Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The monitor says we are in private session. It is good to finally get this correspondence from Professor Brennan on this issue. I had hoped she would come before the committee at this time of year. She had been unable to come before it until now and over the summer it appears she decided she did not need or want to come before it, and wrote a detailed letter.

I wish to raise a couple of points. In the letter she mentioned that we have been unable to get certain key people from executives or boards to come before the committee. Do we have a list of people we have asked to come before this committee in regard to the docklands and the Irish Glass Bottle site who have said "No" to us and if they have given reasons for that?

Professor Brennan also states that because the people concerned could not come before the committee promptly, facts have not been ascertained and that there has been a conflict of evidence in the evidence we have received. That is true but her take on the comments of the individuals who came before us and conflicts they gave in their evidence and where the conflicts were would help us better determine which statements were true and which were not. There is a cloud over some of the evidence given to us from subsequent correspondence which has come to this committee.

She also states that factually incorrect evidence was to given us. If that is the case that is very important and we need to hear what that evidence was and how it is factually incorrect. Serious claims were made against Professor Brennan in this committee about the preparation of reports into the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, how they might have been influenced and how certain people were not given leave to examine those draft reports before they were finally published. We need to hear a proper response to that.

Professor Brennan said that no useful purpose would be served by her becoming involved in a highly personalised confrontation. She is correct. We do not want the committee to be a scene where people can take potshots at each other. She could appear before us and address those conflicts in the evidence we heard, those issues that were factually incorrect and the charges levelled against her and her stewardship when she came in to rescue the authority. In addition, it would be interesting to get her insight into the culture of the organisation because that was a key factor around what happened in there and to probe her on some of the aspects of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and other evidence we have heard. As a committee, given that we are hoping to draw to a close this aspect of our work this year, what are the next steps?