Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1985 > Committee of Public Accounts > Special Report - Computer Security in Government Departments and Offices

Committee of Public Accounts

Special Report

1.1The Committee is proceeding with its examination of the 1982 and 1983 Appropriation Accounts together with the Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon as required by motions to Dail Eireann dated 2 June 1983 and 4 December 1984.

1.2It has normally been the Committee’s procedure to complete its examination of all Appropriation Accounts before reporting to Dail Eireann. This procedure, while logical and reasonable, could mean that some recommendations which the Committee might consider it essential to bring urgently to the notice of the Dail would not be dealt with as urgently as the Committee would wish. This Committee therefore considers that, in order to progress any matter on which it has strong and urgent views to communicate, a special report should be made to the Dail shortly after the relevant meeting of the Committee takes place.

2.1At its meeting on 15 November 1984 when considering the Appropriation Account for Vote 7 showing the expenses of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General the Committee also considered Paragraph 1 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report for the year 1982 and took evidence from the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Accounting Officer for the Vote and from representatives of the Departments of Finance and Public Service.

2.2In this paragraph of his Report the Comptroller and Auditor General outlined the extent of the audit work load of his Office and how the imposition of the Government embargoes on recruitment in 1981 had affected the staffing levels and consequently his capacity to carry out his constitutional and statutory functions. He explained that after lenghty negotiations with the Department of the Public Service a staffing complement for his Office had been agreed in 1980 but had been almost immediately affected by the embargoes. Since there was no scope, as envisaged by the embargoes, for a reduction or curtailment in the level of services provided by his Office, other than to cease to carry out certain audits, the outcome was that some Departmental audit programmes had not been fully implemented and the audits of the accounts of some State-sponsored bodies were being delayed.

2.3In evidence before the Committee the Comptroller and Auditor General stressed that he fully understood and appreciated the Government’s concern to reduce staff costs and numbers throughout the Public Service and he was not himself demanding additional staff. His purpose was to draw to the Committee’s attention the effects which a reduction in staff was having on the capacity of his Office to undertake the audits which it has to carry out. It was evident that as all the audits for which he was responsible had to be carried out every year there could not be any question of counteracting these effects by treating some audits as having a lower degree of priority than others. He assured the Committee that he was making and would continue to make all possible efforts to carry out his functions to the fullest extent possible with whatever resources are made available to him but he was obliged under section 1 (4) of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921 to report to Dail Eireann any important change in the extent or character of any examination of Appropriation Accounts made by him. He therefore saw it as his duty to inform the Committee if he was unable to give what he considered adequate audit coverage to any of the accounts with which the Committee was concerned.

2.4Following questioning by the Committee it emerged in evidence that some planned audit work had not been carried out for a number of votes viz. Defence, Environment, Social Welfare, Revenue Commissioners and the Finance, Education and Justice Groups. In particular a specialist audit group set up to develop computer audit techniques in the office had to be diverted to other audit duties.

2.5The Comptroller and Auditor General stated that he felt that it was for the Committee to say whether it was satisfied that in present economic circumstances it would have to be accepted that the audit of public expenditure and revenue must be restricted. If it was so satisfied his position would be clear and he could continue to express his reservations in any case in which he felt that the extent of the audit which he had been able to undertake was inadequate.

3.1The representative of the Department of the Public Service told the Committee the objective of the embargoes was to reduce Civil Service numbers and that this was being achieved. He stated that the full application of the embargoes could not be influenced by pressure from staff unions or by staff militancy of any kind from any quarter and that the position in the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General was seen by his Department in that light. While his Department was prepared to consider special situations, staff could only be recruited in any particular area of a Department if there were corresponding reductions in another area of that Department. His Department regarded the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Office as part of the Department of Finance group of offices and the matter of its staffing had therefore to be considered in the context of what he called the willingness of the “parent department” to make concessions.

4.1The Committee has carefully considered the matter before it and has come to the conclusion that there are a number of serious issues which call for consideration by Dail Eireann.

4.2If the force of circumstances dictates that the extent of the audit of public expenditure and revenue is to be restricted through lack of resources, the Committee, and through it Dail Eireann, need to be made aware of the position so that they can decide whether it is acceptable. To do otherwise is to allow them to be deluded into a false sense of security that the procedures designed to ensure full and proper public accountability are operating satisfactorily. It is clear therefore that if the Comptroller and Auditor General had failed to inform the Committee he could be regarded as not complying with the provisions of Section 1 (4) of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921 and the Committee, therefore, fully recognises that it was imperative that he should draw this matter to its attention. From the evidence given it can see no basis for the assertion by the representative of the Department of the Public Service that the Comptroller and Auditor General’s action was taken under pressure of staff militancy within his office.

4.3Like the Comptroller and Auditor General the Committee appreciates the Government’s concern to reduce expenditure on Public Service pay by a reduction in staff numbers. It could be argued that the Committee should therefore accept that in present economic circumstances the situation as it is now will have to continue for the foreseeable future i.e. that the Comptroller and Auditor General will continue to carry out his functions to the fullest extent possible with whatever resources are provided for him, even though this may mean that some areas of expenditure may not be audited or may be inadequately audited.

4.4Such tacit acquiescence by the Committee to the present situation might at best result in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s concern being somewhat allayed by the knowledge that, having brought the matter to attention, there could be no misunderstanding or misconception regarding the inadequacy of his audit.

However, the Committee is unanimous in its view that such acquiescence would be an abdication of its responsibilities in the sphere of public accountability and it is therefore not prepared to do so because it will not endorse a situation of which it does not approve.

5.1The Committee considers the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General to be of the utmost importance. The system of public accountability in a Parliamentary Democracy such as ours is founded on the principle that there should be scrutiny of the Executive by the Legislature; the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General is crucial to this concept because he is the means whereby this scrutiny is achieved in regard to voted monies. It is therefore a matter of grave concern to the Committee that he was not able to subject certain areas of 1982 expenditure to what he considered to be an adequate level of audit examination. Such restriction is seen by the Committee as also interfering with its own work and it is therefore seriously concerned that its own effectiveness may be diminished as a result.

5.2In the short term the Committee must therefore ask that urgent consideration be given to rectifying the staffing situation referred to in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report on the 1982 Appropriation Accounts. While an obvious solution would be to restore the permanent staffing to a level commensurate with the Comptroller and Auditor General’s workload an alternative solution would be to give the Comptroller and Auditor General authority to engage outside consultants in certain circumstances. In any event it cannot accept that the Comptroller and Auditor General’s capacity to carry out his work which the Committee considers essential should continue to be diminished and that a solution can only be at the expense of some office within the area of responsibility of the Department of Finance. In this regard the Committee agrees with the view expressed forcefully by the Comptroller and Auditor General in evidence and reiterated by the representative of the Department of Finance that while it might be administratively convenient to have the Minister for Finance handle certain matters - such as the introduction of the Estimate for the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Office - there is no justification for tying the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Office into a grouping of other Departments and Offices for the purpose of the control of numbers. The Committee is indeed surprised that a senior representative of the Department of the Public Service should refer to the Department of Finance as the “parent Department” of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

6.1The Committee takes cognisance of the information given by the Minister for the Public Service in reply to a Dail question on 28 November 1984 in connection with the staffing of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Minister stated that he had sanctioned six temporary posts to enable the audit of the Post Office - for which the Comptroller and Auditor General was responsible up to the setting up of the two new State companies - to be completed but that the Comptroller and Auditor General had chosen not to fill these temporary posts. In this connection the Committee had already been informed by the Accounting Officer for the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General that the sanction for these six posts had been given on condition that they would be again abolished as soon as the Post Office audit was completed. He had explained that the terms of the sanction did not therefore permit these posts to be filled since the stage has already been reached where audit work on the Post Office - affected though it had been by staffing shortages - was being concluded because the 1983 Appropriation Account was about to be published and the Commercial Accounts were not available for any year after 1982. As the Committee see it, it was therefore not a question of the Comptroller and Auditor General not choosing to fill the temporary posts authorised but that the condition on which they had been authorised no longer obtained. In those circumstances it can hardly be regarded as a satisfactory solution to the problem.

6.2The Committee also notes that, in the course of his replies, the Minister stated that other options were open to the Comptroller and Auditor General to enable him to resolve the difficulties caused by having insufficient staff to enable him to carry out his functions. The Committe would be glad to have information as to what options the Minister for the Public Service has in mind in this regard.

7.1The Committee also feels that there is an urgent need to take a fresh look at all issues relevant to Dail control and scrutiny of public expenditure in which the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General plays such a vital role. By way of general comment the Committee wishes to state that it considers it questionable in principle that by controlling the resources made available for audit, the Executive should have the power to determine the level of audit and thus effectively determine the extent to which the Comptroller and Auditor General can scrutinise and draw to the attention of the Committee the operations of the Executive in the spending of public monies. While it feels that there is a sustainable case for devising some means of having this power vested in Dail Eireann it would not press this issue at present if it could be assured that there is a serious commitment to providing the means necessary to ensure that the process of public accountability is not frustrated.

7.2In the longer term the Committee feels that an in-depth examination should be carried out into the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The legislation relating to the Comptroller and Auditor General is the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866 as amended by the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921 which gives the Comptroller and Auditor General authority only to carry out an examination to establish whether the grants voted by Dail Eireann are being applied to the purpose or purposes for which they were intended to provide and that the expenditure conforms to the authority which governs it. In other words his statutorily defined audit is concerned only with ensuring that expenditure is incurred on the services defined in the estimates and that it is properly authorised and accounted for. In regard to Revenue his function is limited to examining whether adequate procedures exist and are being applied in regard to the assessment, collection and bringing to account of all state revenue.

7.3The Comptroller and Auditor General explained to the Committee that it has been the practice for many years to go somewhat beyond these limits by drawing attention to loss, waste and other economy and efficiency aspects relevant to the scrutiny of public expenditure but that there is no statutory basis for this. The Committee is of the opinion that there should be a statutory basis and furthermore that there is need for an even wider ranging review to embrace all aspects of what is often referred to as ‘value for money’ auditing.

7.4It is inconceivable to the Committee that in this country the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General should still be dependent on legislation which is over one hundred years old. The Committee is aware that in many other countries provision for the type of review of public expenditure which it is now advocating has been made by statutorily restating the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General and providing for a structure adequately equipped in regard to staffing and such other resources as may be considered necessary to fulfil such a role. The Committee suggests that in carrying out the in-depth examination of the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General which it is recommending, it would be useful to obtain information on the experience of such countries in this matter.

8.1Its discussions regarding the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General suggests to the Committee that there is a wider issue to be considered in the context of the general question of staffing constraints and it is taking the opportunity afforded by the submission of this report to do so. As already stated the Committee fully understands and appreciates the necessity to reduce staff costs. It is, however, seriously concerned that the instrument used to do so, i.e. the indiscriminate enforcement of the embargoes on recruitment, may be counterproductive. It is clear to the Committee that it is essential that cost effectiveness evaluations of the results of reductions in staff must be carried out in some departments because, while it may appear that savings to the Exchequer have been achieved by reducing staff, such savings may prove to be illusory when account is taken of the consequential effects on such matters as the collection of revenue, the prevention and detection of fraud and the recovery of debts due to the State.

8.2The Committee therefore wishes to be informed whether such evaluations have been carried out in departments such as the Revenue Commissioners, Social Welfare etc., and if so what are the results of such evaluations. If they have not been carried out the Committee urges that they be done as a matter of urgency. The Committee would of course expect that any such exercise would also include an examination of the extent to which the effects of staff reductions could be offset by improved efficiency and by the redeployment of staff from areas where the level of activity would justify such action.

SUMMARY

1.The Comptroller and Auditor General was obliged to report to the Committee his concern about his capacity to fulfil his statutory and constitutional functions. 4.2

2.The Committee strongly holds the view that the audit of public expenditure and revenue should not be restricted by lack of resources. 4.3; 4.8; 5.1.

3.The Committee considers that immediate steps should be taken to rectify the staffing shortages in the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. 5.2; 6.1; 6.2

4.There is a case for devising a means whereby control of the resources provided for the Comptroller and Auditor General be vested in Dail Eireann. 7.1

5.An in-depth examination should be carried out into the statutory role of the Comptroller and Auditor General and such examination should pay particular attention to the concept of “value for money” auditing and to the experiences of other countries in this regard. 7.2; 7.3; 7.4.

6.Cost effectiveness evaluations of the effects of the operation of the recruitment embargoes should be carried out in a number of departments. 8.1; 8.2.