Marc MacSharry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

That is grand. The other letter came in on the 12th, informing us of the plenary summons seeking declaration reliefs. From my layman's point of view, and I stand to be corrected if I am wrong, a declaration relief is where the Minister is not being sued for money or such recourse. If the person wins the case, the court will make declarations to do with how the liquidation is going. Costs is what the State would lose in the event that the person wins the case. It is unfortunate they took it last Thursday.

When I wrote to raise issues, I wanted to know if we had invited the special joint liquidators individually. I think we did not do so, which is unfortunate. That was what I intended when I raised this last September. The Department of Finance replied on 12 December saying it that in light of developments, the special liquidators would not be coming either. Then we have this email going in and the timing of it. To me, it looks choreographed. I raised the question of why the Department is telling the special liquidators what to do. It is matter for them if they come in. They are not party to these proceedings. They are not named in the proceedings against the Minister. They should be here.

It was implied that the Attorney General was advising them and I raised that point. Then, lo and behold, we got a letter saying they had their own legal advice but they understood the Attorney General was advising the Department of the same. It looks grubby. It looks like there is collusion between the three. Frankly, as is so often the case these days, it looks like this is being used as a device for bodies that are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General to opt not to answer questions.

While I appreciate on a personal level Mr. Carville's saying he is disappointed he cannot talk about this, I have steam coming out my ears when I hear him say so. The practice we see here is one of avoidance, with bodies saying they cannot answer our questions. Maybe Mr. Carville is being absolutely genuine and I will take him at his word. However, we had education and training boards, ETBs, coming in here saying they would not say anything because of legal advice. We had the Acting Garda Commissioner saying he would not talk about a liaison committee. We had a previous Garda Commissioner referring something to GSOC late at night to avoid answering questions on an issue here.

The Government may as well abolish the Committee of Public Accounts for the disdain and contempt with which it is frequently treated. Ultimately, our responsibility here is not votes. There are not many votes going for being on the Committee of Public Accounts. It is about putting in hours of reading and research to try to pursue things that have nothing to do with one's constituency.

It is about taxpayers' money and, in this instance, it is about €222 million of taxpayers' money as of the end of 2016. Mr. Carville is disappointed that the liquidators cannot come in. I am bound to conclude that there was collusion between the Office of the Attorney General, the Department of Finance and the special liquidators to come in today and say how disappointed they are that something cannot be discussed. There was no stopping whoever it was in the Department who yesterday rushed to tell the Irish Independentthat everything was perfect - a Department official was quoted in an article by Shane Phelan - yet nothing can be said today. I have a serious problem with this. The new way of avoiding questions when appearing at the Committee of Public Accounts is simply to say that one has legal advice and cannot say anything. It is a disgraceful abuse of that term in the Civil Service and in Departments. It is so often the practice. What would one say in here when explaining the expenditure of taxpayers' money that one would not say in the courts? The Department has its legal advice from the Attorney General. The joint special liquidators are saying they have their legal advice. I have mine too.

Notwithstanding what the Chair might tell me as we go, I will proceed to ask my questions. In the event that I am ruled out of order, I will be ruled out of order. However, I see no reason that any question I am about to ask the witness should not be answered. There is no reason whatsoever. I would like him to take that on board. I would also like him to bring back to Merrion Street that I for one, as a member of the Committee of Public Accounts for however long I will be here, will not be putting up with the constant disdain and contempt being shown for this committee, the only constitutional committee of the State where witnesses are under the auspices of the Comptroller and Auditor General and where it is our job to ask questions of them. I know the answer to this but, for the record, why is the Secretary General, the Accounting Officer, not here?