I move:
That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the procedure for consideration by the Dáil of the Estimates for the Public Services ought to be improved and directs the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to:—
(1) Report to the Dáil within six months with its recommendations for additions or amendments to the Standing Orders which would be required to achieve the following objectives:—
(a) Presentation to the Dáil and circulation to members of the ordinary yearly Estimates for the Public Services not less than one hundred and eighty-four days prior to the consideration of the yearly resolutions imposing taxation and not later than the last day of the eighth month of the preceding financial year.
(b) Appointment of one or more Select Committees to be designated "Estimates Committee(s)" as soon as may be after the presentation and circulation of the Estimates in accordance with sub-paragraph (a), to examine the Estimates, to recommend any amendments to the Estimates, (including both reductions and increases in provisions under particular subheads) that may be deemed necessary and to report to the Dáil not later than thirty days prior to the commencement of the financial year involved; provided that an Estimates Committee shall:—
(i) Consist of not less than six and not more than twelve members, none of whom shall be a member of the Government or a Minister of State: and four members or one half of the membership, whichever is the lesser, shall constitute a quorum;
(ii) Be otherwise constituted according to the provisions of Standing Orders 66 and 69 so as to be impartially representative of the Dáil;
(c) Mandatory consideration by the Dáil of that portion of the report of an Estimates Committee which relates to a particular Estimate at the same time as the Estimate in question; and
(d) Grant of permission for any member to move in the Dáil after notice:—
(i) An Amendment to a motion for a grant of money proposed for the Public Service imposing preconditions to the expenditure of the money, and
(ii) A motion reducing an Estimate in respect of any particular item; and
(2) Make any other recommendation it thinks fit for the improvement of the present procedure for consideration of the Estimates for Public Services by the Dáil.
One of the bases for the development of parliamentary democracy in these islands has been the principle of no taxation without representation and in the original development of Parliament one never agreed to any spending without agreeing at the same time to the taxation proposals to pay for it. Unfortunately in the course of time the control of Parliament or the Dáil over money being spent has reduced considerably; it has reduced to a very great extent even since the foundation of this State. I propose to illustrate that in the course of my contribution. It was in order to reassert the control of this House over the spending of large sums of public money that this motion was put down in the name of four Fine Gael Deputies.
I wish to illustrate the seriousness of this position and the lack of proper control and lack of consideration of Estimates for public spending. I will do this by reference to some figures. Last year the Dáil approved the spending of approximately £2,500 million. The spending of £600 million was never discussed because it was part of the Capital Budget and by tradition the Capital Budget is not discussed in this House. That disposed of the £600 million and there was not a conscious decision of the House to approve or disapprove of that programme.
Of the remainder, £550 million was passed on 27 June 1978 without any discussion on that date. The time had elapsed wherein the Dáil could consider the matter and if the expenditure of this sum had not been approved on that day the Government would have ground to a halt because the money would not have been available. The expenditure of £550 million was approved without any discussion of the merits or demerits of the way in which the money was to be spent.
On the same day a further spending of £806 million, on top of the £600 million and the £550 million, was approved in limited-time debates. Some of these debates were shorter than one hour and there were very brief speeches from all sides of the House because of the lack of time. We can see, therefore, that much more than half and perhaps two-thirds of the total Government expenditure in 1978 was either not discussed at all or discussed only in a limited fashion by this House. Yet in theory that money is spent only on the authority of this House and legal procedures relating to ensuring that money is not misspent refer back to the authority of this House. Any investigation as to whether funds have been misappropriated is directed to finding out whether the spending was in conformity with the authority of this House.
As I have illustrated, the authority of this House is given in a very cursory and unsatisfactory manner in debates of limited time—sometimes without any debate at all—and not in such a way that the authority which is cited so often could be said to be deliberate and well thought out. Because of the slipshod procedures in relation to finance this House is not doing its job of properly scrutinising public spending. We were sent here by an electorate who think we have some control over the way money is spent and believe they are electing people who will have such control. In fact, our procedures are such that we do not have the control we should have because discussion is in the form I have been describing.
The second point is that the money for a given year is not discussed at all until that year has already commenced. For instance, the Estimates for 1979 were not published until 30 January 1979. Already one-twelfth of the money provided in those Estimates had been spent before the Estimates were published and none of them has yet been discussed. Approximately two-thirds of the Estimates probably will not be discussed fully during 1979.
In the vast majority of democratic Parliaments Estimates for a given year are published in advance of the year to which they apply, and this means that if the Parliament in question discusses those Estimates it is doing so before the year commences. If a valid point is made during the course of debate it can have some effect because it is not too late for the Government to listen to what has been said and decide to alter their spending programme in the light of the arguments put forward. That is not possible here. Even in the limited number of cases where debates take place on Estimates, they are of little or no value because the money is already committed. The year has already commenced and the Government machine is grinding on spending the money and it is far too late to change spending plans in the light of something said during the debate. Usually half the money has been spent by the time the debate takes place and the rest of it is probably committed. Contracts may have been entered into and if a debate takes place it is too late to have any effect at all in a policy sense.
I believe that the lack of procedures in this House in relation to the consideration of these Estimates is, in fact, unconstitutional and that the House is not acting in conformity with the Constitution in its lack of procedures for the consideration of Estimates. I wish to illustrate this by reference to Article 17.1 of the Constitution which states:
As soon as possible after the presentation to Dáil Éireann under Article 28 of this Constitution of the Estimates of receipts and the Estimates of expenditure of the State for any financial year, Dáil Éireann shall consider such estimates.
The Estimates for 1978 were presented to this House on or about 30 January 1978. As I have already pointed out, the vast majority were not considered by the House until 27 June 1978. In fact, far from being the soonest possible date on which the Estimates could have been considered, the date of 27 June was, in accordance with the provisions of the Central Fund Act, the latest possible date on which those Estimates could have been considered. Under the Central Fund Act the Government may not spend more than four-fifths of the money concerned until the Dáil has approved of the Estimate. On 27 June the Dáil was about to go into Recess until October of that year and if the Dáil had not approved of the Estimates in June the Government would have, perhaps, run out of money in relation to some of the Votes in September or so with the result that it would have had to grind to a halt. The date, 27 June 1978, was not, as is required by the Constitution, the earliest possible date on which Estimates could be considered but the latest date. There is a substantial argument for saying that in adopting that procedure the House was not acting in conformity with the terms of Article 17.1 of the Constitution.
I should now like to deal with the method adopted by the Dáil to deal with Estimates. We are perhaps the most restrictive Legislature in allowing Private Members to put forward proposals in relation to Estimates. Until 1974 it was possible for a Member to put down an amendment to an Estimate. He was allowed put down an amendment to reduce a provision for a particular amount. That power was little used and the all-party Committee on procedure recommended that it be removed.
The position now is that a Member may not put down any amendment to Estimates. For example, a Minister introduces an Estimate for £100 million for the Department of Forestry and every Member listens to his speech. All Members are entitled to speak once during that debate, after which the Minister will reply. This format of debate does not allow any real dialogue to take place on individual spending heads. All that may take place is a series of party political statements on the Estimate. Members may not introduce any amendment. The Dáil must either accept or reject the Estimate in total; they must accept every penny of the money proposed in the Estimate or reject the entire Estimate. There is no possibility of any Member putting down an amendment asking the Minister to reduce the amount proposed to be spent, for example, on the planting of trees in order to increase the amount of money available for timber processing.
There is no provision for a Member to seek an increase under any heading without any compensating reduction elsewhere nor is there power for him to reduce a particular sum. In terms of restriction of Members' rights to amend Estimates we are, to my knowledge, one of the most restrictive Parliaments in the world. I have read a document prepared by the Inter-Parliamentary Union on members' rights in budgetary matters throughout the world and this shows that in 27 of the 54 Parliaments surveyed members may put down amendments to reduce or increase expenditure. Those members have complete freedom to reduce or increase estimates. In seven legislatures they may reduce but not increase expenditure, the position that existed here up to 1974. In nine legislatures they may reduce expenditure but only increase it with the permission of the Government, and in eight legislatures they may reduce and increase expenditure if alternative provisions are made elsewhere. In only three legislatures in the world may Members not move amendments in plenary sessions. We are one of those three whose Members may not move any amendments to estimates.
I argue that it is not sustainable to say the House is able to consider the Estimates if it does not have the power to amend them. A consideration which is limited to accepting or rejecting is, in my view, not consideration in any real sense. I do not believe that we are complying with the intention of the drafters of our Constitution in respect of the provisions of Article 17 in that respect. The procedures adopted here in relation to the consideration of Estimates of expenditure would not be acceptable to a county council. In fact, we have less power over our Estimates of expenditure than a county council has over its expenditure and yet we hear a lot of complaints about the powerlessness of county councils. In county councils at least members have an opportunity of putting forward amendments. Estimates are presented to them before the year to which they apply begins and must be approved before that year begins. If a member feels that too much is being spent, for instance, on housing and not enough on water supplies, it is not too late for the county manager to change the provision in relation to that matter. The year has not commenced and if the manager does not agree to a change the member has the power to move an amendment to the estimate. If that amendment is carried the manager must do what he is told by a majority vote.
That power does not exist here and Members do not have the power over budgetary matters in relation to Estimates that the European Parliament have over the European budget. We have heard a lot about the powerlessness of the European Parliament but as far as the budget is concerned they have more power over their budget than we have over ours. I do not believe that that is a satisfactory position. It is a position that has accumulated over the years during the tenure of office of successive Governments; it is not a matter that any one party can be blamed for but it is one that all parties should seek to change.
Before explaining the reasons for the individual terms in our motion I should like to note that the Government have submitted an amendment to the motion which, while not doing all the things we would like it to have done—it does not give the specific directions as to the improvements the House would like to see in Estimates that the original motion submitted by our party does—goes a considerable way on the road with us in recognising the need for reform of present procedures. I should like to welcome the Government amendment. It meets the case in a substantial manner but I reserve my final position on that amendment until I hear the contribution of the Minister of State.
Our motion is looking for the matter to be considered by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, the body which has responsibility for procedure and privileges in this House. It is not seeking to make a direct change in Standing Orders but is referring it to a specialist body to come back with specific changes and giving them precise terms of reference.
We are looking for a report from the Committee on Procedure and Privileges within six months. The Government amendment sets no time limit and this is regrettable. It would be better if the committee were given a definite term to come back with their report because if a specific term is not set the matter could drag on for years and we would never get a report. I would have preferred the Government amendment to have included a time limit.
Paragraph (1)(a) of our motion asks that the Estimates be circulated, not as is the case at present 30 days after the year to which they apply has already begun, but 184 days prior to the beginning of the year—in other words, we would be looking for the Estimates for 1980 to be circulated in September 1979. This is in line with the procedure in most Parliaments. For instance, in Holland the Estimates for 1979 were presented to the Dutch Parliament in September 1978. The first stage of the discussion in the Parliament was a general discussion on the Government's policy that underlay the various Estimates. During September, October and November there were specialist discussions in committees of the individual Estimates—the Agriculture Committee discussed the Agriculture Estimate, the Environment Committee discussed the Environment Estimate and so on. The proposals were teased out in great detail by individual members who, over the years, had accumulated considerable expertise in their own fields. The report was sent back to the Dutch Parliament in December and the final budget was adopted in December, before the year to which it applied had begun. The whole process was gone through before the year in question had begun.
If it is possible for the Dutch to do that it should be possible for us to present our Estimates three months in advance of the year to which they apply. It may be argued that this is the case only in continental countries and that only people with a continental legislative tradition were able to do this, but this is not so. It is also the case in Canada which has the same parliamentary tradition as we have. Their Estimates are presented to the Canadian Parliament three months before the year to which they apply has commenced.
It is possible under the terms of our Central Fund Act for Estimates to be presented in advance of the year to which they apply. There is no change required in the law for Estimates to be presented in the House in September of the preceding year rather than in late January of the year in question.
Paragraph (1) (b) of our motion seeks to set up select committees called "Estimates Committees" which, as soon as may be after the presentation and circulation of the Estimates, would examine the Estimates, recommend any amendments to the Estimates, including both reductions and increases in provisions under particular subheads, that may be deemed necessary and to report to the Dáil not later than 30 days prior to the commencement of the financial year involved. Having received the Estimates in September, the Estimates Committee would have to report back to the House by the end of November and in December a plenary debate on the Estimates could take place in the House and they would be finally adopted before the year in question had begun.
The House will note that it is proposed that the Estimates Committee could make recommendations both as to reductions and increases in particular subheads. They would only be recommendations. It should be pointed out that it is impossible under our Constitution for Members to move amendments to increase provisions under particular subheads. To give Members that power, which is enjoyed by more than half the Parliaments in other countries, would require an amendment to our Constitution. As I said, they would only be recommendations and could not take place other than on a motion of a member of the Government in plenary session. However, it is possible under our Constitution for Private Members in plenary session to move amendments either to reduce an Estimate in respect of a particular item or to impose a precondition as to the expenditure of the money.
Paragraph (1) (d) of our motion proposes that Standing Orders be altered to allow Members to insert amendments to Estimates, either to impose preconditions to the expenditure of money or to reduce them. Our motion seeks to give the Committee on Procedure and Privileges freedom to make any other recommendations they think fit for the improvement of financial procedures.
My last point refers to the format of the Estimates documents themselves. They are not as informative as they should be. The documents presented to the House merely tell us what was spent on a particular subhead last year and what it is proposed to spend this year. We all know that Government financial plans and spending do not relate to one year only. If the Government start a particular scheme during 1979 it may extend many years after. If it is started half way through the year, the amount spent during 1979, and therefore the amount appearing in the Estimates for 1979, may be only half the amount which would be spent in a full year. I believe the budget documents should be amended to give us not only what was spent last year but what it is proposed to spend this year and what will be spent in subsequent years if the Government's plans are continued. This way we will be able to see more than one year ahead the implications of the proposals we are being asked to agree to in any given year.
Changes could be made in the format of the Estimates to incorporate the notion of programme budgeting, which gives people reading the budget better information as to the precise purpose of the expenditure in question. At the moment we are presented with a bald subhead—subhead A.1, Salaries and Wages, so many thousand pounds—and no idea is given how that money will be spent. In agreeing to a sum for a particular subhead the House does not know very much from reading the Estimates Volume what it is agreeing to or why. It would be useful if the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, in addition to agreeing to the matters I have already outlined, were to consider the format of the Estimates documents. If that were done the discussion in this House would be a great deal more useful.
I thank the Chair and the House for their indulgence.
