Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

I genuinely appreciate the difficulties of the Deputies opposite. In the course of normal legislation once the Department is established, we will take on board their views and concerns to ensure we have the fullest debate.

Deputy Sean Fleming is wrong about the Department's genesis. The thought process entered both parties' programmes separately. We were anxious to have fundamental political, constitutional and public service reform. As Labour Party spokesman on reform, I set up an ad hoc group that involved some of the most eminent public servants, past and present, in this country and abroad. Among their recommendations was that we would never have real reform unless it was led by someone of Cabinet rank who was in control of the money through the Estimates. This was our model and, amazingly, Fine Gael reached the same conclusion. Therefore, it was easy to match our policies and divide into two Departments. It will work well.

In the current financial situation, it is impossible for the Minister for Finance, who must focus on the macro-economic situation and deal with our external partners and the State's funding issues, those being taxation and so on, to drive a reform agenda at the same time. Reform would always be a secondary issue. For this reason, I have been given my task and the leverages to achieve it through control of expenditure. That is the background.

The amendments under debate are to this Bill because it is the first available legislation that is not a money Bill. Had they been included in the Finance (No. 3) Bill, they would have robbed it of its status as a money Bill. Therefore, they needed to be made to this legislation. The Deputies opposite understand the situation.

If it was Deputy Sean Fleming's suggestion that there be an explanatory memorandum in respect of amendments, it was a good one. An explanatory memorandum would save a great deal of time, as it would lay out the reasoning I have on paper before me for each amendment and people could go through it.

One could make too much of this Bill. It is literally an enabling Bill for the establishment of the Department of public expenditure and reform by dividing up the Department of Finance. While almost 200 statutes are to be amended, all of the amendments are technical. Where the function was with the Minister for Finance, it will now be with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. The amendments are not creating new principles of law. They are simply creating a disaggregation of one Department into two. It took so long because the Minister for Finance is referenced in virtually every statute since the foundation of the State, as I instanced. For this reason, I must pay tribute to my staff and to the staff of the Department of Finance, who were so involved in creating this Bill. Their work meant fine-combing an enormous volume of legislation. Without the advent of computers, we would be waiting a further year for it to be done.

The amendments are primarily technical. We will be able to go through them quickly once they have been moved. There are so many fresh amendments following the Bill because we are taking a belt and braces approach. Since we are dealing with statutes dating back to the foundation of the State, the drafting style has changed over the generations. Our original intention was for a short Bill, one that simply stated, "That category of function shall be transferred". However, I am afraid the Parliamentary Counsel and the Attorney General demand certainty in these matters. Individual amendments are required to address the phraseology used in original statutes.

See this speech in context