Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I confirm the Acting Chairman's view. I have been around these Houses for a few years and that is exactly what happened traditionally. The Bill was passed but remained on the Order Paper of both Houses for a period of time so that people could debate it. I agree with Senator Walsh and others. I congratulate the Senators who sought a debate on this matter today. I was in the Dáil yesterday for all Stages of this Bill and no one turned up. It is good to debate these issues.

I also agree with Senator Byrne's remark. While, obviously, the work of the Committee of Public Accounts is of crucial importance, there is a wider remit for both Houses and committees of both Houses to scrutinise vast sums of money that are voted upon by both Houses of the Oireachtas each year. From the perspective of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, any space that can be found to scrutinise public expenditure is welcome. We congratulate the Senators on demanding a debate today and ensuring that the Bill, which is a technical Bill, is debated. In my first five years here, we traditionally had that debate and it would be good to have it in future.

Senator Byrne asked about deferred surrender. That is the €132.6 million in savings on the capital side. The carryover into 2013 from last year was €107 million, so it is slightly ahead of last year, but it is broadly neutral because in each given year there will always be an amount to be carried over on capital expenditure. We do not want a glut of expenditure between October and December simply for the purposes of having the expenditure. That does not provide good value for money. So in every year provision is always made to allow capital expenditure on key projects to take place the following year so that we get a spread of expenditure rather than putting pressure on the system to spend money willy-nilly in November or December every year. That is exactly what we are doing. The €132.6 million is a small amount in the global sense, but it is an important amount because it demands much greater rigour in terms of those projects that need to be funded by central government funds.

Senators Hayden, Cummins and Barrett spoke on the issue of vigilance. Some of the reforms we have introduced since coming into office have shone a light on public expenditure that did not exist previously. The most fundamental change was the separation of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform from the old Department of Finance. The objective was to have the Departments spending the money allied to the reform of the process. It has been positive having two separate Departments, one on the financial side and the other on the expenditure side.

As Senators will be aware, we have introduced multiannual financial frameworks. Departments now have expenditure profiles over a three or four-year period and must live within those envelopes. That gives certainty to the Departments and their agencies. It also gives the Departments some latitude in how that expenditure is to be used.

On the other point Senator Barrett raised, we have now established a cost-benefit unit in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. Every item of public expenditure goes through the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. Some people might regard it as a bit to Stalinist in its approach. I am sure some of my ministerial colleagues have a view of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform which is all-embracing. However, we now have a very rigorous cost-benefit analysis system. A cost-benefit analysis signed off by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform forms part of any memorandum a Cabinet Minister will bring to Government. Part of that is a rigorous economic analysis of the patterns of expenditure.

Traditionally only three Departments had output statements outlining the output for the money they were given. We are now rolling this out to every Department. I am not sure if we are there yet, but we are certainly in the process of getting every Department to produce an output statement. This means that each of the relevant Oireachtas committees can now assess expenditure patterns and ask considerably more questions about the expenditure profiles - a point Senator Byrne mentioned. It will take some time for committee members to get into the frame of mind to look for output on the expenditure we are proposing. It will also put more pressure on Ministers to defend why they are spending the amounts being spent on particular schemes.

Those are four reforms we have introduced. Can we do more? Of course we can. We are in a deficit position. Next year we will spend €53 billion and take in €44 on the tax side. Therefore it is inevitable that we need to keep a very firm view on public expenditure. It will take some time before we come into an absolute surplus - although next year we will have a primary surplus when the cost of the national debt is stripped out. The intention of the Government in the publication of the medium-term economic review we announced earlier this week was to have a budget surplus by 2018. Given the chasm of public expenditure to tax in recent years, that is an ambitious but valid target for us to attain.

I very much welcome the debate. I have no difficulty in coming back to the House next year to have a fuller debate on the various subheads Senators might wish to raise.

I commend Senators on seeking this debate and having at least some public scrutiny of what effectively is a technical Bill.