Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

This committee issued a report on 5 July regarding the examination of the 2019 Appropriation Accounts, Vote 29 for the Department responsible for the environment, climate, communications, broadcasting and media. There was a focus on four areas. We received a minute from the Minister in reply to those recommendations, as would be normal, on 7 October. We normally get a response saying "Yes" or "No", it can be done, will be done or why it cannot be done. In this case, however, we did not get any answer in regard to two of the issues, nor did the Department give a commitment to provide any further responses. That minute would have been signed off by the Minister who was presumably advised by Mr. Moloney. I noted that in regard to recommendation 2, which was about the corporate governance division of the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sports and Media and which recommended that it should continue to monitor RTÉ’s response to the findings of the Eversheds report, which related to the classification of employees at RTÉ, and report to the committee on its views of RTÉ’s responses to the findings of that review, the Department did not accept or reject the committee’s recommendations, nor did it discuss providing the recommended report to the committee. As I understand it, in my time as a Member, that is without precedent. Is the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform satisfied with that response to recommendation 2 in that report?

Recommendations 6 and 7 called on the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sports and Media to provide a report to the committee on the means of generating extra income for the Exchequer in regard to broadcasting and exploring measures for RTÉ to reduce its dependence on Exchequer funding.

The Department did not accept or reject our recommendations nor did it discuss providing the recommended report to the committee. Is this an attempt to brush off the Committee of Public Accounts? This is what it looks like to me. What accountability do Departments and public bodies have to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform in the context of the implementation of committee recommendations and responses to them?

What is the view of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform on the responses provided in the minute of the Minister given that none of the recommendations have been accepted or rejected and no explanation has been given? This in the context of circular 01/2011, Revised Instructions for Preparing Material for Inclusion in Minutes of the Minister for Finance on Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts. Mr. Moloney signed off on this as the assistant secretary at the time. I am speaking about a response to the committee. When the committee does a report and makes recommendations, we do not want to waste our time. These are important issues. We expect that at least note is taken of the recommendations. If they cannot be implemented, we want clear explanations as to why. If they are being implemented, that is good news and we want to hear about it. It is not acceptable that such a response as we have received would come back.

Circular 01/2011, which Mr. Moloney signed off, states the committee may consider minutes in public session and if it is not satisfied with the responses to the recommendations it may pursue the matter further with the Minister for Finance. The circular also states the committee may seek to debate the matter in the Dáil. There should be a response to every recommendation stating whether it is accepted or not and why. The circular was signed off by Mr. Moloney. Appendix 1 states every recommendation should have a response stating whether or not it is accepted and the reasons. This has not been done. As Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, what is Mr. Moloney's view on this? The committee is basically being told that its report and recommendations are irrelevant. They are being neither accepted nor rejected. There is no engagement or explanation. What is the opinion of Mr. Moloney on all of this?