Assessing government’s responsiveness to PAC

There are a number of ways to examine government responsiveness to the recommendations of parliamentary committees, in this instance the Public Accounts Committee.

One way is to focus on how institutions – rules, procedures and processes – affect the behaviour of government actors; the very fact that there is a process in place to ensure that accounting officers come before a parliamentary committee to explain their actions, will affect, and sometimes alter, their decisions and actions. Referred to as the ‘anticipatory effect’ (Benton and Russell, 2013, 791) or the ‘psychological deterrent’(cited in Elston and Zhang, 2022), it is presumed that the knowledge that one has to explain oneself publicly in the future encourages ministers and accounting officers to properly think through their decisions on how public money is used in the present.

There are different views on the extent to which the anticipatory effect sufficiently incentivises good use of public funds. On the one hand, qualitative research undertaken by Russell and Benton (2013) has found that government actors do adjust behaviour in anticipation of how a committee might re-act. Interviewees referred to “committee proofing” their actions. On the other hand, former Vice-Chair (2002-2007) and Chair (2011-2016) of PAC, John McGuinness TD has questioned the extent to which officials “feel the breath of a forensic auditor down their neck, and fear the glare of publicity, as they deal with billions of euro of hard-earned tax revenue” (2010, 119). He argued (2010, 2012) that the anticipatory effect is weakened by the limited duration of a public hearing, however uncomfortable it may be, and the absence of any real sanction for poor management of public money.^[2] Sanctions are reputational and political rather than legal.^[3]

The ‘anticipatory effect’ is more likely to have a bearing on decisions where the Public Accounts Committee has certain characteristics: it is chaired by an opposition member, is not dominated by parliamentarians from government parties, meets frequently, has the power to call witnesses and papers and receives a response from government to its recommendations, and relies on reports undertaken by an independent officer with a legal remit to examine the expenditure of public money and resources to carry it out (see overview in Lynch, 2023). The resources allocated to the Public Accounts Committee and the extent to which its work is transparent and public also play a determining role (Lynch, 2023).

Another way to consider the government and administration’s responsiveness to PAC is to assess the extent to which PAC’s recommendations are accepted, and subsequently implemented, by the departments and bodies at which they are directed. While a recommendation is not the only instrument open to PAC, reports and recommendations are the most visible outcome and reflect the consensus reached by the committee (see MacCarthaigh above on how PAC takes decisions).

If we use the extent to which recommendations are accepted as a way to measure responsiveness, several questions arise. Firstly, can we consider a recommendation that has been ‘accepted’ as success in the absence of any clear commitment to how and when it will be implemented? How much evidence of progress is sufficient to demonstrate that implementation is in progress? And can a recommendation be considered ‘fully implemented’ if the government did not do exactly what PAC recommended but took on board its observations and addressed the issue in a different way? [Zhang and co].

During the 32^nd Dáil the PAC made 260 recommendations in its reports. Using the Minutes of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,^[4] staff in the committee secretariat recorded all recommendations, the government’s response to each recommendation (accepted, partially accepted, noted, rejected) and, if the recommendation was accepted, whether or not implementation was in progress at the time of the Minute of the Minister’s Report.

This data shows that 77% of the 260 recommendations made in PAC’s reports were formally accepted by government and that 9% of recommendations had been fully implemented while 73% were considered by the committee secretariat to be ‘in progress’ at the time when the Minute of the Minister was published (Table 1).^[5] It is not possible to comment on the final outcome of recommendations that were in the process of being implemented in the case of the 32^nd Dáil. While the Public Accounts Committee followed up with public entities on progress via correspondence, the outcome of this correspondence was not coded in the data for the 32^nd Dáil. However, the practice of publishing all correspondence, which was adopted by PAC in the 31^st Dáil - 2011-2016, means that it would be possible to further track progress in implementing these recommendations. (LINK TO PAC’s WEBSITE WHERE CORRESPONDENCE IS]

Table 1: Government response to PAC’s recommendations (32^nd Dáil)

Recommendation response	Recommendation response (number)	Recommendation response (% of all recommendations)
Accepted	198	75%
Accepted in Principle	1	0%
n/a	1	0%
Partially accepted	6	2%
Noted	42	16%
Not accepted	6	2%
Not accepted nor rejected	9	3%

Table 2: 32^ND Dáil : Rate of implementation (regardless of government response)

Implementation status	Number	As % of all (at time of minister’s report)
Implemented/Already in place	24	9%
In progress	190	73%
n/a	23	9%
Not forthcoming	23	9%
Grand Total	260

16% (42) of PAC’s recommendations in the 32^nd Dáil were ‘noted’ and five percent (15) were either rejected or neither accepted nor rejected. Table 2A shows that 15 of the 42 recommendations which were noted by the government were implemented or in progress while for 23 no action had been taken.

Table 2A: Recommendation response and implementation status (at time of government report)

Recommendation response	Number	Of which were:
		Implemented/ Already in place	In progress	n/a	Not forthcoming	(blank)
Accepted	198	20	173	4		1
Accepted in Principle	1			1
Partially accepted	6		5	1
Noted	42	4	11	4	23
Not accepted	6			5		1
Not accepted nor rejected	9		1	7		1
No response	1			1
Grand Total	263	24	190	23	23	3

The PAC issued 109 recommendations in the 33^rd Dáil (up till end of July 2024). In the 33^rd Dáil, the tracking system was further developed; the parliamentary service has tracked progress in implementation, not only using the Minute of the Minister, but also using the correspondence between PAC and departments and agencies concerning progress in the implementation of accepted, partially accepted or noted recommendations. Prior to meetings or interactions with PAC, departments, or offices an update on progress in the implementation of PAC’s previous recommendations is requested. This progress is then coded on an ongoing basis.

Using this data, it is possible to see that in the 33^rd Dáil (until the end of July 2024), the government has accepted 77 of PAC’s 109 recommendations (71%) (Table 3) and that of these 77 accepted recommendations, 51 have been implemented and 26 are in the process of being implemented (Table 4A). The remaining recommendations had either been rejected or implementation has not commenced. Table 4 shows the implementation outcomes for accepted, partially accepted, and rejected recommendations in the 33^rd Dáil (till end of July 2024).

Table 3 Government response to PAC recommendations (33^rd Dáil) (till end of July 2024).

Government response		Count of Recommendation response	Recommendation response (% of all recommendations
Accepted		77	71%
Accepted in principle		4	4%
Partially accepted		9	8%
Not accepted		2	2%
Not accepted nor rejected		2	2%
Not accepted nor rejected but communicated to RTÉ		7	6%
Noted		8	7%
Total	109		100%

Table 4: Dáil 4: 33^rd Dáil - Rate of implementation (regardless of government response)

Row Labels	Count of Recommendation response	% of recommendations
Implemented/ Already in place	61	56%
In progress	32	29%
n/a	16	15%
Grand Total	109	100%

Table 4A: 33^rd Dáil: Implementation status by government response)

Row Labels	Number of Recommendations
Accepted	77
Implemented/already in place	51
In progress	26
Accepted in principle	4
In progress	4
Partially accepted	9
Implemented/already in place	6
In progress	2
n/a	1
Noted	8
Implemented/already in place	3
n/a	5
Not accepted	2
n/a	2
Not accepted nor rejected	2
Implemented/already in place	1
n/a	1
Not accepted nor rejected, recommendation communicated to RTÉ	7
n/a	7
Grand Total	109

OR THIS ONE

Recommendation response	Number	Of which have been (status):
		Implemented/ in place	In progress	n/a	(blank)
Accepted	77	51	26
Accepted in principle	4		4
Noted	8	3		5
Partially accepted	9	6	2	1
Not accepted	2			2
Not accepted nor rejected	2	1		1
Not accepted nor rejected, recommendation communicated to RTÉ	7			7
(blank)
Grand Total	109	61	32	16

Figure 1: Implementation status of accepted, accepted in principle, noted, etc recommendations (%) – 33^rd Dáil

What, if anything, can we conclude from this information about the government’s responsiveness to the Public Accounts Committee?

Firstly, is important to note that the tracking process is not designed to measure the success or otherwise of ‘PAC’s recommendations. Rather it is designed to strengthen the weight of PAC’s recommendations by making it clear that it follows up with departments/bodies.

However, it also allows us to observe the influence of PAC on departments and agencies.

The relatively high acceptance rates of recommendations suggests that government is responsive to the Public Accounts Committee.

Further Research:

Yet to fully understand the extent to which accepted recommendations are in fact implemented, it is necessary to look more closely at recommendations that are ‘in the process of being implemented’ and at the time it takes for recommendations to be issued and implemented (as noted above, the Minute of the Minister is frequently published up to a year after the recommendation is issued).

Also of interest, is the type of recommendations that are either ‘noted’ or rejected and whether there is any pattern to this. According to DPER (2011, 17), PAC’s recommendations tend to concern:

• Instances where financial procedures have not been complied with

• Cases where amounts granted by the Dáil have been exceeded

• Internal control weaknesses and their implications

• Expenditure which has not been sanctioned by the DPER

• Fraud, mismanagement, waste or uneconomic expenditure.

Could it be the case, for example, that certain types of recommendation are less likely to be accepted or, if accepted, are less likely to be fully implemented?

Drawing on earlier work by Benson and Russell (2013), Etson and Zhang categorised recommendations made by Public Accounts Committee into five types and inquired into whether certain types are more or less likely to be accepted and implemented (Box 1).

Box 1: Typology of types of recommendations made by Public Accounts Committees

Issue Guidance and Control Issue guidance to subordinate organizations; develop existing guidance; or enforce guidance through monitoring, incentives or sanctions. Guidance includes policies, rules, regulations, guidelines, and "lessons learned.” Control includes financial control, integrity and probity in expenditure. The objective is to control, steer or coordinate the actions of decentralised units. Determine the boundary between public and private sectors using the Office for National Statistics Public Sector Classification guide. Example: Consider unbundling service delivery from PFI contracts

Clarify the government’s position or disclose information Release information to the committee, parliament, regulators, auditors, public sector agencies, or the public; clarify information already released; ensure that information releases are not misleading. Information includes data or statistics, reports, analyses, advice to ministers, policy positions, future intentions, and management information. The objective is to improve transparency, promote accuracy, or enable consultation with other parties. Example:Ensure that turnover of SROs [Senior Responsible Owners] has slowed, and that SROs do not have too many projects

Undertake analysis, research or data collection Conduct or commission research (e.g., impact evaluation), analysis (e.g., cost-benefit analysis), a review (e.g., options appraisal), modelling or a simulation (e.g., sensitivity analysis of assumptions). Collect data or create or improve data systems. Review assumptions in existing analysis; undertake pilots; analyse side-effects. The objective is to improve knowledge and understanding.

improve contract management of government suppliers Instigate, change, improve, review or terminate contracts with private or third sector organizations providing services for, or finance to, government. Includes how contracts generally and specifically are awarded/managed; the regulation of public service markets; and the Private Finance Initiative (PFI). The objective is to achieve greater value from outsourcing arrangements.

Improve internal management procedures Change management practices of organizations. For example: governance structures and reporting lines; leaders or leadership style; the division of labour and setting and monitoring of team objectives; coordination of internal or external interdependencies; the recruitment, training, development, assignment, reward, morale, succession planning and disciplining of staff; the preparation of detailed plans for operationalising policies; the contingency and business-continuity arrangements. The objective is to improve the quality, consistency, efficiency and resilience of organizational actions.

Source: Elston and Zhang (link to article below)

I SUGGEST THAT ‘NOTED’ AND REJECTED OR NEITHER ACCEPTED OR REJECTED RECOMMENDATIONS ARE CODED USING THESE CATEGORIES TO SEE IF A PARTICULAR TYPE of recommendation is more prominent among the noted and rejected types .

OTHERWISE = if there is no scope to do this – IT COULD BE MENTIONED AS SOMETHING FOR FURTHER RESEARCH.

33^rd Dáil – Recommendations, government response and extent of implementation

Bibliography

Benton, M. and Russell, M. (2013) ‘Assessing the Impact of Parliamentary Oversight

Committees: The Select Committees in the British House of Commons’, Parliamentary

Affairs, 66, 772–797.

Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (2011) Role of Accounting Officers

Eltson and Zhang (2022) ‘Implementing Public Accounts Committee Recommendations: Evidence from the UK’ Parliamentary Affairs Vol.76 662-693 see here

Eolas Magazine (2012) interview with Stephen Dineen John McGuinness on the Public Accounts Committee

Lynch (2023) ‘Oireachtas Committees and the Dáil Public Accounts Committee in the 21^st Century’ Administration Vol.71(4)

McGuinness John and Naoise Nunn (2010) The House always Wins Gill and MacMillan

Minutes of the Minister LINK TO PAC

Appendix: Accepted, implementation status by department/body (33^rd Dáil)

Department or body	Count of Implementation status
Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine	9
Accepted	8
Implemented/ Already in place	5
In progress	3
Partially accepted	1
In progress	1
Department of Education	4
Accepted	2
Implemented/ Already in place	2
Partially accepted	2
Implemented/ Already in place	2
Department of Education, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (DPER)	1
Partially accepted	1
Implemented/ Already in place	1
Department of Finance	3
Accepted	3
Implemented/ Already in place	1
In progress	2
Department of Health	2
Accepted	1
Implemented/ Already in place	1
Noted	1
n/a	1
Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage	4
Accepted	3
Implemented/ Already in place	1
In progress	2
Partially accepted	1
Implemented/ Already in place	1
Department of Justice and Irish Prison Service	4
Accepted	4
Implemented/ Already in place	2
In progress	2
Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (DPER)	2
Accepted	2
Implemented/ Already in place	2
Department of Social Protection	4
Accepted	3
Implemented/ Already in place	2
In progress	1
Partially accepted	1
n/a	1
Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications	5
Accepted	5
Implemented/ Already in place	4
In progress	1
Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media	12
Accepted	2
In progress	2
Accepted in principle	1
In progress	1
Not accepted nor rejected	2
Implemented/ Already in place	1
n/a	1
Not accepted nor rejected, recommendation communicated to RTÉ	7
n/a	7
Department of Transport	4
Accepted	4
Implemented/ Already in place	1
In progress	3
Health Service Executive (HSE)	3
Accepted	1
In progress	1
Noted	2
Implemented/ Already in place	2
Horse Racing Ireland	5
Accepted	5
Implemented/ Already in place	5
Horse Racing Ireland and Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board	1
Accepted	1
Implemented/ Already in place	1
Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board	2
Accepted	2
Implemented/ Already in place	2
National Asset Management Agency (NAMA)	4
Noted	4
Implemented/ Already in place	1
n/a	3
National Paediatric Hospital Development Board	3
Accepted	2
Implemented/ Already in place	2
Noted	1
n/a	1
National Transport Authority	4
Accepted	4
Implemented/ Already in place	2
In progress	2
National Transport Authority and Transport Infrastructure Ireland	1
Accepted	1
Implemented/ Already in place	1
National Treatment Purchase Fund (NTPF)	1
Accepted	1
Implemented/ Already in place	1
Office of Public Works (OPW)	5
Accepted	3
Implemented/ Already in place	3
Partially accepted	2
Implemented/ Already in place	2
Revenue	5
Accepted	2
Implemented/ Already in place	2
Not accepted	2
n/a	2
Partially accepted	1
In progress	1
RTÉ	18
Accepted	15
Implemented/ Already in place	10
In progress	5
Accepted in principle	3
In progress	3
Tax Appeals Commission	1
Accepted	1
Implemented/ Already in place	1
Transport Infrastructure Ireland	2
Accepted	2
In progress	2
Grand Total	109

1. Data for this research was compiled by the committee secretariat – PAC’s policy adviser and the Committee co-ordination unit. ↑

2. McGuinness argued that the committee should be empowered to make a recommendation to the relevant Minister that an individual, group of people, agency or department be subject to sanction where they have failed to safeguard public money and have are found to have seriously done wrong.” (2010, 132, Eolos, 2012). ↑

3. Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (2011) Circular – The role and responsibilities of accounting officers. [accessed on gov.ie here 19^th August 2024). States on page 19 point 2.21 – there was a traditional view that accounting officers could be sanctioned by being held personally liable to refund expenditure tht PAC deemed to be improer but the principle of personal liability would appear to have no legal basisis in relation to Accounting officers in Ireland. ↑

4. Minute of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform responds on behalf of government to all recommendations and issues raised by PAC in its reports on the appropriation accounts and value for money reports by C&AG. ↑

5. The Minister’s responses to PAC’s recommendations were issued between 120 to 484 days after PAC’s report. See Lynch (2023) PAGE ↑