Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Dec 1977

Vol. 302 No. 9

Appropriation Bill, 1977: Second and Subsequent Stages

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I do not intend to delay the House with a speech on this Bill but I wish formally to draw the attention of the House, as I have done previously, to the fact that this is probably the most important Bill we pass but it will be disposed of in a matter of minutes at the end of term. This is not new; it is the custom of the House. I do not mean that as a reflection either on the administration or the Government. It is, as I stated previously, a reflection on the House. In this Bill we are authorising the whole of the expenditure covering the period of the Estimates that we passed in June and the Supplementary Estimates we passed yesterday. In fact, we are giving legal rubber-stamp effect to a provision that grants moneys for the summarised purposes in the Schedule. We are granting public moneys without any adequate consideration in this House or in a Committee of this House until, perhaps, two years later when the Committee on Public Accounts will go through this and we will have the usual arguments. By that time the money has been spent, and legally spent. I wish to draw the attention of the House to what we are doing now formally.

I suggest that all Members read the last published report, for 1974, of the Committee of Public Accounts. That report will be followed by the report for 1975. The reports are in arrears in publication but any Deputy interested in something more than merely the so-called political matters will find in those reports that there are serious questions arising now for this Parliament, if it is to be a sovereign Parliament, on the question of its own financial control. Virtually, by such a thing as this Bill, we are handing over all control of public expenditure to the administration.

I should like to support the Deputy in the sense that I think he is saying that the House does not pay sufficient attention to the money we vote. We passed a lot of Supplementary Estimates last night and we are now in the process of passing almost £2,000 million between 10.30 a.m. and 10.40 a.m. on the second last day of this session. As Deputy de Valera mentioned, this is not new and it is not the only Dáil where this was done. The Deputy has been a lone voice in this crusade to give this House better financial control of the public finances. He brought this point up on many occasions. I suggest that it is time that the three parties, with the assistance and guidance of the present chairman and the last chairman, of the Committee of Public Accounts, devised some means by which there would be accountability to the House for the money spent, not two or three years after it has been spent legally.

I should like, on behalf of the Labour Party, to be associated with the remarks made. In fairness, Deputy de Valera raised this on previous occasions. It is not a party political matter and I do not wish it to develop into such. I do not wish to create the view that, now that we are in Opposition, we should be having a crack at the Government on every possible occasion. Successive Governments have been responsible for allowing this develop. The serious note of warning sounded by Deputy de Valera concerning the casual manner in which we dispose of a figure in excess of £2,000 million, without proper scrutiny by the House, is something that should concern every Member, irrespective of party.

The suggestion made by Deputy Barry could be very usefully taken up in the interests of Parliament and in the interests of the people as a whole. This is not a political issue and it should not be made into a political scoring point. Since it has been raised so forcibly this morning by Deputy de Valera, the three parties should get together but, while it is not a political matter, the responsibility to ensure that some proper mechanism is worked out rests undoubtedly with the Government.

As Deputy de Valera indicated, it is the tradition in this House that we do not discuss the Appropriation Bill in detail. It is discussed in considerable detail in the other House where it is analogous to our budget debate because the budget, as such, does not go before the other House.

The Government are anxious to cooperate in any procedures which would improve the methods of ensuring accountability but, let us not get carried away in this matter, because some things which had been said simply are not accurate. The purpose of the Appropriation Bill now before the House is to appropriate the various supply services by Statute. It is not simply a question of authorising the amounts of money involved in this. They have already been authorised by the House either as Estimates, Supplementary Estimates, or payments under Statute.

Deputy de Valera will be familiar with the fact—indeed, he is very familiar with the fact—that a certain argument was made recently to rely on this Bill to authorise certain payments. He is also familiar with the fact that that argument is no longer being made by the present Minister for Finance. Therefore, we are not purporting in this Bill to authorise payments but merely to appropriate payments already authorised. I want to make it clear that this procedure being followed is not merely rubber-stamping large expenditure. It is simply appropriating it to the various Votes.

Having said that, I want to say it is clear that, over quite a number of recent years, the amount of time devoted to Estimates and Supplementary Estimates has been reduced. I would suggest that is the area which ought to be considered if there is to be some all-party approach to the matter as to how greater time could be devoted to Estimates and Supplementary Estimates.

In this context, in all fairness I should point out that yesterday virtually the whole day was devoted to Supplementary Estimates. A timetable was laid out for the various Supplementary Estimates and, in fact, the House did not use all the time laid out for this purpose yesterday. I say that so that we can have some air of reality about the discussion going on here this morning.

I do not think that is quite fair. The indication was, even though it was not agreed between the parties, that in the time allocated only spokesmen would reply to the debate and there would be no backbench contributions. Backbenchers are also entitled to have a say on Estimates.

Of course, but nevertheless it is true that, within the circumscription agreed between the Whips, the time available was not fully used.

That also is not fair comment. As happened yesterday, if a spokesman is left with six minutes to comment on a Supplementary Estimate, it is not possible to comment intelligibly in six minutes.

I would accept that the arrangements are not fully satisfactory but, having accepted that, if we are genuine in our talk about establishing accountability to this House, at least such time as is made available should be fully used. All I am saying is that the time made available within the confines of what was agreed by the Whips was not fully used.

Because backbenchers were excluded. We had to agree to that to get the business through. That is the unsatisfactory part of it, without wanting to enter into controversy.

Let us not obscure the issue. The fact is that certain times were laid down which were available to appropriate Ministers and spokesmen and those times were not fully used. That is a fact which cannot be denied.

The Minister is talking about a quarter of an hour.

However we may explain it, it is a fact we cannot deny. Having said that, I want to repeat that far from having an objection to them the Government would actively encourage efforts which would be practicable and would ensure a greater degree of accountability than has been manifest in recent years. The detailed methods by which this could be achieved would have to be a matter for fairly lengthy and careful discussion between the parties. I would encourage that. I would hope that, having said what we have said, the House would now be prepared to follow tradition on the Appropriation Bill which is not purporting to authorise payments but rather to appropriate them to the different Votes.

May I say this? While the Minister is quite correct——

The Deputy may speak a second time only by way of explanation.

By way of explanation, this Bill gives statutory authority to the Estimates and, without this Bill, the Estimates, even if they were fully discussed, would not have statutory effect. That is all I want to say. It does more than appropriate.

Question put and agreed to.
Bill put through Committee and reported without amendment.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Could I comment briefly? One of the methods we might examine to ensure the possibility of having more adequate discussion on Estimates and Supplementary Estimates or on this Bill, might be to have Friday sittings on some occasions. I notice the Minister has become very silent and inactive on this matter since he changed from this side of the House to that side. During the period of office of the previous Government, the demand for extra sittings made by the then Opposition was met by the then Government. More time was given to discuss these various items. I have seen no indication of that method being adopted or attempted by this Government to facilitate the House to discuss as fully as possible various matters of national importance which come before us.

As Deputy Cluskey said earlier, this really is not a matter for party political point scoring.

The Minister did not do too badly. He got a proper response from the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party and then he went into a political area.

In the context of the discussion we had, I am sorry Deputy Cluskey should regard a statement of fact as being a party political point scoring exercise. I cannot help it if he regards it that way.

If the Minister regarded my statement as being political surely I am entitled to regard his statement as being political.

Be sensible.

I want to point out that Deputy Cluskey is mistaken in thinking that, for instance, last year or the year before more time was devoted to Estimates. The fact is that the amount of time being devoted to Estimates has been steadily decreasing —I am not sure of the present year which, because of elections and other things, would not have been a normal year—but last year the least amount of time was devoted to them.

Let us not confuse ourselves with regard to what the actual situation is. I want to make it clear that we are willing to consider various suggestions that might improve the reality about the House and its investigation and examination of various Estimates and accountability. The suggestion made by Deputy Cluskey may be practicable, but when the Whips discuss it they may not find it so practicable. Do not let us approach this on the false assumption that last year the then Opposition demanded extra time for Estimates and got it, because I am afraid that is not the fact.

Question put and agreed to.

This Bill is certified a Money Bill in accordance with Article 22 of the Constitution.

Top
Share