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

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Céadaoin 13 Nollaig 1967

Wednesday 13th December 1967

The Committee met at 4 p.m.

Mr. E. F. Suttle (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), Mr. T. K. Whitaker and Mr. S. Murray (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

General Report

Mr. P. Berry called and examined.

221. Chairman.—We resume our consideration today of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General which read:

“1. As may be observed from my previous reports I have, with the encouragement and support of the Committee of Public Accounts, extended the scope of my audit from an examination of regularity into the field of administrative efficiency. This is in line with modern State audit as developed and practised in other countries. With the exception which I mention in the following paragraph, I have received the co-operation of Departments and State-sponsored agencies.

2. In the course of audit of votes accounted for by the Office of the Minister for Justice I asked the Accounting Officer for certain files which in my judgment were necessary for the completion of the audit. These, from evidence before me, appeared to relate to travelling expenses, the supply of medicines to Gardaí and an Organisation and Methods report on the payment of witnesses’ expenses in certain Court cases. The Accounting Officer suggested that my request be withdrawn because he saw objection, in principle, to making available any papers which might contain administrative directions or arguments of a policy character and matters of that kind. I have rejected that suggestion because it is quite plain that if Departments were allowed to withhold or delay information, on grounds of policy or interest, the whole purpose of State audit would be defeated.”

222. I have received a letter from you, Mr. Berry, in relation to a question that was put to you last week. Perhaps you would read the letter for the benefit of the members of the Committee.

Mr. Berry.—The text of the letter is: “Immediately before I left the meeting on 7th December I had been asked a question by a Committee member as to whether the Minister had indicated his attitude regarding disclosure of or making available these files. In reply I said that when sending my reply in July I was acting entirely on my own responsibility, that the decision was mine and mine alone. That was the correct answer. But when I saw the unrevised typescript later I noticed that the word ‘had’ in the question as I picked it up was given as ‘has’ and that my words, although in proper sequence, were not in their proper sentences. I immediately asked the Secretary of your Committee to bring the matter to notice as I felt that if the question had been put as ‘has’ relating to the present instead of to the past, it would call for a different answer.

It goes without saying that the ultimate authority in relation to the safe custody of official documents in the Department of Justice is the Minister for Justice. Accordingly, at the earliest opportunity—in mid-August— after I had already fulfilled my functions as Accounting Officer I brought the whole matter, in my administrative capacity, to the Minister’s notice and he expressed complete approval of the stand that I had taken in this regard. I had further discussions with the Minister in September and again in mid-November after the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report was published and on each occasion he approved in writing of my attitude.”

223. Chairman.—I think you have a general statement to make?

Mr. Berry.—Yes. I had not seen, until late yesterday evening, that portion of the typescript of the proceedings of the meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts held on 30th November, at which the Comptroller and Auditor General was invited to explain paragraph 1 of his published Report. He is reported as saying:

“It has been the traditional function of the Comptroller and Auditor General to investigate waste or extravagance and lately I have expanded on the interpretation of the word ‘waste’ to include administrative inefficiency and that would likely explain what I am talking about in the first paragraph.”

Following Mr. Suttle, the Secretary of the Department of Finance sought to show that Mr. Suttle did not really mean what he was saying in paragraph 1 of his Report about extending the scope of his audit into the field of administrative efficiency. Although the Comptroller and Auditor General had again said, a few moments before, that he was engaged in a new development Mr. Whitaker sought to show that what Mr. Suttle meant, or should have said, was that he was giving a greater emphasis to something that was traditional. With great respect, I suggest that what the Committee is concerned with here, is what the Comptroller and Auditor General himself said in his published Report, in his verbal explanation of 30th November and in the implications of his references in the first and fifth paragraphs* of the statement made by him on 7th December. In the first paragraph he feels a necessity, apparently, once again to name administrative efficiency in line 10 although he has already mentioned irregularity, waste, extravagance and cases of fraud in line 9. Evidently the expression means something to him, additional to the traditional causes of inquiry.

224. I am not concerned at all in this context with Mr. Whitaker’s interpretation of 30th November. If he were right, all I would say is that the facts have been a well-kept secret from the Department of Justice. What I am particularly concerned with is what the Comptroller and Auditor General thought in June and July, 1967, and what he expressed in mid-November in his published Report. It is quite clear from what he has published and said that his inquiry into administrative efficiency was, to him, a new development.

225. My reason for labouring this matter so much is that the Comptroller and Auditor General has sought to justify publicly his demands for Department of Justice and Police Headquarters files of an administrative and policy character, by saying that he requires them for the purpose of an audit into administrative efficiency. With all respect, I say that the Comptroller and Auditor General misconceives his position and that he has no authority, statutory or otherwise, to engage in an inquiry into administrative efficiency. I would not question his authority in this regard if he had not put me in the position of being forced to question his assumption that he has an entitlement, in pursuit of his new-found activities, to demand, as he has done, access “to any file whatsoever”.

226. This is a claim which cannot be conceded in so far as the Department of Justice is concerned. I am speaking with the full authority of my Minister. There are a great many papers in the Department of Justice of a policy and administrative character which are of a highly confidential nature: they may relate to the activities of subversive organisations, to extradition proceedings, to petition papers containing the confidential views of judges in relation to mitigation of court penalties, and so on. Every aspect of official life is in some way associated with an element of cost, some very remotely, but that fact of itself cannot be accepted as a reason for surrendering papers of a highly administrative and policy content to the scrutiny of the staff of the Audit Office. There is another way in which all relevant information can be procured by the Audit Office if they avail of it. The particular files requested in the months of April to July are not important in themselves but they are important as a symbol of principle.

227. There is no reason at all for demanding these omnibus Departmental files when the traditional form of request for information or explanations, i.e. the Audit Query, would have procured a full and satisfactory reply. Indeed, I would suggest that replies by the Accounting Officer to Audit Queries generally prove far more satisfactory to the Audit Office than their perusals of files. In all business, whether it is within Government Departments or outside, a great deal of it is carried on without the chores of staff writing to one another telling why this or that is being done. It is no part of the business of the Audit Office to assess administrative efficiency and they would be particularly unqualified to do so were they to make evaluations on the basis of files alone. It is certainly no business of the Audit Office to insist on getting an omnibus file containing an amorphous mass of papers which may reveal the reasons for policy and administrative decisions and the personal exchanges of views between different officers of different grades, all of which may have nothing whatsoever to do with the particular matter in which a particular auditor is interested at the particular time. The form of the requisitions in April and May, 1967, and the formal request of 8th June for omnibus files reveal an unfriendliness of approach that is difficult to understand.

228. As a sample, let us take the first request in the minute of 8th June. It asks, and I quote: “files A.2/21/31 and file 4/4/4, Travelling Expenses be made available for audit purposes.” These are the files in question. The first is a police headquarters file and the second is a departmental file, parts 1 and 2. But it was not until 7th December, at the meeting of the Public Accounts Committee, that the Comptroller and Auditor General gave an explanation as to why the files were required. The following is his note:

“The Garda Code indicates rates of travelling expenses for members of the Force. In the course of audit we came across a travelling claim which was revised to give a Superintendent a retrospective increase in his allowances. The reason was not apparent but the vouchers gave a reference to files A.2/21/31 and 4/4/4 which suggested that these files would contain an explanation for the adjustment. The files were first requested on 2nd December, 1966.”

If, instead of asking for the files the Audit Office had explained in an Audit Query, as the Comptroller and Auditor General has now explained as to what was required, a reply would have been given by the Accounting Officer in the following terms:

“Finance minute S.3/15/48 of 15th July, 1965, sanctioned the payment to the Superintendent, with effect from the date of appointment as Crime Investigation Officer, of locomotion allowance on the same basis as that which is payable to District Officers in the Dublin Metropolitan Area.

Finance minute S.3/15/48 of 18th January, 1966, sanctioned the payment of locomotion allowance to this Superintendent, with effect from the date of his appointment as Crime Investigation Officer, on the same basis as that which is payable to District Officers outside Dublin, i.e., on a lump sum, plus mileage rates.

Copies of both Finance sanctions are attached.

(Signed) Accounting Officer.”

229. Now, it is no business of the Audit Office to seek to know the reasons why the Garda Commissioner and the Department of Justice sought particular allowances for a Garda Officer engaged on crime investigation and the reasons why the Department of Finance gave the retrospective sanction. The Audit Office must be satisfied with the sanction and they have no right whatsoever to try to go behind the Finance sanction to look for the reasons. Explanations, equally satisfactory, could be given in reply to Audit Queries in relation to the other two matters mentioned. It is incomprehensible to me why the Audit Office should have persisted from April to July in their demand for Departmental files when they had an alternative, easy way of getting all the information and explanations that they required through the traditional method of the Audit Query.

230. At this stage I would refer you to Durrell on “The Principles and Practices of the System of Control over Parliamentary Grants”. This is a recognised authority in its field. It devotes 51 pages exclusively to the functions of the Public Accounts Committee, and no less than 85 pages to the functions of the Comptroller and Auditor General devoting, in the process, separate sections to (a) the Rights of the Accounting Departments, (b) the Point of View of the Comptroller and Auditor General and (c) the Power of the Comptroller and Auditor General to demand information. Throughout, Durrell speaks of the dangers of Audit Office non-statutory investigations being carried to an excess, to being “extended in such a manner as to interfere with administration itself”. He points out that “it is obvious that information that may be legitimately withheld from Parliament may be withheld from the Comptroller and Auditor General”. He goes on: “a plea of high state policy or secrecy would effectually bar him from further investigation”. Earlier, on page 224 in relation to The Power of the Comptroller and Auditor General to demand information, Durrell has this to say:

“He has statutory right of access to all documents relating to the accounts and is directed to immediately communicate to the Department his objections to any item therein. But apart from raising such objections to items which may appear prima facie to be improper his functions as an auditor obviously necessitate his asking for information in many other points. His observations are made in the form of audit notes, reference sheets, queries, or letters according to the relative importance of the point raised. It is incumbent on the Department to reply to these to the best of their ability.”

Again and again, Durrell emphasises that the non-statutory functions of the Comptroller and Auditor General must be carried out with tact and moderation and with an eye to a complete absence of friction.

231. It should not be necessary for me to point out that when the administration voluntarily submits to particular disciplines that fact alone should not be assumed by the Comptroller and Auditor General to give him a prescriptive right to inaugurate and enforce new procedures. If there is any question of radical change, the proper course is for the Comptroller and Auditor General to have the matter regularised and made known to those affected by changes in the law, or by Motion in the Dáil or in change of the Standing Orders. It is just not good enough that the Audit Office should behave in studied disregard of the rights and feelings of the administration.

232. In the statement by the Comptroller and Auditor General on 7th December he refers in the fourth paragraph to an opinion from the Attorney General’s Office. I would ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to look carefully at the relevant papers again. There was, as far as I can ascertain, no such opinion expressed. What happened was this. In 1955, on the initiative of the Comptroller and Auditor General, a Secretary of a Department asked the Attorney General for his opinion as to whether a semi-State board could be required to produce a file relating to a money transaction—a comparatively small money transaction—for transmission to the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Attorney General said that the answer was no. In presenting the request to the Attorney General, his office made a fairly lengthy submission—it was in no way a legal opinion—in the course of which reference was made to section 28 of the 1866 Act which provides for free access by the Comptroller and Auditor General to the books of accounts and other documents relating to the accounts; and, the submission went on to mention that if this request had been addressed by the Comptroller and Auditor General to the Secretary of a Department in relation to books or documents in his possession or procurement, it would seem that it would have come within the sense of section 28; and the submission supposed that no Accounting Officer could or would decline to accede to it; it went on: “Indeed, I cannot readily imagine that any Minister would allow his Accounting Officer to withhold information in his Department which was sought by the Comptroller and Auditor General in the course of his audit”.

233. The Comptroller and Auditor General has used the last sentence completely out of context. His action in coupling this sentence with his previous sentence in the fourth paragraph of his statement is misleading. His interpretation can in no way be equated to what was said in the submission which related solely to section 28. If he still persists, I suggest that he produce the relevant papers. If anything emerges from these papers of value in the present circumstances it is this: if statutory authority does not apply no authority exists for the examination of Departmental papers without the consent of those affected.

234. Apart from all this, which was introduced by the Comptroller and Auditor General on 7th December, I had already decided to seek confirmation of my views from the Attorney General. Accordingly, on 1st December, 1967, I asked the Attorney General for his advice. On 4th December he replied. Some of the matters raised were as follows.

235. First, I asked the Attorney General to state the law under which the Comptroller and Auditor General exercised his powers. He did so.

236. Secondly, I asked whether the Comptroller and Auditor General derived any legal authority “to extend the scope of his audit from examination of regularity into the field of administrative efficiency” from the fact that in doing so he had, as he states, “the encouragement and support of the Committee of Public Accounts”. The Attorney General’s answer was “no”.

237. Thirdly, I asked whether the Committee of Public Accounts had any legal standing other than as derived from Standing Order No. 127. I had noticed before this in the Report of the Committee of Public Accounts for 1964-65, published on 17th November, 1966—page vii, paragraph 3, sub-paragraph 2, the following statement: “Since the Committee was first set up over 40 years ago there has been no amendment to its terms of reference”. The Attorney General’s answer was to the effect that the authority of the Committee derives from Standing Order No. 127.

238. Fourthly, I asked had the Committee of Public Accounts any legal authority to send for persons or papers in relation to matters of public policy and/or administrative efficiency and, if so, what sanctions or other action may legally be taken by the Committee in relation to a person who declines to produce such papers.

239. Fifthly, I asked whether there is any legal obligation on Heads of Departments to surrender, for the scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor General and for possible report by the latter to the Committee of Public Accounts, official files in relation to policy or administrative decisions.

240. The following extracts are taken from the fairly lengthy opinion of the Attorney General in relation to queries four and five.

“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. It would not appear to be open to the Committee to impose any sanction on a person declining to produce papers for the production of which the Committee was not authorised to call...............

“There is no clear obligation on anyone to surrender official files for scrutiny. Section 28 of the 1866 Act and section 1 of the 1921 Act indicate that what the Comptroller and Auditor General is concerned with are books of account, vouchers and authority for payments. If these are on a file, the most convenient way may be to produce the entire file.............

“Papers or portions of them relating purely to policy or administration are not within the scope of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s inquiry and need not be produced to him.”

I have informed the Committee, here, of those portions of my minute of 1st December and of the Attorney General’s reply of 4th December which seem to me to be particularly relevant to the proceedings here to-day.

241. I have glanced at the book “The Accountability and Audit of Government” by Normanton from which the Comptroller and Auditor General quoted in his statement of 7th December. I find that it is a treatise on modern audit thinking and future audit development. It is not an account of the audit system as it has developed in this country. I shall confine myself to a couple of very short references from the book to show you its nature. On page XVII Normanton says:

“The book makes no claim to contribute to the knowledge of auditing as the word is conventionally and professionally understood; it aims rather to show that in modern circumstances the word has a totally new meaning.”

On page XIX he says:

“I acknowledge the benevolent attitude of my parent office in the home Civil Service, the Exchequer and Audit Department, which made this study possible through the grant and extension of sabbatical leave.”

—leave with pay for two years.

242. This is a book written by a member of the staff of the Exchequer and Audit Department in London. I am not decrying it in any way—it may be a very valuable study—but it itself says that it makes no claim to contribute to the knowledge of auditing. Indeed, it is quite apparent that the subject matter of the book bears no relationship at all to the audit questions raised at this meeting. If any Committee Member could find the time to read page 300 he would find it richly rewarding. For instance, it quotes a German paper submitted to the Brussels Congress of Supreme Audit Institutions in 1956 which specified what were, in its view, the Five Basic Freedoms required by a state audit department:

“1.Freedom from ‘Instructions’ (on how to conduct the audit)

2.Freedom from ‘Supervision’ (on staffing and administration matters, notably recruitment)

3.Freedom to submit the audit department’s own budget to Parliament (to prevent ‘cuts’ by the executive)

4.Freedom of access to all information and records required in connection with audit

5.Personal independence for members of the ‘college’ (even, professionally, against the head of the audit body).”

243. Earlier on page 300, Normanton describes the French paper at this Congress as “the proud concept of an elite body without subordination to anyone for the conduct of its duties”. This book was written by a civil servant in London in 1966, within the context of the new developments in his Exchequer and Audit Department occasioned by Standing Order No. 80 passed by the House of Commons on 2nd November, 1960, as an addition to Standing Order No. 79 which had been there with amendments since 1862. Is the kind of development mentioned in this book, which is quoted in another context by the Comptroller and Auditor General for his own purposes, to be the kind of development that our Comptroller and Auditor General aims at, when he claims in the second sentence of paragraph one of his published Report that he has been extending the scope of his audit into “line with modern State audit as developed and practised in other countries”?

244. The only other matter brought to notice by the Comptroller and Auditor General on 7th December which, it seems to me, cannot be let pass without comment was his reference in his seventh paragraph to the sense of responsibility of his staff and, in the final paragraph, his recitation of what happened in the United States of America in relation to the audit of the atomic bomb project, the inference being that if an audit could be carried out on the spot of the “most vital secret of all time”, there could be no reason why our Comptroller and Auditor General’s staff could not examine, “on the spot”, the Department of Justice papers no matter how secret or immediate or of a policy character.

245. No aspersion whatsoever has been cast by me, inferentially or otherwise, on the trustworthiness of the staff of the Audit Office but, having said that, I deny absolutely their right of seeing or the practicability of exposing to them all secret policy papers, some perhaps relating to immediate organised crime. There is no relationship whatsoever between the method of audit in the United States of America and the methods adopted here. In the time at my disposal I have made inquiries from a source, as close as I could get to a competent authority in this field—and I was assured that if a statement were made in the form of the final paragraph it could safely be assumed that it was an over-condensation or was taken out of context and was not correct. I was referred to the fact that it is public knowledge that Vice President Truman had to be given sudden briefing about the atomic bomb project when the death of the President was imminent. It was also represented to me that audits in any circumstances of such a kind are carried on by persons who have been screened thoroughly and classified and reclassified as non-security risks. Again, I was told that even when an audit had eventually taken place it would have been taken on the spot within security buildings. Finally I was told that the dangers of leaks in the atomic bomb project through audit would be non-existent as the auditors themselves would not have the remotest understanding of the nature of the processes about which they were examining costs. I think I need not say any more on this particular aspect except to suggest that our circumstances and the way in which our audits are carried out can have little or no relationship to the circumstances of audits in other countries which the Comptroller and Auditor General has sought to refer obliquely to in his own favour.

246. It is a matter of concern and regret to me that the Comptroller and Auditor General has sought to isolate me as the only person in all the Government Departments and State-sponsored agencies who refused co-operation. I never refused co-operation as, at all times, every explanation and item of information which could be supplied was and would be given by me. Even within the context of his own phrase in paragraph 1 of his Report, however, the Comptroller and Auditor General is, I suggest, being less than candid. Quite casually and by accident I have ascertained that the Attorney General’s Office and the Charity Commissioners’ Office have never been asked for files of an administrative character. In my view, the Comptroller and Auditor General is not justified in defining co-operation as a willingness to release policy and administrative files, and it may well be, for all I know, that my Department is the first in relation to which access to such files has been made a serious issue. Requisitions of this kind have been rare so far—in the Department of Justice four such were made in 1967 although hundreds of files relating to accounts proper were requisitioned and supplied.

247. Before making a few brief concluding remarks, I feel I must stress once more that these particular proceedings which are distressing to me and, perhaps, to the Comptroller and Auditor General might well have been avoided if the Comptroller and Auditor General had acted less precipitately. When I told him I saw objection in principle to giving him certain files, when I merely suggested that he should not press his request, surely it would have been reasonable to expect that the Comptroller and Auditor General would, instead of reporting the matter peremptorily to Dáil Eireann, have sought, either by writing or, better still in discussion, to remove my objections and to explain to me why he felt it necessary to press his request. The fact is that I suggested that a particular request should not be pressed. The Comptroller and Auditor General did nothing to co-operate with me to resolve the matter. Instead of simply reporting the fact and leaving the matter for consideration by your Committee, he has seen fit to pre-judge the issue by making a public charge of non-co-operation against me—a charge which is not justified by the facts and which leaves me with an acute feeling of personal grievance.

248. On the main issue I have shown that the innovation, which the Comptroller and Auditor General seeks to introduce, has broader implications than may perhaps have been appreciated by him. I have quoted the clear advice of the Attorney General that my attitude is firmly based on the existing legal and statutory provisions. I have referred to the manner in which a neighbouring Parliament has recently, by adopting a new Standing Order, extended the machinery for examining Estimates and reporting on how the policy implied in them may be carried out more economically. On the other hand, it will by now be clear to the Committee, from what I have said and also from Mr. Whitaker’s contribution, that the claim of the Comptroller and Auditor General to be concerned with administrative efficiency is, at best, ill-founded and misconceived.

249. Chairman.—Would Mr. Whitaker like to make any comment?

Mr. Whitaker.—It is not necessary for me, I think, to make any comment or to enlarge on what I have already sent to you*; but I am ready to answer any questions the Committee may put. I have not for this purpose read any books on accountancy, Normanton or any other, and I would hope the Committee would not consider them relevant.

250. Chairman.—Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—I have nothing further to add to what I have already stated. I have never asked for files which were not relevant to the accounts. Any files dealing with crime and that sort of thing would be of no interest to us. We deal purely with the accounts. I should explain that we do not look for files unless they relate to something in the accounts. In this instance we felt that the files we requisitioned related to expenditure in the year of account. There were some files which the auditor sought at that time and we felt we were justified in asking for them. On the question of the audit query, Mr. Berry’s interpretation is not correct. We only issue an audit query when we have full information and we want to bring the matter to the notice of the Accounting Officer before we report to Dáil Éireann. We gave him an opportunity of putting his views on paper before we reported. Actually in the year 1966-67 only two audit queries were issued to the Department of Justice. One related to fuel allowances with which we will be dealing later on and on which we got a reply from the Accounting Officer. The other audit query was looking for the files in question at the moment. In the year 1967 we issued only 55 audit queries, covering every Department of State. So, the normal method we have of obtaining information is to ask locally for files and examine them and send them back if there is no question to be raised. On the question of secrecy, away back in the early years of the State the Army Pensions Act provided for an assessment by a board of assessors of the service given by men during the 1916 to 1921 period. The board got complete details of the service of these men before judging what service they were entitled to under the Army Pensions Acts. At that time we looked for these files to verify the service awarded by the board and they were refused.

We felt we were justified in doing so as the production of papers was a fundamental business so far as the audit was concerned. We reported the matter to Dáil Éireann and we kept repeating that report year after year until in 1930 the Dáil passed legislation which laid down that the decision of the Board of Assessors in examining these army pensions cases was final and binding on everyone including the Comptroller and Auditor General. But it required legislation to do that. During the past 40 years we have never been refused any file by any Department. This is the first occasion on which we have been refused papers on any subject. There was nothing else we could do but report the matter as we have done. I have nothing further to add.

251. Chairman.—You have a further comment, Mr. Berry?

Mr. Berry.—I respectfully suggest there are several things. Mr. Suttle or his assistant or one of his staff could have rung up the Department of Justice or spoken to us. Surely we could have been offered that ordinary courtesy before going to the extreme of pillorying me in the public press and publishing a report which again and again is completely contrary to standard practice. Surely it is only in the last resort that that should happen. Never should the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report imply that there was anything wrong but there are implications after implications in paragraphs 1 and 2 that I was worthy of censure. If the Comptroller and Auditor General had presented an audit query or had asked in July last for this file about Garda locomotion expenses all the papers—every single paper is in that small file and this—an omnibus file—is what he asked for. He asked for Garda Police Headquarters files and Department of Justice files in a peremptory fashion. This included 4/4/4. All the papers are contained in that. There is nothing there which relates to the item we mentioned today. I have shown that the Audit Office have no business going behind a Finance sanction. Here are all the papers. There are all kinds of matters relating to policy, including confidential police reports from across the channel. Why should the Audit Office have a look in on this kind of thing? That is what I cannot understand—why in the year 1967 there should be such a bad relationship between the Audit Office and an office of administration. There is no necessity for it. Certainly this has not arisen on my side. It is simply absurd. A moment ago the Comptroller and Auditor General said he looked for the files first and the audit query afterwards. Certainly I can recollect offhand, at least two files on which I got an audit query and which I answered satisfactorily but no file left my office. Apart from that I am willing to suffer inconvenience and I am willing at any time to take an audit query. Why must the Audit Office create difficulties of principle for everyone when there is an alternative, easy method of getting the information they want? I just do not understand it. I have quoted chapter and verse and I have quoted the Attorney General’s own statement as to what was permissible to require. I have quoted the two Finance sanctions covering retrospection. I wonder will the Comptroller and Auditor General tell us now why he required information on top of the Finance sanction and has he any authority, statutory or otherwise, by custom or otherwise, to go behind a Finance sanction?

Mr. Suttle.—The vouchers submitted to us gave no indication that there was a Finance sanction or anything else. The only information provided to us was: “See file 4/4/4 and file so and so.” That was the only information they had.

Mr. Berry.—This is intended to be friendly. I am making a gesture. Why did not the Audit Office ring us up and say they wanted the papers relating to this minor matter? Immediately one of my office staff would have answered that they had two Finance sanctions on this.

252. Chairman.—It is not customary for an Accounting Officer to put questions. I want to ask would the provision of these files constitute a hazard to national security: (a) Garda travelling expenses; (b) supply of medicine for the Gárda; and (c) witnesses’ expenses? Would the provision of the file in any one of these cases constitute a hazard to our national security?

Mr. Berry.—I answered that question before you asked it by saying in advance that in themselves these files were not of any importance except as a symbol of principle. I already said that.

253. Chairman.—Is the Accounting Officer aware from his own experience of any breach of discretion at any time on the part of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s office?

Mr. Berry.—I have already answered that by saying that neither inferentially nor otherwise did I ever question the trustworthiness of the Audit Office.

254. Deputy Byrne.—Mr. Berry has brought the files with him. Is he now prepared to make them available to the Comptroller and Auditor General?

Mr. Berry.—I do not think the Committee member heard my opening statement.

Deputy Byrne.—I heard everything that was said here today.

Mr. Berry.—May I proceed?

Deputy Byrne.—Please do.

Mr. Berry.—I do not think the Committee member heard my opening statement where I said that having discharged my function as Accounting Officer in July I then as administrative head of the Department, informed my Minister and got his approval for my stand. The question of the custody of the papers is out of my hands now and is now in the hands of the Minister.

255. Deputy Byrne.—Thank you for your courteous reply. I should like to ask the Accounting Officer does he consider that these three files contain any matters of high State policy or secrecy?

Mr. Berry.—I feel estopped from giving any information in relation to these files once I have said they are in the custody of my Minister. It is for him to answer elsewhere, perhaps.

256. Deputy Briscoe.—In connection with accounting documents being placed on secret files, is it not a matter to be considered whether or not this is advisable—documents which are likely to be called for by the Comptroller and Auditor General?—But this is my precise point. There are no accountancy papers on the secret files but the Comptroller and Auditor General says he claims the right to get any file whatsoever.

257. Why on one of the vouchers did it say “See file such and such” which in fact turned out to be a secret file?—It is not a secret file. It is a file dealing with administrative matters because a file starts, say, in 1930, as this one did and the appropriate papers are put on the file. Down the years something happens—probably there is a murder or something: officers get a locomotion allowance—and it is built up as it goes on. In 1967, the Comptroller and Auditor General wanted apparently to see why a superintendent who is a crime investigation officer in Dublin got an allowance for a car and then they saw a little later that the allowance was made retrospective to the date of his appointment. Instead of saying to us: “We would like to know why this was done” or “was it done?”, what they did was to call for file 4/4/4, and a police headquarters file. If they had mentioned what the item was—all the papers are contained there—and if they had asked, they would have been told simply: “There are two Finance sanctions of such a date”, and that would have ended the matter; but they did not do that. Why they did not do it, I do not know.

258. In other words, the accounting documents are not on the secret file as such but in a separate file?—No; they are not. Again to come back—it is on the point of principle of the Comptroller and Auditor General saying he is asserting his right of access to any document whatsoever, whether it deals with the IRA, extradition—anything whatever— immediate murders or any such matters that we are in dispute. He is laying down the firm principle that he must see it whether it is policy, administration or anything else. This is something which cannot be conceded and I have the full authority of my Minister to say that.

259. Deputy Crowley.—There are two points as far as I see which arise. In the first place the document which Mr. Suttle received in relation to this superintendent and the travelling expenses he had been paid simply stated at the bottom “Refer to file”—these numbers we have seen here. It would seem to be an ordinary reasonable request for him to ask for those files to find out why there was a change in the manner in which these particular travelling expenses were being paid. There are two things as I see it. Possibly there was a lack of communication between the two parties in as much as, in his request, he should have stated he was referring to this superintendent. I do not think Mr. Suttle wanted to see the full file: he really only wanted the part which you pulled out but there seems to be some breakdown of communication or he would have got that. I would like to ask the Comptroller and Auditor General a question: Do you feel that in your position you are fully entitled to all State papers, be they, as Mr. Berry has said, of a nature of high state policy or secrecy, or not?

Mr. Suttle.—In my work in the auditing of accounts, I will look for papers which I consider are relevant to the accounts, which are the only papers I am interested in, and if I do look for such files, I must insist on obtaining them. In this particular case, I did not know what the files dealt with. All I had was the vouchers which referred to these particular files. If it was left to accounting officers to decide what papers I should see or what papers I should not see, I could not certify the account as correct because I would not be sure until I had seen the papers I asked for whether I had obtained all the information and explanations that I required; but on the basis of looking for every document I would not like to put a limit on what I was looking for because every action of the State has financial repercussions somewhere, and I feel that once I ask for a paper, I must see it, as has been the custom for years in every other Department. If some papers are highly confidential, it has generally been the practice of the accounting officer to get into direct touch with the Comptroller and Auditor General, explain the position to him and then invite him across to see them, no matter how confidential they are. But it is he himself who will see them, and then having satisfied himself whether things are correct or not, he will notify his staff: “I have seen that file: you need not look for it further”. That has been the custom for years.

260. Deputy Molloy.—And this has happened before?

Mr. Suttle.—Yes.

Deputy Molloy.—You have been brought over to a Department and have gone through certain files with the Accounting Officer of the particular Department?

Mr. Suttle.—Yes.

261. And you feel that this should have happened in this case?

Deputy Kenny.—Was this approach made to Mr. Berry?

Mr. Suttle.—The thing was that this arose at working level, as Mr. Berry will describe it. A member of my staff requested the files and he got a refusal, originally from the accountant, and then in writing from the Assistant Secretary of the Department. Then the matter was brought to my notice, that Mr. Berry was refusing files in this particular case. As it happened, there were three of them came along close together and we just could not understand why, so we decided then to use, as Mr. Berry says, the Audit Query and just ask for the files by Audit Query direct to Mr. Berry, and he came back and said it was a matter of principle, that he could not release these files.

262. Could he not have done the customary thing and invited you over to his office?

Mr. Suttle.—I do not know. The first thing …

Mr. Berry.—I wrote a minute on the 11th July which was quoted here again and again, saying: “I see objection in principle to releasing these files which are of a policy character: please do not press me”. What do I get? I heard nothing at all, except a peremptory note two days later: “I reject what you say and I am reporting to Dáil Éireann”. Who is at fault, I ask you.

263. Deputy Crowley.—Could you not have said to Mr. Suttle that you felt it would be difficult to make the file available as it contained certain matters, that the files were of a secret nature, and could Mr. Suttle not have told you which particular section of the file he was inquiring about, what particular items? There seems to be no communication between the two departments.

Mr. Berry.—That is what is at fault.

264. Deputy Molloy.—Would the initiative have lain with you to refuse documents?

Mr. Berry.—You may recollect that I spoke at some length the last day. I said that first of all we got a request for the files back in February. The auditor who inquired was told: “Look, this is a policy matter.” On the 7th April I was asked for a refusal in writing. They got a refusal in writing from the Assistant Secretary saying there was no item of expenditure whatsoever dealt with in those files— some phrase like that. The Assistant Secretary was rung up on a date I have already quoted to assert the right of the Comptroller and Auditor General to obtain any file whatsoever. On some date in May—I have already given the date—we were again requested for the files which to our knowledge had no current items of expenditure whatsoever. They were two policy files which had lain dormant for about 10 years. They were in connection with O and M reports from a comparatively junior official in Finance who wanted us to shift two blocks of work from Finance to Justice. I was not Accounting Officer in those days, of course, and I saw the file for the first time in January 1967. It was one of those dormant files. The Comptroller and Auditor General had no difficulty in 1965-66 or 1964-65 or 1963-64 in giving a certificate in relation to the accounts for those years. The only reason I can see for not giving a certificate for 1966-67 apart from these dormant files was this item of Garda locomotion expenditure which, I have already explained, he could have got the Finance authorities for by lifting the telephone and making a simple request but he never made it.

265. Deputy Healy.—The longer this goes on the more out of proportion it gets. It is now assuming tremendous proportions. As has been said, there has clearly been a breakdown in communications. I should like to ask Mr. Berry now if, when Mr. Suttle made his request in the first instance, he knew what he knows now, would he have been able to supply the information Mr. Suttle wanted without any more ado?

Mr. Berry.—That is just the crucial point. At any time I would supply information. If an audit query were addressed to me tomorrow I would answer it within 15 minutes giving any and every bit of information which the Comptroller and Auditor General wanted.

Deputy Healy.—I do not think we should go on with this ad infinitum. This is not a big State secret. It is a small matter. If this happened in an industrial firm at working level and if two clerks—

Chairman.—This is developing into a discussion.

Deputy Healy.—If we do not discuss it what are we here for?

Deputy Crowley.—The refusal to grant Mr. Suttle these files was taken first of all at a lower level and then by an Assistant Secretary who at one time was an officer in Finance so he would have been familiar with audits and finally by the Accounting Officer himself. Surely they did not take this action because they wanted to be obstinate or because they did not like Mr. Suttle? Surely they took this action because they felt that where were acting in the proper interest of the State?

Chairman.—We agreed not to have a discussion but just to ask questions.

266. Deputy Crowley.—This is a question. Would Mr. Suttle feel that because this number of people took this action surely this calls for closer communication between Mr. Suttle and Mr. Berry?

Mr. Suttle.—We got Mr. Berry’s refusal of the files which was a thing we could not accept because in his opinion the files contained administrative directions or arguments of a policy character and matters of that kind. There is no argument for refusing any papers in the normal course and on that basis we had no reason to go back to Mr. Berry. I did go back and notify him on 14th July that I was going to report the matter to Dáil Eireann. The report was published in November and in the meantime I never heard a word from Mr. Berry. He knew on 14th July that we were going to report the matter.

267. Deputy Byrne.—When was the report prepared?

Mr. Suttle.—August, and by the time it was drafted and printed it was open for alteration at any time up to final printing in November.

Mr. Berry.—I want to make one small observation. At the end of my long statement I wanted to made a suggestion because I felt there was some locking on principles here. In the interests of good administration generally I would suggest that without conceding anything on either side the Comptroller and Auditor General would submit an audit query. If he is not satisfied with the full reply he gets from me he will be free to raise the matter again in any way he wishes.

Deputy Crowley.—That is very reasonable.

Chairman.—At this stage I will ask the witnesses to withdraw. We may want them back again.

The witnesses withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* Paragraphs 80 and 84, pages 9 and 10.

* See Appendix, page 27.