asked the Minister for Finance the steps he intends to take to ensure that the Government's embargo on filling vacancies in the public service does not restrict the work of the Revenue Commissioners in the collection of outstanding taxes and in investigating liability to tax of those within the tax net.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Public Service Embargo.
10.
As indicated in the national plan, Building on Reality, there are a number of factors which have a major influence in the collection of outstanding taxes and investigation of liability to tax. These include legislative provisions, the use of the appeals system and the effectiveness of civil enforcement.
The embargo on filling vacancies is being applied in the same manner in the Office of the Revenue Commissioners as in other Departments and offices throughout the Civil Service. I have no reason to believe that it is impeding the work of tax assessment and collection. There is an ongoing examination of work practices and procedures in the Office of the Revenue Commissioners and this has identified considerable opportunities for redeployment of staff.
In view of the Minister's statement that the embargo is being applied in the same manner in the Office of the Revenue Commissioners as in other Departments, would the Minister agree that the embargo should not be applied in the same manner across the board in each Department? There is clear evidence that an appropriate application of the embargo would yield extra revenue in one Department such as that of the Revenue Commissioners so the embargo should not be applied in the same manner.
There has been one case where we allocated to the Revenue Commissioners 104 extra staff levied from other Departments in order to meet the requirements in that office.
In view of the concern expressed by many PAYE workers would the Minister not agree that it is clear that the Revenue Commissioners are not able to cope with the burden of the work at the moment and that there is a need to review the application of the embargo in that office? Will the Minister comment on the fact that the reduction of the Estimates for the office by £2 million will result in less, not more money coming into the revenue from the broad base of the tax system?
The answer to the last part of the Deputy's question is no. In reply to the first part of his question, I do not accept the Deputy's contention that the Revenue Commissioners are unable to apply the system. There is an ongoing examination of the work practices and procedures which is allowing us to identify a number of opportunities for the redeployment of staff in the office.
I am sorry I missed the Minister's reply. Is it true that 518 posts in the Revenue Commissioners have been suppressed as a result of the embargo policy and that this includes about 120 tax posts? If that information is not correct could the Minister say how many tax posts have been suppressed as a result of the embargo?
In the period between July 1981 and 31 December 1983 647 posts were suppressed in the Office of the Revenue Commissioners and between 1 January 1984 and 3 October 1984 a further 116 posts were suppressed. As against that, over that period, a further 324 posts were added in to the Revenue Commissioners for various functions that had to be carried out. In addition 104 extra staff were made available to the Office of the Revenue Commissioners from staff resources available in other Departments.
Would the Minister inform the House if the embargo has affected the posts handling the farm profile forms? What is the up to date position in relation to these forms?
They could not get the forms out to the farmers.
That matter is the subject of a separate question on today's Order Paper but the answer to the first part of the Deputy's question is no.
The Minister did not reply to my question. I understood that 518 posts have been suppressed. The Minister says that 647 were suppressed. I asked him if it was correct that 120 tax posts were included in this figure, and he said no. Could the Minister tell me how many tax posts have been lost?
I have given the Deputy the information that in July 1981 to the end of December 1983, 647 posts were suppressed.
Some of those were clerical posts.
One hundred and sixteen further posts were embargoed between 1 January 1984 and 3 October 1984. As against that, an extra 324 posts were allocated to the Revenue Commissioners and a further levy of 104 extra staff were made available to the Revenue Commissioners over that period. The net situation is that in July 1981 there were 7,363 persons serving in the Revenue Commissioners. The current staffing level is 7,028.
The Minister is deliberately avoiding the question. I asked him why trained taxmen, on whose training much money was spent, are being replaced in the Revenue Commissioners by staff from other sections who do not know their jobs as taxmen.
Has the Minister reviewed the situation or will he assess the £3,500 million which the Comptroller and Auditor General says is missing? Will he try to find out how much of it is due and owing? What steps is he taking to have this processed as rapidly as possible and brought into the accounts?
As the Deputy knows, the figure he has given is not the amount of tax revenue which has been found to be due and payable. Most of it is for assessment and has not been processed. Some of it, it will be found, was not due in the first instance. As far as possible, with our available staff resources we are making progress in dealing with arrears.
Whatever the figure is, and I agree it is not so high, would the Minister consider the fair amount of back tax due, and in order to do this would he introduce a commission scheme in the Revenue Commissioners? Perhaps then he would not need embargoes. Would he consider taking a new approach in this area because of the back tax due, not current tax?
I ask the Deputy whether he has thought out the implications of his suggestion?
He knows how to manage money, and to make it. The Minister is not a man of action like Deputy Reynolds in matters of making and managing money. The Minister did not indicate in relation to the proposed savings in the Office of the Revenue Commissioners how he proposes to implement the savings: is it through staff cuts or from the current budget? Does he expect there will be a further obstruction of the collection of outstanding tax?
The savings to which I referred will not be made from staff cuts but from the postal and telecommunications side.
Following the expression of concern by the Comptroller and Auditor General about the amount of £3,500 million still on the Revenue Commissioner's books, can the Minister tell us how long, under present procedure, he estimates it will take to assess and process the outstanding tax due?
The £3,500 million is not on the books of the Revenue Commissioners. The amounts have to be processed and the amounts due sent out for enforcement. Until the processing has been done it is not possible to give precise answers to these questions. The Deputy knows well that the amount in question is far below the amount he mentioned.
I suggest that the Minister pays the Revenue Commissioners commission in the same way as he does the county registrars. Why does he do it for one group of officials and not for another?