asked the Minister for Finance if he will outline the substantial savings he proposes to make in the Departments of Justice, Environment, Education, Defence and others as referred to in page 12 of the financial statement dated 21 July 1981.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Government Departments' Savings.
20.
The savings referred to by the Deputy totalled £19.9 million. I would emphasise, as I already said in my financial statement, that, in general, the reductions made in the July budget still leave Departments with allocations not less than the original allocations in the January budget.
An outline of the savings referred to is included in a tabular statement which I propose, a Cheann Comhairle, to have circulated with the Official Report.
Following is the statement:
|
(1) |
(2) |
(3) |
|
Department |
Savings allowed for in the July Budget |
Main heads under which the savings in Col. 2 are to be achieved. |
|
£m |
||
|
Posts and Telegraphs |
4.24 |
Staff costs, consultancy services, accommodation and stores. |
|
Environment |
3.31 |
Staff costs, mortgage interest subsidy, malicious injuries. |
|
Justice Group |
3.14 |
Staff costs including overtime. |
|
Education Group |
2.60 |
Staff costs mainly. |
|
Defence |
1.60 |
Deferral of purchase of one fishery protection vessel. |
|
Finance Group |
1.17 |
Economies in Office of Public Works, Revenue Commissioners and Stationery Office. |
|
Others |
3.81 |
Miscellaneous savings on Social Welfare, Industry, Commerce and Tourism, Fisheries and Forestry, Public Service, Foreign Affairs and Department of the Taoiseach. |
Arising from the Minister's reply, it is important that the public should be aware of any cutbacks in the financial allocations to the Departments mentioned by me and indeed any other Departments. We are all aware of the cutbacks in Education in the last week or two. We are aware of cutbacks in Justice and in Health in particular. The Minister should inform the House. A tabular statement is not sufficient at this stage. We must know. We are aware of cutbacks in Health, Education and other Departments. There have been cutbacks in Agriculture also.
In fact, the tabular statement gives a full list of each Department affected. I will give the list of the major Departments affected. The precise details of the matter, as the Deputy would no doubt appreciate, would be more appropriately provided by the Ministers concerned. However, the tabular statement which I have given the Deputy, which he will have and which the public will have within a matter of an hour, will provide him with the basis to put down specific parliamentary questions to the Ministers concerned and to obtain the information.
The Minister has the figures.
I have the figures here in front of me but they are being circulated with the Official Report.
Give them to us now.
If I were to do that the next question the Deputy would ask me would be about a particular one and we would start discussing that and would go from there onwards. I would end up answering questions which are properly the functions of other Ministers.
On a point of order, do I understand from the Minister in response to Deputy Nolan's question that he was saying that the reason he should not give Deputy Nolan the information which is contained in the tabular statement is that then Deputy Nolan would ask further questions? Surely, that is specifically what Question Time is for? That is why the Minister is in the House answering questions. Is he now to avoid the responsibility of having to give specific replies. This is in the interest of backbenchers as well as us here.
The Deputy has raised a point of order. I would reply that the content of a Minister's replies is not the concern of the Chair. The Chair cannot compel a Minister to reply. So, it is not a matter for the Chair.
I accept that but I think I am entitled to make the protest that I have made and I thank you for giving me the time to make that protest.
Further arising from the Minister's reply, the Minister mentioned specifically and I have here in the Official Report the Department of the Environment. We are all aware, particularly those Members of the House who are members of local authorities, that the Minister for the Environment has asked local authorities to find other means of financing their problems. I cannot see — my colleague Deputy Gene Fitzgerald raised that question — why the Minister should not disclose to the House the figures for the cutbacks.
Sorry, Sir, if I may say——
The public are entitled to know——
If the Deputy is not finished, I will let him finish the question.
Right, it is circulated with the Official Report but the public will not be aware of that because it is through the media that the public discover what goes on in this House. Therefore, a circular that goes out——
Perhaps the Deputy does not realise this but these tabular statements are available to the media as they are to Deputies at the end of Questions. Putting these figures in a tabular statement is in no way designed to prevent them coming to public knowledge. It is purely to avoid us getting into a situation where ministerial responsibility which in respect of the Departments concerned, except the Department of Finance, rests with other Ministers, should not become the subject of questions to the Minister for Finance. It is more appropriate, as the Deputy with his own ministerial experience will accept, that matters affecting a Department concerned, in the Deputy's case his own former Department, would be answered, if he were back in his job, by himself rather than by the Minister for Finance. I am sure he may have had the best of relations with Deputy Gene Fitzgerald but he would have preferred at the time to answer questions about his own Department rather than have his colleague answering for him. That is reasonable.
I should like to ask the Minister if this figure of £19.9 million is a net figure, net of the increases which were imposed on the various Departments through the budget which the Minister introduced in late July? Will the Minister confirm that and tell the House the figure for the imposition following the budget on these Departments?
What impositions is the Deputy referring to?
The Departments, of course, will have had their costs increased since the budget and I should like to know whether the Minister has taken this into consideration in the savings he spoke of today.
No. In the sense that the Deputy is using the term, these are gross figures.
The Minister has told us that he has a tabular statement in front of him giving details of the various cuts and I should like him to tell us the amount of the cut for the Department of Agriculture.
The Deputy could ask the same question about each Department I mentioned and then I would give him all the information. If the Deputy really wants to create such a big fuss about this I will give him the information. I circulated it for the reasons I have given but I am not going to be drawn into answering individual questions about each Department because we would end up wasting more time arguing. I am prepared to give the Deputies the information if they want to make a song and dance about this. The information is: Posts and Telegraphs, £4.24 million; Environment, £3.31 million; Justice group, £3.14 million; Education group, £2.60 million; Defence, £1.60 million; Finance group, £1.17 million and others, £3.81 million.
The Minister has not indicated the amount involved in the Department of Fisheries and Forestry and I would be obliged if he would give that figure to the House.
I do not have it here but it is not significant.
That arises under a subhead and we cannot go into subheads.
The Department of Fisheries and Forestry as the Chair will appreciate, is very important because it is using our own raw materials and making jobs available. I am interested in getting the information and I hope the Minister was wise enought not to make any cuts in respect of that Department.
If I had my own way, and if we all had our own way, there would not be any cuts at all but, unfortunately, the situation we inherited was such that unless we imposed even more severe taxation than we had to impose we would have to make some cuts in spending as well. I am not here to pretend that reductions in expenditure are things that the Government want to do or take credit for, quite the reverse.
My question related to the Department of Fisheries and Forestry and I hope cuts were not made there. I am sure the Minister is aware of the importance of that Department.
I have already indicated that there was a small reduction.
What concerns the public most is the fact that in the budget statement of 21 July the Minister for Finance said that the Minister for the Environment was looking at the possibility of new means of funding local authorities. At this stage, when local authorities are preparing their estimates, they should be told by the Minister for Finance, or the Minister for the Environment, the type of finance they will get.
The Deputy is making the case only too well that I was making five minutes ago.
In view of the reluctance of the Minister to give the type of detailed information requested by Deputy Nolan I should like to ask him when an opportunity will be afforded to the House to get that information? When will the House be given details of the cuts referred to in the July budget? I fear that the Minister is covering up. I suspect that the cuts are not effective or will not be effective.
The Minister is covering for the Deputy.
The opportunity will come because I am sure the Deputies are industrious enough to put down parliamentary questions. Certainly, if I was in their position I would put down parliamentary questions about each of the Departments mentioned in the reply and get the information from the Ministers concerned. That is a simple enough procedure and I am sure the Deputies will be able to follow it.
Is the Minister in a position to give information about the shortfall, if any, that applied to each of those Departments in the January budget?
Yes, I could give the Deputy very detailed information on that subject.
It would be fair to circulate that in the same way that the Minister is proposing to circulate the reply to the question under discussion.
The grand total of the emerging excesses was £481 million. A total of £481 million was under-provided in the January budget of 1981 and now we have a fuss over savings of £19 million out of that.
On a point of order, I should like to ask the Chair to use his influence to ensure that the Minister is as forthcoming with the information requested by this side of the House as he has been with the information requested by his own backbenchers.
As I explained earlier, that is not the function of the Chair. I am not responsible for answers.
I was very tempted to ask that question earlier. The Minister, in fact, was covering for the previous Minister.
The Deputy is looking for a car; he is being a good boy. He will be considered for the car.