Vol. 472 No. 8
3 Mr. M. McDowell asked the Minister for Finance whether his Department is in receipt of pre-budget submissions from bodies who did not make such submissions to the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24217/96]
A number of pre-budget submissions were received in the Department of Finance from interested parties who, it is understood, did not make their submissions directly to the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs and further submissions continue to be received from various persons or representative groups who choose to write to the Minister.
The Deputy will be aware that the committee's orders of reference as amended by the Dáil on 4 July inserted a proviso that nothing in the orders of reference should prejudice the right of individuals to meet with the Minister for Finance with a view to making pre-budget submissions directly to him in accordance with long-standing practice.
I presume the Minister did not want to answer Question No. 4 in conjunction with this question. Therefore I will not trespass on it until he has a chance to deal with this question. Is it satisfactory that Deputy McCreevy, Deputy O'Hanlon and I should sit in a committee room listening to people who have moving and compelling cases to make for tax expenditure when at the same time a process is going on behind our backs, about which we have no knowledge whatsoever? A disadvantaged group can come in seeking relief worth £0.5 million and the committee can spend half a day on it and at the end of the day can be told to be fiscally responsible. Meanwhile in Merrion Street somebody is looking for relief of £20 million and none of us knows of it. Surely it is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs that we get only a self-selecting group of people coming to us whereas the real business is being carried out behind closed doors.
I do not want to comment on whether it is satisfactory beyond saying that is the order of reference of the Dáil. It was the Dáil which left open the option of the Minister for Finance to receive submissions directly, in accordance with long-standing practice. That is the rule of the Dáil and perhaps it should be changed and, if so, it would be a matter for you, a Cheann Comhairle, on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I understand the committee advertises for submissions and it is open to any group to respond and make their submission to the committee if that is what they want to do.
The committee advertises for submissions because it was given this job and asked to do various things by the Minister. Are we the patsys who provide the front of house service for those for whom it would be too embarrassing to be seen on the steps of Government Buildings while at the same time the heavy players settle down to obtaining major concessions behind our backs? What is the point in having politicians dealing with the high profile public issues which could have small implications for the Exchequer while the bureaucrats and the Minister are privately engaged in a different process which could have far more radical consequences for next year's budget? Why should one aspect of this process be in public and the other in private?
The responsibility here rests with the Minister for Finance. The procedure set up for the committee is relatively new and the parameters were set down by the Dáil. In the context of the 1997 budget, the Minister for Finance has not as yet held any pre-budget meetings although meetings have been arranged with a number of the social partners. From the point of view of any person or group who wish to make a submission, it is open to them to respond to the advertisement and come into the committee. One cannot stop any person or group seeking to make representations to the Minister for Finance and he or his officials may respond in any particular way and may decline it. The long established procedure until relatively recently was that representations were made to the Minister for Finance alone. It is a new procedure which no doubt will be reviewed from time to time by the House as the necessity arises.
I suggest the Minister remember the context in which this change occurred. Heretofore, private representations were made to the Minister but there was also the alternative route of going to Jury's Hotel and paying £100 for a pre-budget lunch with the Minister of State, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald. We were told we would tidy up the whole arrangement and everything would be above board, that all the hard cases would be examined by a committee with the aid of experts to tell us the implications of what was going on. We now find there is a parallel track where the real business is done and that, in large measure, we were going through a PR stunt to keep the heat off the Minister.
The Deputy seems to be imparting information rather than seeking it.
It seems Deputy McDowell is getting carried away in respect of this matter. To date the Minister has not had pre-budget meetings. Meetings have been arranged but only with the social partners. It will be accepted by any reasonable Deputy that that is entirely proper and appropriate.
