Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

We were caught before and it is nice to know before we begin.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, line 22, after "approval" to insert "and includes service of the national debt".

The same principle is involved in amendments Nos. 1 to 13, inclusive, but I tabled them separately in case one was out of order, as I did not want them all to be affected. With regard to the amendments, I made the point on Second Stage and the Minister of State, Deputy Sean Sherlock, responded and we know what his response was. I will not labour the point, except to state I understand there is expenditure of approximately €50 billion each year, of which approximately €40 billion goes through the Departments' Estimates process and is voted expenditure, which is right. However, there is no reason all of the taxpayers' money spent each year should not go through the Estimates procedure.

I have listed a number of items and taken the headings from the 2013 Estimates for receipt and expenditure. I understand payments for the Judiciary and constitutional officeholders should not be voted on by Members of the Oireachtas each year, if there is meant to be a separation of powers and independence. I would not like payments such as the salary of the President to become a bone of contention in the Oireachtas. Most of the other payments are ones which need to be made each year, but various pieces of legislation have been drafted during the years to exclude certain items from the Estimates procedure. It is still taxpayers' money which must be paid, but because it is not included in the annual Estimates procedure, by and large, it escapes annual scrutiny. I am not saying there is no mechanism in place, but some of these items are caught in wider debates on various departmental Estimates such as contributions to the European Union. I am sure the Common Agriculture Policy is discussed, but the total contribution to the European Union of €1.444 billion - we may be a net contributor rather than a recipient - is not debated.

We do not have a debate each year on how much we should be paying. Separate legislation is drafted for each of these items and exclusions, meaning tomorrow morning we can introduce new legislation and the Minister or the Government can decide it does not want to wrangle about this every year during the Estimates process. By putting it in legislation that it is to be paid from the Central Fund, the matter would never arise in the annual Estimates. That can happen and it has happened a few times recently.

With the figure for the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission, the Minister may point to legislation but my argument is that the legislation should be changed. I am not happy with the thinking behind the legislation. There is no reason for not having a debate about the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission or payments to political parties under the Electoral Acts in the Estimates procedure each year. They relate to current expenditure but on the capital expenditure side there is the likes of Exchequer contribution to the insurance compensation fund and payments for the European Stability Mechanism, although there may have been a debate on the share capital of the ESM and other miscellaneous items. Such matters are being excluded, although there is an argument that a review mechanism comes up each year.

The biggest issue is the service to the national debt, and we will pay €8.111 billion to that debt this year, according to the document I referred to a moment ago from the Department of Finance. That does not get discussed in the annual Estimates process. One might argue that the interest on national debt must be paid but any payments by the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA - which is included in this - and those coming through the Central Fund do not come through annual Estimates. The NTMA should be told what the Estimate is and the interest to be paid during the next calendar year. It should also know what borrowing exists, any deficits and what must be drawn down. If we come to the last month of the year and an Estimate of €8 billion turns out to be €8.3 billion, there should be a Supplementary Estimate. That might put greater discipline on the NTMA to stick to the figure voted by the Oireachtas in the annual Estimates rather than not having any proper scrutiny. One might argue that all these bodies are subject to Comptroller and Auditor General reports and issues can be subject to the scrutiny of the Committee of Public Accounts but that is not as rigorous as the annual Estimates debate.

There is an idea that interest on the national debt must be paid, and this relates to the reason I am against a Central Fund. Like a household in financial difficulties, we are a country in financial difficulty. This is like saying a family has a set amount of money for the year but it must pay a mortgage, regardless of whether that family can afford it. The money is taken from the top before other household expenses are even discussed. It means what is spent on the mortgage - akin to our national debt - cannot even be discussed in an annual debate. We are being remiss in allowing such a process, and I call on the Minister to reconsider taking all these items from the Central Fund.

The Minister might mention the contribution to the EU and that the figure is decided at a European level. The relevant Department should be able to budget, knowing that most of these EU budgets are five and seven year plans. We should know what we are budgeting to pay for next year and that should be discussed as part of the Estimates. If the figure is over or under the budget, it can be dealt with accordingly. The figure is decided by somebody else from outside Ireland, at an EU level, and this is similar to the process of setting what is to be paid to bondholders or towards interest on the national debt. There is nothing wrong with somebody going to their bank when their annual mortgage payments for the year will be €20,000 but they can only afford to pay €15,000. Despite having a figure, it is well within the ability of the NTMA to reschedule payments to come in line with the voted Estimates of the Dáil. The NTMA reschedules and renegotiates every day of the week in order to get a better deal, so to say we should not be allowed to discuss an interest payment when it is due is unacceptable.

I have listed the full gamut of items of expenditure from the Central Fund. It is wrong that the Oireachtas can discuss 80% of taxpayers' expenditure each year and is precluded from discussing the rest in the annual Estimates process. Under this system, there is nothing to stop legislation being passed tomorrow - such as a Health Service Executive (amendment) Bill - that will allow payments from the Central Fund for the HSE, meaning there would be no discussion of the funding with the annual Estimates. The process must be changed.