Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 10 May 1994

Vol. 442 No. 5

Private Members' Business. - Cost to State of Professional Fees: Motion.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I move:

That Dáil Éireann requests the Comptroller and Auditor General to carry out a value for money audit of the cost to the State of professional fees and to report its findings to Dáil Éireann.

This motion requests the Comptroller and Auditor General to carry out a value for money audit of fees paid by the State to various consultants and lawyers, agents and other such people. I note an amendment has been tabled to the motion. It alleges there is an attempt to undermine the independence and override the terms of reference of the Committee of Public Accounts. That committee has no right to direct the Comptroller and Auditor General in his activities. No one is more authoritative than I on the subject and no one should tell me that I do not know what I am talking about. I was the longest serving chairman of that committee since the foundation of the State. I have studied the technical aspects of this matter and I wrote a thesis on the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Committee of Public Accounts. It is up to this House if it so chooses to legally confer those powers set out in the motion on the Comptroller and Auditor General. I am absolutely aghast at the Government's attempts to prevent this House from requesting its auditor, not the Government's one, from carrying out a value for money audit of an area which is the subject of public scandal.

Every lawyer, accountant, public relations consultant, design consultant, business consultant and fee receiving agent of the Government during the past ten years or so should be asked to sign a declaration that he or she did not subsequently donate some of his or her income or other resources to a political party or candidate. An unhealthy relationship has developed between the State and private individuals, firms and companies carrying out public services. Often, without a tendering procedure, millions of pounds of taxpayers' money are handed out to such firms, individuals and companies. Properties have been disposed of and acquired in the past in a loose and suspicious manner without adequate controls or explanations. The ease with which those financial transactions take place, while bypassing reasonable controls, is now a source of public concern, scandal and growing disbelief.

I will give some examples, by no means an exhaustive list, of fees paid which could not be considered value for money. In the early 1980s, fees totalling £9 million were incurred on the design of four new prisons which were never built. As it transpired, much of the expenditure turned out to be nugatory and the Comptroller and Auditor General brought it to the attention of the Committee of Public Accounts. It is reported on pages 29 and 30 of his 1982 report. As a result of the 1982-83 report of the Committee of Public Accounts the Department of Finance issued new instructions regarding the engagement of consultants on public construction contracts and the settlement of fees. In his 1982 report the Comptroller and Auditor General stated: "In view of the necessity to redesign all four projects, I felt that commitments to incur such professional fees may have been unnecessarily entered into because of the extent of the design work carried out before firm decisions were made as to the scope of the work to be undertaken". One must congratulate the Comptroller and Auditor General for his restrained and diplomatic language.

I chaired the Committee of Public Accounts for almost six years and it pioneered many of the changes that have taken place in the control of public expenditure. That committee, with the co-operation of the Secretary of the Department of Finance, his Department and the Comptroller and Auditor General, has brought about a positive and new way of auditing State spending.

I recall how pressure from the Committee of Public Accounts prompted the Office of Public Works to revise its procedures with regard to the payment of fees in accordance with standard percentages laid down by the governing professional bodies. The traditional approach did not take account of the volume of business farmed out by the State and the change resulted in significant savings by the State. It should be noted that the percentage basis for the calculation of professional fees works in such a way that an escalation in the cost of a project will inevitably result in a corresponding increase in the fees of those whose job it is to control costs.

Those misgivings have again come to the surface in recent years. One only has to refer to the 1991 and 1992 reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General for such evidence. In paragraphs 31 and 41 of his 1991 report, he draws attention to the costs of inspections under sections 8 and 14 of the Companies Act, 1990 which escalated far beyond what might reasonably have been envisaged. Those costs showed up the inadequacies of the procedures for appointing such inspectors. I will return to this topic later.

In his 1992 report, the Comptroller and Auditor General pointed to the fees and expenses associated with the Beef Tribunal at paragraph 35 and, on a different scale, the legal fees arising from the Ballycotton Inquiry at paragraph 32.

In the 1980s £661,885 was paid to a consultant by the Department of Energy for a report on the sale of Tara Mines. That report was never made public. It never saw the light of day, despite that asset which was sold being a State one. The Committee of Public Accounts was not able to obtain that report to ensure the sale of Tara Mines represented good and fair value for the taxpayer. No tendering procedure applied in respect of that report, the cost of which in today's figures may amount to £1.2 million. I do not know whether that report was one inch thick or only consisted of two sheets of paper. The manner in which that matter was dealt with is a scandalous way in which to do business.

In the 1987 report of the Committee of Public Accounts reference was made to the payment of £74,149 incurred by the State in appealing the High Court decision in Crotty v. the Attorney General, which tested the constitutionality of the Single European Act. The Comptroller and Auditor General had noted the Department of Finance was hesitant initially in authorising payment of these fees to counsel on the grounds they were excessive, but he pointed out that they were paid in full in January 1988.

The committee had reservations about the excessive costs being claimed in cases simply because the Exchequer is paying. It said it was concerned with the high level of payments to counsel and whether they are consistent with good financial control by the State. The committee pointed out that it had addressed this matter on a number of occasions and had never found its misgivings fully unfounded. It urged that a fresh look be taken at other options to provide the State with a more cost effective method of prosecuting or defending cases in the courts.

On the application of the then Minister for Industry and Commerce under section 8 of the Companies Act, 1990, the High Court, on 16 September 1991 appointed two inspectors, nominated by the then Minister. In 1991 the Comptroller and Auditor General reported that £1.24 million was paid from the Courts Vote to the inspectors investigating the affairs of Siúicre Éireann cpt, of which £678,507 related to inspectors' remuneration. In September 1991 the same Minister appointed an inspector to investigate the membership of the related companies of Siúicre Éireann cpt and in October 1991 he appointed an inspector to investigate the membership of companies connected with the purchase of a site by Bord Telecom.

The rates of remuneration and other conditions attached to the inspectors' appointments had not been agreed by the Minister beforehand, but the fees later claimed, totalling £491,041, of which inspectors' direct fees totalled £180,524, were paid. The question this House must address and quite properly ask the Comptroller and Auditor General, on its behalf and on behalf of the people, is why these rates of remuneration were not agreed in advance. None of us here would spend our own money in that way and taxpayers' money should not be spent in that way.

The cost to the State of the tribunal of inquiry into the beef processing industry to the end of June 1993 was £6.28 million, of which £3.998 million was for legal fees. A further £246,938 was spent on consultants' fees and the bills continued to roll in after that date. Some lawyers received more for a week at the tribunal than an unemployed person would receive in unemployment assistance for three years. There were enough teams of lawyers, consultants and others to play an 11-a-side tournament for 18 months.

The tribunal was appointed by the then Minister for Agriculture and Food on 31 May 1991 and its cost to date is tragic, the tragedy being that those who practise law and some of those delegated to uphold it seem to think this is a perfectly normal way to spend taxpayers' money. The view of people from certain quarters is that the trustees of the taxpayer, TDs, should keep their mouths shut and their noses out of this scandalous use of taxpayers' money. The only way for us to come to terms with this matter is to request the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is beyond reproach, who, since the foundation of the State, has been completely independent and has served this Parliament and country well, to report independently on it. We should compare expenditure on the beef tribunal and the number of people involved in it with, for example, the Scott inquiry in Britain.

When the overdue legislation to publicly compel the attendance of witnesses at Parliamentary committees is published, I bet that the Committee of Public Accounts will not be included in those which can compel the attendance of witnesses. This House must ensure that the Committee of Public Accounts is fully empowered to call witnesses. Perhaps some of the lawyers and consultants involved in the beef tribunal should be called before the committee and asked how they can justify the level of fees they charged and if they will consider refunding some of this money to the State. We are prepared to give power to inspectors appointed by the courts and by Ministers, tribunals chaired by judges and so on to inquire into matters, but we are not prepared to give that power to our own committees. It is time committees were given that power.

One of the reasons lawyers, particularly barristers, get away with charging high fees is that former lawyers are the ultimate adjudicators on what is a fair fee. "What the market will bear" is the rule of the day as handed down by judges. A further example is the Ballycotton inquiry where, as outlined in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report of 1992, fees totalled £827,809, of which legal fees totalled £724,018. The cost of the Kerry Babies Tribunal totalled £1.369 million. People may say that if we set up tribunals we should not complain about the cost. Whether we are talking about the purchase of a piece of furniture or stationary or the services of a professional, we are entitled to seek value for money on behalf of the taxpayer. Simply because we set up a tribunal of inquiry does not mean we sign a blank cheque, with nobody responsible for ensuring that tribunals operate economically, efficiently and effectively.

One point that needs to be made is the continued association of judges with lawyers. This matter was addressed by the Fair Trade Commission Report on the Legal Profession, 1990, which states:

At this stage, it seems appropriate that the Commission should express its surprise at the involvement of the Judiciary with the barristers' profession through the institution of King's Inns. Although all judges in the Circuit and Superior Courts must have previously been practising barristers, we consider that the Judiciary and the Bar are totally separate professions. There seems no sound reason for any aspect of the profession of barrister to be influenced by the direct participation of the Judiciary.

Barristers are subject to the authority of judges in their courts, judges can complain to the Bar Council about the behaviour of barristers, and no further involvement would appear to be warranted. Nevertheless, 22 of the 53 Benchers of King's Inns are judicial Benchers, and there are nine judicial Benchers and a judge of the Circuit Court among the 43 members of the Council of King's Inns.

This has implications for disciplining of barristers, but it also has implications where, for example, an individual or company, or the State, appeals to the High Court the level of fees charged by a barrister. This happened in a case heard on 20 October 1993. It would be interesting to read some of the banter exchanged between the learned friends on the decision of fees arrived at on that occasion. I do not wish to single out any judge——

An Ceann Comhairle

That would not be in order.

Mr. G. Mitchell

——but it is fair and proper that we in this House should ask whether this approach by the Judiciary in general is consistent with the public interest and the removal of restrictive practices. It would be welcome if some other forum were found to appeal barrister's fees, one which would be less inclined towards a view of what is fair and reasonable.

A sum of £2.25 million has been spent by the Government on public relations, media and communications consultants in the past 15 months. This is the largest such expenditure by a Government in the history of the State. It does not include programme managers and others recruited from outside the public service. At Question Time on 13 April the Taoiseach confirmed that Carr Communications was retained by his Department to provide assistance and that the annual value of the contract was £36,300, including VAT. The Tánaiste has entered into contracts totalling £84,817 to produce a 28-minute video. The Minister with the best image in Government, Deputy Howlin, the Minister for Health, awarded the most contracts to communication companies. He spent £835,218 in total. The Minister for the Environment spent £494,422 on advertising campaigns, some £218,013 to Saatchi and Saatchi for the "Clean up Ireland" campaign and £125,000 to Arks Limited. The Minister for Finance awarded £98,949 in contracts. He told the Dáil that Carr Communications was paid £26,000 a year to carry out a variety of assignments.

The Minister for Tourism and Trade has various media contracts totalling, to the end of March, £41,291. The Minister for Justice has one contract with Carr Communications for £31,107 during the past 15 months for advice and assistance. The Minister for Education sanctioned two contracts for £23,800 in the same period. The Minister for Enterprise and Employment contracted Setanta Communication at a cost of £22,845. The Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications paid £20,108 to Drury Communications. The Minister for Social Welfare paid £15,500 to Walsh Public Relations Limited to advise on communications relating to Department schemes and services. The Minister for Defence, Deputy Andrews, placed one contract with Brindley Advertising Limited for £11,410 and, wearing his other hat as Minister for the Marine, he awarded four contracts totalling £4,997 to the same company. The Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht paid a smaller amount, £1,398 — he is not so bad at communicating his own view without the help of these people. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry paid fees from March 1992 to July 1993 amounting to £385,000 and the Minister for Equality and Law Reform will soon be responsible for the expenditure of £500,000 in advertising.

According to information provided in answer to a parliamentary question, that totals £2.25 million which has been spent on public relations, media and communications consultants in the past 18 months. That is unheard of in the history of the State. Just imagine what could be done with that money for the people who are waiting for eye operations, for the people who are on housing lists or on waiting lists for orthodontic treatment, including young children whose faces are becoming disfigured because they cannot get treatment. Yet we see money being thown around in this way.

As far as I can ascertain in most of these cases there was no tendering procedure before any of the persons who were subsequently paid these fees were chosen. There may have been tendering in one or two cases but, in most cases, no fees were agreed in advance and no independent person could claim that the fees charged could possibly represent value for money. I have given random examples of millions of pounds of expenditure. This is only a representative group and the way the consultants were chosen and the absence of controls to ensure value for money for the taxpayer must be of the gravest concern.

Contrast this with the amount of money spent in the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General each year, which amounts to a measly couple of million pounds, or the amount spent on running the Oireachtas for an entire year. We are handing money to barristers, consultants and lawyers some of whom, incidentally, set out salaries and say that we are worth £30,000 for a whole year. How many of us are not working 15 hours a day, weekends thrown in and with very few holidays, in the most insecure business in the State? That is what they say we are worth. How do they arrive at what they themselves are worth? How can the State have agreed to pay these figures?

Why is the State now resisting a motion to ask the only honest broker in the game, the Comptroller and Auditor General, to look at these fees and report his findings to the House? Why is that happening? Who is trying to block this House and the people from finding out? It is things like this that get people's backs up. A funny thing about Governments is that they can be very popular, but it takes very little to lose that popularity, to start going down in the opinion polls and for seats to be shed right, left and centre. Deputies will come into this House at the request of the Government to speak against this motion, and they will do so in constructive ways. It will be interesting to hear how the electorate who sent them here respond to what they say in this House.

For the future we must examine the possibility of allowing parliamentary committees to carry out these inquiries. Why should we empower all of these people, we who have the power to empower ourselves? People may say that that cannot be done, but was there any report more controversial than the Carysfort report? The Committee of Public Accounts agreed a report on that. I say that in justice to all members of that committee from all sides, and there were members on that committee who might have been considered to have been under political pressure for one reason or another. The committee agreed a controversial report and got to the point. In all my time on the Committee of Public Accounts I do not remember the committee dividing because of politics.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

Come back, Gay.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Put it in writing after 9 June and I might accept the invitation. I have been a member of that committee since 1983. It went about its business and was capable of doing so. It is every bit as capable of inquiring into matters as some of the people we are empowering at huge cost. Our committees should have the right to compel the attendance of witnesses under pain of contempt of Parliament and with severe penalties attached. This can be done. It was done by the Committee of Public Accounts on the special inquiry in 1970, and its findings were only set aside by the High Court on a technicality; the legislation did not set down possible penalties and, therefore, a person being sentenced was potentially entitled to trial by jury because the sentence would have been over two years. In the special report of the Committee of Public Accounts on the future of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the committee, we attached senior counsel's opinion on how that could legally be done simply by amending that brief Act of 1970.

From here on and at a minimum, outside services should only be contracted for where persons and firms have been chosen at arm's length. There should be a contract for fees in advance and value for money must be the essence of such an agreement. There should be a prohibition on political contributions from those who receive fees from the State and a declaration to that effect should be signed in advance and after work has been completed by all of those involved. There should be rigid controls of Government spending in such areas and these controls should be overseen and regularly reviewed by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

People outside this House are becoming increasingly scandalised by what they see as the "Dynasty" type unreality of the men in mohair suits and the women in expensive clothes who sport suntans and fly around the world thinking that somehow they own Ireland. In the long traditions of this State, from W.T. Cosgrave down to recent Taoisigh, this House has always been accounted to for the actions of the Government. It is a requirement of the Constitution that the Executive report and be accountable to Dáil Éireann. Because it has such a large majority the Government may think those rules do not apply; they do, regardless of the size of the majority and probably because of the size of the majority, the Government should be sensitive to accounting to the House for its stewardship, particularly in the financial area.

Fiscal rectitude is a philosophy which, over the years, has been accepted on both sides of the House, which has not always been the case. It has contributed to most of our economic indicators coming on side, our inflation rate, our growth rate and our debt-GNP ratio in particular, because we have preached restraint. How can we continue to preach restraint when people see money being thrown around in this way? It is a scandal, the insensitivity of which people outside this House do not believe. Any social worker operating on the ground will say that insensitivity is a source of hurt and shame. How can they tell people who come to them with AIDS, are unemployed or have housing problems that no money is available, when day after day they see large amounts of money squandered by people in this way without adhering to the normal contractual procedures which would be expected in any business?

This is particularly the case when the public see those people, who one might expect to uphold the law and to set standards in their knowledge and practice of the law, being the most greedy, getting away with their greed and thumbing their noses at the Members of this House. It is time we thumbed our noses at them and the only way for this House to do that is to empower the Comptroller and Auditor General, the only officer of the Constitution who reports to this House. It has never been known for the Comptroller and Auditor General to overstate, exaggerate or do anything other than serve in the true traditions of an independent public servant and to meet his remit in every way. One of the great privileges of my time as a Member of this House has been my association with the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Secretary of the Department of Finance, people who have an enormous regard for the traditions of public service. It is unfortunate that those traditions do not apply to the back door agents and the huge fees being paid to them and to others.

I ask the Minister, even at this late hour, not to amend this motion. What has he to fear? It will take some time before the Comptroller and Auditor General produces his report and none of us will know its content until it is published. I want him to carry out a value for money audit based on the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act, 1993, introduced by the Minister for Finance. Throughout my political career I campaigned for such legislation and had some hand in its introduction. Under that Act the Comptroller and Auditor General is legislatively empowered to carry out value for money audits based on economy, efficiency and the effectiveness of the expenditure. Let us ask him to do this job as we are legislatively entitled to do. We are entitled to confer on the Comptroller and Auditor General additional powers and responsibilities and this is one which would certainly fall within that remit.

If Members of the House were free to vote on this motion, the vast majority of them would vote in favour of it because I know, from speaking to Members privately, that they are as scandalised as the public by this behaviour. Why should we allow ourselves to be whipped into the lobbies to prevent this motion being carried? I fail to understand why anybody would want to oppose or table an amendment to this motion. On a free vote in this House the motion would be carried because what I am saying in it represents the views of the vast majority of Members, including a sizeable number in the Cabinet. I do not know why we should seek to obstruct the House in pursuing the inquiry in this way.

For expenditure on fees already made, we must now request the Comptroller and Auditor General to carry out a value for money audit based on economy, efficiency and effectiveness, and to report to this House on his findings as soon as possible. The Comptroller and Auditor General is the person appointed, under the Constitution, to report to Parliament on Government spending and the Dáil is empowered to request him to carry out such investigations. He is a constitutional officer with no axe to grind and with a proven record of serving the public interest.

Public money has been spent as if it were distributed by a drunken sailor. None of us would allow our own money to be spent in this way and we certainly should not allow vast amounts of taxpayers' money to be so spent. I commend this motion to the House and request full cross-party support for its early implementation.

Minister for Finance (Mr. B. Ahern)

I wish to share my time with Deputies Batt O'Keeffe and Denis Foley.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

Mr. B. Ahern

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Dáil Éireann without in any way approving of, or agreeing with high levels of professional fees, reaffirms the independence conferred on the Comptroller and Auditor General in relation to value for money audits by section 9 of the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act, 1993, and rejects any attempts to undermine that independence or override the terms of reference of the Committee of Public Accounts, having regard to section 9 (4) of the Act and paragraph (4) of Standing Order 130."

I regard the examination by the Comptroller and Auditor General of economy and efficiency in use of resources and the examination of effectiveness of certain management systems as one of the most important, if not the most important, new, discretionary power to be given to the Comptroller and Auditor General under the Comptroller and Auditor General legislation of last year. In the context of my amendment to this motion, I stress the discretionary nature of this power — a discretion which does not appear to have received due consideration in the motion tabled by Deputies Mitchell and Yates.

I am aware, however, from the debates in the House during the passage of the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act, 1993, that the introduction of a statutory basis for value for money audit was welcomed by Deputies as a significant development. The background to this development is, of course, fully set out in section 2 of the White Paper on the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The range of bodies subject to economy and efficiency examinations is very wide — essentially all Departments, bodies and funds subject to statutory audit. The only exceptions are bodies who are audited by agreement or are subject to inspection rather than audit. The range of bodies which I have referred to are also subject to examination, at the Comptroller and Auditor General's discretion, of management effectiveness. I do not think that there can be any dispute over the value of value for money audits as provided for in the Comptroller and Auditor General legislation.

The reason I oppose this motion is that it is, in effect, an attack on both the statutory independence of the Comptroller and Auditor General and on the functions of the Committee of Public Accounts as laid down in the Standing Orders of this House. Value for money audits may be carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor General in accordance with the provisions of section 9 of the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act, 1993. The first part of section 9 provides that the Comptroller and Auditor General may carry out such examinations for the purposes of ascertaining whether and to what extent the resources of a Department have been used economically and efficiently. Deputies will note that the legislation leaves it entirely to the discretion of the Comptroller and Auditor General what examinations he should carry out in his value for money audits.

Any attempt to direct or to request him to carry out specific examinations of the extent to which the resources of a Department have been used economically and efficiently is an attempt to dilute the statutory independence of this important constitutional office and flouts the intentions, clearly expressed in legislation, of both Houses of the Oireachtas. If some Deputies feel that what has already been legislated for should be changed — and they are entitled to that view — the proper course is to introduce an amendment to the Act in question, not to try to achieve the same result by way of motion, which is what we are faced with today.

The independence of the Comptroller and Auditor General is assured by the fact that he holds a constitutional office, under Article 33 of the Constitution, which also sets down his basic responsibilities. The Constitution provides that the Comptroller and Auditor General is appointed by the President on the nomination of Dáil Éireann and shall not be removed from office except for stated misbehaviour or incapacity, and then only upon resolutions passed by both the Dáil and Seanad. The independence of this Office, enshrined in the Constitution, must be jealously guarded.

The Constitution provides that the terms and conditions under which the Comptroller and Auditor General carries out his functions shall be determined by law. The most recent and important statute governing the Office of Comptroller and Auditor General is the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act, which came into law in 1993. When that Act was at the Bill stage, the question of providing a channel of communication between this House and the Comptroller and Auditor General in relation to value for money audits was carefully considered and the outcome of that consideration was to make the following statutory provision in the Act:

Where the Comptroller and Auditor General proposes to make any examination under this section, [that is, to conduct a value for money audit] he may, at his discretion, seek the views of the committee of Dáil Éireann established under the Standing Orders of Dáil Éireann to examine and report to Dáil Éireann on the appropriation accounts.

The lines of communication between the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Dáil, which are of long standing, have always been by way of the Committee of Public Accounts whose functions are laid down in Standing Orders. Everyone agrees that this committee has functioned well over the years and given an excellent service to taxpayers in scrutinising the annual accounts of Government Departments and taking evidence from the accounting officers concerned. Deputy Gay Mitchell's contribution to the committee, the White Paper and the Act are a tribute to his diligence and efficiency. The Department is grateful for his work, interest and commitment over several years. Its terms of reference were amended by motion in this House earlier this year in order to take account of the broadening of the functions of the Comptroller and Auditor General and one of the changes made was to include the following:

The Committee may, without prejudice to the independence of the Comptroller and Auditor General in determining the work to be carried out by his Office or the manner in which it is carried out, in private communication, make such suggestions to the Comptroller and Auditor General regarding that work as they see fit.

Thus, the statutory provision in regard to the Comptroller and Auditor General seeking the views of the Dáil is mirrored by the provision in the committee's terms of reference authorising them to make suggestions to the Comptroller and Auditor General in private communication. The motion totally ignores these arrangements, which were the subject of extensive debate and agreement during the Committee Stage of the 1993 Comptroller and Auditor General legislation.

This is not the first attempt by Deputies opposite to use the value for money provision as a mechanism for raising matters which should not be brought up in this way. When the amended terms of reference of the Committee of Public Accounts were being debated, an amendment was tabled which would have had the effect of involving the Comptroller and Auditor General in an examination of Government plans and policies. That attempt to draw the Comptroller and Auditor General into an area of policy and political controversy was totally unacceptable and ignored the fact that he is specifically excluded, under statute, from questioning or expressing an opinion on the merits of policies or policy objectives. On that occasion, the Deputies concerned saw the light and withdrew their amendment.

Mr. Cox

Hit a brick wall.

Mr. B. Ahern

Let us hope that, in similar fashion, this motion will be withdrawn when it is recognised as being an ill thought out attempt to subvert the independence of a constitutional office, the Office of Comptroller and Auditor General, and to diminish the role of probably the most important committee of Dáil Éireann, the Committee of Public Accounts.

I would like to make it clear that I will not be drawn into a debate, under the guise of this ill-judged motion, on the value for money represented by professional fees paid by Government Departments, either in general or in regard to a particular case or cases. To do so would be to ignore the duties and independence of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the functions of the Committee of Public Accounts and this I will not do.

This is a debate on a motion that the Dáil should take a certain line of action which I categorically reject. I have given ample reasons for doing so and I am not prepared to participate in an extension of the debate into an area that does not arise once it is established that the main thrust of the motion is fundamentally flawed. I ask the House to reject the motion as tabled by approving my amendment.

Mr. G. Mitchell

The Minister was up all night thinking of that.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

The motion requests the Comptroller and Auditor General to carry out a value for money audit and report his findings to the Dáil. It is extraordinary that the prestigious former chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts would, through this motion, suggest the Comptroller and Auditor General should report to the Dáil rather than through the normal channels of the committee. Perhaps I should not be surprised. Mitchell mór has taken over in the interim and perhaps the former chairman does not have the same confidence in his brother as he had in himself.

Mr. G. Mitchell

That is the lowest thing I have heard in a long time.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

The legislation which empowered the Comptroller and Auditor General to look at the operation of various Departments and carry out value for money audits was welcome. What does the motion ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to do? It "requests" the Comptroller and Auditor General but what it is doing is instructing the Comptroller and Auditor General to become directly involved. I am sure Deputy Mitchell and Deputy Yates did not have this in mind when they phrased the motion.

Mr. G. Mitchell

The law says we are entitled to do that.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

I can forgive Deputy Yates, who probably does not fully understand the process under which the Comptroller and Auditor General operates, but I cannot forgive Deputy Mitchell for putting down this motion. Do the Deputies want the Comptroller and Auditor General to become involved in political controversy?

Today Deputy Foley and I attended a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts, a committee which has been brought into disrepute in recent months due to the political way in which it has been operating. However bad that is, one can only imagine the mayhem directing the Comptroller and Auditor General to become involved in such matters would cause. Three members of the Committee of Public Accounts who are aspiring to become members of the European Parliament are willing to use the committee to gain publicity.

Mr. Cox

Instead of Carr Communications.

Mr. G. Mitchell

How many are aspiring to ministerial office?

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

It is extraordinary that Deputy Cox should intervene——

Mr. Cox

Keep batting.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

He is hardly intervening on behalf of Deputy O'Malley — history seems to suggest that Deputy O'Malley is the last person for whom Deputy Cox would hold a coat tail.

Mr. Cox

It merely serves to show my generosity of spirit.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

Three aspiring MEPs are blatantly and openly using the Committee of Public Accounts to gain publicity; they are organising the agenda of the committee to do this. One can only imagine what would happen if we directed the Comptroller and Auditor General to become involved in a process outside his present remit. The Committee of Public Accounts could not operate if the Comptroller and Auditor General could be directed to become involved in a particular process outside his remit. We are extremely lucky to have a Comptroller and Auditor General who is totally independent in his functions and can give stick when it is due.

It is interesting that this motion was put down by two members of a party which I would call the national mishandlers. Deputy Mitchell should ask the amount of money spent by those buckos. We are still paying the price. Fianna Fáil-led Governments since 1987 have turned back the clock in this regard. Deputies Mitchell and Yates are trying to bash the Government through the auspices of the Comptroller and Auditor General. This is very unworthy of both these gentlemen. They are trying to discredit a Government which is responsible for growth in the economy — it is predicted to grow by 5 per cent — and for low interest and inflation rates. This motion can be seen for what it is, a cheap gibe. How can Deputy Mitchell say that the Government is increasing the level of public expenditure? We are very lucky to have at the top people who have the grit, determination and foresight to ensure that all sectors operate as efficiently and effectively as possible in the best interests of the country.

I want to extol the virtues of the Committee of Public Accounts as it was set up and the wide remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General. It is important to remind Deputy Mitchell, a former chairman who contributed to the expanding role of the committee, that it is possible for the members of the Committee of Public Accounts to suggest to the Comptroller and Auditor General what they want him to do.

I would be the last person to say I am happy about the level of legal fees which have been paid out and have yet to be paid out to those who have to submit their bills. Some of the witnesses at the tribunal are now acting as investigators through their membership of the Committee of Public Accounts. It is extraordinary that some of the people who gave evidence at the tribunal are not now willing to admit that they have submitted claims to the chairman of the tribunal, claims which will be paid out of State funds. Despite documentary evidence that their counsel asked the chairman of the tribunal to ensure that the public defrayed all their costs, even today they denied that they had submitted claims. Some of these people stand by and uphold the dignity of the man in the street, yet they are unwilling to stand up and say what they will cost him. Some of them made totally unfounded and flawed allegations and incurred massive costs for the State in having this matter investigated. Yet they are now telling us how we should do our business. This motion is totally flawed, and I support the Government amendment.

Mr. Foley

I thank the Minister and Deputy O'Keeffe for sharing their time with me. Deputy Mitchell must feel very strongly about this issue to have put down this motion. He was an excellent chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts — I served with him on the committee — and he played a major role in expanding the functions of the committee during his term as chairman. However, I cannot support his motion. I support the amendment which proposes to delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

without in any way approving of, or agreeing with high levels of professional fees, reaffirms the independence conferred on the Comptroller and Auditor General in relation to value for money audits by section 9 of the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act, 1993, and rejects any attempt to undermine that independence or to override the terms of reference of the Committee of Public Accounts, having regard to section 9 (4) of the Act and paragraph (4) of Standing Order 130.

There is no doubt that we have learned many lessons from the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry in regard to fees. No doubt when that report has been finalised the powers that be will examine the structure and methods by which such fees are struck should a similar circumstance arise in future, with terms of reference clearly laid down in the event of any future tribunals being established.

I should like to refer to some of the background to the role and power of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The office of the Comptroller and Auditor General was provided for originally under the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866. Article 33.1 of the Constitution stipulates:

There shall be a Comptroller and Auditor General to control on behalf of the State all disbursements and to audit all accounts of moneys administered by or under the authority of the Oireachtas.

The Constitution requires the Comptroller and Auditor General to report to the Dáil at stated periods as determined by law. As a constitutional officer the Comptroller and Auditor General is appointed by the President on the nomination of the Dáil and holds office until the retiring age of 70 prescribed by law. He may not be a Member of the Oireachtas, may not hold any other office or position of emolument and cannot be removed from office except for stated misbehaviour or incapacity, then only by the President on foot of resolutions passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas calling for his removal. Thus, under the Constitution the Comptroller and Auditor General enjoys a high degree of independence. The Constitution provides that otherwise the terms and conditions of the office of Comptroller and Auditor General are determined by law. In this regard, the main statutes are the Exchequer and Audit Departments Acts, 1866 and 1921 and the Comptroller and Auditor General Acts of 1923 and 1964. The Comptroller and Auditor General has approximately 75 staff and the 1992 Estimate for his office amounted to approximately £1.9 million.

I remember some years ago, when Deputy Gay Mitchell was Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, a very good submission was prepared with regard to staffing the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. As a result of a visit to Canada arranged by Deputy Gay Mitchell, we returned with very good ideas in regard to value for money auditing. It was recommended that the staff of the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General should be increased substantially to deal with the changing terms of reference, resulting from the Canadian visit.

The motion, as tabled by Deputies Gay Mitchell and Yates will be covered by the background and role of the Comptroller and Auditor General when he examines the various accounts and is obliged to report thereon over a period. If the report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry is published this year it will mean that the Comptroller and Auditor General will be reporting on the 1994 accounts some time in 1995, when I have no doubt there will be reference to the points raised here in regard to fees — which Members certainly cannot accept — and that the Comptroller and Auditor General will deal with that matter in his own way.

In the background to the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General it is said that he audits the accounts of issues from the Central Fund, the Appropriation Accounts, and other accounts attached to the Appropriation Accounts; departmental stock and store accounts; the accounts of the receipts of revenue of the State and, lastly, the accounts of a number of departmental funds, State bodies and other agencies. The Comptroller and Auditor General also has the right to examine the books and accounts of certain organisations in receipt of public moneys although that right is rarely exercised. We can depend on the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is a very independent, efficient person, whose integrity is unquestionable with regard to accountability where the State is concerned. I have no doubt that the point made by Deputy Gay Mitchell will be dealt with by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his own good time when he reports on the accounts for the year 1994.

A number of proposals have already been made. With regard to international developments over the past 15 years or so there has been changes in the roles of national auditors of a number of other countries. There were recommendations a few years ago with a view to having some of those changes embodied in the terms of reference of our Comptroller and Auditor General. While some changes have evolved over that period, many more remain to be implemented. It is most important that the expansion of the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General is examined at this point, giving him any necessary powers he may require. He is an independent officer, responsible to the Government, should be asked whether he has any recommendations with regard to value for money and, if so, they should be noted.

I support the amendment and am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate.

Mr. Cox

The motion before the House this evening is timely, useful, and will have the support of the Progressive Democrats.

I listened with considerable interest to the Minister and some of his colleagues. In the manner of his presentation there is certainly a formal, statutory foundation which neatly, even cutely, avoided the central question behind the motion. Indeed I would not be exercising too great a liberty if I interpreted, or implied from the motion, in the minds of its drafters, a view that this suggestion has been put to the House without prejudice to the independence of the Comptroller and Auditor General. My party will support the motion bearing that interpretation in mind, we will use it as an opportunity to publicly signal our grave discontent with the setting of State professional fees in a way which is designed to be without prejudice to the independence of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Indeed we shall be doing what this House is fully entitled to do — and must do if it is fulfilling its mandate — in terms of its integrity, when there are issues of public policy at stake, to signal those issues of concern to those who may address them. Within that context, even if I take a modest liberty in interpreting the specific meaning of the motion, I am sure it is designed on a "without prejudice basis", fully respectful, as I know Deputy Mitchell is, of the role and functions of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

When listening to the Minister, a man for whose agility, in political terms, I have great admiration I was reminded, as he wound his way slowly through this text of a single thought, of a presentation by Professor John Kenneth Galbraith, the famous Harvard economist, hired by the BBC some ten to 15 years ago to produce a series called "The Age of Uncertainty" when he spoke about a former American Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles. Galbraith said of him, which is apposite to the Minister's presentation here, that his speech was slow but more than kept pace with his thought. I am not referring to the Minister's ability to prove himself — as he has done so often in this House — very agile on his feet. His speech was based on a single and narrow thought that took a rather formalistic view of the motion before us and dodged the central political issue. Because of that formalistic single thought approach he said he would not be drawn into this debate on the issue of substance. As I see it, he did not even allow himself the liberty to be slightly drawn on the matter. I commend him and those who advise him in the matter of scripting. I wonder was it the erstwhile, excellent public service or was it one of those more expensive, hired guns on whom part of this debate is focused.

The issue of the setting of professional fees by the State is one of grave and serious public disquiet. It would be a great pity if, in respect of this scandalous situation which is shrouded in fog, indifference, obscurity and so formalistic an approach, with one bound, our hero, the Minister was free. An issue of substance lies beneath all this. It concerns the integrity and ability of the House to raise matters of genuine concern in relation to public policy, in this case aspects of public expenditure and to have the integrity of this House respected.

You will be aware, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that as recently as this afternoon issues were raised in this House by one Member about his inability to put down certain questions in respect of State fees. You will be aware also it has been stated more than once, in relation to the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry that it was the failure to answer questions properly in this House that led to the momentum which established that tribunal. I say that because tonight the way the Minister has gone about his business has been treated blandly. There is an issue here in respect not just of the integrity of the Comptroller and Auditor General but in terms of the integrity of this House.

Deputy O'Keeffe asked how anyone on this side of the House could say that public expenditure has increased since Fianna Fáil came into Government when the contrary is the case. If he cares to look at the figures for the past two years he will see that current public expenditure has increased by 17 percentage points in a period when inflation increased by less than 3 percentage points. At a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts today he raised the terms of the tribunal and the question of defraying costs. I thought it curious that the Deputy, after lecturing us on the integrity of the Comptroller and Auditor General, did not observe the same delicacy in commenting on decisions that may be before someone else whose integrity this House has done much to uphold recently.

This is a timely motion. The three Es — economy, efficiency and effectiveness — and the value for audit checks by the Comptroller must be put in perspective. The motion has in part been sparked off by the beef tribunal and matters surrounding it. We do not yet know the ultimate fees but it is clear that by any common standard they will be staggeringly high and have become a matter of grave public concern to the point where their scale may well undermine much of the integrity of an exercise which proved necessary in respect of the beef industry. It is an issue of serious concern that that whole aspect has been treated with such casual indifference by the Minister and other Government speakers. When the State set the fees there was a theory that they would set a fee the market would bear. If you qualify as a barrister and you are called to the Bar, the Law Library is an open institution, anyone who meets the criteria can go there and practise. Frankly I question whether the market would have borne something considerably more economic, efficient and effective, in value for money terms, if we had gone out of our way to try to do that. Certainly lessons need to be learned.

The Comptroller and Auditor General is well placed, not just in terms of the tribunal but in respect of other professional fees determined by the State, to set out a due process which could be followed as a reference point for the setting of future fees. The fees which will now be paid are, in the public mind, unsustainably high in terms of any sense of a reasonable rate of return for the job in hand. For that reason it is right to expect an independent office of State, without prejudicing its independence, to examine this kind of issue of public concern.

In respect of the three Es — economy, efficiency and effectiveness — we have added a few other Es in recent weeks in answer to parliamentary questions where we have moved on to exotic forms of public expenditure, since few were anxious to claim the credit for incurring it in the first instance. It appears that when many Ministers assume office they are given two cars; one for transport and the other for communications. In all cases, both prove to be relatively expensive investments. I would like an opinion, from the Comptroller and Auditor General, so that I will not be accused of playing party politics, on the necessity and justification for this. There should be an independent and professional opinion on whether we need this. Do we need to overlap the Government Information Service with the whole panoply of the public service and its expertise or is the public purse reduced to private ministerial propaganda, for people who aggrandise themselves, their egos and their standing at public expense but who do so under the mantle of the public interest? We have a public service, a Government Information Service and a substantial panoply of expertise and I cannot understand why it was necessary to pay £2.25 million to consultants.

The programme managers appear to be suffering grave embarrassment at the thought of a premature mid-term review. I understood that they had been hired to iron out the creases but now the creases are so bad it is beyond their capacity and their expensive array of offices and backup to manage this process in a manner satisfactory to their political masters. On top of the programme managers and the public service there is additional expenditure on consultancy, mostly for PR purposes, of £150,000 per month on average. It is indefensible and it is interesting to note that nobody on the Government side sought to address the matter. They adopted a formalistic approach and accused the Opposition of trying to undermine the integrity of an office which we uphold.

I wish to raise another issue in respect of public expenditure which I described earlier as expenditure which I thought did not fit the boundaries of economy, efficiency and effectiveness but was somewhat more exotic. Other classes of expenditure associated with the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry, which only recently came to light, are not fully accounted for and from which some people in this House who may have been beneficiaries of this expenditure have been anxious to distance themselves. For example, one economic consultant, recruited for a mere ten days, to produce some economic consultancy for the State's legal team — and whose fees had not been set in advance — found that the contract was extended for twice or more the original period, but by the end of the tribunal it was discovered that the consultant had continued for some reason or another for 284 days. From the public record it appears that Departments were not aware of the work being done by this consultancy. Certainly some Ministers and politicians who gave evidence before the tribunal were not beneficiaries of the great fruits——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Members should be prudent about mentioning the appointment of consultants to the State legal team. The matter is before the committee. It has been established in the House that mention should not be made of matters that come before that committee.

Mr. Cox

I will not test the patience of the Chair but I am bound to say that the consultancy to which I referred but not named is widely known and is, perhaps, the most exotic of the creatures that have come out from under the stones that Members have tried to turn over in recent months.

I feel perfectly free to comment on a matter that was raised in this House. I was fascinated to see how adept the Taoiseach was under intense questioning some weeks ago at avoiding any personal responsibility or accountability in political terms for the existence of a consultancy which no-one else could rationally explain. It is that kind of thing that lies behind the logic of the motion before the House. It fascinated me how the Minister and his colleagues could adopt a ritualistic and formal approach to the law and accuse this side of the House of trying to undermine and impugn the integrity of the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Each Minister gets two cars on assuming office, one of them to handle communications and spin the stories. Ministries are being treated more as fiefdoms than Departments that are directly accountable, a process that has grown up by custom and practice over the years. Very few matters of public substance are ever launched in this House, which is meant to be the form of our democracy. Ministers make announcements and surround themselves with all the pomp of expensive back drops. They have auto-cues so that they do not fluff their lines for the six o'clock and nine o'clock news bulletins and by so doing avoiding their essential accountability to this House.

The failure to keep this House as a core of the democratic process and instead surround Ministers with the panoply of spin doctors and so on is an assault on the integrity of this House. The Minister's refusal tonight to be drawn on the issue of substance is an insult to the integrity of this House. The House has got to make it clear that in the matter of State professional fees there is grave public disquiet which is undermining the authority and the standing of politics.

We are entitled to answers. In this motion we are flagging certain questions that demand serious independent answers and, without wishing to prejudice the independence of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, for which we have such respect, we are calling on him to look at these matters.

Deputy Rabbitte rose.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The note I have states that the Progressive Democrats Party and the Fine Gael Party are sharing time.

Mr. Hogan

The issue before us this evening is about openness, transparency and ethics in Government. We heard a great deal about ethics in Government during the general election of November 1992. We heard a great deal about ethics in Government after the election but agreement has not yet been reached on the publication of the ethics in Government Bill. After the gestation period one would have thought that the partners in Government would have come to a conclusion on this important issue by this stage. A cynicism has grown up among the general public about politics and politicians and about the apparent looseness of State expenditure programmes and the appointment of professionals commanding high fees without any accountability to this House.

If we had proper disclosure of the information sought in this House the tribunal of inquiry into the beef industry and into Greencore would not have to be established and we would not have incurred such high professional fees. That is sad reflection on politics. It is a sad reflection on this House that the power of the parliamentary question and the importance of this assembly was undermined to the extent that an expensive procedure had to be established outside this House in order to come to the truth on many issues that are now before the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Industry.

It is an indictment of the people responsible for sanctioning fees in the first instance that barristers and accountants were able to command fees of £1,750 per day. It is not good enough that the Minister tables an amendment that neither agrees nor disagrees with the high level of professional fees sanctioned by the Government. He does not mind whether we approve or disapprove of the high level of professional fees but talks in a spurious way about reaffirming the independence of the Comptroller and Auditor General. That is not in question. The question is whether the State should incur on behalf of the taxpayer the huge professional fees sanctioned by this and previous Governments in respect of expensive inquiries.

I have a vested interest in the insurance industry. The State pays enormous fees and does nothing to reduce the high legal costs incurred in settling claims in spite of many promises by the then Minister of State, Deputy Séamus Brennan. He asserted that insurance premia could be reduced overnight by lowering the commissions being paid to intermediaries and by introducing the one counsel rule. Nothing like that has happened. Ireland is treated as a high risk location. People are losing jobs and firms are unable to pay the insurance costs which are high because of the number of claims and the level of fees. The State stands idly by and allows that to happen.

It is not good enough for the Minister to say he does not know whether he agrees with the level of fees, the Government sanctioned those fees. The public is outraged at the fees charged for State work. It is time a procedure was put in place to stop this. The looseness surrounding the scrutiny of public expenditure programmes is distasteful. The examinations of the Committee of Public Accounts are purely a historical record of moneys spent instead of scrutinising money about to be spent.

Debate adjourned.