Vol. 573 No. 5
6 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance if he has satisfied himself that adequate systems exist to ensure that the lessons of evaluations by the Comptroller and Auditor General are being fully applied across all Government programmes. [25853/03]
Under the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993, individual Accounting Officers are responsible for economy and efficiency in their organisations and the maintenance of systems, procedures and practices for the purpose of evaluating effectiveness. Thus, Accounting Officers must take account of the lessons arising from the various forms of evaluation conducted on programmes and activities coming within their remit, including: the expenditure reviews which the Departments and Offices carry out under the terms of the expenditure review initiative; evaluations conducted by or on behalf of the NDP-CSF evaluation unit, which has responsibilities in respect of evaluation of the national development plan; and the annual reports and any value for money reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General and any reports by the Committee of Public Accounts thereon.
In addition, recommendations contained in the various evaluation reports are taken into account by spending Departments and the Department of Finance in the resource allocation decisions which arise in the context of the annual Estimates process. The process of evaluation by the Comptroller and Auditor General and scrutiny by the Committee of Public Accounts is taken very seriously by Accounting Officers and my Department. In addition, where specific recommendations are made by the Committee of Public Accounts in its reports, the Minister for Finance responds to them in his reply entitled, The Minute of the Minister for Finance on the Report of the Committee of Public Accounts. These formal responses are prepared by the Department of Finance in consultation with the Departments concerned and, as well as being sent to the Committee of Public Accounts, the minute is referred as a Department of Finance circular to all Accounting Officers.
On foot of a recommendation of the working group on the accountability of Secretaries General and Accounting Officers published by the Government last January, my Department is finalising a document highlighting the most important issues identified in recent reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Committee of Public Accounts. This document will be circulated to all Accounting Officers before the end of the year.
While I welcome the circulation of the document, I wish to address the question of whether any lessons are being learned. Specifically, to bring the matter home to roost, I raise the case of the Punchestown project which was approved within two months. The Minister approved funding of 100% within seven days. It doubled in cost and the Minister again approved it within 14 days. Is the Minister aware that the Comptroller and Auditor General has expressed concern that no cost benefit analysis was done of the project before it was approved, it did not follow the Department of Finance guidelines, there was no independent technical advice, no research on the needs, no projections of the running costs or the revenue of the project, no quantification of the benefits, no other providers who might have offered were asked to offer an alternative and the project was not even referred to the legal adviser of the Department of Agriculture and Food?
Does the Minister not agree that if he was involved so closely in approving, with rapid turnaround, a project which breached every rule in the book, it undermines his attempt to lecture other Accounting Officers as to how they should conduct themselves?
That matter is being discussed at a meeting today of the Committee of Public Accounts. That meeting is ongoing. I am sure all these questions will be put to the Accounting Officers of the Departments of Agriculture and Food and Finance.
The Minister expresses confidence in the management of the various Departments. Is he not alarmed at what has happened with the scheme arranged with the religious orders to deal with indemnity for child abuse? That is a huge cost facing the taxpayer. The Minister's former colleague, Deputy Woods, went AWOL and in a court case today, arising out of proceedings initiated in 1999, the State took full liability. Is the Minister offering that as an example of good management? In any country in the world, the Government responsible for such a scheme would be severely rebuked. There is another example in Cork, the astonishing saga of the Cork School of Music. Is the Minister not concerned that something which was due to cost €30 million now has a price tag of up to €300 million attached to it?
Has the Minister any concept of the astonishment and anger among the public about the Comptroller and Auditor General's report in which he draws attention to the Punchestown Racecourse project? How does the Minister respond to the finding of the Comptroller and Auditor General that the conditions governing the State's financial support were covered only by an exchange of letters and had not been referred to the Department of Agriculture and Food's legal advisers to ensure that they were properly constructed and legally sound? The Minister must answer to this House and be accountable to it. It is not good enough to say that this issue is being addressed in a committee of one or both Houses of the Oireachtas. It is a scandal that a centre that will cater to a sporting sector which is swimming in wealth has such a commitment from the Government, and the Minister personally, while other sporting and voluntary organisations are competing for a limited fund under the sports capital programme and are being ignored.
I spent four hours at the meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts – it finished at 3 p.m. – and while information was given to the committee about the Punchestown project, not many answers were forthcoming. Would the Minister agree with the official from the Department of Finance that decision-making within the Department of Agriculture and Food was the result of the strategic management initiative, which allows the Department to make decisions of this nature without further recourse to the Department of Finance regardless of how far the cost of a project goes above its original cost? In addition, the Punchestown project was approved without a feasibility study being conducted by the Department on the need for such a centre or any business plan being supplied by Punchestown Racecourse or the trustees of the fund that controls the racecourse, the Kildare Hunt. Does the Minister accept that this is the right way to allocate public money?
Does the Minister not feel a personal responsibility for the fact that the system designed to ensure we get value for public money was not applied in this case? He made two approvals, within seven and 14 days, of €6 million and then the doubling of that figure to €12 million. The Minister is responsible for ensuring we have a system of financial accountability and prudence that works, yet in this case he paid no attention to the fact that his guidelines were not observed. What is the Minister's role in this? He cannot pass it on to others.
Deputy Burton asked about the residential institutions redress scheme. That has also been the subject of debate in the Committee of Public Accounts. The committee has not finalised its deliberations on it and is due to revisit the subject. She also asked about the Cork School of Music. On account of the projected cost rising from the initial figure of €30 million to a considerably higher amount, the Cork School of Music project has not gone ahead. The Department of Finance has not sanctioned it because the cost figure has increased substantially.
Deputy Ó Caoláin asked about the legal advisers in the Department of Agriculture and Food. The Deputy will have been able to put these questions at the meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts. I am not sure if he is a member but Deputy Boyle is, and these questions will have been put to the Accounting Officer of the Department of Agriculture and Food. The sports capital programme, during my term as Minister for Finance, has been increased from a very low figure to a cumulative amount, over five years, of over €200 million. Examples of the benefits of the sports capital programme are seen the length and breadth of the country and, indeed, in Cork city and county.
Deputy Boyle asked a question relating to the strategic management initiative. I do not know what the Department's official said to the committee. I am sure it was pointed out that up to recent years everything was so tightly controlled in the Department that the management of other Departments had no power to do anything. Each year Deputies and Ministers came to the House to complain about micro management in the Department of Finance. Under the strategic management initiative the Departments are allowed to get on with the job. They are given an allocation, subject to certain rules which must be obeyed, and it is up to them to manage their projects. Deputies who served in Government previously will be aware of the stringency with which the Department of Finance operated. In the 1960s and 1970s, Departments could do virtually nothing. Under the strategic management initiative more discretion is allowed to Departments so the initiative has been good in that respect.
Deputy Bruton asked about financial accountability. The Punchestown centre is a welcome facility for the country. It is used for many events. The Department of Agriculture and Food had wanted the centre for a considerable amount of time and I am satisfied that it will be of considerable benefit not only to the immediate hinterland but to the country.
The Minister is essentially saying that if he has a political preference for something, these procedures do not matter a damn. Surely the Department would, at a minimum, have a checklist if the cost of a project is to be double the forecast cost. Before the Minister would approve it, he would want to know if a cost benefit analysis had been carried out, if the Department's guidelines had been followed, if research had been conducted and if legal advisers had been consulted. None of those questions was asked by either the Minister or his Department. He cannot say to the House that he is presiding over good financial management if that is what is happening.
I certainly do not agree with the Deputy.
It is also not in line with the code of conduct for holders of public office. The Minister is not answering the questions.
The Deputy asked if I am satisfied that adequate systems exist to ensure that the lessons of evaluations by the Comptroller and Auditor General are being fully applied across all Departments. The answer is that I am.
