Vol. 326 No. 7
asked the Minister for the Environment if he will indicate each subhead of each Vote for which he is responsible which is to be increased in the 1981 Estimates by less than 16 per cent and/or the officially expected rate of inflation in 1981; and how economies, if any, are to be made in respect of each such subhead so as to keep within the provision in the subhead.
20.
asked the Minister for the Environment how he expects to make each of the following expenditure reductions in his Department for which provision has been made in the Book of Estimates (a) £45,000 for travelling expenses, (b) £8,000 for office machinery, (c) £479.000 for grants for environmental works and dangerous places, (d) £22,000 on the £24,000 spent on technical assistance in 1980 and (e) £2 million on malicious injuries; how revenue from appropriations-in-aid is to be increased fourfold from £1 million to £4.6 million; and if any reduction of services to, or increased fees collected from, the public will result.
I propose with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, to take Questions Nos. 19 and 20 together.
The detailed subhead information sought by the Deputy can more appropriately be supplied and discussed when the Estimates for my Department come before the Dáil. In the meantime, I should like to state that the allocations shown in the Book of Estimates conform with the overall allocations decided by the Government and all necessary steps will be taken with a view to ensuring that expenditure will be kept within the approved limits.
Is the Minister in effect saying that he is not going to answer questions now, that he feels that possibly they ought be raised when the Estimate for his Department is discussed?
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Deputy means Supplementary Estimates.
It would be impossible to set down in detail, as requested, the manner in which economies are to be made in each subhead so as to keep within the specific allocation. After all this is an on-going, day-to-day, budgetary function. In so far as this Department is concerned all necessary steps will be taken to keep within the allocations made.
Is the Minister proposing the abolition of Question Time, because that could be the answer to every question?
Is the Minister saying that all the items in the budget are on-going, that they will see how much is being spent and then they will consider what type of supplementary is required, if they are still there?
No, the concern of the Government and myself was to ensure curtailment of current expenditure to reasonable levels in the interests of the proper management of the economy.
In relation to Deputy Bruton's question No. 20—item (c) "£479,000 for grants for environmental works and dangerous places"— the original estimate was arrived at on the basis of applications from individual local authorities and came to a certain sum. The Minister has now reduced that sum by £479,000. Will he tell us what items were cut out to bring about this reduction and in what locations?
This is the environmental grant?
Yes.
It will be for each local authority to decide on the best use of such amounts as will be allocated to them under the scheme. Of course any reduction here will be more than offset by the massive increase in moneys provided for capital services.
Is that original Estimate not made up of applications from individual local authorities? This came to a certain sum which the Minister has now reduced. Therefore he must have cut out individual projects under this subhead. Would he now tell the House what those projects were and in what local authority areas?
As I have already said, it will be a matter for each local authority to use their allocation in whatever way they consider most desirable.
The £479,000 is a specific sum of money. How is that totalled? The Minister must have a list of where those cuts were effected.
I get many requests from local authorities for large sums of money——
Would the Minister stop waffling and accept the fact that if £479,000 is cut off a series of requests from a number of local authorities, something has to go back to them telling each of them how much they have got to spend? Would the Minister not answer the question in regard to that?
It will be up to each local authority to decide on how to spend their allocation. I would remind the Deputy of the substantial sums allocated to them for sanitary services.
How can a local authority decide what to spend until they know what they are entitled to spend? With regard to item (e) would the Minister indicate the reason——
I am sorry, Deputy, I have allowed numerous supplementaries. I think I am being very fair in relation to the number of supplementaries. I will allow the Deputy one final supplementary. I have allowed numerous supplementaries on the two questions.
What I want know is: does the Minister not accept that it is a valid exercise during Question Time to ask how appropriations-in-aid are to be increased from £1 million to £4.6 million? How can the Minister justify refusing that information to this Parliament, saying that he will produce it at some date in the distant future, many months ahead, when there are Estimates? Will he now give us a straight answer as to what are the main features of that increase from £1 million to £4.6 million and stop trying to avoid the question?
I was not attempting to shout down the Deputy. The Ceann Comhairle had called on me to reply to the next question.
I accept the Minister's apology.
Explanation.
Then, my apology, the Minister's explanation.
As far as the Book of Estimates is concerned the Government must look at the overall situation. I have already said that the concern of the Government and myself, in preparing the Estimates this year, was to ensure curtailment of current expenditure to reasonable levels in the interests of the proper management of the economy. It is a question of cutting the cloth according to measure and of ensuring that local authorities use their allocations —
My question was not about expenditure.
I have already informed the House that I am not responsible for the Minister's replies.
The question I asked was about expenditure.
