Batt O'Keeffe (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Targaím:

Go n-ainmníonn Dáil Éireann An tUasal Seán Ó Buachalla chun a cheaptha ag an tUachtarán mar Ard-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann nominates Mr. John Buckley for appointment by the President to be the Comptroller and Auditor General.

As Deputies know, the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. John Purcell, is retiring with effect from 14 May 2008. While this motion is about his replacement, it is appropriate that I begin by expressing my appreciation of the services rendered by Mr. Purcell during his time as Comptroller and Auditor General.

Mr. Purcell has been in this important position for almost 14 years and in that time he has carried out his functions in a very professional and effective manner. As we all know, the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General is a constitutional one and is extremely important in terms of public accountability and the performance of the public service. While the essential functions of the office remain as set out in the Constitution, its operation has evolved significantly during Mr. Purcell's tenure in line with developments in the general practice of audit in recent years and with various changes to strengthen accountability in Departments and other State agencies.

The year before Mr. Purcell's appointment, the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993 enhanced the nature of the audit process by giving the Comptroller and Auditor General a new statutory role in relation to economy, efficiency and effectiveness, that is to say value for money, about which I will say more later.

Mr. Purcell has, therefore, had to lead his office through a period of extensive change, with additional demands and skill requirements on him and his staff. He has fulfilled that role in exemplary fashion and leaves a legacy of considerable achievement.

The Office of Comptroller and Auditor General was originally provided for under the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866. Article 33 of the Constitution sets down the responsibilities of the Comptroller and Auditor General in terms of his role as comptroller in controlling, on behalf of the State, all disbursements of moneys administered by or under the authority of the Oireachtas and in terms of his role as auditor in auditing the accounts of Departments and State bodies for regularity and accuracy. In accordance with the Constitution, the Comptroller and Auditor General is appointed by the President on the nomination of Dáil Éireann and reports to Dáil Éireann at stated periods as determined by law.

The Constitution also provides that the Comptroller and Auditor General shall not be removed from office except for stated misbehaviour or incapacity, and then only upon resolutions passed by the Dáil and Seanad calling for such removal. This underlines the independent status of this important office.

The terms and conditions of the Office of Comptroller and Auditor General are determined by law and the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General must be seen in relation to the very significant developments in the public sector since Mr. Purcell's appointment nearly 14 years ago.

As I mentioned, the Comptroller and Auditor General has a statutory mandate since 1993 in relation to economy, effectiveness and efficiency. This value for money function was an important new power given to the Comptroller and Auditor General providing him with the discretion to examine and report on the economy and efficiency of Departments and bodies, which are expected to have in place the necessary systems to evaluate the effectiveness of their operations. These systems are subject to examination by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

It is worth mentioning, however, that section 11 of the 1993 Act prohibits the Comptroller and Auditor General from questioning or expressing an opinion on the merits of policies or of policy objectives. The Act applies the same prohibition to Accounting Officers in the performance of their statutory duties. Both of these restrictions are reflected in the terms of reference of the Committee of Public Accounts.

All of this is in accordance with the long-standing tradition that, in policy matters, Ministers are answerable to this House. This also reflects the position in many other countries that the national auditor should not become involved in policy, which is the prerogative of the Government with accountability to Parliament.

Since Mr. Purcell's appointment as Comptroller and Auditor General, there have been considerable developments in public sector management systems, particularly in Departments. During that time our public services have been expanded, improved and reformed. There have been significant improvements in the areas of financial management, human resources management, regulatory reform, e-Government initiatives and customer service delivery.

However, we must also acknowledge that many more changes are both awaited and needed. This is why the Government asked the OECD to undertake a review of the Irish public service. The report of this review was published recently. It acknowledges the central role played by the public service in contributing to an economic success story that many OECD countries would like to emulate. It states we are on a sound trajectory of modernisation but that we could further improve the yield from reforms by renewing focus on their pace and sequencing in order to make them more mutually reinforcing. The review marks an important step in the ongoing modernisation of the public service.

The Taoiseach will, shortly, announce the appointment of a task force on public service reform to report to the Government with a comprehensive programme for action. There has also been a significant enhancement of governance arrangements in the public service in recent years. For example, in Departments and offices the recommendations of the report of the working group on the accountability of Secretaries General and Accounting Officers have been implemented. Internal audit services have been strengthened and audit committees with independent chairpersons have been established to support Accounting Officers in the discharge of their duties. There is now a greater emphasis on the formal identification, assessment and management of risk and on the effectiveness of the systems of internal financial control.

In the semi-State sector too, there have been moves to improve corporate governance in line with best practice in the private sector. The revised code of practice for the governance of State bodies, published in 2001, is now well established and is proving to be a sound basis for making progress towards better financial control and governance in State sponsored bodies within the Comptroller and Auditor General's audit remit. Accountability has been further strengthened with the addition of a requirement that Accounting Officers and chairpersons of State bodies submit statements of internal financial control annually with their financial statements.

An enhanced value for money framework has been put in place in recent years. The specific elements of the framework include the following: The implementation of rolling five year multi-annual capital envelopes for better management and control of public capital programmes and projects. The envelopes allow for the carryover of up to 10% of unspent Exchequer capital into the following year. They are designed to give Departments and agencies more certainty about the level of resources available to them in the medium term and more flexibility to plan and manage their capital programmes; the publication, in February 2005, of new guidelines for the appraisal and management of capital expenditure proposals in the public sector; the additional value for money measures relating to major capital projects, ICT projects and consultancies codified in a Department of Finance circular letter of 25 January 2006, in particular the appointment of project managers for all capital projects with responsibility for monitoring and managing project progress; the introduction of value for money and policy reviews, replacing the former expenditure review initiative; the establishment of the central expenditure evaluation unit in the Department of Finance to promote best practice in the evaluation and appraisal of programme and project expenditure; reforms to public procurement, including the introduction of the national public procurement policy framework for implementation by public bodies and, from 2007, reforms to public construction contracts and the system for employing construction-related consultants; and the presentation to Dáil select committees of annual output statements, together with the Estimates, which set out the public service outputs that are expected to be delivered for the year ahead with the financial resources, the inputs, that are being voted on.

These output statements were presented to the Dáil committees for the first time in 2007. The 2008 round of annual output statements, now being considered by the relevant committees, includes a report of performance against the previous year's objectives, as well as setting out new public service performance objectives for the year ahead. As the annual output statements become embedded, the focus will be on improving the quality and relevance of the output targets or performance indictors.

Taken together, these reforms mark a significant move towards best practice internationally, in terms of delivering high quality public services in an effective and efficient manner. They have helped improve the capacity of the public sector to ensure that public funds are put to good use.

As I mentioned, the Constitution provides that the Comptroller and Auditor General shall be appointed by the President on the nomination of Dáil Éireann. Members of the House, especially those who served on the Committee of Public Accounts, are aware of the responsibilities of the post. Having fully considered the matter, and following consultation with the Leaders of the Opposition parties, the Government recommends the nomination of Mr. John Buckley to succeed Mr. Purcell. Mr. Buckley is the Secretary of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General and director of audit. Currently, he directs the office's value for money audit function. He has many years service in the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General and I understand that his performance in his current senior position in that office is exemplary. Over his career to date he has worked in all divisions of the office. By profession, he is an accountant and a barrister.

The new Comptroller and Auditor General will take up his appointment during a period in which increasing attention has been paid to the value for money obtained from public funds. Value for money in all sectors of the economy is key to sustaining economic growth into the future. The Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General has a key role to play in this respect. I am satisfied that Mr. Buckley will make an excellent Comptroller and Auditor General. I recommend his nomination to the Dáil.

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I congratulate Deputy Batt O'Keeffe on his promotion to Minister and wish him well in his job. I am surprised, however, that he has been selected to come and respond to this debate on what is, as he outlined in his contribution, a debate not just about the appointment of Mr. John Buckley, which we commend, but about the procedures of financial control that operate in the House. I do not make this comment frivolously. This is an important debate and we should have a Minister who is in a position to make changes here to respond to the debate.

Batt O'Keeffe (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have been a constructive member of the Committee of Public Accounts for many years.

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is not in doubt. The point is the Minister represents a Government that should respond to some of the issues that are raised with regard to how we control our finances, but does not have a role in that regard. That role has been vested in a different Minister. I wish the Minister did have a role because I suspect he would give a more sympathetic hearing to some of the changes I would like to propose.

That said, I thank Mr. John Purcell, who is here tonight, for his outstanding contribution and for the quality of the reports he produced and their enormous value in forming the work of this House. The truth is, were it not for the beacon of light coming from the Committee of Public Accounts, and the Comptroller and Auditor General in particular, we would be stumbling around in the dark most of the time about what is happening in Departments with public moneys. It is a shame that is how it is.

We should reform and extend the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General so that it does not so much focus after the event on past failures and sob over the milk that has been spilled, but considers why Departments keep making the same mistakes. This week a report on procurement was issued. We had a similar report in 2005 when several other agencies had their knuckles rapped about procurement and another in 2002. This is a recurring theme, but Ministers who come in to respond to the debate on the reports do not change anything. We still have agencies under ministerial control that breach public procurement rules. Something has broken down in the system, but I do not believe the Minister for Education and Science will come in and be accountable for what is happening.

We need to examine the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General and recognise that system-wide failures arise time and again in its reports. The management of major change is one of them. We have not delivered in that regard. Recent major change projects include e-Government, the Ballymun regeneration project, the national revaluation of property by the Valuation Office and the integrated public transport ticketing project. We were to break through to something different to govern in a different way but in every case we have failed to deliver. The e-Government project was 50% off target. I cannot remember the result of the Ballymun regeneration project but it cost double the amount anticipated and was off target. The national revaluation project imploded after property in just one county was tested. We spent €10 million on the integrated ticketing project and have nothing to show for it. No Minister ever puts his or her hand above the rampart and admits something happened on his or her watch. Nobody is responsible. These are major changes of significant importance to Ireland in moving to anticipate the challenges in our becoming part of the knowledge economy, using electronics intelligently in the distribution of services to save money and so on, and we are failing dismally.

The list of failures could include decentralisation, the climate change strategy and the costing of new initiatives, especially political pet projects. Governments come into the House on budget day and bring forward proposals for which they have no solid costings. No Minister takes responsibility; the same mistakes are repeated and we do not learn. The costing of major capital projects is another problem. Invariably — not just in Ireland — those who promote capital projects have a very rosy view of what they will cost. They propose them to governments, get them to commit and afterwards the costs prove entirely different from those first anticipated. That is a recurring theme and we are doing nothing about it. Management and procurement of ICT projects is another area of chronic weakness. I am sorry the Minister, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, is not waiting to hear the end of the debate having said he would be in a position to respond. ICT projects are crucial. However, PPARS, the e-voting project and procurement in many agencies have gone adrift. This is a problem in other jurisdictions, not just in ours. Procurement flaws recur repeatedly.

There needs to be an extension of the Comptroller and Auditor General's role to examine the reasons these problems are continually repeated in other areas, assess whether there are problems in the corporate governance of Departments and agencies and examine the skills and experience lacking in many Departments to manage projects of this nature. That is crucial. Anybody examining the OECD report on why we have quadrupled public spending in many areas without delivering at the front line on the scale we would have expected needs answers to these questions. We have a service that provides a beacon of light, yet we do not learn from it. It is not informing the way we debate or spend public money.

The Oireachtas needs to completely reform how we spend our money. That goes to the heart of what this debate should be about. Our system of financial scrutiny is hopelessly outdated and has been made worse by changes in the last budget, whereby decisions on spending and taxes are made on one day out without a notion of scrutiny, there is a vote at the end of the debate and it is all over for the year. That is the most ludicrous way of spending money. No other parliament would tolerate it. There is no serious scrutiny of the Estimates, despite the absent Minister saying expenditure evaluation has been a key part of governance. That is not the case. The Public Service Management Act intended that we would have evaluation as part of a rolling three-year programme. As it stands, it will take approximately 50 years to have evaluation across the programmes that are supposed to be evaluated. The expenditure evaluation has melted down. More importantly, a high level report by the Secretaries General indicated that performance evaluation had no impact on subsequent budgetary decisions; therefore, even the little that is being done has no impact on how money is spent.

Ministers are opting out of their responsibilities to put proper strategy statements in place. It will surprise the Acting Chairman to know that when Deputy Bertie Ahern resigned as Taoiseach, eight of his Ministers had not produced any strategy statement. They were obliged to provide such statements within six months of taking office to give direction to their Departments and the agencies under them. Within 12 months, with new Ministers being appointed, eight of the 15 had not done so. How does one expect public servants to take seriously the strategy and direction of their agencies or Departments if the Minister who is supposed to give strategic direction is still sitting on his or her hands 12 months after being appointed?

Key performance indicators are totally underdeveloped. The Comptroller and Auditor General could provide a very valuable new service for the Oireachtas in examining the inadequacy of key performance indicators as they have been produced in the output statements which have come approximately nine years later than intended. The other major issue which has become more of a focus, particularly under the OECD, is that agencies have little or no scrutiny in and no accountability to this House. This outsourcing of government and managing of public spending as if scrutiny does not matter and the Oireachtas should not examine how money is spent is at the heart of the failure of public service reform. After a decade of great economic opportunity and Ministers talking about public service reform on the back of the 1997 Act we have had no such reform and the OECD tells us we are way off the mark and have become far too reliant on the fragmentation of government into numerous agencies. What is worse, not only are we fragmenting them, but we are imposing these totally inflexible controls on them in order that they can do nothing. We do not even get the advantage, that multiple agencies closer to the coalface have flexibility in responding to events. Their pay, grades and numbers are tied in. Everything is locked in through a highly centralised system from the Department of Finance. Once cannot have delegation and effective delivery of services at the front line with such absolute control. One must trust one's local managers, delegate responsibility and hold them accountable for their failures. This House should be much more systematically informed of the weaknesses in how we scrutinise money.

The Comptroller and Auditor General or his successor would not feel they have the right to tell the House we are failing in our duties to scrutinise public spending because they would not believe that is their remit. However, we are failing in our responsibilities in this House because the system does not allow it. The previous Committee of Public Accounts highlighted some of these deficiencies and talked about having an Estimates commissioner to help us in our work in order that we could become more professional, but that is the first and last we heard of it. In introducing the new Comptroller and Auditor General no mention has been made of a previous report from the committee which, no doubt, the Comptroller and Auditor General's expertise helped inform.

We must move into the 21st century in how we approach public spending. The notion that Departments can have pet projects, undertake cost-benefit analyses and not publish them is unacceptable. Cost-benefit analyses are to inform this House on whether we are making good decisions and should not be kept as the property of those who put them together. Allowing people to judge their own cases is a recipe for ineffective decision making. Evaluation should not allow people to be judges of their own cases.

Unfortunately, I am coming to the end of my time and I am whistling in the dark to some degree. I do not think there will be a response from the Government. I congratulate Mr. Buckley on his appointment. Although I am critical of the fact that the post was not advertised for open competition, I am not critical of Mr. Buckley's capability. I am sure he would have been selected. I know from colleagues that he is extremely capable and will bring enormous skills to bear on the job. Open competition is a matter of principle the OECD tells us we should apply. Governments have stated it is their approach to top level appointments and I do not understand why it was not done in this instance. However, that is not a criticism of the appointment made, which I am glad to endorse.

I wish Mr. Buckley well in his work. As I stated, he is the one beacon of light available to the House in informing us objectively how money is spent. I look forward to the day when his role is expanded and we will have a much more professional approach within the House to the way we do our important work. It is the fear of being caught out and held accountable that is driving Ministers' agendas. That culture filters right down through the system. Sadly, there have been numerous cases in which Ministers with their own pet projects bent all the rules and saw nothing untoward about it.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With the permission of the Chair, I wish to share my time with my colleague, Deputy Broughan.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is agreed.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

First, I congratulate Mr. John Purcell, the outgoing Comptroller and Auditor General, on his outstanding public service during his period in office. He has been an outstanding public servant. I know many of the people who have worked with him on his staff and he has been a leader in the development of public service auditing and reporting in a way that has marked him out as being among the best in Europe in seeking to use the position of Comptroller and Auditor General in the way intended in the Constitution as a further mechanism to ensure accountability in the way taxpayers' money which is hard earned before it is handed over to the taxman is used for the public good. During the time I served on the Committee of Public Accounts which was brief but extremely instructive Mr. Purcell always kept in view the taxpayer's entitlement to an account of how his or her money had been spent; to know whether, with due consideration and expert examination, it had been spent properly for the purposes set down by the Government and reported to the House, and whether value for money had been achieved.

Value for money reporting has been one of the most innovative developments that Mr. Purcell has undertaken. I hope this is something the new Comptroller and Auditor General will not only continue, but expand. I recall many outstanding reports which Mr. Purcell produced and published. For instance, the report on PPARS sought to set out what exactly had happened to this €150 million or €160 million project and how in the spending of this enormous sum of taxpayers' money the goal of the project was not achieved.

I am particularly conscious that Mr. Purcell produced many ground-breaking reports on tax collection and the efficiency of the Revenue Commissioners who operate at a high level. Nowadays there is roughly the same number of Revenue staff collecting vastly more taxes and through the use of computerisation, they have massively increased productivity and efficiency. By showing the extent to which certain very wealthy individuals in Irish society have the privilege not only of being wealthy through their own good fortune but through the tax laws of being in a position to make little or no contribution to the tax coffers, Mr. Purcell did the public an important service.

Mr. Purcell also commented on pet constituency projects of Ministers at different times when there was more money available than at present and they could be flaithiúlach. I recall, for instance, reports on the proposed Bertie bowl at Abbottstown in Dublin 15 and on spending on the upgrading of Punchestown, a pet project of the former Minister for Finance and now Commissioner, Mr. Charlie McCreevy. In fact, some of these projects, while laudable, could almost be constituted vanity projects on the part of Ministers who considered that once they had the money, they could throw it in any direction they liked.

I wish the incoming Comptroller and Auditor General well. He has worked with Mr. Purcell and will bring to the job much experience of auditing, public service management and the peculiarities of public service accounting, which is really an esoteric science that few, including Mr. Buckley, understand. Although the old saying, an auditor is a watchdog, not a bloodhound, is repeated endlessly, it is important because the watchdog has oversight powers. The bloodhound often goes after pennies and one does not learn much of modern management.

With the last budget, we have moved into a new era of public accounting in which we now receive output reports, many of which, to put it charitably, are deeply challenging in that they do not say anything about serious outputs. Rather they tend to confirm that Departments met all of the objectives they were set but they do not really tell us what happened and whether the money was well spent. This is a critical issue with which Mr. Buckley must grapple and he will be challenged to be as innovative as Mr. Purcell was on value for money audits.

On a technical point, under the Constitution this appointment is made by Dáil Éireann on the nomination of Government. I regret that there was no real consultation with Opposition party leaders and spokespersons on finance in filling this important position. There was a courtesy telephone call from the Taoiseach, Deputy Cowen, after the decision had been made. That is not good enough. That is not what the Constitution provides for in terms of consultation. I do not want to take in any way from Mr. Buckley's appointment because I know he will be a fine public servant in the established tradition, but it is important that the Opposition should be consulted. We are still not clear on the procedures for the appointment within the Civil Service. We do not know whether it is a promotional opportunity and a limited number of people can apply. We do not know if it is made under the new Civil Service regime under which appointments are meant to be the subject to a degree of open competition. We do not even know if there were other candidates for the job. In saying this I am not implying anything about Mr. Buckley, but querying the mechanisms under which the appointment was made. I do not think it is satisfactory that consultation with the other parties in the Dáil consists simply of a telephone call by the Taoiseach, Deputy Cowen, after the event.

I wish the new Comptroller and Auditor General well. As he probes the mysteries of Government accounting and explains it to the rest of us, I hope that he enjoys the job. I also hope that he is able to imbue the staff in his office with the same kind of spirit, teamwork and sheer service that the staff in that office have always offered to those of us who have been privileged to be members of the Committee of Public Accounts.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a great pleasure for me to mark the appointment of a new Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. John Buckley, and to wish him well with the administration of the national audit office and with the discharge of the key constitutional office that is the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I was honoured to be reappointed to the Committee of Public Accounts for the 30th Dáil following my service to the Committee of Public Accounts of the 27th Dáil. During my first period of service on the committee, Mr. John Purcell was appointed Comptroller and Auditor General. In the intervening 14 years, he has discharged the duties of this crucial office with great distinction and thorough professionalism. As I remarked last week at his last appearance with his audit team in front of the committee, he has been a role model for excellence in the public service.

Throughout the past 14 years he has launched a plethora of invigilatory innovations in the auditing area to ensure that the people's money was spent to the best possible effect. The Minister referred to the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993 and the famous three "e"s of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The long list of value for money reports produced in this era is a clear record of that achievement. However, Mr. Purcell's weekly statements to the committee on the annual reports and appropriation accounts have always been lucid and concise, and they forensically identified the key points of concern in the audit trails of countless expenditure programmes of the 41 Votes and Departments under the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General. He invariably raised vital issues under the spending headings and gently prodded committee members in the main direction of investigation.

To the public, he will be forever identified with the watershed DIRT inquiry when as Comptroller and Auditor General, ably assisted by my colleague, Deputy Rabbitte, and the other members of the Committee of Public Accounts of the 28th Dáil, he dissected and unravelled one of the greatest scandals in Ireland's taxation and commercial history. We all remember the famous hearings of that inquiry, when many members of the public listened on a minute by minute basis to the proceedings of the committee. The DIRT reports form a vital platform for the invigilation of taxation and tax evasion for the future in this country.

In the past number of weeks, committee members have witnessed the unfurling of another major scandal, which is the overspend of €70 million on the drainage infrastructure in Limerick. Mr. Purcell and his team did an exceptional job in unravelling and reporting a fiasco that occurred under the watch of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Accounting Officers are often placed on the spot in front of the committee for gross mistakes in expenditure when the political head of the Department should take responsibility, which in this case was the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey.

I wish Mr. Purcell and his family great happiness in whatever field or services he now enters. I hope that the removal of the immense public service burden of being Comptroller and Auditor General will allow him time for association football and for all his other interests.

I reiterate my warm welcome, on behalf of the Labour Party, to Mr. John Buckley as the new Comptroller and Auditor General. As the State has developed and grown through the Celtic tiger period, the necessity for very tight financial controls in expenditure becomes ever more important. There are so many elements of State expenditure where good forward planning, risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis are critical. These are the lessons which we have learned due to the invigilation of the outgoing Comptroller and Auditor General.

Deputy Bruton referred to the problem we have with Estimates. I recall a key recommendation from the report of the DIRT inquiry that we would have an independent official who would report to this House on Estimates in a timely way. Following the report of the DIRT inquiry, the then Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, responded to the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Committee of Public Accounts in a Department of Finance minute. The response indicated that we might have seen very fundamental reform of the Estimates by developing good cost-benefit analysis and by planning expenditure. Unfortunately, those hopes have been dashed over the past eight or nine years. Despite the outcome reports mentioned by the Minister, year after year we end up discussing Estimates many months into the spending of those Estimates. That is a completely ludicrous situation. The committee should return to the final report of the DIRT inquiry and see if we can get some development on the expenditure side.

There is a range of important issues to which we must constantly return at the Committee of Public Accounts. For example, last week I raised the issue of a new tranche of public private partnerships with the Minister for Transport. I questioned his current expenditure, and my questioning was based on financial concerns rather than ideological concerns. There are massive budgets in health and transport and we need very strict and determined audit practices.

I welcome the decision to hold the debate today, which I proposed at a recent Whips' meeting, given the importance of the Committee of Public Accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General in a parliamentary democracy. There are also interesting innovations in other states which we could examine in the future. In Australia, the public accounts committee itself must approve the appointment of an incoming comptroller and auditor general.

I wish Mr. Buckley well in the coming months and years. He has a hard act to follow, given that our outgoing Comptroller and Auditor General has served this nation very well. I salute him as a great public servant and a great Irishman.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the nomination by the Dáil of Mr. John Buckley to the important Office of Comptroller and Auditor General, as provided for by Article 33 of Bunreacht na h-Éireann.

I pay tribute to the work of Mr. John Purcell, the outgoing Comptroller and Auditor General, who has held this post for the past 14 years. He carried out his functions with professionalism and competence during the course of that period. During that time, Mr. Purcell has overseen very significant changes in auditing techniques, with a growing emphasis on technology and computer systems auditing. The workload and responsibilities of his office expanded significantly in that time and the office has responded well to these demands. The work of the Office of Comptroller and Auditor General should challenge all of us in public life to work towards the highest standards of financial probity among all public sector bodies.

I wish Mr. Buckley every success in his new post. He is well qualified for the position and has accrued a wealth of experience in his time working at the office. I know that he will have the full support of the Oireachtas in carrying out his important functions. The expenditure of public funds must be fully accountable and transparent in all respects. Value for money must be the cornerstone of all expenditure decisions. While the work of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General has become synonymous with ensuring value for money in recent times, the auditing and oversight role of the office is equally important. The office audits over 350 public bodies, with 142 non-commercial State bodies being the largest bloc. It carries out an enormous amount of work in auditing alone every year, not to mention value for money and special reports. My background is in auditing, accounting and finance and I appreciate the importance of examining and reporting on the books and records of an organisation but also the financial processes and systems used, which are constantly evolving. The auditing function can lead to real improvements to the financial administration of organisations by identifying system weaknesses and recommending improvements. Thereby, it can save money for the taxpayer if public sector bodies can implement improvements. It is essential that proper internal controls are designed and implemented. The Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General is placing particular emphasis on this, particularly in recent times.

In the private sector we have seen the growth of importance of internal controls, having checks and balances so that deficiencies are identified prior to the annual statutory audit. Departments and public sector bodies are now operating in an environment where compliance is increasingly important. The requirements for proper risk assessment, compliance with modern corporate governance and legislative requirements are placing a serious onus on all budget holders and Accounting Officers in the public and private sectors.

Public bodies should not view scrutiny by the Comptroller and Auditor General as a burden but as an opportunity to improve the way they do business. They may identify steps that result in improvements in service efficiency and financial administration. The work of the Comptroller and Auditor General should not be seen as a bulwark of bureaucracy and procedure for the sake of it. The public service should not be bogged down in form filling and requisition reports and lose sight of the real role it has, serving Irish citizens. Embracing the spirit of the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General means that those benefits can be tangible and can deliver real improvement to the people.

Value for money is at the centre of the work of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, particularly in recent times. Some of the speakers on this motion have alluded to the significant reports on that area. It is essential that all public sector bodies ensure that value for money is the number one priority. I welcome the value for money and policy review initiative of the Department of Finance. Some 92 reports were completed in 2006-08 and by the end of 2008 a number of significant additional reports will be completed on mental health services, the efficiency of long-stay residential care for adults, special needs assistants and grants to first and second level schools. This work will be undertaken under the value for money and policy review initiative, which underlines the value of the work done under this initiative.

The Department of Finance has established the central expenditure evaluation unit, which will carry out important work on expenditure on a range of projects. I recognise the important role of the Committee of Public Accounts in liaising with the Comptroller and Auditor General in scrutinising his reports, along with the value for money reports and the special reports. He has completed important work on a number of special reports and one recent report, Special Report 10: General Matters arising on Audits — Non-Commercial State Sponsored Bodies, Health Sector Bodies, Vocational Education Committees, is an example of the importance of the work of the office. The Comptroller and Auditor General was critical of the fact that expenditure of some public bodies was done without the necessary agreement of the relevant funding Department. This is a fundamental issue, picked up on by the Comptroller and Auditor General in the report, which also identified shortcomings regarding procurement, governance and financial management. The Comptroller and Auditor General has done us great service by identifying these issues but it is important that the recommendations are embraced and changes implemented to improve the efficiency of the way they do business and provide services to the public within a financial framework that is efficient and ensures value for money.

In the private sector, where an external auditor issues a management letter to a company arising from an interim or final audit, one of the first things the auditor will do when he goes back the next year is to check that the recommendations have been acted upon. I hope a similar approach will be adopted in a rigid manner by the public sector.

I am pleased that the new Taoiseach, Deputy Cowen, identified public sector reform as a priority for his Government. I welcome the publication of the OECD report on the public service, commissioned by the Government. I believe it will implement the recommendations arising from it. The Taoiseach will appoint a task force on public service reform shortly. This was an important step in moving to an era where value for money is at the centre of all public expenditure decisions.

I wish Mr. John Buckley every success in his new role and I look forward to interacting with him as a public representative.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I commend Mr. John Purcell on his fantastic work over the past 14 years. Like Deputy Michael McGrath, I am an accountant but I am not a member of the Committee of Public Accounts. Looking around the Chamber, all I see are accountants.

All the reports I have read since I came into the Dáil last year have a common theme. The PPARS report was before my time but the e-Government report is an example. The key theme is the lack of financial planning on major projects and lack of expertise in major reports. The most recent report, Special Report 10: General Matters arising on Audits — Non-Commercial State Sponsored Bodies, Health Sector Bodies, Vocational Education Committees, is a summation of the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General over many years. He identified the key issues, which were very straightforward in terms of value for money. This included money drawn down by Departments that will not be spent for months and left on the balance sheet at the end of the year. This is bad use of the public purse. We must examine reform. Government bodies and Departments are drawing down funding at the end of the year to ensure the budget will be retained the following year. It is bad value for money. The Comptroller and Auditor General in his 2006 report, and Deputy Broughan earlier in this debate, referred to the Estimates and the lack of opportunity for interaction with Deputies before they are voted on.

We must have procedures whereby the Comptroller and Auditor General has greater powers at an earlier stage. I wish Mr. John Buckley well and hope the role will be extended so that the Comptroller and Auditor General has an input in major projects early on and there is a level of control.

Under the 1993 Act, the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General was extended to include value for money, which is critical. We are in a period where the economy is in slowdown and the spending of money must be adjudicated in a tighter fashion. The Comptroller and Auditor General has a worthwhile role to play in terms of his expertise in regard to the systems within Departments and Government bodies. Deputy Michael McGrath spoke about management letters which is, in layman's terms, the identification by an auditor of difficulties in internal controls and instructions to management by letter to act upon them. This is effectively what happens by way of the annual report. However, all of this work is pointless if no action is taken.

The 2006 annual report highlighted poor and substandard accounting systems within the HSE. I read the report when published and raised this matter in the House at the time. While this problem was corroborated by the Accounting Officer from the Department Finance, it took the Government more than six months to respond to it. The Taoiseach and former Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, has now instigated a review of the accounting systems within the HSE. It is critical action is taken to address this problem.

The Estimates are based on 55,000 house completions. Every analysis available states they should be based on 30,000 to 35,000 completions, leaving a €2 billion shortfall. What we need is a proper Estimates process, a proper debate in this House and proper scrutiny of ongoing projects by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Important points were made earlier in regard to large-scale projects such as the e-Government project. Approximately €420 million was spent on such projects, many of which ran over time and budget. Some €35 million was spent on the development of a website which allowed public access to information on Government services. However, the site is not functioning properly and this should have been picked up on earlier. It is important the Comptroller and Auditor General is called in earlier to scrutinise projects above a certain threshold, for example, in the form of an interim audit, to ensure we are obtaining value for money.

Mr. John Purcell took the role of Comptroller and Auditor General to another level. He examined issues in an in-depth and forensic fashion. One does not need to be an accountant to understand the 2006 annual report; anyone can read it, which is important. We should ensure reports continue to be produced this way. I wish Mr. Purcell and his family well on his retirement. I also congratulate Mr. John Buckley on his appointment. I am sure we will have some dealings with him in the future. I believe the task ahead of him is an onerous one.

The Taoiseach must remain committed to public sector reform. Government Deputies mentioned earlier he is instigating public sector reform. However, this issue was repeatedly highlighted by the Comptroller and Auditor General's in his annual reports down through the years. We need to extend the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General to include the introduction of an early warning system which will allow us to identify potential problems and to take the appropriate corrective action before valuable taxpayers' money has been wasted.

The Taoiseach needs to give to the Comptroller and Auditor General the power to drive improvements in governance and management systems in State bodies before disasters occur and he should ensure State agencies and public bodies are more accountable to the Oireachtas. That is critical. Former Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, confirmed at a meeting of the Committee on Finance and the Public Service many of the points made in regard to large-scale projects. In many cases, large projects within Government Departments are dealt with by people involved in ongoing tasks. We need to set up specific teams that can do this work Department by Department. On e-Government, a strong argument has been made for the appointment of a specific team to deal with this work to ensure consistency.

I strongly favour a move towards multi-annual budgeting. We are all aware of Departments seeking to spend money at the end of the year purely to ensure they utilise their budgets. This is a false economy and poor value for money for the Exchequer. In summary, we must ensure we have proper public sector reform and that the Comptroller and Auditor General is involved in that reform at the initial and final stages. Also, we must move towards multi-annual budgeting.

I take this opportunity to congratulate Deputy Martin Mansergh on his appointment as Minister of State at the Departments of Finance, with special responsibility for the Office of Public Works, and Arts, Sport and Tourism, with special responsibility for the arts, and to wish my colleague, Deputy Peter Power from Limerick East, all the best on his appointment as Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, with special responsibility for overseas development.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. I take the opportunity to congratulate Deputy Martin Mansergh on his new appointment. I have no doubt he will do an excellent job as he has done in the past.

I note a number of accountants have spoken on the motion this evening. I thought this House was overrun by teachers and barristers. I am delighted to note we have a number of accountants also, more than we had in the previous Dáil.

As a member of the Committee of Public Accounts I have had a particular insight into the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I take this opportunity to wish Mr. John Purcell well in his retirement. He leaves with plenty of life and jizz in him yet. I know he will have many other things to do with the time spent previously in the office. I also wish his successor, Mr. John Buckley, every success in his new and difficult role.

I am sure when Mr. Purcell compares the amounts of money he audited 14 years ago to those being audited now he will admit there has been a quantum leap in the scale of responsibilities and economic activity in all Departments. One cannot simply apply the same old methods when the scale of activity changes to this extent.

The role of the Comptroller and Auditor General is important in any democracy. It is important this is set out in the Constitution and that there is all-party agreement in respect of that role. The Comptroller and Auditor General must not only be independent of Government but of the Dáil in every situation.

I wish to be associated with the praise expressed to Mr. John Purcell for his work as Comptroller and Auditor General. However, we would be a little dishonest if we did not admit to regular mutterings in respect of his lambasting of the Government, Ministers and Accounting Officers.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That depends on which side of the House one is sitting.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I believe such mutterings serve as a compliment to Mr. Purcell. I prefer that we have an auditor who puts people to the pin of their collar rather than one who produces a clean report year on year. I am sure many a Government Minister was embarrassed by his reports and this is as it should be. Many Accounting Officers would have preferred if certain reports had not seen the light of day, which is also as it should be. Without that little bit of edge between the Comptroller and Auditor General and Accounting Officers, things would become too cosy. I say this by way of a compliment, not a criticism. It would be false to state everybody was always delighted with every report. Reports would not serve much purpose if this was the way because they would end up on a shelf and not be dissected in the way they have been in the past. Long may it continue that upset is caused by the publication of various reports.

The reports published are annual reports with special reports on value for money audits being produced on an intermittent basis. They have become more frequent in recent years, as, perhaps, has the need for them. During my membership of the Committee of Public Accounts I have noticed many themes, one of which is the lack of consistency with regard to information technology programmes in various Departments where the final figure is often three times the initial estimate.

Another issue highlighted by the Comptroller and Auditor General is the accusation or implication of overspending on infrastructural projects. While this was the case in many projects, I am equally adamant there was a significant degree of underbudgeting initially. I always believe there are two sides to a story. If people gave a realistic cost, the Minister of Finance might tell the relevant Minister a project was not feasible. I sincerely believe people submit what is termed in the construction industry a "PC sum" for the building of a railway line, motorway or hospital. By this I mean they submit a figure which seems reasonable in the full knowledge that it is only the starting point. This often added to tension. I hope it has led to better contracts being drawn up because as a result of the examination of these issues, new construction contracts have been approved by the Government. They reflect the risk being transferred to the private sector as opposed to being carried by the taxpayer. That is how it should be because if it is going to make profits, it should accept some of the risk.

Policy issues are outside the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General. However, his reports highlight matters which must be dealt with. This includes the fundamental lack of commercial ability within the public service. It is not the role of civil servants to be commercial managers. They are ordinary people recruited into the Civil Service. They work their way up the line and find themselves in a position where they negotiate multi-million euro contracts with people involved in the private sector whose day-to-day jobs are in the commercial world. Sometimes, it is like sharks and pinkeens competing with each other. Some Departments do very good jobs and it would be useful for this to be highlighted in special reports in order that others can learn from them. We all hear about the difficulties but there are also good stories from which people should also learn.

We have had a great deal of discussion on the quality of the annual reports which are extremely readable. I agree. However, I have always stated I would prefer to see more graphs and charts included in the reports. I subscribe to the theory that one picture states more than 1,000 words. A Sunday newspaper in publishing the results of an opinion poll could have column after column explaining the changes in percentages. However, a chart or graph would show the changes immediately. People are now far more used to looking at charts than they used to be. They would find they absorb the detail of the report quicker through graphs. While the reports are readable, those of us on the Committee of Public Accounts and some members of the public do not have as much time as we should to read them. Graphs would give us a greater grasp of the information provided.

I will always remember the PPARS issue which arose when the Health Service Executive went to computerise the payroll system and other human resource facilities. It had 2,700 payroll items. Various hospitals had different regimes for nurses, split shifts, bank holidays and systems under which there was time off to go to mass on holy days. Amazing things happened. Due to a lack of commercial expertise in the public service, the HSE tried to sort out this managerial mess without changes and we ended up with a computerised mess. The project did not proceed as far as it should have. The lesson learned is that we need to streamline systems before we computerise them.

I would like to see more training for Accounting Officers, a number of whom are excellent Secretaries General but they are not all excellent Accounting Officers. I do not know what training is provided in this regard. As it is an important aspect of their work, I would like to see further training provided for them.

An issue continually highlighted at the Committee of Public Accounts is that people who make decisions are no longer around to answer when a report is published. They are promoted, move to another Department or retire. My straightforward view is that if they are still employed in the public service, they should be brought back to answer for decisions they took previously.

Everything I state to Mr. Purcell is in good spirit and he will understand my teasing him a little when I state not everybody was happy with everything. He knows this. I hope I will be able to state the same if I have been re-elected by the people of Laois-Offaly when Mr. Buckley retires. I hope there will be an edge to his reports because it is important that everybody in a democracy, in maintaining checks and balances, has someone to keep an eye on them.

Seymour Crawford (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter. It is my first duty to congratulate Deputy Mansergh on his appointment as Minister of State. I wish him well in his new portfolio. He played a major role in Northern Ireland, working with many Taoisigh. Living in a Border area, I appreciate more than most where we started from and where we are now. Deputy Mansergh deserves the promotion he received.

I pay tribute to Mr. John Purcell who was Comptroller and Auditor General for many years. The Committee of Public Accounts has done a tremendous job under his guidance and with his involvement. He has done a tremendous job in highlighting some of the difficulties in the financial area and how various structures are run.

I welcome Mr. John Buckley whom I do not know. If it comes back to haunt me in years to come, I do not want to be blamed for his appointment. I wish him well. He has a major job to do. The amount of money involved is absolutely colossal. The health budget is €16 billion, which creates many opportunities for saving and wasting money.

I want to use my time to speak about spending. As I see it, in some areas there is no control over how money is spent. We can examine the Punchestown project as an example. I sat on committees with the former Deputy, Alan Dukes. At the time we were advised by a Minister on how useful the project would be but we were not given all of the facts. The Comptroller and Auditor General highlighted the absolute abuse and waste of money during that project.

The Dublin Port tunnel is a great job but the final cost compared with the initial estimate was vastly different. It is difficult to understand how somebody can be refused home help for half an hour because money is scarce but millions can be overspent on such a project. It is extraordinary that while everybody accepts significant moneys were wasted on the project, nobody was held responsible and nobody's head rolled. A private business would not last very long if that was the practice.

The Comptroller and Auditor General highlighted many issues in the past and, unfortunately, will have no problem finding issues in the future. The other problem with the Dublin Port tunnel is that it is not designed for oversized lorries that carry lightweight product. A company near my home transports plastic containers and the only way to make a trip worthwhile is to extend the lorry and pile the containers high. The tonnage is extremely light but the economic necessity means the containers must be piled high. However, these oversized lorries were not catered for in the design of the tunnel, which is crazy.

Local improvement schemes are a fantastic means of helping those living in isolated areas to have their lanes tarred and brought up to scratch. Last year the money was not allocated until late in the year and my county council, for example, decided to proceed with various works because it believed the money would be available. However, the money did not arrive and the council is being held responsible. This is crazy because money should be allocated reasonably early in the year in order that it can be spent in a responsible way rather than rushing to find ways and means to use it in the final days of the year. Lessons should be learned from this. This issue should not arise every year.

I refer to health issues and Monaghan General Hospital. In his opening address to the Dáil the new Taoiseach said individuals should not get hung up on issues such as county hospitals and that we should grow up and not be naive. I will outline the history of what has happened at Monaghan General Hospital. A new operating theatre was built but it is only in use for a few hours five days a week. A ward was completely refurbished before it was closed two years later and the beds put into storage. A CAT scanner intended for the hospital is in storage. A sum of €5 million was spent refurbishing two wards and €1.5 million on a treatment room for accidents and emergencies. These will all be wound down or closed in the immediate future. The newly appointed Comptroller and Auditor General will have to investigate these allocations but they are only a few examples of the misuse of taxpayer's money. These hospitals can provide a proper service which should continue but that will not be permitted.

I am frightened about how little is learned from the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Mistakes are made and highlighted. The late Deputy, Jim Mitchell, Deputy Noonan and other Chairmen of the Committee of Public Accounts have dealt with reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General but Departments have not learned. As the previous speaker said, people move into positions in various Departments without appropriate accountancy or other skills and do not understand how things should be done. However, no body will be shown by the new Comptroller and Auditor General to have wasted more money than the Department of Health and Children with the support of the HSE. The previous Comptroller and Auditor General reported that a computer system was supposed to be implemented by the Department to make the health service work. A total of €150 million was spent on it before it was dropped. The money was totally wasted.

Significant moneys have been allocated to the Department under the current Minister but cutbacks are being introduced in every area where it hurts, including services for the elderly, the disabled and others who need support. I came across a case recently of a man living in sheltered accommodation. The HSE sent an official who spent hours with him asking 100 questions to establish his need. He was in receipt of home help for one hour five days a weeks at the time. Following this discussion, this was cut to one hour a week. A few weeks later the man fell and spent three weeks in the local hospital. He has since spent a further two weeks in another hospital. This is the type of management we have in the HSE. I do not envy the Comptroller and Auditor General in his new role as he tries to evaluate the abuse and lack of effort on the part of the HSE to use the massive sum available to it.

I refer to the e-voting system which the House was informed would be the be all and end all. A sum of €55 million was wasted and the machines are lying in storage, yet they cost the taxpayer money every week and there is no prospect of them being used in the short or medium term. This happened because appropriate research was not carried out on the system and there was no cross-party agreement. Eventually, this was proved by an independent committee. The money could have been well spent in dealing with issues I have raised frequently in the House. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I congratulate the Minister of State on his appointment. As there are no other speakers, I call on him to reply.

Martin Mansergh (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Acting Chairman. I also thank Members for their kind remarks and contributing to the debate. Every Member paid tribute to the outgoing Comptroller and Auditor General and spoke highly of him. I would like to be associated with their remarks in paying tribute to Mr. Purcell who has played a defining role. The Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General has an outstanding reputation for the quality and rigour of its work. As a former civil servant, I know that Departments will go to some lengths to avoid attracting its attention.

As Deputies are aware, the effective and efficient management of resources by Departments and agencies, including greater accountability to the Oireachtas and the people for what is being achieved with public money, must be a priority for the Government, not least in the challenging financial conditions we now entering. There is always scope to do better and achieve more efficient use of public resources. There is no doubt that the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General performs an important public service as part of a system of accountability. It is needful to achieve the most efficient use of public resources, particularly when they have expanded, one might almost say exponentially, in the past ten years or so.

A number of points were raised in the debate with which I will deal briefly. As regards the need for a greater link between performance indicators, on the one hand, and the Estimates allocations, on the other, this issue has been raised by the OECD in its recent review of the public service, which I look forward to studying more closely. This will be a priority in the ongoing process of budgetary and Estimates reform, building upon the significant advances and reforms of recent years, as the OECD has recognised.

The new annual output statements represent a major shift in the direction of focusing on performance in delivering public service outputs; traditionally the emphasis was solely on financial inputs. It is a matter for the relevant select committees of the Dáil to avail of these output statements to the fullest degree when considering the annual Estimates. I note that the role of the select committees in considering the annual output statements has now been written into their orders of reference. While it is valid to point to performance as a key consideration in assessing how the public service does its business, we should recognise that significant progress has been made in this area and that the building blocks are in place to allow for continued progress on this front into the future.

A multi-annual capital investment framework was introduced in budget 2004 which allows a carryover of expenditure, not what was referred to as hurried, wasteful expenditure to keep up budgets. The issue of multi-annual budgets for current spending is being kept under review within the Department of Finance. Recent years have seen some far-reaching reforms. The fundamental issue is whether these reforms should be allowed to bed in and develop further or whether there are advantages to be gained in introducing further more radical measures.

Deputy O'Donnell raised the question of more transparent accountability systems. We should work towards more transparent accountancy systems throughout the public sector, including and, perhaps, especially in the HSE and local government. One should not have accountability systems which only experts in particularly arcane forms of accountancy are able to follow or critically judge.

Deputy Fleming spoke about the lack of sufficient commercial expertise within the public sector. This can lead to the spending of vast sums on consultancies. This is a problem that needs to be addressed. I sometimes wonder whether one of the problems with the PPARS project, as with many computer projects not just here but in other countries, was that people piled wish lists onto a public project that were more than it could bear.

I agree with Deputy Crawford on the value of the local improvement schemes. The Government has implemented a comprehensive value for money framework for capital expenditure. Departments verify compliance by means of spot checks of a proportion of the capital spend each year. As an additional control, the evaluation unit in the Department of Finance may also carry out its own checks of a small sample of projects across Departments each year. To date the spot checks have encompassed projects in the Departments of Transport; Health and Children, including the HSE; the Environment, Heritage and Local Government; Enterprise, Trade and Employment; Education and Science; and Arts, Sport and Tourism. The comprehensive framework in place applies to all capital expenditure programmes, including the NDP. NDP expenditure is also subject to ongoing programme evaluation, including a mid-term review overseen by the central expenditure evaluation unit. Two such programme evaluations have commenced. One is an evaluation of local and community development programmes, while the other is an evaluation of the science, technology and innovation programme. The findings of all NDP programme evaluations will be published and submitted to the relevant Oireachtas select committees.

The value for money and policy reviews form an important part of a broader approach to move resource allocation away from a narrow focus on financial inputs to a broader consideration of performance and the delivery of outputs and outcomes. A total of 82 of the 91 reviews scheduled for the 2006-08 round of reviews have either been completed or are under way. Of these, 54 have been completed or are almost complete, with 37 fully completed. This represents significant progress, given that there are almost eight months remaining of the 30 during which the reviews were scheduled to be completed. The then Tánaiste and Minister for Finance introduced the requirement that reviews should be published and presented to the relevant select committee of the Oireachtas in order to facilitate greater engagement with the process by the Oireachtas and its select committees and to further enhance the impact of reviews. In this regard, he wrote to the Chairmen of the select committees in February to encourage them to ensure time was scheduled to consider the reviews in detail and, where appropriate, to discuss them and their conclusions and recommendations with relevant Departments.

As Members have mentioned, it is particularly important that the Comptroller and Auditor General is independent. In addition to supporting the Oireachtas in holding the Government to account, his office contributes to the public service through objective reporting, on the basis of which the Committee of Public Accounts can make recommendations to improve the management of public services. The constraint on the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General in commenting on Government policy is crucial to the independence of the office and the cycle of accountability for public moneys. While the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General may touch on issues the subject of public controversy, the independence of his office and accountability requirements demand that policy be the preserve of the Government and that the relationship between the Department of Finance and the Committee of Public Accounts be characterised by co-operation in accounting for the efficient use of public funds and the effectiveness of management systems in the public sector.

I wish Mr. Purcell a happy and active retirement. I also wish the incoming Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Buckley, every success.