Dan Boyle (Green Party)

It is one of the features of the budget debate every year that the Seanad debates the Appropriation Bill, whereas the other House tends to take an attitude that it takes it as read. It is an important part of the budgetary process because it itemises Government spending by Department and the specific amounts intended to be spent. It is a useful exercise for Opposition Members, in particular, to ask questions about whether the money is being appropriately allocated and wisely spent. We have heard Senator McCarthy inquire about unspent moneys, how that was allowed to occur and the mechanisms in place to properly account for it. An issue has arisen because of a difficulty with capital spending on the schools building programme, whereby a significant amount of money has not been spent this year. I am pleased to see there is a significant roll-over of much of that unspent money to allow for delays in the planning process and ensure important pieces of infrastructure are put in place.

The Appropriation Bill contains a number of elements, one of which is the itemising of expenditure in each Department. The other is the formalising of the financial provisions voted on in Dáil Éireann but not in this House. The four provisions on which a vote was taken on 9 December are itemised.

I wish to ask one question that could perhaps be addressed in the course of the wider debate we will have in the House on how the Government's budgetary projections are being met or otherwise. Would the two Opposition parties care to explain why, in regard to one important element of budget 2010, namely, the agreement to introduce a carbon tax and the related financial provision to bring forward the transport fuel element from 10 December onwards, was treated differently by both parties in Dáil Éireann? In terms of where they stand on policy, we need to hear whether they agree with the concept of a carbon tax and why they took such a different approach in Dáil Éireann to it.