As Chairman I received correspondence from Deputy Fleming who asked that the committee would investigate a leak of a draft of the report on the redress board issue. It was leaked to The Irish Times and published recently. In the course of that correspondence, Deputy Fleming accused Deputy Rabbitte of being the source of the leak. Deputy Rabbitte wrote to me subsequently expressing his serious concern about the correspondence from Deputy Fleming and denying emphatically that he was the source of the leak. Does Deputy Fleming wish to comment?
Business of Committee.
I wrote to the Chairman last Friday, having seen a report on the front page of that day's edition of The Irish Times regarding the initial draft of a report by consultants in respect of our work on the redress issue that we had discussed in private session. As a member of the committee I was very concerned that a matter on which we were working should find its way into the public arena. I immediately wrote to the Chairman asking that he investigate the source of the leak, which undermines the work of the committee.
I was reminded that 12 months ago I wrote to the then Chairman, Deputy Perry, seeking a discussion on a leak to The Irish Times which, I believe, appeared on 31 January 2004. I wrote that letter on 3 February outlining concerns about the leaks from the private session of the committee and in particular the coverage regarding the draft proposal in respect of Punchestown and correspondence regarding electronic voting. Two items were leaked 12 months ago about which the committee had a discussion in private session at that time. In the course of that discussion, Deputy Rabbitte indicated to us in private session that we had received a private letter from the Comptroller and Auditor General regarding electronic voting. That letter had been passed from his office directly to Deputy Gilmore, the Labour Party spokesperson on the environment.
On Monday, 2 February 2004, Deputy Gilmore issued a press release to the national media, which was reported on the following day. He subsequently spoke about the matter in the Dáil. On that occasion Deputy Rabbitte was the source that passed the information, which had been received by us in private session, to a party colleague who subsequently caused it to be published in the media. That matter was of great concern. Deputy Rabbitte can speak for himself. He spoke at that meeting and he apologised for that incident. At that time it was so serious that the Comptroller and Auditor General said he would need to reconsider issuing similar letters to the committee in the future if letters issued to us in private session were to end up in the public arena.
The apology the leader of the Labour Party gave us last February was sincere and I found it easy to accept. However, I visited the Labour Party website ten minutes before coming to this meeting and I found the offending leak — the extracts from the letter of the Comptroller and Auditor General — still on it. Not only was Deputy Rabbitte the cause of that leak, apologising for it, but for the past year and two weeks he has, through his party's website, also continued to promulgate that private correspondence, which was issued to the committee. If the retraction in respect of that leak had been genuine, the least one would have expected was some action to match the words spoken in the committee. One year and two weeks later we still find the extracts from the private correspondence on the Labour Party website, with no action taken to remove them.
While it grieves me to have to say this on the public record, Deputy Rabbitte has a proven track record as being the source of a leak of confidential committee information to the national media. He did not leak it himself personally and I have not accused him of leaking this information personally. I have said correspondence to him was the source and that is one of the reasons I believe that he is the source of the leak in question. It is not the issue of the Deputy concerned that is fundamental to our work here as parliamentarians but the broader issue of the continuing leaks and the undermining of the committee's work.
Regarding the leak to the journalist from The Irish Times, those of us who met here on Wednesday of last week to discuss the initial draft presented to us in private session agreed that report should be completely redrafted. However, the report, which appeared in The Irish Times, was the initial draft that was no longer under consideration by the committee. I believe such a leak could only have come from somebody who was not present at last week’s private meeting. Anyone who was here on Wednesday of last week would have known that that version of the initial draft was no longer a relevant document. It is my belief that such a leak would have come from somebody who was not au fait with what went on in private session on Wednesday of last week. The Deputy will be able to confirm that he fits into that category.
I stress that I have not said at any stage that Deputy Rabbitte spoke personally to the journalist who wrote the article in The Irish Times. However, in private session last week — this issue was referred to in the leak — a particular reference was contained in the initial document presented to us. We had 21 paragraphs under consideration in terms of our findings and recommendations. Regarding a finding on the redress issue, one paragraph read as follows: “Department of Finance regulations requiring Oireachtas approval for the commitment to contingent liabilities in the absence of legislation were not met in respect of the agreement to the indemnity.”
When that paragraph was discussed last week, the Chairman, along with myself and others present, said we could not understand that point. None of us present at that private meeting could grasp the issue. The Chairman and I concurred in a proposal that we should unilaterally delete it as no members understood its significance. The sentence that neither the Chairman nor I was able to understand is explained clearly in the article on the front page of The Irish Times on Friday, 11 February. What is contained in The Irish Times is more understandable and reads:
TDs on the committee are also considering making a finding that details of the deal should have gone before the Oireachtas for approval, as it gave rise to an unspecified and ongoing liability.
I understand the way it is written in The Irish Times, but I did not understand the way it was written in the draft report. Whoever spoke to the journalist at The Irish Times was able to explain to him the meaning of that particular paragraph, which neither the Chairman nor I could comprehend when we discussed it in private session. In private session this morning, we discussed a letter the leader of the Labour Party sent to the committee. It is addressed to Brian Hickey and states:
Dear Brian,
Thank you for your latest draft report. I note the following specific finding has been omitted ...
Department of Finance regulations requiring Oireachtas approval for the commitment to contingent liabilities in the absence of legislation were not met in respect of the agreement to the indemnity.
This repeats the point, which neither the Chairman nor I understood. However, that point was made in the article in The Irish Times and is the point that Deputy Rabbitte has indicated in private session he is most concerned about having been dropped. That is a point that Deputy Rabbitte alone raised with Department of Finance officials.
The article in The Irish Times on Friday 11 February put a spin in this point in particular, which nobody on the committee understood — other than, clearly, Deputy Rabbitte, who is here this morning demanding to know why we have dropped it. From my knowledge of the committee he was the only one who understood the particular point that was spun in the newspaper. It has added to my belief — I said “belief” and never said that I had proof — that he or people connected with him may have been the source. It adds to the previous proven track record of information from his office ending up in the national media and to this day continuing to appear on the Labour Party website. It is a cause of great concern. We need to discuss the broader issues of the leak. That is all I have to say on the topic at present.
As I said when the committee was in private session, those of us in this business are well accustomed to political argument, invective and, occasionally, abuse. In my time as a Member of the House, I have never encountered such an outrageous and unsubstantiated allegation being placed in the public domain by a colleague on any side of the House. The Deputy in question has alleged that he is concerned about leaking. I did not know anything about this incident until a journalist from the Irish Independent contacted the Labour Party press office.
I did not leak the document in question. I did not cause it to be leaked. I did not leak any information surrounding it directly or indirectly. I now find, in public session, that Deputy Fleming is relying on an incident that happened here a year ago when the committee was considering electronic voting to establish what he calls "a proven track record". He has made an esoteric argument about something that is or is not in the document. I am not at all concerned about that matter because I had no involvement — good, bad or indifferent.
I suggested in private session that the Chairman could invite the journalist who wrote the story in The Irish Times to appear before the committee in public session. While we would not expect the journalist to betray his sources — I am sure he would not do that and will not do that — we could ask him simply whether I or anybody associated with me was involved in any way, directly or indirectly, with the provision of the information to him. If that is put to him, I am sure he will bear out clearly what I am saying.
I get more furious when I read the letter again and when I hear Deputy Fleming adding insult to injury. I should explain that I have been a member of this committee since 1989, with the exception of the period in which I served in government. I have been involved in some sensitive inquiries in that time, but I have never been involved in any document finding its way out of these rooms.
Deputy Fleming referred to an incident during the committee's consideration of the electronic voting issue. I arrived at a meeting of the committee to find that the matter was being discussed. My colleague, Deputy Gilmore, was preparing a report on electronic voting at that time. I had received a great deal of correspondence from this committee about the matter, including the letter in question from the Comptroller and Auditor General. I had not attended the relevant meeting. I drew the existence of the document to the attention of Deputy Gilmore and gave a copy of it to him for his information. I believe that the Deputy subsequently referred to the document in a Dáil debate, without my knowledge. When I entered this room to find that the matter was being discussed, I explained what had happened to the committee. It is fair to say that the committee accepted that at the time.
Deputy Fleming has tried to present what happened last year as evidence he has unearthed of "a proven track record". The Deputy made charges against me in his letter. He queried whether I should be allowed to continue as a member of the committee. As a member of the committee, I hid documents from the prying eyes of the media when Deputy Fleming was hiding Ray Burke's cheques in Lower Mount Street from the prying eyes of the then treasurer of the party.
Since Deputy Fleming became a member of the committee, he has politicised the committee in a fashion that was unknown during the previous years in which I was a member of it. He comes to meetings of the committee armed with documents from Ministers and officials from the Departments under scrutiny. He detains the committee for hours in minute defence of whatever Minister he considers to be at risk at the time. That has never been the practice in this committee. A prime example of such behaviour has been the Deputy's actions during the committee's consideration of the redress scheme, which we have been discussing this morning. He came to this meeting, having been briefed politically on behalf of the Minister, or by the Minister directly, to put forward his position, irrespective of any evidence we might hear. He sees that as his role on this committee.
Deputy Fleming's behaviour is undermining the committee, which has never functioned in the way I have outlined. I recall the committee's consideration in years gone by of complicated, sensitive and difficult issues, such as the purchase of Carysfort College, which was highly politically charged. We managed to do our business at that time without descending into the kind of partisan and political point-scoring that Deputy Fleming has majored in since he became a member of the committee.
I am thoroughly annoyed about this development. I cannot believe that anybody would write a letter saying "I believe Deputy Pat Rabbitte is the source of the leak" without having any evidence to substantiate such an allegation. By placing it in the public domain in the way he did, Deputy Fleming has lost whatever privilege might have attached to the letter as a consequence of his being a member of the committee. I do not mean to suggest I have any intention of taking legal action against Deputy Fleming, as that would be an entirely inappropriate precedent to create in this House.
The least that Deputy Fleming should do is to apologise fully for what he has done and to withdraw the allegation. He must know now, if he did not know previously, that he cannot substantiate his claim, for which he has no evidence. I suspect he knows I had nothing to do with the leak — good, bad or indifferent, indirectly or directly. I suggest that the Chairman should write to the relevant journalist from The Irish Times to explain the background to this matter and to invite him to appear before the committee in public session. I do not know whether the journalist would be minded to take up that offer, but if he were to answer certain questions, it would make it clear that I had nothing to do with the leak, and neither did anybody operating on my behalf.
Deputy Fleming has made this allegation on a flimsy basis. It would have been appropriate for him to write to the Chairman to say he is concerned about the leaking of the report and he would like to discuss the issue. He could then have made whatever charges he might have wished to make at a meeting of this committee in private session. That would have been the most appropriate way in which to proceed, especially given the flimsiness of his evidence. Putting the matter in the public domain and naming a fellow member of the committee was entirely disreputable conduct. Deputy Fleming should go to see his party leader because he is not an appropriate person to serve on this committee.
I have not been a member of this committee since 1989 — I suppose I have been a member of it for a few months. I want to give my opinion about what I think is going on here. I suppose I have seen this coming for a few months. One of the difficulties is that the Chairman and the members of the committee are doing their job very well. However, certain members of the committee are making allegations and comments about other members of the committee to muddy the waters and to deflect from the unavoidable and unpleasant facts which the committee has unearthed, particularly in recent months. That process reached a high point when the Government considered the electronic voting issue. The facts to which I refer make uncomfortable reading for members and supporters of the Government. Frankly, I think Government Deputies have decided to do something about that. They have decided to come here and try to deflect the bad news by making allegations and comments about members of the committee.
The problem began a month ago with a direct attack on the Chairman in the context of comments on electronic voting machines. A direct accusation was made about politicisation within the committee. Unfortunate as it may be for Government Deputies, trying to prevent bad news issuing from the Committee of Public Accounts on the way the Government has handled certain issues is reminiscent of King Canute's attempts to stop the waves.
Government Deputies must accept that the issue is one of committee members doing their jobs properly. In approximately three weeks, I will be the second questioner when the committee discusses electronic voting with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Am I expected to recuse myself from the committee simply because a constituency colleague was involved in the matter as the previous Minister at the Department? While I have a responsibility to ask questions at such hearings on such issues, it looks like I will be accused of acting politically if I question the role of the Minister in the electronic voting fiasco.
My experience since joining the committee indicates that Deputy Rabbitte was right to say that Deputy Fleming has been the person responsible for politicising it. Deputy Fleming has overstepped the mark on this occasion. It is outrageous that he should make the allegation he has without any evidence to support it. The committee appears to be moving in a particular direction and I am not sure there is any way of stopping it. The person most responsible for the trend is Deputy Fleming.
The making of an allegation of this type is disappointing and unsavoury. To listen to the justification of it has, in Deputy Rabbitte's words, added insult to injury. Not only is the original allegation on the table, but Deputy Rabbitte has been pinpointed as the source of every leak from the committee since the 2002 general election. The accusation has been made on no ground but supposition. The tone which has entered the committee's proceedings is regrettable, as is the making of allegations in the public arena without the ability to support them.
Every member of the committee is subject to ongoing, regular media inquiries to which we respond as responsibly as possible. We must acknowledge that, on the whole, the information which comes from the committee is made available through its public sessions following a great deal of detailed work by members. Members are properly limited by the committee's terms of reference which preclude us from dealing with policy issues which arise in the context of circumstances we investigate. That does not mean the committee cannot make recommendations or invoke criticisms relating to political responsibility for the maladministration of public finances, as to do so is its right and proper role. To consider the committee as a mechanism to defend political masters is a perversion.
I hope we can reverse the trend which has lately developed, revert to our intended role and continue to do the very effective work we have been instructed to carry out by the Dáil itself. If we do not, this cancer will make it difficult for the committee to fulfil the remainder of its work programme and stunt its ability to live up to its vaunted reputation for holding public officials and those who direct them to account on public expenditure.
While I do not want to comment on the specific leak in question, on which I have no information, I will address some of the contributions of members. I recognise that Deputy Deasy is new to the committee, but it has been strongly suggested that the Fianna Fáil members are not prepared to question seriously and rigorously the witnesses who attend each week. I do not hold with that. As individual members, we ask the necessary questions. If one looks at the record of proceedings, one will find that Fianna Fáil members have asked some of the hardest questions on the serious issues with which the committee has dealt. On the matter of Punchestown, which was one of the most high profile cases we addressed, Deputies Ardagh and Fleming led the charge. It is not fair or reasonable to suggest that Fianna Fáil members fail to participate actively in the committee's work and the questioning of witnesses.
Deputy Rabbitte referred to the seating arrangements and said we generally seem to take the same seats. I have never seen Deputy Fleming, who often sits beside me, bring in additional documentation and to suggest he brings in extra files or briefing material seems incorrect. I admit he is well read on those topics in which he is interested. It is unfair to my colleagues to suggest that as individual members, Fianna Fáil Deputies fail to participate and are unprepared to ask difficult questions. I direct my comments at Deputy Deasy. Each of us on the Fianna Fáil side asks difficult, thorough questions of the witnesses appearing before us. We do not shirk from our responsibilities and I would be disappointed if the committee as a whole felt otherwise. I hope the Chairman does not see our contributions in a negative light. I would be disappointed if he did.
I do not wish to go into the issue, but will take up Deputy Deasy's point. It is very important to dismiss his argument that Fianna Fáil members are in any way biased or partisan. Deputy Rabbitte and I are the longest serving members of the committee and have many years of experience. Deputy Deasy is relatively new and may not understand how the committee works. I call on Deputy Rabbitte if he speaks subsequently to agree that we have done the committee's work regardless of who the Minister is or what is at issue. I reject completely the suggestion that any member protects Ministers or anyone else.
I agree with Deputy Curran's point about the extra briefing. While Deputy Fleming brings more material to the committee than any other member, it is documentation that was issued to us by the redress board. Deputy Fleming was the only member to bring the files issued to us which were probably six inches thick and he had read them completely. The same is true of every other issue with which we have dealt, the proof being Deputy Fleming's ability to produce material and letters from the last 12 months. While most of us come with less material, no special briefing is involved.
The committee has done invaluable work over the years and will hear again today in the context of public expenditure that its recommendations have been taken on board. Deputy Deasy's suggestion undermines that approach and it would be a pity to fail to record a challenge to it.
I take the opportunity to respond to one or two of the points which have been made. In the first instance, I respond to the points made by Deputy Deasy who I accept is quite a new member of the committee. He has not seen how it operates on a long-term basis. Had he been here longer, he would have seen on many occasions that Fianna Fáil members have been highly critical of Departments. The committee has been undermined by the appearance of information provided to it in private session on the front page of The Irish Times rather than by my letter of last Friday. Members should not take their eye off the ball and fail to recognise the issue.
At the critical stage of the final draft of the Punchestown report last year, information was leaked to the national media. It is 12 months later and information on another substantial report on which we are working has been leaked. I say a member is responsible because I would not dream of casting aspersions on any member of the staff of the Houses. I believe the leaks came from a politician or different politicians were responsible for different leaks. The people leaking confidential documents to the national media are damaging the committee. Those of us who take up the issue are also in the fray but we are not the source of the problems. Whoever is leaking documents is the source of the problem.
I wish to respond to one or two points made by Deputy Rabbitte because we have moved away from the issue. Whatever charge Deputy Rabbitte believed I made against him, some of his outrageous comments about me must be rebutted. By any measure, what he said about me is 100 times worse than the comment I made about him in my letter. He said I should consider whether it is appropriate for me to serve on the committee. I reject that suggestion and the Deputy is out of order to go down that road.
I will not apologise. The Deputy accused me of political point-scoring and stated I received political briefings from the Ministers concerned and arrived at the meeting with more information from officials than any other member. That is untrue and it is a scurrilous attack by a desperate person. All the Deputy could do, in dealing with an issue, was take the famous approach that if one cannot win the argument, one should attack the man. That is what he did in the past few minutes. He attacked me and the conscientious efforts I have made to be briefed for the meeting. I do not receive any briefing and can categorically state that members of my party are often unhappy with the strident approach Government Deputies on this committee take on many issues. We have caused considerable discomfort and are not here as anybody's patsies. I received no such information.
The Deputy descended to a new low when he said that while he was serving here, I was hiding cheques from Ray Burke. I must respond in kind. Deputy Rabbitte accepted cheques from Frank Dunlop on occasions. If he wants to go down that road and make a mockery of the committee, I will respond in kind.
Members should not drift into the subject matter of tribunals.
The fundamental difference between Deputy Rabbitte and me is that on the particular issue I went into the House on 1 July 1998, seven years ago, and made a full public statement about all knowledge I had regarding any issues which may have been relevant to a tribunal. This contrasts with the approach of Deputy Rabbitte who stood up in the House and said, to use his phrase, that he had allegations that would rock the State to its foundations. When asked to be specific he was not prepared to present evidence either in the Dáil or tribunals. I have been prepared to come forward in the Dáil on issues of public interest. Since the Deputy went down that road today, I responded in kind to balance the issue. The insults the Deputy made against me today are out of bounds and I reject them entirely.
It diminishes this committee that Deputy Fleming refuses to retract his allegation and apologise fulsomely. It diminishes a committee with a proud reputation and diminishes the Deputy in my eyes. A child of seven years would not make an allegation such as this based on the flimsy supposition Deputy Fleming has advanced.
I made no reference to any other member of the committee, from the Government or Opposition side. I have served with Deputy Dennehy since 1989 and have nothing but admiration for his diligence on this committee. However, what Deputy Deasy said about Deputy Fleming is true. He has brought an entirely different character to this committee. He sees his job as riding shotgun for the Government. It was reported in the public press and raised at this committee that Deputy Fleming had been briefed by the Secretary General and-or officials of the Department of Education and Science before the committee started its deliberations on the issue under discussion. That is a matter of record. This occurs time after time when sensitive matters arise.
When Governments used to alternate a little more frequently than now, there was little sensitivity among members of the committee when questioning Accounting Officers on lapses in expenditure of public money or asking them to account for public money. In recent times, however, that position has entirely changed.
I do not know why or what kind of rush of blood to the head Deputy Fleming had in plunging into writing this letter to the Chairman to express his irritation at what he calls the information that is undermining this committee. He then stated that different politicians are responsible for different leaks. Notwithstanding that this is not what he said initially, how does he know that? I do not know that. All I know is that I did not leak the information in question or anything else. I was a member of the most sensitive inquiry this committee carried out for about a year and a half, which included six weeks of public hearings. The inquiry involved crate loads of documents which would have been worth a headline every single day of the week. Not once during that year and a half did any member of the inquiry leak a single half page outside the committee rooms of the Committee of Public Accounts.
I regret again that Deputy Fleming cannot bring himself to apologise for what has happened. This committee has a proud tradition and record of consistent high quality work on behalf of taxpayers in examining in a manner that does justice to the quality of the reports produced by the Comptroller and Auditor General every year. It is immensely regrettable that this has happened.
Deputy Deasy is correct. As a new member of the committee, he has seen that this was likely to bubble up on one issue or another. Deputy Fleming reaches for his gun every time a member makes a comment on this issue and features on radio or in a newspaper alleging that something or other coming from this committee is political. We have a job to do and the public expression of that work is central to the merit of this committee, which carries out its analysis in public, and taxpayers draw their own conclusions as a result.
I apologise for delaying the committee on this issue. It was not my wish. If Deputy Fleming had been prepared to apologise and retract, I would not have asked to go into public session. I do not know what other redress is open to me in the parliamentary sense. I will write to the Chairman of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges for advice on the issue. I have legal advice to the effect that Deputy Fleming has lost the privilege that might otherwise attach to his allegation by placing it in the public domain. I repeat that I do not believe that it is appropriate in a parliamentary context for one parliamentarian to sue another and I do not intend to go down that road. However, I stoutly protest my complete and absolute innocence on this issue and express regret that Deputy Fleming cannot withdraw.
Deputy Fleming has stated he will not apologise. Will he retract his allegation?
I could not contemplate apologising to a person who made an accusation that I hid cheques from Ray Burke.
I should not have expressed that matter in that way and I retract it.
In the same spirit, I will take a similar approach to Deputy Rabbitte on the basis that he has made accusations against me that he cannot stand up. I want to revert to the issue of the letter to the Chairman about leaks. We have not dealt with it.
We did not intend dealing with it today. It is an issue we can deal with again. Will Deputy Fleming apologise or retract? What does he say in conclusion? He should retract even if he does not apologise.
Will the Chairman explain the difference?
One is an expression of sorrow, the other is a withdrawal of the accusation.
There is no expression of sorrow. I said I believed he was the source of the leak. I personally believe it. I accept I have not produced proof.
However, the Deputy still believes it, taking into account the Deputy's very strong statement to the contrary.
I never said Deputy Rabbitte leaked the information. He keeps denying something of which I did not accuse him. I said the documentation went to his office, it could have gone to a variety of other people. I never said Deputy Rabbitte leaked it. I never said that. He is giving the impression I did.
If Deputy Fleming retracted the accusation we would rescue something from this debacle. I ask the Deputy to do so in the interests of the committee.
It is my belief but I have not proved the case.
Is that as far as the Deputy will go?
Far more serious allegations have been made against me today about politicising the committee than I have made against other people. In view of what has been said by various members of the committee against me and my attitude in this committee, I believe retractions are due all around.
Deputy Fleming should not widen the issue. The specific matter in hand is the accusation that Deputy Rabbitte leaked the report. I am not saying Deputy Fleming should apologise or anything like that, but in the light of what Deputy Rabbitte has said and in view of the Deputy's lack of evidence, I ask that he would retract the accusation.
I did not accuse him of leaking the report.
Will Deputy Fleming retract his accusation?
My belief is still my belief.
I will suspend the meeting. We will recommence in public session at 1.20 p.m. with the Department of Agriculture and Food Vote.
There will be a vote in the Dáil at 1.30 p.m.
The lead questioner will be Deputy Dennehy, and the second, Deputy Deasy. We will have a short suspension now and then proceed in public session in the normal way.
Sitting suspended at 1.12 p.m. and resumed at 1.30 p.m.
Deputy Fleming has asked for one minute of our time.
We were discussing the issue of the leaks in the immediate run-up to the suspension of the committee's proceedings. I have considered the issue and the request by the Chairman to retract my comments. There is a section in my letter dealing with the matter. I am happy to retract my comments on Deputy Rabbitte.
I thank the Deputy.
I thank the Chairman and Deputy Fleming for his retraction.
I am sorry to intervene but Deputy Fleming should note that I like this committee because I can get work done here. There have been three or four occasions on which Secretaries General have been before the committee and we have made suggestions to them. Perhaps the Deputy and I have done so jointly. It is like being back in the county council and affords to me an opportunity to get something done. I want this to continue. I do not want the issue to become politicised. Deputy Dennehy should take note of this also and bear in mind that there are reasons for everything. Let us move on from here.
Before we proceed with the Vote, I would like to report to the committee on the reports, statements and accounts received since the meeting of Thursday, 10 February 2005. On No. 5.1, are the Waterford City Enterprise Board Accounts of 2003 noted? Agreed. On No. 6, the work programme, members should note that the committee will meet the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on Thursday, 24 March 2005. We had scheduled a meeting for the previous Tuesday and changed the date on the basis that it could be held on the Thursday, as per usual, if the Department officials were available.
Mr. J. Purcell (An tArd Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) called and examined.