Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. It is very disappointing that the Government has not accepted this very worthwhile and timely legislation. I commend Deputy McGuinness for his work.

When the Government established the practice of having Friday sittings of the House the Taoiseach said that the Government does not have a monopoly of wisdom. However, it now seems that the Government has decided it has a monopoly of wisdom because it has refused every Bill put before the House at a Friday sitting. It makes me wonder what is the purpose of this exercise when Bills are not even allowed to progress to Committee Stage. The Minister of State states that the Government is committed to public sector reform and public sector financial reform. I ask what would be wrong with allowing this Bill progress to Committee Stage where it could be tweaked and in that way achieve part of the reform at an earlier date rather than going for it all in the one shot. The Government is being very short-sighted in this regard.

This Bill is a very useful legislation as more accountability is needed in the finances of local authorities and how the moneys are expended. There is a complete disconnect between councillors and the financial administration of local authorities in which councillors do not take an active role. It is very difficult to understand in detail the budget books and the system of accountancy. It is very difficult to discover where particular items are accounted for in budget books and to be able to scrutinise how money has been allocated. Councillors who ask questions at the budget meetings of local authorities in order to understand the details of the budget book soon realise that it will take a long time and that they will rarely receive a reasonable answer or get to the heart of their query, for instance, to find out how the council has budgeted for a particular item of work. This is why councillors are disconnected. In my view, the councillors are the opposition and the executive is the government. In many cases, the councillors are trying to get their own pet projects through and if they are successful in this respect they will not scrutinise other activities.

While the Local Government Audit Service produces the audited reports it is not provided with the desired assistance from local authorities and this leads to a situation whereby the executive can continue to do whatever it wishes as regards the finances of the local authority. It would be a welcome development if the Committee of Public Accounts were permitted to scrutinise the audit reports and if the Local Government Audit Service were to be absorbed into the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The service could still be based around the country and retain its local knowledge but with that extra level of external scrutiny, which would be very valuable. It is hoped this would do away with the practices as outlined by Deputy McGuinness in his contribution. More than €4.5 billion is spent annually by local authorities, therefore, this accountability needs to be in place.

I will cite a case with which I am very familiar, my own local authority, Donegal County Council. For seven years, the county manager engaged consultants to advise him on management change within the local authority. In fairness to the audit service, this expenditure was revealed in the 2009 audit but more than €2.3 million had been paid to two consultants, a total of €30,000 a month for seven years, for their work for Donegal County Council. This work was not tendered, was not shown anywhere in the accounts, was not in the budget. It was, in effect, a project of the county manager's. When this expenditure was revealed by the Local Government Audit Service, there was great reluctance on the part of the executive to deal with it. I was the only councillor who raised it on the floor of the council meeting. There was consternation that I had the audacity to raise the matter. Rather than justifying the expenditure or investigating how it was spent, the issue was personalised into a vendetta when this use of public moneys should have been questioned.

A small budget was allocated each year for organisational development but there was expenditure of hundreds of thousands of euro more each year. This was tweaked at a later date and sorted out. This kind of activity should not be allowed to continue and the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Committee of Public Accounts should be enabled to scrutinise such expenditure so that this could not happen in the future. There must be accountability, yet unfortunately, councillors cannot enforce it. The Local Government Audit Service can do its bit and provide reports but, unfortunately, councillors do not scrutinise them nor do they ask enough questions. There is no real debate within local authorities as to the proper expenditure of public moneys. This is where the system falls down. This Bill would go a long way to making the system more accountable. I am disappointed that the Government will not progress it to Committee Stage where it could have been amended as the Government sees fit.

See this speech in context