Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

We have a quorum and are now in public session. We are joined today by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, who is a permanent witness to this committee. He is accompanied by Ms Mahin Fitzpatrick.

The first item on the agenda is the minutes of last week's meeting on 26 January, 2017. Are the minutes agreed? Agreed. I wish to raise one item arising out of the aforementioned minutes. We had quite a long discussion last week with the Secretary General of the Department of Defence, Mr. Maurice Quinn, about the sale of the Government jet. I propose that the committee writes to Mr. Quinn to clarify a few issues because a couple of people have contacted me since our meeting and raised a number of matters. First, I understood clearly from Mr. Quinn that there were access issues in terms of other people inspecting the Government jet and the spare parts in the hangar in Georgia. I want him to explain how he arrived at that conclusion because I have been informed that there were no access issues and all one would have had to do was ask. Access was put up as a reason for not getting an outside opinion. Second, in his statement Mr. Quinn said that a lot of the spare parts did not have certification and I want some documentary evidence on that. I also want know what document he issued to the Air Corps seeking certification and any correspondence received back confirming that there was none. Finally, I just want to raise a point relating to our remit. We accept that a decision had to be made to either sell the Government jet as it was, in parts on the floor and get the best available price - which is what actually happened - or fix it and put it back in the air.

There is a third option that was not considered, which I ask to be considered. If someone took a vehicle into a garage and parts of it were on the floor, it may have been economical to put it back in working order and then sell it. I am told that if they just repaired it and put it back in working order it could have been sold without any ongoing commitment at substantially more than was actually achieved. There is no evidence that that option was explored. No evidence was given to us that it was explored. I would like to know the Secretary General's views on whether that option was considered and to see the documentary evidence that it was considered. There appears to have been a Government decision to sell it. Normally, somebody with a knowledge of selling things would have been involved in that process. Did they seek to appoint any third party - some kind of broker - with knowledge of the industry to sell it or was it just done by civil servants? I will ask the Secretary General to clarify those matters. I am not disputing anything he said but I want those matters clarified because people who were watching proceedings contacted me afterwards with those questions so I would like them clarified.