Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

On resources, the office's staffing level before the downturn and the 2008 crisis was approximately 175. Every organisation had to take a cut in the circumstances. Our staffing level was reduced to 165. Although it fell to 150, it has been increased to 165. The committee will recall that in addition, we were given NAMA, which is probably our largest audit, absorbing something in the region of seven to nine whole-time equivalent staff members in a year. It is a significant change.

My predecessor and I took the view that, even though we believed that what we did delivered value for money, we could not in the circumstances be the first ones up asking for additional resources. There were other significant service delivery demands, for example, teaching, hospitals and so on. We did not believe that it would be appropriate for us to put ourselves forward as a special case in years past.

It is a disappointment to me that we are not producing more reporting work. There is a great deal of potential for us to do it. It is expensive and resource-intensive work. Since it is a discretionary piece, our capacity to deliver the kinds of report that are helpful to the committee gets hit whenever we have a gap in resources.

In terms of the value to be had from using agency staff, we are always conscious of the cost, including relative cost, of engaging them. We keep it under constant review. During the downturn, people were let go from other organisations and became unemployed, which meant that there was a pool of talent from which we could draw at reasonable prices. With the upturn in the economy of recent years, however, it is becoming more expensive. Even within agency resources, the turnover has become more difficult to manage. With the heat in the economy, we are probably getting to the stage at which it is less attractive for us to use agency staff. On the other hand, it can be useful at a point in time. We may need to consider other models for finding staff to plug those gaps, which is a constant challenge. We interview people to determine whether they are suitable and we agree for them to start but because they are agency staff, they might get permanent job offers and be gone. That can leave one with a planning problem if, for example, one is about to commence an audit. Operationally, it is not ideal but it is better than having ever increasing delays in the completion of audits and the delivery and presentation of financial statements.

Regarding the land aggregation scheme, we have dealt with the issues that the Deputy raised about the two phases - the land aggregation and the stopping - in the report that I mentioned when answering Deputy Cassells. We will let Deputy Connolly have the report. It may answer some of the points that she raised. As the Chairman suggested, the Secretary General may be in a position to update the report's information when he appears before the committee, giving the Deputy a fresher perspective.