There once was a time, not a lifetime ago, when the publication of the Comptroller and Auditor General's annual report was eagerly awaited because it was a rare opportunity to discover a little about how the State was being run.
But even in the current era of purported openness and transparency, and of daily revelations from the tribunals and inquiries, John Purcell's report provided some fascinating insights yesterday.
Like any good auditor's report, it is unlikely to make pleasant reading for some civil servants, whose actions it exposes, criticises and questions. It also unveils a number of interesting developments which have up to now remained hidden for a variety of legal reasons.
There are few better examples than Mr Purcell's audit of the Revenue Commissioners. For the first time we learn that last year the Commissioners made an individual settlement for over £6.6 million - one of the largest individual settlements in recent times. Unfortunately, the report does not identify who he - or perhaps she - is.
But if it was not for Mr Purcell's report we may never have heard of the settlement because it was made following a full and voluntary disclosure. Under such circumstances the Revenue Commissioners do not have the power to identify the individual or publish details of the settlement.
But Mr Purcell is also critical of the Revenue Commissioners, particularly of the poor yield from, and execution of, judgment mortgages (where the Revenue take possession of an individual's property until they discharge their tax debts). His analysis of the 1,249 judgments registered against a group of mainly professional and self-employed individuals found they had £58 million in tax registered against them between 1990 and 1997.
We also learned that among the 1,249 tax defaulters who faced mortgage judgments were some individuals who had built up tax arrears of between 10 and 20 years. Some of them have never paid tax.
Of these, 90 per cent did not subsequently make a settlement with the Revenue and some of the arrears remain outstanding. The report stated that some of the defaulters remain in their professions and businesses to the present.
Mr Purcell asked the question: why were these people not pursued and made pay what they owed?
He stated several reasons for the compromises which occurred. Among them was the Revenue's decision to accept settlements from defaulters below the amount of the judgment registered against them. The Revenue also reduced the tax liability to agree with totals already paid. Then there were cases where no payment was made and "tax assessments for all years in arrears were reduced to nil".
The Revenue also found that because the charged property was owned by somebody other than the taxpayer, usually somebody by the same name or a close relation, it could not proceed.
In fact, despite the scale of non-compliance, Mr Purcell's review of 1998 found that just six tax evasion cases which were brought before the courts last year resulted in successful prosecutions.
The issue of prosecution also arose in his audit of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, which found that fraud or suspected fraud accounted for £10.7 million of the £22 million in social welfare overpayments last year. The prosecution rate was more successful than for tax evasion, with 43 employers and 117 claimants prosecuted.
Other insights provided by the report included the crisis facing the Irish Council of People with Disabilities. It received £1.2 million in State funds in 1997/1998 but Mr Purcell says he has been told there is prima-facie evidence to suggest there was some misappropriation of public funds by the body.
Documents in the possession of the Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform suggest the council failed to follow proper accounting procedures and adopted a very unsatisfactory approach to the control of expenditure. Concern at the way in which taxpayers' money is spent is also evident in Mr Purcell's highlighting of the £536,000 overtime bill earned by six meat factory inspectors between 1995 and 1998.
The report is littered with similar examples, such as the original estimated cost of the Castlerea Prison perimeter wall of £3.57 million. It was subsequently done for £1.2 million by a contractor who was not originally short-listed for the tender job.