asked the Minister for Finance if the Government has decided to reduce the projected public expenditure in 1984 by £500 million.
10.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Public Expenditure.
9.
asked the Minister for Finance whether recent statements by the Taoiseach concerning the need for public expenditure cuts of £500 million reflect decisions already taken by the Government.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 10 together.
The Government are at present considering their policy in relation to the level of public expenditure in 1984. The Government's decisions will be reflected in the usual abridged Book of Estimates.
In view of the commitment given in the Programme for Government by various Ministers responsible to this House, notably the Minister for Industry and Energy, will the Government bring the Estimates before the House now, months after their original stated intention?
That is a repetition of a question raised on today's Order of Business.
It arises directly from my question.
You are lucky your question was not ruled out——
You might have ruled whether it was relevant on the Order of Business, but it is certainly relevant now because this question was transferred to this Minister from the Taoiseach.
It was successfully argued this morning that it was relevant on the Order of Business.
I am trying to keep within the rules of order and I am sure the Ceann Comhairle will appreciate that.
I do not deny that.
Would the Minister clarify that point?
As was pointed out this morning, a number of factors have contributed to the delay in the publication date of the Estimates this year. One of those factors is the fact that since the end of August we have been involved in four special EEC Council meetings dealing with the financing of the European Community, with the proposal for a super-levy on agriculture and so on. Those meetings required a certain amount of intensive preparation both by individual Ministers and by the Government. They have taken up time which would normally have been used for Estimates purposes. In addition, there is the normal concern of ensuring that the decisions reached fully take account of the difficult economic and social situation in which we find ourselves.
It takes more time to produce Estimates which will stand up ——
I do not know who is answering my question.
(Interruptions.)
Have the Deputies anything else to add on the Minister's behalf?
This is the first Government in six years ——
I do not know who is answering for the Minister.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy O'Kennedy without interruption, please.
Does the statement made by the Taoiseach represent Government policy, that is, that a decision has been taken to reduce public expenditure across the board by £500 million?
As I said in my reply, the Government have not yet made their final decisions on the level of public expenditure for 1984. When these decisions are made, they will be published in the normal way.
I take it that the statement made by the Taoiseach was not in accordance with Government policy because it seems that policy has not been decided at this point.
11.
asked the Minister for Finance if he will make available to the members of the Committee on Public Expenditure copies of the decision of the Government, dated 8 July, on public expenditure which was made available to the media (details supplied) on 11 October 1983.
12.
asked the Minister for Finance if he will investigate the circumstances in which a confidential Government document on public expenditure came to be disclosed to the media (details supplied).
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11 and 12 together. I have considered having investigations made into the source of the reported leak to the media of my Department's confidential circular on the 1984 Estimates. That circular requests Departments to prepare their Estimates for Government consideration and lays down guidelines for this work. Since many individuals in Departments and in other bodies in the public sector participate in drawing up the Estimates, the circular is seen by a large number of people. I have therefore concluded that an investigation into the source of the leak could be both costly and unproductive.
Members of the Oireachtas, including the Public Expenditure Committee, will be informed of the Government's expenditure decisions in the normal ways.
Will the Minister inquire directly from his Ministerial colleagues who are in the habit of giving information directly to newspapers? He might inquire first in the course of his investigations from them. Will he also acknowledge that a Government decision, which this is purported to be, can come only from Government? Because of that will he confine his investigation to the colleagues immediately with him around the table from the senior to the most junior level?
A question, Deputy.
I suggest that in relation to his inquiry in the first instance.
The Deputy again is involving himself in rather tendentious arguments. There are two questions here, one from Deputy O'Rourke, which asked how it came about that the confidential Government document on public expenditure became available to the media, and the question put down by Deputy O'Kennedy——
The Minister took both together——
——relates to the same event. Both, as far as I can establish, refer to the leak to the media of the circular on the 1984 Estimates. I have explained — and the Deputy is well aware of procedure here — that that circular goes to a large number of people in Departments and other agencies who have to participate in the work of drawing up the Estimates. I have concluded that an investigation into the source of that leak could be both costly and unproductive.
The Minister will understand that the House can only conclude that the reason he is not having an investigation is that he does not want to embarrass his colleagues ——
It is not.
——which is part and parcel of this Government's approach. With regard to the leak now suggested — as distinct from a handout to spokesmen through whom this Government work — it makes two points; first, a 6 per cent cutback across the board and, secondly, a freezing of the capital programme for last year's Estimates. Will the Minister assure the House that we will not find such a non-selective decision on the part of this Government as a 6 per cent cutback across the board which will in no way reflect the priorities for Government allocation as between, for instance, the productive areas and the wasteful administrative areas of this economy?
That seems to be a separate question.
It is not. It must arise directly from a 6 per cent cutback across the board.
This is about a document. It is simply asking if a document will be made available.
It refers clearly, as I am sure the Minister will indicate, to a 6 per cent cutback across the board and the freezing of the capital programme for last year. Will the Minister assure the House that there will not be a 6 per cent cutback across the board, which would be a total abrogation of Government responsibility in not defining priority areas for extra expenditure?
I am ruling that this is a separate question.
It is not.
It clearly is.
I cannot see why it is.
I can see and I am so ruling.
How can it be a separate question when it is contained in the very document which the Minister said has been leaked?
The Deputy is holding up a newspaper in his hand and if he is referring to that in his question he could not refer to anything that is in the document.
It was a document leaked from Government sources.
The thrust of the question is about the leak of a document, not something regarding the wisdom or foolishness of what is in the document.
I am more concerned at this point about the wisdom or foolishness I have to take.
The Deputy will have to avail of an opportunity of putting down another question. If he puts down another question, certainly in my opinion it would not be ruled out of order.
Questions Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 all relate to this topic. I have one final question to ask which is at least as important as some others on which we have spent a long time.
I thought I would make a better hand of the Deputy than some of his colleagues would.
Will the Minister assure us that we are not going to have a non-selective, indiscriminate 6 per cent cutback across the board? Secondly, will we see the capital programme approached on the basis that it would be used for the necessary infrastructural development, particularly to promote employment in the housing industry and the road industry?
That would be much more appropriate on a budget or an Estimate debate.
It relates to public expenditure.
I assure the Deputy that this Government do not believe in non-selective cutbacks without reference to priorities, as is illustrated by action that we have taken to date — for example, by the fact that we have decided to have reviewed overall progress in relation to budgetary targets this year and to paying a second week's allowance to long-term social welfare beneficiaries at Christmas. We do not believe in non-selective cutbacks of this kind, neither do we believe in carrying out the kind of pie in the sky exercise carried out by the Deputy's own party in producing their so-called plan entitled The Way Forward, since abandoned.
In so far as the Minister has indicated that the Government do not pursue non-selective cutbacks, can I take it that say, an 88 per cent increase in the administrative agencies, all nonproductive departments, is a Government priority whereas a cutback in areas such as agriculture and fisheries is equally a characteristic of this Government's priorities? If what the Minister said is true, that is the priority this Government are following and that is part of the problem we are now suffering from in this economy.
Did I hear the Minister saying he is going to pay a double supplement at Christmas?
Yes.
May he live to be 100 years of age.
Good wishes are not in order at Question Time.
The Deputy's question, which is very much in line with what he was asking earlier, is a very non-specific type of question.
It is very specific.
I repeat that this Government's approach to public expenditure, both current and capital, this year, next year and in future years will be determined by a very clear view as to where the priorities are and what the main objectives must be. We are not in the business of either non-selective cutbacks or increases without reference to priorities.
Finally, in view of his determination to apply such selective priorities, will the Minister ensure that, for instance, we will not see an 88 per cent growth in administrative agencies which we have in this year's allocation while seeing a cutback in such fundamental areas as specialist education programmes, oral examinations in leaving certificate examinations and so on? If that is the measure of the priorities we are going to see next year and as we see this year, then we reject totally what the Minister is doing.
The Deputy should contain his soul in patience and all will be revealed to him.