Joe O'Toole (Independent)

That code of practice for the governance of State bodes has been issued to every State body. I presume no one is suggesting the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission is not a State body of some description. It is clear a distinction is being made between the role of the Accounting Officer and the board's general responsibilities. Let me give an example in regard to what the Minister of State has just said. If the audit committee makes certain recommendations, it makes them to the Secretary General and that is where it ends. The commission is the only body which can direct the Secretary General. If the audit committee needs something done, it is either done with the acceptance and goodwill of the Secretary General, or else it has to sit there until it reports in some way or another, which may be six or nine months later. This is not a sensible way to proceed.

Another crucial aspect is dealt with in section 10(11) which reads:

The committee's duties ... include advising on the following:

... (c) appropriateness, efficiency and effectiveness of the Commission's procedures relating to [public procurement, risk management, financial reporting, internal audit and internal controls, among other issues].

It advises on the commission's method of dealing with these but it advises the Secretary General, not the commission.

The Minister of State should put himself in the position. For example, a person is on a board; he or she has taken certain decisions and put arrangements in place. When somebody goes to examine, test and proof them, he or she will not come back to that person but to the Secretary General who is the chief executive. If the Minister of State was a member of the board of directors of any body, whether it is the local GAA club or a Department of State, he would know it was not a sensible way to proceed. Not having a direct line of reporting from the audit committee to the board on a regular basis weakens, softens and makes less sound what we are doing in this instance.

The Minister of State referred to the head of finance being on the audit committee. I am aware of that. However, while he seems to suggest this is covered in the legislation, it is not. The Bill includes a reference to financial functions, as the Minister of State said, but it does not necessarily refer to the head of finance, even though that is the person in place, which I completely applaud and which is appropriate.

When I became a member of the commission of the Houses, I was given a copy of the guide for board members of State bodies and told that this guide was what we were to follow. It states the chief executive and head of finance should attend meetings, although not as members of the audit committee. That came from the Minister of State's Department but the Department is now stating it is inappropriate. I cannot understand this. That is the advice on which people are relying.