John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)

However, it cannot be like this in respect of the public accounts. The Minister of State has heard examples today of other councillors' views as to what goes on. I am not critical of councillors and served as one for 25 years. In addition, my father spent 50 years before me and with me on that council and I shared 25 of those years with him. I am familiar with local government but rarely have seen a county manager being held to account. This is not because county councillors are unable to so do but because time and effort must go into it. This is similar to the time and effort I put into this Bill. I considered what the Opposition members of the Committee of Public Accounts and others in this House had to say about these issues. I listened to their frustration and sometimes their anger regarding questions that were avoided by Accounting Officers or in respect of how the latter would talk down the clock or submit promised replies either too late or which meant nothing to the issue in question, as a device to gain further time in the hope the issue would be forgotten about. This is what the Committee of Public Accounts is dealing with.

However, despite the non-acceptance of this Bill, I pledge to this House and to the members of the Committee of Public Accounts that I will continue to do my utmost with each Accounting Officer who comes before the committee to ensure that value for money is achieved and that the committee really does act as a watchdog for the taxpayer. I give that commitment. I also refer to the request by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, to talk again about it. I have spoken to the Accounting Officer from Deputy Howlin's Department and to Deputy Howlin himself. He knows my views on a wide range of issues and I am no longer interested in talking about it but am interested in action that must be taken. This is not for John McGuinness - I note my name is peppered through the contributions made today - as this is not about me. This is about governance and public accounts and Members are not doing their business properly by a long shot. I refer to the €5 billion that Members mentioned, which constitutes €5 billion of taxpayers' money that goes into public accounts, having been directly voted from this House, but which Members cannot follow. I reiterate the point that in 2007, some €5.5 billion went to local government. How many value for money audit reports were conducted on the collective expenditure of that amount of money? The answer is one. In 2008, some€5.7 billion was spent without any value for money audits being carried out. In 2009, some €5.25 billion was spent and a single value for money report was carried out. The Comptroller and Auditor General has stated repeatedly that office should at least be allowed to follow the money. For example, that office should be allowed to follow the €81 million spent on the Poolbeg project, about which the Committee of Public Accounts received no answers or clarifications. Out of concern for taxpayers' money and the effort made by the members of the committee, I asked the Accounting Officer in question to ensure she would ask the local government audit team to investigate the aforementioned €81 million and then to report to the Committee of Public Accounts. I was told she would be obliged to ask for such a report for herself in the first instance, after which it would be at her discretion to make it available to the Comptroller and Auditor General and thereafter to the Committee of Public Accounts. Where is accountability or democracy in this instance? Where is the interest in the citizen in this regard? It simply is not there and this constitutes business as usual, perhaps not for the Minister of State, but certainly for the civil servants and the Accounting Officers who I meet.

This can no longer be tolerated because there is too much waste and inefficiency. Both this Administration and its predecessor, in which my party participated and I do not make any distinction between them, have asked the hard-pressed taxpayer to pay more stealth taxes to support local government. Members simply refuse to consider the efficiency of expenditure within local government to ascertain whether savings could be achieved there first, before putting the boot in to those they represent. This no longer is good enough because one is told everyone must do more for less. I will sign up to that but I ask everyone within the service here to sign up to it because what is happening is appalling and no longer is acceptable.

I commend Deputy Eoghan Murphy on his contribution. He is one of the newer members on the Committee of Public Accounts who diligently goes through his work each week. He presents, out of his own sweat, his own approach to questions and his own analysis of the expenditure. He shows neither fear nor favour to those who he questions, because he is working in the interests of the taxpayer. His contribution this morning was accurate and non-party political. I suggested there should be a free vote in this House on this issue because it is not about politics but about the expenditure of taxpayers' money and about Members acting properly as watchdogs for the taxpayer. I urge Deputy Eoghan Murphy and the other newer and younger members of that committee not to be disappointed by the non-acceptance of this Bill. They should not be frustrated or angered by it because, as I wrote in my book of the same title, the House always wins. However, neither should they be put off by it and they should approach in a determined fashion the reform that is necessary in this House and on the aforementioned committee. They represent a new generation of politicians in this House. Deputy Murphy and the others represent an electorate that looks in on this House with cynicism and unless he continues the reform programme he outlined this morning, such cynicism simply will grow and Members will lose respect. Much of this weighs on the Deputy's shoulders but I believe he has the ability to make such a contribution and hope he will continue with this work. Deputy Eoghan Murphy is a member of the Fine Gael Party but that does not mean he is in a Fine Gael straitjacket. The party will benefit from his type of thinking, as will the system and the electorate. I commend him on his contribution to this debate and urge him to continue his participation in it.

The €3.6 billion fiasco was mentioned in the context of the audit of local government. Had the Comptroller and Auditor General had auditing powers in this area, that fiasco would not have occurred. The Department of Finance stated last October that it would undertake two reports in this regard, for which we are still waiting. The response of the Central Statistics Office on this matter, which was provided at no cost and was reasonable and accurate, would have been acceptable to the Committee of Public Accounts yet the Department of Finance is paying consultants to report on it. When will common sense be applied to the system, which is frustrating everybody?

As regards Friday sittings, I have been in the House on a couple of occasions during Friday sittings, in respect of which the Secretary General of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission, Mr. Kieran Coughlan, gave a report to the Committee of Public Accounts. A great deal of effort went into preparing this Bill, as did a great deal of consideration in terms of other Members. The reform being proposed by me and others like me is not about the here and now rather it is about preparing the way for a new style of politics and a new way of managing our affairs. If we do this, we will get people's respect.

I believe in debate in this House. I also believe that there should be a far more extensive use of Friday sittings. Seven Members spoke this morning on this Bill, which addresses an important issue for this country. As I understand it, the cost of a Friday sitting is €90,000. What an appalling waste of money. We need to ensure proper consideration of Bills during Friday sittings. With no fear from the Government side, this Bill could have been sent to a committee to be dealt with. It is not duplication. Much of what the Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan, said in her speech is the view of a senior civil servant. It was not a political answer but a glossing over of what is a serious problem in terms of our public accounts and our approach in this regard.

See this speech in context