Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I also want to register serious concern about the committee not being able to discuss this issue today. This has been on our work plan for some months. When one looks at the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, not that one would need to, the one organisation that jumps off the page is IBRC in terms of the totality of what we are dealing with here. We all know and accept that. It is pretty exceptional and if it is ever repeated, I think I will be long gone. One thing that was said around the time of the beef tribunal was that there would have been no need for that tribunal had questions been replied to. I am looking at what has been sought in the courts - monetary remuneration, a transparent process, monitoring the remuneration and expenses sought for and paid, protecting the interests of the taxpayer, properly and effectively assessing and-or monitoring remuneration of the joint special liquidators' expenses sought and paid etc. That is what we are looking for. I do not know how the State can be protected by elongating that process, which is essentially what is happening. If those issues were addressed, the case before the courts would be moot. There would be nothing to answer. I do not understand how the State is protected. The length of time this will take in the courts is indeterminate but judging by the length of time it takes for cases to go through the courts, particularly a case like this one, we are likely to be looking at least 12 months during which time we will not have oversight. The period could be even longer. If this was addressed now, is the State not protected by virtue of the fact that we have transparency and we understand how remuneration is monitored? I really do not understand the logic of that legal advice. In the question posed by the Chairman regarding taking advice and whether the Department was restricted in terms of answering, there is real merit in coming back and actually answering those questions because it may short-circuit the process through the courts and engender far more confidence that the Department is dealing with this matter. That is a comment as opposed to a question but will the Department at least undertake to go back and consider that point with legal advisers because it is not obvious what is being served by delaying this except that the Department answers the questions in the court that it will not answer before the Committee of Public Accounts? Will the Department at least go back and have that discussion with its legal advisers and perhaps with the Minister?