Vol. 331 No. 9
I move:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £7,188,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1981, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Revenue Commissioners, including certain other services administered by that Office.
On a point of order, three separate occasions in the last 24 hours I have been denied the opportunity of debating this calculated insult to the people of the west——
Why not raise it by way of Private Members' motion?
That is exactly what will be done in due course. Remember the west gave the Minister his answer and he will get the same answer again. He was damned glad to come down looking for support——
Deputy, that debate has concluded.
Would it be in order for me to formally move Votes Nos. 14 and 15 at this stage?
No, only one vote may be moved at a time.
Very briefly, this Vote indicates that it is for a sum of £7,188,000 and comprises £6.008 million for subhead A.1., salaries, wages and allowances and a net £1.1 million for non-pay subheads which are, as my colleague, Deputy G. Fitzgerald, is aware, listed in a particular supplementary estimate: Subhead B., Travelling and Incidental Expenses, £94,000; subhead C., Post Office Services, £1 million; subhead F., Law Charges, such as fees and awards, £76,000; and subhead H., Subscriptions to National Organisations, £2,000, making a total of £1,172,000 which is partly offset by a saving of £25,000 on subhead B.2., Office Machinery and other Supplies and an increase of £47,000 in Appropriations-in-Aid.
May these Votes be discussed together?
No. They must be discussed separately.
I am prepared to facilitate the Minister. It seems to me it would be sensible to discuss them together. I have no objection if that can be arranged.
They may be discussed but they will have to be moved separately.
Vote No. 8 has grown substantially in recent years because of changes in the method of collection and in collection itself. To what extent does the embargo on recruitment apply to the Office of the Revenue Commissioners? Have posts been left unfilled since 31 July? That is not in the national interest from the point of view of the collection of tax. It would be unpardonable from the point of view of State finances that this embargo should have the effect of leaving posts designed to facilitate the collection of revenue unfilled.
There have been four appointments of non-civil servants at a cost of approximately £46,000 minimum. That is only part of the total package because 40 posts have been filled from outside the civil service, such as advisers, personal assistants, public relations people, information officers and press people. All those add to a figure of almost £500,000 in salaries and wages. That does not take into consideration the costs of travelling and subsistence and the overheads. There is a total cost of almost £493,900 approximately and that does not include consultancy. I can cite one consultancy which is not included, a consultant jointly between Finance and Health. He is not included. I am sure there are many others. We know there is one appointment to the Government at a cost of £32,000; to the Taoiseach's Office of seven at a cost of £103,500; the Tánaiste has five at a cost of about £60,000; Defence has one at £7,500 approximately; Fisheries and Forestry have one at a cost of £9,300; Social Welfare have one at £7,400; Finance have four at about £46,000; Labour have two, £17,000; Public Services have two at a cost of £25,000; Transport have one at a cost of £14,500; Posts and Telegraphs have one at a cost of £7,400; the Gaeltacht have one at a cost of £7,400; Justice have three at a cost of £27,000; Agriculture have three at a cost of £25,000; Foreign Affairs have two at a cost of £17,000; Education have five, at a cost of £54,000 and retainers on a PR firm, Heneghan and Herlihy, in respect of two Departments — Environment and Posts and Telegraphs — at a combined cost of about £24,000. That brings the total to almost £500,000.
Do not get me wrong. There may be times when one would need to make appointments of advisers but the magnitude of these appointments is disturbing, to say the least, particularly in view of the Taoiseach's recent statement to the press that Ministers are busy people and that he believes these appointments are justified. Surely that is an indictment of the very fine people available to advise in the civil service and public service administration here? It is an indictment that the Taoiseach should consider numbers of that magnitude necessary to maintain the ordinary administration of Government.
On the salaries, wages and allowances section, I appreciate the need for more staff. To what extent has the embargo affected this and how in these circumstances, can the appointment of so many be justified, considering the availability of the expertise within the civil service — excellent expertise which is available in every Department. That kind of expenditure is merely jobs for the boys and girls of the Government party.
On the section regarding international organisations, I wanted to ask the Minister of State what the additional sum required was and what specific organisation was involved. However, I appreciate the necessity for moving on to Votes 14 and 15. I have nothing more to add.
Are there any other speakers offering? As there is none, I ask the Minister of State to reply.
In reply to Deputy Fitzgerald, subhead A.1. for salaries, wages and allowances, came in total, to £6,088,000, out of a total of £7.188 million. The main bulk of the £6,088,000 arises in relation to the applicable grade awards in the Office of the Revenue Commissioners which, as the Deputy knows, are backdated to 1 September 1980. That is the cost of the pay increases for which sanction was issued but for which no provision could be made in the 1981 Estimates, being inappropriate at that time, because the dates of sanction were in 1981, backdated to 1 September. Of the £6,088,000, £5.2 million related to serving staff and other moneys related to determination of reassignments, allowances in the nature of pay, overtime and increments. The money is straightforward in relation to pay and additional PRSI. On the non-pay side, travelling expenses and Post Office services are accounted for.
There is nothing exceptional in the amount being sought by way of this Supplementary Estimate. I refer to the Post Office services which are perhaps somewhat high at £1 million, but that is accounted for by the revision upwards by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs of the amount to be paid for postage in 1981, due to increased charges and volume, both in 1980 and 1981, and increased telephone charges in 1981. It might be suggested that the percentage increase is exceptionally high. This is because the original Estimate for postage in 1981 took account of a credit of nearly £2 million, due to the postal strike of 1979.
Certainly, as regards the other points made by the Deputy, I can assure him that the Supplementary Estimate for 1981 takes fully into account, in the different subheads of the different Departments, the particular increases in staff. That is the main point in relation to Vote 8 — Revenue Commissioners.
Does the House wish to take Vote 15 before Vote 14, to dispose of it as quickly as possible?
Why not take Vote 14?
We are anxious to release the Minister. He has been here since 12.30. He would move Vote 15.
