Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Members have asked me questions and I will explain the full background. I explained previously that the sequence commences with the letter of 15 February 2017 from the Minister to this committee, which is reproduced in full in the report. Before the members had an opportunity to consider that letter, the Minister was before the finance committee dealing with Estimates. He took the opportunity to speak at that committee about the letter he had sent and that is fine. I read the last sentence of the letter which stated: "I am also sure that any conclusions which do materialise in the Committee's final report will be based on available evidence, due and fair process and logical reasoning which will withstand challenge." When I read this, I took it to refer to a legal challenge. The letter had that reference in it and I took it to mean that we were to be on notice that the report might be subject to challenge.

Later on the same day, in the restaurant, the Minister asked me to have a word and I agreed. I have good personal relations with the Minister, and the Minister has not disputed that this took place. He said we had not been fair and should have given him an opportunity to come in and speak to the committee. I replied that he had not been fair. He was here for five hours and was the only one in possession of the information. He could not accuse us of not asking him about things which he did not know of. The conversation continued about who had been unfair to whom and concluded with the Minister saying, "You know I can injunct you". That was the end of the conversation and, having read the letter a few hours earlier, I could see that this was the frame of mind the Minister was in when writing it. The extra bit was confirmation and an advance on the previous situation but it was not new ground. It was highly serious, nevertheless, and I told members of the committee.

It is important for the Committee of Public Accounts that I make this statement, which is broader than my discussion with the Minister. I think the fact that some people tried to put pressure on the committee when we issued our report did not undermine the committee but strengthened it. It will strengthen the committee to be seen as fearless and not prepared to take a rebuke from anybody. My priority as Chairman was to get a report agreed and I felt that to overelaborate further, notwithstanding that there was a reference to a legal threat in the letter, which every member could have read themselves, would further upset the possibility of getting an agreed report.

I am only new to this job since last year. I take it as normal that the Chairman of a Committee of Public Accounts will come under pressure from a variety of sources. I take it as par for the course and it does not influence how I am. I want to go on to talk about two further people who threatened legal action in respect of this committee and its proceedings.. First, in my conversations with the chairman of NAMA over a period, he first mentioned that legal advice was being considered but the high financial cost to NAMA was something that had to be taken into account. That remark did not influence me or my work here. I am just putting it on record.