Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

No, and not on the Attorney General's side. It is not a reflection on the witnesses but it is certainly a reflection of the Department. I will come back to the general endorsement of claim that is being served and will pick up on a point made by Deputy Murphy on setting out the plaintiff's claim. Mr. Carville agreed with two and he could not disagree with them. There were only eight declarations sought and declarations Nos. 2 and 3 simply set out that the Department has a duty to properly and effectively analyse, assess and so on. There is no problem with that, I presume. There is also a declaration of a transparent process. That leaves six to look at, and we can leave the further or other relief from costs. From the eight declarations, two are conceded, which relate to duty. That leaves us with the other few. As my colleague has stated and I have said repeatedly in the Dáil Chamber, if questions were answered we would not have tribunals of inquiry. The Department has a duty, as it accepts in the declarations. There is a duty to outline to members of this committee that there is value for money. That is not happening at present. The witnesses have taken a vow of omertaor silence on the basis of advice. There is a duty to account to us value for money in everything the Department does.