Shane Cassells (Meath West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I want to get into those issues. There were many issues at the time. People were losing their jobs and whether they were in a cellular or open plan office was not their concern. I acknowledge that in December 2016 Mr. Buckley initiated meetings to resolve the ongoing issues.

Chapter 6.41 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General states the “OPW has a directive power in relation to civil service office accommodation [but] it did not exercise that power in this case”. That is an important point that I would like Mr. Buckley to consider. The Comptroller and Auditor General stated the OPW did not exercise that power because it felt “far more effective when engaging with client Departments in relation to office relocations” and “that directive powers are useful in certain situations but are a ‘blunt instrument’ and ... would not have dealt with the complete culture change associated with a move from ‘cellular’ to open plan layouts”. In his opening statement Mr. Buckley stated: “In the OPW’s experience, it is quite common that staff ... considerations trump those relating to the physical building itself”. What stage does it have to reach for the protection of the take from the public purse to trump the feelings of the people discommoded by having to look at someone across a desk, rather than being in an office? That goes to the heart of what Mr. Buckley said in his statement and the fact that he had powers at his discretion to bypass all of this nonsense of whether guys’ feelings were out of check because they were moving from a cellular to an open plan office. Modern companies do this all of the time. It is extremely frustrating to think the public service cannot adapt in the same fashion and that the net result was a loss of €11 million. No private company would even countenance such a scenario. A private company would tell its employees that they would not have a job the following morning if they did not get over their feelings. At what stage does protection of the public purse trump the ineffective use of money?