Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)

I reiterate my thanks to Deputy John McGuinness for bringing this Bill before the House and to all of the Deputies who contributed to the debate. It has been a very useful discussion featuring good ideas from all sides of the House. We have seen a general agreement on the need to achieve better accountability, transparency and value for money with regard to the expenditure of public funds across the system. Nobody in this House would be opposed to that. My rejecting Deputy McGuinness's Bill is not a case of rejection for rejections's sake. I take this opportunity to articulate my support, as Deputy Kevin Humphreys did, for the Friday sittings. I have been a Member of this House since 1998, most of that time in opposition and, in common with colleagues, found it very difficult to have a Private Members' Bill discussed in any way. I was, in fact, fortunate to have a Private Members' Bill accepted by a Minister - a Fianna Fáil Minister in this instance - but that was a very rare occurrence. The arrangements instituted by this Government enhance the potential contribution of all Members.

The fundamental difficulty with the Bill before us today is that it proposes a duplication of the audit process for local government services. This is not a fault that can be tweaked on Committee Stage. As I said in my opening statement, the Government's objective is to achieve overall reform of local government, part of which is a consideration of the possible merger of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the local government audit system. If that is done, it will achieve, at least to some extent, the substance of what the Deputy is proposing in this Bill. I am concerned by the view put forward in the debate today that local councillors cannot effectively scrutinise, as alluded to by Deputy Kevin Humphreys. Some Members seem to be of the opinion that if something is not scrutinised by the Committee of Public Accounts, there can be no democratic scrutiny of what happens in local government. That is a very disturbing view. Local councillors certainly must be given the power and resources to undertake proper scrutiny at local level. As Deputy Eoghan Murphy observed, the Minister, Deputy Phil Hogan, has indicated his intention to bring forward recommendations on local government reform very soon.

Several Deputies referred to the role of local audit committees, which add real value to corporate governance at local government. Each committee normally comprises five members, three of them, including the chairperson, external members, plus two councillors. The committees carry out their functions under a formal charter and are approved by the members. They also prepare annual reports of their work for consideration by the full council. Their oversight functions are to review the council's financial and budgetary reporting practices and procedures; foster the development of best practice in the internal audit function, including approval of the annual internal audit work plan and the monitoring of its delivery; request special reports for internal audit as considered appropriate; review local government auditors' reports and monitor follow-up actions; assess and promote value for money and efficiency; and consider whether processes are in place to manage risk effectively in accordance with organisational guidelines and business plans. In line with best corporate governance procedures, the local government auditor attends audit committee meetings in order to present his or her audit report and clarify any matters arising from it. The committees have contributed significantly to ensuring that issues raised by the auditor are addressed by the authorities.

As I said, I am quite disturbed by some of the contributions today, including those of Deputies Mattie McGrath and Pringle, suggesting that local councillors cannot question the manager or raise these types of issues. There is something wrong with our local democracy if that is the case and it must be addressed. As a relatively small country, one might argue that the Committee of Public Accounts could include the scrutiny of local authorities in its work, which is the central tenet of Deputy McGuinness's proposal. However, in larger countries a great deal more of this type of work is done very effectively at local and regional level. This is something that we as public representatives and, in many cases, former members of local authorities would seek to achieve. There is a significant amount of work to be done in that regard.

This has been a useful debate and important issues have been raised which require address. I am sure Deputy McGuinness would have wished for the Government to accept his Bill but, as I explained, there is duplication in the course recommended therein. I reiterate the Government's intention to pursue a reform agenda, the central tenets of which are value for money, transparency and accountability.

Moreover, such an agenda would ensure, particularly given the State's present finances, that no money goes astray but is spent wisely and that such expenditure is scrutinised at all levels of government.

See this speech in context