Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome everyone to the meeting. No apologies have been received. If attending in the committee room, attendees are asked to exercise personal responsibility to protect themselves and others against the risk of contracting Covid-19. Members of the committee attending remotely must do so from within the precincts of Leinster House. This is due to the constitutional requirement that, to participate in public meetings, members must be physically present within the confines of the Parliament.

The Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, is a permanent witness to the committee and is accompanied this morning by Mr. Leonard McKeown, deputy director of audit at the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

This morning, we will engage with officials from the Office of Public Works to examine the following: from the 2021 Appropriation Account, Vote 13 - Office of Public Works, OPW; and from the Comptroller and Auditor General’s 2021 Report on the Accounts of the Public Services: Chapter 8 - Contract payments in respect of Convention Centre Dublin. Information was also requested from the OPW regarding its evaluation of its expenditure for value for money, and this is in the context of a related provision in the committee’s orders of reference.

We are joined by the following officials from the OPW: Mr. Maurice Buckley, chairman; Mr. Ciaran O'Connor, State architect; Mr. Jim Casey, head of flood risk management; Mr. Martin Bourke, commissioner; Mr. Mick Long, director of corporate services; and Ms Rosemary Collier, assistant secretary. We are also joined by Ms Marie Mulvihill from the relevant Vote section at the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. They are all very welcome. I remind all those in attendance to ensure their mobile telephones are on silent or switched off.

Before we start, I wish to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards reference witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. As the witnesses are within the precincts of Leinster House, they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the presentations they make to the committee. This means they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and it is my duty as Chairman to ensure that privilege is not abused. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory to an identifiable person or entity, I may direct witnesses to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such directions.

Members are reminded of the provisions in Standing Order 218 that the committee shall refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government, or a Minister of the Government, or the merits of the objectives of such policies. Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Before we move to opening statements, Mr. Buckley is welcome. As mentioned, the committee requested information from the OPW and from Mr. Buckley, as Accounting Officer for the OPW, in relation to value for money. This was so the committee could assess whether Mr. Buckley can demonstrate that value for money has been achieved in the accounts under his responsibility. Clarity was sought by his office as to what was required. The clerk contacted me in relation to this and, following that discussion, advised Mr. Buckley's office that answers were required to each of the eight questions set out in the document, and as the request was in addition to the usual material, the answers could be concise. Despite this, Mr. Buckley's response provided a short overview of his efforts to assess expenditure for value for money without any reference to the questions asked by the committee. I note that Mr. Buckley was advised of the committee’s intention to engage with him today on 13 November, the formal invitation issued on 21 November and the request for the value for money information issued on 28 November. We feel sufficient notice was given. I would be grateful if Mr. Buckley could set out why we have not received answers to those eight questions. It is a framework the committee has and we have put a lot of thought into putting it together. It is part of our obligations under standing orders. I ask Mr. Buckley to explain why we do not have that here this morning.