Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1967 > Committee of Public Accounts > Interim and Final Report - Appropriation Accounts 1966 - 1967

APPENDIX

Chairman,

Committee of Public Accounts.

As requested by you on 7 December, 1967, I am sending you these notes by way of advance intimation of the comments I would have proposed to make orally, in further evidence to the Committee at its next meeting, on the matters raised in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report on the Appropriation Accounts for 1966/67. In doing so I shall have regard to the statement made by the Comptroller and Auditor General to your Committee on 7 December and to Mr. Berry’s evidence on that occasion as Accounting Officer for the Justice Votes; and I shall also recall the salient points in my evidence to the Committee on 30 November 1967.

It seems to me desirable in the first place to try to clarify the issues involved as I think this would reduce considerably the scope for differences of view.

The phrase used by the Comptroller and Auditor General in paragraph 1 of his Report “I have, with the encouragement and support of the Committee of Public Accounts, extended the scope of my audit from examination of regularity into the field of administrative efficiency” is capable of being misunderstood. As I said in evidence on 30 November, this could be interpreted to mean that something entirely new was involved and this is apparently how Mr. Berry interpreted it. It would, I think, be more correct to say that the Comptroller and Auditor General is giving a greater emphasis to a function he has exercised for many years.

This function is that of seeing whether, in the implementation of policy, there is waste of public moneys for any reason. It has always been the view of the Department of Finance that the Comptroller and Auditor General should be facilitated in investigations designed to ensure that, in the carrying out of policy, there is no failure to get value for money, no waste or inadequate financial control. This important function of the Comptroller and Auditor General has the sanction of custom and good sense rather than of an express statutory provision. Indeed, as the Committee are aware, there is a rather narrow legislative definition of the scope and purpose of the activities of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Apart from his general constitutional and statutory function of controlling all disbursements and auditing all accounts of moneys administered by, or under the authority of the Oireachtas, he has, under the 1866 Act, the specified duty to “ascertain, first, whether the payments which the accounting department has charged to the grant are supported by vouchers or proofs of payments, and, second, whether the money expended has been applied to the purpose or purposes for which such grant was intended to provide.”

Once a policy decision has been taken, the Comptroller and Auditor General is concerned with economy in carrying it out. He is not concerned, however, with the validity of the grounds on which the decision is taken.

As an illustration of what I mean by policy, I might instance the recent Government decision to transfer from Dublin to other centres two Departments of State. The Comptroller and Auditor General is not concerned with the grounds for this decision. If Deputies wish to raise questions about the financial aspects of the decision itself (as distinct from its implementation) the Dáil is the place to do this and it is for the Government, and not the Accounting Officer, to answer any criticism of the decision.

There is possibly also some risk of misinterpretation of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s function in relation to administrative efficiency. I do not think he is concerned with the processes of examination and consultation by which a recommendation is arrived at or a decision taken on some course of action—for example, the processes by which senior officers of the Department might arrive at a recommendation to the Minister for Finance on the issue of a national loan on certain terms. The Comptroller and Auditor General has never to my knowledge claimed that he has any duty—and indeed I do not think he would consider his staff to be equipped—to examine questions of administrative efficiency in this sense. But he is authorised, by a combination of law and custom, to inquire whether a course of action has due authority, in the form of a decision by a Minister or a duly nominated officer, and whether there has been any waste of public money in the implementation of such a decision.

If the Comptroller and Auditor General is to carry out his most responsible duties effectively, he obviously must have access, when investigating expenditure, to all relevant documents and information. Section 28 of the 1866 Act declares that “the Comptroller and Auditor General shall have free access at all convenient times to the books of account and other documents relating to the accounts of such departments.” Mr. Berry has explained that his objection was not to the furnishing of documents and information relating to particular items of expenditure but to the release of official files containing discussion of policy. The point of difficulty that arises is whether the Comptroller and Auditor General has a right to see all official documents. Since the Comptroller and Auditor General is not concerned with policy decisions or how they are arrived at, such papers do not come within his purview and need not be produced to him. Indeed, where the subject matter was obviously policy formulation, it seems unlikely that the Comptroller and Auditor General would ask to see the papers. An official “file”, which is merely a collection of papers within one cover and has no legal status, may contain both papers relating solely to policy formulation and papers relevant to items of expenditure. It seems clear that wl at the Comptroller and Auditor General is entitled to see are all the papers relevant to the expenditure, and to ask for any information relating to such expenditure. This is a point on which the Attorney General has advised as follows:

“The authority given to the Committee of Public Accounts relates to examination of the Appropriation Accounts and consideration of alterations and improvements in the form of the Estimates. Queries or requirements of official papers by the Comptroller and Auditor General unrelated to those topics are not warranted by the terms of the Standing Order or the governing statutes.”

In view of the responsibility of the Comptroller and Auditor General in our system of government, it would be unfortunate if his access to official documents were to become strictly a matter of legal definition. It seems preferable to establish that it would be only in the most exceptional circumstances that he should be refused access to official documents, such as where they relate solely to the formulation of policy. As experience shows, difficulties on this point will very rarely occur. If they do, the recognised procedure is the one followed in this instance: report by the Comptroller and Auditor General to the Committee of Public Accounts, who will hear the Accounting Officer’s justification.

Not having the papers at my disposal I am not in a position to offer views on the specific cases mentioned by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his report.