward as well. It is estimated that the final cost for the full remediation of the site could be up to an additional €38 million. It is between €32 million and €38 million. The correspondence does not give clarity as to who is going to bear those costs, what liability will be on the council and whether the Department will furnish any of those funds.

To my deep frustration, despite continuous attempts to get clarity on the ongoing legal costs of this particular saga, we still have no line of sight on those legal costs other than a line in this to say they are substantial. The final figure to remediate what was the largest landfill, which is substantially still in place, causing all sorts of untold environmental damage, including to the River Slaney, could be well north of €50 million. It suggests we as a committee write to Wicklow County Council to get a breakdown of the costs that the council has incurred to date but also the legal liability and what provision the council has made for that. I propose we write to the local authority. This is one of the deep problems we face. We do not have line of sight of local authorities because they are outside our remit but this again highlights the serious gaps in that governance and oversight. I propose we write to Wicklow County Council and try to get a breakdown of those figures and the potential legal liability. I propose we also write back to the Department to ask who will ultimately bear the full cost of remediation of this site – is it Wicklow County Council or will the Department cover 100% of the cost? Do any other members wish to comment? No. Is it agreed to note and publish the item with the agreed actions? Agreed.

I am conscious of time. We have three more items of correspondence. We will fly through them as quickly as we can.

No. R2026/0351 is correspondence received from the head of public affairs at RTÉ, responding to the committee’s request for further information regarding RTÉ’s expenditure on contracted car services, dated 2 July 2026. Do members wish to comment? They can reserve their comments for RTÉ. Is it agreed to note and publish the correspondence? That is agreed.

No. R2026/0354 is correspondence received from the Secretary General of the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, providing a response to the committee’s request for further information regarding the arrangements for deportation flights, dated 2 July 2026. Do members wish to comment? I suggest we seek further information. We are compiling a report on the expenditure around IPAS which includes deportation flights and the costs incurred. While the Department does give some further breakdown in relation to the costs of the deportation flights, it does not get into a specific breakdown of costs for the Garda other than to say it can recoup up to 75% of the cost. There is a significant figure there. We do not have a full breakdown or a breakdown of the impact of sending a large volume of gardaí on these deportation flights, how long they are out of the jurisdiction and what are the full costs incurred in that regard. I propose we write to the Department and get a further detailed breakdown on the costs relating to the gardaí. It gives a rationale as to why there are those numbers of gardaí on the flights; I am not questioning that it but is just to get sight of the costs. Is it agreed to note and publish the item with the agreed action? Agreed.

No. R2026/0359 is correspondence received from the head of public affairs at RTÉ regarding RTÉ’s attendance at this morning’s meeting, dated 7 July 2026. There is no action required. Is it agreed to note the item? Agreed.

That concludes the correspondence items for discussion today.

Moving to the work programme, the following meetings have been agreed to: today, 9 July, we meet RTÉ; and next week, 16 July, we will meet the NTA and Irish Rail. The committee will return after the summer recess to meet on 17 September and consider business of the committee.

We now move to aon gnó eile. Are there any issues members wish to raise?

Is there a possibility we could get a report from the Department of education or the Comptroller and Auditor General on Bus Éireann and transport? Every year there are serious issues with bus transport for children going to school. I would like to see how much income related to school transport has been taken in. I refer to the school routes. It is complete chaos. It happens every September. Is the Department of education putting enough resources into school transport? Does the Comptroller and Auditor General have any idea in that regard from his calculations?

As to the sufficiency of the funding, I cannot comment except to say that it has grown quite significantly in recent years. The costs are mounting. I did a fairly comprehensive report a number of years ago explaining the structure and the contract arrangements in place around school transport. I do not audit CIÉ so I cannot really do much more than I have done previously.

Does school transport come under the Department of education?

Yes, it pays for it. It pays CIÉ for that. Certainly the Deputy can inquire as to what are the costs and if there are specific questions I am sure the Department will answer them.

It is just that around this time every year the representations start coming in about children who cannot get transport to school. School is supposed to be free and you are supposed to have transport to school but children cannot get it. It is the same scenario every year – no matter how much money is pumped into it, it does not seem to fix the problem. I will go back to the Department of education.

We can arrange for the special report to be circulated to the Deputy after the meeting.

That would be fantastic. Thank you.

It would be helpful for context.

There is just one item I wish to flag under any other business. In our private session this morning we had a comprehensive discussion on an interim report the committee wants to publish regarding the proposed national children’s science centre, given the serious concerns it has in relation to the liability that the State has found itself with because of failures at different levels with regard to commitments which were given which were borne out through two rounds of arbitration. It is deeply frustrating and it is seriously impacting the work of this committee and our ability to move ahead with the full information and facts that we require to be able to give a well thought-out, full and accurate appraisal of the situation. We find ourselves in a situation of deep frustration. Despite numerous requests to the OPW to get the arbitrator’s full determination, an 87-page document, it still has not been furnished to us. It contains critical information to allow us to deliberate fully and properly in coming to a final conclusion and a comprehensive report. It is frustrating the work of this committee. It is completely unacceptable that, despite numerous requests to the OPW, including here at the meeting, for that critical piece of documentation that we still have not had sight of it. I find it extraordinary. It tried to paint a picture of confusion and that it was not clear about what was required. It is very clear what the ask of this committee is and has been consistently over several months, namely, that we want, need and must get access to the arbitrator’s full determination. We will be seeking compellability on that documentation from the OPW. It has until close of business today to furnish that documentation, given the latest request we have given to the OPW.

It must give us that document; otherwise we will seek to compel it to do so. This is frustrating the work of the committee. It is still our intention to move ahead with an interim report, given the committee's serious concerns about the level of exposure to the State and the obligation that has been placed on the OPW to move forward to tendering before the year is out. It is critically important that we get that document to see the clear timelines, financial exposures and other implications for the State and taxpayer.

There is a huge level of frustration, annoyance and, it has to be said, anger at the blatant - I will not say refusal - denial of access by this committee to that document. It is totally unacceptable.

I agree.

It has to be heard. It is essential we get that document; otherwise we will compel to get it. We will now suspend the meeting for five minutes.