Unacceptable delays have taken place over the last couple of years in examining Government departments' spending, a Government report has warned.
In 1997, the Department of Finance set up the Expenditure Review Initiative as part of an effort to improve decision-making and get better value for money.
Since then, among the issues it has examined are Garda overtime, the costs of transporting prisoners, Ireland's aid budget, and the cost of Irish Embassies abroad.
Although it was set up seven years ago, however, it is "only relatively recently" that the inspection system has "been finalised and become fully operational", the Expenditure Review Central Steering Committee (ERCSC) has told the Minister for Finance, Mr Cowen.
"It has taken time for the ERCSC and for departments and offices to give effect to the various reforms to the Expenditure Review Initiative approved by the Government.
"The ERCSC acknowledges that, overall, significant progress has been made by departments and offices in building an evaluation culture," it states in the report.
"However, while some delays are to be expected in making the transition to the new ERI arrangements, the rate of progress in finalising some reviews does give cause for concern.
"It is clear to the ERCSC that there are still some problems in the planning, management and resourcing of the review process within departments and offices," it says. "Some additional momentum needs to be injected into securing the more timely completion of reviews."
The slow pace of reporting was complained about in 2003 by another government body, the Committee on Public Management Research.
This was following a 12-month review.
It blamed the "significant delays" on departmental reorganisations.
It also blamed "the precedence of other government priorities, and a lack of engagement by other departments, offices and the absence of agreed, dedicated resources from the outset".
Departmental secretaries general complained that the work involved in the review system "had been significant and had been underestimated".
In some cases the terms of reference were set so broadly that they "militated against the ability of staff to deliver reviews within a reasonable timetable".
Some of the reports to date had offered useful staffing ideas, but they were less useful in other areas because there was such a "time-lag between actions and outcomes", the top civil servants commented.
