Written answers

Thursday, 8 March 2018

Department of Public Expenditure and Reform

Wards of Court

Photo of Clare DalyClare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

111. To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform further to Parliamentary Question No. 87 of 28 February 2018, the reason for the contradiction between his reply and the advice received by the Public Accounts Committee in 2001 when the Attorney General stated there was no obstacle to the Comptroller and Auditor General assuming this function (details supplied). [11686/18]

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not accept that the reply to Parliamentary Question No. 87 of 28 February 2018 and the advice received by the Public Accounts Committee in 2001 are in conflict. My reply of 28 February is that it is constitutionally impermissible to proceed with a PAC recommendation to legislate to give the Comptroller and Auditor General oversight in respect of wardship funds, which are not public funds. The context in 2001 was the contemplated audit of court funds by a bespoke statutory body with some mooted and unspecified, but seemingly indirect, involvement on the part of the Comptroller. There was and remains a constitutional concern regarding the direct involvement of the Comptroller and Auditor General in performing any such oversight function.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.