I understand 11 minutes remain in the slot for the Technical Group and Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett has possession.
Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill 2012: Second Stage (Resumed)
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I will not take all of the time, but I might take the opportunity to ask the Minister-----
I am afraid I am due elsewhere at 7 p.m. so forgive me.
Fair enough. I was hoping to make some points to him.
I thought we had three hours yesterday.
Yes, but I have supplementary questions.
Perhaps Deputy Boyd Barrett might like to save them for Committee Stage when the Minister will be present.
I will keep this extremely short. Prior to the adjournment of Second Stage I stated my problem with the Bill is that it is part of a suite and architecture of economic control and surveillance which is demanded by the fiscal treaty and the EU Commission. It is fundamentally misconceived in that it identifies the problem which led to the crisis and the solution to preventing further economic crises as being public spending, and therefore setting ceilings, even on a multi-annual basis, is somehow a recipe for economic stability, growth and development. This is clearly the view the Government holds. I disagree because it identifies the wrong problem. It was not out of control public expenditure which caused the crisis. There were gross examples of misspending, particularly at the top by consultants, politicians and top executives of Semi-state bodies, but the fundamental reason for the crisis was not out of control spending, it was out of control markets, banks, developers and greed, mostly in the private sector but facilitated by politicians in the public sector. Therefore, to create an architecture which puts very strict limits on public spending does not necessarily solve our problem and may hamper our ability to get out of the crisis.
I will give an example of what I mean, and ask the Minister of State for a quick reply. It follows on from the earlier discussion on privatisation. We have made the very positive decision, with some dispute about how it was arrived at, that Coillte will remain in public ownership. If Coillte is to be used as a vehicle for job creation there should be substantial public investment in it and the State should employ people in forestry to reach our re-afforestation targets and develop the potential of forestry in tourism, timber and a range of areas. This could be best done by employing more people in a body such as Coillte; not just employing them for the sake of it, but with a specific plan in mind about how, through greater levels of timber production and enhancing our tourist amenities, we could create jobs and therefore fuel economic growth.
The type of ceilings included in the Bill will preclude our ability to do this, and we will not be able to invest money in these areas if, for example, we decide at a particular point that substantial public works programmes would be a way to get people back to work. One could make the same argument about social housing and the value it might have in terms of saved revenue to the State, given all of the money going into rent allowance at present. If we build more social houses by employing people directly in the local authorities to do so, we could save money and create employment. These rules preclude and prevent this type of stimulus by the State in creating the employment and growth we need. It locks us into a particular ideology, to which the Minister of State may subscribe, but at some point he, or another Government, may decide we need to do things differently but will be prevented from doing so because of these straitjackets the EU Commission and the fiscal treaty impose on us. This is my question to the Minister of State. I probably know what the answer is but I thought I would ask it anyway.
The Bill has been brought forward to provide a statutory basis for the multi-annual medium-term expenditure framework. I am pleased Deputies have engaged on the Bill and would like to respond briefly to some of the points raised on Second Stage and which we can debate further on Committee Stage next week.
Deputy Fleming raised the fact that non-voted expenditure is outside the scope of the expenditure ceilings being legislated for in the Bill. The position is that non-voted expenditure represents expenditure which the Oireachtas has declared by law is to be paid from the Central Fund without annual reference to the Dáil. These are items which are a permanent charge on the State revenues and represent those services which are payable out of the Central Fund by the continuing authority of statutes and are not, therefore, subject to the same type of annual process as voted expenditure. The largest item is the service of the national debt. Other items include Ireland's contribution to the EU budget; the salaries, pensions and allowances of the President, Judiciary and Comptroller and Auditor General; and the expenses of returning officers. It is not true the Dáil is not made aware of Central Fund activity. It is regularly reported in Exchequer statements and the Department of Finance each year publishes detailed accounts of the Central Fund for the previous year, known as the finance accounts. The accounts are prepared under section 4 of the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993 and contain detailed analysis and classification of receipts and issues of the Central Fund as well as details of the national debt. They must be laid before Dáil Éireann not later than 30 September. The Bill does not deal with debt service or other Central Fund charges and consequently does not propose any change to this long-standing practice, which is in accordance with the Constitution.
The Government is in favour of, and is taking further actions to bring about, improvements in fiscal reporting and fiscal transparency generally.
This will enable Ireland to realise a number of benefits from enhanced fiscal disclosure, primarily in respect of the understanding of and access to fiscal information, which should help to promote and encourage market investment in Government debt.
With this in mind, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, with the Department of Finance and other agencies, will take appropriate steps to provide more comprehensive, timely and reliable data for fiscal decision making, demonstrate the Government's awareness and management of fiscal risks, promote a more informed public debate on fiscal policy challenges and choices, reassure markets of the overall sustainability of the public finances and facilitate compliance with current and future EU fiscal reporting requirements.
Deputy McDonald raised the issue of equality budgeting, which we can discuss further on Committee Stage. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform considers the effect of measures across all elements of society when assessing proposals for changes in spending.
Among other matters, Deputy Donnelly raised the issue of the timetable for the annual budgetary process. I am happy that the Government has reformed the process substantially and that, in line with our EU commitments, we will have this year's budget in October and the Revised Estimates will be published before the year end. As Deputies will acknowledge, this is an improvement on the present system, whereby the budget is in December and the Revised Estimates volume, REV, is discussed in the middle of the year.
When will the Bundestag see the budget?
In addition, an initiative has been introduced to allow committees to conduct an ex ante examination of the Votes for which they are responsible with the relevant Ministers. There is also a drive to produce published performance measurement information in the REV. The Department is engaging proactively with the Oireachtas committee secretariat to improve the timeliness and quality of the material being supplied to committees in consideration of the annual Estimates with a view to enhancing the understanding of these issues.
On behalf of the Minister, I thank everyone who has contributed on the debate. These topics will be debated further with Deputies on Committee Stage.
Question put and declared carried.