David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Leaving aside that important issue for a moment and the methodology used, the reply from An Garda Síochána is disingenuous and goes to the heart of how, as an institution and corporate body, it interacts with the Committee of Public Accounts. Its letter answers a question it was not asked and refers to reports we did not seek. We did not ask for a copy of the interim or final reports. These will go before the Cabinet, which will have sight of them and adjudicate on whatever information is provided. The statement that a final report will be presented to the Minister is a sleight of hand. The committee did not seek the final report and we must be very strong in asking for the information we seek.

There appears to be frequent attempts to be fly and clever by providing responses that cover the Garda but do not provide the information being sought. When the former assistant commissioner, who is now the acting Commissioner, appeared before the committee he had no difficulty stating the Garda would pass on the information we sought. However, the Garda subsequently decided it would not provide this information, which raises questions as to the reasons it is not being provided. The committee has sought this information and needs to be given it.

While the final report, which makes recommendations on what stations should be reopened, is obviously a matter for the Cabinet, a value for money issue arises because the reason given for closing some Garda stations in the first place was that they were not needed and closing them would save money. Reopening some of them will give rise to costs. The committee wants to find out what methodology was used to make these decisions and we are entitled to that information. The response from the Garda is disingenuous.