Peter Power (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)

There are two points. We have discussed the distinction between reporting and advising. The point the Senator makes about reporting on an ongoing or regular basis is well made. The audit committee has the function to report on an annual basis but is not prevented from reporting on an interim or ad hoc basis as matters arise. As the Senator correctly asks, is there any point in advising the commission six or nine months after the event? The audit committee reports on the basis of all the information collated and it is up to the commission to act on its report, or otherwise, as the case may be. Under the Bill, it is envisaged this will be done on an annual basis but it does not prevent the audit committee from doing so beforehand. This empowers the commission.

With regard to the functions of the Secretary General, I draw Senator O'Toole's attention to section 10(11) which refers to the official who is accountable to the commission and externally to the Committee of Public Accounts for the performance, management and control functions. While the commission is somewhat of an exception to the departmental model in that it has a board and exercises policy level oversight in a manner that does not apply to Departments, the essential role and responsibilities of the chief civil servant and Accounting Officer remain vested in the Secretary General. For this reason, it is appropriate that the audit committee should continue to advise the Secretary General in the first instance and report to the commission in the second instance. I make the point to be helpful to the Senator. Reporting to the commission empowers it to act or not, as the case may be, on foot of the report. Advising the Secretary General is a completely different matter; empowering the Secretary General to attend all audit committee meetings would not be consistent with it.