I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Appropriation Bill, 1978: Second Stage.
I should like to say a few words about this Bill. It is not customary for the Dáil to spend a great deal of time discussing the Appropriation Bill. Usually, however, there is a lengthy discussion on the Bill in the Seanad which provides that House with an opportunity to discuss the broad range of Government policy, an opportunity which it does not otherwise have. There are a few points which should be made on this Appropriation Bill.
This is the way statutory authority is provided for the spending of money by the Government. This evening we have voted through Estimates but they are only Estimates. They do not confer any statutory authority on the Government actually to spend the money. This Bill confers statutory authority on the Government to spend money, 90 per cent of which they have already spent. In this Bill the House is being asked to give restrospective statutory authority to the spending of money by the Government. The amount involved is over £2,000 million. Some of the constituents of that £2,000 million were discussed in the form of Estimates but, as I have said, those Estimates did not confer statutory authority for the spending of the money. They were merely resolutions of this House which approved of the policies and figures involved and so on.
In fact, a substantial portion of that money, approximately £400 million, was passed on 27 June 1978 without debate. At that stage, half of the money had been spent already. Approximately £400 million was approved in the form of Estimates without any debate. This Bill will give statutory approval to that. I am speaking from memory but I think approximately another £600 million was approved in the form of Estimates on 27 June in a very restricted debate. I am sorry. The figure was about £1,800 million. The vast bulk of the Estimates to which this Bill gives statutory authority were either discussed in very restricted debates or were not discussed at all.
We have put down a motion which will be discussed in due course in Private Members' Time to the effect that procedures which allow money to be spent on behalf of the people of Ireland in this cursory fashion ought to be changed. It is not satisfactory to have this type of procedure whereby millions and millions of pounds are passed on the nod in this House because there is no time to discuss policy.
This Appropriation Bill, involving a sum of over £2,000 million, is being used under the Central Fund (Permanent Provisions) Act, 1965, for the spending of up to four-fifths of that sum by the Government in 1979 under the various Estimates before they are discussed. By approving a figure of over £2,000 million in 1978, in effect, by virtue of the provisions of the 1965 Act, we are allowing the Government to spend four-fifths of that sum in 1979 without obtaining any approval from the House for the Votes concerned. Obviously, that is a very unsatisfactory position.
It should also be mentioned that the Estimates for 1979 have not yet been published and will not be published until the year 1979 has already commenced. We will not even know the Government's spending plans for 1979 until some of the money has already been spent in the first weeks of 1979. This Bill, when read in conjunction with the Central Fund (Permanent Provisions) Act, allows the Government to spend up to four-fifths of the £2,000 million here without having the Estimates discussed. That is a highly unsatisfactory position so far as financial accountability is concerned. Lest anybody should think this is inevitable, it does not occur in Europe. We are talking about money that is already spent for 1978. In Europe the equivalent of this Bill would have been published in September 1977 and there would have been three months to debate the provisions of that Bill which would be called a budget Bill because it would contain both expenditure and taxation measures, before the year in which spending commenced. There would be provision for it to be discussed in Committees of the House before money was spent and no money could be spent under the provisions of this Bill in these countries until the House had approved the entirety of the package.
There is no reason why we should not have the same sort of procedures in relation to financial accountability. There is no reason why we should not have the same control. That would be to the benefit of the Government of the day and the Opposition of the day because both would have greater control over the way money was being spent. Government backbench Deputies would have a far greater opportunity to influence the Minister in relation to the way money was to be spent. At the moment the Estimates debate here is virtually meaningless because most of the Estimates were not discussed until 27 June, halfway through the year in question. Anything that anybody could say in a debate on that date could have no influence on the Minister because the Minister was already committed and half the money was already spent.
If a Deputy indicated that the Minister should spend more money under one heading than under another there was nothing the Minister could do about it on that date because 50 per cent of the money was already spent. There is no real opportunity to influence the Minister in any way by any debate which takes place on an Estimate. For this reason we must look at the financial procedures of the House which are brought into full relief by this Bill which is asking us to approve the spending of over £2,000 million, 90 per cent of which has already been spent without this Bill having been approved.
I have amendments for discussion on Committee Stage which I presume will take place immediately, and they are directed at some of the problems I referred to. I will comment briefly on some of the figures contained in the Bill. There are certain areas of public expenditure where over the years there seems to have grown up what I would describe as a wrong emphasis in terms of expenditure. I will use the Departments of Health and Social Welfare, and Justice as examples. The provision for social welfare from 1971 to 1978 has increased by only 329 per cent which is less than the average provision for the entire Government over that period, which was 359 per cent. We have been giving less than we should to social welfare which provides for the poorest section. In contrast, although male life expectancy which is an index of the sucess of the health programmes, has fallen during that decade, health expenditure has increased by 711 per cent, more than twice as much as the increase in expenditure on social welfare. We are not getting the results from the health expenditure because evidently male life expectancy has fallen over that period, a period in which we increased health expenditure by more than double the average amount of spending in the Government as a whole. In the area of Justice there is a remarkable contrast in relation to increases in expenditure during the last decade since 1971. The provision for prisons has increased since 1971 by 1,158 per cent. We are spending three times the average in keeping people in prison, but in detecting crime the increased provision has only been 354 per cent. This compares very favourably with the amount being spent on prisons and it suggests that if we used non-custodial means in the treatment of certain offenders and reduced the prison vote, we would have sufficient money available to spend on extra gardai in relation to the detection of crime and on the improvement of court procedures to provide for settlement of family disputes and so on. These are some areas where there has been a wrong emphasis.
While this Bill does not allow a debate on the general merits of Government spending other than in theory, and anything I say on this Bill is entirely relevant, I could spend the next four hours talking about this, because one can speak about anything on the Appropriation Bill, I feel there is need for a means whereby this House can analyse Government expenditure properly. I have suggested these improvements in the financial procedures in the House and in the House's control over Government spending to remove that sort of anomaly, or at least have it identified here. I hope that although the Minister cannot respond positively at this stage, when the Private Members' Motion on the subject comes to be discussed next year, he will be in a position to respond positively on behalf of his party to the suggested improvements that we will seek to make.
I support Deputy Bruton's comments in relation to this Bill and in relation to the reforms suggested, particularly the need for estimates committees of the House which I have always favoured. I am quite sure that a large number of Fianna Fáil backbenchers would dearly wish to be involved in such committees so as to have some participation in Government, even at that level. For that reason I also strongly support this Bill.
I appreciate that we agreed to take all stages of this Bill around 6.30 p.m. and since we have agreed to follow through before 7 p.m. with the grocery regulations, that time precludes us from commenting at any length on this.
From everybody's point of view we have had a most unsatisfactory evening. Ministers had different accounts and different Supplementary Estimates to put before the House and everybody has been rushed. Deputies from this side have been trying to make comments. The affairs of the country should be looked after in a businesslike and orderly way. By saying that I mean no disrespect to the Chair; every Deputy must take a certain amount of responsibility for this situation. The main burden of responsibility for this matter rests with the Taoiseach, who is the Leader of the House, and the Minister for Finance. We should approach our work in the same manner in which a top company would approach its work. Towards the end of the year a top company prepares detailed accounts and estimates for the following year. I cannot see why we, who are spending more than £2,000 million, cannot arrange matters in a similar fashion. Ministers should prepare their Estimates well in advance of presenting them to the House.
The present situation allows Ministers to evade responsibility. It allows Ministers to avoid coming into the House when difficult and contentious matters are being debated. A Minister who wishes to avoid coming into the House can have his Estimate shoved under the Appropriation Accounts or it can be left on the Order Paper. Many important matters have not been discussed in the House this year. For instance, we should have been given an opportunity to debate the Department of Justice.
I put it to the Minister that he should make an honest effort to rectify the situation. I believe that every Minister should come into the House and give the Opposition an opportunity to either praise or criticise the relevant Department.
The contributions, particularly Deputy Bruton's contribution, were very interesting for two reasons. First, Deputy Bruton's basic thesis was wrong. Second, there seems to be a new-found crusading spirit on the opposite benches in regard to changes that are thought to be necessary in the handling of financial business. That spirit was not obvious when the Deputies opposite were on this side of the House.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Government have 84 seats now.
I do not want to be taken as saying that there is no room for improvement. However, I do want to be taken as saying that the Deputies opposite would have been more impressive in their arguments if they had done something about the matter when they were in a position to do so. The fact that they did not is sufficient evidence that there are a number of difficulties in improving the situation and that some of the suggestions made would only make the situation worse.
I want to explain why I said that Deputy Bruton's basic thesis was wrong. He seemed to base most of his case on the theory that the Appropriation Bill is giving statutory authority for the spending of the moneys referred to in it. That is not correct. The statutory authority for the spending of these moneys is provided under the Central Fund (Permanent Provisions) Act, 1965. Deputy Bruton explained, correctly, that it provides statutory authority for four-fifths of the amount of the previous year's money, but it also provides statutory authority in respect of the balance of the money as soon as the Dáil grants supply or votes the money. The Appropriations Bill is simply appropriating, as indicated in the Schedule, the various sums of money to the various accounts. To say that we are being asked to give statutory authority to the expenditure of approximately £2 billion is not correct.
I am not saying that there is not room for improvement. Some of the ideas expressed by Deputy Bruton in this regard are not feasible but I commend him for his efforts to try to improve the position and to get us to think about it. He is overlooking something important in the comparison he made between the growth in expenditure on social welfare and health, that is, in 1971 about half of the health expenditure was met from local rates, which is not now the case. A comparison between the two is not legitimate unless allowance is made for that fact.
The question of how the situation can best be improved is not one that we should go into at this stage. In regard to the suggestion that we should have special estimates committees, some members are responsible for deluding themselves and the public in regard to the usefulness of the committee system. We know how the committee system works on the Continent. The basic difference between the way it works there and here is that most of the work is done in committee and plenary sessions deal with the results of committees. What we are trying to do is to carry on the plenary work of the Assembly while carrying on the committees. My experience is that our system does not work. A few Deputies constitute the bulk of the membership of most committees set up by this House. The demands on their time are such that it is not possible to work an effective committee system as long as we expect the House to carry on its business at the same time. Until we face that fact we are never going to have an effective committee system. That is the view of the Government on the matter and I believe it is true. Unless we are prepared to make the kind of change that is implied, we are wasting our time talking about committee systems.
I am not saying that there is no room for improvement or that the Government have closed their minds to the possibility of improvement, but we cannot discuss it on this Bill. As Deputy Bruton said, there is a Private Members' motion coming up which may provide an opportunity for a detailed debate on those aspects of the matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.