Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Oct 1985

Vol. 361 No. 1

Employment and Tax Reform: Statements.

I intend to announce to the House this afternoon a series of actions which the Government have agreed as part of our programme to combat the twin evils that afflict our country — unemployment and the issue of equity in our taxation system.

Earlier, in answering questions about the national plan, Building on Reality, I outlined the background against which these actions were decided. We are, as I have said, concentrating on the fight against unemployment. We are doing so for this reason — my Government believe that there is no more important issue, in terms even of the basic dignity to which people are entitled, than the problem of unemployment. That is why the Government have decided on the following measures designed to be consistent with our budgetary strategy. First, the Custom House dock site will be acquired for a major re-development programme.

Hear, hear.

A special development authority will be established to promote and control the development of the site. We will be making available a wide range of incentives that will stimulate investment in construction. Among the incentives we will be introducing for the Custom House site are:

—100 per cent capital allowance on non-industrial buildings;

—section 23 type relief on new dwellings;

—double rent allowance offset against tax for traders;

—full rates relief for ten years.

Second, we are instituting an additional programme of inner city development and reconstruction in Dublin.

Hear, hear.

We are designating the areas running from the Custom House northwards to Mountjoy Square and along the quays from approximately Grattan Bridge to Guinness. We will be making available the following range of incentives in respect of these designated areas:

—a 50 per cent capital allowance for commercial development;

—a new 5 per cent tax allowance on the purchase price of private dwellings which will apply annually for ten years;

—double rent allowance offset against tax.

—full rates relief for ten years.

Third, we will also designate specific areas in Cork and Limerick to attract incentives designed to meet the needs of those cities.

Fourth, a new scheme of home improvement grants will be established, providing for grants up to £2,000, to enable householders to carry out improvements to their homes. There will be grants of up to £5,000 to facilitate the rehabilitation of older houses. All these grants will be available to be used in the employment of registered building contractors.

Fifth, a programme of improved community and leisure facilities and other general amenities is being introduced. Five million pounds is being made available to develop these much needed facilities and it is intended that this money will be spent principally in urban areas. Specific proposals in this regard will be brought forward in the very near future by the Ministers for the Environment and Labour.

Sixth, in furtherance of the objectives set in the Government's recent White Paper on Tourism, to lengthen the season and attract young tourists, special new grants are being given to develop better facilities at hotels and guesthouses. Grants will be made available up to a maximum of £30,000, and the investment that these grants totalling £2 million will generate will yield a substantial number of jobs.

Seventh, the development of the natural gas grid will be accelerated. The Government have decided in particular to extend the grid to Limerick and Waterford, bringing the benefits of gas, together with a substantial number of construction jobs to a number of cities, towns and industries that do not enjoy them at present.

Eight, the number of new employees eligible for aid under the employment incentive scheme will be doubled.

Nine, in order to stimulate new employment a scheme of exemption from PRSI contributions by employers will be introduced for the tax year 1986-87. The exemption will apply to additional new full time employees taken on by any private employer between now and 31 March, who have been on the live register for at least six months.

Ten, the Government also have in mind further proposals, in particular

—to modify employer PRSI contributions in order to favour the labour intensive industries, and

—to overhaul the disability benefit scheme with a view to reducing the costs of absenteeism

and we will be consulting with the NESC in relation to these and other issues which I will be raising later.

Responsible Ministers will be giving full details of these employment measures over the next few days. As the House will see, the measures involve the encouragement of private spending by means of tax incentives and by grant assistance. These grants will be financed by reductions in less essential spending. Existing schemes are also being improved in the light of experience; and some aspects of social insurance are being overhauled.

These proposals should be looked at in the context of the Government's overall strategic approach — an approach which has resulted in much progress in correcting the factors that have inhibited growth and that have slowed the prospects for recovery. These proposals are a coherent development of existing policies.

When I met, at the end of July last, the representatives of the trade unions and employer and farming organisations, I indicated to them that the Government intended to discuss, initially with NESC and subsequently with the social partners separately, the proposals emerging from an assessment they had just made of the current economic situation. We also intend to discuss with them the opportunity and need the Government see to accelerate and intensify the employment thrust of the national plan by means that do not impinge unfavourably on the over-strained public finances.

I am sending a copy of this statement to the members of the National Economic and Social Council with a request to meet them on Friday, 1 November to discuss and consult with them on the proposals in the way I have just outlined.

Those who would question our commitment to the unemployed might care to contrast it with the commitment of the Opposition. That commitment was very succinctly summed up, as recently as Sunday last, by the Leader of the Opposition, who blithely announced that if returned to office he would repeal a Bill which, judging by his comments, he does not seem to have read, and in so doing would abolish the NDC, the largest single commitment made by any Government to job creation since the establishment of the IDA, which was also opposed by Fianna Fáil.

It is a total fraud.

Turning to the question of taxation, new measures have been agreed by Government that will substantially improve the process of tax collection and enforcement.

While there have been misunderstandings about the amounts of tax arrears the fact remains, however, that there are serious deficiencies in the collection process which should be corrected without further delay.

A more vigorous approach in dealing with tax abuse is needed. Public opinion must be mobilised to improve tax compliance. It is important that the defaulter should be identified and punished. Payment of taxes is a civic obligation and delays due to inefficiencies or for other reasons help to shield defaulters who exploit slackness in the system.

It is a fact that in our society, among the majority who pay what they owe honestly and fairly, there are still more than a few prepared to rip off the rest of the community for the sake of their own gain. These "cowboys" are a contributory factor in the burden that honest working people carry.

The measures I am announcing are a further phase in eliminating this scandal, and in ensuring that the people who are robbing the ordinary taxpayer are dealt with. Any increase in yield will be used to alleviate the burden carried by the PAYE sector, and the extra fairness that we are introducing into the tax system will be a reassurance of equity to the ordinary taxpayer.

The measures that we are introducing are, in outline, as follows:

—The Government will encourage employers and unions to establish committees at the level of individual business to ensure that PRSI and PAYE payments are deducted and are transmitted promptly to the Revenue. The Government will discuss this proposal with the NESC and, if necessary, make statutory arrangements for involvement of employees in the payment process.

—In order to avoid the delays and administrative costs associated with estimated assessments made because tax returns are not forwarded on time, a surcharge will be applied where accounts and returns are not submitted to the Revenue within a specified period. Implementation of this new procedure which will bring about a radical change in the tax collection process will begin in the 1986-87 tax year.

—The special inquiry units in the office of the Revenue Commissioners, who have a good record of success in countering tax exasion, are being expanded. Since establishment these units have uncovered around 9,000 cases which had been escaping tax liability.

—Small local collection units will be established on a pilot basis to pursue arrears of tax prior to enforcement. Each unit is expected to consist of four officers. These local collectors will make personal visits on occasion to taxpayers failing to meet due liability. Both the inquiry unit and the new local units will give special attention to the building industry where, the evidence suggests, evasion is particularly widespread. This is seriously disadvantageous to the many honest firms in that business.

—The functions of county registrars in regard to debt enforcement generally will be assigned to sheriffs. At present there are sheriffs only in Dublin and Cork.

Send for the Lone Star Ranger.

The Deputy is always predictable.

Sheriffs will therefore be appointed to cover the rest of the country. The enforcement work now undertaken by county registrars will be transferred to the new sheriffs as rapidly as possible.

—Sheriffs will be made more accountable to the Revenue Commissioners in regard to tax enforcement and the relevant law will be updated to remove some anomalies and to facilitate implementation of the powers of seizure.

—Up to now the powers of seizure have, in many instances, not been a deterrent to tax defaulters because of the widespread conviction that these powers will not be invoked. They will be invoked in future.

—New arrangements to ensure closer contact and co-operation at local level between the inspectorates of the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Welfare are being put in place. These will further reduce tax avoidance and evasion.

—The tax clearance scheme for public sector contracts introduced in 1983, and which at present applies to main contractors only, will now be extended to cover the sub-contractors engaged on public contracts by the main contractors. In this way, it will be ensured that all contractors and sub-contractors employed on public contracts will meet their legal liabilities in relation to taxation and social welfare contributions.

—Some public sector organisations have not yet begun to implement the tax clearance certificate requirements in respect of their contracts. They are being required to do so at once.

—The Minister for Finance will have discussions with employer and trade union representatives in the construction sector to identify what further action may be required to counter abuses.

—An outside expert will be brought in to the office of the Revenue Commissioners to direct and advise on the implementation of reforms and to develop ways and means of further improving collection and enforcement including, if necessary, restructuring of the office.

The new tax enforcement measures are a major step forward. Implementation of these proposed changes will have a very significant effect in improving tax compliance. Success, however, will depend to some extent on changing attitudes towards tax abuse. An efficient tax administration must have the co-operation of the public in identifying and defeating tax abuse. It is very much to the benefit of the ordinary taxpayer who pays his taxes honestly and promptly that the administration of tax collection be improved and that tax defaulters be brought to justice.

The present taxation package is not intended to be the final word on reorganisation of the collection and enforcement process. The Government expect to have before them shortly reports from the Commission on Taxation and from the Interdepartmental Working Group on Tax Enforcement which was established earlier this year. The Government will examine carefully the recommendations put forward in both reports and they will implement quickly such recommendations as they consider will provide scope for further improvements in the system of tax administration.

The Taoiseach fell out with the Irish Americans and with the Archbishop——

(Interruptions.)

Before leaving the issue of taxation equity, I have noted that during my brief absence from the country, Fianna Fáil fell out with themselves over the general question of lowering taxation, giving rise to the hilarious spectacle of the Leader of the Opposition rebuking his finance spokesman for, of all things, making a promise.

To sum up then, we have taken the decisions I have announced today as part of our ongoing evaluation of the plan and its objectives. We are on target in relation to many of those objectives, and we need to take corrective action in relation to others. We have not today solved all of the problems of the economy: our financial problems, for instance, are not capable of magic wand type of politics of the sort with which we are familiar from the benches opposite.

Tell that to your backbenchers.

He is on target for a general election.

In these measures, we are sending a message to the whole community. To the unemployed we are saying that we know, and care, about the depth of the problem and the scale of human deprivation that is involved. To taxpayers we are saying, "You are entitled to justice, to a sense that you are paying no more than you should". To tax dodgers we are saying, "The community has no time for you".

To everyone we are saying that the Government's commitment to resolving the disastrous economic and financial heritage of Fianna Fáil in Government remains undiminished. We will not be afraid to face up to any steps that are necessary, in order to keep facing reality, in order to keep building on that reality, in the interests of all the people. The Opposition have not been prepared to do that, in recent years at any rate.

I ask the Taoiseach to grant time to the House to debate the statement he has just made. That would be only proper parliamentary procedure.

The matter will be concluded with statements by Deputy Haughey and Deputy Mac Giolla. The Taoiseach has no say in the workings of the House.

I am beginning to think he has no say in the workings of anything, particularly the workings of the country. I am asking the Taoiseach, as head of the Government, as the person responsible for arranging the business of the House, to allow a proper debate on the proposals he has just put forward. Otherwise we will be involving ourselves in an extraordinary way to do the nation's business. It is outrageous to use this parliamentary procedure for an entirely different purpose, to announce a programme of what purports to be economic action and tax reform. I compare this procedure today with the carry on at the launching of Building of Reality. We went over to the gilded halls of Iveagh House and assembled all the industrialists, trade unions and friendly commentators from RTE and elsewhere to hear the words of wisdom and to accept a great new economic dogma being laid down. On this occasion the Taoiseach comes here, reads out a statement, following a procedure aimed at an entirely different target.

If this package is meant to be taken seriously, we must be given an opportunity to discuss it and debate it here. There are many things in it that have to be teased out, looked at carefully. The Taoiseach came in at short notice to deliver this package, hastily cobbled together in an attempt to deflect public anger from the Government's disastrous performance. The public know that the Government have failed totally to deal with unemployment, or to do anything about the exorbitant level of taxation, or to improve public finances, or make the slightest progress in economic and social matters.

How many times have we heard it all before? First of all we had the Joint Programme for Government. Then we had Building on Reality. At the beginning of this year we had the 1985 budget which was supposed to be a major package of tax reform. Can I recall for the Taoiseach that his Joint Programme for Government promised “to halt and reverse the growth of unemployment”. That promise was made as a basic plank of the Government at a time when unemployment was at 170,000. Today it is at least 230,000, and of course that figure is an unreal one because we all know there has been and is massive emigration of young people. Without that massive emigration, that figure would be a great deal higher. Even the most optimistic economist would accept that by the end of the year unemployment will be between 240,000 and 250,000, under a Government which at the beginning put in as their objective “to halt and reverse the growth of unemployment”.

Then we had Building on Reality, launched with great pomp in Iveagh House. That document stated that unemployment would peak at 220,000 in December 1984. Already it is 230,000 and pushing up to 240,000. I have indicated that the general objectives of Building on Reality will not be attained because they are totally unrealistic in so far as unemployment is concerned and in regard to the current budget deficit this year, next year and in 1987. There is no possible way in which the Government will be able to reach the targets set out in that document.

The Government have presided over massive increases in taxation, both direct and indirect. Those increases have been responsible for a collapse in living standards and for the deepest economic depression we have had to endure here in decades. The Government are well aware of the deep anger being felt among the general public at their performance. The Government are now seeking to appease or nullify that anger by this piece of deception today. This will not make any perceptible change in the general economic state of the nation.

We all recall that the 1985 budget was represented as a radical reform of the taxation system. That was only an exercise, because ten months later we are presented with another package which this time does not have even the audacity to call itself reform — the Taoiseach called it tax collection. It is the crucifying levels of taxation and unemployment that concern our people. The Exchequer returns clearly show a fall off in revenue. The Coalition relied exclusively on tax increases to deal with our current budget deficit and that has failed. The only suitable label we can apply to the Government is, to quote the words of the song, "Another day older and deeper in debt".

What about public borrowing? When they came to office the national debt was £12 billion. It is now £18 billion and, if they stay in office much longer, they will have the unique distinction of any Government here of having doubled the national debt during their period in office.

Credibility how are you.

A prominent economic commentator recently said, and I quote his words with approval, that this Government can run but they cannot hide. The Taoiseach, in his exercise here today, is endeavouring to do both. I spoke about the anger outside, about the lamentable performance of this Government, the disastrous state to which they have reduced our economy. This exercise today is directed more at the people on the backbenches over there than at the general public outside.

Deputies:

Hear, hear.

What about the mess——

(Interruptions.)

I see that personnel from the Chipperfield Circus have arrived.

I want to suggest that there are some——

(Interruptions.)

They may look like them but they do not have to act like them.

There are some good things in this document. In so far as they are good things they are what we advocated. Indeed, in many cases, we advocated them and had scorn poured on us by the present Government because of them.

I note that we are going to have a major programme of inner city development. When we embarked on that programme we were criticised, held up to ridicule, told it was foolish, that we were gambling with taxpayers' money. We decided to acquire the Custom House docks site and develop it. Three years later this Government have come round, agreed with that decision and I am quite glad they propose going ahead with that. However, I want to point out to them that they are three years late delivering it——

A late conversion.

Perhaps the people in the Dublin Port and Docks Board, so vocal in endeavouring to cover up their disastrous management by talking about the Custom House site might now take note of the fact that, three years later, this Government propose doing exactly what we proposed doing when we were last in government.

There are some welcome developments here in regard to the building industry. We welcome those because we have always preached the gospel that, if building and construction prosper, then our economy as a whole will prosper. We are glad to note that something of that truth is beginning to percolate into the minds of this Government. On the question of building I want to make this point: the Taoiseach, in his statement, is proposing to bring in a new scheme of home improvement grants and make a grant of £5,000 available for the rehabilitation of older houses. There is nothing particularly new about that. But the real crucial issue in the building industry at present is the 5 per cent extra VAT imposed in the 1985 budget.

Deputies:

Hear, hear.

I want to say in all sincerity to the Taoiseach and the Government opposite that if they really want to revive the building industry at this stage they should take off that 5 per cent and, if they can possibly do it, take off the 10 per cent, but certainly remove the 5 per cent imposed because it has had an impact out of all proportion to the rate of tax or yield involved. Welcome though these grants may be, the Government are only tinkering with the problem because the real way of getting the building and construction industry on its feet again would be to do something about that 5 per cent VAT imposition.

I welcome the provisions mentioned about leisure facilities and other general amenities. We were engaged in a full scale programme in that regard before we left office. Under the aegis of the Department of Education and other schemes we had a national programme for providing these community facilities and leisure centres. Therefore, again, all the present Government are doing is resurrecting something they cut out three years ago with disastrous effects.

I welcome the grants proposed for the tourist industry. I do not know what effect the proposed £2 million will have. That is why we want a debate on these matters. There is a limit of £30,000 and the grants are supposed to total £2 million. I do not know whether that will have any real impact on the tourist industry but, for what it is worth, it is welcome. One must ask the question: will it be of any significance whatsoever? How is it proposed to allocate these grants? For example, will it be first come, first served, or how will that very small amount of £2 million be parcelled out?

Then we come to number seven — the development of the natural gas grid will be accelerated.

Three years later.

I have bored every audience to which I have spoken for the past two years asking that that be done. I want to congratulate the Government on finally agreeing to do so; it was so obvious I cannot understand why they did not do so long ago. I see the Minister for Energy opposite fingering the old chin. Perhaps it was because of their ideological differences that it was not undertaken to date——

Has the Deputy tried working on gas yet?

If they have succeeded in overcoming them they are to be congratulated. We are delighted that they are going to get on with it at last because it is simple, economic sense so to do.

There are other things contained here which we must regard as welcome on face value — improvements — but we must know exactly how they will work. For example, there is the provision with regard to exemption from PRSI contributions by employers. It appears to me that that is negatived largely by the provision that such people have to be engaged before 31 March next. I do not know and we on this side of the House will have to consult about that, ascertaining exactly what are its implications. Certainly it appears to be a move in the right direction.

There is one rather doubtful proposal about which we shall certainly have to hear more, that is, the one to overhaul the disability benefits scheme with a view to reducing the costs of absenteeism. That could be very sound, or very sinister, it all depends. If it is a question of depriving people genuinely ill of their disability benefit then we shall not accept it. If there is some enlightened approach to the whole problem of absenteeism, then naturally we will support it. But we shall have to have a further discussion about it.

The Taoiseach continued to say that responsible Ministers will be giving full details of these employment measures over the next few days. I do not know exactly what he has in mind by that. Does the Taoiseach mean that Ministers will come into the House and elaborate on these different proposals? As I have already suggested, the right thing to do is to give us time for a full debate on all aspects of this set of proposals so that we can ascertain which we can approve, recommend and which would warrant further teasing out before acceptance.

On the question of taxation we were told by the Minister for Finance, when introducing the budget earlier this year, that it constituted a major piece of tax reform. Of course, it was nothing of the sort. It made practically no difference to any taxpayer. If anything it constituted a deterioration in the position of many taxpayers. The reality of the present situation is that the levels of taxation, particularly direct personal taxation, are exorbitant and something must be done about lowering them.

(Interruptions.)

I am trying to make a reasonably constructive speech and that may not be attractive to Deputy Sheehan. However, his constituents might appreciate it if he would listen and perhaps reply in his own time and in his own way. I know that is what the people of west Cork would like. There is nothing in this package to alleviate the crushing burden of taxation. All that is proposed is a series of measures to improve the collection of taxes, in other words, if you are a taxpayer they will ensure that you pay your taxes much more quickly than you seem to be doing at present. We all accept that those who are not paying their fair share should be compelled to do so.

The proposals should be carefully gone into by the House because the whole area of tax collection is a complex one and this side of the House would like an opportunity to discuss these specific proposals with the experts in this field to see if what is proposed will work and improve the situation. These are matters of fairly far reaching importance and we should not be expected to deal with them on the basis of a simple statement by the Taoiseach here under a procedure which was never intended for matters of this sort. We will have to have time to look into the various suggestions and proposals with regard to county registrars, sheriffs and so on to see if the situation will be improved.

In this connection, on the basis of my personal experience as Minister for Finance, I should like to remind the Taoiseach that when you get into this area you have to be very careful about the constitutional situation. I remember on a couple of occasions seeking to do something to facilitate and expedite tax collection but coming up against the Supreme Court because of the provisions of the Constitution. These proposals merit examination and, if they are successful in improving the fairness of the tax collection system, well and good, but we need time to consider and examine them.

I repeat my request through you to the Taoiseach that time be arranged for the sort of discussion and debate which I have in mind, rather than having Ministers coming in here and dealing with different sectors of these proposals piecemeal or, indeed, doing it outside the House. I see a hint in what the Taoiseach said that the announcements by Ministers will be made outside the House. If that is so, I object to it and I ask very specifically for a full scale debate with reasonable time allocated for discussion on the various aspects.

Some specific measures in this document are welcome and, in many cases, we have already been pushing for and advocating them. I hope they will have a beneficial effect but, by and large, this document will not in any way tackle the serious problems of unemployment and crushing taxation which we have at present. Only a complete reversal of the monetarist economic policies being pursued by the Government, which have been shown to have totally failed, will bring about the major improvement which is required and will help to stem rising unemployment and the tide of emigration, and offer our young people in particular some hope for the future in their own country. It should also offer some prospect of a major amelioration to the hard pressed taxpayer. In so far as this document does nothing about tax reform, never mind tax reduction, it is hopelessly inadequate.

When we were told that the Taoiseach was going to make a statement on jobs and taxation, the major issues of the day, we all expected something more. I am not saying that the measures outlined in the statement are not welcome — they are — but they do not tackle the issue of jobs. Tens of thousands of jobs need to be created yearly rather than the handful which will be created as a result of these measures. Indeed, the statement looks very like the "goodies" section of a budget and one wonders why it was brought forward now as there is very little chance of any of these measures being implemented before the budget. Taken in conjunction with the next item on the Order of Business, the National Development Corporation, which is finally coming before us after great ideological controversy over a number of years, it fuels the speculation that the Government do not see themselves lasting too long and that this is all part of preparing the ground to meet the electorate. That may well be sooner rather than later, but it is strange that it comes in this form when we were expecting bits and pieces like this in the budget in a couple of months' time.

The measures outlined are welcome despite the fact that they do not tackle the major issue of unemployment. In regard to taxation, they merely deal with the collection end. Of course that is very welcome but the area of jobs requires a major U turn. There is no objection to U turns. All Governments have taken U turns in the middle of their terms of office and many have taken U turns even earlier. A Government who were in office for six months only did a U turn in the middle of their term in 1982 between April and August. There is nothing wrong or unprecedented in taking U turns in matters of fiscal policy and it is time the Government faced up to this and did so. They are doing it to an extent in regard to tax collection procedures, so why not do so in the area of jobs, investments, State companies and other areas with which the IDA are involved?

We outlined this in 1982 in our document End to the Crisis which is not in the grave unlike The Way Forward and Building on Reality which are already dead and buried. Our document is relevant today and its general outline was supported by Telesis. In fact, the IDA advocate that the area of investment and development must be in our own resources, foodstuffs, forestry, marine resources and so on as these are the areas of huge industrial development which will provide jobs. Unless the Government turn in that direction, people will not see them as tackling the area of jobs in any meaningful way. Tens of thousands of jobs could be created in those areas, not overnight, but in a development plan over a number of years, certainly in a decade.

The tax area dealt with is the collection end. The Workers' Party have been pressing for this for a long time and we have constantly mentioned the failure to collect outstanding taxes. We have been told time after time that there is no pot of gold, and no area of uncollected taxation worrying the Government. Now in 1985 the Government, after three years in office, are saying there are serious deficiencies in the collection process which should be corrected without delay. All of a sudden it is very urgent. The Taoiseach has suddenly spotted something that any person in the street could have told him about for some time. Everyone knows from his or her employer or from friends of the nature and size of the problem. Everyone knows it is a very serious matter.

The point we made was that there were cutbacks in the areas of health, social services and education due to the failure of people to pay their taxes and that was seen by the public. Cutbacks were due to shortage of funds. Many factors were involved in the shortage of funds but one was the failure to collect outstanding taxes. People were refusing to pay taxes and were getting away with it. We have seen many instances of bankruptcies under the legislation dealing with company law. We have seen many instances where there was a failure to pay PRSI and PAYE contributions by companies before they folded. We also heard about people having their money and their villas in Spain.

It is welcome that at last the Government have seen the size of the problem and have taken certain steps, many of which we recommended, to deal with it. I am surprised at Deputy Haughey questioning whether these steps should be taken. I have not gone into the Taoiseach's statement in detail because I got it only shortly before he spoke but, as I see it, all it is doing is implementing existing legislation. There is nothing new proposed in the area of tax collection other than to implement provisions regarding the seizure of goods and to have a special inquiry unit.

Presumably the major action of the Taoiseach must be to throw out of the window the disastrous embargo of the Minister for the Public Service, Deputy Boland. Certainly in the area of tax collection and revenue it has been a major disaster. It has also been a disaster in many other areas of Government service and has been seen as such by the Minister for Finance. I take it the Taoiseach is declaring that the embargo of the Minister for the Public Service will not apply so far as the Department of Finance are concerned.

With regard to the special development authority to deal with the 27-acre site of the Dublin Port and Docks, will this matter be brought before the House? Dublin Corporation have a great interest in that site as well as the Port and Docks Board. They are the planning authority for that area and they would like to be aware of the Government's plans. They would like to know if they will be consulted on the matter because they have many ideas regarding what should be done with that site. They hoped they would be allowed to acquire the site because they know more about what is needed for the centre of Dublin than the Government or the Department of the Environment. They must have a say in the development of this site. Will the Dublin Port and Docks Board get enough money to solve all their financial problems as a result of its sale or will the Government take it over for a song and leave the Port and Docks Board still in a major financial crisis? I assume there will be legislation needed to set up that authority.

In his statement the Taoiseach said there is a need to overhaul the disability benefit scheme with a view to reducing the costs of absenteeism. Is that a response to the kind of headlines in our papers which appeared again in the past few days when it was said that 25 per cent of people on disability benefit were found to be fit for work when they were examined by doctors? Does anyone understand the implications of that statement? People are on disability benefit for short periods. They get well, are examined by a doctor who certifies them as fit and they return to work. That is the procedure. In some cases the medical expert in the Department of Social Welfare will say a person is fit to work but the doctor of the individual concerned will not agree. Thus, there is an argument between two doctors but it is a medical decision that is involved. It is quite obvious that 25 per cent will be fit for work but another 25 per cent come on for disability benefit. There are headlines that try to show this is a major source of fiddling and loss to the Government by sick people. If there is any argument it is a matter between two doctors, not the individual who is out of work because he is sick. He is only getting what he is entitled to and this is certified by the doctors.

The Taoiseach said that grants will be financed by reductions in less essential spending. The Taoiseach should give us some outline of the areas in which there will be reductions. What is less essential spending? There are many such areas I could point out and I would not have to go far outside here to put my finger on many of them. The Taoiseach should give us an indication of the areas in which there will be reductions.

The Taoiseach's statement is welcome with regard to the possible benefits to the north inner city and with regard to the belated efforts in respect of tax collection. However, in no way is it a change of policy by the Government and only a change of policy by them will give them any possibility of remaining in office.

May I ask the Taoiseach if he is disposed to give time for a debate, subject to agreement between the Whips?

That might be discussed with the Whips.

May I say a few words on this——

On a point of order, I wish to protest and to question the manner in which this statement of real significance has been brought before the House, without any indication to the House and without the normal courtesy of enabling Members to discuss the contents of the statement by way of debate. I might add I am against what is in the statement although I welcome the glimmer of hope that the Government are beginning——

The Deputy is developing his statement. I ask him to conclude.

It is a habit all of us seem to develop the longer we are in the House, and there are no exceptions. I ask the Taoiseach, as did the Leader of the Opposition, what will be done about giving the House an opportunity of discussing this matter. Now we have been given a little hope that we can improve the economy and create jobs and it would be a pity if the Government did not listen to those who have been preaching this for years. I do not want to argue with the Leas-Cheann Comhairle about the denial of rights to myself and a few of my backbench colleagues. By stretching a rule with the agreement of the major parties and now joining their ranks The Workers' Party, we have no rights of any kind.

There was no agreement about this.

Deputy Blaney, would you please conclude? As the Deputy is aware, we have had a number of confrontations on this point. The Deputy is not entitled to speak on this statement and I would be grateful if he would conclude.

On a point of order, I want to question this issue, since it is not by agreement, as I erroneously thought——

I am referring to Standing Order 38.

Standing Order 38 has been abused by the length of the statements made by the Taoiseach, the Opposition Leader and Deputy Mac Giolla.

Would the Deputy like me to read Standing Order 38?

Standing Order 38 reads:

A member of the Government who has given prior notice to the Ceann Comhairle may make a statement in the House on any matter. No debate shall be permitted on any such statement but further statements may be allowed at the discretion of the Ceann Comhairle from a spokesman nominated by a Party in Opposition.

That covers Deputy Haughey for Fianna Fáil and Deputy Mac Giolla for The Workers' Party.

On a further point of order, the Chair spoke about what has been established by precedent, but we have to go back a little way, before the present office holders.

We are dealing with Standing Order 38.

The precedent has been established whereby I and others have been enabled, at the discretion of the Chair, to contribute where it is obvious that we have views that may not be contrary to or in complete harmony with what has been said by the Government or by the Opposition. That has been allowed in the past, but was denied in the recent past. I am questioning the basis of that——

But you are not questioning Standing Orders?

I am questioning the interpretation of Standing Orders because we are all equal in this House once elected.

I have read Standing Order 38 which has been strictly adhered to. I would be very grateful if the Deputy would resume his seat.

I apologise if I appear not to conform to Standing Orders but this is the only place I can raise this subject because I do not have any voice, or knowledge of what goes on in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges who bring about changes in the rules of this House. I challenge that the rights of individual Members are being vitiated by the rules and Standing Orders and that position should be corrected.

Until Standing Order 38 is amended I cannot allow you to continue. Do you accept that?

You can allow me if you wish but I am not even asking you to do that. You may allow me to make a statement under Standing Order 38.

Only as the leader of an opposition party.

I am part of this House.

I will not go into detail, but the Deputy is only too well aware of the position. You are one of the longest serving Members and know it is essential to adhere to Standing Orders. This is about the fourth time we have had a difference of opinion about Standing Order 38. I expect more from the Deputy——

At the discretion of earlier Cinn Comhairle and Leas-Chinn Comhairle I was allowed to say a few words. This happened not in the recent past——

Your status may have altered in the meantime.

It has not. I am still a Deputy here and I have an organisation. I could be registered but I chose otherwise and there is no reason why the Chair should not recognise that.

I cannot include your organisation in Standing Order 38. I must strictly adhere to this Standing Order. We have had several discussions about this and I thought the Deputy was aware of the contents of that Standing Order. Only Opposition leaders from the main parties may contribute. I would like now to deal with item No. 6.

I want to do that too, but I wish to get this point across and this is the only forum at my disposal.

It is only three times——

It is only through you, Sir, as my protector in this House, that I can get across my grievance. It is true that I am one of the longest serving Members of this House, but I have been allowed to contribute to similar debates in the past, although admittedly not in the recent past——

If you are not satisfied with Standing Order 38, you can refer your grievance to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

That is not so.

Until such time as that Standing Order is changed, I have to adhere strictly to it and you will have to abide by it.

I have been making the point that the Chair is the protector of the rights of Deputies in this House. I have also pointed out that I do not have access to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I put it to the Chair that this matter must be and should be looked at. It is not good enough to talk about main opposition parties and so on. It is no reflection on my two colleagues in front of me, but can you regard them as a main party? Can you regard two as a main party, but not one? This is what I want the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to convey——

I will convey your feelings to the Ceann Comhairle and I would be grateful if you would allow me to turn to item No. 6.

I do not want to have a row with the Chair——

I do not want to have a row with you either, but I must adhere to Standing Orders.

I want you to bring the case I am making to the Ceann Comhairle because I have no other forum in which to make it. I am the second longest serving Deputy and my rights are being infringed. I am not getting fair play, which is a minimum right, to voice my opinions, which may not be the opinions of anyone else in this House. I am an elected Member and I am entitled to that. I would be grateful if you would bring my views to the attention of the Ceann Comhairle and through him, to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

I would like the Taoiseach to tell me if we will get an opportunity to discuss this subject properly.

The Taoiseach has no right of reply.

He could nod his head.

(Interruptions.)
Top
Share