Vol. 382 No. 5
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 2, line 14, after "such amounts" to insert ", aggregating to a sum not exceeding £40,000,000,".
This amendment meets the concern expressed with regard to the upper limit because of the remote possibility that there might be some increase in the estimated contribution of £32 million.
Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 1 states:
To delete "£40,000,000" and substitute "£33,000,000".
I fully accept what the Minister said in relation to the difference between voted and non-voted expenditure and I also acccept his proposition that it would be an over-simplification to say that all expenditure has to be the subject matter of an Estimate approved by the Dáil. However, in terms of non-voted expenditure which is authorised for payment by Statute out of the Central Fund, apart from the 1984 Act to which the Minister referred, I cannot think of any Act which has been considered and passed by the House which has authorised moneys to be paid out of the Central Fund without limit. Perhaps one exists but I do not know of it.
Even in cases such as Land Acts, semi-State bodies and so on, we always fix upper limits and that was the case in relation to the obligations of the State in relation to export credit guarantees. We also fix upper limits in regard to the State's authority to capitalise semi-State companies. We do so for a very good constitutional reason, that this House does not give unlimited authority to anybody to do anything. Otherwise, at any stage in this House, we could authorise the Minister for Finance, without limit, to fund the Agricultural Credit Corporation as he thought fit. If that principle was admitted, if the House could simply adopt measures of this kind, we could give up any pretence at control of public expenditure. There is no such thing as non-voted expenditure under a Statute, with the exception of the 1984 Act. There is no precedent generally for the proposition that unlimited expenditure can be paid at the decision of the Government from the Central Fund.
All the precedents suggest that even to guarantee the loans of a semi-State body, to guarantee the repayment of the ACC's loan to investors and to guarantee the borrowings of various semi-State companies, we always fix an upper limit. If that is not necessary, why do we do it elsewhere? If it is necessary elsewhere, why are we not doing it here? To some extent this argument is futile because the Minister has set a limit. I will not press my amendment to a vote.
One of the irrelevancies to which the Minister's attention was drawn was the European Patents Convention. Deputy Bruton spoke about asking the EC to make a regulation requiring us to become signatories of the Patents Convention. He thought in that way it could become a necessitated obligation and that we would not have to have a referendum. That is all very well, but he forgets one fundamental fact. It is not part of the European Treaty and none of the other member states would ever allow the Commission to make a regulation of that kind because, if they got away with doing that once, making a regulation for the convenience of one member state to force them to take a step of this kind, then, in the last analysis, the British Government could be forced, for instance, to ratify a trade mark convention and someone else could be asked to ratify some totally different convention. Once we get away from the proposition that regulations can only be brought in on foot of what is now agreed to be the basis of the treaty, effectively the regulation-making process is an entirely sovereign one independent of the treaty on which it is founded. I am not lecturing Deputy Bruton on European law, I am giving him a lecture on basic politics. Mrs. Thatcher will never accept the right of the European Community to make regulations outside the ambit of the treaties. All the member states have a vested interest in making sure that no regulation is ever made outside the ambit of the treaties because, to do so, would be the slippery slope towards making the treaties themselves redundant.
The Minister should have specified a lesser amount than £40 million. In view of what he said in the intervening period about the letter coming from the Commission today specifying the final amount and that it is finally decided, I will not press the matter. However, I should like to make the point that the precedent to which Deputy Noonan referred, the fact that it came from a Fine Gael Minister in the past, is no reason to make the same mistake twice. Deputy Kelly, to be fair, said it was an unfortunate way of legislating. We should not regard it as a precedent but as an exception to an obvious rule. In future, we should decide that, in whatever form it comes before us, there should be a limit on it.
(Limerick East): I wish to comment on the Minister's amendment where he is imposing a ceiling of £40 million in the operation of this legislation in the expectation of the payment of £32 million. Whatever the amount, it is clear that this is only a small percentage of the total contribution which we will make to the EC budget in 1988. The figure given by the Minister is £252 million and I presume that is the ceiling in which we should be interested. We should insist that there is no variation in that figure, apart from variations in computing and translating the equivalent amount in ECUs into Irish pounds. If there is any variation other than the translation of the equivalent ECU amount into Irish pounds, will the Minister be back looking for the permission of the House to vary the £252 million upwards? If there is a breach of the ceiling required through further contributions, the Minister may be put in a position to negotiate as the year goes on. Otherwise it is purely academic whether it is £32 million, £33 million or £40 million. A 25 per cent variation upwards to allow the Minister the flexibility which he requires does not seem to be extravagant. I accept the Minister's amendment but I should like him to comment on the point I raised about the sum of £252 million.
On the question of the £252 million overall contribution, which includes the £32 million plus under this legislation, it is the best estimate we can make. There can be marginal differences one way or the other. In fact, since the beginning of the year because of these changes we have saved £20 million on the overall contribution. Let us hope that that trend will continue.
Deputy McDowell referred to other legislation which did not have ceilings. Section 54 of the Finance Act, 1970, authorised the charging of all debt service payments on the Central Fund and on the growing produce thereof without imposing any ceiling on the amount of such expenditure and such payments are always paid without any further Dáil approval beyond what was given with the passing of the Finance Act, 1970. There are other items of expenditure charged on the Central Fund on the basis of the Act of the Oireachtas without any overall limit on the amount of expenditure and included as part of the Central Fund Services. They are, issues to the land bond fund to make good any deficiency in the fund, issues to cover exchange losses on the ACC's foreign currency borrowing, issues to make good any deficiency in the Post Office Saving Bank fund and election expenses, that is returing officer expenses and the cost of free postage for candidates.
They are all unconstitutional.
(Limerick East): Is the £252 million voted or non-voted?
It is non-voted.
I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 1:
To delete "£40,000,000" and substitute "£33,000,000".
As it is now 6 o'clock I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day "that the amendment set down by the Minister for Finance on Committee Stage is hereby agreed to; that section 2 as amended, and section 3, are hereby agreed to in Committee and that the title is hereby agreed to in Committee; that the Bill as amended is hereby reported to the House and Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed".
This Bill is certified a Money Bill in accordance with Article 22 of the Constitution.
