At the outset on behalf of my party which, to paraphrase the saying, has neither chick nor child, has neither a chairman nor convenor, so far as these committees are concerned, I take this opportunity on behalf of the Progressive Democrats Party and on my own behalf to pay tribute to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs whose easy and relaxed manner has contributed in no small way to the smooth functioning of the committee in its first term in carrying out its exceptionally heavy workload.
DÁIL SELECT COMMITTEES AND JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS: STATEMENTS (RESUMED). - Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs.
The Deputy is upsetting matters.
The Deputy is probably wondering whether, with friends like me, he should review how he chairs meetings. In any event I think it is worth recording my personal tribute to him.
The work of the committee has been dominated by two issues: the Finance Act, which took quite a while and the tax amnesty Bill which is close to being enacted, if not yet signed by the President. It is a legacy of the committee's endeavours and of the Government's priorities that these two measures stand potently together as symbols of the failure to address fundamentally the issue of tax reform. Of all the legacies of this year's budget, without doubt the worst feature was the imposition of the 1 per cent income levy on all incomes above £173 per week. At a stroke that reversed the provisions of last year's budget and had the effect of increasing, for those concerned the basic tax rate to 29 per cent. Worst of all, it was a fifth tax on work and, for the first time in six budgets, increased the tax wedge, that is the difference between what employers pay and what employees take home each week. That is the opposite precisely from what is being called for by the OECD, the Central Bank and Culliton. In spite of rhetoric to the contrary by a number of Government Ministers, the Culliton report is a dead letter when judged by the choices made in this year's Finance Act. Hitting the old reliables, and in this case I mean everyone who is unfortunate enough to be caught in the ordinary tax net, with the 1 per cent income levy is nothing more than a smash and grab tactic. The same perverse hunger for money at any price explains the iniquitous tax amnesty, which was also guillotined through this House and worked its way through the Committee Stage just two weeks ago. I beg to differ slightly from the Chairman of the committee and the Minister for Finance that we covered every amendment to the Bill, in fact I had a number of amendments down to section 4 which we did not get to but I concede that we got to most if not all amendments.
The very fact there was no mention of the tax amnesty in the February budget nor ten weeks later when the Finance Bill was first published underlines the incoherence with which this new administration chose to approach taxation policy. It is interesting to note that the tax professionals, including the president of the Institute of Taxation are arguing that the amnesty legislation was so rushed that it is likely to be a botched job from the point of view of the Government's own revenue raising objectives, a good argument indeed if ever there was one for having a less breathless approach to the legislative process. The work of the Finance and General Affairs Committee will be remembered also for the reintroduction in the Finance Bill of death duties under the new name of a probate tax. This is from the same Government that is proposing to reward tax cheats with a bargain basement write-off of 15 per cent for clearing historical unpaid income tax, income levies and capital gains tax while at the same time levying death duties on surviving spouses when in recent years it has been the practice of every single Government to remove such persons from all tax liabilities including stamp duty. The all-inclusive nature of the probate tax set against the disgraceful logic of the tax amnesty is very shabby and indefensible politics which does nothing to put justice into economics or engender confidence in politics.
I hope that in the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs, we will deal with the Structural Funds, as suggested by the Taoiseach, albeit a slip of the tongue on his part. Every time we try to raise certain issues, the Chairman can attest to and point to the fact that we are bound by an Order of the House. I do not recall the House making an Order which would allow us to take up the kind offer of the Taoiseach, whereby he suggested we could discuss the Structural Funds. The rules of procedure do not allow us to do so. Indeed, it is a great pity that someone did not teach the Tánaiste how to do his sums better when he was a small boy because it seems he did not realise in Brussels that what in fact he got was £8.7 billion——
That was a lot better than the Deputy expected.
——had he had the not inconsiderable manipulative advice of the Taoiseach, who as we know is a dab hand at manipulating figures, he could have come home with an even larger bottle of champagne than that displayed in The Irish Times cartoon of today.
He had a baby.
It is very useful to be briefed by public servants in advance of considering Bills. While it is very praiseworthy it was one of the most unsatisfactory features, from my point of view, of our operation this year because we failed to realise its potential. In the region of 40 to 50 civil servants with expertise in the various areas were lined up to advise on the Finance Bill which ran to 156 pages. At a maximum we got two hours to talk with them, but that was not nearly enough. When this facility is made available we should be able to use it better. I will again put down a marker, as I did on Committee Stage, that I would appreciate our allowing for a substantial briefing even through a sub-committee system where people want that. The briefing should be timed better: we need more space between the publication of a Bill and the briefing and the deadline for amendments. The real purpose of the briefing is to give us a deeper understanding of the Bill so as to prepare us more to deal with it but I feel that has not happened. However, it is part of the learning curve. The same point applies to the tax amnesty Bill. Because we were caught for time the Bill was guillotined. The public servants could have enhanced our understanding of the business in hand very substantially and of the various points I shall make on the Committee system. That would be the key operational point for future reference.
The Finance Bill is always lengthy and extraordinarily complicated. We should not only have adequate briefings in advance of submitting amandments but it is vitally important that it be published at an earlier stage. I have checked out the practice in the United Kingdom which has a similar budgetary and legislative process to us. The time lag between budget day and the publication of the Finance Bill in the UK is much shorter than here and they have a similar legislative review process but they get a longer time for review. I think we need a longer time to reflect on and tease out the implications of the Bill. We need also to be properly briefed. I am somewhat amused that tax professionals who are in the business of advising the "would be amnestees" who wish to avail of this amnesty are saying the legislation is botched. They are afraid to give clear advice to clients on what to do. That is a very good example — I hold no brief for those clients — of what not to do when the Government has a view of what it seeks to achieve in legislation but in the end does not achieve it.
I would like to see two issues on the agenda of our committee: first, the issue of the Structural Funds, which I regard as urgent but I regret to say from the very devices which the Chair cited today when Members sought to raise the issue there is no order in this House saying that the Finance and General Affairs Committee may imminently discuss the Structural Funds. Therefore they will not be discussed. That is the plain fact of the matter. There will be no democratic review of the allocation of Structural Funds, no accountability and no teasing out in advance of the Irish Government sending unilaterally its view of what it wants to Brussels.
Politicians here have given far too little attention to the relationship between so-called economic fundamentals and the enormous problem of unemployment and how there is superior economic growth here compared with the European average and an inferiour level of employment as a result. There is need for much work in public policy area in this regard. Such work should not relate specifically to the budget but should focus on that issue. The Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs is a key committee for debate on unemployment. I urge the Chairman to consult with Members of the committee to select areas for discussion not related to the normal legislative process which has been inadequately treated by policy makers. The select committee is perhaps the best equipped to deal with the matter.
I would like to be associated with the tributes to the tact and courtesy of our Chairman. I would also like to pay tribute to the substantial achievement of the Government Chief Whip in piloting through a significant new structure in the form of the committees. However, I do not agree with many of the comments about the committee system because its efficacy has been undermined by the Government's lack of commitment to making it work. For example, the extraordinary haphazard emergence of new Bills, going from a mere trickle for much of the period of this session to a glut in the last few weeks, constituted legislative anarchy. The Government used its majority to order Bills which at the time had not been published. In some cases the Opposition had as little as 48 hours to address Bills which had been lodged for years in the bowels of various Departments.
The attempt to impose a new committee structure on the existing system kept the Opposition pinned down but threatened any concept of Dáil reform. While plenary sessions of the Dáil and various committees ran simultaneously. Government backbenchers remained in their constituencies and tended to the grass roots. As was said by some Deputies, far from encouraging participation by backbenchers in the legislative process, the committee system and an unprecedented Government majority have encouraged absenteeism on a scale never experienced in any previous Dáil. For example, after a relatively successful experiment in 1992 in taking the Finance Bill in committee, this year was a damp squib and I part company with my colleagues in regard to the committee system. For whatever reason there was not a great level of participation by the members of the committee on this occasion. Backbenchers were prepared, as they have been traditionally, to leave the tedious process of committee work to the Minister and the Opposition spokespersons. In the case of the other major Bill piloted through committee, the amnesty for tax cheats, the experience was similar.
If the committee system is to facilitate quality scrunity — as distinct from quantity — of legislation, the phenomenon of signing out by backbenchers must be addressed. The Labour Party in particular, held out the prospect of bright new Members using the committee system to show their mettle. Instead they are present merely for divisions, speaking to the electorate through Charlie Bird instead of through the Ceann Comhairle. Rolling up their sleeves in committee is clearly less appealing than speaking off the cuff on the plinth. Clearly the burgeoning talents on the Labour backbenches have calculated that in our system the Executive still dictates the detail of legislation and it is futile to think otherwise.
I said at the time, on behalf of Democratic Left, that it was too simplistic to equate Dáil reform with the creation of more committees. Increasing productivity in this House is clearly desirable. However, our work must be measured in terms of output and quality. Bad, ill-considererd, ineffectual, defective and hurried law merely serves to undermine the law. If we are prepared to abdicate our responsibility as legislators to a combination of programme managers and parliamentary draftsmen the cameras in this Chamber may as well be refocused on the plinth.
A further factor undermining the efficacy of the committee system is the uneven allocation of resources. The Government has available not only the entire panoply of the Civil Service but a range of partisan advisers and managers. Meanwhile the Opposition must function on a shoestring with the smaller parties especially discriminated against. Without an adequate research provision, the committee system cannot achieve its potential. A Government which can rely on the traditional Civil Service back-up and at the same time finance an array of advisers cannot argue against a proper research capacity for the Opposition.
If the Opposition is stretched in attempting to cope with the imposition of the committee structure on top of the existing system. I suspect that the staff of the House are overstretched. Both problems can in part be alleviated by a rescheduling of business that combines no dilution of Government accountability with a more sensible and rational timetabling of committees. For example, in the longer parliamentary year, a system of one week out of four being allocated exclusively to committee sessions commencing after an Order of Business from 10 a.m. to 10.30 p.m. could be operated.
Resolution of outstanding matters, especially of privilege for witnesses before the Committee of Public Accounts, would enable the Dáil to more satisfactorily and cheaply investigate issues that require investigation in the public interest.
Theoretically the committee system holds out the prospect of a more effective system of legislation but only if the lessons of this session are taken on board. More imaginative timetabling, the streamlining of the drafting stage, a fairer allocation of resources and a political commitment to wider participation in the process are all necessary if the committee system is to achieve its full potential.
I also query the value of today's exercise as the comments I suspect that will be repeatedly made throughout the day could as easily have been made on the Adjournment Debate. Today's reconvening of the Dáil could have been devoted to the question a number of Deputies sought to raise on the Order of Business relating to the Structural Funding, the National Development Plan and so on. Deputies thought that by this means of scheduling business they would get kudos in the media for being back here on 21 July and early in October. It is clear that is not the case. Despite the fact that committees have been sitting and will continue to sit until the end of this month and resume at the beginning of September there is no recognition by the public that such reform has taken place. Therefore, today and perhaps tomorrow could have been used more productively.
Deputy Ellis made a fair point regarding the treatment of the Estimates in committee. There is no doubt that the system of treatment of the Estimates in committee has been much better than the previous procedure. It has allowed for more detailed questioning of the expenditure of public funds than that provided through the old system. Unfortunately, we are discussing the Estimates half way through the financial year rather than at a time when we could, theoretically at least, influence developments to some extent. The fact that the treatment of the Estimates this year was a major improvement on previous years does not alter my point in regard to the treatment of Bills in Committee and that must be examined.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. The establishment of the committee system has made legislation more relevant to backbenchers. Prior to the setting up of the committees many backbenchers did not have an opportunity of getting involved in detailed debates on Committee Stages of Bills in this Chamber, but over the past few weeks I noted that all committee Members are attending meetings. Despite the comments by Deputies Finucane and Rabbitte, who gave the impression that Government backbenchers are not attending committee meetings, I can say categorically that Government Members from both Fianna Fáil and our junior partners in Government, Labour, attend those meetings assiduously.
I thought it was an equal partnership.
Full participation by Members from all sides of the House is evident and that must be applauded. The detailed discussions which take place at those committees is welcome compared to only spokespersons from each party taking part in Committee Stage debates as was the case in this House for the past number of years. Under the new committee system all Members take an active part and that is a welcome development.
The system is nowhere near perfect yet. This was a trial year for it and many problems need to be ironed out. I hope during the recess that party Whips will get together to discuss the streamlining of the system because it is unacceptable to have a plenary session of the Dáil and, perhaps, two committees meeting at the same time. It is often necessary for a spokesperson to be present in this Chamber while a committee in which he or she is involved is also discussing important legislation. That problem must be resolved. I welcome the committee system but those bugs in the system must be dealt with.
Deputy Cox referred to briefing sessions which are important for Opposition Members and for Government backbenchers who do not get the same back-up material as Ministers. Briefing sessions are important for all Members of the House. They not only give Members a greater understanding of the legislation being introduced but they assist them in discussions on the legislation with people outside this House and enable them to prepare amendments and make suggestions to make the legislation more worthwhile.
In conclusion, I congratulate our Chairman, Deputy Ellis, who has done great work on the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs. I assure him that I will support him for the next four years to ensure that the committee system continues to operate and improve and that in the next Dáil, in five years' time, it will be——
With a Member from this side of the House as Chairman.
Hope springs eternal.
He might be the Minister.
I wish to refer to the subject I attempted to raise on the Order of Business this morning, the massive and wholesale destruction of our fish stocks by the Spaniards. An insitutionalised and systematic rape of our fishing grounds is taking place, all of which lie within the 200 mile zone. Last night's programme on ITV, "The Cook Report", gave clear evidence of what some of us here have known for years and to which I have repeatedly alluded in this House during debates on fishery matters, that the Spaniards are busily destroying our fish stocks. It is about time our Government took action to stop that.
It is incredible that we should constantly talk about the need for Structural Funds and indigneous industry while the industry with the greatest potential is being destroyed in this way and we are not prepared to protect it from the marauders. If fishing were carried out as it should there would not be a problem but if the present position continues we will have no fish stocks in a few years. This is not a case of poaching, — it is fishing by unlicensed boats. It is a serious problem when massive amounts of undersized fish are being caught and landed and the Spanish authorities turn a blind eye to the entire operation. This must stop.
When the Icelanders were faced with a similar problem in the 60s they excluded all foreign boats from their territorial waters. This was known at the time as the cod war. People in Great Britain felt aggrieved that their traditional fishing grounds had been taken from them, but the Icelanders proved their point. They carefully nurtured their fishing grounds and have a thriving fishing industry as a result.
As a race and a Government, we have failed in this regard. Successive Ministers with responsibility for fisheries have failed abysmally to carry out their duties. The Naval Service, in conjunction with the Department of the Marine, must supervise our fish stocks. I feel sorry for members of the Naval Service because they do not have adequate resources to police the 200 mile zone. That service is doing a good job in difficult circumstances, but this is a matter for the Government. It should be raised at a summit of the EC Heads of State and the Spaniards should be held accountable and asked to declare their intentions for the future. If I were Minister for the Marine I would demand that all Spanish boats be withdrawn from the Irish 200 mile exclusive zone immediately. It is obvious that the Spaniards are being allowed to fish in this zone by their Government and law enforcement agencies and fishery inspectors are either incapable or unwilling to intervene to ensure that they play the game by the rules. What they are doing in our territorial waters costs this country hundreds of millions of pounds every year which, taken over a reasonable number of years, amounts to billions of pounds. We can never hope to develop our fledgling fishing industry until we can ensure that our fishing stocks and the breeding grounds are protected, which is not happening at the moment. The recent discovery that these fishing boats have illegal compartments on board which can hold hundreds of tonnes of under-sized fish is alarming.
Last night's programme only confirmed what those of us who have an interest in this problem have known for a long time. There is now documentary evidence, including photographs of the under-sized fish being landed and of intimidation by the Spanish fishermen and the illegal organisation ETA. Accordingly, this Government should act to ensure that these illegal activities are stopped forthwith.