COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate -
Thursday, 27 Jun 2024

The public business before us is as follows: minutes of meeting of 20 June 2024; accounts and financial statements; correspondence; work programme; and any other business.

The minutes of our meeting of 20 June 2024 have been circulated. Do any members wish to raise any issues or matters regarding the minutes? No. Are the minutes agreed? Agreed. As usual, the minutes will be published on the committee’s web page.

Two sets of accounts and financial statements have been laid between 17 and 21 June 2024. I ask the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, to come in on that.

Does anybody have any questions about those? No. Can we agree to note the listing of accounts and financial statements? Agreed. As usual, they will be published as part of the minutes.

I move 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 relating to correspondence are recorded in the minutes of the committee's meetings and published on the committee's webpage.

One item has been flagged for discussion under category B, that is, "Correspondence from Accounting Officers and/or Ministers and follow up to PAC meetings". It is No. R2658, received from Ms Fiona Murphy, interim chief executive of Children's Health Ireland, and dated 13 June. It provides correspondence to the committee relating to non-compliant procurement. It is proposed to note and publish this item of correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I have flagged this one. The statement does not give a reason for not following procedures, or it says that Children's Health Ireland is tendering for services now. I see this kind of correspondence come back constantly. They say they are now following proper procedures but no clear reason is given as to why they were not followed in the first place. I propose that we write back to Children's Health Ireland and ask it for the specific reasons, in the cases that are highlighted, why proper procedures were not followed. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next item on the agenda is the work programme. A draft work programme discussion document has been circulated to members, which is displayed on their screens now. On 4 July, we meet with Waterways Ireland in relation to the 2022 financial statements. It is proposed to invite a representative of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage to attend. Is that agreed? If new members, such as Deputy English, wish to flag specific items for addressing, I ask them to do so as early as possible so as they can be notified. They may send them to the secretariat. On 11 July, we meet with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in relation to 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. Expenditure on horse racing and horse welfare has been flagged as an area of interest for the meeting. Do members wish to comment on or add anything to the work programme?

Last week, we discussed potential engagements for the autumn, and a tentative schedule of meetings has been added to the work programme. It is proposed to prioritise meetings with Uisce Éireann, the HSE, the Charities Regulator, the Land Development Agency and University of Limerick. If members are happy to proceed on that basis, the secretariat will make the necessary arrangements. We do not want to come back in September without having the first six or seven sessions arranged. Is the work programme and the proposed schedule for the autumn period agreed? Agreed. That concludes our consideration of the work programme for today.

The last item on the public agenda today is any other business. Do any members wish to raise any other issue?

Yes. I want to come back in on the issue around the children's museum. I know we have asked those involved to come back with certain information. I think we got the runaround a bit on some issues. There was an agreement for a lease produced early on. That was in 2003. We know there has almost been a kind of mission creep on this. It started out reasonably small. I think it would be useful for us to see that lease. I think it was Michael Collins SC who was involved in that. Can we see that? I know we have asked for some of the things, so if I am duplicating, you might tell me, a Chathaoirligh. The terms of reference for the two arbitrations, I think, would be useful. We might have asked for one but I think we need to see the two of them because the building size since 2008 has nearly doubled. Where an agreement was made, I think it is appropriate for us to see after the first arbitration if that changed.

The other thing is-----

There most certainly are. Perhaps we could see the terms of reference and the other documentation. I was nearly afraid I was not asking for the right things because this did not start out and finish up being the same thing. It was in different locations, and I think we have to see the documentation by location. The CHQ building was looked at at one point. Was the scale of it the same at that stage? Also, were there different agreements signed by different people as the thing changed locations? It is just to make sure we are fully covered on what we get and the kind of documentation that was signed and who signed it.

A picture as well, I think, would be useful. I know some bits of information came out at that meeting, but the way the information comes can be a bit back-and-forth and a bit chaotic at times. What would be useful is if we could put together the genesis of the project, just a sentence on where this came from, the scale of it, where it is now in terms of the size increase, the projected cost and what has been spent to date on it. There were figures for that given here. Not everything was 100% clear as to what happened.

It started off with one scale and one location. Then it moved to a different location. Then there is an arbitration. I would like to know who signed off on that and what the document they signed off on is, not what the terms of reference were. Then it moved on to another location. Then there is another arbitration. The terms of reference for that are presumably different from the previous terms of reference. Also, the scale of what was being-----

We will look for that document. Can we ask as well that they give a brief synopsis of the genesis of the project, the location, the projected cost at that point, where we are now as to where key changes were made to both the size and the location, just a short explanation on that, and where we are now in terms of projected costs?

Where there were key changes made to both the size and location, I would appreciate a short explanation on that and on where matters stand with regard to projected costs. To be honest, there are questions as to whether this project should even go ahead at this stage or not. I know some people might not be happy with that being said but in its current form, there are questions marks over whether it should go ahead. There are some signs that the State is being led by the nose. Can we get clarification on that?