Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I largely agree with Deputy McDonald's comments. It is clear in Ms English's letter that she says there is merit in senior counsel advice, but I believe we must follow the process. We must do whatever is necessary, which probably involves meeting with the parliamentary legal office to try to progress this to the next stage.

Now might not be the appropriate time, but there is also a broader policy issue here and I do not know how we will rectify it. At some point somebody will have to take the bull by the horns and address the remit of this committee. Standing Order 163 of the Dáil dictates the remit of this committee and it has not been updated in donkey's years. It is not always this committee that is pushing the boundaries, as is often portrayed by politicians who are not members of the committee. It is often the leaders of all political parties in the Dáil who refer issues to this committee, saying that the Committee of Public Accounts should examine the matter. In fact, it was not just members of this committee who called for certain individuals, whom we are now seeking to compel, to appear before the committee. Politicians of all political persuasions and none did that as well. If an expectation is created by the political system that the Committee of Public Accounts is the body to investigate or examine issues, there must be clarity for witnesses, members and the broader political system that it is or is not.

Once this compellability saga comes to an end, one way or another, we must have a serious discussion with whoever the relevant people in the Oireachtas are about our exact remit and whether our terms of reference must be updated or not. If not, we are just wasting people's time by creating an expectation that we can undertake a task and when we try to undertake it competently, we are told we are acting outside our remit. That is becoming a frustration at this stage.