John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I want to clarify one or two things before we move on. We have witnesses to invite into the room. The building occupied by the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation is not owned by the Department. It is actually owned by the State and the OPW looks after it. My understanding is that it is a listed building. I wish to inform Deputy Harris that it was not my expenditure. The total expenditure came from the OPW. The OPW designed it, laid it out, specified it and did whatever else it did regarding this project. The OPW paid for it. The cost, with the exception of the cost of the furniture, was not recouped from the Department. There was a reimbursement from the Department to the OPW in relation to the furniture aspect of the project. At no stage - this is a political point - did I have an involvement in designing or asking for particular furniture or whatever.

I understand there is a protocol or arrangement in place whereby a particular office is designed in a particular way. For example, an office for the use of a Secretary General, assistant secretary, junior Minister or senior Minister will be designed in a certain way. In this case, the Office of Public Works assumed responsibility for the expenditure on and design of the project. The request to both Departments should take into account the view expressed by members that the investigation should cover the period from 2007 to date and examine the protocols that are in place. The other points of interest raised by members should also be included in the request.

I may have omitted to state that I submitted a freedom of information request to the Office of Public Works seeking a copy of all the material Deputies have sought. I will submit a similar request to the Department, as I have nothing to hide in this matter, which I would like investigated. If the planned meeting with representatives of the Office of Public Works on 25 April does not suit the office in terms of producing the information the committee has requested, we will arrange a separate meeting to deal with the matter.

On the timeframe, I raise this matter today because I am also concerned. I would have stopped the works if I had known they would cost so much money. There is not a political animal in this House who would not have stalled at the cost of an office of that size. I was the first occupant of the office in question, which was subsequently occupied by two other Ministers of State, including the incumbent. It may be no harm for the Deputy to visit the office and ask where the €250,000 - the final cost was €290,000 - was spent.

To respond to Deputy Harris, if we are asking about Ministers and junior Ministers, we should also seek information on Secretaries General and assistant secretaries to ascertain

how we are all treated in respect of this matter. I will supply the plans that were provided under the freedom of information request I submitted. They were certainly different from the plans I saw in today's newspaper. Members need to have the facts.

From the point of view of a timeframe, I have asked for the investigation, and members support the thrust of this investigation and have added their voice to different aspects of it. I presume the committee will write to both Departments concerned today. Given that I wrote to the Office of Public Works on 9 April, I presume it is in the process of compiling the relevant information. There should not be any delay or kicking to touch of an examination of this issue.

Are members satisfied that we have concluded with this matter? As that appears to be the case, we will proceed to the agenda proper. On any other business, is the agenda for the meeting scheduled for 10 a.m. on Thursday, 25 April agreed? Agreed. We will meet the Health Service Executive to deal with Vote 40 - HSE annual financial statements 2011.