Vol. 322 No. 8
I move:
That a sum not exceeding £4,740,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December 1980, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for the Public Service and for payment of a grant-in-aid.
I am glad of the opportunity to speak even briefly on this important subject. I am glad that the Minister himself is here for the debate and I am grateful to him for coming here. I trust that this is in recognition of the importance of this aspect of his responsibilities.
There are many aspects of the public service which give rise to varying degrees of concern. We are fortunate in having before us the Public Service Advisory Council report for year ended 31 October 1979, which has just been presented to the Dáil. It reminds us of a number of issues which lie before us. In this report the position with regard to promotional mobility is set out at paragraph 3.3.10. It does not make very encouraging reading. We are told, and I quote:
...19 meetings were held with the staff interests with a view to reaching agreement for some opening up of posts to competition.
—at several levels. We are then told:
Subject to ratification by the various staff associations, agreement has been reached on the overall objective that "existing promotional arrangements in the higher grades of the Civil Service should be opened up with a view to the best-fitted civil servant being appointed". It has also been agreed that the attainment of this objective should be on a phased basis and a period of five years is considered appropriate.
This is very limited progress indeed. One could turn this around and say that what is agreed is that the best-fitted civil servants in many cases will not be promoted in the next five years. Put in those terms as an equally accurate statement, it is a depressing picture. As the report of the council points out, this situation has continued now for ten years. They refer back to the review group's recommendations that vacancies at the levels referred to, assistant principal level and higher, which are not to be filled from open competition should be advertised over the entire public service including commercial and State-sponsored bodies who should have a reciprocal arrangement. In the decade which has elapsed it seems that little or no headway has been made towards reaching these important objectives. The report suggests that it will be five years at least before limited progress is made in this area, and this is very disturbing.
There can be no legitimate case made against the principle that the best-fitted public servants should hold office. We are talking about the public servants, the civil servants whose function is to serve the public and the community. That service can be given only if the best of the best-fitted people are available and can take the posts that exist by way of promotion.
There are two problems here. One is promotion by merit within a particular Department and the other is mobility between Departments on a promotional level. So far as promotion on merit within the Department is concerned, the picture is very patchy. Some Departments have made great strides in many years past by promoting on a merit basis and I trust that this will be maintained, with due regard for humanity in cases of people whose merits may not sustain a case for their early promotion but who, nonetheless, should be fitted in as far as possible when a vacancy arises to a post which would be within their capacity. However, that does not change the fact that the position is pretty depressing.
No case can be made for the present patchy system, where some Departments are fully on a merit basis and others appear to be on the basis of seniority, regardless of merit. The difference between the types of service provided to the community by Departments where the different systems apply is quite striking. While, of course, changes must be introduced gradually and humanely, and where they have been introduced this, has been done with success, there can be no case for retaining a system in which people are promoted regardless of merit on the basis of seniority. The country deserves better than that. What is striking is the quality of service provided by the civil service if given a chance to do so, where people are promoted on a merit basis. It is clear that the civil service contains people of great ability who, once given the chance, can serve the country at a level and with a capacity which equals that of any country with whom we are in competition.
Another important aspect is promotion between the Departments which secures mobility. There are specialised grades requiring special experience in some cases. Allowing for that, and minimising it as much as possible, it is important that when any post becomes available for a general service grade it should be open to competition throughout the service. Anything less cannot be acceptable to the public, who are paying very substantial sums indeed—almost double what they were three years ago—for public service remuneration. There is a problem of mobility at higher level. The report from the Department has not much to say about this. In paragraph 338, it tells that discussions have been held between the Department of the Public Service and the Confederation of Irish Industry with a view to staff exchange between the civil service and private industry, without the slightest indication as to what, if any, progress has been made or even what was discussed beyond the fact that it involves staff exchange. As to whether short-term, long-term or what kind of scale or where they had got to in the discussion, nothing was said.
The report of the council does not advery to this, as far as I can see. I hope progress can be made here and that the skills and abilities of public servants can be made available to the private sector where there is a possibility that they can be utilised and that, in return, the public service could gain an access of knowledge and experience from outside, through people in the private sector moving in, possibly for a period of time rather than on a permanent basis, and that through that mobility both the private sector and the public service could benefit. That should be our aim. I ask the Minister, in that regard, because his own Department's report is so discreet, to say the least, to give some indication as to what progress was made in this respect.
There is an important section in the report of the Public Service Advisory Council on the image of the civil service which should be read and considered by everybody who is concerned about the public service. Their image is not as good as it should be, or as good as it could be, considering the kind of service given to us and the capacity and ability and sense of duty in service throughout the public service as a whole. The council does advert to the difficulties which the civil service have in putting themselves across, the inhibitions imposed by their necessarily low profile. There have, however, been times in the past when they have been successful in projecting themselves and as a result have been able to attract a significant proportion of the available talent into their ranks. A sustained effort should be made to maintain progress in this regard and to improve their image so that the reality of the existing opportunities in the public service—and in the period ahead the opportunities will play a dynamic part in the development of our whole society—should be appreciated by young people who should not be put off by the stereotyped image of the civil service which has been handed down from generation to generation.
There is a reference on page 14 of the council's report to staff relations in the public sector. It is clearly a very inhibited reference which talks about delays in dealing with certain issues and that they are inhibited by the fact that the Commission on Industrial Relations are considering the matter. It is clear from what they say that they are concerned about justifiable complaints which can exist about delays in dealing with staff relations matters, which of course in many instances have led to important and serious, and in some instances, prolonged strikes.
There is a reference on page 34 of the Department's report paragraph 352, to the question of flexitime. It is a rather disappointing reference and talks about a number of pilot projects covering about 1,500 staff, a tiny proportion, less than 5 per cent of the Minister's civil servants. No indication is given, either in the report from the Department or the council, as to why so little progress has been made and as to why there should be resistance within the civil service to flexitime. I hope that more progress will be made and that the suggestions which are current that opposition to flexitime derives from a situation where, with existing, rigid, fixed working hours, in the absence of checking in and out, civil servants may not be as tied down to doing a full day's work and that they fear that, with flexitime, they will be required to do a full number of hours work will be rebutted both by the staff organisations and by the Minister. The only effective form of rebuttal is for a general introduction of flexitime wherever, in the interest of the service to the public, this can be achieved. There is no excuse for a situation where over 95 per cent of the public service are not operating flexitime and where there appears to be a resistence to it or a failure to implement it. The Minister could usefully refer to this and tell us what progress he hopes to make.
On page 34 also there is a reference to training for the public service and the working party between the CSTC and the IPA. I am no longer a member of the executive committee of the IPA, so feel that I can refer to this. Over the whole period of my membership of the executive committee there has been a constant saga of foot-dragging and evasion of the issue on the side of the civil service, which has inhibited the development of the maximum use of the training facilities by the IPA and, indeed, in the civil service, to the best advantage. I trust the Minister will pay some attention to this and ensure that his working party submit a report rapidly and that he, himself, will take steps to ensure that the services of the IPA are fully used, as they have not been throughout the last ten or 15 years because of resistence within, in fact, his own Department.
On the question of recruitment, it is striking that the report of the Public Service Advisory Council makes no reference to recruitment and this has been a tradition of their reports. It is one of the features of their reports which I do not understand. I would urge the council to turn their attention to this. The Department, in its report, does refer to recruitment but only in a very limited sense in terms of improvements in the local appointments commission modus operandi which might be introduced also in the Civil Service Commission. The whole question of recruitment to the civil service is something which should be looked at. Recruitment is of course, effectively in the administrative grade exclusively at the level of people completing their education and with no possibility of people coming in bringing with them experience from outside. To ensure against an adverse effect on promotional opportunities any such arrangement would have to involve a corresponding opportunity for people in the public service to move out and encouraging outward mobility so that people coming in would not be blocking promotions but could bring with them the kind of experience which under present circumstances cannot exist within the administrative sector of the public service, the members of which inherently are limited to whatever experience they acquire during the educational process. This, I know, is a deficiency in the system and mobility outwards and inwards would overcome this.
There is one further matter to which I would refer, and I must speak very rapidly and very briefly, as the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is beginning to look at me. I must refer to this matter, which is the allegations that have been made of political intervention in two important sectors of law enforcement within the last couple of months. We have had this in regard to the Garda Síochána from the Association of Inspectors and Sergeants and the Minister for Justice's reply to this was misleading and disingenuous. He purported to believe that the only suggestion of political intervention related to such matters as transfer of gardaí where the initiative was taken by the gardaí themselves and ignored the fact that the allegations extended to stopping of prosecutions by political intervention and the stopping of Garda activity by preventing gardaí from doing their work. These are most serious allegations, made six weeks or two months ago, which require full investigation and a full report to this House to be made by a responsible body of those concerned.
We now have similar allegations made by the preventive officers. There is a suggestion of political interference and governmental interference, not merely in cases where somebody brings the odd bottle across that they should not, but in cases which involve criminal activities and assault on preventive officers. These allegations have been denied by the Minister. Frankly, his denial is no more convincing than the evasive attempts of the Minister for Justice to deny that such influences are at work in regard to the Garda Síochána.
These are matters which the Government must take seriously if they have any concern for the public interest. We cannot continue in a situation where public servants are forced, through their staff organisation, to make public allegations in this respect and these allegations are not investigated, where their morale is undermined and the confidence of the public in the Garda and the preventive officers and other bodies of law enforcement is undermined because of the failure of the Government to respond to these allegations. The Minister must take this matter seriously, both in reference to people under his own direct control and people who are indirectly the responsibility of his Department, as being within the public service. All I can say is that for our part, if and when we have the responsibility—and I would expect it to be before very long—of forming a Government, I would regard it as my responsibility, were I to head such a Government, to take all necessary steps to prevent this type of political intervention. That would involve the necessary steps to be taken against any politicians who intervene in these matters. The Minister will recall that when we were in Government we created the office of the DPP as an independent office and created a situation in which any attempt to interfere with the DPP in carrying out his functions would itself be an offence. That has stopped that particular loophole. But it is quite evident that what the Garda say is that it has merely transferred the attempts to interfere at a lower level——
The Garda do not arise on this Estimate.
——and that steps will have to be taken to ensure that that does not happen.
The Garda do not arise on this Estimate. They arise under the Estimate for the Department of Justice.
Anything to do with the public service arises here. The Minister has general responsibility and I am dealing also with preventive officers.
Preventive officers, yes, but not the Garda.
All I am saying is that in Government we will ensure that this does not happen in any of these areas, that every encouragement will be given to any officer of the State who finds himself interfered with, or any attempt made to pressurise him by politicians, to report this upwards and that, if he does so, that will be a good mark on his file regardless of what any politician, of whatever party, may say or think about it. It is only when there is the belief and conviction on the part of servants of the State that if they report any such attempts to interfere with them they will benefit and not be disadvantaged, it is only when that is the case, which it is not under this Government—and as far as I can see will not be under this Government—that this country will get the kind of service it deserves from our Garda Síochána, preventive officers and other officials of the State not intimidated by politicians into not carrying out their duties.
I am somewhat at a loss to know what is the procedure in relation to time. I understand it is fairly tight with the number of Estimates we have.
The Chair should make it clear that there is no timing on those Estimates. Whatever is left will have to be put at 5 o'clock.
I think 15 minutes per speaker was the formal agreement to which I tried to adhere.
I support many of the things in relation to mobility within the public sector to which Deputy FitzGerald referred. Perhaps the Minister would devote some attention to that when replying.
On the specific Estimate there is a figure of £250,000 under subhead A2 for Consultancy Services. That is a considerable increase bearing in mind the general tightening of public expenditure and cut-backs generally. Would the Minister let us have an itemised indication as to what that consultancy increase relates.
Those are the two basic questions I wanted to pose in support of the many points made by Deputy FitzGerald.
I wanted to add a few points to what Deputy FitzGerald said arising out of this Estimate generally.
It is very important that the House and people should keep an eye not only on mobility within the public sector but on the much more desirable target of mobility out of the public sector. As I never tire of saying here, the public sector consists of a very large number of extremely dedicated, sincere and loyal people but there are far too many of them. Naturally that is not something which can be laid at the door of any individual one of them, and I do not lose sight of that human dimension. But we have a bureaucracy which, measured against the productive sector of our economy, is many times too large, was too large even ten years ago. Most certainly it is too large now. I would be interested in seeing a system evolve—and I said this in the form of questions to the previous Minister for the Public Service on a few occasions—whereby schemes would be developed to induce civil servants to take what I might call quasi-sabbatical leave away from the service altogether, into private industry or business or, for all I care, into pig or poultry farming. Something which is very often forgotten is that the social pattern of this country for many decades was such that the public service attracted into it and got the absolute cream of the school-leaving brains. That is something we should be glad about and proud of, except that too many of those creamy brains went into the public service and, I think, left the producing sectors of the economy relatively starved.
It is never too late to change one's career. I know there must be many bright talents and burning spirits in the public service concealed behind the routine of a fairly ordinary job, people who, with families and mortgages, perhaps feel that they cannot make a move. I would be very interested in a system—and I thought that Deputy Colley when Minister in this area agreed with me that he would look into the matter—whereby a public servant could ask for what I might call quasi-sabbatical leave, in other words, leave which would not involve him in any risk of sacrificing seniority or re-employment in the same grade in the event that his experiment was unsuccessful, thereby allowing him put to the test any belief he might have in his capacity in business or in productive enterprise. I know that if one succeeded in doing that with a handful of public servants one would be only scratching the top of the iceberg, let alone demolishing it so far as trimming the size of the public service is concerned. But we must start somewhere.
I am afraid that all I see coming from the Department of the Public Service—and I hope I am not offending anybody; I freely admit I am not an expert on the public service or anything like it—is stuff which can be described as an excuse for apparent activity. That very Department for which the Minister has responsibility only two weeks ago launched a brand new journal of the public service. I looked through the journal. On my oath there was nothing in it except a single article which would not have been out of place in the Journal of the Institute of Public Administration. It was the kind of article one sees every other month in the Journal of the Institute of Public Administration. What is the reason or excuse for a casual spending of, no doubt, a few thousand pounds and the casual employment of very highly paid public service time as well in the production of this absolutely, as far as I can see, unwanted, unneeded, unexcused, unheralded and unnoticed journal of the Department of the Public Service? That is the kind of casual waste of money, waste of time, waste of life I deplore in this country. That is seen more in the public service and in its out-crops in the semi-State bodies than anywhere else. It would not be tolerated in private enterprise because it costs money and valuable time. It costs that in the public service too except that the rest of us are paying for it, not the man who is in charge of the operation at all.
I shall end by saying this—and I should like the Minister to treat this as a question and say a word or two about it if he does not think it too contemptible a point—that I sat here on 5 July 1977 nursing my wounds, along with my colleagues beside me, and listened to Deputy Jack Lynch make his acceptance speech on reappointment as Taoiseach. I recall one thing above all others on which he laid emphasis in that speech, that was, reform of the public service. He even spoken about the necessary requirement being political will, that political will was needed to reform the public service. Let us ask what he meant by reform. It is agreed that there is no element of corruption within the public service, so he cannot have meant cleaning it up in that sense like a district attorney in Medicine Bend or Tulsa. It cannot have been cleaning up the public service. We are agreed that they are dedicated and properly motivated so it cannot have been teaching them their job. It cannot have been explaining to them what to do. Reform of the public service meant making sure that we had fewer of them. It could not mean anything else and, if it does mean anything else, I am not interested in it. That is what the former Taoiseach must have meant. Where has that political will about which he spoke been visible over the last three years, or even since the apocalypse—if that is the word I want—arrived in the last six months in which every one of our economic indicators has gone from bad to worse, in which every pound note has sweated off ten pence of its value since December 1979? Where is the political will to reform the civil service, or anything else for that matter? I do not speak about cleaning anything up because there is far less hope of that now than there might have been once upon a time. Where is the political will? I am sorry to have expressed it rhetorically, and perhaps excitedly, but I would like the Minister to say a word or two about what he sees as being the primary objective under the heading reform of the public service, and what he proposes to do about it.
Could I ask——
Just a question, Deputy, because you have already spoken.
It will be as brief as the other two questions. In addition to the reform of the public service perhaps we might be given a report on the decentralisation of the public service which was to be part and parcel of that commitment, what progress has been made towards achieving that.
As far as possible I will deal with the questions raised. Indeed it is rather difficult to know whether some of them were questions or merely statements. Another time and some other person will answer Deputy FitzGerald's accusations in relation to the Garda Síochána. That is not my brief.
It is not my accusation, it is that of the Association of Inspectors and Sergeants.
I am sorry the Deputy feels that the Garda Síochána are not pulling their full weight.
I did not say that. I said it was politicians and Government Ministers interfering with them which prevented them from pulling more weight.
May I——
The Garda Síochána do not enter into this Estimate.
Of course, Deputy FitzGerald knows, but he has it on the record when the appropriate Minister is not here to deal with it. Deputy FitzGerald knows perfectly well. He has made the implication and obviously that is what he wanted to do. I am sure he will be afforded an opportunity on the Estimate for the Department of Justice to do just that.
Who is replying to this debate on the Government side?
There should not be any questions from either side. The Garda Síochána should not have been brought into this Estimate. The Minister of State is replying.
Deputy FitzGerald made very important points, before he decided to drag other issues into the debate, and I will try to deal with them although I may not deal with them in rotation. He mentioned promotion and mobility inside and outside the public service and from one Department to another. I agree with him about mobility. We are not satisfied with the progress that has been made. However, there were difficulties and after lengthy discussions the staff associations turned down our proposals. We have to start again from scratch and we are prepared to do that.
Who is governing? The staff associations or the Minister?
The staff associations.
They are governing?
They are not governing. If Deputy FitzGerald knows anything about industrial relations, he will know things must be done in a reasonable manner and we intend to do that by discussions——
In ten years, 15 years——
Deputy FitzGerald, please, the Minister of State is in possession.
The needle is switched on, and cannot be turned off.
There should not be any interruptions.
With the management and staff sides I am committed to restarting these negotiations. Everything we can do without the iron first will be done. The Government have taken decisions in relation to certain posts and they will be in train in the very near future——
How far and how much progress was made in relation to those discussions, or will they have to start from scratch?
We have to start from scratch.
Back to where we were ten years ago.
I was not even in this House ten years ago. I can only tell the Deputy the present position. Deputy Quinn asked about consultants and the increase in subhead A.2. There is an increase of £126,000 in this provision which is due mainly to the engagement of consultants by the review body on computerisation in the Government services. That provision can be broken down if the Deputy wishes.
No thank you.
Deputy Kelly put down a question about the journal of the DPS, which has not yet been answered. The answer will show him there has not been the waste of money he thinks. A lot of civil servants' free time was spent on this. There is a need for journals like this in the service. Deputy FitzGerald talked about a need for the service to portray itself. This is one of the ways the service can portray itself. Far from decrying the journal we should compliment the people who ensure that this issues——
What is all this about the service portraying itself?
Deputy Kelly should not interrupt.
He is listening to his leader.
If he is the Leader.
Deputies, please.
I would not expect the Minister to admit it was a waste of——
You spoke on this for about half an hour.
I spoke for seven or eight minutes.
The Opposition spoke for half an hour.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Big deal. How many millions of pounds are involved?
A working party consisting of the Director of the Institute of Public Administration and two deputy secretaries of the Department of the Public Service are now examining the roles of the institute and the Department in the training area. I am reasonably confident that a satisfactory solution will be found to the problem of rationalisation in regard to training. I cannot agree that the Department of the Public Service have been responsible for the slow rate of progress.
I speak from 15 years' experience.
I bow to the Deputy's experience and he must know better than I the number of difficulties that are in the way.
In relation to promotion and mobility, on the publication of the report the Minister for the Public Service said the Government were considering what was to be done having regard to the results of the discussions with the staff. He said the Government were fully committed to the principle of mobility and hoped the staff interests would have second thoughts about this approach, otherwise the Government would have to consider taking appropriate action. That point is being considered.
Deputy FitzGerald raised the question of exchange with the private sector. Deputy Kelly also raised this point but from the opposite view. Negotiations are going on with one very important private firm in this area. As soon as they are concluded we can inform the House and a statement will be made.
In relation to flexi-time, the Department's policy has been to operate the pilot scheme for 12 months. It is intended to extend the scope of flexi-time should the reviews prove they are accep table and useful schemes and in my view they are. So far all indications are that flexi-time has proved itself but the final reviews will not be completed for some time.
Deputy Kelly raised the question of reform in the public service. His idea of reform is that the service should be reduced. I do not think we have too many civil servants, not do the staff associations.
You would not expect them to vote for their own dissolution.
Do I take it that if the Opposition ever get back into power they will reduce the number of civil servants?
Not by making anyone redundant.
Fine. Let us stop this nonsense and get down to hard facts.
There are roughly twice as many civil servants now as there were in 1950 in spite of——
Deputy Kelly might let the Minister conclude.
Let us talk about hypocrisy. I take it you are going to reduce it by half. Is that right?
Through the Chair, please, and Deputy Kelly should remain silent for a little while, please.
I am prepared to accept there is a problem, but I cannot deal with one party in opposition that speaks with two voices.
The position has worsened. Since the change of Government in July 1977, 5,500 extra people have been put on the pay roll.
I am amused at Deputy Kelly. He complains about 5,500 extra people being employed. That is not bad.
If they were only pushing paper at one another I would not call that employment.
Deputy Kelly, please. We have another 19 Estimates to get through.
Deputy Quinn raised the important question of decentralisation. The Government are considering locations and the areas in which decentralisation will take place. The various Departments have been circularised in relation to the numbers which can be transferred. There will be consultations and only those people who wish to go to the country will be sent. There will be no question of compulsion. I am sure Deputy FitzGerald will be glad to hear that because he has put down a question relating to a particular section.
Have the destinations been finalised?
Destinations have not yet been finalised.
Could the Minister give any indication when decisions will be made?
I cannot do so, but I would hope we will have a definite set of proposals by October or November. If I had left out any matters——
Political interference.
The Deputy will appreciate that it would have been more appropriate to make that allegation in the presence of the Minister for Justice. He has made the allegation——
I have not. I have reported allegations.
The Deputy has also put an interpretation on it which is regrettable, particularly in the absence of the Minister for Justice. Deputy FitzGerald said regarding the allegations made by the preventive officers that my denial was not convincing, and I do not think that could be interpreted as anything other than an allegation.
I thought it was a statement.
It was an allegation of lack of veracity, conviction or consistency—one could take a choice. I want to assure the House that what I said in my statement, a copy of which I have not with me at present because I did not expect this matter to arise——
(Cavan-Monaghan): On a point of order, I think we should regularise this position.
I take it Deputy Fitzpatrick does not wish to hear my reply?
(Cavan-Monaghan): For future reference I am asking if it is in order for two Ministers to reply.
I understood that the junior Minister of State was concluding, but a Minister of State is entitled to come in on a debate if he wishes. Deputy FitzGerald asked for a reply to his question and I understood that it was by agreement. The Minister was invited to reply by the Deputy.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Now that we have so many Ministers, I should like to know whether we are establishing a precedent in that two Ministers may reply.
We are tripping over Ministers.
The Chair has already ruled that a Minister of State is entitled to come in on any debate at any stage and his Minister may reply.
The only precedent which has been established is that Deputy FitzGerald, the leader of the main Opposition party, has made what he must now realise to be an unwarranted allegation at the inappropriate time when the Minister concerned is not here to deal with it. That is a very undesirable precedent. In response to the other allegation, I will deal with the area for which I have responsibility and the implication by the Deputy that there is foundation in the allegation because he regards my reply as unconvincing. The allegations were in respect of political interference from all parties.
That was not said.
When the secretary was interviewed in relation to that element in his report he said in reply to a question that political interference from all parties was a matter of concern. The transcript of the interview will clearly indicate that. If Deputy FitzGerald is saying that there is foundation for this allegation, he has a responsibility, as leader of his own party, to deal with this kind of reprehensible activity if it exists.
I accept that.
I have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that there is any foundation for the allegations.
Yet the Minister denied them. That is not the same thing.
Recognising the gravity of the allegation in terms of the role of the Government, public representatives and the public service, I had consultations immediately with the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners and asked if he would ascertain if there was any substance in these allegations. Until such time as I get that report I cannot comment further. However, I would point out that nothing had previously been brought to my attention.
All Deputies must know that if representations on matters such as this are made at any time they are referred directly to the Revenue Commissioners or through the office of the Minister or the Department of Finance. I presume Deputy FitzGerald knows that these matters are referred by the Minister or his Department to the appropriate statutory body, the Revenue Commissioners, for their consideration and reply and for their analysis of the problem. When the reply comes through it is transmitted from the Revenue Commissioners to the Department or the Office of the Minister of the day and is then transmitted to the person who made representations, be that person a public representative or otherwise. That has been standard procedure for a long time. If Deputy FitzGerald is suggesting that this involves unwarranted interference, then he should review the whole role of public representatives and the plight of members of the public who feel they have a grievance. This matter is of such importance that I found it regrettable that the leader of the main Opposition party, without having any substantiation and without checking with his own party who are also alleged to have been involved, should make an allegation which he knows will be given publicity and which could give rise to further apprehension until such time as the true position emerges. I regret that he has done this and I assure him that the Revenue Commissioners have not been and will not be in any way suborned.
Will the Minister make available to this House the report of the investigation by the Revenue Commissioners into the allegations so that we will know exactly what the allegations were and whether they can be substantiated?
On the supposition that some of these allegations are proved well founded, something more than a report to this House would be involved and elements of criminal responsibility might also be involved. In that case I or any other Minister might have to refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions. This is purely a supposition because I do not expect that this will arise. I must await the arrival of the report.
This debate cannot continue.
The Minister has avoided answering my question. Will the report be given to the House?
I can give no such guarantee.
Why not?
As the Deputy knows, in many cases the Revenue Commissioners deal with matters on a most confidential basis. They are obliged to do so. Depending on the nature of the report they make to me, it may be that certain matters are confidential and cannot be disclosed to this House. Until I see the report I cannot give any indication as to what action I will take.
It could be rendered anonymously. We are entitled to see the report.
