This is a 45 minute debate. The Minister opens the debate and has ten minutes; Fine Gael, 15 minutes and Labour 15 minutes; and the Minister replies in five minutes.
Supplementary Estimates, 1980. - Vote 6: Office of the Minister for Finance.
Is only one Fine Gael speaker allowed?
No, provided it is inside the 15 minutes. This is an informal agreement.
I move:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £417,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1980, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Finance, including the Paymaster-General's Office, and for payment of certain grants-in-aid.
This Supplementary Estimate is required to provide mainly for increased salaries and wages for offices of the Department, for increases in the cost of office machinery, in Post Office services and for an increase in the grant-in-aid to the Economic and Social Research Institute.
The Estimate contains two new provisions, namely the expenses of the Commission on Taxation, which was established earlier this year, about April, and a contribution to the special Border areas programme fund which is being set up to finance a five-year Border areas programme. In addition to this Vote, we have a number of others. If the Opposition Deputies so wish, they can, if they have enough time, comment on these and, with the permission of the Chair, I shall move these other Votes at the end. They are as follows — the President's Establishment, Houses of the Oireachtas and the European Assembly, and Miscellaneous Expences.
We shall have something to comment on that.
If the Deputy wishes to comment, he can. There are also Votes for the Stationery Office, Agricultural Grants, and the Supplementary Estimate for Remuneration. Any of these Votes may be commented on in the course of the Estimate. I shall, if the House is agreeable, move those Votes at the end.
The first Estimate before us is Vote 6, salary increases in the Minister's own Department, and he says that we can discuss the Votes on the President's Establishment, the Houses of the Oireachtas and the European Assembly, Miscellaneous Expenses — whatever that means — the Stationery Office and Agricultural Grants as well, under this Department. Is that right?
Agricultural grants, that is the rates.
For what it is worth.
Does the Deputy want to give them back?
I again formally congratulate Deputy Fitzgerald on taking up this very difficult task of Minister for Finance.
His tenure will be short.
Not as short as the Deputy might wish.
I hope that his tenure will be sweet but short, as short as possible. However, whether it is for three weeks, three months or — from the country's point of view with the appalling possibility of Fiánna Fáil winning the next election — three years, I hope that the responsibility which he undertakes in the Department of Finance is fully appreciated by him and that he appreciates the damage which has been done to the economy in the last four years by the Government of which he is a member.
I do not like to talk about somebody who has left that office. However we had a performance here yesterday from the Minister's predecessor in office which was confused. He made a number of contradictory statements in relation to the balance of payments which were not borne out by the facts, even though he had figures at his disposal which I had not. At one stage during Question Time yesterday the Minister said "There is a significant increase in industrial exports". I do not know if the Minister had the figures issued by the CSO, which we received this morning, which show that the exports were not up as much in real terms over 12 months. I presume the Minister had that information yesterday. It was not fair of him not to give it to the House. The statement he made in the House was not correct.
I have been endeavouring for the last fortnight to ask questions regarding the NESC. I put them down to the Taoiseach, who did not reply to them but passed them on to the Minister for Finance. The Minister said yesterday, in reply to supplementary questions, that they were the responsibility of the Taoiseach. I want to warn the Minister that, if we put down questions to the Taoiseach on matters which are his responsibility, it is not right that they are put off on to one of his Ministers. We had another example today of that when questions which Deputy Creed put down to the Taoiseach were answered by the Government Chief Whip, who is Minister of State at the Department of Defence. He admitted during the reply that these were matters within the responsibility of the Taoiseach. We have had this on a number of occasions in this House. Obviously, the Minister cannot answer questions relating to NESC if he is not the Minister responsible for that organisation. He said that portion of the planning functions remained in his Department and this was the excuse he gave for taking the question at the time. I presume there is a planning function in every Department for which the particular Minister is responsible.
The NESC report was commissioned by the Taoiseach and for the last 12 months it has been under the control of his Department. Its funds come through the Taoiseach's office and they submit their report to him. If we want to ask questions relating to planning or on points that are brought out in the various reports published by NESC there is no point in the questions being answered by the Minister for Finance, because he can say: "This is not the responsibility of my Department". Collective responsibility is more bowed to than practised by the Government. I do not believe that the present Minister for Finance or his predecessor would say that the Taoiseach discusses everything with them. Every Minister should be answerable to the House in relation to any questions which are asked of him.
I want to say something about the task facing the Minister in his new Department. The budget date was announced today as 28 January next. I warn the Minister that we cannot have a budget in 1981 like the one we had in 1980. That budget did a greater amount of damage to the employment prospects, the export prospects, the tourist industry and the agricultural industry than any day's work any time over the last 60 years in this country. It added at one stroke 4 per cent immediately, which probably became 6 per cent by the time it had worked its way through the economy through the rate of inflation. If the Government had not passed that budget our inflation rate would now be 6 per cent lower. Our interest rates would consequently be that much lower, our competitive position would be that much better and our exports would be that much higher.
As I said earlier, the Minister's predecessor said that manufacturing exports were increasing significantly. The figures out today show that in real terms exports are down. They would be down much more except for the statement on the back of the sheet of figures which we got this morning. The first item here shows that between November 1979 and November 1980 live animal exports chiefly for food, increased from £14.6 million to £17.4 million. This is the single largest increase in that category. If the Minister repeats in the next budget the indirect taxation of the 1980 Budget then we will further damage our export potential, we will further damage tourism, we will increase inflation and we will have more people out of work than the 180,000 people out of work at the moment. I see the Minister making a note about this figure. I want to tell him how I got that figure.
The Deputy could not possibly see that. He is telling lies.
The Minister should not accuse the Deputy of telling lies.
I did not mean that seriously. I am sorry.
I see the Minister making a note. I want to explain where I got that figure of 180,000. There are 115,000 on the register, there are 8,000 on short-term and I am adding to that the figure which the present Minister for Finance, when he was on this side of the House, said must be added to every level of unemployment to show the real number of people looking for work. The figure he gave then was 60,000. The figure for unemployment, according to the present Minister for Finance, is 183,000.
This is the worst level of unemployment the country has ever experienced. It is because of all the actions of the Government but because of one factor especially. When it was quite obvious in 1979 that the world would move into a recessionary period, the country did not need last year a budgetary policy which would damage the prospects of keeping people in employment, because that would damage our prospects of exporting. No month has passed when the organisations who speak for the business and manufacturing community have not said that one of the most serious things affecting their competitive position was the imposition in the last budget of the tax on oil. Ministers have said many times that the high rate of inflation was due to external factors. Germany does not import a lower percentage of oil than we do, yet their inflation and unemployment rates are much lower than ours. We must conclude that the problems of inflation and unemployment are due to the policies pursued by the Government. There must not be a repeat in 1981 of the budgets of 1980 and 1979. The Minister is taking on this job at a time when all the Government's wits and brains will have to be applied to bringing down the rate of inflation, getting people back to work, increasing exports and holding our position on imports.
The Minister's predecessor was fond of saying that the balance of payments position was improving because our imports were down and our exports were up. Manufacturing exports have been doing well. A commentator in The Irish Times today said:
Manufactured exports increased by only 9.6% to £203 million between November 1979, and November, 1980, ...
An increase in money terms of 9.6 per cent is a reduction in volume terms because when the figure for inflation is announced it will probably be in the region of 18 per cent. There was a drop in volume terms of 9 per cent. During all the recessions in the last ten years, manufacturing exports have increased significantly but if this figure is correct it would appear for the first time there is a drop in volume.
The Government should be worried about destocking by farmers. At a time when they so badly need breeding stock to pay rate bills, taxation bills and bank interest, farmers have to sell their stock. This is very wrong and should be of great concern to the Minister and the Government. The drop in imports is in an area where we do not want a drop — in goods for further processing for re-export and also capital goods for manufacturing. The reasons for the improvement in the balance of payments position are not advantageous to the country. Exports are not increasing at a sufficient rate or, if they are, they are in the wrong categories.
I hope the Minister will say how successful the guaranteed Irish campaign has been. I appreciate that to quantify it is difficult but it did very well for the first 12 months when it was launched. The Government were very committed to it but then there appeared to be a lull in which we were going back to the old "Buy Irish" campaign. Only this year did the Government seem to put their full weight behind it. It is one of the most imaginative and beneficial campaigns ever launched. It could be extremely successful. I am satisfied that the Government are committed to it and are providing funds for it. I hope the Minister will be able to say if it has been successful and if there is any method of quantifying it because I do not believe we can use import figures to say that it has been successful. I am not sure what way we can measure its success or failure but my guess would be that it has been more successful this year than at any time in the past four or five years.
The tendency is for Government to feel that once the danger has passed they can relax the amount of funds they give to such campaigns. It is important when the recession seems to be lifting to ensure that there are adequate funds for such campaigns.
I take it that we are dealing with the Estimate for the Houses of the Oireachtas in this discussion. I should not allow this debate to pass — it is rarely that the Estimate for the Houses of the Oireachtas is discussed at all — without saying that this House is perhaps the institution in the State most urgently in need of reform. We do not do business in a proper fashion. We are now dealing with money which has already been spent and are giving retrospective approval to it.
I have argued before that estimates, supplementary or principal, should be approved before a single penny is spent. That means that estimates for 1981 should be presented during 1980 and not at the end of the year. No money should be spent on supplementary estimates until they have been approved. We need to establish a committee system and reform the general operation of the House to ensure that there is proper scrutiny of the spending of public money.
The present procedures are archaic and give us no control. All we are doing is giving our legal imprimatur to the spending of money over the initial allocation of which we have no control and of the use of which we have little knowledge.
Under the heading of miscellaneous expenditure there has been an overspending of £50,000 on State entertainment this year. I am not a kill-joy by any means but this is hardly a year in which the Government should decide to overspend on State entertainment to the tune of £50,000. I should like to know where the money went and why the over expenditure was so high. Is it possible that in the original Estimate account was not taken of the increase in the price of drink which the Government subsequently introduced and then they found they had to pay more in terms of entertainment expenses because they themselves had increased the price of drink?
I should like the Minister to explain why we have a separate Estimate for remuneration. I understood that substantial sums were made available in individual Estimates for remuneration. Why therefore did we have a separate Estimate for remuneration for certain categories, presumably, of officials within the Departments in question? This type of multiple accountability does not seem to lend itself to proper control. As well, in this Department of Finance group of Estimates I am surprised there is not a Supplementary Estimate for the Revenue Commissioners. If the Estimates before us are for the purpose of paying increased salaries, have increased salaries not been paid or to be paid under the National Understanding in the Revenue Commissioners? How has that office been able to cope with the National Understanding increases without a Supplementary Estimate?
I sincerely hope that it is not a question of extra salaries being paid or additional money being provided for such salaries in the Revenue Commissioners without a Supplementary Estimate. I would take the gravest exception to that happening. The Department would not have any right to use savings within the Revenue Commissioners under particular headings and re-allocate them for additional salaries. If additional salaries are to be paid in that office the figures should come in here in the form of a Supplementary Estimate. Why have we not before us a Supplementary Estimate in respect of the Revenue Commissioners?
I enjoyed the lecture and the warnings issued to me by Deputy Barry. He does not have to lecture me or any Fianna Fáil Minister on the responsibility we assumed when we took office. I will not comment on his flippant remarks about my appointment or on the rather guarded congratulations he extended to me. I thank him for them.
They were not guarded.
Qualified, perhaps I should have said. Most of the points made by Deputy Barry are more relevant to the debate we will be having tomorrow than to the Supplementary Estimate before us. I will go into them more deeply then. I strongly disagree, as do the majority of the people of the country, with his views on the Government's handling of the economy. During this Government's term vast strides have been made in growth and development despite serious international difficulties, but we do not preach gloom and doom. We are resolved to endeavour to guide and direct the country through this deep economic recession, and to date we have had remarkable success.
I reject Deputy Barry's comments in relation to the effect of the 1980 budget and its strategy. The budgetary measures were designed carefully in the light of the circumstances then prevailing and having regard to factors with which the Government were forced to grapple. For example, there was the matter of taxation of married persons. I assure Deputy Barry that in the next budget we will have similar regard to the realities of the current economic situation. Deputy Barry made a general comment on the agricultural situation but he did not comment on the very valuable Supplementary Estimate before us this evening in regard to agricultural grants. We have a concession being given to a group of people in the £40 to £60 valuation bracket. It is a substantial and very welcome concession to many of my constituents who happen to be in that situation.
The Minister is only giving back what had been taken from them earlier in the year.
The Deputy opposite would not be familiar enough with that particular farming scene to be able to know the problems we had to deal with during the year. He will be learning in his new constituency. Deputy Bruton raised a point on the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is a tribute to us that this year more than ever we have given an opportunity to the Opposition to debate such Estimates in detail. The Deputy said that never before had he been given such an opportunity. The Estimate is before the House——
That is not the point I made.
This is progress. The Deputy spoke about remuneration. The figure here covers cases where Supplementary Estimates were not taken and cases where Supplementary Estimates were taken but subsequent special pay increases arose. The Deputy mentioned the Revenue Commissioners. He will find that savings have been made in the Vote for the Revenue Commissioners. In other words, the Deputy does not have to worry that the National Understanding increase will not be paid to those people.
Would the Minister say that again, please?
Deputy Bruton asked whether the increase were being met from savings on the vote.
I asked where are they in the remuneration vote.
Increases are provided for in the remuneration vote, but the Deputy asked whether the Revenue Commissioners' officers had been given the National Understanding benefits. That was met from savings on the vote.
What about State entertainment — why was it overshot?
Most of that relates to the six months of our EEC Presidency in 1979.
Surely it was known that this would arise when the Estimates were being prepared?
Surely the bills had come in before the Book of Estimates was prepared?
Our Presidency did not expire until 31 December 1979.
There could not have been much entertainment in the last two weeks of December. That would all have been in the first few months.
The two busiest months were June and December.
Late payment of the caterers — they were left out of their money.
Flippancy.
Vote put and agreed to.