Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an díospóireacht atá ar siúl againn anocht ar Chomhairle Fhioscach Chomhairleach na hÉireann. Sílim go bhfuil sé in am againn an chomhairle seo a phlé toisc go bhfuil sé anois dhá bhliain ó cuireadh an reachtaíocht i bhfeidhm. Sílim fosta go bhfuil sé ceart agus cóir athbhreithniú a dhéanamh ar reachtaíocht a cuireadh tús leis sa Dáil achan cúpla bliain. B'fhéidir gur fiú amharc a thabhairt ar an reachtaíocht sin go bhfeicfimid anois, leis an gcomhairle úr bunaithe, an bhfuil leasuithe de dhíth agus an bhfuil gá rudaí a bheith difriúil. Cruthaíodh rud neart úr agus nuair a chruthaítear rud neart úr, ní féidir a bheith cinnte conas a n-oibreoidh sé.

I welcome the debate.

It is important that we review legislation. Considering that we have given statutory footing to a new body, it is important to determine whether the expectations that existed when it was being set up have actually been met and whether there is now a need to decide whether the establishing legislation needs to be tweaked or amended.

There is no doubt but that the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council has become a very important and regular part of economic debate, with its reports outlining and contributing to the political debate. I have thanked the staff of the council for their work on reports and I have said to them that I do not believe the recommendations they have made are in the best interest of society at large. This reflects my position at the time of the council's establishment that its role should be expanded to include other considerations, which I will touch on later.

As Deputy McGrath has said, the council came into being following the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which was required under the EU treaty. It had strict targets on debt and borrowings, with no regard for their social and environmental effects. Sinn Féin rejected those austerity targets, which will continue as long as the treaty exists. They have the potential to stunt economic development in the North and South. The targets have been used as an excuse by the Government for brutal austerity. The new rules now form part of each year's budgetary discussion. The council is basically a referee appointed to ensure, crucially, that there is fair play within the parameters that have been set. The primary role of the council is to ensure the austerity rules are adhered to.

The council's job is to advise. The elected Government should listen to the advice but ultimately it is accountable to the people for its decisions. It is in this regard that I differ from Deputy McGrath. It is interesting that he gives the impression in the media that the Government is too harsh because Fianna Fáil is actually calling for more austerity than the Government introduced in this year's budget. This is sometimes missed in the public debate.

During the debate on the Fiscal Responsibility Bill, I proposed amendments to ensure the council's remit would cover the social element of fiscal policy and objectives such as greater income equality, social inclusion, poverty reduction, economic growth and the delivery of high-quality public services. These should have been factored into the council's assessment and forecasts. I was disappointed the Government could not support my amendment. The council does not deal with these issues to any great extent in its reports because it is not its mandate; it has not been tasked to deal with them. It can do only as good a job as the information it has will allow.

I listened to what the Minister, Deputy Noonan, said about the Government's record. There is no doubt but that if one considers the austerity rules and the deficit reduction, one will conclude the Government has reached its target every single year despite the fact that it has rejected the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council's recommendations. The latter always recommended more austerity believing that it was only through further adjustment that the rules would be adhered to.

I value independent advice. It is important to have the statistics and the considerable work thereon but I question why the council was suggesting that we needed a €2 billion adjustment to reach a deficit target of below 3% of GDP when the Minister could actually spend nearly €1 billion and reach a target of 2.7% of GDP? Why was it recommending an additional adjustment in previous years when the Government opted for a smaller reduction and was able to reach its targets?

When I asked the Minister about the detail on this at the committee meeting in June of this year, he mentioned that he had additional soft data that explained why the Government’s forecasts did not match those of the council, which had been issued just a couple of weeks previously. I find that completely unacceptable. When I asked the council about this, it said the opposite and that it has all the data. There is clearly a mismatch in data. There is no point in having a fiscal advisory council if it does not have all the data. There is no point in individuals giving of their time and producing reports if they do not have all the relevant data and if the Department has other data that are not available to them. This is a core issue that needs to be addressed. If there are soft data, including on car sales, as mentioned by the Minister, they must be factored in. Either the council is not doing its job, by not factoring them in if they are available, or the Department is not doing its job, by failing to ensure the council has the most up-to-date data. If the two had the same data, we could have a really proper and independent examination of the fiscal position.

The Government cannot simply dismiss the council's findings by hinting it knows more than it. The council must be allowed to do its job, which means it must be given all the relevant information, including what the Minister calls soft data. We cannot have circumstances in which the council publishes a report only for the Minister to imply within a couple of weeks that it is of no use. These are not the words the Minister has used but he said at the finance committee meeting that he has soft data such that what the council recommends does not need to be done. This was only a couple of weeks after the issuing of the report. There is a problem, therefore.

Let me return to my opening comments on the establishment of the council and our ability to change the legislation. However, we need to get this right. I can understand people may be disillusioned and losing faith. The reports have not been on the money. The recommendations from the council have proven to be incorrect. It will dispute that. I appreciate that trying to forecast events is very difficult. In fairness to the Department, despite my objection to the type of austerity politics the Government has introduced, it has really got its act together on profiling. Bearing in mind that there has been tax buoyancy this year, the Department has been decent enough in regard to some of the other areas. There has been significant over-expenditure in the health service but the departmental recommendations are not as wide off the mark as in previous years.

The council's report from June helped to shed some light on the short-term thinking of the Government. It stated that the prolonged, tight spending plans will be difficult to achieve given demand pressures and rigidities in certain areas of expenditure. It stated the forthcoming comprehensive review of expenditure needed to be used to identify appropriate detailed expenditure plans to promote informed public debate and enhance the credibility of budgetary projections over the medium term. We are starting to see in the national newspapers some of the information contained in the comprehensive review. There are suggestions on social protection, in respect of which there have been cuts. As the council said, the review should enhance the credibility of budgetary projections but also inform public debate. However, there is no public debate because public debate on this issue as a whole has been shrunk. In my view, this does not suit anybody. We discuss the council's report at a meeting of the committee and then invite the Minister, who has access to additional data. The Minister outlines his position. However, the Minister, who in fairness listened to what I had to say, will know about the original responses from the Department or his office. The first was six lines, if I recall correctly. We have now arrived at a position where there is a more comprehensive response given to the council. This is welcome but we need to go further. We need to be examining the increased pressures that will be exerted in the areas of health and education and others because of demographic change and other factors. We must determine how we will meet demand and provide social services under the types of expenditure ceilings that obtain.

This leads to the issue of the budgetary scenario. The Minister or perhaps the former Minister of State, Mr. Brian Hayes, MEP, stated there is debate on the budget. What really happens is that the Government announces a draft budget. Its recommendations are debated when considering the Finance Bill. It is argued that all the expenditure ceilings will be discussed on Committee Stage and that we have until the next year, when the measures kick in, to introduce the social welfare legislation.

Technically, the Minister is correct. It is a way of getting round that one, but in practice, it is wrong.

A number of things need to be done. First, when the Finance Bill comes to the floor of the House, we, as Opposition spokespersons, will have to do what the Minister, Deputy Noonan, had to do as an Opposition spokesperson, namely, try to find a way of amending the Finance Bill to include provisions we want because it is next to impossible to amend it in any meaningful way. The Minister will know what I mean. It is not impossible, but we cannot, because of constitutional bars on us, place a charge on the State. That is something on which I drafted legislation. We will have referendums next year and that should go to referendum. If we are to have a proper parliamentary democracy and debate about this here, all Members, and not only Government Members, should be able to raise and put proposals in legislation to the floor that could place a charge on the State. It is up to Government Deputies, backbenchers, the Opposition and Independents to decide whether that is an opportune matter, but to vest that role solely in Government does not help the type of public debate we have.

There is also the issue of the costings. Sinn Féin went through the Minister for Finance's office and the office of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and I thank the officials in both Departments who assisted us in preparing those costings. I said to the individuals to whom I personally spoke that I knew that was not their priority. They were dealing in the weeks running up to the budget with the priority of Government, which was to ensure that the budget was correct, and they were taking calls from me, my staff and others. It was not suitable. I personally had to go to the Minister to ask if this process could be initiated because there is no right for the process to be initiated outside of election-time manifestos.

We need an independent costing unit. If the Fiscal Advisory Council can provide that role, that is something that should be explored. Given the political dynamic in all of this, I am not sure whether that would be appropriate. There is a need to get away from the kind of debate that happens every year as to whether one's proposals are costed. We need an independent facility to which one can give my budget proposals. I have no fear. If my proposals are wrong, I want somebody to tell me that they are wrong and I will correct them because what we need in this country is a debate about the options and ideology. Let us have that battle of ideas and vision, instead of this stupid debate about whether a proposal is costed. Let us have a transparent process in that regard.

My party had to use its priority question in the week before the budget to try to find out what type of scope there was in the budget. The Minister mentioned that, on a neutral basis, we will come in below the 3% target and we pressed him on what that meant. He asked us not to hold him to the figures and said it would be maybe €50 million, above or below. Four days later, at midnight on Friday before the budget was announced, the receipts and expenditure were published. They showed that, on a neutral budget scenario, the Government had €1.2 billion of scope to reach the 3% target. The ambition was to get below that, but that is the type of scope. It is incredible that the Minister would not have information of that nature before Friday. If the Minister, Deputy Noonan, did not have it, then there is a serious problems. Obviously, he did have it, as did the other Ministers. However, it does not make for good public debate when information is only released on a Friday after all of our alternatives are already done.

The role of the Fiscal Advisory Council is hugely important only if all of the information is provided. Let us stop talking about what is not possible. Let us base our arguments on facts and figures that are independently costed and scrutinised. Let us set up an independent costing unit that will deal with budgetary proposals, but also with policies. For instance, we have policies that cannot be costed by the Department of Finance because it does not have the models. If we were in government, they would create the models, but it is not their priority and we understand that. Let us also lift the restriction on Opposition Members placing proposals on the floor of the Dáil to place a charge on the State. These are three proposals that would help our budgetary debate and then change our mindset about sharing the information.

See this speech in context