Comptroller and Auditor General Nomination: Motion.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. Dempsey)

Targaím:

Go n-ainmníonn Dáil Éireann Seán Ó Puirséal chun a cheaptha ag an Uachtarán mar Ard-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann nominates John Purcell for appointment by the President to be the Comptroller and Auditor General.

The Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Patrick L. McDonnell, is retiring with effect from 1 November 1994.

I am sure Members of the Dáil would wish me to express, on their behalf, our appreciation of the services rendered by Mr. McDonnell after 13 years as Comptroller and Auditor General. This is a high and important constitutional office, and Mr. McDonnell discharged the duties of that office in exemplary fashion.

I also express my thanks and good wishes to Mr. McDonnell. As a former member of the Committee of Public Accounts I found him to be an efficient and courteous official who displayed the highest standards of professional behaviour at all times. I wish him well in his retirement.

The office of Comptroller and Auditor General was originally provided for under the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1866. Article 33 of the Constitution sets down the basic responsibilities of the Comptroller and Auditor General, in terms of his role as comptroller in controlling, on behalf of the State, all disbursements of moneys administered by or under the authority of the Oireachtas, and in terms of his role as auditor in auditing Government accounts for regularity and accuracy. In accordance with the Constitution, the Comptroller and Auditor General is appointed by the President on the nomination of Dáil Éireann and reports to Dáil Éireann at stated periods as determined by law.

The Constitution also provides that the Comptroller and Auditor General shall not be removed from office except for stated misbehaviour or incapacity, and then only upon resolutions passed by the Dáil and Seanad calling for such removal. This underlines the independent status of this important office. The statutory retiring age is 65 although he would qualify for a pension if he opts to retire at any time over the age of 60.

The role of the Comptroller and Auditor General, as outlined in the Constitution, has to be seen in relation to developments in the general practice of audit which have occurred in the past 20 years or so and, in particular, to developments in relation to national audit. In line with these developments, the recent Comptroller and Auditor General legislation, the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act, 1993, consolidated existing legislation and modernised the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

As Deputies are aware, the two major new elements introduced by the recent legislation relate to the nature and scope of the audit process. The nature of the audit process has been enhanced by the Comptroller and Auditor General's new statutory role in relation to economy, efficiency and effectiveness — three inter-related concepts broadly referred to as "value for money". Economy means providing suitable resources for a task at the lowest cost having regard to quality and with minimum wastage. Efficiency involves relating the costs of resources to the outputs achieved. Thus, an efficient operation gets maximum output from a given level of resources or a given level of output from minimum resources. An activity could be economical without being efficient if resources were purchased at lowest cost but failed to give the required outputs.

Effectiveness brings into consideration the extent to which the stated objectives of a programme operated by a Department or body in the public service are achieved. Thus, an activity could be economical and efficient in its use of resources but if the objectives to which it is directed are not being met, it would be ineffective. For example, a programme could be operated on efficient and economical lines in terms of the acquisition or use of resources but if the required progress in attaining its objectives is not being achieved it would be necessary to review the effectiveness of the activity.

This value for money function is probably the most important new discretionary power to be given to the Comptroller and Auditor General. He may, at his discretion, examine and report on the economy and efficiency of Departments and bodies which are expected to have in place the necessary systems to evaluate the effectiveness of their operations. It is these systems which are subject to examination by the Comptroller and Auditor General, rather than a direct examination of effectiveness, which could create problems because of the close connection with policy. Section 11 of the 1993 Act prohibits the Comptroller and Auditor General from questioning or expressing an opinion on the merits of policies or of policy objectives. The Act applies the same prohibition to accounting officers in the performance of their statutory duties. Both of these restrictions are reflected in the terms of reference of the Committee of Public Accounts, article 3 of which states:

the Committee shall refrain from enquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or a Minister of the Government or the merits of the objectives of such policies.

All of this is in accordance with the longstanding tradition that, in policy matters. Ministers are answerable to this House, not to the Comptroller and Auditor General or the Committee of Public Accounts. In this regard there is virtual worldwide agreement that the national auditor should not become involved in policy, which is the prerogative of the Government accountable to parliament. In examining systems which evaluate effectiveness, the difficulty of the Comptroller and Auditor General becoming involved, directly or indirectly, in areas is avoided, while at the same time, the Dáil and public have an assurance with regard to the evaluation of the effectiveness of expenditure.

The scope of the Comptroller and Auditor General's audit has been extended to include the Finance Accounts, the Guarantee Section of FEOGA, all non-commercial State bodies, a number of educational bodies, health boards and the vocational education committees. In addition, the Comptroller and Auditor General is empowered to examine funds under the aegis of bodies he audits, and, with appropriate ministerial approval, the subsidiaries of such bodies. He also has discretionary inspection powers where a body receives 50 per cent or more of its funds, either directly or indirectly, from public moneys.

The new Comptroller and Auditor General is taking up his appointment at a time of change. Some of these changes came about as a result of last year's amending legislation to which I have already referred. Other changes in the area of Government accounting are being introduced on a phased basis over the next three years on foot of recommendations made to the Minister for Finance and presented to the Committee of Public Accounts by a joint working group representative of the Department of Finance and the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. In relation to the Appropriation Accounts — the annual accounts of Government Departments, which up to now essentially have been cash accounts — these changes will involve expanding the information provided to take account of the assets, liabilities and commitments of Departments. A statement of the general accounting principles followed in preparing the account will, in future, be included in the published Appropriation Accounts volume, the objective being to make the accounting process as transparent as possible, not only for the benefit of the Committee of Public Accounts and Members of the Oireachtas, but for the information of the general public. The statement will also explain in detail how the Dáil votes the necessary financial resources to enable Government Departments to conduct their business, how this is given statutory effect by the annual Appropriation Act and how the accounting officer for each Vote accounts for the expenditure incurred by his Department. This should go a long way towards removing a lot of the mystique that members of the public perceive as being unnecessarily associated with the conduct of the public finances.

In its report, submitted to the Minister for Finance earlier this year, the working group expressed its concern that the basic legislation covering accountability in Government Departments dates from the last century and does not adequately provide for the complexities of modern administration. While the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act, 1993, updated the audit function, the group considered that the accounting function needs to be updated also by consolidating existing legislation in modern terms in a State Financial Management Act and providing a statutory definition of the content of an expanded Appropriation Account. The Appropriation Accounts are at present prepared to meet the requirements of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1866, section 24 of which simply prescribes that an Appropriation Account must show "on the charge side the sum or sums appropriated by Parliament for the services of the financial year to which the account relates and on the discharge side thereof the sums which may have actually come in course of payment within the same period".

The group recommended that the statutory description of the account be amended so that it provides for the additional notes and information of a "balance sheet" nature. Thus, an Appropriation Account will become a comprehensive end of year financial report instead of the present basic receipts and payments account.

While, as I have already mentioned, the Appropriation Accounts will be expanded to meet the group's recommendations, the question of covering this by statute and of bringing in consolidating legislation is under examination in the Department of Finance.

In summary, the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General in the 1990s is an expanded and enhanced one with a modern and comprehensive statutory basis which will have a positive impact on public accountability and contribute to the overall performance of the public service.

As I mentioned at the outset, the Constitution provides that the Comptroller and Auditor General shall be appointed by the President on the nomination of Dáil Éireann. Members of the House, especially those who served on the Committee of Public Accounts are aware of the high responsibilities of the post, which I described.

Having fully considered the matter, the Government decided to recommend the nomination of Mr. John Purcell, who is Director of Audit in the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, to succeed Mr. McDonnell. Mr. Purcell has had 29 years' service in the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General and has given entire satisfaction in his current senior post in that office.

I am satisfied that Mr. Purcell will make an excellent Comptroller and Auditor General. I recommend his nomination to the Dáil. On my own behalf and that of all Members of the House I wish him well in his new position.

Mr. J. Mitchell

The post of Comptroller and Auditor General is one of the most important constitutional offices in the Republic. Of its nature it is not a high profile office, nonetheless it represents a vital check and balance in any democratic society.

A very important feature of our public service and public life since independence has been the relatively low level of fraud. This high level of integrity is frequently undervalued, its importance underrated and not appreciated. Of course, there is no room for complacency and every need for eternal vigilance. In our system of government the lead in this role is assigned jointly to the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Committee of Public Accounts. The high level of integrity in public life is not an accident. A number of factors contribute to that reality, including the standard set by the first Government of this State, under W. T. Cosgrave, in establishing the Civil Service Commission, the Local Appointments Commission and in recreating the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. That latter office has been filled with great distinction since then but not least in the past 13 years under the stewardship of Mr. Laurence McDonnell who had the full measure of this very important job. His unfailing tact and due prudence was exercised in a manner that enhanced rather than diminished his independence which he upheld very firmly at all times. It was this combination of qualities which earned the very significant expansion of his role under the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act, 1993. He has modernised his office and kept it fully abreast of changes in technology and management techniques.

As Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts I have been privileged to have worked closely with Mr. McDonnell over the past one and a half years. I can testify that he leaves his great office in a high state of efficiency and effectiveness, very appropriate given his new role in ensuring that the same is true of all Departments of State. He has chosen to retire eight years before his time in bountiful good health. The State owes him and his wife, Mona, a greater debt of gratitude for signal service of the first rank. I wish them both míle buíochas and multus annus.

The nomination of Mr. John Purcell to succeed Mr. McDonnell is very welcome. I wish to express my appreciation to the Taoiseach, the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister for Finance for seeking my views, as Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, on this nomination. Mr. Purcell has been Director of Audit in the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General for six and a half years, has been to the fore in advising and assisting in the modernisation of the State audit function and in expanding it into value-for-money efficiency and effectiveness. Mr. Purcell, at 49, is a relatively young man. Some people may contend he is too young for the job but it is known that he can still play the odd game of five-a-side football. If great men like the President of the United States, the Tánaiste, the Leader of the Opposition and even the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts can hold such posts in their 40s why not the Comptroller and Auditor General? More seriously, he is the right age for the job as it ensures him a tenure of office of sufficient length to provide the necessary continuity and stability I consider to be of particular importance of the audit function. Mr. Purcell is a committed and competent public servant who has served a long and distinguished apprenticeship in the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I have no doubt he will uphold the high standards of his predecessor in all respects.

Of course, the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General has been expanded and modernised, as has the role of the Committee of Public Accounts. The expanded role of the Committee of Public Accounts requires also that we modernise and update our processes: that has been and is happening. I want to express my appreciation of the co-operation of the Government, in particular that of the Department of Finance, in this respect. The Committee of Public Accounts would greatly welcome a new State Financial Management Act and would greatly appreciate the efforts and disposition of the Department of Finance in this respect.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that other promised and important legislation has not yet come before us. I hope it will not be too long because the delay undermines the effectiveness not only of the Committee of Public Accounts but of other committees of this House. I am referring to the Bill promised to compel witnesses to appear before Oireachtas committees' and to grant them privilege. The absence of those powers has frustrated the Committee of Public Accounts in several significant respects. The Minister of State said the Government is considering introducing a new form of appropriation accounts and we await that with interest.

In praising the Government, and the Department of Finance in particular, on the co-operation to ensure that the Committee of Public Accounts and the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General are effective, it is only right I should mention the controversy or, should I say, the difference of opinion about the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General in respect of the 1993 accounts of the Revenue Commissioners. This issue is of great importance and is one which all parties concerned, including the Committee of Public Accounts, are taking seriously. I hope there will be co-operation from all sides to ensure that the issue is resolved in a way that does not impede either the Comptroller and Auditor General or the Committee of Public Accounts and ensures not only that there is probity in the public finances at all levels but also that we get value for money, effectiveness and efficiency.

I wish Mr. Purcell every success in his new office.

Mr. O'Malley

I am perfectly happy to support this motion for the appointment of Mr. John Purcell to the position of Comptroller and Auditor General. I am sure he will be an excellent occupant of that very important office.

However, I want to take issue briefly with the manner in which he is being appointed. He is being appointed as a result of a Government decision on the motion of the Minister for Finance. That is wrong. Article 33 of the Constitution makes it perfectly clear that his appointment should be by the President on the nomination of Dáil Éireann and not of the Government. The motion should be moved by the chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts rather than by the Minister for Finance. It is not in keeping with what the spirit of the Constitution sought to achieve in Article 33. Effectively, the decision is being made by the Government.

The fact that somebody is appointed by the Government will not, I hope, affect his view in any way because it is of enormous importance. It is recognised by the Constitution that the holder of that office should see himself as being entirely independent of and in no way dependent on the Government. Dependency on the Government should not extend even to his appointment. I am confident, that when he is appointed Mr. Purcell will overcome the genesis of his appointment and prove to be every bit as good as his predecessor, Mr. McDonnell.

I would like to join with the other speakers in paying tribute to Mr. McDonnell. As a member of the Committee of Public Accounts during the past 12 months I found him to be a very effective Comptroller and Auditor General who carried out his functions with great skill and a genuine independence. We have been fortunate over the past 13 years to have had a man like Mr. McDonnell.

The powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General have been increased and clarified to some extent by the legislation passed last year. I welcome that legislation which is valuable and useful, but it will not become fully effective until further legislation is passed by the Oireachtas giving each of the committees of the House power to compel the attendance of witnesses. That, perhaps, matters less in the Committee of Public Accounts than in the other committees because usually accounting officers attend on request. However, that committee should have the power to summon other people. This legislation was promised for upwards of 12 months and I am extremely disappointed that it has not appeared notwithstanding continuous promises both by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance that it was about to be published.

I want to deal in particular with a recent problem which was also adverted to by Deputy Mitchell. It is a great pity that it has arisen just at the end of the period in office of the present Comptroller and Auditor General. I hope, however, that his successor, Mr. Purcell, will be equally anxious to try to have the matter resolved, and resolved in the public interest. The revelation within the past week by the Comptroller and Auditor General that he had received advice from the Attorney General effectively restricting him from reporting fully to the Dáil on the operation of the tax amnesty throws into sharp focus the issue of the conflict between, on the one hand, the Attorney General's role as legal adviser to the Government and as head of the Department of State, which drafts legislation, including the amnesty Bill, and, on the other hand, his role in upholding the separate public interest.

Section 7 of the amnesty Act purports to restrict the Comptroller and Auditor General in his constitutional duty of auditing public accounts. By narrowing down the scope of his inquiries to the single issue as to whether the moneys received under the amnesty have been properly accounted for, that legislation, drafted in the Attorney General's office, seems to be an impermissible constraint on the constitutional role of the Comptroller and Auditor General which is to report to Dáil Éireann and to its Committee of Public Accounts on the manner in which the revenues of the State are being managed.

The Comptroller's powers and duties are constitutional and are set out in Article 33 of the Constitution. They cannot be circumscribed by statute to the detriment of his constitutional role and any statute which purports to circumscribe him is, by definition, unconstitutional. In particular, for the purpose of properly auditing the public revenues, it is appropriate that the Comptroller report to the Dáil on a number of issues which, in this case, include (a) the number of persons availing of the amnesty, and the profile of payments made under it; (b) the cost to the Exchequer of the amnesty, having regard to the recoverability of the taxes due by the persons who availed of the amnesty and (c) the extent to which the amnesty was availed of by people who had also availed of the last amnesty in 1988.

Even conceding, for the purposes of the argument, that it is open to the Oireachtas to impose an anonymity requirement by law on the Comptroller and Auditor General when dealing with tax matters generally, and with the tax amnesty in particular, it is manifestly clear that the Comptroller and Auditor General did not intend in any way to compromise the anonymity of taxpayers who availed of the amnesty. Accordingly, the effect of section 7, as interpreted by the Attorney General, seems to compromise the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General more than is remotely necessary to preserve anonymity. People are entitled to general information as to the number and character of persons who availed of the amnesty, and the nature of the loss to the Exchequer represented by their payments, bearing in mind they paid only 15 per cent of their due taxes and did not pay interest or penalties. In practice, their payments may amount to as little as 7 per cent or 8 per cent of what they lawfully owe.

Apart from the people's general right to know, Members of Dáil Éireann have a constitutional right and duty to inform themselves on those matters through the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and a majority in Dáil Éireann who voted in favour of the amnesty do not have a right to curtail the flow of information to themselves or to a dissentient minority in breach of the provisions of the Constitution.

I note the outgoing Comptroller and Auditor General wishes to consider the matter further. I strongly urge him — and did so at a committee meeting some weeks ago when he indicated he intended to seek the advice of the Attorney General — to take independent legal advice on this issue as a matter of right and duty. It is unsatisfactory that the committees of this House do not have standing legal advice available. The instinct of officials serving committees is to seek the advice of the Attorney General, but the Attorney General is the worse source of advice in a matter such as this which involves a conflict of public and Government interest.

I reiterate that unless in the near future the Comptroller and Auditor General issues his full report on the amnesty, citizens will consider initiating court proceedings for a declaration of their rights as citizens and, possibly as Members of Dáil Éireann, to receive such information, for a declaration as to the rights and duties of the Comptroller and Auditor General in the matter and, if necessary, for declarations in respect of the interpretation and constitutionality of section 7 of the amnesty Act.

It is a sad day that a Member of Dáil Éireann is obliged to seek to vindicate the principles of accountability by having resort to the courts rather than this House. Another course does not appear open when one is confronted by an unshakeable majority of Deputies who are content to keep secret the policy implications of this infamous tax cheats' amnesty, passed in the House more than a year ago.

The lack of accountability to this House on that matter is paralleled by other current matters. Some people consider this is some type of academic exercise, but it is far from that. We had an example of a Minister declining to answer questions asked by Members, who tried to have them dealt with at a press conference held at night by a civil servant and attended by a limited number of journalists. That is not accountability. That happened on the same day we were told that another Government appointee, the Attorney General, is not accountable for what does or does not happen in his office. He sought to blame officials in that office for allegedly not showing him papers relating to an extremely sensitive matter which were sent to him by the Garda. It is indicative of the depths to which Administration has descended that those three matters of which I speak should be more or less contemporaneous. It should be a matter of concern to anyone who wishes to see public administration and public accountability restored to the level and nature envisaged by the Constitution.

On his appointment as Comptroller and Auditor General by the President following the passing of this motion, Mr. Purcell faces a fairly daunting task. He can, like many others in public office, take the easy way out or he can face up to his constitutional responsibilities. I hope he will face up to them and I am confident he will do so as effectively as his predecessor, Mr. McDonnell, whom I wish well in his retirement.

Mr. Rabbitte

I have great pleasure in supporting the motion before the House to appoint Mr. John Purcell to the important office of Comptroller and Auditor General. I compliment the Government on its choice, coming as it does from an Administration which has a lamentable record in terms of making appointments, drawing on filial relationships and other factors rather than on the merit of the person nominated for appointment. In this case the Government has distinguished itself by putting before the House the name of a distinguished and long serving public servant for appointment to an office of crucial significance to the affairs of the State never more so than at present. That does not take from the point raised by Deputy O'Malley about how properly that office ought to be filled, having regard to the constitutional role of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Notwithstanding the long and distinguished service of the outgoing officeholder, it is extraordinary that over a period of 13 years we have not formulated a way to give expression to the independence expressed in the Constitution. However, I am confident that Mr. Purcell will, like his predecessor, carry out his duties without fear or favour and without being beholden to a Government party or a Deputy in the House.

I want to be associated with the tributes paid to the outgoing Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Laurence McDonnell. He has done the State some service. The Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, Deputy Jim Mitchell, remarked that this was perhaps not widely known. Perhaps the nature of the office is such that neither the office nor its occupant comes to public attention frequently, notwithstanding the outgoing officeholder's regular and diligent attendance at meetings of the Committee of Public Accounts. Deputy Mitchell is correct in saying that down through the years we have not had a serious problem of fraud in the public service but that is not to say that we do not have and, have not had, an appalling problem of waste.

The Comptroller and Auditor General's reports, year after year, highlight the extent of shoddy and imprudent decision-making in the conduct of public affairs, leading to the waste of taxpayers money. I would like to have the time to go back over some of the more celebrated cases where waste in the public service was identified by the Comptroller and Auditor General. From the more recent reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General one can see enhanced efficiency in terms of value for public money spent. The impact of these reports down the years has had a significant formative influence on the way business is done in the public service, or how decisions are made by Government and on planning to expend public money.

That is not to say that the office and the independent execution of its duties is not more important now than it has been before. Like Deputy O'Malley, I believe accountability is at a low level in this House and in politics in Ireland now. There are several examples of the lack of or disdain for accountability to this House required in the Constitution, from the Government. It seems to be almost a principle now to tell this House the minimum. It is a question of whatever we can get away with, and if it is extracted from us we will contrive some way to have it brought into the public arena not necessarily in this House where it should be done. That is a very regrettable development in public affairs and should concern everybody interested in public service.

I am fortunate to have been a member of the Committee of Public Accounts for the last five years or more and I concur with everything that has been said about Mr. McDonnell's period of office. He is a distinguished public servant who has been very patient, at times in very trying circumstances, with the members of the Committee of Public Accounts. He has raised for public debate some of the most fundamental questions about value for money in our government system. We owe him a great debt and I take the opportunity to wish him a long and happy retirement.

It is a coincidence that we are engaged in what some people would like to turn into a row about public servants at the time when a distinguished public servant is retiring. The current controversy is not about public servants, but I would be less than honest, as somebody who has, by way of career, represented public servants for 15 years, if I did not say I am disquieted by the tendency for Ministers not to take responsibility in this House for the actions of their officials and their civil servants. A particularly striking case was the tribunal of inquiry into the beef industry in which it was eventually uncovered that an official made such a material change to an official document that it concealed the source of beef being insured with public money. We have never really got to the bottom of that. Did this official make this decision on his own initiative or was he instructed to do so, and, if so, who instructed him?

Similarly, arising from the failure of the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications to answer questions in the House about an alteration to another document with far-reaching implications for the planning process, a press conference was convened late in the evening and a civil servant said publicly that he caused the alteration to be made. This is a disturbing development in public affairs. I would be very reluctant to draw the inference that one ought to blame the public servants. I am not sure that is the case. Perhaps I am hide-bound by the fact that in the past I had the honour to represent public servants and I am reluctant to criticise them, but one gets the impression that we have entered a new era in the public service. One also gets the impression that public servants feel obliged to take a certain course of action at the behest of a Minister belonging to a certain political party that they might not take if that Minister belonged to another political party. That is a matter this House will have to consider in future.

I will refer briefly to a matter raised by Deputy O'Malley. I do not know whether the Comptroller and Auditor General considers it unfortunate he has found himself in the middle of an important controversy as he is about to retire. He is probably unconcerned by that and is doing his duty as he always did, while we consider the implications of it. What is at issue in the 1993 report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is nothing less than the efficacy of the tax collection system. That issue is dealt with in paragraph 20 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of 1993 on what is called the incentive amnesty audit. What we are discussing is the essence of the tax collection system and whether it has been undermined. These are the questions this House must ask on foot of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report.

The Comptroller and Auditor General set himself three objectives I will put on the record. The 1993 report states:

I viewed my main responsibilities in this regard as endeavouring to determine, by the use of sampling methods, the extent to which those who availed of the Incentive Amnesty:

— had in fact complied with the statutory conditions attaching to the Incentive Amnesty e.g. by making a correct income tax return by the due date — bearing in mind that the arrangements made in accordance with the legislation did not impose a duty to establish a priori the eligibility of declarants availing of this amnesty;

— had pre-April 1991 arrears which might be expected to have been successfully dealt with through enforcement before the critical date i.e. 25 May 1993 — which might indicate whether there were inadequacies in the Revenue Commissioners' collection and enforcement procedures;

— had also availed of the 1988 Amnesty which was designed to encourage those who availed of it to bring and keep their tax affairs up to date — which might indicate whether there were deficiencies in the Revenue Commissioners' procedures for making maximum use of the information at their disposal as a result of the 1988 Amnesty.

By reason of the confidentiality provisions of the legislation, it would not be open to the Revenue Commissioners to carry out and analyse the results of a sampling exercise such as that undertaken by my staff.

This raises important questions of public interest. The Comptroller and Auditor General made the point that it is not open to the Revenue Commissioners to look behind the operation of the tax amnesty; they may not do this under the legislation we put through the House. The Comptroller and Auditor General has, I think, used the word "cocooned". A special arrangement has been made, under the direction of the special collector, for those who did not pay their taxes whereby they are assured absolute confidentiality. It is a separate office and the special collector may not share the information with his fellows in the Revenue Commissioners and they may not inquire. If a person who has been allowed to benefit under this amnesty is asked in the future to account for his pre-1993 taxes he may hold up a little certificate and say that he availed of the amnesty and the Revenue Commissioners may not look behind it.

The only way this House can evaluate the impact and implications of the amnesty is through the operations of the constitutional office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Can he report to this House on his analysis of the operation of the amnesty? The answer he has received from the Attorney General is that he may not. If there is anything that underpins this society it is the tax collection system. The ordinary citizen may draw the conclusion that there is one regime for the tax compliant citizen, the citizen who observes the law and tries to pay his or her due taxes, and a different regime for big time cheats and tax evaders who do not observe the law or pay their taxes.

We have made a special law in this House by a decision of a majority of Deputies and we may not look behind it. As Deputy O'Malley said, we may not establish what it cost the State or how many of the people who availed of the last tax amnesty in 1988 availed of this amnesty. The Comptroller and Auditor General stated that it was his express intention to review the efficiency of the procedures applied by the Revenue Commissioners. Did they use the information from the 1988 amnesty, the purpose of which was to bring these people into the tax net and make sure we keep them in it? As a result of the decision of the Attorney General we do not know whether that happened and if the Attorney General has his way we never will.

What do we have? There is the prospect that an amnesty for tax cheats will be introduced every five years. One was introduced in 1988 and another in 1993. Why should one not be introduced in 1997 or 1998 immediately after the next general election? If that is the case, why should anybody bother paying taxes? If, like the Tallaght bus, there is always one on the way, should we bother? That is the issue at the heart of the controversy to which Deputy O'Malley referred.

I take a different view to Deputy O'Malley on the question of the Comptroller and Auditor General asking the Attorney General for his opinion of the relevant section in the legislation. I cannot see that is harmful to the process; it may be illustrative for this House. After all, it was the office of the Attorney General which drafted this appalling legislation. Perhaps it is appropriate, and it ought to bring a speedy reaction, as it has. I am aware there is an apparent conflict in that at times the Attorney General can act with great speed and at others can take longer, but I do not see any harm in the Comptroller and Auditor General seeking the opinion of the Attorney General. The question is whether the Comptroller and Auditor General considers himself to be bound by the opinion of the Attorney General in this matter. That is a serious issue which we must resolve either at the Committee of Public Accounts or in this House.

It has been clearly established that there is a conflict between the role of the Attorney General as law agent of the Government and as upholder of the public interest. This was never more starkly highlighted than in the case of the beef tribunal where the Attorney General instructed his counsel to conduct themselves and marshal their case in a partisan fashion. They were present, nominally, to represent the State and its agencies but it became clear that they were present with a limited and partisan interpretation of what this meant. This came into sharp relief in the conflict between Mr. Hickey, senior counsel, and the chairman of the tribunal, Mr. Justice Hamilton. When Mr. Justice Hamilton sought to have Mr. Hickey manifestly discharge the public interest dimension of his role he refused and made it clear that he was doing so on the instructions of the Attorney General. The chairman of the tribunal subsequently decided that he could not impose this duty on counsel for the Attorney General and that the task of representing the public interest should be undertaken by the tribunal or counsel for other parties before the tribunal as and when appropriate. It was a clear confict in that the Attorney General said to his counsel that they were not representing the State — former Fine Gael, Labour Party or serving Progressive Democrat Ministers — but rather Fianna Fáil. That is the way business was done.

Since we are talking about the efficacy of the tax system it is a public interest issue. Who will vindicate the public interest? The Attorney General will say he drafted the legislation and the Comptroller and Auditor General may not report to this House on his analysis of the operation of the tax amnesty. This question has to be resolved in the public interest as early as possible because there is too much at stake. Those of us who are members of the committee are looking forward to hearing the Comptroller and Auditor General's considered view of the advice he received from the Attorney General and whether he considers himself bound by that advice.

The Committee of Public Accounts should as early as possible consider examining the relevant accounting officer on the commissioning of the consultancy report known as the Cairns report at the centre of the Arcon controversy. We do not know how much public money was expended — the Minister did not answer that question — to secure an independent outside consultant's assessment of a critical issue relating to the environmental impact study of the major mine to be opened here. I understand that the ore body is larger than the lead-zinc deposit at Navan. In that situation it is timely and urgent to examine whether we have got value for money in terms of the findings of that consultancy report. Again, they are issues of public interest, as admitted by the Minister: they relate to public safety, to the potential hazards for working miners and damage to the quality of drinking water.

Mr. Broughan

What about the Cork by-elections?

Mr. Rabbitte

Both these issues——

Mr. Broughan

They relate to them as well.

Mr. Rabbitte

I am flabbergasted.

Mr. G. Mitchell

It is not often that Deputy Rabbitte is flabbergasted.

Mr. Rabbitte

If the radical wing of the Labour Party considers the issues of public safety, the implications for the planning process and the implications for ministerial accountability uncovered in this House over the past week as being a trivial matter to do with the Cork by-elections——

Mr. Broughan

I hope the Deputy maintains his interest after 11 November.

Mr. Rabbitte

If the Deputy had been in the House a little longer he would know that my interest does not and will not wane.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Perhaps Deputies should address themselves to what is relevant to the issue before us.

Mr. Rabbitte

Sir, it is a matter of some importance that the promised legislation on privilege and compellability be advanced at the earliest possible date. This legislation has been promised, I think it goes back to a previous Government, but it has not yet seen the light of day. It is important that the Committee of Public Accounts is enabled to discharge its duties even more effectively than in the past but it is hampered by the fact that the legislation on privilege and compellability of witnesses has not been enacted. It is strange that although it is the oldest committee of the House it is the only one whose work is not televised. This is not unconnected with the fact that it cannot summon witnesses whom it can compel to attend in the fashion the situation requires. I hope the Minister may be able to indicate when the legislation will be forthcoming.

Let me repeat, it is appropriate that the House should record its tribute to the selfless dedication of the outgoing Comptroller and Auditor General for discharging his duties with such skill and commitment in the public service during the past 13 years and to wish his successor, Mr. John Purcell, every success and congratulations in embarking on this important office.

Mr. Ferris

As Labour Party Whip I wish to be associated with the motion for the appointment of Mr. John Purcell as the new Comptroller and Auditor General. This is one of the few appointments where the Government motion comes before the House for its approval before the President makes the appointment. I take this opportunity to speak about the competencies Mr. Purcell has already exhibited, particularly during the past six years when he had responsibility for the planning, management and reporting of financial matters, the regularity of audits from all Government Departments and offices and for the subsequent follow up of the Committee of Public Accounts. Let me take this opportunity also to pay tribute to the chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts. Deputy Jim Mitchell and to his predecessor, Deputy Gay Mitchell, for their important work on behalf of the Members of this House in having an impartial look at public expenditure and evaluating the value for money the public has got from such expenditure.

During the past number of months there has been a raging controversy in the media about public expenditure, particularly as it refers to Government, office holders and Members of the Oireachtas. Members have been subject in the media to critical, unfair and untrue accusations about salaries and expenses, holidays and all other aspects of their lives. This is all happening in the public arena and there is a responsibility, not only on the Comptroller and Auditor General but on the media to report fairly and accurately what is happening. The public believes what it reads and there is a perception that there is widespread abuse of public moneys. It is important that the public is made aware that an officer of the State is responsible to this House and to the Committee of Public Accounts whose overall constitutional responsibility is to ensure that, independently of Government, he evaluates public expenditure and value for money. The Comptroller and Auditor General not alone represents the Houses of the Oireachtas but by definition, the taxpayer, who picks up the tab for all the decisions we make in the national interest.

The by-elections have been referred to and this upset Deputy Rabbitte — but by-elections tend to bring out the worst in politicians who are trying to score political points off one another. What is extraordinary in speaking to the electorate who makes the final decision in any election, is that it has a completely different view of what has been portrayed by rumour and innuendo. I do not wish to refer to the accusations during the past number of days because they had an adequate airing.

Public representatives object, and if they do not object they certainly resent, that somebody is looking over their shoulder at all areas connected with expenditure. The Member has put himself before the electorate and been elected and can only function within the regulations laid down by the Minister for Finance. Members' salaries and expenses are covered and whatever else is determined by regulation and must be within the law. At times we show concern when the Comptroller and Auditor General is over zealous in these areas but it is correct that this should happen and that we are subject to an overview by an official who accepts the constitutional responsibility for the correct and proper spending of any money. I am glad that during the past six years Mr. Purcell's remit has extended to health boards, vocational education committees and committees of the regional colleges. As a member of a health board I know that it has taken some boards three or four years to present an audit. If it took a private sector company three or four years to present an audit to the Revenue Commissioners, it would be bankrupt and seeking the facility of a tax amnesty. I do not want to dwell on the controversy, to which Deputies O'Malley and Rabbitte referred, because I think the committee is adequately addressing its responsibilities and the constitutional responsibilities of the Comptroller and Auditor General and how he will prepare his report to submit to the House on the adequacy of the tax collection system.

I deny the suggestion, made repeatedly, that the amnesty is for tax cheats. I was involved in the previous amnesty. It helped people in small businesses who were unable to meet their legal responsibility to pay taxes at a particular time.

I, along with the majority of my constituents are PAYE workers who have no relief from the tax man, tax is deducted at source on a weekly or monthly basis. I accept that small business people, who have had to put up risk capital in order to employ people, have experienced difficulties over a number of years and while they did not refuse to pay their taxes, they were unable to meet tax demands on a specific date. As a result, penalties accrued and over a number of years the penalties amounted to more than the original tax bill. The tax amnesty was introduced to provide for a waiver of those tax penalties. These businessmen and women are not tax cheats and resent people in privileged positions such as Deputy O'Malley, Deputy Rabbitte and others, referring to them in that manner.

Deputy O'Malley, who has had so much experience in Government, amazes me with his suggestions concerning the Office of the Attorney General and what the Comptroller and Auditor General should do. He has been in Government for most of his political life and should have made the changes he now proposes when he was in Government. I support many of his arguments but why did he not make any changes while he was a member of Government?

Some companies who discovered errors in their accounts notified the Revenue Commissioners of them. These errors were not discovered by the Revenue Commissioners but as a result of the companies' accounting procedures. Offers of restitution made to the Revenue Commissioners were refused. In one case a company with 25 employees offered to pay a lump sum while continuing to clear the debt over a number of years but that was refused. The Revenue Commissioners bankrupted the company, the 25 employees were let go and did not receive one penny as a result of that bankruptcy.

Is it better to give people an opportunity to pay the debts and taxes or to bankrupt them? If we bankrupt them, people will be put out of work. Is that what we want when we aspire to the creation of employment and improving the lot of working people? We hope people will remain in business, pay their taxes and subscribe, through the Social Chapter, to their responsibilities. One cannot employ workers cheaply in this economy or in any other. I hope people realise, when they criticise tax amnesties, that their spin-off is that people can remain in business and make a just return to the State in taxes thereby ensuring that revenue is available to the Exchequer for the health boards which experience financial difficulties due to their inability to pay bills from small suppliers.

The incoming Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Purcell, has a daunting task to ensure that all areas of public expenditure are properly scrutinised on behalf of the Members of this House and the electorate whom we represent who are the paymasters. His responsibility to us and to the Committee of Public Accounts is a major constitutional one. I commend him on his expertise in the area of public audit and other areas during his years with the public service which will be required in the execution of his duty. We will regard him as a watchdog who examines Government, Government Departments and the Houses of the Oireachtas. We must ensure that the public and the media perceive what is happening here as open, above board and subject to critical analysis.

We should not be subjected to unfair hardlines to the effect that Deputies are having two weeks holidays and can get £690 per day. My salary is only twice that per month by the time the tax man takes his rightful share. The people who write such articles should be ashamed of themselves because they know it is untrue. Today's Order of Business is proof that we will not have two weeks holidays. There was never such a suggestion from the Government Chief Whip. It was emphasised that we would be required to sit next week. It was agreed, in consultation with the other Whips, that the House would not sit the following week because of the Cork by-elections. People should be allowed to be involved in the democratic process of by-electioneering and ensuring that, as happens in this instance, the constituents of Cork North Central and Cork South Central have their rightful representation here. The price of democracy here is small compared with the cost of dictatorships.

The freedom of the media should be balanced by responsible reporting as to how politicians act in the public performance of their duties. I resent some of the recent media coverage of Members of this House. I do not have to defend those Members but I will certainly defend myself and point to the number of hours I work in any given week. Regardless of how it is calculated, my salary is comparable with any ordinary industrial wage. To pay for my education my father broke stones on the road and I am proud of that. I am not concerned, therefore, about having the salary per hour of ordinary industrial workers. I am from a working class background from which I am not far removed so I do not have too far to fall, when I lose my seat. I resent privileged people in the media giving my constituents and other people incorrect information when they are privy to correct information since they travel with us at our expense and at the expense of the public.

It is intended to introduce legislation governing compellability of witnesses and others and the Minister suggested that he may involve the Whips in consultation in its preparation. This is legislation we would welcome. Deputy Rabbitte did not say so this morning, but he is privy to information at the Whips' meeting and knows the Whips are offered the special privilege of involvement in the initial preparation of legislation to be initiated by Government.

We should be fair with one another and put an end to the political muckraking which is bringing our profession into disrepute. We should respect the work being done here. We are all aware of the demands of public life. We do not complain about that but we should not be misrepresented by people in privileged positions.

I hope witnesses will be compelled to attend and that people will have access to information which those in the media and RTE use against us. The public would give their right hand to know what these people earn, not that I am particularly interested, but when public money is involved transparency is important.

I commend Mr. Purcell's appointment and extend my best wishes to his predecessor for the service he has given. I wish him every health and happiness in his retirement.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I thank Deputy Ferris for his kind words which are much appreciated. John A. Costello who was a senior counsel, Attorney General and Taoiseach on two occasions was reported as saying the greatest honour conferred on him was to be elected a Member of the national parliament. I do not know for how long people will continue to elect me or for how long I would wish to be returned but it has been a great honour to be a Member of Parliament.

Some people who comment on the affairs of Parliament are not qualified to do so. I do not wish to be uppity but many people commenting on politics do not understand them or what Parliament is about. If a parliament such as the Dáil functioned in Northern Ireland or Yugoslavia people would not be killed on the streets. The first duty of a parliament is to be accepted as a fairly and freely elected assembly. This is the place for letting off steam and controlling it so that people do not operate on the streets. That is the first function of parliament. It is up to us then to ensure we have an efficient, effective, honest and open parliament and we should be criticised for shortcomings in those areas.

Of all the privileges I have enjoyed, serving as a member and Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts has given me most satisfaction. I was a member of the committee for ten years and chairman for almost six years. Initially I was elected annually and was one of the longest serving chairman of the committee. I have taken an interest in that area, academically and practically, and it has been a great source of satisfaction to me.

A number of people were helpful in developing the role of the committee, not least the committee itself. Although it was an all party committee, traditionally chaired by a member of the Opposition, and there were testing moments, in my experience we never divided on party political lines. When I set up the advisory group on public financial accountability with the encouragement and assistance of the outgoing Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. McDonnell, and the Secretary of the Department of Finance, the committee gave its support on an all party basis. It gave me great pleasure to see politicians working in harmony. It goes to show what can be achieved when politicians co-operate. These changes would not have occurred if Mr. McDonnell had not been Comptroller and Auditor General and Mr. Cromien had not been Secretary of the Department of Finance. Mr. Cromien has retired but there was a good working relationship between him, Mr. McDonnell and the committee and I wish to acknowledge that on the occassion of Mr. McDonnell's retirement.

Mr. McDonnell is a man of great prudence and courtesy. He is a measured man, fair but firm. He is a gentleman and good humoured. He would need to be as he had to work with some testy chairmen. He has been singular and clear in his remit and sense of responsibility to the country and this House. I pay tribute to Mr. Purcell and wish him every success. He was present at most committee meetings and was involved at a high level. He is a worthy successor to Mr. McDonnell.

I recall my first day at a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts held in Room 114 at the top of the stairs. The press was not present. We would sit there and the chairman would tell us to open the book at such and such a page which we would do like students at school on their first day. The secretary of the Department or the chairman of the office under consideration would enter and we would have a chit-chat about what was in the book and then we would move on. I remember the day I proposed that the press be allowed to attend a meeting and there was horror at the idea. Now the proceedings of both Houses and committees are televised. There were occasions when simply by highlighting wasteful expenditure procedures were put in place to end it. Sometimes the committee put forward firm proposals on how it should be done.

One of the most amusing occasions I recall was when a woman was discovered to be claiming children's allowance for over 100 children. Having looked up the word carefully beforehand, I asked the secretary if he would consider the woman was philoprogenitive. "Philoprowhat" he queried. I was asking him if she was prolific in childbearing. It turned out that she was living in a mobile home and had a number of books under different names.

Mr. Ken Dye is a rather colourful Auditor General in Canada and I thought we might develop the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General along the Canadian lines until I saw there were shortcomings in their system which would not be acceptable here. Over lunch with him we exchanged amusing stories and I told him about the woman claiming children's allowance for over 100 children. He said that was nothing as in the Department of Defence in Canada there was a horse on the payroll. The reality is that people do not handle public money as efficiently as they would handle their own and it is up to the committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General to ensure that people realise they are trustees and must account to us. The Government does not have money. The Dáil provides money by taking it from the people and the Government must account to the Dáil for its spending. That is why the Committee of Public Accounts and the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General are important institutions.

I would like the committee to be allowed to compel witnesses to attend meetings. Following the arms trial it had such powers and if a witness was in contempt of the committee, he could be sent before the High Court under a document signed by the chairman of the committee and held to be in contempt of the committee as if he were in contempt of the High Court. One witness was sentenced but he appealed. The appeal succeeded, not because the committee should not have the right to send someone before the court for sentencing for contempt but because the law did not state the range of penalties. Therefore, in theory, the person was capable of being sentenced for more than two years and was entitled to trial by jury. That was not provided for in the legislation.

We set up an advisory group on public' financial accountability which I chaired. The Comptroller and Auditor General, the Director of the Institute of Public Administration, the past President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Chief Executive of the Institute of Certified Public Accountants were members of it. We compared the roles of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Committee of Public Accounts with similar systems in other countries. We appended to the report an opinion by senior counsel on how to overcome the problems associated with the 1970 legislation and the compellability of witnesses. This was the first time such an opinion was appended to a report. It is relatively simple to do and it should be repeated.

As I said on the first day of the Dáil, Government backbenchers do not realise that they will be sucked into the system. The power is distributed between Ministers and Ministers of State and backbenchers are told they must by loyal. The reality is that the Government gives us nothing and we give it everything. Unless we take these powers for ourselves we will have no option but to continue to set up expensive tribunals and inquiries and employ inspectors.

Parliamentary committees are set up in most other countries to inquire into matters which are properly the remit of Parliament. These committees cost much less than tribunals or inquiries. The cost of running the Parliament or the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General is miniscule in terms of their important role. I think the Vote for the Houses of the Oireachtas is £20 to £30 million while the Vote for the Department of Education is £700 million and the Vote for the Department of Social Welfare is £1.6 billion. The cost of running the Houses of the Oireachtas is miniscule compared to the cost of running those Departments or of setting up tribunals which make millionaires of lawyers overnight. It is time we gave powers to ourselves in this area. We do not have to ask anyone to give these powers to us. If enough Members want these powers they will be given them. We have to get away from the idea that we have to tow the party line all the time. We should make it very clear on issues of national interest or issues of this kind that the views of Members are paramount. Very often the opinion of the Government is given by a very busy Minister who reads a statement drafted by a senior civil servant. I may be simplifying this too much — obviously Ministers give their personal views. However, the system is totally undemocratic and it is time we had a dose of badly needed democracy.

I do not want to raise any ancillary issues but the Comptroller and Auditor General is an officer of the State, appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Government after approval of his nomination by the House. His appointment is akin to that of a High Court judge and he can only be removed from office by a resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas, and then only for stated misbehaviour. He is accountable to the Dáil and attends all meetings of the Committee of Public Accounts as a permanent witness.

On the other side of the coin are the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions. Although we followed the British system, the Attorney General is an adviser to the Government, not the Parliament. Following the British system even further, he hived off all his responsibilities to the Director of Public Prosecutions who is not accountable to this House. If two people are killed crossing a road the Director of Public Prosecutions does not have to initiate prosecution proceedings or tell anyone the details, even the dead people's families. There have been cases involving multiple deaths where he was right not to initiate prosecution proceedings — there is no point in having a show trial, and it may not be the fault of the person who was driving the car — but the families of these people should at least be given the details. In some cases the book of evidence has not been ready on time. Despite several warnings by the judge, some cases involving manslaughter have been dismissed because the book of evidence was not ready. In a recent case a judge is alleged to have written to the Director of Public Prosecutions before he heard a case. I do not know what he wrote but there should be some way of finding out if the proper procedure was followed.

I am not saying that we should interfere with the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions but this is not to say he should not be accountable. Nobody is more independent than the Comptroller and Auditor General and he is accountable to this House. The same applies to the Attorney General on whom the courts have conferred more powers. He is not accountable to the Government, let alone the Parliament, in the exercise of some of those powers. Those other offices must be made more accountable. We need a dose of democracy; in other words these offices should be made accountable to Deputies who have been given a mandate by the electorate.

I want to mention an issue in passing which I hope will not give rise to controversy. Last Tuesday I had a very bad experience during Question Time about which I have written to the Ceann Comhairle. The replies given at Question Time are drafted in such a way as to give as little information as possible and to camouflage the truth by appearing to state one thing while technically meaning another, and this after every device possible is used to disallow or transfer a question. We allow this to take place. Those Deputies who will lose their seats at the next election — it happens at every election — will have the rest of their lives to ponder on what they achieved as a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Broughan

The Deputy's seat is safe.

Mr. G. Mitchell

That is a kiss of death. We will have served the country well if we make democracy work and make the system accountable. The Government has a large majority and previous Governments with large majorities have fallen. In time to come Government Ministers will find themselves on the backbenches or in Opposition — it is the natural cycle of things. We should not miss the opportunity to do something about this issue. We have gone some way along the road but we need to go further.

We should consider conferring new powers and responsibilities on the Ceann Comhairle who would be able to decide that it is contempt of Parliament to mislead this House or prepare a reply to a question which does not give the true picture in detail or spirit. If this had been the case previously there would have been no need for court and ministerial appointed inspectors, inquiries and tribunals.

I am advised by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General that, taking account of debt servicing, gross receipts by the State amount to approximately £15 billion. One per cent of that amount is £150 million, while 4 per cent is £600 million. Does any Deputy who has spent time on a local authority or health board not believe that at least 1 per cent of this amount is being wasted? I am talking about central Exchequer spending, leaving aside what is being wasted on maintenance programmes etc. That is the reality. Because of bad practices huge sums of money are wasted. The value for money powers of economy, efficiency and effective management of spending which the Comptroller and Auditor General was given in the legislation followed the report we brought to the Committee of Public Accounts, which — to its eternal credit — it endorsed and brought to this House. We must encourage the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Committee of Public Accounts in every way possible to use those powers to bring about a sense of efficiency and economy in the public service generally, whether at national or local government level because that is a central and important function of parliament.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I learned much from being a member of the Committee of Public Accounts, in particular from Mr. McDonnell who was Comptroller and Auditor General during my time as chairman and most of my time as a member. He will be sadly missed. He is one of those great stalwarts of the public service who has a positive attitude to his duties, he contributed in a very significant way to the high standards of public service which we have come to expect. I wish his successor well and I have no doubt he will follow the same tradition.

Mr. Broughan

I wish to speak at this historic juncture, on my own behalf and on behalf of the Labour members of the Committee of Public Accounts. As the Minister said, this is a vitally important appointment in the administration of the State. The auditing of State expenditure and State revenue — which the Constitution provides for in Article 33 involves a high constitutional office. The Committee of Public Accounts, as my colleague, Deputy Rabbitte said, is a senior committee of this House. The 12 parliamentary auditors, unfortunately still all male, carry out this function in conjunction with the Comptroller and Auditor General. The appointment of a Comptroller and Auditor General is one of the most critical the Government can make.

In echoing Deputy Mitchell's sentiments I am disappointed that the committee was not consulted about this appointment. We take for granted the administration and bureaucracy which continues from year to year. As the previous Deputy said, we may be here for only a short time but we are the ultimate representatives of the people. The group of Deputies on the Committee of Public Accounts has vast experience. In my case that experience is less than two years but it extends to four or five years in the case of Deputy Rabbitte and up to 13 or 14 years for Deputy Foley who has had a long and distinguished career on the committee. While I support and commend the present appointment to the House it would have been a development of our democracy if there had been consultation with the Committee of Public Accounts, even if we did not go as far as the American system of hearings, etc. I welcome the Courts and Court Officers Bill. The appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General is a very important appointment of State and Deputies should be consulted.

It is interesting that as we make this appointment the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General has been called into question. There is an element of crisis in the Committee of Public Accounts. In the Appropriation Accounts, 1993, there is an extraordinary account of what is becoming a dangerous impasse in relation to the Comptroller and Auditor General's powers. Section 7 (5) of the tax amnesty legislation of last year was inserted at the request of the Comptroller and Auditor General to ensure that no element or aspect of State expenditure was exempt from the supervision, examination and investigation of the Comptroller and Auditor General; in other words that his constitutional abilities would not be called into question.

However, when he attempted to discharge his functions and examine all aspects of the tax amnesty, particularly the incentive amnesty from which most of the £200 million plus derived, and tried to present the sample exercise he had produced of the 1993 amnesty to parliament he was told by the Revenue Commissioners that this course of action is impossible because of the 1993 legislation. The Revenue Commissioners say the Comptroller and Auditor General can discharge his powers in relation to all aspects of supervision, efficiency and so on but he cannot give us guidance on the relative merits of the operation of the 1993 amnesty because it would call into question the confidentiality aspect. We are told that these concerns are shared by the chief special collector. Effectively the Comptroller and Auditor General is allowed to audit the moneys received but not to give the committee guidance on the operation of this policy. We have reached a dangerous position.

As the Minister is aware, the week before last the Comptroller and Auditor General sought the guidance of the Attorney General in this matter who responded by saying that the attitude of the Revenue Commissioners was correct and that the information gleaned by the Comptroller and Auditor General could not be transmitted to the committee. At the meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts this morning I urged the chairperson, if necessary, to pursue independent legal opinion in relation to this matter. I disagree with the advice given because it calls into question a fundamental aspect of the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General. It seems to suggest that the office of chief special collector — which we established last year — has dimensions over which the Comptroller and Auditor General's supervision would be unconstitutional. In fact, the reverse is the case. The office of chief special collector, if interpreted in that way, must be unconstitutional and the Comptroller and Auditor General must have the facility to deal with us.

Only a few months ago we discussed in this House the report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry. In that report there was a clear pattern of organised tax evasion by the Goodman organisation, directed by the management and the managing director. All aspects of that must come within the remit of the Committee of Public Accounts and Parliament. While we may not be able to take direct action in regard to the moneys lost to the State, we must know, in general terms at least, what money was effectively stolen from them by rogue businesses which are not prepared to follow the rule of law. I do not agree with my colleague in this regard. The vast bulk of people pay their taxes because they are PAYE workers. There is no element of choice. No area of Irish business should be exempt. Indeed, all decent companies, small businesses, sole proprietorships and so on, discharge their tax liabilities, increasingly so in recent years. There cannot be any area where we can give credence or special concessions to people who have broken the law. We have a role to play and such people cannot be allowed to get away with it.

The Committee of Public Accounts must support the new Comptroller and Auditor General in this matter to bring before it all relevant information and documents relating to the tax amnesty to allow us make recommendations to Government on the tax collection system. I hope it will not be necessary to have another tax amnesty and that we have drawn a line in the sand in that regard. I also hope that from now on people who do not adhere to our taxation laws will be punished in the same way that most PAYE citizens are open to punishment if they evade paying their fair share of taxes. There is a duty on the Committee of Public Accounts and the new Comptroller and Auditor General to pursue that matter, and pursue it we will.

I extend best wishes to Patrick Laurence McDonnell and his family on his retirement. He lives in my constituency and bearing in mind his great qualities I am sure he will not be inactive for very long. During my time as a member of the Committee of Public Accounts, Mr. McDonnell discharged his high constitutional office with great distinction, competence and diligence to the public interest, intense probity and a discerning ability to focus on any area of maladministration or poor value for public money through faulty policy guidelines handed down from Government. In his distinguished career the Minister of State has also been a member of the Committee of Public Accounts and I am sure he will agree that Mr. McDonnell adopted a quiet calm and almost understated approach in his advice to the committee. He has done the nation a great service and will be missed by the committee and Parliament. I am sure all Members wish him a happy and fruitful retirement.

I welcome and commend to the House the appointment of John Purcell as the new Comptroller and Auditor General. I referred to consultation with the committee, and had we been consulted we would have been delighted to support the nomination. During the past two years I have got to know, to like and appreciate the fine abilities of Mr. Purcell. In his role as director of audit he assisted Mr. McDonnell with very calm, detached and professional integrity in dealing with the different areas of State administration and expenditure. I am sure he will continue to do that as Comptroller and Auditor General of the State. He is still a very young man and it is remarkable that he has spent almost 30 years in the service of the State in the audit office. He certainly has long experience to bring to bear on his new job. During the past two years I noted in particular his interest in the State auditing and accounting systems of other European Union countries. The experience he gained from liaising with auditors in Europe will benefit the administration of State audits here. I look forward to working closely with Mr. Purcell and I am confident he will have an equally distinguished career to that of the outgoing Comptroller and Auditor General.

Approximately 15 months ago I welcomed important legislation introduced by the Minister of State, namely, the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Bill, 1993, which extended to the Comproller and Auditor General and the Committee of Public Accounts new powers to audit health boards, vocational education committees, harbour authorities and other bodies. The legislation also extended our remit into the area of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, a way forward to examine all aspects of State finances. While the Comptroller and Auditor General cannot express an opinion on the merits of policy, he will have at his disposal an armoury of new powers relating to State administration and I hope he will extend his remit wherever possible.

Deputy Ferris referred to State-sponsored bodies and the criticism of the well-paid executives. For example, when referring to the national television authority it was alleged that some broadcasters earn between £250,000 and £500,000 compared to the measly salaries of Deputies and, indeed, Ministers for the work they carry out. It is important that the Committee of Public Accounts should not be afraid to examine all aspects of State administration and that it does not hive off any of its role to other committees of the House, such as the Joint Committee on Commercial State-sponsored Bodies. The Committee of Public Accounts must have the final say.

I echo the comments of my colleagues. The former chairperson of the Committee of Public Accounts does not appear to be aware that the proceedings of the committee are not televised. That cannot take place until the legislation on compellability of witnesses is passed. Much of the important work carried out by that committee is therefore lost to the public. For example, my constituents have never seen me questioning or interrogating accounting officers on that committee. We must ensure the proceedings of that committee are televised. I know the Minister is committed to bringing forward the necessary legislation as soon as possible.

As members of the Committee of Public Accounts, from time to time we would like to be consulted about ongoing auditing work. I recently accompanied the new Comptroller and Auditor General to Finland where members of the Committee of Public Accounts are called parliamentary state auditors. While their Comptroller and Auditor General is preparing the yearly accounts, the members work with him, whereas we must wait for the end result and tease out the audit on the advice of our Comptroller and Auditor General. Under the Finnish system members of the committee play an ongoing auditing role. Perhaps our new Comptroller and Auditor General will examine the possibility of operating such a system here.

We do not get adequate support for research and information systems. The former Secretary of the Department of Finance, Mr. Cromien, invited us to his Department and advised us on aspects of the disbursement and taking in of funds. He gave an interesting talk on the system of auditing which operates in New Zealand where all State assets are audited. At any time one can get a bottom line balance on the Finances of the State in terms of wealth or poverty. As the new Comptroller and Auditor General is interested in international practices he may consider the development of annual accounting on the lines of the system in New Zealand.

The former chairperson of the Committee of Public Accounts. Deputy Gay Mitchell, referred to special reports such as that of the beef tribunal, a matter on which there was extensive criticism at meetings of our committee. The main committees of the House could have carried out much of the work involved in the tribunal at a much cheaper cost. Of course that would mean the committee would have to seek legal opinion, and witnesses would also be legally represented. While I accept it would involve additional cost to the relevant committee it would be much cheaper than the expensive method used to ascertain the happenings in our beef industry.

I should like the incoming Comptroller and Auditor General to examine all aspects of European Union funding in relation to our accounts. We have already met the outgoing Irish Auditor of the European Court of Auditors, Mr. Richie Ryan, who spoke to us some six or eight months ago. He said there was some disquiet about the manner in which European funding was administered throughout the Irish Government system, stating that in some areas of administration — whether through FEOGA, the Structural Fund, the Department of Enterprise and Employment, or any other section of State administration — it is very difficult to identify European funding. Of course, it works the other way round in that over the next seven or eight years, in addition to receiving £14 billion from Europe, we will contribute £3 billion over the next distribution period of Structural Funds. Therefore, we should like to know where our contribution of £3 billion goes.

I warmly congratulate the outgoing Comptroller and Auditor General on his distinguished service and welcome his successor, Mr. John Purcell, who I know will have a very distinguished career and will encourage the Government and Minister for Finance to expand the role of the Committee of Public Accounts, in particular giving its members some assistance in resolving the current impasse, establishing the principle that there is no area of State administration free from investigation by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. Dempsey)

I thank the various Members who contributed to the debate. I noted that each and every one of them paid tribute to the outgoing Comptroller and Auditor General and spoke very highly of him. All I can do is echo the sentiments which I expressed in my introductory remarks.

A number of points were raised with which I intend to deal fairly quickly. However, one in which I do not intend to become involved because I do not consider it proper, is that in relation to the audit of the incentive amnesty which, as many Members said, is still being considered by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I do not intend to comment on it except to say that, in the normal course of events, the Committee of Public Accounts will give its views on the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General to the Minister for Finance who, in turn, will respond to the committee in writing.

A number of Members, including Deputy Broughan, referred to the proceedings of the Committee of Public Accounts not being televised. I made the point, to RTE in particular, that there is no earthly reason, as far as I am concerned, as Government Chief Whip, for not televising the proceedings of the Committee of Public Accounts. The problem and difficulty lies with RTE, its fear of the libel and contempt laws and the matter of privilege and accountability. I pointed out to RTE that at present something could be said at any committee meeting that might be libellous but that, because of the manner in which it investigates things, edits news items and so on, it does not need that privilege. I replied to the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts who raised this matter with me some time ago to the effect that at present there is nothing to prevent the proceedings of the Committee of Public Accounts being televised. Perhaps the committee would wish to take up that matter. However, the understandable fear on the part of RTE is in the overall area of compellability of witnesses and, in this particular case, of privilege. I am pleased to inform the House that I have seen the first draft of the relevant Bill in respect of which probably minor changes will have to be agreed and implemented but I am very confident it will be published this session. I hope it will reach the House in this session. If members of the Committee of Public Accounts wish to convey their views to me, even before the Bill is published, I will be more than willing to listen and endeavour to take them on board.

In this debate I listened to several Members opposite make accusations of non-accountability of Government to this House. I regard them all as a load of nonsense, in particular the most recent false allegations against the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Cowen, who answered questions in this House for one and a half hours over the past two days. Most neutral observers, we will take it that most media people, certainly reporters, are neutral observers — are in agreement that the Minister answered any questions put to him. Therefore, it is nonsense for Members to allege that the Government does not want to render itself accountable to this House. The Opposition have several means of raising matters — Question Time, Private Notice Questions — which they have used very effectively in the past two days — and Adjournment debates, and, although it is not in order, they use the Order of Business to raise matters of this nature. In addition, there is Private Members' time. If Fine Gael is serious that the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications misled this House, I challenge it to use its Private Members' time next week to lay that allegation before the House and substantiate it.

In relation to this matter in general, there has been a great deal of talk on the part of the Opposition about threats to democracy. The greatest threat to democracy is this latest splurge of accusations, half truths, innuendoes and drummed-up moral outrage on the part of certain sections of the Opposition; that does democracy more harm than anything the Government is doing. New lows are plumbed every week by certain sections of the Opposition. When they talk about threats to democracy, they are in fact undermining and using the privilege of this House to make accusations they know to be totally untrue and unfounded. That is a scandalous abuse of the privilege of this House, a privilege we should all guard and defend. If privilege is abused, next we shall have a whole series of calls for it to be curtailed in some way because of its abuse by Members, when we shall have nobody but ourselves to blame.

I challenge Deputy Hogan to substantiate, by way of specific motion before this House, the accusations he made against the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications. If his concern is genuine he will do so and afford the Minister the opportunity to do what he has done already, to refute those allegations. I also challenge Deputies Hogan and Harney to make the accusations they made in the House, including one they made this morning which involved me, outside this House. If they do not do that, they should have the courtesy and grace to come back into this House and withdraw their remarks. I refer in particular to Deputy Harney's accusation this morning that a meeting took place between me, the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications and the Taoiseach, after which, pressure was exerted on a civil servant to take a particular course of action. A meeting of that kind did not take place. I have not spoken to the Minister, except in passing this morning, before the Order of Business. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges met last evening. The Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications was in the House when I went to that committee and I did not see him again until this morning. Therefore, I want that accusation withdrawn.

Deputy Gay Mitchell paid very generous and well deserved tributes to the outgoing Comptroller and Auditor General and to the former Secretary of the Department of Finance, Mr. Cromien, in addition to a very considered contribution on a subject on which I know Deputy Mitchell could speak for hours, the rights of Members of this House, I agree with many of his points, if we want to effect changes, this is the way to do so, by responsible suggestions and debate across the floor of the House.

Deputy Broughan and others referred to the powers of parliamentary committees to investigate. I am charged with bringing forward a document to Government on alternatives to a tribunal, but I am not sure that broadening the scope of the Committee of Public Accounts, as suggested by Deputy Broughan, to enable it to be an investigating committee is the correct thing to do. That committee does a good job in the area it covers. I would hate to see it cluttered up with further responsibility. However, I appreciate the point he and Deputy Mitchell made about the need to have a strong committee of investigation in this House to obviate the need for tribunals, particularly to investigate matters that can be dealt with by the House.

I wish to refer to a matter adverted to by a number of Deputies, including Deputy Ferris — it is good to see Deputy Ferris back in full voice and showing no ill effects following his recent illness. A headline in one of the national newspapers, followed by the broadcast media and other elements of the print media, alleged that Deputies were, effectively, receiving £690 a day for the work they are doing. That figure was based on the fact that the House would sit about 93 days per year. That figure was divided into the salary of £32,000 a year that a Deputy receives to arrive at the sum of £690. I did not check the figure but I presume, the answer was correct. As to the accuracy of the rest of the article, I have some doubt.

That method of calculating ignored the work of committees of this House. It is expected that they will have sat up to 300 times by the end of this year. Apart from duties in the House and on committees Deputies and Senators — Deputies in particular because the accusation was levelled at them — also have duties to attend to in their constituencies. It is all very well for people who are well paid and articulate and who know their way around the bureaucracy to tell Deputies that they should not involve themselves in the affairs of their constituents, that they should not be available to their constituents nor seek to represent them on a personal and general basis. Such people will probably never need a politician to articulate their fears, to work through the maze of bureaucracy and explain or fill in forms etc. There are people who, for one reason or another, need somebody to do such things for them or at least point them in the right direction and I make no apology to those who are well paid and well connected for doing that job. It is a duty we as public representatives have to perform and is additional to our duty to legislate.

It amounts to a sleight of hand for such people to continually knock politicians for being close to the people and familiar with their needs. I am as well informed about the needs of my constituents and people generally as a result of holding weekly clinics as I would be by listening to the advice of civil servants etc. It will be a day to regret if Members abandon the principle of being close to the people. I have no doubt that we would all be condemned outright by the same people who made the allegations at the weekend if we were remote from the people.

I hope the outgoing Comptroller and Auditor General and the new appointee will forgive me, and other Members, for digressing a little from what should be a happy occasion albeit tinged with a certain amount of sadness. I had the great privilege of serving on the Committee of Public Accounts with the outgoing Comptroller and Auditor General at a time of exciting development under the excellent chairmanship of Deputy Gay Mitchell. At that time there were five years of accounts to be dealt with due to the number of elections that took place. I have no doubt about the efficiency and effectiveness of the Comptroller and Auditor General's office. I wish Mr. McDonnell a happy and active retirement. I also wish the incoming Comptroller and Auditor General, John Purcell, every success. My wish for him is that he will be as good as the retiring Comptroller and Auditor General. If he is, nobody will have any complaints in 20 years time when he retires.

Question put and agreed to.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 27 Oct 1994

Comptroller and Auditor General Nomination: Motion.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 27 Oct 1994