Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Fiscal Responsibility Bill 2012. The Bill addresses Articles 3 and 4 of the stability treaty and in doing so it is another piece of the complex jigsaw the Government, the previous Government and all citizens have had to compile and piece together in a difficult and painstaking way in order to get the country back on the road to fiscal sustainability and to restoring economic sovereignty. Just as the stability treaty sends out a message to the wider world and to those we depend on to lend this country money that we are open for business and that we are prepared to take the measures we must take and to learn from the economic mistakes of the past, the passage of this Bill through the Oireachtas is another step.

To bring the issue down to brass tacks, the passage of this Bill will mark the maturing of our nation and, I hope, of our politics. What it means is that the days of auction politics are truly over. In the past, every time we had a general election, there was a little extra children's allowance or a bump up in the pension or whatever, regardless of whether these were sought or assessed or whether analysis had been done as to whether the country could afford it. Those days must now be over. However, yesterday we saw one party in this House continue in a regrettable manner with auction politics, by coming out as opposing a property tax to which it had signed up. This serves nobody well.

Deputy Mathews is correct. We need mature and bipartisan discussion and we as a Government need to embrace ideas from others. We need to forgo auction politics, under which promises are made that if people vote for us we will get rid of some tax or hike up spending. All of us, including members of political parties and Independent Members, are guilty of this. However, this Bill puts manners on us and puts an end to that practice by compelling the Government and the Oireachtas to live within certain parameters. This is important. Clearly, there are issues that need to be addressed and areas of spending that need to be increased when we regain economic sovereignty, but the notion of throwing money around and of whoever promises the most money winning the election is ridiculous. It has brought about much of the pain and suffering that Irish families are experiencing every day.

With that in mind, what this Bill does with regard to putting the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council on a statutory basis must be seen as a welcome development. It was proactive and beneficial that the Government established the council before the passage of its legislation, but the enhancement of its role and the placing of it on a statutory basis when the Bill passes will be a welcome development. The council will provide independent oversight and will allow the public, the media, those talking heads that like to comment on the economy and taxpayers with greater access to advice, economic opinion, transparency and a greater level of mature engagement on the issues surrounding fiscal probity in this country.

The fact that the council will continue to make public assessments and pronouncements is vital. However, there is one caveat. It is important to make this caveat or we may pack up and go home. The Fiscal Council cannot become the Government. The economy drives society and a successful economy can help bring about a more equal society and address many societal issues. There has been commentary in the media and in this House recently that the fiscal advisory council has said we "must" do something and therefore the Government "must" adopt it in whole.

That defeats the purpose of a participative democracy. That defeats the purpose of a Government. A Government's priority has to go beyond the economy. I welcome the provisions in this Bill that will ensure future Governments have to account for their actions. If they choose not to accept advice, they will have to explain that decision. If they deviate from the parameters that are being set out, they will have to explain why that has happened. It would be wrong of the media or Opposition or Government politicians to presume that the Fiscal Advisory Council will be the be-all and end-all of this country. It will not decide our budgets and everything else. We do not want to go back to the days of unelected representatives meeting in private rooms and having too much influence. I respectfully suggest that the Government needs to strike a balance between the need to account for any decision not to accept the advice of the Fiscal Advisory Council and the need for the Government and this House to uphold their political and societal remit, which is broader than the remit of the council. That is important because government is about more than the running of the economy.

As part of this discussion on fiscal responsibility, I want to share with the House my experiences of some of the difficulties that have been experienced by the Committee of Public Accounts in trying to establish fiscal transparency. In my short time as a member of that committee, I have found there is generally quite a high level of scrutiny of governmental and departmental spending, regardless of whether people like individual decisions. Secretaries General and heads of agencies, etc., are brought before the committee to be scrutinised at a public forum and to have questions put to them. It is clear that there is a lack of transparency with regard to how public money is spent by the HSE and local authorities. Members will be aware that the Committee of Public Accounts had a much-publicised and talked-about meeting with the HSE the other day. Representatives of the HSE were called before the committee to account for a significant budget over-run that is causing concern in every community. They told the committee that the HSE is operating with eight different financial systems that were inherited from the old health board structure. How many years have passed since the establishment of the HSE? It has yet to develop a single co-ordinated system. It receives information that is fed in from 50 other financial systems. Anyone watching this debate who is involved in small business will say it is a recipe for disaster to have to depend on 58 different financial systems. These legacy issues have to be addressed. The rush to establish centralisation, as in the case of the HSE, is a mistake if structures are not put in place to ensure proper financial probity.

The same problem applies to local authorities. We scrutinise public funds to the nth degree until the moment they leave a Department and go to Wicklow County Council or any other local authority. We cannot ask any more questions about money once it reaches local authority level. The Committee of Public Accounts does not have a remit in this area. Council budgets are difficult to read. It is extremely difficult for taxpayers to understand them. It is frustrating for Members of this House who are trying to get to the bottom of them. The Government is attempting to broaden the tax base by asking people to pay the household charge and, presumably, introducing a property tax in a matter of weeks. If we expect people to start contributing to local coffers, there is a greater onus on us to provide for transparency in local government. Perhaps the Committee of Public Accounts could be given a new remit, or an alternate structure could be set up, to address the transparency deficit in terms of how local authorities spend their money. The local audit committees are part of an in-house structure. The public needs to know what is going on. I am most frequently asked about the household charge not by those who do not intend to pay it, or who are in downright opposition to it, but by those who want to know what it is for, where it is going and how they can pay it. If I am honest, I will admit that we have made significant mistakes in this regard. We have to learn from them. We could learn from the British system. I believe the British authorities circulate a document once a year to say where taxpayers' money is going. That is the level of transparency people need. If we are serious when we talk about fiscal responsibility and transparency, we need to go in the same direction.

See this speech in context