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

I read it back in July. They are taking issue with correspondence between parties in a case and that is a matter for them. We have to play with the deck that comes our way and some of those cards did come to us. The only interest I had - and the committee was in general agreement - was in whether there was a role for us there to prevent a court case being taken and for us to ultimately get what we wanted in our report back in January, which was the establishment of a committee of inspection to provide relevant oversight. I take Mr. McCarthy's point that it might not be correct for the Comptroller and Auditor General to be on that committee of inspection for different reasons but there certainly seems to be an absence of oversight. As I said previously, this may already be in the process of being handled in the manner that provides the best value for money going but it is the most expensive liquidation in the history of the State and probably close to being the biggest in Europe, if not the biggest. Because of the money involved, any perception of it being on autopilot due to the lack of a committee of inspection is an issue. The applicant in the case before the courts appears to have the same motive as us, except that it is costing us all money there.

Correspondence that was shown to me - and I put this on record at a previous meeting because I Deputy Cullinane had been asking if I had been shown correspondence that I did not share with the committee - showed that the Chief State Solicitor's Office, CSSO, had made an approach to the solicitors for the applicant asking if they would withdraw their case if the CSSO were to defer to the Committee on Public Accounts, which is something that I would agree with if it was possible for it to happen. I have a problem with us being used as a pawn in somebody else's game. If they want us to be involved, then they should involve us but it is not within the gift of the CSSO, any more than it is within the gift of the Department or of the Taoiseach to offer the work of this committee as an olive branch to anybody else, notwithstanding the fact that I would agree with that happening. I do not know where it is going. We have put it on record that we would like to engage and we have noted the importance of appropriate oversight in our report on what is heading for €300 million in costs so far. It could rise as far as €1 billion by the time it is finished. Nobody knows, but we have KPMG here, which I am sure is doing a fantastic job and paying itself from recoveries. Those amounts, while agreed in terms of the lower rates negotiated by the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA, would be questioned by a committee of inspection as to whether two partners, four juniors and a technician are needed for a specific course of action for example. That level of oversight would be there with such a committee. We do not have that now and while the Act theoretically vests a lot more power in the Minister than a committee of inspection would, Ministers are busy people and they depend on officials. Despite the excellent work of Mr. Carville and his team, it is a relatively small team and following our exchange with him on the matter, we established that there was not a lot of legal expertise on the team, even though that was something that had just been rectified or was about to be rectified at the time.

There is a lot of concern about the moneys involved and the lack of public oversight. I put in the rider that perhaps everything is in order and better than it could be with 40 committees of inspection. However, it may not be. That is why we should continue as a committee to promote the establishment of a committee of inspection in line with our report in January. Perhaps we can write back to the Department to say we stand ready to assist it if there is a way to avoid wasting taxpayers' money through the Department defending this. To the best of my knowledge, however, the Department has not issued a defence, which itself is the subject of a court hearing in early October. That is more money being cost to the State whereas we all want the same thing here. Can no one sit around the table and crack heads? In any legal proceedings in which I have had the misfortune to be involved, legal teams tended to communicate through the back channels. Perhaps we could save the State some money and get the level of oversight the committee, on behalf of the people, yearns for.