Everyone is welcome to the meeting. We have received no apologies, bar from Deputy McAuliffe, who is on official for business for the Committee of Public Accounts.

Before we proceed, I have a few housekeeping matters to go through. Members are reminded of the provisions within Standing Order 226 that the committee shall refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government, or a Minister of the Government, or the merits of the objectives of such policies. Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I 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 or within the precincts of Leinster House.

The agenda for today's meeting is as follows: accounts and statements; correspondence; and upcoming meetings. The committee will then suspend before beginning the engagement with officials from the HSE at 10.30 a.m. or soon afterwards.

There are six sets of accounts and financial statements laid between 14 September and 18 September 2026, which are due to be considered today. We are joined by Mr. Seamus McCarthy, the Comptroller and Auditor General, 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 the Ombudsman for Children for 2025. They received a clear audit opinion.

No. 2 is the financial statements of An Comhairle Ealaíon for 2025. They received a clear audit opinion.

No. 3 is the financial statements for Transport Infrastructure Ireland for 2025. They received a clear audit opinion.

No. 4 is the financial statements of the University of Galway for the financial year 2024-25. These received a clear audit opinion. However, I drew attention to two matters. First, there was a material level of non-compliant procurement incurred by the university in 2024-25. Second, the financial statements include a provision, which is effectively the writing off of €1.6 million of expenses incurred on the development of a student-record-management system. The development of the system is ongoing but the university felt that it had to write that off. It is actually over time as well. It was due to be completed in 2023. A further €552,000 was incurred on related mediation, legal and consultancy services.

This is another IT project where money has been essentially lost. It is absolutely staggering. In this case the figure is €1.6 million. This is repeated across the board in all Departments and agencies. We have done extensive work on the issue of IT. I am sure the issues which arose in this case are similar in that there were failings to properly scope out the requirements for the project. Is there any more information on it? Is this a one-off for Galway or was this being rolled out across a number of institutions?

The student record system is obviously a very important support for the business of the university. Student record systems have been developed recently in other places. There was a generational shift going on. The experience has not been as bad in other third-level institutions, but there are cases where projects are struggling. The Higher Education Authority, HEA, is aware of difficulties that have been encountered in a number of colleges, so it may have an overview it could share with the committee. There is a significant amount of information in the Galway financial statements in relation to the specific project it was involved in. It is probably worth noting that the total expenditure on the student record system was about €10.6 million, so it is retaining €9 million of the expenditure as being useful for the eventual system that will be delivered, but obviously, the finalisation of the project is important.

I propose that we write to the University of Galway to get a comprehensive briefing on this matter. I also propose that we write to the HEA to get its perspective on this and all of the other projects alluded to by the C and AG where there have been problems, maybe not of this magnitude, but issues that have arisen and what the common denominators are in terms of the delivery of these. No one could deny that these are critical pieces of IT infrastructure but the failures are systemic across the board. I am sure the issues that have arisen here are not too dissimilar to the issues that have cropped up consistently across the board.

It is an extraordinary waste of taxpayers' money again, with €2.1 million written off. It is also a waste of money for the students who are paying fees of €3,000 each to say that €2.1 million has been completely written off here. I want to emphasise, as the C and AG has said, that €10.6 million has been spent on a student record management system. I would like to know what other colleges are spending on such systems and right across the board, what every college is spending on this. For me, this is a huge amount of money and we need to delve deeper to see if other colleges are spending this amount of money on student record management systems. It seems to be an extraordinary amount. We can sit here and call out numbers but where does that €10.6 million come from? It comes from the students, the taxpayer and it is an extraordinary amount. We need to delve deeper and make sure we are getting value for money for the taxpayer and our students who are paying fees every year to go to college. It is extraordinary to spend €10.6 million on a management system. It is unbelievable.

Regarding the Chair's proposal, we should also in the letter ask for the lessons learned and who they have been shared with. As the Chair said, this is a systemic issue. Are other agencies and universities and the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer, OCGIO, learning from all of these issues? That is my big concern.

On that point, the financial statements do disclose that the university has carried out an independent review of its experience with the project and it refers to some of the things learned and some of the mistakes that may have led to the provision being incurred. That is part of the expenditure of €552,000. It is to be expected that things would be learned and I understand they have been shared with the HEA.

We will ask for a copy of that independent review.

It also needs to be shared with the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer. It should not just stay sectoral. These IT issues are across all sectors, so it needs to be escalated right to the top and the OGCIO needs to ensure that what has been learned are disseminated across the public sector.

I understand that there are colleges where student record management systems have been developed which have not had time or budget overruns. There is experience there that may be valuable as well.

To pick up on that point, it is crazy that each college designs its own system. Every college does not need to reinvent the wheel. There should be consistency and co-ordination between the colleges in trying to bring about savings. I ask Mr. McCarthy who is responsible. Who should be co-ordinating this? Every university is spending money developing a system when there should be a template system that could be used across the sector. It seems to be an extraordinary waste of public money that they are all trying to go down an individual road when it comes to this issue.

I understand that what were the institutes of technology, now the technological universities, were using a kind of shared platform. One would expect and hope that there would be utilisation of learning and systems. The Higher Education Authority would be best placed to give an overview of what it is trying to do in that space.

As the Comptroller and Auditor General mentioned, €10.6 million was spent on the student records management system. Is this system being operated by the same IT company for all colleges? Is that company charging each college or are individual companies creating these packages?

Galway availed of a drawdown or a framework available to all universities, so there probably is commonality. ICT systems are extremely expensive. One would hope they would avail of any opportunity to build on common platforms and not have excessive customisation which might drive additional costs.

Is Mr. McCarthy saying that each university could be paying €10.6 million for this management system?

I do not want to offer a figure without going back and having a look to see if we can get other examples for the Deputy.

Are we to understand that it did not get the student records management system-----

It has not got it yet.

-----and that this ongoing?

Yes.

Is there any indication as to how it is proceeding at this stage?

I do not think it indicates in the financial statements when it expects to have it finished. The committee may want to ask it for an expected completion date.

We will write to the university.

I suppose the observation is that we do not want the sclerotic, dead hand of anti-risk attached to organisations developing infrastructure they need either.

Absolutely.

By the same token, there has to be clarity around how money is spent. That is the point we need to make.

The university allowed the contract with the developer it was using to come to an end. From memory, the university has not stated when it will appoint a replacement to complete the project.

Mr. McCarthy talked about a material level of non-compliant procurement procedures. Was it tendered for properly?

It had a tender competition around 2020. However, while it got offers, it decided not to proceed. The following year it went with the framework that had been put in place by EduCampus, a subsidiary of the HEAnet, which itself is a subsidiary of the Higher Education Authority. It is a complex procurement process. It is open to the committee to probe more into how that is operating.

Does the Comptroller and Auditor General consider that to be a non-compliant procurement process?

No. That is not what the reference was to non-compliant procurement. That is a separate figure of about €846,000.

On commonality, do we have an understanding that other universities have used this same company and have not had an overspend?

That is my understanding.

While the University of Galway could have engaged with other colleges, I do not think it was its job to do so. The onus was on the company to provide the service to University of Galway that it previously provided to other universities and in respect of which it came in on budget.

They may have used the same framework to acquire a developer. I am probably getting into levels of detail-----

That they could provide.

Yes.

Let us write to the University of Galway, get a full briefing note, a copy of the review carried out and details of the learnings. We will also write to the HEA to try to get information on some of the other colleges, the systems and the difficulties. I am sure we will revert to this because I am very conscious of Dublin City ETB, the My SUSI IT project and the massive issues with overruns, costs, etc. I am sure we will come back to the issue of IT in general but specifically in education also.

Just to make clear, the committee will write to each college to inquire what system is uses for its student record management system-----

We will get that from the HEA.

-----who provided it and how much it cost?

Yes.

I thank the Cathaoirleach.

Perhaps we could also contact the Department of higher education because it is ultimately paying for all of this.

Yes.

I propose that the question we should ask is whether this came in on budget and whether the project relating to the University of Galway is the only one that did not come in on budget.

The Comptroller and Auditor General said that there may be others with issues. We will try to get clarity and figures, whether there are delays, etc.

No. 5 is the financial statements of University College Dublin for the financial year 2024-25. It received a clear audit opinion. I drew attention to a material level of procurement non-compliance. In that case, the figure disclosed is €1.48 million. There is no further detail in the financial statements about what it relates to. There is some detail in relation to a voluntary disclosure by the university to the Revenue Commissioners in relation to taxes on benefits-in-kind and the employment status of individuals in the period 2022 to 2026. This resulted in a net payment of €943,000 to Revenue. Recovery of the liabilities is not being pursued. Separately, there was a payment to Revenue of €381,000 in October 2025 in relation to chargeable excess tax and excess pension lump sum tax. Recovery of these amounts has been pursued with the pensioners concerned.

The Comptroller and Auditor General stated that there is no further information on the €1.48 million in respect of procurement that was non-compliant. Can we request details in that regard? I do not know why we have not received details or why the college did not supply them in the first instance. It has to be fully transparent and let us know what is going on.

What are the benefits-in-kind?

It does not mention that in the financial statements. The committee would have to specifically request the information from the university.

The issue arose as a result of benefits-in-kind to employees in the context of an understatement of tax liability. It is important that we find out what those benefits-in-kind are.

We can write to it.

We had a similar issue last week with the University of Maynooth. Can we write to the Department or the HEA and ask what the issue is with benefit-in-kind across the university sector? Are we going to see this every year? This should not be a systemic issue. What is driving all of this benefit-in-kind?

We can do that. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I thank the Chair.

The final set of financial statements relates to Dublin City University, DCU, for 2024-25. They received a clear audit opinion. However, I drew attention to the writing off of €4.38 million in professional fees in relation to a student accommodation building that did not proceed to development due, I understand, to an escalation in expected costs. The university made a provision in relation to the fees incurred. If the project goes ahead in the future, it may be able to reverse that provision. As matters stand, it has taken the view that it needed to provide for €4.38 million.

We need to follow this up. Looking at the background, it appears that it was initially for accommodation for 1,235 students. That is what was designed. There was a comprehensive design process.

Ultimately, it appears that the Department refused to provide the funding for that to proceed. DCU had to go back to the drawing board and redesign the accommodation to facilitate 400 students. By the time that process concluded, any of the potential cost savings were eaten up by construction cost inflation, etc.

The information I am hearing is that the straw that broke the camel's back was the demand by the Department in terms of the rent chargeable to students in order to make this economically viable. That pushed it out of the reach of any students in the context of availing of affordable accommodation. There seem to be huge failures, and at national level, which have led to a student accommodation crisis. Not only that, we are also left with a write-off of €4.38 million. That is absolutely scandalous in light of the accommodation crisis students face every year. We need to follow up with the Department and DCU in order to get a full explanation. We need to find out where the project stands, because there is still a chronic shortage of student accommodation, not just in DCU but across the State. This an absolutely shocking failure in the context of the delivery of affordable student accommodation, and it seems to be driven at a national level.

I wish to be associated with the Chair's comments. We are going through a student accommodation crisis. In our city of Cork, the position is very similar. During the week, Professor John O'Halloran said the same thing in relation to private rented accommodation for students. There is a lack of oversight in relation to this project. In the small print from the college, it seems that if the project does proceed in the future, maybe it will almost be able to pay the €4.38 million itself. Ultimately, this project is dead in the water. I cannot see how this project will ever proceed. Once again, the taxpayer will have to pick up the tab for what is a failure on the part of the Department and the college at a time when many young adults are really struggling to avail of student accommodation in Dublin and are travelling long distances. Some are sleeping in their cars. There are horror stories regarding where people attending college in Dublin are sleeping. It is just a failure on State's part to provide adequate accommodation for students attending college in Dublin.

What makes up the professional fees? How could professional fees be over €4 million? This comes back to the question of whether a procurement process was in place in respect of those professional fees. Was there a procurement process.

My understanding is that there would be a procurement process. Professional fees are extremely expensive on a capital project. They are typically and correctly rolled up in the capital cost of the project. There are industry standard percentages that can be expected to be added on. As the project gets bigger and more expensive, the fees get bigger and more expensive. It has always been that way. The Department or the Higher Education Authority may be able to provide a perspective on what the typical percentage would be.

I agree with what has been said. This calls into question the initial project appraisal and whether due intelligence was done in terms of the cost involved. It is unacceptable to go so far down the road and spend €4.38 million, only for it to be stopped at that point. Any suggestion that any of that money could be recovered is really only trying to provide a soft landing here. It is highly unlikely that will happen. We absolutely need to probe the initial project appraisal and the costings. How such an amount of money could be wasted before somebody said "Stop" is extraordinary in this case.

This is the biggest amount of money that we have discussed so far in terms of the colleges. We are talking about a series of problems in colleges, but this is a huge amount of money, almost €5 million. It is incredible. There are real problems with Government policy, which are beyond us here, in terms of reliance on private construction companies, etc., as opposed to having a State construction company that would do this. I think they were effectively going to demolish an existing accommodation building and build a whole bunch more accommodation on it. I presume they have not demolished the existing accommodation. Presumably - hopefully - the existing accommodation still exists but it accommodates way fewer students. It took about 250 and it was supposed to go up to 1,200 in the context of a massive student accommodation crisis. We need to have a session on the colleges and have the HEA in to discuss this. I agree with the earlier point about synergies and the records management system. It does not seem to make sense to have different processes.

We need to get clarity from the Department, the HEA and DCU. The information I have is that DCU was led up the garden path by the Department on the co-funding of this project. Ultimately, the Department came back and told the college to scale back and make provision for 400 students, which pushed the cost up. There was then a further demand. I have been told that the rents being charged to students should be €11,500 per year as opposed to what was being looked at - €6,500 for a nine-month window. That was the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of the engagement between DCU and the Department. I am now being told that a developer-led proposal is being looked at. There are concerns, which are outside the remit of this committee in terms of policy, in the context of making student accommodation here and elsewhere completely unaffordable. We need to get clarity on that. We need to get full sight of the communication between the Department and DCU on this, because some of those unjustifiable demands being placed on DCU led to this project being pulled, with a loss of €4.38 million.

We should not pre-empt-----

That is the information I have been given.

I know, and I agree. We should tease out why the commitment was given and then reneged on. Were there cogent reasons as to why this project did not go ahead, especially in light of the spend of €4.38 million. That spend is a symptom rather than the core issue. That is the only point I am making. I am not cutting across the Cathaoirleach, but we need to be careful not to pre-empt that. We should get the facts.

The Deputy is right. We will establish the facts and get all that communication. Do members agree to note the listing of accounts and financial statements? Agreed.

There are a number of B items of correspondence to consider. These have been received by Departments and public bodies. I think a number of items were deferred but we are happy to proceed.

No. R2026/0451 is correspondence, dated 10 September 2026, from the president of Mary Immaculate College regarding non-compliant procurement. Do members wish to discuss this item? No. Is it agreed to note and publish? Agreed.

No. R2026/0453 is correspondence, dated 10 September 2026, from the chief executive of the Child and Family Agency, Tusla, regarding non-compliant procurement. Deputy Farrelly has flagged this item.

I went through the appendix to see the amount of money involved in contracts provided by security services to Tusla.

I think that approximately €1.2 million of service provision was agreed to in a non-compliant way. Ultimately, in its letter, Tusla says these were short-term or unplanned levels of service intervention. Given that Tusla is the body responsible for the welfare of our most vulnerable children and young people, I have a natural follow-on question concerning the types of service being provided by the security companies. Is this simple premises management? To what extent are these workers working in services in centres and possibly providing services that might be more appropriately provided by social workers or qualified professionals? If we could ask for a more detailed breakdown of what that expenditure looks like in terms of service provision, that would be useful to have.

Is it agreed that we will get that information? Agreed. Is it also agreed to note and publish the item, along with the agreed actions? Agreed.

The next item of correspondence is No. R2026/0454, dated 11 September 2026, from the chairperson of the Office of the Revenue Commissioners in response to the committee's request for a briefing note on nitrous oxide seizures. Deputy Bennett and I have flagged this for discussion. I call Deputy Bennett.

I find it very disturbing that Revenue has responded to say that there is no EU-wide law in relation to the regulation of nitrous oxide. What I find more disturbing is that our Government appears to have done absolutely nothing in relation to this issue, even though it has cost taxpayers €5 million since 2022. In 2022 alone, there were 116 seizures. Revenue spent €2.66 million on disposal. There is a running theme throughout this committee that we are seeing serious waste and the Government is not doing anything in relation to it.

Can we write to the Department of justice to ask why no action has been taken over so many years to protect communities and why taxpayers have been left to pick up the tab and clean up the mess? We want to see an end to the situation and communities being saved. It is all being left to the taxpayer to pick up the bill. The Department of justice is doing nothing in relation to this issue. More needs to be done. I am calling for more to be done.

I flagged this item as well. We had correspondence last week on nitrous oxide that gave us some grim reading. We had a discussion on the subject. We know the prevalence of nitrous oxide and Deputy Byrne spoke very eloquently and passionately on it last week regarding the experience in our communities right across the State. Every town and village has dozens of large empty nitrous oxide canisters being disposed of. We know the impact it is having on children in particular. Hospitalisations are up 130%.

These figures tell me that the Government has thrown its hands up and that Revenue has hoisted the white flag here in terms of trying to tackle this issue. This is borne out for me by the number of seizures this year. Four seizures of nitrous oxide have taken place, totalling 194 kg of nitrous oxide to the value of €7,568. Last year, there were 19 seizures of 34,869 kg of nitrous oxide, which was valued at €1.285 million. There has been a dramatic drop in the seizures of nitrous oxide. This tells me that we have given up. The first aspect is that it is too costly to store the seized nitrous oxide and the second aspect is that it is too costly to dispose of it. Essentially, then, we are not going to do anything.

The real failure here is the failure to legislate. Deputy Bennett is right about the EU. There is no regulation there at EU level. It is up to member states. Legislation has been brought forward by Deputy Mark Ward, but instead of dealing with this serious issue, which is affecting communities throughout the State from the perspectives of health, addiction and finance, the white flag has again been hoisted and the proposed legislation has been kicked down the road with a timed amendment. It needs to be advanced because, ultimately, that is the only way to deal with this issue. This is reminiscent of the head shops that were very prevalent in every town and village going back ten or 15 years. A similar situation arose, unfortunately, where in that case it took communities dragging the Government by the scruff of its neck to finally deal with the issue and put the necessary legislation in place.

When I speak to the drug and alcohol task force in my hometown of Bray, I am being told that families have had kids hospitalised with spinal injuries as a result of the inhalation of nitrous oxide. I am also listening to consultants on the radio talking about the consequences of children inhaling nitrous oxide. I am hearing of communities, particularly at this time of year, where these canisters, which are highly pressurised containers, are going to be thrown on bonfires, which has been the case previously. This puts not only communities at risk, but also members of the fire service who are going out to deal with these things.

A call needs to be made. We are seeing the white flag being hoisted and that is a real failure on so many levels. It is an issue that we need to keep on top of but, ultimately, legislation will need to be brought in to ensure there is the regulation of the sale of nitrous oxide for legitimate purposes. Do any other members of the committee wish to contribute on this issue? Is it agreed to note and publish this item? Agreed.

The next correspondence is No. R2026/0455, dated 11 September 2026, from the Secretary General of the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration regarding the late laying of the financial statements for the Insolvency Service of Ireland. Do members wish to comment? No. Is it agreed to note and publish the item? Agreed.

No. R2026/0457, dated 11 September 2026, is correspondence from the president of University College Dublin, UCD, in relation to non-compliant procurement. Deputy Bennett alluded to this item.

Which one is it?

It is from UCD. It is related to what came up when we were talking about the accounts and statements.

My apologies. Was it related to the expenditure on the IT system?

No. It is non-compliant procurement expenditure, but it relates to the 2023-24 financial statements. I was speaking earlier about the 2024-25 financial statements.

Is that okay?

Can we just leave it there for next week? I will just read through it.

Yes. We will leave that there and come back to it.

I thank the Cathaoirleach.

No. R2026/0462, dated 14 September 2026, is correspondence from the Secretary General of the Department of Health regarding the Medical Council's 2024 financial statements. Do members wish to comment on this correspondence? No. Is it agreed to note and publish this item? Agreed.

May I come in on the Medical Council? My office has had a couple of issues in relation to it. When is somebody struck off by the Medical Council? Can we write and ask whether anybody has been struck off by the Medical Council?

There is a process of hearings to strike someone off. I will not go into the detail of it. Eventually, the Medical Council applies to the High Court to remove somebody from the register. It is, therefore, a public act and it is published.

Is it true, then, that if medical negligence is found by the courts, somebody is taken off the register?

That is a separate issue. That is a civil issue. If someone is litigated against because they did not carry out their professional duties properly, that is a civil issue, but it might lead into a complaint to the Medical Council, which is a separate issue and a separate process.

I thank Deputy Daly. We might have the Deputy on the witness side on the next occasion.

No. R2026/0463, dated 14 September 2026, is correspondence from Marine Accident Investigation Unit at the Department of Transport in response to the delay in the submission and laying before of the Oireachtas of the 2024 audited financial statements. Do members wish to comment on that? No. Is it agreed to note and publish the correspondence? Agreed.

No. R2026/0464, dated 14 September 2026, is correspondence from the Secretary General of the Department of Defence in response to the committee's request for information regarding the acquisition of light tactical armoured vehicles. Deputy Bennett has indicated that she does not wish to speak to it, but we touched on this earlier on and the Comptroller and Auditor General has a piece of work there that he will be reporting on. The information we have been given, which followed on from some publicity around these vehicles being offered to the military in Ukraine but turned down by Ukrainian defence forces, raises serious concerns. Those concerns are borne out in the communication we have received from the Department. It makes grim reading in relation to the difficulties around these vehicles. Twenty-seven of them were acquired, but from day one, there seemed to be very serious issues identified. Reading the correspondence, two of the vehicles were not used at all for a five-year period, given the serious issues with them. One of the vehicles had not been used at all for ten years. One of the vehicles ran up only 2,100 km over a 14-year timespan. The cost of maintenance and repair for one of the vehicles was €220,000. The list makes very grim reading. It raises very serious issues and concerns around the purchase of these and what scoping was done because, from day one, these vehicle were giving difficulties. There were issues around the odometers for reading the mileage on them. Ultimately, we are left with 27 vehicles that I do not think the Department knows what to do with. Even the defence forces in Ukraine do not want them, they are that bad. It raises very serious questions. It is an issue we will revert to when the Comptroller and Auditor General presents the work that his office has embarked on. The issue is quite concerning. Unless there are any other members who wish to speak on that, is it agreed to note and publish that correspondence? Agreed.

No. R2026/0466, dated 14 September 2026, is correspondence received from the Secretary General of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine regarding the late laying of the 2024 financial statements for the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board. Do members wish to comment? No. Is it agreed to note and publish? Agreed.

No. R2026/0467, dated 14 September 2026, is correspondence received from the Secretary General of the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht regarding the late laying of the 2022 financial statements from An Foras Teanga. Do members wish to comment? No. Is it agreed to note and publish the correspondence? Agreed. That concludes the B items for discussion today.

We move on to our work programme. The following meetings have been agreed. Today, we have the HSE. On 1 October, we will have the Child and Family Agency, Tusla. On 8 October, we will have An Garda Síochána. On 15 October, we will have Uisce Éireann. In regard to 22 October, it is to be confirmed.

Is there any other business that members wish to raise at this point?

Are we going to move on to talk about the C business?

We discussed C in private session, Deputy Kenny.

Okay. Maybe I will raise something with the Chair afterwards for next week.

If the Deputy wants to raise it, yes. If it is something we can come back to next week, yes.

Yes.

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