Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

In terms of overall expenditure, it would be difficult to construct that because, once we allocate expenditure, my Department in conjunction with the Department of Finance examines the umbrella of expenditure. The actual disposition of it falls to a line Minister, which is why we have line Ministers accountable to individual committees. It would be difficult to see how that could be disaggregated. Members of this committee would end up asking me questions about decisions made by line Ministers, for example Deputy Phil Hogan, in respect of expenditure by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. It is better done at sectoral level, where there is a framework for it, with Ministers making decisions at that level.

With regard to the points about the ability of politicians to change legislation, I know the frustration of not being able to submit amendments that create a charge on the State. Bluntly, if it were possible, most Deputies would constantly propose spending more and taxing less and all of that manifests a charge on the State. There would always be a political imperative to do so. One can creatively draft an amendment that passes muster, which is a parliamentary skill that must be learned. It involves crafting amendments that do not fall foul of creating a charge on the State but allow the Deputy to make the argument. If it is compelling, the Minister can accept it.

The Office of the Attorney General has a team of very senior law officers and is the legal authority on which the Government depends. Like all advices, they are advices until they are tested by the courts. Ultimately, the Supreme Court is the ultimate decision-maker on what is a robust constitutional provision. There is a case to be made for it. In my time, we looked at having a parliamentary counsel in the Dáil the first time. We do have a law officer here and the question is whether that can be augmented. I would not like a situation where a Deputy stands up and says that the parliamentary counsel to the Dáil says one thing and the Minister responds that the Attorney General says something different. Then there is a clash. There must be an authoritative legal voice. Ultimately, it is only an opinion until it is tested by the Supreme Court. It is something we must live with.