I thank the Tánaiste. We move to Labour Group leader, Deputy Bacik.

The Minister, Deputy O'Donovan, has had a string of bad luck with ministerial issues. It is a sort of reverse Midas touch. In his previous role, he had to deal with bike shelter and security hut overspends by the OPW. Now, weeks into his new job, we find out about this extraordinary and alarming spend of nearly €7 million on a failed IT project at the Arts Council. This enormous waste of public money raises serious questions about governance and oversight of that body. It raises serious questions about what oversight, if any, the Departments of arts and public expenditure had over such a major IT project that involved a significant spend but that resulted in nothing. It also raises questions about a cover-up by the previous Government, many of the members of which are serving in the new Cabinet.

This unfortunate debacle must not be used to undermine support for the arts or artists. Ireland's contribution to the arts is a source of immense pride. Our paintings, writings, music, film, theatre and comedy are an envy of the world and many artists are not sufficiently rewarded for their work. We in Labour have always championed the arts. President Michael D. Higgins was an inspirational Labour Minister for the arts. We are conscious that many of those who are funded by the Arts Council will be worried today that their vital supports might be undermined as a result of this controversy. The Tánaiste and the Minister, Deputy O'Donovan, must reassure artists that their funding will be protected and that we will see full disclosure and accountability for this overspend.

Oireachtas committees are yet to be formed. As a result, we need to have a debate on this in the Dáil next week because it appears that the entire management of this project was shambolic. I would question many aspects of governance and management of the project at the Arts Council and in the Department too.

We all have very serious questions in respect of this issue. Here are some specific questions. First, why has the arts department been so dogged by controversies about overspends and lack of oversight over semi-State bodies? Second, why was there no relevant expertise, it appears, on the Arts Council senior management team, leading to such undue reliance on private contractors to deliver this massive and complex project? Third, were red flags raised by those with knowledge of the project and were their concerns ignored or dismissed? I understand that two reviews of this project, which raised concerns about levels of risk, took place in the summer of 2022 and at the end of 2023. Can the Tánaiste explain why, particularly at that earlier juncture in 2022, a decision was apparently made to proceed with the project notwithstanding serious concerns? Can he make a commitment that the review the Minister has ordered into the Arts Council, which we welcome, will include a root-and-branch review of governance and management systems? I reiterate my call for a Dáil debate on this massive waste, which has caused such anger among the public.

A Dáil debate would of course be useful. I agree with Deputy Bacik that if we had committees established - and I hope we will very shortly - I am sure there would be very serious questions asked of the Arts Council. Breaching the public spending code cannot be a consequence-free zone. It simply cannot. These issues are, quite frankly, absolutely alarming. People can make mistakes in terms of the delivery of projects. That is one thing, but it is very different when you just ignore the public spending code and the various approval processes.

There are very serious questions for the Arts Council to answer. In fairness to my colleague the Minister, Deputy O'Donovan, he has only been in the Department a couple of weeks. I believe he has acted very swiftly. He briefed Cabinet on the matter yesterday and has commissioned a full external review of the governance and culture at the Arts Council, which Deputy Bacik has welcomed. I absolutely assure the Deputy that no one is happy with what has gone on here. When taxpayers' money is given to the Arts Council, it is for the exact reasons the Deputy has said. It is to support the many brilliant artists and artistic endeavours right across our country. We do not expect it to be spent on a computer system that does not work and we do not expect millions of taxpayers' money to be wasted, with nothing to show for it. There are extraordinarily serious questions for the Arts Council. I have no doubt that as well as the review the Minister has initiated, it is important when the new public accounts committee is established, it will look at this. Looking at the table of the companies involved in this project, at least 20 are listed. It is spreadsheet after spreadsheet. People made significant amounts of money and profited from this, but we do not have a computer system.

I have a very simple philosophy. When we pay someone to manage and run an agency, we expect them to run it properly and in line with the public spending code. There are very serious issues that we already know of. The project cost was not properly estimated by the Arts Council and nor was any final estimate, as is required under the public spending code. Between 2021 and 2024, the Arts Council approved additional money for the project without approval from the Department, as is also required under the public spending code. The Arts Council frequently changed and extended contracts with certain external suppliers, going over the allowed limits for cost increases in several cases. These actions likely contravene public procurement procedures. In addition, exceeding prescribed contract value limits without retendering breaches EU procurement rules on substantial modifications to contracts. The Arts Council also failed to report these breaches in the chair's letter to the Minister, as required under the code of practice for the governance of State bodies.

Let us be honest. The Arts Council has responsibility for a very sizeable budget which has significantly increased objectively in recent years. There are also issues with regard to the Department's oversight of the Arts Council ,and I do not shirk away from that either. That also has to be a part of the review.

I thank the Tánaiste for his response. I am glad he has acknowledged there are clearly questions for the Department as well as the Arts Council. I listened to the Minister expressing his anger and disappointment on the radio this morning, but we need more than just expressions of anger and disappointment from the line Minister. We need greater clarity on when he became aware of this. I am conscious he is only recently in the job. As I stated, however, this Government contains many Ministers who were also Ministers in the previous Government. There is also a question of the levels of knowledge of the previous Government about this and about the timelines involved.

We need clarity on the timelines for the review that has been commissioned and we need greater clarity on the timeline of events which led to this overspend. I reviewed the 2023 annual report of the Arts Council which is now online. The report of the chair, drafted in June 2024, makes no mention of any of this. Artists and all of us must have confidence in the Arts Council, in its senior management and in the Department of the arts, because, as the Tánaiste said, there is so much public money at stake here. It is important that our artists are properly supported.

In restoring that confidence, it is important that we have a root-and-branch review of the Arts Council processes and internal culture, of the level of the Department's oversight and of public procurement rules.

Thank you, Deputy.

I reiterate my call for a Dáil debate on this.

I have already said I think that would be a good idea. The Minister has been in the post for approximately two weeks. I am not sure he could have acted much more quickly at all. In fact, it would have been impossible to have acted more quickly in terms of bringing this issue to Cabinet. To be very clear, because Deputy Bacik has said it twice, this issue was not brought to the attention of the previous Government. It would have been preferable had it been. As recently as this morning, I had that matter checked with both the Secretary General of the Department of arts and with the secretary to the Government as well. The Department adopted a view that it was endeavouring to get on top of the issue or gather all the facts. I do not think that is a good position. It should have been highlighted at a much earlier stage.

Artists have been let down. The Arts Council does and has done great work, however, it has been let down by those who are running the organisation and who have left us with this mess, which contravenes the public spending code. That is what the initial examination tells us. Of course, there will have to be a full external review. The results of that will obviously have to be published, and we are happy to engage constructively on it.