I echo the tributes that the Chairperson and other members of the Committee have paid to the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff in the Northern Ireland Audit Office. They provide a high-quality service to the Committee and the Assembly and, therefore, ultimately to the taxpayers of Northern Ireland.

I am delighted to see the new Minister of Finance and Personnel in position. I have no doubt that he is ready to respond to the points that will be made in the debate. I take that as an indication of the importance that the Executive attach to the Public Accounts Committee and its work.

The Committee is well served by an efficient and resourceful Clerk, Assistant Clerk and Committee staff. They help to draw together the various strands that make the Public Accounts Committee operate as it should; they help to make a team. The Committee is a well-oiled machine, by which I mean that we operate efficiently and effectively. The Committee is under the guidance, tutelage and leadership of the Chairperson, Mr Billy Bell. Few Committees in the Assembly operate so effectively and efficiently. The Public Accounts Committee has never been without a quorum. How many other Committees could say that? That is the proof of the pudding.

I am delighted to take part in this debate. The fact that my party is not represented in the Executive allows me to speak with greater objectivity - if I dare to call it that - than most other members of the Committee, whose Colleagues sit on the Executive, whether around the table or outside the door.

Accountability is a key element of the work of the Committee. It plays a pivotal role in the balance between the Executive's responsibility to govern and the Assembly's responsibility to protect the interests of the taxpayer, and thus the vulnerable people in society. The effectiveness of the Committee over the past 18 months owes much to the fact that it does not deal with policy. It has the responsibility of holding senior officials in Northern Ireland Departments and agencies directly accountable for the spending decisions that they make, and for implementing improvements in the services that they provide to the public.

As part of the Committee's proceedings, these senior officials - referred to as "accounting officers" - are called before the Committee to defend their actions and explain their failures. Accounting officers have often had to explain their failure to follow the Department of Finance and Personnel's rules and guidance. The requirement to carry out economic appraisals was blatantly ignored by the Department of Agriculture in delivering its rural development programme between 1990 and 1995. That failure meant that the long-term sustainability of many projects was jeopardised, and consequently, scarce resources in Northern Ireland were squandered.

In the case of the Irish sport horse project, which was funded by Peace I money, an economic appraisal was carried out. However, it failed to address many of the requirements of the "green book" guidance issued by the Department of Finance and Personnel. Again, the failure to address those issues resulted in the premature winding-up of that project.

In a recent hearing on the brucellosis outbreak at the Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland in Hillsborough, the committee again found that there was a failure to complete an appraisal into restocking the herd. That highlights a breakdown in basic administration procedures, which appears to have been all too prevalent during the period of direct rule, when the watchdog was either sleeping or perhaps away being neutered by the vet.

I hope that with the introduction of devolved government and the increased scrutiny of Departments the management of public sector spending has improved and will continue to do so. I am reassured by the prompt action of the Department of Finance and Personnel in drawing other Departments' attention to the need to follow rules and procedures that have been carefully drawn up to ensure the proper, efficient and effective use of scarce resources. The need for accounting officers to defend their actions to the Committee is clearly having an effect.

I am aware of a recent case where accounting officers considered that they were being asked to take action that they thought they could not defend to the Public Accounts Committee, if required to do so, on the grounds of value for money. They therefore invoked the long-standing procedure of requesting a written direction from Ministers. As a result of the automatic notification procedure in such cases, the Public Accounts Committee was informed by the Comptroller and Auditor General that the decision by Ministers last September to proceed with the gas pipeline project was taken against the written advice of officials from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Department of Finance and Personnel. That project is expected to require public grants of more than £60 million, yet the investment appraisal indicated that the pipelines do not offer the prospect of achieving acceptable value for money.

We are all aware that Northern Ireland is faced with extreme pressures in its hospitals, schools and other areas where the strategic infrastructure is decaying. Many worthwhile public projects have had to be postponed or set aside, even though they have passed the investment appraisal test and are seen to offer good value for money. It is worrying, therefore, that against that background, Ministers are prepared to give a direction, contrary to the advice of officials, to commit public funds to a project that appears to offer poor value for money, even when the identifiable intangible benefits are factored into the equation.

I would like the Minister to address two issues in his response to the debate. First, the Committee has been informed that the investment appraisal for that project indicated that the cost of electricity in the Province would be increased by 0·6% for domestic consumers and by 1·4% for commercial and industrial consumers. If that information is correct - and I believe that it is - it would mean that people in Fermanagh and other parts of the Province who have no prospect of receiving a gas supply would, nevertheless, be paying for those pipelines through their electricity bills. That is unfair.

Secondly, given the massive commitment of public funds to that project, and the importance of openness and transparency, will the Minister ensure that the full investment appraisal is made available in the Assembly Library?

I would like to look to the future. My experience over the past 18 months has convinced me of how vital the service provided by the Comptroller and the Auditor General is to the Assembly. However, we face significant changes in the way that departmental and agency accounts are to be prepared and presented to the Assembly. Resource accounting, and developments on the way in which Departments plan to deliver services, will mean that it is of paramount importance that the Comptroller and Auditor General has the ability to follow taxpayers' money, however and wherever it is spent. The audit trail must be clear and unimpeded. I therefore urge the Minister to honour the apparent commitment of his predecessor to implement fully the recommendations of the Sharman Report in the context of the proposed audit and accountability legislation.

Finally, I encourage all Members to take a closer interest in the work of the Public Accounts Committee. It would be useful for them to follow up on issues that the Committee has highlighted as having potential for improvement. I am convinced beyond any doubt that Public Accounts Committee reports could provide a springboard for the development of more joined-up scrutiny of the Departments and the Executive in the Statutory Committees and plenary sessions of the Assembly. In this way we can all contribute to serving better those whom we are elected to serve, namely the taxpayers.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Before starting, I too want to pay tribute to the Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee, without whose leadership we could not have got through as much work as we did over the past two sessions. As Mr Close said, this is one of the few Committees that does not have a problem with getting members to attend, and that is partly due to the fairness with which Billy Bell runs the Committee.

I want to thank the Committee Clerk and the Assistant Clerk for all the help they have given to the Committee and me throughout the past months. I also thank the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff, who do much hard work for the Committee members by drawing up reports and giving us invaluable private briefings before we go into public session with Departments.

One thing that struck me, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, is the lack of accountability in Departments over the past years. People have been able to make decisions without assessing a project's value for money or even if the project was needed. Now we are getting to the heart of the issue of accountability. We have a roads system that is light years behind those in most of Europe; an inadequate public transport system, with the rail system being nothing but a token gesture; a water and sewerage system in dire need of capital input; and a Health Service that, whether some people believe it or not, is being asked to carry the legacy of the Tory trust system and all the costs associated with that. Those are major challenges which the Assembly and individual Members will hope to meet in the coming years as we attempt to redress those failings.

As a member of both the Public Accounts Committee and the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety I want to concentrate on the section of the report that deals with executive and senior management pay, contracts and termination settlements. From the outset, the Committee shared the public concern over pay increases made to chief executives and senior managers in trusts at a time when there were problems in the Health Service as a whole. The size of the settlements made on the termination of contracts with some executive directors in some trusts, and the nature of contracts made throughout the health and personal social services in the past number of years, have also caused concern.

Our concerns also have an impact on public confidence, whether in the Health Service, the Department for Regional Development, the Department of Education or a number of Committees. When we talk about executive directors, and senior managers' pay, we are talking about more than annual pay increases. We are talking about the whole employment package. The information gathered by the Committee confirmed that there is some justification for the public perception that some members of senior management are benefiting from fat cat pay. That should be compared with the pay for other groups in the front line of the service, such as nurses, junior doctors and domestic staff.

During the four-year period to March 2000 the chief executives of the Ulster Community and Hospitals Trust and the North and West Belfast Hospitals Trust - both trusts have serious problems - received travel expenses and subsistence allowances of £37,400 and £34,383 respectively. By contrast, three chief executives in the Western Board area were paid a total of £22,401, three chief executives in the Northern Board area received a total of £3,146, and four chief executives in the Southern Board area received a total of £3,249.

What is happening in some trusts? How is it possible that individual trusts are able to claim much more than several other trusts put together? Why is there such a big difference between the top and bottom levels?

The Committee also noted that the chief executive of the North and West Belfast Hospitals Trust made a total of 86 trips outside the North in that same four-year period, and the chief executive of the Ulster Community and Hospitals Trust made a total of 73 trips. By contrast, two chief executives from other trusts made no trips and several made less than five trips in the same period. What is going on? I represent the North and West Belfast Hospitals Trust area, and I know that there are problems associated with that area. I could talk all day about higher levels of children at risk, higher levels of people waiting for community care and occupational therapists.

I hope the Department has taken that on board. It is up to the Department to investigate and to satisfy itself that the travel, the expenses and the allowances are justified. I hope that the Minister of Finance and Personnel also takes that on board. Is there a need for all that travel and all those expenses? I am not knocking them if they bring benefits to their area.

The Committee also identified nine termination settlements totalling over £1 million. The former chief executive of the Eastern Ambulance Service Trust, who received a large settlement, moved to a new job in the Surrey Ambulance Service only one week after departure. However, there is no legal obligation on the individual to notify anyone or to repay the settlement. In effect, he took the Department and the taxpayers for a ride, even though nothing illegal took place.

I welcome the Department's plans to introduce a new, more transparent pay system for senior executives. It is essential that the system helps to restore public confidence in the use of resources and the management of senior staff in the Health Service. However, the existing policy framework should not have prevented Departments from being more proactive, giving guidance and having overall control.

The Department did not intervene, even when it became clear that things were going wrong. That is wrong and it must stop. The disregard of pay restraint by some trusts was totally wrong and insensitive. I was astonished to find that against the background of public concern, media interest and a ministerial request, some trusts did not comply fully with the Department's instructions. That raises concerns about where the control of trusts and boards lies.

Our reports and the report about chief executives' pay have highlighted the need for an open and transparent system in which pay would be related to responsibilities. However, I am pleased to note that that has been implemented by the Department. The Committee has obtained a commitment to investigate the provision of leased cars and a full review of the level of travel, subsistence and personal expenses paid to senior staff. Again, I welcome that.

The Committee also advised the Department to act now to resolve the issue of poor employment contracts before any further restructuring takes place in the Health Service, and it has made a welcome commitment to do that. In addition, the Committee has identified a need concerning the Department of Finance and Personnel's involvement in high-profile public sector pay issues as a result of the review. The Department of Finance and Personnel has undertaken to write to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, stating that it must be informed of higher-than- normal pay settlements. I welcome that, and I want to see that carried through. Perhaps we in the Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General could keep an eye on that. This issue impacts not only on the Health Service but throughout Departments.

Mr Close mentioned the need for economic appraisals. The Committee emphasised the need for an economic case to be presented for the provision of leased cars in the Health Service. Should any other Department embark on that car scheme or any similar scheme, an economic appraisal would be essential. We are not talking only about chief executives' pay, but their subsistence allowance and cars. I was astonished to learn the amount of money that some chief executives receive each month to lease a car; it would be enough to lease a helicopter or an aeroplane.

The identification of the need for Departments to maintain overall control is of paramount importance when they fund bodies. Rather than standing back, the Departments must adopt a hands-on approach. If they discover that anything is wrong, whether the issue is raised by the Committee or by media interest, they must become involved from the start. We must restore public confidence and move away from the idea that people are lining their pockets. I do not want to sound angry, because I know that much good work is being done in the Departments, but we must move away from the perception that big money is being paid out.

We must ensure we in the Committee and the Assembly learn some lessons from the reports before us today. We must ensure that the same mistakes are not repeated in the future. The work of the Public Accounts Committee is starting to restore public confidence. Committee members are stopped in the street by people who tell us that it was about time that someone did this work, because they have heard many of the stories for years. I hope that we are now working in a mature fashion. We are making Departments accountable not only for ensuring value for money but for every penny of taxpayers' money. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am aware of the time allocated for this debate and your generosity in allowing the first round to go on longer than others might have done. I will keep my comments relatively brief.

I welcome the opportunity for us to bring these reports and the work of the Public Accounts Committee to the Floor of the House and to the attention of other Members and of the public at large. It is important that that be done. Great praise has been given to the Northern Ireland Audit Office, and to the Comptroller and Auditor General and his team. I will add my voice to that. Their tremendous work makes our job as a Committee much easier. The reports are very well prepared and the research is extremely detailed. I have heard other Members speak with envy of the polished professionalism with which our reports are written and presented. I commend the Audit Office for that.

I also commend the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson. The wonderful thing about our Committees is that a cross word is rarely spoken. That is highly commendable and reflects well on both the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson. I say "rarely" because of course there is the odd argument, but nothing too contentious.

As Billy Bell said, every report has been agreed unanimously, and it is a pity that that does not hit the headlines. It is not seen, but it is good news, and it is important that we report it. I also want to commend the work of the Committee Clerk, and, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am looking in his direction. I would like to praise his team for the superb work that they do. It makes our work easy. However, that is not to say that we do not work hard to do - we do.

The Committee has uncovered some very serious scandals, a disturbing mismanagement of money, and cases of fraud during its detailed examination of different Departments. It is nothing short of scandalous and it is shocking to read those reports. Whether it is river pollution, chief executives' pay, Irish sport horses or the spending of European money - issues that have been addressed by each Committee member - some practices are unacceptable, and the Committee is trying to put an end to them.

During the long period of direct rule, when reports were dealt with by Westminster Committees, dust was allowed to settle on those reports, and they were not given the required local interest, input and press coverage. More attention is now being paid to these reports as a result of devolution and, therefore, we can ensure that lessons are learnt and something is done.

I want to raise the issue of road safety, which the Chairperson and other Committee members have already mentioned. It is an issue that is close to my heart and it is extremely disturbing. The cost to the taxpayer of death and injury on our roads is more than £500 million, which is a huge amount of money. It reflects the cost of the loss of life, the cost of hospital services and the cost of all the different factors that arise from the lack of a proper road safety policy. I have tried to push for something to be done on that issue for many months, if not years. In the Committee we had the opportunity to quiz and interrogate the permanent secretary as to why something was not being done about that huge loss of finances from the public purse. That loss could be corrected and reduced if more care and attention were given to the issues involved in road safety.

One such issue was the decision that there should be fewer road safety education officers. When we asked why that decision was made, the response that we received was - and I am being polite and diplomatic - inadequate. Not enough priority was being given to the issue of road safety and the hurt that is involved when a mother, father, brother or sister sees a young child hurt or killed on our roads. The Committee tried to impress on the permanent secretary - the accounting officer - that priorities need to be set, and lives need to be the number one priority, ahead of money and the cost of other priorities.

So that was a good example. As a result, the Minister has agreed to appoint more road safety education officers, which is important.

I do not propose to go into detail on other areas. I wish to conclude by talking about the value of our work and where improvements could be made to render it even more valuable. I have always been disappointed that the Public Accounts Committee can close the door only after the horse has bolted, or, as was the case in County Fermanagh, been sold to the Irish Army. We look at the issue after the event. All that we, and the permanent secretaries, can do is learn from the lessons of the past. There is nothing we can do about that. However, we can expose scandals and make sure those lessons are learnt.

Almost monthly, we have public televised inquiries at which we ask the permanent secretaries to explain themselves. They are not always gentle affairs. Those inquiries should make good television and attract media interest, yet there is little press interest in those issues. I am surprised that the press do not do more to show the work of the Committee. It is good work, and it shows the public what devolution is all about.

I call on Members who are not members of the Committee to come to us. Northern Ireland is a small place; rumours are always rife. I urge them to ask the Committee to investigate matters for them; I urge the public to do the same. We are there to make sure that taxpayers' money is well spent.

I welcome the first opportunity for the Public Accounts Committee to report directly to the Assembly on its work to date. I join other Members in paying tribute to the Chairperson of the Committee, Billy Bell, his staff, the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the members of the Committee who have worked in close partnership for the benefit of the Northern Ireland public.

I value my membership of the Public Accounts Committee. I hope that other Members and the public, who will follow today's debate and examine the reports produced by the Public Accounts Committee, will see the benefits of our work.

There is more to the work of the Public Accounts Committee than bringing Departments to account for poor use of public funds in the past. It is about ensuring that lessons are learnt so that budgets - present and future - are properly spent for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland. Scrutiny by the Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee may be uncomfortable for departmental accounting officers and civil servants, but the message from my constituents is that they welcome increased scrutiny. The civil servants are no longer in control. Their decisions are scrutinised, Committees are monitoring their actions, and they have to follow proper procedures in the use of public money.

The Northern Ireland Audit Office now produces reports with the same frequency as it did prior to devolution. However, it was competing on the United Kingdom stage for the attention of the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster. I have no doubt that the extra time for scrutiny given to those reports by local politicians with greater local knowledge has brought increased benefits to the people of Northern Ireland. They have a greater awareness of how their money is spent. Statements, and changes to current practices and policies, are more often made before accounting officers come before the Public Accounts Committee, and I welcome that.

Accountability concentrates the minds of accounting officers. Many of those changes should have happened earlier, but I welcome the current improvements. I do not wish to repeat other Members' points so I will concentrate my remarks on two reports - one on the structural maintenance of roads and the other on the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland.

Public representatives have commented on potholes in roads and have called for new roads and bypasses, but the inadequacy of Roads Service's maintenance programme has not been high on their agenda. However, the Audit Office report and the follow-up by the Public Accounts Committee show that current funds are being wasted and that the poor maintenance of roads has safety implications - for instance, 30% of current roads maintenance expenditure is on the patching of roads. The Department's target for that is 10%, and authorities on mainland Britain are much closer to that target. In other words, we are firefighting.

Frequently patches are laid on top of patching. That is not good use of money. The Audit Office report demonstrated that sometimes more money was spent, over 10 years, on patching a section of road than it would have cost to relay the entire section. Roads Service is starting to understand that.

In my constituency, I drew Roads Service's attention to the trans-European road link between Larne and Belfast where, in spite of repeated repairs, faults still occurred. I am pleased that that road was recently reinstated properly. Now visitors to Northern Ireland will not have to travel on a potholed main route that is part of the trans-European network. That money is being well spent so that we will not have to repatch continually. That example relates less to the activity of the accounting officer and the Audit Office report, but more closely to practice on the ground - I welcome that.

A significant factor that affects public expenditure on roads in Northern Ireland has been the focus on the increased costs that result from the poor reinstatement of our roads by the utilities. That too is the subject of a detailed report by the Committee. The report focused on how Roads Service should manage the safety implications of the upkeep of footpaths, and so on. I welcome the best value initiative introduced by Roads Service. It has reduced public liability claims, and introduced the UK pavement management system, which is designed to plan structural maintenance more effectively and thus optimise the allocation of funds.

As well as being critical, we must welcome constructive change. The effect of the utilities on roads is starting to be recognised at ground level. Recently I complained to Roads Service about openings in roads that utilities had dug, and I told it which bodies were responsible. Last month Roads Service wrote to tell me that those utilities have agreed to return to the areas that they have dug up and to reinstate those sections to proper standards. A proper management system that enables us to find out who has caused a fault on a road or pavement, and to ask the utility responsible to carry out the necessary improvements, avoids the need for public expenditure. The Northern Ireland Audit Office report and the work of the Committee have been instrumental in enforcing the "polluter pays" policy in respect of our roads and pavements.

This will be of increasing benefit to Northern Ireland taxpayers in the future as utilities reinstate our byways to the correct standards.

I want to turn to the Committee's report on the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland, which highlighted the poor value of much of the work happening there. According to its figures, in one particular transport workshop it cost £127 to change three bulbs and more than £1,000 to fit a new set of front brakes. The report uncovered a payment of £95,000 that was made six months before a fire appliance was received.

Sickness levels in the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland are the highest for any fire authority in the UK. However, the absenteeism of non-uniform staff - the office staff - was of most concern to me. These people are not firefighters who have become injured or sick due to their work. There was an unacceptable level of absenteeism among office staff, and that indicates a management problem.

There was a £4 million investment in information technology, which ignored the Department of Finance and Personnel's guidelines. Computers were purchased, gathered dust and became obsolete. That is poor use of public funds.

Interestingly, this was a case of the Public Accounts Committee investigating a non-departmental public body - an area that would not have been drawn to the attention of the Westminster Public Accounts Committee. This was the investigation of a relatively small non- departmental public body, drawing the accounting officer's attention to the fact that he is responsible for the money. The message is not only significant to that body but is applicable to all other non-departmental public bodies in Northern Ireland.

Through that exercise, not only were failings highlighted in the Fire Authority, but the attention of all accounting officers was also drawn to the fact that they are responsible for the funds that pass through Departments and that they must keep a close eye on the routes that the money takes. It is not a matter of blaming someone else once it leaves his or her hands.

I welcome the increased scrutiny of these bodies, which are at arms length from the Department. I welcome the assurance made by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety - an acknowledgement - that the accounting officer will be scrutinising its expenditure in future.

I urge the Statutory Committees to examine closely the areas that have been addressed by the Public Accounts Committee so far. We will move to other cases as they arise. However, areas where issues have been raised are of concern and subsequent scrutiny should be undertaken by the relevant Statutory Committees. In addition, there may be Northern Ireland Audit Office reports that the Committee may not be able to fit into its schedule, and they may involve areas that the Committees, through liaison with the Public Accounts Committee, may wish to scrutinise further themselves in order to bring benefits from the expenditure of funds in Northern Ireland.

Mr Close raised the point that the Committee was made aware of a decision to expand the Northern Ireland gas network that did not have a positive economic appraisal. I also wish to learn more about this. I am concerned when public expenditure occurs without proper appraisals, and it is something that should be followed up. Why are we spending £60 million when this does not follow an economic examination? I have concerns, and I call for the information to be published for further public scrutiny.

The Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee are the Northern Ireland public's watchdogs on public expenditure, and they would benefit from the public bringing concerns to them. An effective partnership between elected representatives, Committee officers and Audit Office staff has been developed. I hope that further information will come forward from the Northern Ireland public which will identify areas that we should carefully examine to ensure that the best use is made of taxpayer's money in Northern Ireland.

In common with my Colleagues, I welcome the report. That might surprise the Chairperson of the Committee, since we had some disagreement over the media spin on one report. Tremendous work has been done by the Committee in ensuring that there is no hiding place for those who would slackly administer their duties to the point that there would be loss of public funds.

I am the Chairperson of the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee, and in our report on inland fisheries in Northern Ireland we recommended that the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure carry out a feasibility study into the removal of Crown immunity. The issue of the protection of Water Service from prosecution for sewage pollution by virtue of Crown immunity was raised in 28% of the submissions received by my Committee. It was a major area of concern in our inquiry.

The matter was also raised before the Public Accounts Committee when it considered river pollution in Northern Ireland. It is difficult to see a practical option for the removal of immunity from a Crown body. I understand that the Department of the Environment is currently monitoring Whitehall consideration of the issue.

The Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee informed my Committee that the Department of the Environment had decided that there had been an extension of controls on Water Service discharges and that information on the achievement of standards is now to be published. Formal procedures have also been put in place to ensure that all pollution incidents involving Water Service are followed up with a rigour equal to that applied to pollution incidents involving other sectors. The Northern Ireland Audit Office will monitor that situation and continue to keep an eye on developments on our behalf.

That is not a bad result for two Committees dealing with an issue with no clear route to resolution. The Committees were able to reach that degree of achievement. I raise the matter to reinforce the point, already made, of the necessity, rather than the desire, for Statutory Committees to work with the Public Accounts Committee to ensure that its best skills can be employed to the best advantage in the monitoring and control of issues that affect us all.

I hope that as a result of today's debate the word will get around and we will be able to consider putting a more formal mechanism in place so that communication with the Public Accounts Committee on these issues will be easier, thus making it more effective.

We are pushed for time, so I will briefly pay tribute to the Chairperson and to Assembly and Audit Office officials for their diligence and attention to the detail of the report. It is of vital importance that public money should be properly accounted for at all times. Any deliberate or unintentional abuse must be exposed, lessons learnt and procedures revamped. Mr Billy Bell pointed out that overall consideration has been and will be given to the matter so that nothing should come before the interests of the taxpayer.

That should always be the bottom line. He also referred to the value-for-money reports that were made by the Audit Office but which were left to gather dust on the shelves of Westminster. Unfortunately, that led sections of the community to target projects in order to obtain subsidies for fraudulent purposes. The revenue raised helped finance Sinn Féin/IRA terrorist operations, which were mounted in south Armagh in particular.

Clear evidence of this practice was exposed recently, with the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease among sheep in south Armagh. Terrorists became millionaires, and excessive claims for livestock became so blatant that not even the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development could deny the obvious any longer. That is the extent of the problem that we have inherited.

It should be pointed out that the Committee had highlighted its concerns about the illegal movement of cattle during a previous inquiry, before the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Therefore, when the accounting officer states in evidence that he operates a policy of zero tolerance to fraud, the evidence leads me to other conclusions. I ask that an effective and efficient procedure be implemented, which includes procedures to successfully prosecute those who dishonestly apply for, or obtain, public moneys.

When reviewing the rural development programme, I was shocked to find many incidences of poor administration, inadequate appraisal mechanisms, poor marketing, insufficient business plans and ineffective monitoring systems. The accounting officer told us that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development had set aside the economic appraisal guidelines in order to get schemes off the ground, despite the Westminster Public Accounts Committee's insistence that only properly appraised projects be considered. The goalposts were moved, and, as a result, public money at best was squandered and at worst found its way into the coffers of paramilitary organisations.

A clear illustration of the misuse of public funds was the Seeconnell project where £520,000 was spent on an equestrian centre, which remains unfinished. The likelihood is that it will never be finished, and there is no possibility of any clawback. Other examples can be seen where community volunteers have been left with little or no back-up while administering £1 million schemes. It appears that spending European money quickly to meet deadlines became more important than the objectives of the projects.

Eleven of the 15 projects sampled had no economic appraisal. I welcome the Department of Finance and Personnel's letter to all departmental and agency accounting officers, which sets out the views of the Committee and highlights the importance of appraising projects in line with departmental guidelines. Although there have been good examples of rural development programmes, I must conclude that the £51 million programme represents poor value for money.

Turning to the Social Security Agency, I want to follow up some of the points made by Mr Carrick. Social security benefits are the bread-and-butter issues of the community. The complexity and individual circumstances of each case makes calculating a person's entitlement to income support a long-drawn-out process. Despite the growth of advice-giving agencies - and the Assembly constituency offices over recent years - during the year 1999-2000, one in eight claims for income support was wrongly calculated. During the same period, 170,000 claimants received £564 million. The level of wrongly calculated claims is unacceptable.

The figure does not take into account the people who from a sense of public spirit or pride do not exercise their right to claim benefits. Every effort must be made to reach such people. Another consideration is that people who depend on benefits are usually from the most vulnerable groups in society. The 40-page application form, which has been referred to, may act as a deterrent. I welcome the proposal to introduce a 10-page application form for pensioners, but I urge that it should be available to all claimants.

I also urge caution because the measures to combat fraud may mean further complications for genuine applicants. I note that one of the key issues, according to the Public Accounts Committee, was that applicants would almost have required a degree in administration to fill out the claim form for income support. That must be bureaucracy at its worst.

I will bring my remarks to a close in the hope that Members can raise other matters on public accounts. The timing of the report is pertinent with our citizens about to see a 7% rise in the rates to pay for the Assembly in the coming financial year and with the last round of Peace moneys due to be allocated. A clear message should be sent from the House to tell fraudsters that we will no longer turn a blind eye to their activities and to tell accounting officers that no more short cuts should be taken.

I welcome the Committee's report. Given that the Assembly spends over £6,400 million of public money every year, scrutiny of the way in which that money is spent and of the effectiveness of that spending is important. Since we are drawing some of that money from taxes imposed by the Assembly, it is equally important that people feel that they are getting good value for money. The Public Accounts Committee has done a good job in this report by highlighting the inadequacies in some areas of public expenditure.

As one of the few non-members of the Committee to have the opportunity to speak today, I apologise that I am going to interrupt the bout of mutual backslapping that has taken place in the House. I have noted what some of the Committee members have said. Jane Morrice talked about a wonderful Committee and its polished report. Had she stayed for the next debate, she would have seen a really polished report from the Education Committee. She also spoke of how there was never a cross word spoken in the Public Accounts Committee. I cannot imagine that I would like to be the member of a Committee in which there is never a cross word spoken. Nor, if Seamus Close is a member of that Committee, do I believe that cross words are not spoken on some occasions. He compared it to the old Public Accounts Committee, which was either asleep or at the vet being neutered. The implication is, therefore, that the current Public Accounts Committee is wide awake and certainly not neutered. However, I will not pursue that any further.

While the Public Accounts Committee has done a good job in highlighting inadequacies, its weakness has been getting something done about them. Four examples of that have arisen today. Mr Dallat highlighted the question of the awarding of printing contracts by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. Contracts worth nearly £500,000 were awarded without tendering. Nine other contracts, totalling around £200,000 above the lowest bid, were also awarded. However, the response from Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment officials was that it was not wrong to have appointed the person who owned the firm to the Tourist Board. It also appeared to them that there was no wrongdoing in the awarding of those contracts. If the Department can brush off legitimate and serious criticism in that way, the Public Accounts Committee does not have the teeth to deal with that issue.

Another example was the inaccuracy of social security payments. A Member pointed out that it was appalling that as many as one in 10 payments were wrong. That means hardship for some people. It also means money being spent wrongly in other cases. However, when officials from the Department for Social Development attended the Social Development Committee meeting no less than a week ago, they were still talking about the same level of accuracy, despite the Public Accounts Committee having said that it was unacceptable.

Another example was the money that was spent on New Deal's rebranding. Contracts worth £900,000 were given without going to public tender. Does the Assembly want to spend money on branding offices and making them look flashy? The only answer the Department could offer was that New Deal had brought unemployment figures down. It could not, however, relate that fall in unemployment to the money that was spent.

The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has said that it has a zero-tolerance approach to fraud. However, farmers in south Armagh are walking away with millions and not being taken to court.

Mr Dallat mentioned education targets. Millions are being spent by the Department of Education on helping youngsters who have educational needs.

Despite that expenditure, the targets have again been lowered.

We must find ways to respond more effectively to a problem once it has been highlighted. Perhaps all Ministers who have a responsibility, not just the Minister of Finance and Personnel, should be here today. If the targets set by the Public Accounts Committee are not met, perhaps Departments should be told that a long hard look will be given to their next budget proposals.

It is important that the House exercises proper scrutiny. I congratulate the Public Accounts Committee on its work so far, but it will need real teeth if it is to deal with the problems that have been highlighted.

I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Executive to the first Assembly debate on the work of the local Public Accounts Committee. I acknowledge the good wishes of the Chairperson of the Committee to me on taking up office.

This is my first substantive debate as Minister of Finance and Personnel. It is an appropriate debate for a Minister with my responsibilities to participate in. It is a good learning exercise not only in the context of my direct ministerial responsibilities but in regard to my departmental responsibilities relating to public expenditure.

The Committee's work has been prodigious. I express my appreciation to the Chairperson, Mr Billy Bell, the Deputy Chairperson, Ms Sue Ramsey, and other members. The Committee has shown itself to be well up to the task of holding Departments accountable for their expenditure, even though accounting officers may find it uncomfortable to be subjected to a more regular accountability process than that which existed in the past - several Members highlighted that point.

Increased accountability can be only beneficial in the pursuit of the highest possible standards of control, and of greater economy, effectiveness and efficiency in public expenditure. I stress that the Executive welcome that, because continuous scrutiny enhances public confidence in the democratic system and reinforces their ability to make a real impact on public service delivery.

I pay tribute to the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland and his staff in the Northern Ireland Audit Office, who provided regular reports and assistance to the Committee. The Audit Committee, under Chairperson John Dallat and Billy Hutchinson as Deputy Chairperson, provides an important oversight to ensure that the public audit is delivered in the most cost-effective way.

The Committee has been a focal point for accountability; it has brought to the public's attention concerns that we must all address to ensure that we deliver value for money in our public services. Part of the Department of Finance and Personnel's role is to promote effective systems for the management and control of public spending. The Department has already followed up issues that have arisen from the Committee's work to ensure that they are resolved.

An important part of the Public Accounts Committee process is to make all Departments more aware of their responsibilities to the Assembly in their use of public funds. The accounting officers concerned must attend hearings and give account of their management and supervision of public funds. The whole process must be adhered to not only by the Departments under scrutiny but all Departments, because there are lessons to be learnt by all.

The Committee has reinforced messages for improved financial management. A benefit of local accountability is that Committee members have an in-depth knowledge of the issues concerned. That can give rise to better informed questioning together with more regular scrutiny than was possible under direct rule. The Executive have brought forward several initiatives that will improve accountability for public services. Some of them have been implemented, but others require a phased approach and are being implemented step by step. Their overall impact will, however, make a significant improvement in the open and transparent system of accountability which will apply in years ahead - [Interruption].

Order, please. The Minister is responding.

TOP