Amendment No 1 by Deputy Bruton has been ruled out of order.
Appropriation Bill, 1978: Committee and Final Stages.
SECTION 1.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
I wish to ask the Minister if he would consider it a good idea to amend the provisions of the Central Fund (Permanent Provisions) Act, 1965 and substitute some lesser figure than four-fifths. I think the Minister will agree that it is undesirable that up to four-fifths of the money provided for the Government in the year could be spent, even in theory, before the Estimates containing it have been discussed and approved in this House. I realise that in the early part of the year the Government have a good deal of business, including the budget, to get through and if they also have the Estimates to be dealt with in the first three months I agree there would be problems. That fact, however, might mean that we would have to find a way to solve the problems and that might lead to an improvement of the position of the House rather than a disimprovement. I suggest a figure of one-third rather than the four-fifths which currently exists. It would not tie up the Government completely but it would provide better control than we have at present.
I am sure the Deputy realises that the proportion one fixes determines the latest date by which all Estimates must be passed. If one takes one-third as the appropriate fraction, one is saying in effect—it works out this way—that approximately one-third of the way through the year is the date by which all Estimates must be passed. As the Deputy said quite correctly, the earlier part of the year is very much taken up with budget and Finance Bill debates and if at the same time or very close to it one were trying to get all the Estimates passed, the practical result could well be that the estimates would be passed without discussion at all so that the position might well be worse than it is at present. The Deputy is probably aware that the change made in the 1965 Act was designed to give more time for Estimates and it did, to some extent, provide it, because by fixing a fraction of four-fifths it gave a longer time during which Estimates might be taken. Once you fix a date by which in effect all Estimates must be passed, the earlier that is the more likelihood there is that Estimates will be passed without discussion.
I take the Minister's point but I think the problem could be solved if the Estimates were published before the year to which they applied had commenced. There is provision in the Central Fund (Permanent Provisions) Act, 1965 for that to be done. I draw the Minister's attention to section 4 (b) of that Act which says that where in the financial year ... or any subsequent financial year supply is granted by Dáil Éireann for a supply service for the year ... or (b) for a supply service for the next following financial year ... So it is possible under existing law for us to consider Estimates for 1979 during 1978. If the Government could succeed in publishing their Estimates for 1979, say, three months ago, we could perhaps have had most of them discussed before 1979 began. That would require no change in the statutory provisions. The only problem would be that of the Government in getting its Estimates published in time.
In any case, if the Government make a mistake in their Estimates and if through having to get them out three months in advance they find they have made insufficient provision for one heading and too much for another, we know from what has happened earlier today that it is quite possible for them to mend their hand by bringing in supplementary estimates later in the year to make the necessary changes. There is no real reason why the Government should not have published their estimates for 1979 three months ago. Any difficulty which might arise through publishing them too early could be overcome later by supplementary estimates introduced during 1979. It has not been the custom to do this under this or any previous Government but statutorily it is perfectly feasible. I ask the Minister in respect of 1980 to consider publishing the Estimates, say, two months before the end of 1979 and have some of them discussed before the end of the year so that problems would not arise.
If you fix a date for the publication of Estimates this year in respect of next year and say you fix it two or three months before the end of this year, those Estimates in practice would have had to be prepared five or six months earlier than the end of the year. The farther back you go the more unrealistic the Estimates become. It is true, as the Deputy says, that no matter how accurately they are prepared there will be changes up or down and there will be supplementary estimates. Nevertheless, I think that there is a danger about which the Deputy should think that if you make the procedure too unrealistic so that you are preparing estimates in June or July to cover the whole of the following year, it will become a very artificial exercise and the Estimates will mean little or nothing when so prepared. I do not regard that as a desirable outcome or one that the Deputy would wish to see occurring.
I could go a long way with the Minister in what he has said if it was not possible for the continental legislatures, France, the Netherlands and other countries to do precisely what the Minister says is not possible here, that is prepare estimates so far in advance. The continentals have been able to get over the problem which the Minister has put forward and I am sure we can get over it also. I urge the Minister to ask his officials to look at how the continentals get over the problem he has mentioned and see if they can teach us something. When the motion I have referred to comes to be discussed perhaps the Minister will have some information about how they have been able to do it and if necessary he can either amend our motion or substitute another which would provide a better type of control which would be in both his terms and ours realistic and improve the present position. If they are able to do it on the continent there is no reason why we could not do it.
It was mentioned that when some Members now on this side of the House were on the Government side the opportunity was not taken to make this change. I might add that a similar reformist zeal was displayed by those on the Government side when they were in opposition. I think that there is an inclination on the Government's side to give this matter some consideration and I think if that is indicated to the House the Minister will have the backing of everybody on the matter.
As regards the practice in different legislatures, some excellent examples were given, but if we look around at home we see some businesses are able to prepare estimates for the coming year. I do not think the business of politics is any different from an ordinary industry or business.
We do prepare Estimates for the coming year.
County councils have to approve them before the end of the year.
I accept that Governments prepare and produce estimates, but if we are talking about a system I believe everybody here should have a say in it. What I have in mind is that the House does not normally come back after the summer recess until some time in October. If the Estimates for the coming year were prepared and outlined then they could be discussed in the three months coming up to Christmas and if we want to have a day fixed to close the discussion on the Estimates we could fix 31 March. I think that proposal would have merit.
The Chair is getting somewhat anxious about the trend of this debate. What we are discussing now are really matters for another body—the procedures of the House and so on might very well be decided and discussed by the Special Committee appointed by the House representing all Members of the House. We could continue all night discussing when we should take Estimates, when we should decide, this, that and the other; when we should resume after summer or other recesses. I do not think it is really relevant.
But we are appropriating £3 million for the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is perfectly relevant.
I accept that, and I have given Deputies a lot of latitude.
I am most grateful to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for his assistance because he has brought another point to my mind.
I am sure he did not intend to be that helpful.
He should have known his man before he interrupted him.
As has already been said by Deputy Bruton, we have a motion coming up. I do not mind but somebody else is probably minding very much at this stage.
I think there is goodwill from all sides of the House in regard to the matter we are discussing. The Minister mentioned special committees and so on. Having matters of this nature dealt with in special committees raises a difficulty in regard to time. Vast sums of money of the order before the House this evening—£2,231 million—should not be discussed in committee rooms when the public do not know what is taking place. If committees are in public——
They should be.
Most of them are in public——
These ones would all have to be.
With the best will in the world, there is a limited number of reporting staff from the national media available to attend all of these committee meetings. When we talk about open democracy there is no point in subdividing ourselves between so many situations because it is a physical impossibility to have them covered by the media, to have them covered by our House staff, to have our civil servants getting around to different Departments. In my opinion that would be going from a bad situation to an even worse one. Let us examine this closely. Let us look at the number of special committees and the different reports published in the newspapers: they are not reported for the simple reason that there is not the staff available to do so.
We are speaking here of moneys of the magnitude I have mentioned already. The only way we can discuss it is as we have endeavoured to outline. Deputy de Valera made an excellent speech from this side of the House about two years ago on a Bill of this nature dealing with the points raised here in which he said that he felt Estimates should be prepared beforehand.
He gave it from this side of the House last year.
Maybe it is a good job he is not here today.
However, I accept the goodwill of the Minister.
Might I make a last point to the Minister about committees?
The Deputy had better convert Deputy Enright before he converts me.
I can see that we are not travelling exactly the same road as far as the role of committees of the House are concerned. However, I realise the Chair's anxiety to finish the matter.
No, I have until 9.30 p.m. to finish three matters.
I agree that special committees do not get the publicity they deserve. One way in which we could overcome that problem—if we do not allow radio and television coverage of the plenary sessions of the House—is to do as the US Senate does: not to allow television coverage of plenary sessions but rather allow televising of committees. That would improve the role of committees considerably.
Surely we are not going to discuss televising of the House on this Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Amendment No. 2 by Deputy Bruton, proposing the insertion of a new section, has been ruled out of order.
Section agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
Question proposed: "That the Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill."
One could amend the Schedule? Could one not?
You cannot amend it at this stage. Has Deputy Enright some point to raise on the Schedule?
Might I ask the Minister some questions on it? There is a new residence being provided for the Taoiseach: is the Minister in a position to say what stage that is at?
I can tell the Deputy it is not on the drawing board yet.
And it is not going to be in Laois-Offaly.
Deputy Enright cannot be allowed raise specific questions. We are dealing with 1978 expenditures. The year is almost over, and specific questions should be asked on the Estimates anyway.
If they are discussed; in many cases they are not discussed.
I do not ask that in any contentious manner. In fact, as Leader of the Opposition, the present Taoiseach came into the House and, speaking from this side of the House, said it should be provided. I agree with him fully. I was merely inquiring as to what was the position. If the Minister knows I would be very happy if he would inform me, just as a matter of interest for the general public. There is an Estimate here for £386 million and I merely want to know what is the position.
As the Chair has pointed out, it is not really in order to ask it on this but rather on the Estimate. As I have said to the Deputy, the position is that it is not on the drawing board yet.
Did the Minister say anything about appropriations-in-aid? Is there any significant difference between them and supply grants? They are provided for separately in this Bill.
The supply grants are the money voted but the appropriations-in-aid well, they are the moneys that are coming in.
I am sorry, I know the answer. I was mixing them up with grants-in-aid.
Question put and agreed to.
TITLE.
Amendment No. 3, by Deputy Bruton, on the Title has been ruled out of order.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and passed.
This Bill is certified a Money Bill in accordance with Article 22 of the Constitution.