Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)

Whatever. As an advocate of free speech in all matters, I take my hat off to him. However, we will leave political barbs aside. It is not a novelty, although we all thought it was on Committee Stage. I had consultations with my Department and asked where this had come from and whether it was new. I also had discussions with the Department of Finance because I felt the argument was reasoned and I wanted to see if the case for retaining the existing wording was a good one. Given that I lectured in public finance, I admit I was surprised to find that this provision is similar to those in the Comptroller and Auditor General Act 1993, which relate to Accounting Officers. That Act enshrined a generally long-accepted convention that civil servants and other public servants would not be required to comment on policy issues during presentations to the Committee of Public Accounts. When that point was made to me I could see it was factually correct. In fact, the practice goes back to the 19th century. In giving evidence before the Committee of Public Accounts, an Accounting Officer cannot be required to comment on policy issues. Members of the House who have served on the Committee of Public Accounts know this well. I think Deputy Morgan served on the committee at one stage. It is a long-standing arrangement that one cannot request a civil servant, including an Accounting Officer, appearing before the Committee of Public Accounts to venture into the area of public policy or to comment on Government policies. It has been a long-standing tradition that such officers can deal with issues arising from the accounts, their responsibilities as Accounting Officers, and issues concerning the appropriateness of expenditure to ensure it was for the purpose for which it was appropriated by the Dáil.

That tradition is also reflected in the Compellability and Privileges Act 1997, which regulated the conduct of meetings and inquiries made by Oireachtas committees under the compellability powers authorised by the Act. I should have remembered that when dealing with the matter on Committee Stage because it arose on several occasions during inquiries made by the Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies, a committee I once chaired. The compellability powers authorised by that Act also extend to civil servants, gardaí and members of the Defence Forces. The matter arises again in the case of the Health Service Executive and a similar provision is included in the National Pensions Reserve Act 2000.

All of these provisions arise from this long-standing tradition that one cannot require a public servant to comment on policy issues when appearing before the Committee of Public Accounts. In that regard, I could be exonerated for not knowing this. The rules and responsibilities of Accounting Officers as set out in a 2003 memorandum for the Committee of Public Accounts, have direct implications here. The PAC's terms of reference specifically state that "it shall refrain from inquiring into the merits of policy or policies of the Government or of a member of the Government, or merits of the objectives of such policies". That is provided for because those issues are tested in this Chamber by the House as a whole.

The Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993 contains a reference that in any report under that Act, the Comptroller and Auditor General "shall not question or express an opinion on the merits of policies or policy objectives". Section 19 of the same Act makes a similar provision, that the Accounting Officer "shall not question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government or a Minister of the Government, or on the merits of the objectives of such a policy".

All that arises because the discussions on policy are matters for this Chamber and not for committees, including the Committee of Public Accounts. The point I am making for Deputy Gilmore is that there has been a long-standing practice and tradition in this regard, as well as much legal precedent. If we had more time we could have dealt with it more thoroughly. I said I would give it some consideration, however, and I did so. I do not have any affinity for anything that closes down freedom of speech in the general sense, but the traditions of this House, including the Committee of Public Accounts, all support the Bill's provision.

See this speech in context