Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 Jul 2013

Vol. 224 No. 12

Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill 2012: Second Stage

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I thank the Cathaoirleach for the opportunity to speak.

The challenges we have faced over recent years continue to be a reality which we all have to confront, as well as the enormity of the task to stabilise the public finance position faced by the Government and everyone else. In addressing these issues, we have to continue to meet and exceed all of our fiscal targets under the EU-IMF programme. We must continue to push forward the reforms that are necessary for the country to recover its economic sovereignty. The Government remains committed to balancing the books while introducing positive and prudent reforms to ensure scarce resources at our disposal are directed towards delivering well-managed and well-targeted public spending.

During this Government's short time in office, we have introduced a number of important budgetary reforms aimed at enhancing the openness and transparency of the budgetary process. We have introduced the following: a modernised and reformed annual Estimates process; performance budgeting which builds performance related information into the heart of the budgetary documentation; and an enhanced role for evidence-based policymaking.

These reforms are in keeping with the broader Government commitment that performance information should feed into the decision-making process at all levels, and that active performance management should be a key feature of how projects are delivered and continually evaluated within the public service. It goes to the heart of parliamentary oversight that Ministers and public service managers should be held accountable against clear targets set out in the budget.

The medium term expenditure framework was first introduced in the Comprehensive Expenditure Report 2012-2014, published in December 2011 by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. It established multi-annual ministerial gross expenditure ceilings on an administrative basis and now forms a key component of fiscal management. The Bill will put these ceilings on a solid statutory footing.

Last November, the Minister for Finance introduced the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2012 which came into effect on 31 December 2012. It imposes a duty on the Government to ensure compliance with the budgetary rule and the debt rule, which were introduced as part of wider EU fiscal reforms. It also puts the role of the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council onto a statutory basis. We had a very good discussion in the House concerning the composition of the council at the time.

Aside from these domestic reforms, Ireland is committed to adhering to the wider fiscal reform measures that have been introduced across EU member states. In this European context, this Bill operationalises the expenditure management component of the so-called six pack of five directives and one regulation which introduced, among other things, an expenditure benchmark. The purpose of the benchmark is to limit the growth in general government expenditure to a sustainable level.

I will now discuss the sections of the Bill. Section 1 provides for Government expenditure limits for the following three years to be set down by the Minister for Finance each year, having consulted the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform will then establish, in consultation with the Minister for Finance, ministerial expenditure ceilings. Once the Government expenditure limits for each of the subsequent three years are agreed by Government, the Government will then agree upon an apportionment of these overall limits into ministerial expenditure ceilings on the basis of a proposal from the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.

In the Bill, "Government expenditure" is defined in practical, operational terms as the amount of expenditure that is voted by the Dáil each year, along with the annual expenditure from the social insurance and national training funds. The Bill provides that the Government and ministerial expenditure ceilings must be laid before the Dáil as soon as may be after the decisions are made. The subsequent annual Estimates of expenditure, setting out the detailed expenditure proposals for the coming year, must not exceed in aggregate the Government expenditure ceiling for that year.

Taken together, the effect of these various provisions is as follows. The expenditure benchmark is the core expenditure rule with which the Government and the State are legally obliged to comply in the annual and multi-annual budgetary processes, by virtue of the direct effect of the regulation and the supremacy of EU law. The Government expenditure ceiling will place a limit on the level of our annual voted expenditure.

While clearly it is different from the expenditure benchmark, it must be fully compatible and compliant with the benchmark, and this compliance will be demonstrated in the annual budgetary documentation. The ministerial expenditure ceilings are an apportionment of the Government expenditure ceiling, and they may not in aggregate exceed the Government expenditure ceiling. The annual Estimates of expenditure for a year may not legally exceed the Government expenditure limit for that year.

In the past, expenditure growth was, at times, allowed to outpace the economy's underlying ability to finance it. This new approach radically changes the Estimates process and introduces a major reform by setting out clearly in advance the Government's medium-term budgetary plans and overall spending allocations, thereby allowing Departments to plan their budget structure in advance.

The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform introduced a new section, section 2, on Committee Stage when the Bill was before the Dáil. This new section allows for the provision of information necessary for the proper and effective operation of ministerial expenditure ceilings. The section proposes that public service bodies shall provide to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform such information as is necessary for the purposes of the proper and effective operation of ministerial expenditure ceilings. This is a permissive section to allow public service bodies supply the necessary aggregate information to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to enable the Minister and Department to properly monitor and operate the expenditure ceilings set out in the Bill. Personal information, as defined by the Data Protection Acts, would not form part of this.

At the current time, many Departments and offices gather information on details of their grant spend. When the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform seeks information to enable a better estimate of expenditure to be made over the medium term, it has been the experience that the lack of a specific power to receive such information can occasionally cause delays in providing information due to a lack of clarity regarding the legal position. That has been dealt with in section 2.

Section 3 is also a new section introduced by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform on Committee Stage when the Bill was debated in the Dáil. It amends the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2012 to assign to the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council's statutory responsibility for endorsing the macroeconomic forecast on which Ireland's budget and stability programme will be based. The assignment of this endorsement role is a requirement of the two pack regulations, which are now EU wide. The endorsement entails the council endorsing the macroeconomic forecasts upon which the stability programme and budget are based. This means the council would endorse the macroeconomic forecast on which budgetary proposals are prepared, on which the Government then decides. In the interests of independence, the council cannot be required to endorse. Instead, it is required to fulfil the endorsement function and, should it find it appropriate to so decide, can announce it will endorse the forecasts. Section 4 states the Short Title of the Bill and provides for the commencement of the Act.

This Bill will provide in statute for the medium term expenditure framework. This will underpin confidence, at home and overseas, about the soundness of the Government's overall budgetary plans.

The framework will help to restore Ireland's public finances to a strong and sustainable position. In addition, it will facilitate greater structural planning based on core Government priorities, and will reinforce the Government's commitment to return Ireland's economy to a position of growth while ensuring sustainability of the public finances. This new framework is both sensible and practical while representing a responsible and necessary change in the approach to budgeting. I commend the Bill to the House.

I again welcome the Minister of State to the House, it is like he never left.

It feels like it.

He must have done something wrong in a previous life.

I and my party support the Bill. The Minister of State spoke about openness and transparency in the budgetary framework. All of us agree this needs to happen and much more needs to be done, particularly with regard to an enhanced role for evidence-based policy making. In this House, and in the other House under the previous Government, I have called for a more open budgetary preparation process. We should have a series of focused debates in preparation for a budget. When a Government produces a budget, the Opposition produces an alternative budget and each side disagrees with what is in the other's budget. Having such a series of debates without votes in the Dáil and Seanad would allow the Houses seek alternatives to measures such as the property tax or the pensions levy. I have asked the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, for a debate on how to better spend our resources on child benefit.

We can be helpful in this regard and I speak in a non-partisan manner. We can put forward good ideas which the Minister of State, the Minister and the Department could take on board well in advance of the budget so we do not have four or five weeks of kite-flying prior to it. In fairness this did not happen last year to the same degree as it did the previous year. It would allow the Government to seek buy-in from the Opposition, and put it up to the Opposition to come up with real costed alternatives and take on board such suggestions. Rather than having our normal run-of-the-mill economic debates, I call on the Minister of State to speak to his senior colleague about setting down a series of focused debates without votes where parties and Independent Members can bring forward alternatives or potential solutions in certain areas of expenditure in tax.

We all acknowledge there was in the past an urgent need for additional spending in key areas, and on capital spending in particular, much of which has been criticised from time to time. An element of the criticism with which I agree is that public expenditure grew far too much between 2000 and 2007, but not all of this money was wasted. All of us would agree that particularly in the public service and Civil Service, salaries needed to catch up. I make no apology for the capital investment also, particularly after fixed-term and fixed-price contracts were introduced which meant we could not overspend. I agree with the Minister of State the Bill will assist in this because we will be able to track it. When we consider the expenditure between 2000 and 2007, if this mechanism had been in place alarm bells would have gone off that too much was being spent.

I caution against the Government's approach on simple and easy decisions to cut capital programmes in recent years. The Government is over-compensating in this area so it will not have to reduce day-to-day expenditure. IMF reports have stated the cuts in capital expenditure have been too severe. Yesterday I listened to the Minister, Deputy Varadkar, speak to Dublin Chamber of Commerce about seeking further investment in capital projects which would create the famous shovel-ready type projects and jobs. I fully support such measures. The Government will have a job to do this, but the real surgery needs to happen in current day-to-day expenditure because savings on capital expenditure are only made for one year.

As part of this all projects need a full and rigorous cost-benefit analysis. I will draw the attention of the Minister of State to one particular project. With regard to capital expenditure we must ensure proper cost-benefit analysis is done through local authorities before the green light is given. We have had some disastrous examples, such as the Limerick main drainage scheme which was a €12 million project that ran over budget and cost almost €90 million. The Committee of Public Accounts could not fully investigate it because local authorities are not answerable to it. The Government should consider this. The local government auditor cannot do the job as well as the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Comptroller and Auditor General should be allowed audit individual local authorities and not just the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government.

With regard to cost benefit analysis. I wish to discuss a project in the Government's capital programme, which is the greater Dublin drainage scheme. A site has been selected, and I will not get into the nuts and bolts of it, but no cost benefit analysis has been done. A 200 page prospectus was issued on the greater Dublin drainage scheme-----

By the local authority.

-----with only half a page on costs. Fingal County Council is involved. It stated a cost benefit analysis would be done when a site was selected. The second biggest spender in the country is local government. I agree completely with what the Government is doing and I ask for a more open budgetary process along the lines I have suggested. No Government, including this one, has had a proper handle on what local authorities spend their money on and how they support local economies. Our local authorities have a big role to play in stimulating economic development and growth. The Government and all future Governments should be far more hands-on in this regard. Perhaps the Government is working on something in this regard and I ask the Minister of State to update me if this is the case. I support the Bill, as does my party. I hope the Minister of State will be able to address the points I have raised.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. The Bill allows the Government to anchor its already operational multi-annual expenditure limits in national law. This is a requirement under the EU-IMF programme of financial support for Ireland. Specifically, the Bill amends the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Act 2011, and in doing so provides for medium-term expenditure management in Ireland through expenditure ceilings. We have climbed a mountain, in economic terms, in recent years. When we came into government we inherited a broken economy. We have worked hard to turn it around. It has been a slow process but progress is being made.

We continue to meet or exceed all of our fiscal targets under the EU-IMF programme. We must continue to push forward the reforms which are necessary for the country to recover its economic sovereignty. While we are making significant progress, the Exchequer deficit so far this year stands at more than €4 billion. This is not a sustainable level of borrowing and the Government remains steadfast in its commitment to balance the books while introducing positive, sensible and prudent reforms.

I admire the savings made by the Minister of State with regard to procurement.

Millions of euro have been saved there but one must ask why that was not done years ago.

We need to be smarter in how we deliver public services and to treat every cent of taxpayers' money as if it was our last. Hardworking taxpayers expect no less. We need a system which is focused on equality and fairness, where waste is a thing of the past.

This Government has been in office for more than two years and during this short time, we have introduced a number of important budgetary reforms aimed at enhancing the openness and transparency of the budgetary framework and improving expenditure management across Departments which had throughout the good times been allowed to lapse into disorder, although it was not just Governments. I think every household in the country, in some form, got carried away with budgetary matters. In short, we are making progress but we realise we have a long way to go to clean up the mess we found on entering Government. We have completely modernised and reformed the annual Estimates process, built performance-related information into the heart of the budgetary documentation and brought evidence-based policymaking to the forefront of public service delivery.

This Bill when enacted will put the ceilings established in the medium term expenditure framework on a solid statutory footing through the amendment of section 17 of the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Act 2012. This Bill logically follows on the introduction of the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2012 which gives full effect to the rules contained in the Treaty on Stability, Co­ordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union passed by the people, otherwise known as the fiscal stability treaty.

I commend the Minister of State on his efforts in regard to this Bill and offer my support on same, although I might have one or two queries. I concur with much of what Senator Darragh O'Brien said in that during the Celtic tiger years, if there was an overspend in Departments, they just borrowed more. If one's car broke down, one just bought a new one or if the woman of the house demanded decking, one just got it. There was no budgetary process in households and it was the same in government.

Our colleague, Senator Sean Barrett, always looks for cost-benefit analyses and value for money reports, which is one of his strong points. We get many value for money reports but a cost-benefit analysis is a completely different animal, and for a long time Senator Sean Barrett has been pushing that.

Senator Darragh O'Brien mentioned capital spending and much good work was done but where is the millennium clock?

I hope it is in a dump somewhere.

I think it is in the Liffey.

It has been taken out of the Liffey but do not worry about it.

The floozie in the jacuzzi.

What is not the time in the slime?

There was an old style of budgeting. Senator Darragh O'Brien mentioned local authorities which were probably the biggest culprits of this spend it or lose it approach. We saw roadworks being done in November and December in ice and snow because local authorities had to spend the money as they would not get the equivalent funding the following year if they had not spent it and had to return it to the Exchequer. Has that spend it or lose it approach to budgeting ended?

I witnessed that, as I am sure did all colleagues. That was the approach.

I commend the Bill to the House.

I welcome the Minister of State and endorse the Bill, which does very valuable work. I also endorse pretty much everything the two previous speakers, Senator Darragh O'Brien and Senator Tom Sheahan, said. The case study today is the Narrow Water Bridge. I gather the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, is having a meeting about it at 1.30 p.m. How did the cost double in such a short amount of time? Is it a try-on by the construction industry? How did it reach a situation where it looks like the estimate is double the original one? It will be stalled until we find out what went wrong. The only solution, of which I can think in response, is if we make it a toll bridge and the builder has an equity stake in building it at low cost and in generating a use for it. There is a toll on the Dublin to Belfast road, which is not that far away. It shows us a construction industry which tells us it has spare capacity and that it is a great time for stimulus but when we get involved in a project, an extra €20 million is required for a bridge. It illustrates what the Minister of State is trying to do here.

I pretty much endorse all the sections of the Bill and will support it. The Minister of State said it is to limit the growth in general Government expenditure to a sustainable level. Expenditure ceilings were mentioned, which are a good idea. I support the Ministers for Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform and the Minister of State in the proper and effective operation of ministerial expenditure ceilings. The Minister of State referred also to the fiscal advisory council.

As the Minister of State will know, this is a widespread problem in most countries. Debt to GDP ratios are far too high and lead to the kind of programmes we are now having to endorse. For spending Departments, their goal is maximising the budget. The Minister of State, along with the Ministers for Finance and Public Expenditure, must say that for them it is about the outputs, that maximising the budget is about inputs and that they want to know what they will get. The cost-benefit analysis, to which Senator Tom Sheahan referred, is whether the benefits exceed the costs.

There has been a disequilibrium between the power of the spending Departments and the ones which have to raise the revenue, such as the Minister of State's Department, and measures such as this Bill redress that. Why has it taken so long? That is not a rebuke in that the old health boards had to be abolished because it was impossible to control their budgets as the banks, which we subsequently had to rescue, were always giving overdrafts, even though the Department of Finance could issue edicts about their limits. Maybe we should have been more draconian. If the budget was gone on 15 November, we should have said there is nothing left, although the Minister for Finance would probably have faced media pressure from the spending Departments and so on.

We have to get it across that, in terms of debt to GDP and taxes, we are maxed out and that the bulk of the adjustment the Minister has been making has been on the tax side in that public expenditure is still rising. All the spending Departments will give one a million good reasons that should be but we need to set things up completely differently and this is a start.

In terms of the capital programme, all projects should be analysed and the cost-benefit analyses published about a year in advance to see what is going wrong. One could see how the €20 million for the Narrow Water Bridge became €40 million.

There are problems with lobbying. I refer to the IMF list and Vito Tanzi, the retiring director, who was mentioned previously. In his very interesting book on this issue he asked why this is happening everywhere. Bureaucracies cannot stop growing. That is a huge pressure on expenditure. The Government is going to deal with lobbying but lobbyists have huge power.

I refer to the kind of misguided Keynesian model which the fiscal council has warned against. The multiplier effect in an open economy like ours is pretty small. I mention the tax termites who undermine the tax base but who are always looking for extra public expenditure and the kind of entitlement culture that the Government owes everybody everything no matter how well off people are.

Why is there medical inflation? Why can that sector not generate efficiencies like lots of other sectors? To whom are income distribution programmes redistributing the incomes? Can we have efficiencies measures for that? Brookings in the United States has done a lot of work on that and I hope the Government's new economic service might link up with it to make sure that when we have income distribution programmes, they actually accomplish the goals we want and that we do not have programmes which are monopolised by the producers rather than the consumers and think cash is better than goods. Who produces the goods and are they available at prices which represent value for money for the Government on behalf of the taxpayer?

I would go for a central office of project evaluation called COPE and probably a new culture as well. Professor Ronan Fanning gave a lecture at the Kenmare conference some years ago and referred to the austere era in the Department of Finance, where former Secretaries General Joseph Brennan and James McElligott wore overcoats and turned off the heat in case the budget ran over.

Professor Colm McCarthy, in his inimitable way, has said bring back Brennan and McElligott so that we can live within budgets.

The Minister of State mentioned the forecasting role for the fiscal council. Is that the best role for a fiscal council? Senator Tom Sheahan referred to a household. A household cannot say this is the budget for next year but that it assumes it will have a certain amount of growth and, therefore, it will balance. Why not get the money in first and then spend the surplus, if there is one? It is said economic forecasting was invented to make weather forecasters feel a bit better. It is not the most reliable part of our subject but resource allocation is, so I would have the fiscal council give more advice on resource allocation and efficiency. If forecasting works out, it is a bonus. As Professor John FitzGerald said yesterday, forecasting is difficult, especially when one is trying to forecast the future. There have been some years when we have had to revise GDP estimates several years back, so trying to forecast the past has created problems as well. However, those are small points. If this Bill illustrates a new approach to old-fashioned household management in the public finances and not doing things which do not represent value for money, it will, as my colleagues said, be strongly supported.

The banks caused us dreadful problems but there was an underlying public finance problem. I recall the OECD report on Irish public finances in 2006 saying that our rate of public expenditure growth was far faster than Germany's, which is our benchmark country in the new arrangements we are in. People said that social partnership may have been a little easy on public expenditure. That era is gone and we live in a new one. We must reverse the situation where there is high unemployment among people. Some 300,000 people have emigrated. A new cost effective public sector, as promoted by the Minister of State in this Bill, deserves and I think will get widespread support.

I welcome the Minister of State. When he was elected to the Lower House, he probably thought he had left the Seanad but I think he is here more often than some of the Senators.

I do not charge.

That might be an idea. There might be two Brian Hayes'.

I commend the Minister of State on taking a personal interest in all the legislation going through the House. I think everyone will agree with what this Bill is trying to achieve. It will underpin confidence at home and overseas in the soundness of the Government's overall budgetary plans. That is important from the point of view of domestic and foreign direct investment. Unless there is confidence and the people who invest money in the country know the Government is managing it properly and in a planned way, these people will not invest in the economy.

Structural planning is very important and Senator Darragh O'Brien mentioned his own area. County Donegal also needs capital funding and structural funding which will provide local jobs. One project, the Bonagee bypass of Letterkenny, has been agreed. It is a 2 km stretch and a cost-benefit analysis was done in which it scored top marks, but the funding is not there. The main road into Letterkenny from Derry and Strabane serves not only Letterkenny, but the whole of north Donegal. Should an accident take place on the Port Bridge, it could be closed for 24 hours which would hinder economic and social activity in north Donegal and Letterkenny. It will happen some day because it is one of the busiest roads in the country, not to mention the north west. Letterkenny is now larger than Sligo town. Local people would welcome any move to show we have a strategy to spend money correctly, having done a cost-benefit analysis.

Over the years all Governments and not just the previous Government spent money coming up to by-elections or general elections. I blame all Governments for saying they would fund a road or a school but did not do so. All parties in all Governments were guilty of that.

Our domestic economy and our public service have taken a major blow in the past few years and we must readjust. If we did not get our house in order, Europe and the rest of the world would say that they could not help us anymore and that they gave us the facilities to borrow money but that they cannot keep baby-sitting Ireland until it starts to look after itself. This is a step forward in that regard.

As Deputy Sean Barrett said, perhaps 12 months in advance, counties Donegal, Cork or Mayo should know €50 million, for example, will be spent on roadworks and that cost-benefit analyses is done on the work. I will write to the Minister of State specifically about the Letterkenny bypass and perhaps he will speak to the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Leo Varadkar, about it because there is no dispute about the importance of the bypass. The route has been agreed and land has been bought. I think it will cost €15 million or maybe less, based on current construction costs.

This Bill is very important in terms of overall confidence in the country but the public must see the country is coming back from the major adjustment it has been through and see a practical advantage. Bypasses, sewerage schemes and so on benefit the public. I commend the Bill to the House. I hope the Minister of State will be in Donegal for the opening of the bypass in Letterkenny.

I agree entirely with what Senator Harte said. The Minister of State is almost part of this House, so he should make sure he does not abolish it.

I only have one vote.

This is a very worthy Bill in terms of the whole objective of planning Government expenditure in advance and disclosing it. I think every business does something similar.

The Minister of State only has one vote but he carries a lot of weight.

I very much doubt it.

Senator Quinn, to continue. I apologise for interrupting.

The principal thing a business does if it has bad news is that it goes to its employees to convince them to take a pay cut or whatever. It also goes to its customers and apologises for putting the prices up. If the business can manage to find a way to do that and to get them on board, then it is able to continue. The same applies here. We must get the citizens of this country to understand exactly what we are doing, what we are spending and how it is being spent.

I said previously that there is a desperate need for a single public spending website. I raised this issue before but it did not get the air time I would have liked it to have received. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan, does not agree with it but it is related to transparency. It is the idea of having a single website where the taxpayer can see exactly where every cent and every euro spent by the Government goes. The Minister argued that this information is online. Some of it may well be but it is dispersed all over the place. If everything is so transparent, why must Deputies ask parliamentary questions about public expenditure as if we were back in the 1920s? They waste their time listening to answers to questions which have already been sent to them.

I agree with Senator Quinn.

We should include all public bodies in a simple easily accessible public spending website. This public spending website could be based on the American Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act 2006, introduced by President Obama when he was a Senator. This has led to the creation of website which lists any expenditure above $25,000 by the federal government and a number of states, although I am not sure how many.

It is completely open to the public. We have a lot of information online but it is not collected in one central website. I do not understand why we do not have one in a country of 4.5 million people. The state of Missouri in the US created a website showing how every $1 was spent in 2007. It cost approximately €150,000 for a state similar in the size to this country.

Here, some Government Departments are not even giving a full breakdown of how their money was spent. In the US, the Federal Government also publishes a vast array of data on data.gov. On recovery.gov, citizens can track how their stimulus funds were spent. Another website, foia.gov, launched in March 2011, lets people see whether agencies are fulfilling their obligations to disclose information under the Freedom of Information Act. We should name and shame those parts of government here which do not release information, especially related to finances, or do not release it in a timely manner.

I believe that instead of Deputies asking questions in the Dáil through the very old-fashioned system, and charade, of parliamentary questions, all spending could be put online on one single website for every Irish citizen to see.

I have some good news for the Senator.

I would love to hear it. I keep hearing that we have news. I raised this issue a couple of years ago and again last year. It would be great if something was happening.

The Minister, Deputy Howlin, says a lot of this information is online, but I dispute that because the facts and figures are simply not generally accessible to the general public and there is very little information. We do not have one simple website, and that is why politicians still have to ask questions and there is a scandal every week in newspapers about overspending, misspending or whatever in some Department, State, semi-State body or charity.

To even argue that this information is accessible compared to the US model does not stand up to scrutiny at all. The Government would do well to introduce such a source rather than some of the other measures it is currently undertaking. I would be delighted to hear some good news from the Minister of State.

There must be a move away from the secrecy of the past. In an age of transparency, this is the sort of thing we should examine much more closely. We could have pie charts and bar charts, and we would be able to see exactly what type of Government expenditure is taking place. If we are serious about keeping track of Government expenditure limits the citizen must know exactly where his or her tax money is going.

As we have seen recently, journalists are often better that politicians at performing this type of oversight. We need more transparency to aid our democracy. I cannot understand any opposition to this idea. It sounds simple because it is. It is possible to have such a system. I see a glint in the eye of the Minister of State which suggests he will give me good news in regard to this.

I welcome the Minister of State, the Bill and the interesting suggestion made by Senator Quinn. It is fair to say that this Bill, in tandem with other proposals on public expenditure and reform and planning and development matters, is part of the Government agenda of not simply trying to modernise our economic planning and development but to ensure taxpayers get value for money.

Traditionally, Irish Governments have been very good at spending money and have sometimes spent money they did not have. From a Revenue perspective we have been quite good at collecting money. The question of planning, development and using our resources most effectively have been a weak point. It is fair to say that only one Government since the foundation of the State had a Department of economic planning and development, namely, Minister Martin O'Donoghue in the 1970s. Not everything worked as planned on that occasion but the concept of long-term economic planning and development was a good idea. Just because it failed, for various political reasons, on that occasion does not mean it is something which we should completely disregard.

Private citizens plan their finances and expenditure, as do households and businesses, and so should a nation. That is why the Bill is so welcome. It will put a greater onus on the Government to plan. It will also, I hope, which is important in the broader debate about political change and reform, put a bigger political onus on all Deputies and Senators to talk about expenditure, planning, investment and how we spend taxpayers' money.

We have not yet truly moved away from the concept of the budget taking place in November or December, as has been the case for the past decade or so. It previously took place in January. There was a one or two-day debate on the budget which was the only detailed analysis one had on Government expenditure and financial proposals. The changing budgetary structures, debates, the new laws we are putting in place and the Fiscal Responsibility Act create an obligation not just on Government. Rather, there will be an obligation on the all sides of the Oireachtas to try to contribute to the solution. The public is demanding of everybody, including the Government and Opposition, that in putting the country first we consider big ideas and problems, and take whatever measures are necessary. In so far as this forces politicians to be more mature about the economic debate, it is very welcome.

A deep-rooted analysis of our spending and economic planning cannot but be of long-term benefits to the country. That is why what Senator Quinn spoke about is a valuable addition to the debate. It is to be hoped the Minister of State will have something positive to say in response.

The billions of euro spent in this country come from taxpayers as well as being borrowed. At the core of spending we must have absolute value for money and spend in proper areas. The Bill puts obligations on us in that regard, which is to be welcomed.

The Minister of State and his Government colleagues are at the latter stages of planning for the October budget. The Dáil and Seanad will go into recess shortly and will return in September. The budget will be around the corner. We are not getting sufficient time, as individual Members of the Oireachtas, to give a prebudget view on the expenditure side and make suggestions. When the Houses return in September there will only be one month before the budget will be finalised.

I ask for a debate on the choices facing the country. The public expects all of us to be realistic about budgetary and fiscal matters. The day of the Government making announcements on budget day and the Opposition opposing everything is passé. It is bad politics and we need to move on from it.

I look forward, if possible, to having a debate in September on the budgetary choices facing the Government and all of us. I again thank the Minister of State for introducing the Bill. It is very helpful and is part of the broader reform agenda. It is good for the taxpayer and politics, and makes us all face up to our responsibilities in a more meaningful fashion.

The Minister of State will respond in two minutes. Does anybody wish to speak?

We have no problem with this Bill and will support it. Many of the comments I intended to make were made by Senator Bradford, especially on the prebudget process. I raised the issue in the House on Tuesday in terms of the programme for Government promise to open up the budgetary process to public scrutiny which would restore confidence and stability in the budgetary process.

The House will go into recess shortly and I regret we did not do this earlier, knowing that the budget will be in October. This should have been done sooner. While we support the Bill we will table a number of amendments to strengthen the proposal and give life to the programme commitments. They relate to transparency in the budgetary process, greater Oireachtas and civil participation and to make sure that when decisions are made that is done on the basis of poverty and inequality impact assessments. We will table an amendment on changes to the Fiscal Advisory Council's terms of reference. We will be supporting this legislation.

As my colleague, Senator Darragh O'Brien, has indicated, we will be supporting this. There is a view which questions whether the fiscal compact treaty was a treaty for austerity into the future. How much of a straitjacket is the Government going to find itself in regarding its priorities? The Minister of State stated that it would facilitate greater structural planning based on core Government priorities. Perhaps he might outline where those priorities will lie. Will they lie in equality, public private partnerships or capital development? It is important that this is spelled out because the people cannot take many more austerity measures and this seems to suggest that the Government is in some sort of straitjacket. I know this is something that has been imposed on Europe, ironically by countries that breached deficit targets and benchmarks during the Celtic tiger years when we were generating budget surpluses. It is a bit rich for those countries to be putting Ireland in a straitjacket at a time when, as the Minister of State knows more than anybody else, we could do with more money to expand our economy and create more jobs.

I thank colleagues for their positive remarks concerning this legislation. In its simplest terms, it puts general Government expenditure over a three-year period and Government ceilings on expenditure, Minister by Minister, Department by Department, on a statutory basis. That is very useful because colleagues will know what they have to spend over a three-year period and the Government knows what it needs to spend over a three-year period. It is important that this is set out in law.

In respect of the last point made by Senator Mooney, we must take responsibility for our problem. Yes, there is an international component to it. We cannot spend money we do not have and at the moment, we are spending money we do not have, which is not sustainable. One thing that struck me during the course of the referendum on the fiscal compact treaty was that people are not stupid. They understand economics and that one can only spend what one has and they want a more sustainable basis for public expenditure. We as politicians across the political spectrum need to engage with the public on this issue. This is about us taking responsibility for our problems and addressing them in the best way we can.

The dilemma was well put by Jean-Claude Juncker, the long-standing Prime Minister of Luxembourg, who is in a bit of trouble at the moment. I was at a Eurogroup meeting chaired by him two years ago. I was standing in for the Minister for Finance. The issue of VAT and tax fraud came up and a representative from one of the countries around the table said that we must always do the right thing - the moral thing - in terms of tax fraud. Mr Juncker said that, of course, we must always do the right and moral thing but that sometimes elections get in the way. It explained perfectly the cyclical political problem faced across Europe in terms of politicians spending money they do not have and another parliament then having to make up the deficit. That is the problem we face.

We must deal with the runaway train of public expenditure. We have managed to do that. I have consistently said that we were caught in a perfect storm. In 2008, our tax base went from €51 billion to €37 billion over a period of months. Within a year, our tax base collapsed at a time when huge numbers of people were coming on the live register and the number of medical cards virtually doubled. At a time when taxes were coming down, expenditure was going up because of this existential crisis. Obviously, we must get the deficit down. It is worth pointing out that this Bill is effectively creating a statutory basis for making sure our public expenditure system is put on a long-term sustainable basis. That is something that is very important.

It is important that we have a debate on long-term economic planning. I understand this was touched on by Senators Bradford and Barrett. Having these three-year ceilings in place, which is more medium than long-term, will help public discourse and will certainly help us to take a more prudent approach to public expenditure given the crisis the country has faced in recent years.

I fully agree with Senator Darragh O'Brien about openness and transparency. The Government has a very open view about debates in this and the other House about alternatives for the budgets. It is also worth saying that we have put in place a new budgetary approach to annual budgets for committees and Departments whereby they are encouraged to have a discussion in advance of the debate and have some input into that and Ministers will take responsibility for replying to those proposals at committees. I wish to be frank about this. This is not just big bad Government tagging off committees. We have seen lots of ways to spend money but very few ideas about bringing in money either through tax or cutting back. We need to have an honest discourse about this at committees. Rather than producing wish lists of things we need to spend money on, we need a frank engagement about the things we need to stop spending money on if we are really honest about this. Yes, we want an open and transparent debate once it is honest for everyone and once Opposition parties and Independents are frank about what needs to be done rather than pretending that one can find €500 million by better management without actually specifying what it is. That is just hocus-pocus. Nobody actually believes that.

I do not mean to attack Sinn Féin but the problem it has every year is that it opposes all the cuts we must implement and in the following year's pre-budget submission, it does not compensate for those decisions it proposed so it takes our figures as the baseline figures despite the fact that it objected to all the cutbacks we have made. It is a fundamental lie because if it is going to change all the things it is opposed to, it means the hole it must fill is twice as large as the one we must fill. I know we will come back to this issue in September and October. I apologise. I do not mean to pick on Senator Reilly.

We need openness and transparency and for all of Parliament to be involved in this. Senators Barrett and Darragh O'Brien spoke about capital expenditure. If I can be frank, we are building bog standard stuff now. We are putting money in roads; social housing, for example, retrofit schemes; and primary health care centres. The day of the dramatic big project is over. I will follow up the point made about Narrow Water Bridge. My understanding is that it is PEACE money. I know some of the funds are coming from our Government and from the Northern Ireland Executive but most of the money is EU PEACE money. I will find out about the €20 million. I did not know about that and I thank the Senator for bringing it to my attention.

The point was made that we need cost-benefit analysis by my colleagues here and Senator Barrett. Yes, we need rigorous cost-benefit analysis and local authorities should be doing the same. I have a very simple arrangement in my own Department for the OPW. We have a model for all applications from local authorities to spend public monies on minor grants. One puts the information into the model and gets the benefit from it. If one hits the target, one gets the money and if one does not hit it, one does not get the money. The question of whether I have an involvement with it is irrelevant. The local authorities know where they are coming from when it comes to applications to us. There is an objective model, which we need to see across the system.

Senator Barrett made the point that if one does not have money, one should not be spending it. A friend of mine has a business. He told me that in December of every year, nobody travels because the budget is used up. His point is that if the money is not there, it is not there. We need to have the same attitude, particularly in those Departments that overspend every year. A total of 80% of all Government expenditure is in three Departments so we must keep a very close eye on them, which is why the new Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is there to make sure we have that oversight. I agree with the Senator that we must reduce the size of Government. We have done it. Three years ago, we had a public sector of 330,000. Now, we have a public sector of 290,000 and within two years, we will have a public sector of 280,000. We have taken 20% from the cost of running Government. We have gone from €20 billion to €17.5 billion and it will be €16.5 billion by the end of 2015. I am a Minister in three Departments but I am paid once. In previous Governments, there would be three Ministers of State so I am doing three jobs for the price of one, which is not bad.

In response to Senator Barrett's comments about the fiscal council, it results from the two pack. Under the two-pack agreement signed off in May 2013 by the ECOFIN and the council, a country must have an outside body which endorses the model upon which its forecast for the future is made. We thought it logical that the fiscal council, which is independent of Government and is in statutory form, would effectively give that endorsement, not so much to the Commission but to the Irish Government. It will be producing a piece of work between now and the budget to determine whether our forecasts are prudent and right or wrong. That is good because can undertake rigorous academic analysis on the basis of the profiling of the models that are made.

I have good news for Senator Feargal Quinn. The Senator thinks nobody listens to him but that is utterly wrong.

I would never think that.

A very fine public servant in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform who was listening to the Senator sent me a text to let the Senator know that Ireland Stat, a new website, was recently established on a pilot basis. It is not like the US model but we will get there. Equally it is not like the model the British Government has put through, wheredoesyourmoneygo.org, that gives that information. We have it on pilot form in four Departments which have given us all the information. During the next 12 months all the other Departments will put that information there. I agree with the Senator, there is no need to ask any parliamentary questions in future because all the information will be on the website.

Following our discussion I will organise a special briefing for the Senator with officials in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and the public sector reform unit to show what we have done in this area. We are crawling at the moment but I hope within a year or so that we will have a much fuller website with all the information the Senator is seeking. Ultimately, I agree with the Senator, it is getting down to what my hospital and local school are spending on A, B and C. Why is it that one hospital is so much better at doing hip replacements than another? Why is it that the accident and emergency unit in Kilkenny is better than the accident and emergency unit in Donegal? I am not sure if that is the case, I am just using it as an example. I agree with the Senator that we need that level of information because this is public money. I will organise that briefing for the Senator as a result of Ireland Stat.

I thank the Minister of State.

I hope I have answered some-----

Tá an t-am istigh.

I am probably going on too long.

I thank Senators for their contributions. Obviously, we will be back again to debate the issue. Many changes occurred here because of the fiscal compact treaty and the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2012. This legislation is an architecture of better public policy planning on expenditure into the future. There is broad political support for the Bill in this House and elsewhere and, I think, across the public but we need to shine a light on public expenditure. By doing that we cut out inefficiency and get much better value for the taxpayer.

Question put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Next Wednesday.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 24 July 2013.
Sitting suspended at 1.35 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.
Top
Share