Vol. 337 No. 8
I move:
That a sum not exceeding £61,194,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1982, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Revenue Commissioners including certain other services administered by that Office.
In relation to this and earlier Votes we have managed to uncork the genie out of the bottle and he has turned out to be a puff of smoke. The Minister has explained to the House that you have a set of Estimates for the public Departments for the year and you have a Government target for the budget deficit. If after six months your deficit is £17 million or £18 million more than your projected deficit for the total year and if as well as that overspending in six months on your deficit for your 12 months' projection you also have a series of Supplementary Estimates banked up on Estimates not yet passed by the Dáil which must be passed today and presumably in the autumn also, and if in conjunction with that you have £45 million of notional savings of which your Minister for Finance has announced he will give the details in a fortnight, but in respect of which you are asking the Dáil to pass hundreds of millions of pounds today, yet the Minister responsible for moving most of this money is unable to identify a single penny in a single subhead in any Department in respect of which those savings are to be achieved. The explanation for that is that you take the cork out of the bottle, the genie comes out and in all the smoke you say that nobody could say with any accuracy what the Government's final spending at the end of a 12-month period will be. When you get to the end of the 12 months, whatever your spending was, you say, "Yes, of course we saved £45 million because if it was not for the £45 million we saved it would have been £45 million more".
This is a convoluted economic theory which was evolved in 1977 and we are seeing the manifestation of it now in most of the difficulties which this country faces. It is doing all the sums on one side as to what you want to spend or promise and on the other side you write down all the figures as to what the revenue might be, and then you write in buoyancy, hope and smile, and away you go on a wing and a prayer. At the end of the year you say that something must have gone wrong, the unions did not co-operate, there were difficulties on the international scene, inflation throughout Europe was higher than anticipated, but despite all these setbacks we will do the same figure for next year because we must keep our resolve. We must keep our determination and if we can see that theory through there is no doubt but that by 1982-83 we will have abolished unemployment. That was the promise they made in 1978. Instead of that the theory became abolished in December 1979 and it is now arriving back in a different form.
Irrespective of what the House votes here and the declaration of the Taoiseach that it was his full belief and expectation that these Estimates would not be expended in full and the expenditure on them would be reduced by £45 million plus the equivalent of the overruns wherever overruns occurred, if you move four seats down to the Minister for Education you are told that nobody can anticipate what the expenditure on these Estimates will be and at the end of the year we will know for the first time. Bearing that in mind, we will be told at the end of the year that whatever the total expenditure was it should have been £45 million plus the cost of the overruns because a marvellous effort was made by the collective wisdom and endeavour of the Cabinet and they saved that £45 million. If it had not been for their heroic work, we would have been that much further into the manure business. That is the extent of the Minister's economic theories in the House this morning. Can the Minister tell us in respect of the vote of £68 million for the Office of the Revenue Commissioners whether it is anticipated that any of the projected savings will occur in this Department and, if so, in respect of which and to what extent?
References to genies and puffs of smoke accurately and aptly describe Deputy Boland's behaviour. He has puffed up this extraordinary flow of language during which, so far as I could gather, he was discussing everything except the vote in question. It is very nice to have this sort of end-of-the-week, end-of-the-term, entertainment.
Back to college, Professor.
Deputy Boland is the one who is anxious to behave like an undergraduate and who am I to stop him? If he wants to have a wide-ranging debate and discussion, some of which would be of an academic nature, some of it of an almost metaphysical nature, and some of it of an accounting nature, I am quite happy, with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, to come to some agreement with the Whips and reorder the business of the House. In the meantime, if we want to stick with the business before us and adhere to the times agreed to, I must resist the temptation to follow Deputy Boland in his excursions and flights of fancy.
When he finally got to a question on the Estimate, he asked was it anticipated that there would be savings on this Vote, to which the answer is yes, we expect this Department to make their contribution to the economy.
(Dún Laoghaire): A Cheann Comhairle ——
The Minister has replied. The Deputy can only ask a question. Deputy De Rossa.
(Dún Laoghaire): I thought the Minister had replied.
Deputy De Rossa can ask a question but Deputy Barrett cannot.
Let us get this straight. I told Deputy Barrett he could ask a question.
There are different rules.
On the question of cuts in the different Departments, can the Minister indicate that any cuts in the Office of the Revenue Commissioners will not include cuts in the investigation branch?
I can asure the Deputy and the House that the Government are quite committed to a vigorous programme of investigation. I want to remind the House that, in previous years, it was a Fianna Fáil Government who greatly expanded the staff and the investigative activities of the Revenue Commissioners because we very much wanted to achieve the maximum degree of equity in our tax system. Part of that process is that those who are liable for tax should make their returns and should be seen to make their fair contribution.
Does Deputy Barrett want to ask a question?
No.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I understand the Minister for Education is saying it is hoped to effect savings on staff in the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. Does the Minister realise that the Revenue Commissioners appear to be literally years behind with their work, for the simple reason that they are understaffed? From the information given to the House within the past couple of days it appears that millions and millions of pounds worth of income tax and VAT were uncollected in the past 12 months. How does the Minister seriously suggest it will be possible to effect savings there? Does he intend to reduce salaries? I presume not.
We cannot have a debate. We cannot have a speech by way of an extended question.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I will sit down in a second. Does the Minister intend to reduce the staff numbers available to the Revenue Commissioners? If he does, things will get worse instead of better.
I am giving the same reply in response to all these questions about exactly where economies are expected to be achieved, because all Departments and sections have been asked to secure economies and to bring forward proposals for that purpose. If I say some Departments or some sections are not expected to achieve economies, Deputies opposite will want to hone in and say: "You have selected Departments A, B and C for cuts and you have not selected Departments D, E and F. Why? On what basis? To what extent?" At this stage, when no final decision has been taken by the Government as to the precise composition of the economies to be achieved, it is perfectly correct to state the position as it is, which is, that all Departments and sections have seen invited to bring forward proposals for economies. Many have already come forward. Some have already been discussed. The process is not complete and, therefore, it is right to keep the possibility of savings open under all headings.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Could the Minister give us some indication as to when this process of investigation will be completed and when his expression of hope will be converted into a statement of fact one way or the other?
The Government are anxious to complete this process as quickly as possible. I am very confident that it will be completed in ample time to enable the House to debate it when it resumes after the summer recess.
It would need to be. The House resumes in October. Does the Minister expect to save £45 million in November and December?
There will not be an opportunity to discuss it in the House before then.
Happy days. It has just dawned on the Minister.
Unless Deputies are seeking a special reconvened session.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Does the Minister know that his colleague the Minister for Finance has been promising information about this £45 million? He said he would be in a position to give the information in a couple of weeks. That has been going on since the debt was contracted.
(Dún Laoghaire): I have sympathy for my constituency colleague who was thrown in here this morning to answer for the sins of somebody else. Unfortunately he has not got the information.
Some of the sins are his, too.
(Dún Laoghaire): He gave us a lecture on the way we should use parliamentary time. People outside want to know how we are spending this money. Politicians have been criticised on the radio and television and in the newspapers for coming in here, passing Estimates and agreeing to this and that without querying where the money is coming from. Now when we try to do that we are told we are arrogant, that we are being unfair and unreasonable and that we are wasting parliamentary time. Surely the Minister for Finance can tell the people of Ireland where he will get £45 million to pay for the PRSI reduction. That is a simple question. Is it in one Department or another Department? The Minister cannot come in here and say that when they do their sums at the end of the year they will have another £45 million. That is what he is saying and that is not good enough.
I thank my constituency colleague for his expression of sympathy which I feel is not really necessary in the circumstances. For the sake of accuracy. I did not use the word "arrogant" at any stage. I did not suggest any Opposition Deputy was being arrogant in questioning me. I questioned the relevance of some of the questions. As regards the debating of the Estimates, I want to point out that far more time has been devoted to debating departmental estimates this year than was the case for many years.
(Dún Laoghaire): More time should be made available to discuss the Estimates.
Possibly so. Since the late Vivion de Valera's name was mentioned in this context, he usually found himself making that speech when the House was about to adjourn in December. Deputy L'Estrange will recall that for a number of years many Estimates went through without any debate.
There are still many Estimates to be passed today. I am putting the question.
