COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate -
Thursday, 26 Sep 2024

The public business before us this afternoon is as follows: minutes; accounts and financial statements; correspondence; consideration of draft committee work programme; and any other business.

The first item is minutes of our meeting of 19 September 2024, which have been circulated. Do members wish to raise any matter regarding the minutes? No. Are the minutes agreed? Agreed. I thank members. As usual, they will be published on the committee’s webpage.

Moving on to accounts and financial statements, we have a shorter list than last week, only three. I ask the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, to address them before opening to the floor.

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. First we have the Social Insurance Fund of 2023. It received a clear audit opinion. However, I draw attention to a chapter in my report on the accounts of the public services for 2023, which will be published on Monday. This refers to the estimated level of welfare payments in excess of entitlement under certain Social Insurance Fund schemes. It is to a material level. It is a matter I draw attention to every year in relation to the fund.

Second is the National Cancer Registry Board for 2023. This received a qualified audit opinion. In my view, the accounts give a true and fair view except that they account for costs of retirement benefit entitlements only as they become payable. That is a standard direction for many health bodies.

Finally, the accounts of the Royal Irish Academy of Music for 2023 received a clear audit opinion.

Okay, thank you for that. Do any members wish to comment on the financial statements and accounts? No. Can we agree to note the listing of accounts and financial statements? Agreed. As usual, they will be published as part of our minutes.

Moving on to correspondence, as previously agreed, items not flagged for discussion at this meeting will be dealt with in accordance with the proposed actions that have been circulated, and decisions taken by the committee in relation to correspondence are recorded in the minutes of committee meetings and published on the committee’s webpage.

Members have flagged items for discussion under category B. That is correspondence from Accounting Officers and-or Ministers and follow-up to committee meetings

The first is No. R2805, received from Mr. John Conlon, Cathaoirleach and Accounting Officer of the Office of Public Works, dated 16 September 2024. It is correspondence to the committee providing a response to information requested at the meeting of 13 June 2024. I propose to note and publish this item of correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is the response to questions raised by the Committee of Public Accounts, including on IPAS, flood relief and the children's science museum, on which we are looking for documents to be published. We have advice that there is something under other correspondence.

With the OPW and what has happened in the past week, I suggest we write about the issue of the security hut that was brought up here last week and ask for a detailed breakdown of the cost. It took a long time to build it. There was a Portakabin then, which Deputy Murphy will be familiar with because we have parked on that side of the complex for many years, which has been replaced with the new construction. In the breakdown, I suggest we look for the cost of the copper roof and a detailed breakdown of the security measures. I understand there was a security system in the building that was there before. Perhaps the one that is there now is more elaborate. How much did the security system cost and what function does it provide? It probably includes electric equipment for lifting and lowering the barrier and I presume it had to be connected to the Oireachtas or to the CCTV in Agriculture House. I do not know whether that would cost much. We should look for that and any other cost in the breakdown, including for design as well as who designed it and perhaps the rationale for the copper roof. It is a fairly extensive roof. When the hoarding came down and I saw it for the first time I thought it was a bit oversized compared to the building itself.

Does Deputy Murphy want to add anything?

There were other ancillary measures to allow for entry through the ministerial gate while the security hut was under construction. There was security at the back gate of the Dáil. Can we ensure that is included? However, the important part will be to get the business case and the value-for-money report so we have a view of the total amount of the spend. I presume the business case will identify some of the issues, although there may well be security issues that are glossed over. I do not know how that is usually handled. The other thing is, as well as the building, there is a new barrier that is lifted from the ground to prevent cars coming in. We need to know the cost of all of that.

Can I contribute about another matter in the OPW report?

In the OPW response to the committee on 13 June, it indicated there are no insurance valuations for the heritage properties in State ownership as they are covered by the State's own indemnity. I requested a follow-up and the OPW confirmed there is no insurance valuation on Castletown House. The majority of OPW heritage assets are recorded on an asset register with a €1 value on the basis that the value cannot be reflected in financial terms. I accept that the value cannot be reflected in purely financial terms because many of these are heritage sites and cannot simply be built. However, I would expect there to be some valuation of the assets of the State. Since 2000, the State has put €25 million into Castletown House. I got that information in answers to parliamentary questions. The house is of international importance. I am sure all of that would form part of the consideration in purchasing the land that is naturally part of the site that was not originally purchased by the State. Now there is a significant problem with access. Essentially, the State did not protect its asset by not protecting the vehicular access into it. It has now been blocked off. It would have had almost 1 million visitors per year, most of whom were people walking through the estate and approximately 30,000 were visitors to the house. We cannot hold such things as farmers' markets. The house is closed up because there has been a reaction to putting in a temporary car park along the main pedestrian access. I find it hard to appreciate why the State assets would not have some value put on them.

The appropriation account sets out that there are different bases for the valuation of different classes of asset. If the State acquires a property, the price paid might be recorded as the value. A standard building, such as an office block, could have a valuation on the basis of what it would cost to replace it. However, the heritage properties are not valued because they almost could never be built again, there is no market and so on. It would be an enormous expense just to arrive at what it would cost to rebuild them. Then there is the question, as the Deputy said, of whether to capitalise the additions being made and depreciate them and so forth. For simplicity, those improvements are expensed and do not appear on the statement of financial position. In a way, the accounting for it is secondary to the economic questions the Deputy raised. Any individual improvement that is made needs to be looked at as a project in its own right with a budget which is tracked and an outturn being identified. However, it is for a different purpose than accounting for it in the appropriation accounts.

I thank Mr. McCarthy for that reply.

For the benefit of the committee, there is an entrance that was built at the same time as the house and for the past 17 years it has been purely pedestrian. It is incredibly popular, one of the most popular sites in the country. For the past 17 years, there has been access at the rear that is leased from the owner. The owner offered it for sale off-market to the OPW in 2022. There was a lot of dithering and the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform did not approve the purchase. It is 235 acres and it is the natural hinterland of the house. It then went to market in a closed bidding process and the OPW bid in excess of €5 million. From what I understand, it was bought for not too much more than that. Now the owner is offering bits of it for sale and there is a gate shutting access to the people who have used the access for the past 17 years. It is not possible to get bin trucks or other vehicles in and the staff cannot get in.

We had them before the committee in the past. My understanding is that the figure was around €5 million. It was sold for perhaps €1 million more. I cannot be sure of the amount. It was a closed bidding process. The problem is that this asset now cannot be enjoyed in the first instance and, given the money that has gone into it, it was very shortsighted not to have purchased it.

We were told, at a committee, that the new owner was looking for three times the amount that he bought it for.

The problem is that access in is important. To even get a lease it would be important to get access but that requires a willing partner and the new owner is not a willing partner. My point is that we often look at value for money as things, that is, on what we spend and what we get for it. Not spending the amount of money to buy it is almost criminal. It is outrageous, let us put it that way, because in actual fact the asset is reducing in value in terms of the use, and the potential use, by virtue of the fact that there is no access. The house is of international importance.

Okay. I thank the Deputy.

On the response by the OPW regarding the flood relief schemes, I want to note that there is in the region of €24 million available for the Portarlington flood relief scheme and the Mountmellick scheme combined. There is a €6.8 million budget for the Mountmellick scheme and €17.3 million for the Portarlington scheme. The funding is welcome but obviously the longer it is left for these things - we have complained before about moving slowly - the price keeps going up. I acknowledge that when investigations were undertaken, the works were more extensive than envisaged at the very beginning. Hopefully, with the substantial budget that now exists, the two schemes can be moved on. There is a list of other schemes located around the country that elected representatives will welcome as well. The Clonaslee scheme has a budget of €390,000. We will flag the item regarding the house mentioned by the Deputy, with the OPW when it is in.

The next correspondence is No. R2806, which was received from Mr. John Conlon, Office of Public Works. It is further information to the committee providing a response to information requested at the meeting of 13 June. I propose that we note and publish this.

The OPW has advised that the other attachments are confidential and have requested they are not published. So following a meeting on 3 July 2003, with Mary Harney, who was the Tánaiste at the time, and her officials, the then Minister of State, Mr. Parlon, and Mr. Byers, then commissioner of the OPW, and representatives of the children's museum had subsequent discussions with the Department's Secretary General, Mr. Paul Haran, and his officials, it was agreed that the OPW would provide accommodation to house the children's museum's interactive centre in the facility with particular high-end science content aimed at raising public awareness of science and technology. The OPW has requested documents on the children's museum not to be published. I have spoken to the clerk to the committee about this matter and this committee can agree to publish them. Thus far, €2.72 million has been spent and the current project cost is estimated to be €70 million. Basically, the entity involved, which is a charity, would appear to have the taxpayer, OPW and the State over a barrel. That seems to be how this is shaping up. To note that and I am sure that this matter will come up when they come before the committee in the coming weeks. So we note and publish the item of correspondence.

The fact that this has gone on since 2003 and it is now 21 years later is fairly significant.

No. R2812 was received from the office of the Chairman of the Office of Public Works, dated 23 September, provides a response to the committee’s request that the OPW attends a meeting of the committee on 10 October. The letter states that the Chairman has a long-standing commitment to chair a meeting of a stakeholder group on that day and he requests that the committee considers postponing the proposed meeting to a later date. I propose that we discuss this matter later on first because I think there is some information that civil servants may want to share with us, briefly in private session and then we will go back into public discussion to give Members a chance to comment and ask some questions. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We are still in public session, so Deputy Murphy should proceed.

On that correspondence, we will seek to have the OPW here on 22 October for a public meeting. That concludes our consideration of correspondence.

Moving to the work programme, the draft work programme discussion document has been circulated to members. Next week we will engage with the University of Limerick to resume our consideration of the 2020, 2021 and 2022 financial statements and to consider the C and AG's special report No. 117 on property acquisition in Limerick city. Specific areas of interest flagged for this meeting include governance and associated due diligence of the university's purchase of a Limerick city site in 2019 and the houses for student accommodation in Rhebogue in 2023. On 10 October we will engage with the Land Development Agency on its 2023 financial statements and on 17 October we will engage with the Charities Regulator on its 2023 financial statements. As we have just agreed, we hope to have the OPW in on 22 October. On 24 October we will engage with the Health Service Executive on its 2023 financial statements. Specific areas of interest flagged for the meeting include the roll-out of the integrated financial management system, non-compliant procurement, staffing and remuneration and the capacity of the University of Limerick Hospitals Group. We should bear in mind the discussion we had about trying to have a narrower focus in our meetings with the HSE. Last week it was agreed to schedule a meeting with the National Paediatric Hospital Development Board and I propose we schedule a meeting with the board and Children's Health Ireland at our next available meeting date. Is that agreed? Agreed. The next available slot is 7 November. Deputy Verona Murphy wanted to come in.

We will ask him.

We move to any other business on the public agenda. Members do not wish to raise any other matters.