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

Many contributions have been made and there are many views on what has happened here. We should come to an understanding of where we want to take this because it is a much broader issue. Deputy Connolly made a point about the processes, on which we need to agree.

Pictures of Mr. Peter Finnegan have been splashed across all the newspapers in the last few days, as he is the Accounting Officer, but a much deeper analysis is required beyond such a simplification of the issue. Point 2 of the analysis and conclusions stands out for me, where Mr. Finnegan says: "the requirements of the building and other regulations in relation to 'head height' were neither understood nor examined during the critical early stages of the project." The key question is to whom that lack of understanding refers. The OPW came in waving a red flag on 15 August. It is right and proper to raise a debacle such as Miesian Plaza and the money lost in that case because there was no acceptance of guilt from the OPW when we discussed the matter at this committee. The simple focus of the OPW in that project was that its job was to deliver X, which it did, and it did not anticipate the HR problems that would result in it being in cold storage for a long time. As Deputy Burke said, that cost us €20 million. That seems to be the accepted practice. We have to ask where the buck stops with such projects. We cannot let processes go on in those circumstances, because here it is repeating itself again today.

According to the timeline in the report, a valuation of tenders was received on 12 April 2018, which the Oireachtas contracts committee considered on 27 April.

However, it was flagged in an email on 25 April that there were problems pertaining to the height issue. The committee should formally ask, by email, whether that issue was on the table at the meeting. I do not accept that the issue was flagged on 25 April but the report states: "However, at the time of writing this Report I have yet to establish how or if this information was processed within the Houses of the Oireachtas Service." An email must go to someone. We can simply establish to whom it was sent. We could find out this morning to whom the email was sent and the action that was taken. It may have been forwarded to someone else. If so, the electronic system would have recorded that. These are simple questions which would not involve a detailed process of investigation. We should establish whether the email was considered at the meeting on 25 April.

I wish to know what expertise is on the contracts committee in light of the report stating that the requirements of the building had not been anticipated. I have walked the floor of the print room many times. When I started out as a student journalist some 25 years ago, I visited the former print facility of The Irish Timeson D'Olier Street. When the Meath Chroniclerequired a new printing press, it was obvious that the confines of the old print room were unsuitable, so it built a new printing facility. The printing facility in Kildare House is very tight on space. It is extremely limited in terms of height requirement. I wonder what discussions took place with the people who operate the facility. They have the expertise in terms of knowing how to operate a print facility. I have been there several times. The limited space in the room should have been a basic consideration in the evaluation of the contracts.

We should establish whether the email flagging the issue was discussed at the meeting on 25 April, ascertain the expertise of the committee and identify who was engaged to analyse that.