Brendan Ryan (Labour)

I again register my disagreement with section 20(5) which stipulates that when appearing before the Committee of Public Accounts, the chief executive "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". This is another of those standard clauses that is inserted in all Bills. It represents the most extraordinarily defensive position. The Minister spoke eloquently earlier about the need for an authority with a board that was immune from political pressure. He wanted people of talent and ability, presumably including the chief executive.

When appearing before the Committee of Public Accounts the chief executive may be asked why the authority spent money on X rather than on Y. The reason may be that the Minister used powers available to him or her to tell the authority to do so. However, the chief executive cannot tell the committee that. If he or she does so, he or she cannot say why or whether he or she agreed with the decision. If the Government makes the authority spend money in one direction rather that in another and the chief executive is asked whether he or she approved of the expenditure, he or she is bound by law to silence. He or she may not 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.

What in God's name are we doing? We are hamstringing the chief executive. We all know that Departments are not particularly fond of the Committee of Public Accounts. It is a very effective committee and by tradition or law it is chaired by an Opposition Deputy. It is a committee with considerable powers and is constitutionally based. We are effectively trying to stymie the effectiveness of the Committee of Public Accounts. It is of no concern to the Seanad as Senators are not members of the committee for obvious constitutional reasons.

The subsection is unnecessary. The CEOs of most State bodies are fairly diplomatic and do not need an injunction of this intensity to make them chose their words with care. I understand why Fianna Fáil backbenchers are disaffected, given that they must express their views on section 18 in the Seanad rather than at a parliamentary party meeting.