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

I wish to add to what has been said. The CPP met yesterday at 6 o'clock and 25 minutes later a two page letter was issued, or at least made available to its members, that detailed the request for further information. I want to separate both issues.

The issue in relation to the SIPTU fund, as it is known, is clear cut. The Comptroller and Auditor General gave a report and we have had hearings on it. We cannot conclude those hearings and bring about our report without seeking to determine what is in the Grant Thornton report and interview, as witnesses, the individuals who are central to the administration of that fund. They know all about it but others do not so we cannot get to the truth without hearing from them. To my mind, that is clear cut. There is no question of remit and it is simply on the basis of the work that this committee has been asked to do. Therefore, I have no difficult with that matter.

In terms of section 39 bodies and Rehab as part of the section 39 issue, every single Department we interviewed regarding the funding of Rehab has an Accounting Officer responsible to the Comptroller and Auditor General and, in turn, responsible to us.

Some €95.6 million in one year is being questioned. The Departments concerned could not give us all of the information they have because we were not in compellability mode and they had to withdraw that information. The audited accounts produced by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the reporting to this committee is standard and is within the remit of the committee. It is nonsense to consider that it is not. We are being asked about the first two applications for compellability from the committee. Undoubtedly, there will be questions over the content of the applications. One of the questions in the letters concerns how witnesses will be treated. Before 6 p.m yesterday, we had passed a Standing Order in the House stating how witnesses would be treated. Do these people not read the motions?

My position, and I think it is the position of the committee, is that we seek outside legal advice of a senior counsel to determine the background to our application and to determine the types of responses required to the questions asked and how we should focus the response in terms of the overall legal position on the legislation. That is essential because there is only one in-house legal section in the Oireachtas. We have had their advice and, while it is no reflection on them, that section also gives advice to other committees. This is so serious that we must look beyond that to satisfy ourselves. We may be told that we should not proceed but it is up to us as members of the Committee of Public Accounts, who act with the taxpayers' interests in mind, that we take this step to press for clarification. Clarification can only be brought about by making the response in a professional way by relying on senior legal advice. I take it that is the proposition from the meeting and that is how we will proceed. Are there are dissenting voices? That is agreed.