Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We should note the exceptional nature of this committee dealing with correspondence with a whole array of different stakeholders, including the Department, in public session. Through complex legislation, this committee has always managed to deal with its correspondence in private. Our decision to speak in public about this matter indicates the strength of the feeling of committee members from different political parties. All the contributions have been as one and anyone who watches this committee will know that is not always the case. The first thing is that this is exceptional.

The second thing is that the tone of the responses certainly indicated that investigations were taking place. What all three replies fail to understand is that there is an obligation on us to carry out any investigations that we see fit. There should be no limit placed on the number of investigations. In assuming there are investigations taking place, they are assuming this committee will not carry out an investigation. We are not starting on that footing. We are asking them to come forward and to discuss these issues with us.

The third issue is that, as other Deputies have raised, there was a commitment that public money would be used to help to resolve this issue. It is entirely appropriate that the Oireachtas committee that votes for the Estimates from which this money will be taken would have the opportunity to probe the issue not just with the Peter McVerry Trust but also with the DRHE, which forms part of the public infrastructure, and with the Department. It is not an option for parties that are accountable to this House in a direct way to refuse. If the Committee of Public Accounts were involved, it would not accept that and I do not think this committee should accept it either.

There is an opportunity here to build trust to prevent the same discussion happening and to prevent this tone of discussion. This committee took deliberate steps to ensure that three bodies which carry out vast amounts of incredibly important work, and that we need to support, would be given the opportunity to discuss service delivery. For all of those reasons, they need to reflect on the replies that have been given. They should come forward to discuss the use of the additional public money that has been committed. They need to provide members with reassurances that the service delivery we want will continue.