I listened with interest to this debate last night and again to this evening's contribution by Deputy McDowell. It is hard to see the logic in this proposal from the main Opposition party. The proposal being put to us in this motion is that the Committee on Procedures and Privileges should examine the existing Dáil Standing Orders with a view to amending them to allow Deputies who are not in power to put forward amendments to individual Estimates and thus have a direct influence on public expenditure patterns and priorities. The power and responsibility of the Executive would be diluted and the Government of the day would be in the unenviable position of being held accountable by the electorate for expenditures which did not form part of their own plans and objectives. This would be an unacceptable state of affairs and would clearly undermine the constitutional position whereby the power of initiative in relation to the public finances is vested in the Government.
It is up to the Government of the day to execute their expenditure programmes in line with their stated objectives and priorities and to be judged on that performance. It is unthinkable that a Government who have made such progress on the public finance front should be asked to divest themselves of their decision-making powers. The fact of the matter is that the proponents of this motion are attempting to have an important part of the powers of Government in the area of public expenditure transferred to them. They want to have a major say in the detailed determination of public expenditure. In effect, the supporters of this motion want the opportunity to saddle the Government with policies with which they are not in agreement — the very antithesis of sound Government. Public expenditure strategies are at the heart of public policy in sectors of activity such as Health, Education or Social Welfare. Deputy McDowell last night rightly pointed to the scope for fundamental disagreement on policy within agreed overall Vote totals.
Deputy Dukes stated last night that the resolution of our public finance problem is the essential key to everything we want to do in the economic and social areas. It is being suggested, therefore, that the procedures being proposed, if implemented, would be a means of improving the control mechanism of public expenditure. There is, of course, no evidence to suggest that the arrangements proposed would do that. On the contrary, as my colleague, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Reynolds, pointed out, there is every reason to suspect that the procedures proposed would simply result in disruption and delay in settling the Estimates for a particular year and leave Departments and agencies under their aegis in a no-man's land of uncertainty pending the final passing of their Estimates in the Dáil. Contrary to serving the interests of the people the proposal would be a recipe for disaster and dissent and would benefit no one.
When this Government came into office in 1987, we were faced with the legacy of the failure to confront the problem of the public finances. The reality of the first part of this decade was a very steep rise in national debt, little real progress in reducing Government borrowing and no real growth in national wealth.
On taking office, we were determined despite being a minority Government, to end this stagnation and to restore the conditions for lasting growth in the future. This required decisive action to tackle the problem of the public finances and the ever rising debt and debt servicing costs associated with that problem. We took bold steps in 1987, 1988 and yet again this year in the budget to create a new environment for growth. There is little doubt but that the progress we have made would not have been achieved if the decision-making process envisaged in the motion before us tonight had been in place.
The assertion by this Government of control of public spending has been the single most significant factor in the restoration of confidence in our ability to manage our affairs and the resumption of growth in economic activity. The situation confronting us was one which called for a firm hand on the tiller. The confidence of the business community and of international financial markets was not easily regained. After the mismanagement of the preceding four years can anyone seriously argue that it would have been possible for the Government to project the leadership and dynamism necessary if they were placed in the situation of having to engage in protracted negotiations with the Legislature before implementing the necessary and vital corrective action?
Our achievements to date have been remarkable. We have reduced the Exchequer borrowing requirement by over seven percentage points of Gross National Product — from about 13 per cent when the Coalition left Office to a projected 5.3 per cent this year. Because of the decisive and determined action taken by this Government there is now confidence in the will and the ability of the Government to take charge of events.
The situation in relation to public and political debate on the issues of economic policy and the public finances generally has improved in recent years. The growth in awareness of economic issues, particularly since the publication of the NESC report entitled A Strategy for Development 1986-1990, is a welcome development. We all have a stake in the economy. It is right that we should be involved and have views on policy questions.
Much can and has been done to give Members of the Oireachtas a chance to have a more effective role in Parliament short of actually handing our Executive power to the Opposition. Deputy McDowell referred in his contribution to the 1981 discussion document, A Better Way to Plan the Nation's Finances, in this regard. I, too, wish to acknowledge the fact that this was a significant first step in bringing about a more mature and realistic debate on political and economic matters. The document put forward a wide range of proposals, including changes in Dáil procedures for consideration of Estimates and financial business. Many of the reforms which have been made in Dáil procedures in the last number of years have stemmed from that document. One need look no further than the quality and timing of the presentation to the House of information on the Estimates to appreciate the degree of change and improvement that has taken place over the past three years. The Government have done their upmost to facilitate debate on economic matters in this House and to ensure that all Members of the House are given the most up-to-date information on the Estimates as they unfold.
The Minister for Finance mentioned yesterday the earlier publication and presentation of the annual Estimates Volume to the House. This has allowed for a wide-ranging debate on the Government's expenditure plans and priorities some months before the beginning of the financial year. Over the past number of years significant progress has also been made in improving the general presentation of the Estimates in consultation with the Public Accounts Committee of this House. To take just a few illustrations — the format of the Education group of Estimates has been radically overhauled and we now have a more coherent presentation of the expenditures involved. Moreover, the Estimates Volume now includes agency operating statements for all major State bodies in receipt of grants-in-aid.
The Public Capital Programme has been radically improved in recent years. Information on the outputs and the employment content-potential of programmes is generally provided. This has facilitated, I would suggest, useful debate on the quality of State investment. The trading results and financial position of State-sponsored bodies are published in the booklet in composite form. Other innovations include the presentation in the booklet of tables and graphs which summarise trends in the main components of the Public Capital Programme over several years, specify volume changes and break the programme down into its three major component parts, viz sectoral economic, productive infrastructure and social infrastructure; and detailed information, statistical and descriptive on all expenditure programmes.
Another major step forward in the provision of more information on public expenditure has been the development of the comprehensive public expenditure programmes book. The programme presentation identifies all major areas of State spending by programme activity rather than by departmental responsibility and has placed a wealth of detailed information and data at the hands of all public representatives. It shows the total costs associated with each area, provides background information on the activities and policies being pursued and, in time, will incorporate measures of output and performance where possible.
The aim is to tell the Oireachtas in detail what public expenditure is achieving as compared with the more traditional documents which provide a legal and accounting basis for that expenditure. The information brought together in the programmes and the requirement imposed on Departments to make explicit their objectives and the total cost of each activity are an essential element in not alone improving financial management within Departments but also in improving the ability of elected representatives to play a more constructive role in Parliament.
The procedures for dealing with parliamentary questions have also been greatly improved. Deputies now have a more systematic access to Ministers with Ministers answering questions every five to six weeks and with time being alloted each day for priority questions. This is of major interest and importance to the Opposition parties in that their spokes-persons can table questions of national importance to the Minister. They can, without interruption, question him and elicit information which will be to their benefit and that of the House. All Opposition parties have the opportunity, based on their membership, to table priority questions and the traditional ordinary questions.
It is clear therefore that much has been done in the area of Dáil procedure to improve the quality and quantity of information which elected representatives have at their disposal to enable them to enter into constructive debate with the Government on all aspects of Government expenditure policy. In saying this it is right that I should acknowledge the part played by previous Governments in bringing about these improvements. The Government will always be ready to listen and consider constructive advice on improving Dáil procedures but the question of surrendering, even in part, the Government initiative in relation to the public finances to this House as is suggested in this motion before us clearly cannot be put on the agenda.
At first glance, of course, the proposals contained in this motion look inoffensive and plausible. In reality, as was pointed out last night by the Minister for Finance and by Deputy McDowell, they undermine the constitutional relationship between the Government and the Dáil. I have no doubt that what would happen in practice is that while Deputies would have no problem in advocating increases in expenditure they would have extreme difficulty in putting forward proposals for offsetting reductions. That is where the main flaw lies. The suggestion that giving the Minister for Finance a veto on proposals would somehow safeguard the system and allow it to operate smoothly is simply not credible. Deputies on all sides are only too well aware of the many demands imposed on the Minister for Finance by his existing numerous responsibilities. Anybody holding ministerial office will know that this is true but it applies particularly to the Minister for Finance because he has virtual responsibility for the overall financial management and overviewing the expenditure in all Departments and State agencies. The idea that he would be expected to justify his objection to proposals for increases in expenditure coming from Deputies is simply untenable.
Another criticism of the proposal is the delay which it could entail in settling the budgets of spending Departments and their agencies at a time when the benefit of early publication of the Estimates volume, which has been a feature of the past two years, should be allowing them to plan to live within the allocation decided by the Government.
As the Minister for Finance stated last night, restoration of order to the public finances remains a priority national objective and will continue to be at the forefront of Government policy in future years. The thrust of Government budgetary policy over the medium term will be to achieve further reductions in Exchequer borrowing with a view to bringing about a progressive decline in the national debt to GNP ratio. The National Development Plan specifies an EBR target of the order of 3 per cent of GNP by 1993 and a national debt-GNP ratio target in the region of 120 per cent. While the resumption of economic growth will of itself contribute towards the achievement of these targets, the need to simultaneously achieve other Government objectives over the medium term, such as the progressive easing of personal taxation, which we did in the budget, and the move towards fiscal harmonisation throughout the Community will require continued strict discipline on public expenditure.
Over the medium term priority will have to be given to those programmes which contribute to the development of the economy and the creation of self-sustaining employment. This will require that other expenditure will have to be rigorously contained.
Further fiscal adjustment is therefore inevitable and the Government would clearly not be helped in this difficult task if in determining their public spending priorities they have to subject themselves to a time consuming process before securing the agreement of the Dáil to the granting of supply, or indeed, as I have already pointed out, the process may result in the Government being saddled with expenditure programmes with which they are not in agreement. This is constitutionally unsustainable.
Under the proposal for the doubling of the Structural Funds we now have in our grasp probably the best opportunity we have had for a quarter of a century for sustained economic growth with all the benefits that that entails. It will leave us in the position of being able to implement a major programme of investment while maintaining the impetus of budgetary adjustment. The opportunity is there for us to benefit from the greater overall performance of the European economy and to look forward to a period of buoyant growth in output and employment. Through the policies we have been pursuing, and will pursue, we are increasing the number of viable self-sustaining jobs. We are, as Deputy Dukes stated last night, striking at the very root of the ills that plague our society — poverty, alienation and division. All this will require a continuation of the firm leadership which is being provided by this Government. The motion before this House, which proposes to overturn the long-standing constitutional relationship between the Executive and the Legislature, would serve to frustrate, rather than assist, the provision of effective leadership.
The motion before us is a very complex one. It is too cumbersome to have a system whereby the Government or their Ministers, particularly the Minister for Finance, would find their policies vetoed by the Opposition. It would be impossible for the Government to allocate funds to each Department and to have clear criteria laid down in the disbursement of those funds. It would be very hard to make those Departments live within the budgets allocated to them if there was a complex way of deciding the finances of the State through debate in this House. Therefore, we cannot accept the motion and we expect it to be rejected.
