Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I would love to. I thank Deputy McGuinness. Many of the points that I want to make on this legislation are not positive, but I do not want the Minister of State to believe they are directed at him. I made them during the motion on the budget three weeks ago. This is a Second Stage debate on social protection legislation to put into effect those budgetary decisions, but it is not a debate at all because the decisions have already been made. We are just going through the motions, which forms part of the reason that I have a problem with how the Dáil operates. The decisions were not even made by the Cabinet. Rather, they were made before they went to the Cabinet. I do not know why we continue to stand over practices in which we do not believe. Labour Party Ministers who are not members of the Economic Management Council, EMC, have criticised its operations and how it sidelines the Cabinet. They are right. We have a Cabinet Government, which means no fewer than seven Ministers. This may not be the most efficient way to run a Government, but if one believes that, one should change the Constitution, which puts the Cabinet at the centre of the Government. The Cabinet is the body with the authority to make decisions. However, when it comes to matters like the budgetary process, we have seen how even the Cabinet has been sidelined.

Labour Party Ministers also do not agree with the idea of a budget day on which we spend one day per year announcing all of these secrets, as they were described, to the country. Those Ministers called this crazy, which has been repeated at the Committee of Public Accounts. Why do we continue doing it? These are processes we want to change, yet we are not changing them. To answer the question of why knowledge and power should not be concentrated in the hands of a few people, it leads to bad decision-making. Consider 2008 and 2010. Why should we not debate in detail budgetary figures on a year-end basis, get them costed independently as Deputies and go through the different ideas, possibilities and permutations before we make a decision? That is what the Dáil is meant to do. Consider the eight years that led up to the financial collapse and what the Dáil did not do.

Why are these debates important? In just a short time, and based on economic data covering what was also a short period, we went from taking €2 billion out of the economy to investing €1 billion. We have not discussed that decision at all. It smacks of a mentality of, if we have it, we will spend it. We know where that got us. I want to go into the details and examine the consequences of the decisions we are making, but what is the point if I cannot even be involved in the debate before the decision is taken? It is counter-intuitive. When there is an unexpected buoyancy in the economy that may be temporary, why do we commit that money to permanent spending measures?

Does this Bill signal the end of the reform of our State sector and how it spends money? We have increased child benefit, a universal payment that goes to some of the wealthiest people in the country. How can we stand over that? If the payment were not universal, there would be more money to go to those who need it most. After we commissioned an independent report on whether to continue universal payments, we ignored it. The report recommended continuing universal payments, but at a much lower level and with means-tested increases for those who needed them most. This is what we are supposed to be doing. Before going into government, we discussed how to do things differently, yet we ignored a report that we commissioned. We did the same in the case of Irish Water, which is why we have problems with that body's current structure, including its system of payments.

Consider the back-to-work family dividend. The OECD criticised our level of social welfare payments for acting as a disincentive to people returning to work, yet we increased social welfare spending to achieve just that. It is a perverse logic that the Dáil has not discussed in detail. People may not agree with me, but there is no point in having a Second Stage debate when the decisions have already been made and the only room for amendment is where the Department realises it has overlooked something or made a mistake. That is not the proper approach. In no way can Parliament or Cabinet hold the EMC to account when the process operates in this way.

On a final but positive note, I will refer to some of the labour activation initiatives that the Minister of State has been undertaking. He announced one recently during an evening with a chamber of commerce. They are fantastic. He is considering a new website and using technology to provide to employers the live curricula vitae of people who are trying to return to work. It is another brilliant idea, one that I hope is implemented quickly. Positive initiatives like that one show what new people can do in their roles to break old thinking.

See this speech in context