John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)

Some of the others who signed the motion may not have studied the Comptroller and Auditor General's report and probably will not comment on it one way or another. However, the motion as tabled by Fine Gael and Labour is grossly inaccurate, particularly when it refers to "the ongoing recurrence of serious tax evasion". The motion also refers to value for money as though the Government is not responding in that regard. Members of the Committee of Public Accounts will realise that does not relate to the committee's procedures. Every year, issues arise that are highlighted in the annual report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Each and every one of those matters comes before the committee to be scrutinised in full. That is both correct and appropriate.

During 2005, the year covered by the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, total expenditure by the State was in the region of €45 billion, yet the amount referred to in the report is a small fraction of that. By and large, the vast majority of programmes and projects delivered as a result of Exchequer expenditure are well implemented by Accounting Officers, Secretaries General and other senior civil servants. Only a small minority of cases come to the attention of the Comptroller and Auditor General and are brought before the Committee of Public Accounts. The manner in which the motion is worded, however, would make many Accounting Officers feel that the vast majority of their work is not competent or good, yet nothing could be further from the truth. In the vast majority of cases, we find that expenditure is carried out in an efficient and practical manner.

The Comptroller and Auditor General's report should be put in context for those who want to use the motion for their own ends without examining it. It is an annual report which highlights issues on a year by year basis, but not necessarily the same issues. The motion suggests that nothing ever happens as a result of this annual report, but members of the Committee of Public Accounts know that is not true by a long way. It is worth mentioning the procedures in place. After the report is published, various Accounting Officers from Departments eventually appear the following year at the Committee of Public Accounts to discuss the issues that were highlighted. Irrespective of who is contributing to its proceedings, the committee is viewed as fair and balanced. It is always chaired by a member of the Opposition. It does not allow for substitutes and its membership is balanced between Government and Opposition, which adds to the impartiality, independence and fairness with which the committee scrutinises not just the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, but also the relevant Accounting Officers who appear before it.

Bringing in Accounting Officers and scrutinising accounts on their own is not sufficient, however. It is not enough just to say that we interview and interrogate witnesses; we go much further than that by making specific recommendations. Many of the recommendations and suggestions are made informally when representatives of various Departments appear before us. Those recommendations would be made to Secretaries General or other staff. Informally, many such recommendations are implemented quickly.

More importantly, the Committee of Public Accounts produces formal reports based on its hearings and submits such reports directly to the Minister for Finance. The reports indicate a summary of what we have found at meetings of the committee, but we specifically bring forward findings and recommendations, which are brought directly to the attention of the Minister for Finance. While the Minister has a number of choices, he has to respond. The practical reality is that the vast majority of the committee's practical suggestions are accepted by the Minister for Finance and the relevant changes are made. I defy Members on either side of the House to say otherwise. If the chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, Deputy Noonan, was here tonight, I am sure he would agree.

One might ask where all of this is going but the practical reality is that, year after year, the issues coming before the committee are not the same because changes and improvements take place. If one believed everything in the motion, one would not expect to see such changes, yet we do see them.

I wish to refer specifically to one or two issues that were raised in the debate last night, including Thornton Hall. There was much debate on that matter because it is in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, although it is not specifically mentioned in the motion. That issue will come before the Committee of Public Accounts in the next three or four weeks. It may be premature to comment on it here but since there has been so much comment already, it would be remiss of me to let the occasion pass without acknowledging that €30 million was spent. In his report, the Comptroller and Auditor General said that in his opinion it might have been possible — he did not say it was possible — to achieve better value for money if the purchase of the Thornton Hall site had been done in a different manner. The manner he suggested was if one went out blindly without notifying anybody of what one was doing and one bought the site. Those on the Opposition side were hopping up and down saying that is what the Minister should have done. The question is, however, if it had been their call, would they have bought the site on the blind? Would they have failed to tell the public and kept it a secret? Is that what they would have done?

The challenge the Minister threw out is a very viable one. In recent years, we have all seen auctioneers and valuers put certain values on properties, particularly when they go to auction. Invariably, however, we read reports afterwards which show their values were completely wrong. In this case, the Comptroller and Auditor General said that, in his opinion, it might have been possible to buy the site for a cheaper price. The Minister put an interesting challenge last night and I have yet to hear anybody accept it. He asked whether a similar, suitable site in as close proximity to the city centre could have been found more cheaply. I have not seen anybody yet stand up and say "Yes, it could". That challenge still stands.

The question is historic in that we have purchased the site. However, is anybody realistically saying that if the Thornton Hall site went on the market today, it would achieve a lower figure than we spent on it? I do not believe so. It is premature to comment on some of those issues because they will come before the Committee of Public Accounts in due course. Those who jump on the bandwagon and take one or two lines from the Comptroller and Auditor General's report without an in-depth analysis or putting it into context, are not dealing with the issue fairly or properly. The questions that both the Minister and I have put deserve a response.

The motion condemns the Government for not taking action to ensure better value for money since the 2004 report was published. That is not right, however, because we have seen changes on issues that have come before the Committee of Public Accounts. Members should think back to a couple of years ago. The single biggest issue in my short time as a member of the Committee of Public Accounts was expenditure on roads, which were always over budget and behind schedule. Now the issue of over expenditure and late completion of road projects never appears in the Comptroller and Auditor General's reports nor does it appear in this report. We need to put the report in context. We are making changes and they are delivering results. Recently when opening the Fermoy bypass the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, explained that an increasing trend in the delivery of major infrastructure projects was that they were coming in ahead of time and within budget. Specifically, last night he mentioned some of the projects that came in on time and ahead of budget: the Cavan bypass, the Enniscorthy-Clonroche realignment, Ashbourne, the M50 bypass, the Ballyshannon-Bundoran bypass and the Edgeworthstown relief road. Those who watched the Ryder Cup would acknowledge the improvements to the Naas Road from Rathcoole to Naas. All of these projects have come in on time or ahead of time and probably most came in under budget. A few years ago Members would have been objecting and complaining about issues raised in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. It is specifically that type of tone in the Opposition motion to which I object. I do not trivialise the matters raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General, they are very real and have to be dealt with. The impression being put forward is that the matters being raised by him are not being dealt with and that it is more of the same year on year. Nothing could be further from the truth. My colleagues on the Opposition, particularly those who are members of the Committee of Public Accounts or have served on that committee, should recognise that. They should stand up here and say they are not recurring problems. We can go through a whole range of them but the issues raised by the Committee of Public Accounts this year are not necessarily the same as those of last year. Changes have been made and are being made. By the very nature of public expenditure, when one is spending €45 billion or €50 billion there will always be areas where improvements can be made. We should acknowledge the vast areas where money has been spent well and specifically target the problem areas. To try to put one brush stroke through it and say there are the same problems year in year out and that it is a complete waste of money is not addressing the issue.

See this speech in context