Alan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I would like to state my full agreement with the remarks of Deputy Cullinane. It is a rare thing.

The issue that we face is a process issue. We need to determine what this process is going to be. More important, we need to determine what it will be from the professional end of the process in terms of investigating what precisely went on and the manner of the investigation.

I would be of the firm view that, given the work the Comptroller and Auditor General is doing with regard to 2016 and the imminent completion of that work, the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General should go back and look at Templemore as a specific unit, as well as all of the various processes that took place there and the various transactions involved.

It is very clear from the evidence given by the Commissioner and her staff that the internal audit unit within An Garda Síochána is under-resourced. I would question how seriously it is taking the matter in terms of its presentation of information, not just to the committee but also the fullness and openness to the State and Department of Justice and Equality. The fact that it was withheld historically from the Comptroller and Auditor General speaks volumes in its own right.

Another issue comes down to the budget within An Garda Síochána to be able to get the work of the interim report done quickly. In order to do that, it occurs to me that An Garda Síochána needs to bring in expertise to complete that work and support the section which currently comprises eight personnel. I made that point last week, and I am making it again today because it is imperative that the Garda adequately deal with this issue so that we can get the interim report into the public domain in order that the Comptroller and Auditor General has an opportunity to review it at some point. I appreciate that he has, no doubt, a full list of entities to audit. It occurred to me and, I am sure, many others, that the only way we can achieve full disclosure in regard to the actions and behaviours in Templemore over a period of decades is for the competent authority of the State to go in and do it, and that competent authority is the Comptroller and Auditor General.

It was an incredibly damaging revelation for all of us when the report on issues in Templemore was published. With the greatest of respect to my colleagues, as Deputy Connolly pointed out there is no doubt that we will stray into territory which will effectively turn this committee room into some sort of courtroom. We are not qualified to do that, nor are we allowed to do that. Therefore, I am in agreement with Deputy Cullinane. We need to set a very strict set of terms of reference for ourselves on what it is that we are seeking.

It would amount to an unqualified witch-hunt if we were to start line questioning the Commissioner, the Accounting Officer and other individuals in regard to gaps in the production of information and-or receipts etc. within Templemore over a period of years. We need to consider a special report from the Comptroller and Auditor General or other competent investigative organisation, whatever that may be. It may involve an inquiry of some kind from an accounting perspective or some other mechanism.

It would be very easy for all of us to go into a committee structure and quiz the Commissioner, the Accounting Officer, the head of internal audit and all the rest. It would make great headlines, but would we actually achieve anything? The scattergun approach to which Deputy Cullinane referred is entirely accurate. There is a question of competency. I appreciate we are all very good at what we do because otherwise we would not be here, but the truth of the matter is that there are competent individuals who are capable of getting to the bottom of the accounting practices and trying to come up with information. If that information is not available, competent individuals need to draw their own conclusions as to that.

My final remark concerns the comments of the Chairman and the Comptroller and Auditor General on the audit process and a correction or clarification – whatever one wants to call it. I would like the Comptroller and Auditor General to restate what he said earlier for the purposes of clarity. What I and the Chairman took from what he said are two totally different things. I want to make sure that we are all on the same page. I am not an auditor or an accountant, but what I heard the Comptroller and Auditor General state was that in the course of his verification of the information that was provided an error or a lack of information was identified. The Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General sought to have that clarification made. It was made and signed, and the document was changed, as is the norm in an audit process. I wanted to clarify that so we are all on the same page.

At the moment, I do not see that the Chairman is on the same page. I appreciate his professionalism------