asked the Minister for Finance if he will give details of the procedures and systems now in place to assess value for money, effectiveness and efficiency in public expenditure programmes in the wake of the cessation of the publication of the Comprehensive Public Expenditure Programmes book, the abolition of the Department of the Public Service, and the abandonment of the Dáil Committee on Public Expenditure.

The primary responsibility for ensuring that public expenditure programmes give value for money and are managed efficiently lies with the Departments concerned. Secretaries of Departments, as accounting officers, are responsible for the efficiency and economy of administration in their Departments.

With a view to promoting good management in Departments, my Department have launched a number of major initiatives in recent years. These include the issue of guidelines for developing systems of financial management and a requirement that all Departments adopt departmental management systems with common essential features. Such systems provide, inter alia, for planning on the basis of expenditure programmes and activities and active review mechanisms.

In addition, my Department are reviewing the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General to see if proposals could be prepared to extend his remit to include considerations of effectiveness and efficiency.

The Management Services Unit of my Department carry out work surveys of Departments on request with a view to improving efficiency and effectiveness in the areas concerned.

I agree with the Minister and I do not want anything that I ask him to be regarded as criticism. Would he inform us if he can, of the cost per annum of producing the comprehensive programme on public expenditure and would he not now, even at this stage, especially since public expenditure is so much an issue of public importance, reconsider the decision taken to end the production of this programme on an annual basis in order to inform the public as to the real extent and nature of the difficulty with public finances and public spending?

I do not have the actual cost but I will convey that information to the Deputy as soon as I have it. A volume of comprehensive public expenditure programmes for 1986 was published in December 1986 and it was intimated in the introduction to that volume that for the future a summary of financial data would be published annually with updates of the programme statements being published at less frequent intervals. In line with this arrangement, a summary of the public expenditure programmes for 1987 which gives a summary of the financial data of each programme but which does not contain detailed programme statements was published in June of this year. Therefore, information is being published in relation to that matter but I will convey the cost to the Deputy.

Is the Minister aware that the Committee of Public Accounts have undertaken an examination of their own role and the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General and that that allparty committee are of the opinion that they should extend their role to include the former remit of the Committee on Public Expenditure? Would the Minister agree, that in keeping with what has happened in Britain, it may be necessary to have a National Audit Act in this country?

I am aware of all the Deputy has said and I would like to take this opportunity to thank him for the contribution he has made in the Committee on Public Accounts in this area.

I would like to ask a supplementary question in regard to the abolition of the Department of the Public Service. Can the Minister tell us what Department, if any, are co-ordinating the efforts of the Government to achieve their targets in many areas, including a reduction in the numbers employed in the public service?

Surely that is a separate question, Deputy?

I submit that this question specifically mentions the systems in place now that the Department of the Public Service have been abolished.

I submit to the Deputy that I have given the reply but in reply to the question she asked, the Department concerned is the Department of Finance.

I would like to thank the Minister for his very kind compliment but will he tell us, seeing he did not reply to the question which I put to him, if he agrees the Committee of Public Accounts could include within their own remit the remit of the Committee on Public Expenditure? Will he say if he is contemplating introducing a National Audit Act along the lines of the British Act of 1983?

The answer to the first part of the question is that I understand that discussions are taking place within the committee and I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of those discussions. As regards the second part of the question, that is a matter to which I will have to give some consideration.

It is important to monitor the procedures and systems. In regard to a question I raised earlier in relation to the 90 staff members who were formerly employed in the Land Commission but who were transferred to the land tax office, will the Minister give an assurance to the House——

Deputy Enright should put down a question in respect of that matter.

All I am asking is for the Minister to give an assurance to the House that a situation where 90 officials costing the taxpayer roughly £900,000 per annum have had nothing to do for the past six to nine months will not arise again in the future? I am sure the Minister is as concerned as I am that dedicated officials——

I want to assist the Deputy to elicit information but there is a procedure we ought to abide by in this House and that is to put down a distinct separate question.

With respect, a Cheann Comhairle, I would like to receive an assurance from the Minister.

I give that assurance.

Thank you, Minister, very much.