John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

To come back to it, and not to go into the policy area, it is a huge concern of mine and, I am sure, as Deputy Deasy has said, other members of the committee, that we are now entering two inquiries without being able to define in a reasonable way - I know there is risk in it - the exact extent and cost involved. This does not sit well with me. What Mr. Watt said in his opening statement is fine, but I caution against the decision to have what would seem to be an open cheque in both cases, because this is what we are looking at. Those making policy should think twice about what they are doing. I would certainly want to see set out the benefits of the spend of this type of taxpayers' money to achieve we do not know what.

It is a pity, when we reflect on the OECD report, that a system is not in place in the House to examine in a very detailed way the proposal and cost to determine if what will come out of the report is worth this type of money. If it were a business this is the question that would dominate, but a cost-benefit analysis and information on what the public should know do not seem to be considered in this case. Who will cry stop should all of this be a step too far? As Chairman of the Committee on Public Accounts I caution the Department and the policymakers on this, because it seems we are going down the same old road we have travelled before without learning anything.

This brings me to the OECD report. I participated in the report and was there for its launch. While I welcome the report, and it is the basis of debate and conversation for various committees, it is very disappointing that, in the same way as the budget is front-loaded to spend the money, it speaks about the budgetary process to examine the amounts of money to be spent, but there is no emphasis thereafter in the report on upskilling or empowering the Comptroller and Auditor General to have a much greater role in the examination of the spend of taxpayers' money to the point where it is being spent, unlike in other jurisdictions. It excludes any commentary on an amalgamation of the local government audit team and the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General and empowering the committee to do the job the public believes it is doing.

Earlier, before the Secretary General and his team came in, Deputy Costello and others raised the question of the wards of court, the replies from the Department, where recommendations go and so on, as well as the delay in reverting to this committee. Until such time as sanctions are introduced as part of the structure of this committee, it will continue to be effective but not effective enough, it will be given oversight but not enough and if one likes, it is being separated from the €2.5 billion to €4 million, depending on whether one is in good times or bad, of local government expenditure. On Mr. Watt's opening statement and this morning's reports regarding the Central Bank and the payment of retention money, what role, if any, does the Department have in this case?