COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate -
Thursday, 4 Jul 2024

The public business before us this afternoon is the minutes, accounts and financial statements, correspondence and consideration of a draft committee work programme, as well as any other business.

The first item of business is the minutes of our meeting of 27 June 2024, which have been circulated to members. Do members wish to raise any issues regarding the minutes? Are the minutes agreed? Agreed. As usual, they will be published on the committee's webpage.

The next item of business is accounts and financial statements. Four sets of accounts and financial statements have been laid before the Houses between 24 and 28 June 2024. I will ask the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. McCarthy, to address these before I take remarks from members.

The first set of financial statements concerns the Ombudsman for Children for the accounting period 2023. It received a clear audit opinion. No. 2 relates to Uisce Éireann for 2023, which received a clear audit opinion. These are the first accounts of Uisce Éireann formally before the committee. No. 3 is the Marine Casualty Investigation Board for 2023. It received a clear audit opinion. Finally, the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission appropriation account for 2023 received a clear audit opinion. However, I drew attention to significant non-compliant procurement by the commission.

I wish to ask Mr. McCarthy about the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. Obviously, it is disappointing that is happening here, of all places. In the notes, it states the service provided details of 29 non-competitive contracts in its annual returns. Under non-compliance with procurement rules, it sets out that the service complied with the guidelines with the exception of nine contracts in excess of €25,000, totalling €1.499 million. Is that correct?

Okay. There were two contracts with a total value of €773,000. The explanation given is that they were expenditure under an expired contract to allow for continuation of essential cleaning services. I ask that we write back to the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission to ask it for an explanation around that and why the contract had to be renewed or continued without going to procurement, but also the length of time that continuation happened for without it going to tender.

There was one for the use of a venue, at €326,000. It relates to the use of a venue for specific purposes, where no other venue was suitable. I suggest we ask for the details of that venue. There is one relating to a short-term contract to allow for transition to an in-house model. It does not give any more explanation than that. Can Mr. McCarthy shine any light on that?

In a situation in which there is an unforeseen or unforeseeable event, procurement rules allow one to go outside normal competitive processes. It would not be non-compliant if there are genuine emergency circumstances. It becomes non-compliant when something is reasonably foreseeable but planning, if you like, was not adequate.

Whatever it was, we will get answers on this and on the other issues. Can we agree to note the listing of accounts and financial statements? Agreed. As usual, the listing of accounts and financial statements will be published as part of our minutes.

Moving on to correspondence, as previously agreed, items that were not flagged for discussion for 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 the correspondence are recorded in the minutes of committee meetings and published on the committee's webpage.

Four items have been flagged for discussion under category B, which is correspondence from Accounting Officers and-or Ministers and follow-up to committee meetings. I propose to discuss two items from RTÉ together. The first is correspondence No. R2686 received from Mr. Terence O’Rourke, the new cathaoirleach of the RTÉ board, dated 21 June 2024. It provides RTÉ’s response to 21 recommendations made by the committee in its report on its examination of the appropriation of public moneys to RTÉ and its expenditure. It is proposed to note and publish this item of correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. Correspondence No. R2701 is also received from Mr. Terence O’Rourke, cathaoirleach of the RTÉ board. It provides information requested by the committee in its report on RTÉ. It is proposed to note and publish this item. Is that agreed? Agreed.

In respect of recommendation 6 in particular, RTÉ states it intends to report on the barter account finances in its annual report. Members will recall this was an issue for us which we wanted rectified. However, the recommendation specifically requests that this information be included in the financial statements. I am proposing we seek clarity from RTÉ in this regard. Is that agreed? Agreed. We sought for this to not just be included in the annual report but also in its financial statements.

As for recommendation 7, it is proposed we seek a copy of the new register of interests and the new register of external activities. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Recommendation 9 is accepted but RTÉ only commits to anonymised data for published salaries. It says there are GDPR issues and issues around employment law in this regard.

Regarding recommendation 12, RTÉ states that the committee’s recommendation to ensure co-operation with internal or external inquiries or investigations would be dependent on legal advice on a case-by-case basis. Deputy Murphy wishes to raise some issues around these responses.

There are two issues I wish to raise. One of those issues is not directly for RTÉ, but rather for the Department of arts and media. While I know there has been engagement with the Comptroller and Auditor General, which we talked about last week, I wish to ask the Minister, Deputy Martin, what is practically happening with regard to the timeline the Department is working to in the context of the Comptroller and Auditor General auditing RTÉ. We should write a letter to the Minister for media in this regard.

I want to raise an issue relating to recommendation 15. Initially, the committee was told it would take 15 years to get through that scope inquiry with the number of people in question. We were then told it would be much quicker. We asked to be kept informed. The document states that, "RTÉ undertakes to keep the Committee informed of the ongoing Scope investigation and any settlements which may emerge". These are going to be incremental. I thought it would have already made progress if it is going to do it within a shorter timeframe. We should put that on the list for September to check back with RTÉ. We should be hearing something back at that stage about progress in this regard. We should keep after it because the amount of energy put into it on the RTÉ side will be important in terms of how quickly it gets resolved.

Are we dealing with the other-----

Staff engagement is an aspect I have some concern about. RTÉ has written to us and said there is a new staff consultative forum. There is a huge amount of outsourcing proposed. There is also quite a lot of decentralisation proposed. It is very difficult to accept there is comprehensive engagement when we are not hearing a serious pushback on that. I am concerned that this engagement involves more or less saying what is happening rather than true consultation where people are actually being listened to. I do not know what the shape of RTÉ will be. With the strategy it is proposing, it seems very fragmented.

There are a couple of major parts to it, the first one being the level of outsourcing. Then there is decentralisation, which means moving to other locations. Both have huge implications for staff. Obviously, day-to-day management, HR and all that is not our business, but it is important for the director general and the management team not just to tell the workers what is happening but also to engage actively with them on it. If RTÉ is going to relocate people who have families, a mortgage and everything else and their job is going to move somewhere else, that obviously up-ends their life.

Yes, or else new jobs have to be created somewhere else and others' jobs are redundant. Some of this does not stand up to that kind of scrutiny. I am quite concerned that engagement is not happening. One of the things we were concerned about at the beginning was that the axe would fall in the wrong place.

We have been following the question of bogus self-employment for a number of years during this Dáil term, including during Covid when it was more difficult. Between the Deputy, me and others, I think we have raised it in every one of the nine meetings. It is important we follow through on that. RTÉ gave us an outline of what is happening. Out of the 168 investigations carried out by the scope section, 45 were found to be correctly classified, which is fair enough, but it leaves 123 that were not. It states:

In 94 of the cases the individual has been found to be correctly classified as class A [stamp]. RTÉ is awaiting decisions in 31 cases. 29 cases are still the subject of an appeal to the ... [Department of Social Protection]. To date €1.2m has been paid by RTÉ in PRSI liabilities.

That is the same as when Dee Forbes was there. Members will recall one day here we extracted that answer, though not without difficulty. I suggest in terms of this discussion that we ask to be kept updated on that. Obviously, it is important that happens because, as we have said many times, of the precarious position those workers are in.

Okay. Maybe the suggestion on outsourcing and decentralisation is that we correspond with the board to emphasise our concerns regarding the effects this will have on low- and middle-ranking workers in RTÉ. We cannot directly interfere in anything like that, but the committee is concerned at the level of engagement with the workers and we would like to see active engagement with them and for the existing workforce to be taken into consideration. It would be along those lines. Would the Deputy be happy with that?

Yes. It is one thing just looking at it. RTÉ stated "168 investigations have been carried out ... In 45 of the cases the individual has been found to be correctly classified as class S", but it does not say what they were classified as before, so we do not know whether there is conversion of cases going on. Similarly, to be correctly classified as class A, the question is whether they were class S before and are class A now or whether they were class A before and they are class A now.

Okay, we will request that of the Department of Social Protection as well. Thanks for that.

Next is No. R2698 from Mr. Michael Sheahan of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, dated 20 June 2024. It provides follow-up information to the committee in relation to issues raised at the meeting of 20 June. It is proposed we note and publish this item with the email address redacted. Is that agreed?

Okay, the Deputy is happy enough with that. No. R2698 gives the figures for horses slaughtered anyway. There has been a slight reduction. It went from 2,256 four years ago to 1,987 last year. The interesting thing about it is it sets out that "in a slaughter plant killing and related operations can only be [carried] out by persons with the appropriate level of competence”. It also places the responsibility on the business operators, who could be the same people. These activities are "only carried out by persons holding a certificate of competence”. The "plant operatives must have undergone an approved course in animal welfare". They must get a certificate of competence from the Department. To obtain that, they must enclose a written declaration that they have "committed no serious infringement of EU or national law on the protection of animals in the three years preceding". When the Department is in next week, we should raise this.

It is not adequate. It is even more concerning that the designated animal welfare officer can be an employee or, I presume, part owner of a slaughterhouse and can declare that they have "committed no serious infringement of EU or national law on the protection of animals [and animal welfare] in the three years preceding the date of application for such a certificate". I find that remarkable. I would have thought that if somebody is found to have made a serious infringement of animal cruelty law, they would never be allowed to work as an animal welfare officer.

It is a very laissez-faire set-up is it not, considering that we are talking about the protection of animals? When animals are racing and doing well, they are dearly loved and looked after better than the rest of us. It is fair to say this will come up on the agenda next week and we will have an opportunity to discuss it.

This is not good for the equine sector. I hope it does not have economic effects on the sector in future, given that public finances in the region of €70 million a year go to the industry. This is an issue we must raise with the Department. We will have another chance to do that next week.

No. R2696 is from Ms Hanagh Byrne, private secretary to the Secretary General of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Mr. Brendan Gleeson. It is dated 25 June 2024, and it provides correspondence to the committee on the bovine tuberculosis programme updates. It is proposed to note and publish this item of correspondence and to flag the bovine TB programme as an area of interest for our meeting with the Department next week. Is that agreed? Agreed. Does Deputy Murphy want to come in on that?

The concern here is the rise in the incidence of bovine TB in recent years. It is on an upward trend again, despite all the money that has been spent and everything else that has been done. The incidence did decrease a bit at the end of 2022 when it was 4.31% of the herd, but then it started rising again. I am looking to see if there is a figure for 2023. It increased fairly dramatically.

This is despite the fact that in 2022 the cost of the scheme was €57 million. Last year, that went up to €74 million and we are still getting this kind of result. When the Department officials were in, they outlined the five main reasons they believe TB is spreading, but we must raise this with them again given the public finances and the incidence of bovine TB. It is an area we need to focus on next week.

We will discuss that next if Deputy Catherine Murphy is okay with that.

One item has been flagged for discussion under category C, which is correspondence from and related to private individuals and any other correspondence. No. R2694 relates to correspondence on Glenwood House. This is a house in Cork that we dealt with previously. It is proposed to note this item, forward the correspondence to the HSE and request the following information: the total expenditure on the purchase of Glenwood House; the total expenditure on renovation, maintenance and any other ongoing costs, such as security, to date, the reason for the delay in applying for planning retention for the change in use of the property, and plans for future use of Glenwood House, including projected costs and timelines. The last time I saw this man's face the logo of the Green Party was beside it. However, I see Deputy Murphy has appropriated him.

The fact is that a building remains vacant three and a half years after the HSE purchased it and renovated it. A lot of money was spent. When we talk about value for money, there is an issue here. That is the nub of it. We must deal with it. We must write to the HSE and ask for its plans as a matter of urgency.

One of the points that arises in the letter is that he says the HSE previously declined to give an explanation as to why Glenwood House continues to be vacant three and a half years after its purchase. It is a remarkable situation. It is proposed that we ask those four questions about the total expenditure to date and the expenditure on renovation, maintenance and any other ongoing costs, such as security, to date. There was a security element to this. We will also ask the reason for the delay in applying for planning retention for the change in use of the property, and plans for future use of the building, including projected costs and timelines. I would like to know when the HSE expects to have some people in it. It is a crazy situation.

Deputy Murphy knows as well as I do that there is a shortage of beds for elderly people. There is also a shortage of beds for people who have profound disabilities, yet we have this white elephant sitting there. The facility is badly needed but it has not been brought into use. We will seek clarification. We hope the committee will get an answer from the HSE on it. The correspondence should be sent to the head of HSE estates in particular and copied to the CEO.

It is not clear why planning retention has not been sought. That is not rocket science. Some effort should have been made to get this project moving. Is it agreed that we proceed as outlined? Agreed.

I will move on to the work programme. Next week, on 11 July, which is the last week before the summer break - we are going to have the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in on Vote 30 – Agriculture, Food and the Marine, and chapter 10 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's annual report - estate management in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. A number of areas have been flagged for attention. They are, expenditure on horse racing; horse welfare, which will bring in some of the issues we discussed here recently; the issuing of equine passports; and the systems in place to ensure that racing animals do not enter the food chain. We will also flag the bovine TB programme. Is there anything else members wish to discuss that day? If anything arises in the next few days, they can signal it.

Yes, I certainly hope the Department can shed some light on some of these issues because what has gone on has caused concern among the wider public.

There is the summer recess, and we resume then with a meeting to consider the business of the committee in September during the first week back. We will have a pile of correspondence to deal with relating to other matters that will come in during the recess. In the first weeks in autumn, we will prioritise meetings with Uisce Éireann, the HSE, the Charities Regulator, the Land Development Agency and University of Limerick. That is the order of priority. The order may change depending on availability and slots. We discussed this in recent weeks and the secretariat will try to slot those in as best it can. That might take us to the finishing line, but we do not know. The Deputy could be here longer than anticipated.

As Chair of the committee, I want to acknowledge the Deputy's intention to step down, which she made public the other day along with Deputy Shortall. I acknowledge your work on the committee. You have been very diligent. You have certainly has fulfilled your role as a very active and diligent member of the committee. You were previously a county councillor. You go back to Sinn Féin's Workers' Party, do you not?

I hope I live long enough to see it and that we do actually have it. I want to compliment you on your work in this Chamber and also in the various fora. I acknowledge your long years of service; you have fulfilled your duty. Even though we do not agree the whole time and people may have different political priorities, you have really played a great role. Well done for that. I am not going to tell you to enjoy retirement because you have not gone yet. I will tell you that on your last day.