asked the Minister for Finance if the principle, whereby the secretary of each Department is also the accounting officer for that Department, was inherited from British practice in 1922; if not, the date it was introduced; and if he considers that the principle is still appropriate.
Ceisteanna — Questions Oral Answers - Departmental Accounting Officers.
13.
The answer to the first part of the question is ‘yes'. The underlying reason for the practice is that only the highest ranking officer of a Department or Office is in a position to discharge the financial and administrative responsibilities of accounting officer. I consider that that reason remains valid and that the practice is still correct.
Would the Minister be willing to look at this practice from the perspective of 1983 rather than 1922, when the Departments here were little more than Departments of technical instruction? Apart from all other considerations, would he consider whether it is appropriate that a very busy senior official, who has to take responsibility for the working of a very large Department dispensing millions of pounds in a wide variety of functions, should in addition be expected to ensure that no money is wasted and that every £100 is spent in the most cost-effective way? Surely it is time to look at this system to see whether a different form of accounting control could be introduced. In saying this I have no reflection whatever to make on the dedication and competence of any departmental secretary, but it is expecting too much of him to do this on top of all his other work. It is no wonder that the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General should disclose so much ground for suspicion that the control of the expenditure of public money is too slack.
I am perfectly willing to look at the matter from a more recent perspective than that of 1922. The appointing of accounting officers to these functions dates back to an Act of 1866. The matter was looked at as recently as 1976 and in that year, in commenting on the duties and responsibilities of accounting officers, the Public Accounts Committee expressed their concern to maintain structures built up over the previous 110 years and stated: "There must be one person with whom we can deal". I would take that as a fairly firm statement by the Public Accounts Committee that they would not like to see accounting officers nominating other people to answer on their behalf.
Apart from the question of whom the Public Accounts Committee would find it most convenient to deal with, would the Minister consider the matter more from the point of view of the best method of ensuring that public money is not carelessly spent? Would he consider, even as an experiment in only one Department, a system whereby expenditure would be controlled day by day by somebody doing absolutely nothing else, recruited by competition for two or three years for that purpose from the private sector, somebody whose job depends on making sure that the firm for which he is working wastes no money?
I would not like to go so far as to say that I would take the road the Deputy is suggesting. I am very concerned to ensure that there is a far stricter and more reliable procedure for ensuring that the expenditure of public money takes place on the basis of the objectives set out and with the utmost economy and efficiency possible. To that end there is an ongoing review and attempt in my Department to improve both the procedures in that Department and those which apply in other Departments.
May I make a suggestion regarding the form of auditing in the public sector?
You may ask a question.
An auditor checks the accounts of a local authority to ensure that the money is spent according to the law but when material or machinery is purchased no auditor ever asks whether it is the right type of material or machinery. This is the kind of question which should be asked. People who are earning large amounts of money in the public sector are not being asked whether they are expending public money on the right kind of purchases.
Deputy McLoughlin has made my point far better than I did.
I am glad we agree on this question. We will not agree on the next one.
I agree that bookkeeping is not the only important thing. I have been saying that for a long time.