Nuair a bhí mé ag caint an lá faoi dheireadh sar a mhol mé go gcuirfí an díospóireacht ar athló, I was talking about effectiveness, and effectiveness brings into consideration the extent to which the stated objectives of a programme operated by a Department or a body in the public service are achieved. Thus, an activity could be economical and efficient in its use of resources but if the objectives for which it is directed are not being met, it would be ineffective. For example, there could be a programme designed to eliminate disease. In this regard, members of the Committee of Public Accounts and the nation are aware of the tens of millions of pounds that have been spent on the eradication of bovine TB and brucellosis. The EC recently decided to grant Ireland more money in one last ditch effort to eradicate, in so far as it is possible, the scourge of bovine TB. We hope it will be as successful as it ought to be. Effectiveness is the most complex of the three concepts I have referred to. I have dealt effectively with the Bill in my contribution to the debate last Thursday and now. I commend the Bill to the House.
Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Bill, 1992: Second Stage (Resumed).
First I would like to thank all the Deputies for their contributions to the debate and, particularly, I would like to thank Deputy Lyons who made a very long contribution to last Thursday's debate. I am very glad to note the welcome which the Deputies have given to the proposals and the general consensus which is evident regarding the need for this legislation. At this stage I do not intend to go into the detail of the individual provisions of the Bill — this can be done on Committee Stage — but I wish to reply to some of the general issues which have been raised in the debate.
Deputy Mitchell suggested that the Committee Stage of this Bill could be taken by the Committee of Public Accounts acting as the Committee for the Bill. While this suggestion may have some attractions, I am satisfied that this Bill deals with matters of fundamental interest and concern to all the Members of this House, and that the Committee Stage should, therefore, be taken by a Committee of the whole House. If there is an agreement between the Whips I should, naturally, be glad to discuss any alternative to that proposal, but it is my opinion that this debate has shown that many Deputies who are not members of the committee have a contribution to make and that a Committee of the whole House would be the most appropriate arrangement. Clearly, the members of the Committee of Public Accounts will have a very important role to play in the discussions on Committee Stage, but I do not consider that other Deputies who may wish to contribute to these discussions should be precluded from doing so by restricting the Committee Stage to the Committee of Public Accounts.
A number of Deputies have argued that the commercial State bodies should be subject to inspection by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The arguments for and against the involvement of the Comptroller and Auditor General in the commercial State body sector are set out in paragraph 3.6 of the White Paper. The Government's conclusion is that, in general, there should be no involvement by the Comptroller and Auditor General in this area. The arguments now advanced do not convince me that this conclusion is incorrect.
First, the Committee of Public Accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General have indicated that, in general, he should not audit the commercial State bodies. It would, therefore, appear inconsistent with this approach, as well as giving rise to unnecessary duplication, to have both the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Committee of Public Accounts involved in this area. As indicated in paragraph 3.6 of the White Paper, these bodies are dealt with at parliamentary level by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Commercial State-sponsored Bodies. It is a matter for that committee to determine their own arrangements for reviewing the bodies under their aegis.
Secondly, as regards the points made about private sector auditors, I do not accept the implication that professional accountancy firms would be prepared to put their reputation at risk by carrying out less than satisfactory audits. That statement was made several times in the House last week. That is my view, as I said at the earlier stage, and I stand by my decision. In practical terms, a loss of confidence in their independence by the business community would quickly put them out of business. In addition, steps have been taken to improve the standard of auditing generally. The accounting bodies set up a review group under Dr. Louden Ryan to examine the issues involved. The recommendations in the report of this group, commonly called the Ryan report, have received wide support here from accounting bodies, the Stock Exchange and the investment community. The provisions of Part X of the Companies Act, 1990, have all now come into effect and should also help in this regard.
Thirdly, if private sector auditors are felt to have been negligent in the performance of their duties, it is open to the boards of the bodies concerned to seek redress through claims for damages in the courts. This is an approach which is open to firms in both the public and private sectors and I would be reluctant to introduce any arrangement — such as statutory oversight of the auditing function by the Comptroller and Auditor General — which might have the effect of eroding the ultimate responsibility of the private sector auditors of these bodies or of reducing any liability for failure to exercise that responsibility which the auditor of a commercial State body might have.
The commercial harbour authorities are in a somewhat special category. These bodies are more akin to the non-elected local authority bodies than to commercial State bodies and, on balance, it was felt they should be subject to inspection. Some of these bodies are to be set up as commercial State bodies while harbours of lesser commercial significance will be transferred to the relevant local authorities. Dingle harbour will be designated as a fishery harbour centre and will be managed and operated by the Department of the Marine. Where harbour authorities become commercial State bodies or are transferred to local authorities they will not then be subject to inspection by the Comptroller and Auditor General, in line with the general policy in regard to these two sectors. Legislation to implement the proposals in regard to harbours is being drafted at present.
Deputy Mitchell raised the question of consultation with the Committee of Public Accounts before the nomination of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Under Article 33 of the Constitution, the Comptroller and Auditor General is appointed by the President on the nomination of the Dáil. The Committee of Public Accounts recommended in their 1988 report that the committee should be consulted before this is done.
I do not consider that there is any need to set up any arrangement of this kind, since, beyond what the Constitution specifies, it is a matter for the Government and the Dáil of the day to decide how to deal with the matter of the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General. In practice, the Government of the day propose a name to Dáil Éireann for nomination. Since the foundation of the State there has never been any suggestion that this appointment is in any way politically motivated. If Deputies were for any reason unhappy with the Government's nominee, they could raise their concerns in the House at the appropriate time.
Deputy Mitchell raised the question of the determination of the Estimates for the Comptroller and Auditor General's office. In their special report of May 1988, the Committee of Public Accounts recommended that they "should have a central role in determining the Estimate for the Comptroller and Auditor General's office". They also recommended that "within the agreed Estimate the Comptroller and Auditor General should have flexibility regarding staffing and remuneration matters". The underlying concern here, I suspect, relates to the staffing and other resources of the Comptroller and Auditor General, namely, that they will be sufficient for the Comptroller and Auditor General to carry out his functions. The Government have set out in the White Paper their position on these matters and the constitutional considerations involved.
I have made it clear that the Government accept that these proposals have obvious implications for the level of resources required by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and that I will review these requirements in consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General as the legislation is brought into effect. I have also indicated that the question of flexibility in the allocation by the Comptroller and Auditor General of his resources will be explored with the Comptroller and Auditor General, having regard to the arrangements for delegated administrative budgets in Departments. I cannot, however, agree to any arrangement, formal or informal, which would have the effect of alienating from the Government their constitutional right and duty to prepare the Estimates each year and submit them to the Dáil for consideration. Clearly, there will be opportunities for Deputies to raise any concerns they may feel about the resources of the Comptroller and Auditor General in the Dáil, or for the committee to raise any such concerns in their reports. I consider that these opportunities should meet the requirements of the committee and of this House generally.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I seek your advice on a point of order. The House is debating the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Bill, 1992. You will recall, as I do, that this issue was raised on numerous occasions by the Opposition, by Deputy Gay Mitchell in particular. The Government have now facilitated the House by making time available for this debate. By being absent from the Chamber, Opposition Members are showing scant regard for the people of this country and for the House. They are demonstrating total disrespect for the people whom we represent and for the House. The Opposition have been asking what the Government propose to do. Surely it is time that some Opposition Members appeared in the House, particularly Deputy Mitchell. It shows complete disrespect for the Minister for Finance——
I am sorry, Minister. The point on which the Minister rose is, strictly speaking, not a point of order. There is no order which requires any Member to be present in the House at any stage.
It is disrespectful.
I am citing the position to the Minister of State. I ask that the Minister be allowed to proceed without interruption.
I apologise if I was out of order, but I consider it important that the point be made that for the past ten or 15 minutes no member of the Opposition has been present in the House. We have heard this issue raised every day on the Order of Business.
The Minister of State has made that point. Again, it was not in order for him to raise the point. The Minister of State thought he had a point of order but he realises now that he did not. I call on the Minister for Finance to continue his reply without interruption.
Deputy Mitchell raised the question of the inspection by the Comptroller and Auditor General of bodies which receive more than 50 per cent of their funds indirectly out of public moneys, for example, bodies receiving grants from State agencies. The Government's position is set out in paragraph 3.11 of the White Paper. I feel it would be a mistake, in view of the very great extension of the range and scope of the Comptroller and Auditor General to extend the inspection provision to cover, for example, bodies receiving grants from the IDA or Bord Fáilte. I would point out that under the present proposals the Comptroller and Auditor General will be able to examine the systems which grant-awarding bodies have in place to ensure that the expenditure of grants is properly supervised by them and that the grant schemes are effective.
Deputy Mitchell also asked that official Comptroller and Auditor General queries should be answered within a month. I should say that standing instructions within my own Department stipulate that time limit but I am also aware that it is not always possible to meet the deadline. However, this is one of the matters that I intend should be followed up on an administrative basis by my Department when this legislation is enacted.
The Deputy also raised the question of a specified time limit for responses by me to reports of the Committee of Public Accounts. I think that this again is one of the matters which we will look into when this Bill becomes law. I agree that if the response is to be meaningful and relevant, it should be given as promptly as possible.
A number of Deputies raised the question as to why committees of this House should not be empowered to carry out investigations on the lines of judicial tribunals of investigation. The high cost of such tribunals was cited by a number of Deputies. These are areas which are outside the scope of the Bill before the House, and they relate also to committees other than the Committee of Public Accounts. As indicated in the White Paper, the related complex questions of privilege and compellability of witnesses before Oireachtas committees are being examined by my Department at present.
Deputy Spring pointed out that the regional tourism organisations, which the Government have decided to abolish, are included in section 8 of the Bill, while the new county enterprise boards are not mentioned. The fact is that Committee Stage amendments may need to be made to take account of developments since the text of the Bill was approved some time ago by the Government. The regional tourism organisations must, however, remain in the Bill as long as they still exist. While all the details of the new county enterprise boards have not yet been finalised, I understand that it is envisaged that these bodies will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. In that case they can be added to the First Schedule by Order if the Bill is enacted before that issue is finalised.
Deputy Spring expressed concern at the arrangement provided for in section 13 whereby the Comptroller and Auditor General will appoint an outside auditor to audit his own Office; he considered that the auditor should be independently appointed. That approach was seriously considered in the drafting of the Bill. However, it became apparent that in view of the constitutional responsibility of the Comptroller and Auditor General to "audit all accounts of moneys administered by or under the authority of the Oireachtas", the arrangement proposed in the Bill was the most appropriate in the circumstances. The Committee of Public Accounts will, of course, be able to question the Accounting Officer of the Comptroller and Auditor General's Office, the Secretary of the Office, on matters arising from the audit.
Deputy Mitchell raised the question of the functions of the former Committee on Public Expenditure being assigned to the Committee of Public Accounts. I would make the point that the central role of the Committee of Public Accounts will continue to be the examination of the Appropriation Accounts and other accounts audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General; as an extension of this and to make the examination more effective, value for money examinations and inspections by the Comptroller and Auditor General will now come within the remit of the committee. I consider it fundamental that the role of the committee should not extend beyond the areas covered by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The relationship between the Committee of Public Accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General goes back to the establishment of that Office in the 1866 Act. Too great a dissipation of the energies of the committee would only render it less effective.
Deputies may not be fully aware of the magnitude of the broadening of the range and scope of the Comptroller and Auditor General's Office and, in consequence, of the Committee of Public Accounts from a base of some 45 Appropriation Accounts, together with the accounts attached to them, some 35 other departmental accounts and some 40 non-commercial State bodies already statutorily audited by him. He will in addition be taking on the audit of some 110 bodies, including new audits of non-commercial State bodies not up to now audited by him, third level education bodies, health boards, regional technical colleges and vocational education committees. In regard to the extended range of bodies which will now be audited by him as well as in the case of existing bodies, he will have the discretionary power of examination for value for money and he will have new powers of inspection of bodies which receive 50 per cent or more of their gross income directly from Departments or from the Central Fund.
Clearly this will place very considerable new demands on both the Comptroller and Auditor General and on the Committee of Public Accounts and I do not consider that any further widening of the remit of the committee would be prudent at this stage.
Deputy Roche referred to concerns among staff of the Local Government Audit Service regarding the implications of this Bill. In my introductory speech I referred to these concerns and I wish to reiterate my assurances that the staff of that service will not be left high and dry following the transfer of the audits of certain bodies to the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Bill provides for the transfer of staff from the Local Government Audit Service to his Office when the audits are transferred. In addition, existing liaison arrangements between the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Local Government Audit Service will be strengthened and formalised to ensure effective co-operation. As I said at the beginning of this debate, my Department will be available for consultation with the unions concerned regarding any matters arising from the Bill which are of concern to their members.
Deputy Spring referred to the problem of overruns in public expenditure in the context of project audits carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I believe that the extra powers conferred on the Comptroller and Auditor General and the new terms of reference for the Committee of Public Accounts will allow the question of management of public funds, including project management, to be the subject of closer scrutiny, and for those accountable to be examined by the committee. I would not underestimate the power of the committee in that they are in a position to question witnesses, as Deputy Mitchell put it "in the full glare of publicity". My experience is that this form of public accountability is very effective in helping to ensure that when mistakes are made, they will not recur. I would point out also that, over the years, the committee have contributed through their reports, to the building up of standard practice and procedure in regard to public expenditure. Many of the matters dealt with in my Department's circulars over the years were first raised by the Committee of Public Accounts. I regard the complementary work of the Comptroller and Auditor General Committee of Public Accounts as being a very effective one and I believe that this Bill will give them a wider effectiveness.
I agree with Deputy Spring's and Deputy De Rossa's comments about the non-political and serious-minded manner in which the Committee of Public Accounts operate. This is clearly essential to the effectiveness of the committee's work and indeed to their proper relationship with the Comptroller and Auditor General. This is certainly a tribute to the Deputies involved on the committee who are acting in the public interest and need therefore to be able to deal with matters coming before them in an impartial and objective manner.
As Deputy Mitchell has acknowledged, the Government have in this Bill met most of the recommendations of the 1988 report. Where these have not been met, the reasons are set out in the White Paper and I have referred to the arguments again this afternoon. A number of the recommendations which relate to the terms of reference and procedure of the Committee of Public Accounts are matters which can be addressed administratively, are not really the province of the Bill and they will no doubt be addressed in the appropriate forum in due course.
A number of Deputies raised points of a general nature relating to the operation of Oireachtas committees, the debating of the reports of such committees, and indeed the need for Dáil reform. I do not propose to address these issues as they are outside the scope of the Bill before the House today.
I wish to thank the Deputies who contributed to the debate on Second Stage and, particularly, the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, Deputy Gay Mitchell, who did so much work in the preparation of the 1988 report. I thank him for his welcoming comments on the legislation and for the detailed observations he put on the record. I look forward to putting this Bill through Committee Stage over the next few weeks and to concluding the debate on it as soon as possible.
The Minister must be joking.
Can the Minister give a date for Committee Stage?
I think Deputy Gay Mitchell will be on other business next week and he may want to be in the House for Committee Stage. I am sure Tuesday, 17 November 1992 would be suitable, subject to the agreement of the Whips.
I have no doubt Deputy Gay Mitchell will be on other business next week. If, for the sake of formality, we need to consider a date a few weeks hence, that is in order with me but, perhaps, we should be making plans as to what the next Government will do with the Bill.
Regardless of when it will be taken I could not be more on my own than I was today.
The Minister had no backing from any members of his party.