I noticed in the Tánaiste's reply to Deputy Pearse Doherty earlier that he talked about the importance of oversight of State funding and ensuring value for money. The Irish Mirror has learnt that, in addition to the moneys being spent by the Department of agriculture transporting pets from Ukraine, the Department of integration was paying for their accommodation, up to €20 per pet per night, but it varied from centre to centre. It is not possible to establish actually how much money was spent because there is just one invoice covering everything from various accommodation providers, and they do not differentiate between the cost of accommodating pets and accommodating humans, which, obviously, we are required to do under international law. Ireland, unlike other countries, seems to have had no policy at the time. Other countries had. Some had a policy of "Absolutely no pets - we cannot take your pets". Others had a policy of "Yes, you can take your pets with you, but you pay for them yourself". Ireland was paying for them, but we do not know how much money was spent. Based on the number of pets in the country, which was seven times more than the Department of integration knew about, it could have been up to a million euro a month. Is the Tánaiste happy with the oversight of spending in that Department when he was Taoiseach and is he happy with the oversight of spending now?

There is a context to all this. I will always recall, when I was leaving Kyiv, that there is an exhibition in the train station which recalls the horror facing the population of Ukraine at the time.

There were desperate photographs of mothers with their children looking out the windows at their husbands, in-laws, grandparents - frightened children. That was the scene.

They had their pets with them.

We all responded in a humanitarian way at the time. No one believed the war would go on for two years.

Really?

I did not believe it would go on for two years.

Really?

Fine; Deputy McNamara is an expert.

I am not an expert but-----

Please, can we desist from having a conversation?

I have to come back to the essential response we made at the time, which was a humane response. The Deputy may now, two and a half years on, instance one aspect of that response and-----

Several aspects.

-----create a lot of angst about it.

I thank the Tánaiste. The time is up.

There was a context at the time in which this country responded. We can be overly negative about ourselves all the time. I think it was a decent response.

So oversight of State funding is only important when Deputy Doherty raises it.

No. I think it was a decent response that reflected the best of what we are as a people.