Shane Cassells (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman.

I was open to listening to everyone's opinion on the suggestion put forward. The Comptroller and Auditor General, the person on whom we rely for advice, has advised us what we would be examining is how money is spent, not why it is spent. This sets the parameters for any work that will be done in this room.

This debate has spiralled in other spheres, despite the concise advice given by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I do not agree with Deputies Burke or Kelly that such an examination would compromise the democratic process. I share Deputy MacSharry's point regarding the three and a half page rebuttal from the Secretary General to the Government, Mr. Fraser. I wonder did he run that by the Attorney General, bearing in mind his challenge to this committee as to whether it has sought legal advice. In his summary remarks he states: "I believe your proposal appears to be unconstitutional" but he does not reference whether he ran this three and a half page rebuttal by the Attorney General's Office to see if his own assertions were correct. He references the Constitution. The Constitution references the President as the person not being answerable to either Houses of the Oireachtas. Mr. Fraser draws on Article 13.8.1° in respect of the duties of the President. It does not refer to the moneys of the office. Mr. Fraser also talks about his own role as Accounting Officer and says that his capacity is in obtaining assurance that the office operates properly. If his job is to obtain assurances that the office is operating properly, he obviously is required to set a standard of guidelines in respect of the spend of moneys, which are then subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General and should be open to discussion and examination.

As I said, I was open to the discussion this morning, as was Deputy Cullinane, but not in regard to the incumbent, President Higgins, in regard to the performance of his duties or how he conducts himself or his office. The examination would be about how the money is spent and not why it is spent. The letter sent to this committee by the Secretary General to the Government, Mr. Fraser, is amazing. He has asked if the committee sought advice and if he can see it. I do not see too much standing from him in that regard. He has cited that it is his belief that the proposal for the meeting is unconstitutional. We are at a stand-off. I refute the point that an examination would in any way compromise the democratic process. I do not believe it would. That is a dangerous assertion. If anything, it is about ensuring we have a democratic process, which is what anyone involved in a campaign would want.