We will now turn to the Vote of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General itself. I want to welcome Mr. John Buckley, Secretary and Director of Audit and new Accounting Officer - your first time in this capacity - on the other side of the table. You are welcome. There is a note on this report so I ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to introduce it.
1999 Annual Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and Appropriation Accounts.
Vote 8 - Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Mr. J. Buckley(Secretary and Director of Audit and Accounting Officer) called and examined.
Mr. Purcell
Thank you Chairman.
In paragraph 1 of my report, I outline a change in the way I undertake my audit of Government Departments and offices. This entailed a move from an approach which primarily involved carrying out an audit which was geared, for the most part, towards enabling me to certify that the accounts properly presented the receipts and expenditure of a Vote, that the moneys voted were used for the purposes granted and that the underlying transactions were in conformity with the required authorities. These are all very important statutory requirements.
The outcome of this type of audit is a certificate that is seen at the end of each appropriation account. Over and above those certificates, I am required to report on such matters as I see appropriate, arising from my audit, and this is the basis for the more discursive report, which in recent years has been published as a separate volume to accompany the appropriation accounts.
For the 1999 audit, I changed the emphasis somewhat. As well as doing work to underpin my certification of the accounts, I carried out a small number of audits of standard operations across Civil Service Departments. You will see there, things like service contracts, foreign travel and pensions. I also targeted a number of activities in individual Departments for in-depth examination, with a view to reporting the outcome in a more comprehensive way than usual. The resultant paragraphs are signposted in the table on page one.
Internally, I believe, the new approach has resulted in greater clarity between the complementary functions of certifying and reporting. Hitherto the paragraphs in my report tended to be a by-product of audit work carried out for certification purposes. Some paragraphs will still originate from that work, but in future I expect to see more material in my annual report emanating from this targeted approach. I assure the committee that the change has not diminished the importance of the accounts certification function in any way and that the opinions, expressed in my audit certificates, are soundly based.
I reported this because, under the 1993 Act, I am required to report to the Dáil any change to the character of my audit. While it could be said that I did not have to do it, because this is a fine-tuning of the audit, I hope it will make my annual report a better vehicle for the committee to exercise its role in the public accountability process.
Thank you. Mr. Buckley is accompanied by Mr. Rapple. You are also very welcome. Mr. Gallagher is here from the Department of Finance.
Mr. Buckley, obviously you do not audit yourselves. Who audits the Comptroller and Auditor General's office?
Mr. Buckley
We are audited by a firm of accountants appointed by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
For the record, I want to make it clear that it is done externally.
Mr. Buckley
It is. I should point out that there is a slight complication in the sense that since it is voted moneys, the report of the auditor is to the Comptroller. The Comptroller and Auditor General remains constitutionally responsible for it because, under the Constitution, he is bound to audit all money administered by or under the authority of the Oireachtas. However, a formula was devised so that the audit could be done externally and this is what we are operating.
Okay. How many staff does the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General have?
Mr. Buckley
Our establishment is 142. It is 142 and on average, over the past three years, we have had 125 effective numbers.
That is what I was leading to. Do you have difficulty recruiting or retaining staff?
Mr. Buckley
Very much so. We have severe difficulty in holding staff. I suppose what we have had in the last three years is a turnover rate of 60%. Some 84% of all the staff who have left us have been below the rank of senior auditor, which is the equivalent of audit manager level. What has happened in the last three years is that, of our effective staff level of 125, 60% has actually turned over.
That is a large number. If the committee were to embark on another DIRT type inquiry tomorrow, would you be ready to take on the burden?
Mr. Buckley
Yes. I think the office would have retained the capacity to do such an examination, but I think we did suffer from the effects of having to take six people. One hundred and twenty five is not a large number. When six people are devoted - and at times we had to pull some other resources as well - to a specific task, it certainly cuts into the rest of the work and it did.
You are empowered to bring in outside auditors or to farm out work to help you with your task. Is that right?
Mr. Buckley
Yes, we can do that. The Comptroller and Auditor General has that power under the 1993 Act and he uses consultancy on the value for money studies. We have in the past experimented with bringing in staff to work with the audit teams. We have tried a range of approaches to supplementing the staff of the office.
Any other questions?
I welcome the format of the reports, which I think are very helpful and intelligible in terms of explaining the background to the office. Can I ask Mr. Buckley if his office has any role in the question of preparing for the euro?
Mr. Buckley
Yes. We do not have a specific role. As you know there is a euro changeover board and where we are involved here specifically is in the format of accounts. Obviously the accounts will have to be presented during the transition stage in both Irish pounds and euro and, when we come to 2001, totally in euro. We naturally are in dialogue with both the organisations and the Department of Finance on this issue. As a result of that, the Department of Finance, about two weeks, issued guidance. I specifically approached the euro changeover board with the Department of Finance and we got this guidance issued, which guides the Departments, semi-State bodies etc. on accounting for transactions in the transition period leading up to the introduction of the euro.
Has the graph for the use of the value for money audit instrument been going up in recent years?
Mr. Buckley
No, in fact the reverse is the case. We have reached a low point. Our strategy statement, which is implicit in the decisions which had to be taken to bring in the new strategy statement in the past few days, is that we would build it back up again. Our approach in the first five years involved a certain element of experimentation, some of which worked and some did not. We are now starting almost afresh with a "bare bones" operation, aiming to build up from a staff of six evaluators to nine or ten, which will be supplemented by external consultancy and some internal trainee officers.
So it is not a judgment by you about the merits of value for money?
Mr. Buckley
No. It would have actually fallen, perhaps, a little bit. Perhaps the DIRT inquiry and various pressures would come under the heading of extra work which we have undertaken on the financial audit side. All that is beginning to bite now. The "value for money" is a discretionary mandate which tended to suffer in the last few years. As a result, the numbers devoted to it went down, being discretionary. We now have to plan for the next three years to build it up so as to deliver a level of output which we consider appropriate for that activity.
What is the function of the corporate services division?
Mr. Buckley
Mr. Rapple will explain that.
Mr. Rapple
We deal with everything apart from our core activities, which are the audit and value for money examinations. Accordingly, we are responsible for the accounts, IT, accommodation and providing information for the senior management team on corporate programmes. Those are our main areas of responsibility.
I raised this matter before, directly with the Comptroller and Auditor General. I have always admired the low spec but high quality presentation in your documentation. Could this approach be applied on a uniform basis to other bodies which you audit? It seems that substantial amounts of money are wasted on colour brochures from State bodies, promoting their statements of accounts. Their strategy documents are even more colourful. Your document is very readable and clearly understandable. Could your office come up with a similar blueprint acceptable to the bodies which you supervise? It is rather incongruous that semi-State agencies, county enterprise boards and even bodies involved in measures to promote social inclusion, are producing fabulously glossy high-spec documents and reports. This is unacceptable and should be stopped. We get this literature in our post every day. For example, I got one from Duhallow partnership or Leader group which exceeded even what a public company might issue. A more practical format would convey a better impression that the funds of the body concerned are actually being applied towards its basic work, rather than on glossy brochures.
Should we not ask the Department of Finance to take up this issue and report back to this committee in a month's time? As well as being more expensive, these high-gloss reports and strategy documents are less readable in many cases. Perhaps the Department of Finance could draw up some comments and guidelines, bearing in mind the excellent example set by the C&AG's office in producing well presented and very readable reports. Can you come back to the committee within a month to tell us what action you propose to take on this matter? The guidelines should apply not only to Government Departments but also to State companies and other agencies which are wholly or principally funded by the Exchequer.
People may not realise how much cynicism it induces when partnership groups and boards of various kinds, including those dealing with poverty issues, produce excessively elaborate and glossy literature. The impression conveyed can be quite offensive, apart from the waste of money involved.
I wish to raise one further question. Is it contemplated that you will do a value for money audit on the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, and how it is being implemented? I refer in particular to the operations of the Freedom of Information Commissioner, Mr. Murphy, some of whose investigations I would regard as somewhat vexatious. Perhaps, as a new appointee, he has to "push out the boat" to some extent. However, some of his activities in relation to the conduct of public life and the kind of information which he is releasing, should be subjected to analysis by a value for money audit.
Quite frankly, I believe that a lot of money is being wasted by the commissioner in pursuit of information which he is putting into the public domain quite unnecessarily. There is uneven treatment of, for instance, the position of public representatives as opposed to public servants. A distinction is being drawn between the kind of information which can be released about a public representative and what can be released about a civil servant or other public servant. This is very injurious to our democracy. I would hope that, at some level, the Comptroller and Auditor General will investigate what value for money we are getting from this whole exercise and how much it is costing. It is, of course, desirable that our public administration should be open to public scrutiny and accountability.
Any suggestions we have should be conveyed privately, as required by law. Any other questions?
Is a value for money audit, by definition, something which is carried out post hoc?
Mr. Buckley
Yes, it is in the nature of a review. It is a matter of looking back at the economy and efficiency with which an organisation has used its resources. That is how it is defined in terms of the Act. However, a good value for money report will obviously also look at good practice across the board and opportunities for better value for money. In that sense, it will use yardsticks and criteria which will almost inevitably draw you into a forward-looking situation. Legalistically, though, it is set up in terms of looking back. In practice, in order to do it, you have to set up evaluative criteria which effectively involve looking forward at how things might be done better.
Would it be intruding into a policy matter to do a value for money audit on, say, a gargantuan public sector project, such as a stadium or similar type complex? You could not do that until we have discovered that it is not making money and not viable?
Mr. Buckley
No, I would not go along with that. You have to distinguish between the different types of public operation under review. If you are looking at a programme or a managerial operation, that is quite different from looking at what you are describing, namely a project. A project has a certain life cycle. You might in fact look at the need, the planning and the whole life cycle of the project. In doing a value for money audit, you follow the life cycle right through from figuring out the need, through to the planning, through to the actual carrying out of the project, through to the review to see did you get what you actually bargained for in the end. You could in fact look at a public-private partnership operation or any project - a computer project or a building or anything like that - at any stage in its life cycle, using the value for money criteria.
But you would be measuring it against policy parameters set down, rather than evaluating its contribution to society or its operational viability or loss-making capacity or whatever?
Mr. Buckley
No, I would not think that would be so. All evaluation involves looking at what is, versus what might or should be. The concept of what should be is not necessarily dictated totally by the policy parameters which have been set. It is dictated more by what you might call reality. It puts you in a pretty lonely world as an auditor but you must look at things on the strength of the best advice in the business. In the building industry the position of a quantity surveyor might be a comparison. What they see as the best criteria to use at the planning stage, execution stage or at any stage, is the advice to follow. This is quite technical, but the matter is not as simple as saying there is a policy, and therefore that policy dictates everything an auditor might think.
It is fascinating and not too technical at all. Thank you very much Mr. Buckley.
Mr. Purcell
I want to piggy back on something that Mr. Buckley said because ultimately it is at my discretion that we carry out a value for money examination or not. I go along with what Mr. Buckley says. At any stage one can look at the planning of a particular project before it sees the light of day, and check to see if it adheres to what is regarded as best practice. I feel I have the authority to form a view on the quality of the information underlying key decisions made, regarding the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the information. That is not outside our remit but clearly a decision to put up a stadium, or to query such a decision, would be outside that remit and I would be precluded from that.
Mr. Buckley, thank you very much. The committee wants to express its continuing gratitude to your office, and to all who work there, for the high quality of the service they provide to this committee.
The witnesses withdrew.
Vote 2 - Houses of the Oireachtas and the European Parliament.
Mr. Kieran Coughlan (Clerk of the Dáil); Mr. Conan McKenna (Head of Administration); Ms Elaine Gunn (Finance Officer) and Mr. Noel Murphy (Senior Clerk), Finance Unit, Houses of the Oireachtas called and examined.
Mr. Colm Gallagher(Assistant Secretary), Mr. Michael Errity (Principal Officer) and Mr. John Thompson (Principal Officer) Department of Finance (Houses of the Oireachtas and the European Parliament) called and examined.
I welcome the Clerk of Dáil Éireann, Mr. Coughlan, who is also the accounting officer of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Perhaps Mr. Coughlan could introduce his accompanying officials.
I am accompanied by Mr. Conan McKenna, Head of Administration; Ms Elaine Gunn, Finance Officer and Mr. Noel Murphy who is also in our finance unit.
You are very welcome. I see Mr. Colm Gallagher is here from the Department of Finance. Mr. Gallagher, perhaps you would introduce your accompanying officials.
Mr. Michael Errity and Mr. John Thompson.
You are all very welcome. I ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to introduce this Vote.
Mr. Purcell
There are no paragraphs as such on the Vote. Paragraph 6 refers to the cost of the two phases of the DIRT inquiry up to the end of June 2000. About half of that cost was accounted for in the Vote for my office. The sub-committee expenses which totalled £1.16 million up to the end of June 2000 are charged to the Oireachtas and in that sense they fall to be dealt with by the Clerk of the Dáil in his capacity as accounting officer for that Vote. That is the only specific reference that relates to the Oireachtas Vote in my report on the appropriation accounts.
Okay. Mr. Coughlan, do you wish to make an opening statement?
I do indeed. When I last appeared before the committee a little over a year ago I made two main points. First, that the Dáil and the Houses of the Oireachtas is a very small organisation in terms of overall State expenditure, but has a very large brief supporting parliamentary scrutiny and accountability of the Government of the day. It is a £40 million plus body which has a watching brief over a £15 billion collective organisation of Government Departments. My second point was that the Houses of the Oireachtas are seriously under-resourced compared to other EU parliaments, to the tune of 50% less in terms of Members and staffing.
While this has not changed, I am glad that there has been significant progress in the past year. This progress in the main arises from the DIRT inquiry recommendations and the subsequent announcement by Government of its intention to bring forward legislation on the Houses of the Oireachtas commission which will give greater independence and financial autonomy to the running of the Houses of the Oireachtas. At the same time an Institute of Public Administration commission report, with our own implementation review, drew up a new management structure for the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas with a timeframe for implementation of three years.
This report highlighted the need to review our resource levels. In the light of the Government decision on the commission, the Department of Finance has indicated - for example at the recent DIRT hearings - that it will support an independent, once and for all resources consultancy to cover both the parliamentary Civil Service and Members. Since before Christmas when the Government announcement was made, we have been finalising terms of reference for this consultancy with various interested parties such as the party leaders and the unions. We expect to go to tender in coming weeks and we expect the project to take about six or seven months following the appointment of a consultant.
This project will be overseen by a steering group which will consist of representatives of the party leaders as well as civil servants. We are very encouraged with the movement on the independent commission and in particular to have a proper independent examination of our resources. These two matters, together with the revamp and upgrade of our management structures and continued modernisation under the Strategic Management Initiative programme, can only improve our capacity in supporting a modern and independent parliament.
We expect 2001 to show major advances in all these areas. One of the key concerns in our own restructuring and reorganisation is to continuously improve the level of service which we provide to Members. With the new management structure we will create a separate division of the office responsible for Members services and within that we will rationalise all existing services into a one-stop shop arrangement under the management of a senior officer at director level.
We expect that this will produce a range of benefits, most obviously for Members who will be able to avail of one point of contact for day to day support and for staff in achieving economies of scale and better efficiency and effectiveness. As part of the same process, and following consultations with Members, we hope to establish a senior management and Members forum in which issues relating to Members' services can be sorted out at a very high level and in an effective manner. We have already worked on some initiatives in this area including a proposal for the automation of Members' travelling expenses, which is under consideration by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges sub-committee on Members services.
I also mention two specific projects under the SMI umbrella which we are currently engaging in. One is the management information framework, MIF, which is our participation in the Civil Service wide initiative to improve financial management and financial information systems. A new framework is being developed which will help us to improve the amount and quality of financial information which we generate. This will also help us to measure more effectively what is produced in various areas and its cost in terms of both money and resources. At present we have a firm of consultants, funded by the change management fund, assisting us to lay the groundwork for the new MIF and we have also been provided with a temporary addition to staff numbers in order to form a special unit within our finance area for this project.
We have also been given a temporary addition to staff numbers to introduce the new Civil Service wide performance management and development system in the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Successful management, performance and development in our staff is something we regard as critical.
We have travelled far down the modernisation road, and particularly in one respect. The internet site for the Houses of the Oireachtas now has a full range of material. This includes debates of the Houses which are in most cases put up less than 24 hours after the words are actually spoken. This is of great credit to the editor of debates and his staff. The site contains information about individual Members and about the House, including parliamentary business.
I mention this because I was surprised to find that the site had been visited 150,000 times since it was first put in place less than two years ago. This means that, on average, 250 times a day, people are making an electronic link with parliament using a facility which was not available before June 1999. Recently there have been 600 to 700 visits per day. Most of these requests are home-grown and it is a good illustration of the interest in the Dáil and how we must modernise to meet the new challenges.
While a start has been made, it is only the beginning and much remains to be done, the most significant of items being the legislation on the commission and the resource analysis. However, there is a great realisation among Members and staff of the challenges that must be met to ensure the parliamentary service will move away from its quasi-permanent shoestring to a more realistic level of resources to ensure that Parliament and its Members are better equipped to fulfil their constitutional role in the demanding and complex world in which we live.
I congratulate the Clerk and his staff on the significant improvement, which can be seen by those who recall the situation a few short years ago. Such a considerable improvement should be recorded. It is a cause for concern that the Oireachtas is under-resourced compared to other Parliaments in modern democracies, as the Clerk pointed out. Compared to EU members, we are under-resourced by 50% in terms of staffing and Members, which is a serious matter.
I welcome the tremendous website initiative of the Clerk, the Editor of Debates and his staff, which I only learned about recently and which is a harbinger of things to come. Compared to staff generally, the staff in the Debates Office, including stenographers, are under enormous pressure. I was interested in the contributions of the Accounting Officer of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Comptroller and Auditor General himself on technical matters. The value for money audit was very interesting. When can I access that transcript if I want to study those remarks?
Committees are not given the same priority as proceedings of the Houses or Bills on Committee Stage. Generally, transcripts are only dealt with during recesses or on days when the Houses do not sit. I cannot be sure when the specific transcript will be available as it varies according to the committee. I could not give an estimate, other than to say it would not be on a par with the plenary session of the Dáil.
Trying to keep up with the work of this committee is a very serious matter. It is immensely frustrating to be unable to read the work of a legislative committee, especially when there is a glut of legislation, as is the case at this time in the life of a Parliament. The enterprise and small business committee is dealing with four Bills at present. I cannot read what transpired on the previous session of the committee when preparing for Report Stage or the next session of Committee Stage. This is because committee work is only transcribed during non-sitting days, if I understand the Clerk correctly.
Bills and Estimates are given priority and great efforts are made to produce the text concerning a Bill which will be required for Report Stage in the House.
There is still a very significant time lag.
Ten vacancies were carried for most of last year. The staff were recruited in December and are currently being trained. They will be fully operational by the end of March so an improvement regarding committees should be seen by then. A proposal has been made to the Minister for Finance for extra staff to cover the full range of proceedings, including committees. An improvement as regards committee transcripts should be noticed now that vacancies have been filled. It took almost six months to fill those vacancies, which was a considerable time. It was very protracted.
Presumably the work involved in transcribing about 20 committees exceeds that of the House itself.
At present committee takes marginally exceed Dáil takes. There were 2,450 ten-minute takes on tape from committees in the six months from January to June last year. There were 2,160 in the Dáil and 1,696 in the Seanad. Committees, therefore, generate more takes.
If the stenographer staff currently in training and the staff it has been proposed to recruit were in post, would we have a reasonable turn-around of transcripts?
Yes. The new staff proposal is for a full service, which would take a considerable amount of staff. The Editor's Office informs me that a second deputy editor, three further assistant editors, five permanent parliamentary reporters and a number of part-time reporters would be needed.
Is it merely an aspiration which has not been achieved?
That level of staff would be needed to produce the service Members need.
Am I right in saying the making of decisions on this is still done by the Department of Finance?
That is right.
One has the impression that additional staff——
When the commission is in place, it will be the Members who will make decisions regarding staffing priorities. Hard decisions about priorities will have to be made.
One has the impression that a significant number of new staff has been recruited for the new building.
Yes.
Who made those decisions?
It arose from a security report by the Garda and the Superintendent of the Houses as regards the required level of staffing. The new staff seemed to congregate in the corridors in the latter months of last year, simply because they had been assigned to committee rooms in the basement of the building which are not yet on stream. The number in the corridors will not be maintained as it is not their role. The Garda security report was looking for more but we reduced the number.
What is the definition of security in that context? It must be very broad as it is not as if we are vulnerable to sniper fire.
Not in the bowels of the building. I think the Garda takes a cautious line on security.
It was to protect Members during the leadership election.
It is important that the Garda assessment is dealt with, but I think my colleagues feel that priority should be given to areas such as that of the stenographers.
I hope there will be much more input from Members when the new commission comes on stream. As I said, hard decisions will be made as there is only so much money to go around.
Are there proposals to develop library services in the House?
The Library has traditionally been in a very poor state. The in-house joint committee has reported that resources have been effectively unchanged since 1975. Two temporary cataloguers were engaged this year to work on the archives. I do not see anything happening until the resource analysis has been finished. We are far behind the standard of other Parliaments - for example, the Belgian Parliament, with the same number of members, has a library staff of 40 compared to our staff of five, which is a critical comparison.
The physical size of the Library is very poor.
Yes. The Library staff are getting accommodation on what is called the garden corridor, which is the basement part of the old building, so that will improve. There is a project with the National Library to share resources and retrieval to make more of a joint effort. The Library will retain its Leinster House ethos but will have access more directly to the National Library.
There will be a connection.
Yes.
There will be more space.
Yes. We thought it would include staff space but that has fallen by the wayside.
Why?
I do not know. We did not have any input into the project. The project is run by the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands.
Will Mr. Gallagher give an indication of the mind of the Department of Finance in respect of the stenographer problem?
I understood informally that in the programme a staff demand was imminent. I understand that the Minister is very sympathetic to this. The only possible difficulty is that over ten to 15 years we had consistent problems in getting sufficient stenographers. Creating the posts is simple though filling them and getting people up to the necessary level of skill is a problem facing every Parliament and courts service. Subject to that there should be no other problems. In the worst case scenario the commission will be established in a very short time anyway.
Has the Department of Finance given consideration to the demands of a modern legislature in terms of the absence of back-up for Members, in particular for Front Bench spokespersons who are expected to maintain the affairs of all these committees and at the same time respond to complex Bills? I accept that to some extent it is political and that while all Opposition parties are in favour of Dáil reform they are somewhat less in favour of it when they are in government.
In some sense that would be unfair to various Governments. I know, for instance, this is a subject very close to the Minister's heart. He is very conscious of the problems he had with facilities when he was on the Front Bench. He has been talking to various groups in the Oireachtas about what needs to be done. I think there will be an initiative there in the context of the various changes that are being made.
Is it still the case that we are the worst resourced Parliament in Europe?
That is right.
I know you compared it to Belgium.
Our resources were less than 50% of those in the EU in terms of resources per Member and in terms of staff.
Less than 50%?
Yes, 50% less than the EU Parliaments in terms of budget per Member and staff per Member.
Where do we stand on a general European comparison as opposed to the Belgian comparison? Are we bottom of the league again?
We are.
Of all the EU?
Yes.
Are there further comparisons in terms of OECD or anything like that?
There is the Northern Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Australian Parliament, what one would regard as the Parliaments of the major democracies.
In the world.
Well I would not stretch it as far as the world. Europe is where we interact in that sense.
In the former Commonwealth countries?
Yes
We are the lowest of even the former Commonwealth countries and Australia and New Zealand, the English speaking countries.
That would cover a multitude of course, but I could not be positive of that.
In common law countries.
I am a bit confused in terms of the House's Library. Is the Clerks office not in charge of that?
No. It was a particular project run by the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands to improve the National Library and we were supposed to have been joined to that. That project has gone on for a number of years.
The libraries were meant to be joined up, including that in Trinity?
They could share the databases that are there and improve retrieval. I think the project will be completed by March of this year and the final outcome will be that we will have access to their research facilities but we will not get any extra accommodation. We already have a link to Trinity for the databases.
I want to talk about two areas here and I am addressing these remarks more to Mr. Gallagher than to the Clerk. First, on accommodation, the new building LH 2000, which has just opened, is a source of deep dissatisfaction to everybody. It is one of the worst designed buildings. A steering committee was appointed to oversee it and I was on that committee which has not met for over a year despite my repeated requests. We asked in December for a survey to be done of all Members using it and we were to have that report by next week. No one has been surveyed by the Office of Public Works as far as I know.
Anyone who has had to work in this House in recent years knows that in the five storey building one of the major problems was the excessive heat. It was practically impossible to work in the place. Unbelievably the new building is worse. It does not have air conditioning. The room of the leader of the Opposition is a disgrace, even after the walls had to be knocked down.
The lack of preparation and planning was a disgrace. Now we hear the Clerk of the Dáil tell us that there is some arrangement with the National Library and there was no input from the Houses of the Oireachtas. In the new building there are committee rooms. Nobody on the committees, staff or Members, was asked about their design. We suggested a few months ago that that be done before anything else, but it did not happen. The people who had to use these buildings were ignored. In light of this I want the committee to ask the chairman of the Office of Public Works to come before us in two weeks' time and report on whether surveying of Members has been done and to account for the very poor result from the expenditure on this building.
Not to be confrontational, I thought it was a very fine project.
Is the Deputy's office in that building?
Yes.
As is mine, and many people are complaining about it.
I find it difficult to agree with the proposal. On a previous occasion when the Office of Public Works was here, this committee complimented it on the speed with which it completed the project, the nice design and the modernity of the offices. I cannot support a call for that office to come in. You are welcome to send it a letter but not on my behalf. It did a very good job.
We asked the Office of Public Works to survey everybody who uses the building and as far as I know the survey has not been done - that would determine whether my view or Deputy Lenihan's prevails. What I am hearing from people is that they share my experience of much of the building.
I am not fighting with you.
The building was designed despite Members of the House and the Clerk, who is the Accounting Officer, having no input. It was hijacked. I will not say it is disastrous as that would be to exaggerate but the result is less than it should be. Allocation of space became a free-for-all. There was no one to press the case for committee staff being close to the committee rooms. There was a complete stampede. We have to get this right for the future.
In relation to the commission which this committee has recommended and which has been agreed in principle, you said that you hope this consultancy will start next month and report in six to seven months, that is towards the end of the year. I am disappointed it will take that long because presumably before legislation is enacted, you will have to have that report. Is that right?
Not necessarily, no. The reason it will take six or seven months is that it is a massive project. We expect to have an interim report within two months of that. It will take time because of the scale of the fees, the European tender and so on. Deputy Rabbitte raised a point about the support for Members. That is covered in the terms of reference for the consultancy. There is emphasis on a comparative analysis with other Parliaments rather than just other organisations in the country.
Mr. Gallagher, may I ask you about the Bill to give effect to the commission? At what stage is that?
The heads have been drafted, bar one - we are still playing with one of them - and we expect it to go to Government shortly.
What is the timescale for enactment? Have you any timetable?
We are talking about publishing it possibly before the summer. After that we are in the hands of the House and it will be at a political level.
I know from my experience of overseeing the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act that the first thing to do is to set a vesting day and work back from that. Otherwise nothing will happen or it will take much longer. I suggest that a vesting day of 1 January 2002 should be set to have this commission up and running. Otherwise, it will continue to drift.
I do not think so, Chairman.
Why not?
When we have legislation on which there is consensus in the House, the kind of thing that normally happens, such as delays for bureaucratic reasons, will not happen.
I know but——
In case anybody has any idea that the Department of Finance is trying to hold on to control, we want to see this legislation handed over, as does our political master, to the House as quickly as possible.
I have no doubt about that. Generally speaking, the approach of the Department of Finance has been very open and helpful but I also know that if deadlines are not set, they are not likely to be met.
Certain deadlines have been set in my section and I suspect that equally tough deadlines have been set in the Attorney General's office. A commitment was given about publication of the Bill. That is as much as we, as bureaucrats, can control. After that, it is a political call. I believe that the Minister will want it done very quickly. I know several Members of this House have strong views on the subject so I cannot see a problem.
Let me convey my suggestion that we should be aiming for a vesting day of 1 January next. My experience in this committee in particular and elsewhere is that where a deadline is set it helps to focus minds and get things done. Otherwise, because we are all so busy, things can drift.
Could we set it for, say, September?
The idea of setting it for 1 January means it would coincide with the financial year and there would be fewer accounting problems etc. I am putting forward that view and I ask you to have it considered by the appropriate authorities.
The independence of a commission is one thing but the resourcing of the Houses of the Oireachtas is equally important, as Deputy Rabbitte said. If we are to have the sort of manpower and other resources comparative to other Parliaments, we will need more accommodation, and that is not something that can be delivered overnight. Is there any advance planning going into that area and can we please learn from the experience of the building just completed? We do not want a stampede of everyone grabbing the modern new offices, regardless of the overall impact on the Houses of the Oireachtas. We will need extra accommodation and that needs to be considered.
You might say that is beyond the power of this committee, but it is not. The committee is concerned about accountability. We have identified the lack of resources of the Houses of the Oireachtas as part of the accountability problem. It is an accountability deficiency. It is wrong that we should have such poor accommodation and resources available to us compared to any other Parliament. I do not know whether we can go on about it. I know there is goodwill in the Department of Finance in terms of supporting the principle, but I want to get on with it now and start identifying where people will be and the resources that are appropriate for people. In my case, for example, I have become deputy leader of my party, I have one secretary, the same as before, and I lose my salary as Chairman. That is absurd.
Chairman, may I ask the Clerk to explain to the committee the lines of authority or responsibility in the matter of the Freedom of Information Act? Is that within Mr. Coughlan's purview? There is some bemusement that requests are made by various journalists, say, for Members' expenses and they are produced on the day, say 1 April. They are not produced again until 1 October and again on 13 December, and then three months later one could get a request for the previous 12 months, so someone has to add up the figures and produce them again. If the information is provided on one occasion, is there an obligation under the Act to continue to provide it because somebody thinks it is a good idea to produce another headline or whatever?
Unfortunately the Act is clear. They have to be treated as bona fide requests in their own right. That is the difficulty. There is a proposal before the broadcasting information committee that Members would release those records themselves every quarter to stop these uneven media requests, generally speaking, because there is a disparate flow of information in that regard. Other Parliaments release that information voluntarily on a quarterly basis. It is much more even as well. Some people will have back payments or whatever in their particular records. They could have a difficulty even in electoral terms in that Deputies in the same constituency could have much lower expenses or whatever. It can cause difficulties in that way. There is a lot to be said, therefore, for having the system more controlled and programmed.
Is Mr. Coughlan saying that the legal position is that, notwithstanding that the same information has already been released, the obligation is on the official side to continue to release information even though it has already been put into the public domain?
That is right. If it is the exact same, they are just given a copy of what is there already but, as the Deputy said, generally speaking none of these requests is exactly the same. They cover a different point or they are looking for different allowances or whatever.
Take the example of where the information has been released, say, for the year 2000 in two or three separate moieties and somebody asks someone else to add up the sums for 12 months, do you have to do that?
All we give them under the law is whatever is on the record. We do not oblige them by totting up sums for them. They just get the original.
The same information is released again.
Yes. It is up to them to tot them up and do their league tables or whatever. We just give them the record. It is not information as such. The information is the record we have on the file in relation to the individual Members.
It seems to be making work for the sake of doing so, apart from any other implications.
Deputy Rabbitte was courageous to raise that point. I do not understand why there is not a charging policy for a commercial organisation that makes commercial gain from the use of that information. Members of the committee could examine different charging policies, as it seems odd that a national newspaper, be it the Sun, the Mirror or one of the leading tabloids that invest heavily in marketing campaigns, has the same right as the ordinary citizen. I would have thought that the Freedom of Information Act was directed at the ordinary citizen and was for the common good. What is the position in the Oireachtas regarding the cost of processing freedom of information requests for expenses? A gain is being made by commercial newspapers or media organisations from the publication of this information. They are offering an insight into Deputies' expenses. Can a level of charging be put in place for such requests, as tabloids are making a circulation gain by presenting that information in a lurid way. A charging policy should be in place to cover access to such information.
Is that allowed in law?
There is a charge feature, as set down in the Act, but it is quite rigid. One can charge for the amount of work and the initial retrieval of records. There was a charge of £800 for the first request by a newspaper, but such a charge would not be valid under the Act for subsequent requests, as the work has been done in that respect.
Was one organisation charged £800?
There was a charge of £800 for the first request.
Why?
Under the Act we are entitled to charge for the work involved. It was done by manual retrieval at the time and it involved a great deal of work. The information is computerised now so it is easier to access. One would not be justified in making a charge for it. There is a breakdown of requests from members of the public and journalists. There have been FOI requests from 35 journalists, organisations, seven businesses and 30 others. There is also a breakdown of requests from the public.
The message should not go out that this committee wants to in any way restrict people's access to information under the Freedom of Information Act. Deputy Rabbitte's point is that in the case of repeat requests that are not precisely the same as the original but are largely the same, surely the work of the staff would not involve the same cost as they would not have to go through the same process.
If the request is for the same information, we would give a copy of the response to the earlier request, but generally the requests are not the same, there are some variables, which means that the staff have to obtain different information. The Act is rigid in that respect.
The idea of publishing the information on a quarterly basis is pointless as that involves more work and those concerned can request the information. Even if a Deputy's expenses is published on a quarterly basis, those concerned can still request the same information at an additional cost during the period between such quarterly announcements.
As far as I can recall, if information is published, it may be refused under the Act.
That would apply if the information was published on a quarterly basis.
If that is the position, yes.
I wish to put a related question to Mr. Gallagher or to the Clerk. Has any work been done in assessing whether commercial interests frequently resort to the use of the Freedom of Information Act for their own commercial gain, as a cheap way of assimilating data they might otherwise have to purchase?
The purpose for which the information is requested is specifically irrelevant under the Act. Under the Act, one would not have the right to make that kind of assessment.
Does the Clerk suspect that is going on?
I suppose there are cases where one would think it is.
What does Mr. Gallagher think?
We have had requests from one or two organisations which have been looking for information to sell. When the Bill was in gestation, we found this problem had arisen everywhere, particularly in the US. Journalists used it, but they were not the most significant user. It was used by employees of organisations and the public generally and invariably other people used it for commercial purposes. That is one of the reasons there are certain provisions and definitions in the Act on the type of information that can be withheld. Firms use it worldwide to gain advantage over their rivals. If one can find that someone has put something into a Department, it is a way of getting at that information. Somebody is sure to use that information and that was foreseen from the beginning. It is one of the hazards of this kind of law.
It is a major issue. The Clerk has a breakdown of the number of people under different categories in the case of the Dáil, but this is a matter we should address in the long run. If the State sets itself up as a free research facility for commercial or business organisations, it makes a joke of the pro bono aspects of the Freedom of Information Act. That is why I asked in an earlier session that there should be a VFM done on the information issued because I am not sure the response to these requests is in the appropriate manner. This is a serious issue. I worked for commercial organisations and I would be biased in favour of commerce and enterprise, but it is outrageous if they are hightailing requests that should be a facility open only to citizens. The Chairman's party has a position on donations. Corporate citizens should not be entitled to make such requests, only registered citizens should be able to do that.
Did Mr. Coughlan want to clarify something?
I want to clarify that the figures I gave are the total for the FOI requests for the office. I said there were 35 from the media, but effectively the requests for information on Members' expenses were made exclusively by the media, that is 100% by the media, and the competing interests involved are the media. There is intense competition about release dates and so on. There has been quite a bit of argy bargy between our staff and the various organs of the media about that.
If we had quarterly reports, that may be the way to proceed. Is the Department of Finance responsible for the Freedom of Information Act?
Probably. If amending legislation was required, we would probably prepare it.
Will Mr. Gallagher consider it in light of the points raised to ascertain if there is a need to refine it, although not with a view to restrict the release of information but to avoid repetition and extra costs?
The wider issue of the taxpayer bearing the responsibility and cost of commercial businesses' research should be examined by the committee. Some restriction, if necessary a legislative one, should be put in place to ensure businesses cannot apply for such information or that requests from people who apply for such information to enhance their business should be rejected. Some action is required as it is outrageous that the taxpayer should subsidise cost of research of an enterprise or business.
From a practical point of view, if one drafts legislation to provide for that, instead of Shell or some other company seeking information, it may ask an employee's child or an employee in his or her private capacity to request it. One cannot stop the process.
One can, by legislatively barring commercial organisations from seeking such information.
Mr. Gallagher has probably dealt with the legislation from its gestation and is familiar with these points. There was a court case not so long ago where a website opened by the Companies Registration Office was shut down by order of the High Court. It is now proceeding to a full hearing. Information filed by the Companies Registration Office was available to people to key into from wherever and for whatever purpose. An organisation that was getting that information by private arrangement with the Companies Registration Office and selling it commercially took that action. It is desirable that the service provided by the Companies Registration Office is on-line and can be accessed in the normal way. Yet, a decision was made to prevent it from doing so.
We are going outside the scope of the meeting.
I do not wish to delay the committee, Chairman, but I am pointing out that there may be other legal jurisprudence that must be looked at in terms of the commercial point and whether staff in the service ought to be used purely as researchers for commercial interests.
Regarding parking in Leinster House, has the idea of an underground car park been completely abandoned?
No, I understand it has been agreed by the Minister.
When will work commence?
I do not know about that. Core samples have been taken of the ground at the back so I presume and hope it will be within a year.
Will there be direct access from the new building to the car park?
I presume so, yes.
Is there any suggestion that country Members of the Houses would get a course on how to park properly?
I missed that, Chairman.
I was suggesting that some of our country colleagues should be offered a course on how to park properly. One often sees a car parked in a way that effectively takes up two spaces because it is a foot into the neighbouring space. Cars can be blocked in and damaged. That is becoming a serious problem on Wednesdays. In any event, the car park is going ahead.
Yes.
Regarding the hanging of paintings and pictures around the Houses, who decides when they should be moved or where they should be located? In Áras an Uachtaráin there is an Office of Public Works plan for the rotation of paintings of Presidents etc. When groups from the North enter Leinster House, they immediately see pictures of General Collins and General Brugha. These pictures have been there for a long time. Is there a policy in that regard? Should there not be a painting of the President or some other person?
There is a policy. It used to be jealously guarded by the Committees on Procedure and Privileges of both Houses. They decide where the pictures go, including the pictures of former Taoisigh. I suppose they are sensitive matters in that sense. They decide that, although they have not done so for quite a while.
Now that the Chairman is the deputy leader of the Fine Gael Party, I hope he is not advocating the moving of General Collins from the hall.
I am actually.
I may be partisan, but I feel he deserves to be there given the sacrifice he made.
I am serious about the issue. General Collins and General Brugha played an important role in our history, but that is a long time ago. Society has moved on and changed. These matters should be examined from time to time. We should not ignore our history, but we need to present the modern Ireland as well. There should be a policy in relation to the rotation and placing of pictures. They should not be there forever just because they were put there once. There is a rotation policy in relation to Áras an Uachtaráin and perhaps there should also be one for the Houses of the Oireachtas. In terms of the boredom factor, I have been looking at the same pictures in the same places for the past 30 years.
General Collins's grandniece was rotated recently so it is odd that the Chairman is advocating the rotation of her granduncle.
I am anticipating your future, Deputy Lenihan. I want to make sure the Deputy's picture can be put there eventually. Regarding messenger services for Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas, if one needs a document for one's parliamentary work, there is no one available to collect or deliver it. Why is that the case?
The service officers provide a service for civil servants. It was not intended for Members. The ushers provide that service within the Leinster House precinct, but there is no courier service in that sense.
I know. We are only the Members. I have often needed something urgently during preparations for a committee meeting or legislation, but nobody was available to collect it. One had to go oneself.
Unfortunately, we do not have the numbers at present in that sense. Again, that is a matter to which the commission could easily give priority and resources.
It is extraordinary. I worked for a period as a lobby correspondent in Westminster and even the journalists there have a facility where ushers convey messages from one part of the House to another. If I as a journalist wanted to contact a Member who was sitting in committee in another part of the Palace of Westminster, I could hand a note to the usher and he or she would convey it to the Member to remind him or her to call me and give me the story etc. Whatever about journalists, it is absurd that such a service is not available to Members of the Oireachtas.
I often had to use time I did not have to drive in my own car to places such as the IPA to collect documents or files. There is no facility for having documents delivered. One talks about the absence of any reasonable service for Members. Such a service is available for civil servants in the Houses but not for Members. I would have thought that Members should at least have parity with civil servants in the Houses in terms of this service.
It has come to the point where we must use a courier service ourselves. The numbers are not there.
Why can the courier service not be extended to Members forthwith?
I suppose it is cost again, but we could look at that.
It is not that one would use it often, but when one needs to use it, particularly in the context of the current traffic situation, it would be time saving.
It is a question of funding.
Mr. Gallagher, will you accept a request for funding for a courier service for Members?
I will accept a request for anything, but what happens thereafter, I will not answer.
It is a very reasonable point. Every Department and the civil servants within the Houses of the Oireachtas have a facility where official business can be done by sending a document by hand or having it collected. Such a service is not available to Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas regardless of whether they are shadow Ministers, chairmen of committees or backbenchers. It highlights the lack of services and resources that are available.
Will the crèche that was promised as part of the LH 2000 project go ahead and, if so, what is the start-up date?
Later this year. It will be made available in the context of the refurbishment of this building.
It will be downstairs.
What is the date?
It should be available later this year.
Will it open then?
Yes.
Does that apply to the gym also?
Yes. As the Chairman knows, that is a matter for the Office of Public Works.
The committee will note the accounts. I thank the Clerk of the Dáil. I again express our gratitude for the high quality and level of service we get from the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas in general at every level. It would be remiss of me if I did not mention in particular the staff of our committee and Mr. John McCabe, the chief service officer, who pays particular attention to the needs of this and other committees. We may give him a new title as well as a new salary.
The witnesses withdrew.
The committee will adjourn until 1 March when we will consider a report on a value for money examination and performance measurement in Teagasc. We will also consider Vote 31, Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. The committee will meet the Iranian delegation next week, but that will not be a formal meeting.
The Committee adjourned at 1.50 p.m. until1 March 2001.