Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Jun 1987

Vol. 373 No. 5

Estimates, 1987. - Vote 1: President's Establishment.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacSharry)

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £240,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st day of December, 1987, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Secretary to the President, and for certain other expenses of the President's Establishment.

I do that for the purpose of allowing the debate to begin. I propose, a Cheann Comhairle, to deal with the Vote for my own Department together with all the other Votes in the Finance group, with the exception of Public Works and Buildings which my colleague the Minister of State at my Department will address.

An Ceann Comhairle

Forgive me, Minister. Will Deputies who are leaving the Chamber do so as quietly as possible?

Deputies may not engage in conversation in the lobby. It is an intrusion into the Chamber.

Mr. MacSharry

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle. Since the Services provided for in a number of these Votes are of a non-controversial nature, I do not consider it necessary to go into the minutiae of the individual Votes. However, I will refer to some salient points which will be of interest to Deputies.

The combined total of the 19 Votes of the Finance group before the House this evening comes to some £352 million, including £43 million capital. Almost three-quarters of the total falls under the Votes for Public Works and Buildings which is £106 million. Office of the Revenue Commissioners, £95 million and Superannuation and Retired Allowances, £54 million. Total payroll numbers provided for come to about 9,700, of which close to 7,000 are in the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. In addition, the Office of Public Works employ around 2,000 or so, who are paid from the various maintenance and works subheads of their Vote.

As far as my own Department are concerned, I am pleased, to be able to outline to the House some of the more significant developments which have taken place in recent times. First of all, the merging of the Departments of Finance and the Public Service will, I believe, lead to more efficiency and better utilisation of staffing resources. Already staff numbers in the combined Department have been reduced by more than 40. Despite this merger, however, my Department's Vote for 1987 shows a net increase of £4.9 million over 1986 due to a new provision of £7 million for distribution of the lottery surplus to which I will refer later.

The Government are determined to pursue their policy of restoring order to the public finances and reduce dependency on national borrowing. In order to ease the burden on the Exchequer the cost of the public service must be reduced and I am glad to report that as a first step the special measures in relation to pay and numbers outlined in my budget speech are being strictly adhered to.

As a result of the reorganisation of my own Department in March of this year 42 officers have been redeployed most of whom were assigned to the Office of the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Welfare. With a view to curtailing public expenditure generally, the Taoiseach has recently initiated a series of expenditure reviews which are intended to continue with the correction of the imbalance in the public finances which I began in my budget this year. Senior officers of my Department are involved in the examination of departmental expenditure programmes and will be reporting on them to the Government in due course.

Servicing the national debt is a major burden on our public finances. In 1987, debt servicing will account for about 12½ per cent of our GNP and for 33 per cent of our tax revenue. How this debt is managed, therefore, has to be a source of keen concern to the Government.

Much has been achieved since 1984 in lowering the servicing cost of the foreign debt and smoothing out the repayment schedule. That programme of pre-payment and re-financing has already yielded savings of some £80 million on the cost of the loans pre-paid. The programme is, of course continuing but we will be constantly searching for other ways of making savings — without adding to risk — in the servicing of the national debt.

A provision of £7 million is made in my Department's Vote for the distribution of the surplus of net proceeds from the national lottery. This expenditure will not, however, result in any net charge to the Exchequer as a similar amount will come in as revenue. The Government have decided that this £7 million should be allocated as follows: £3,150,000 for youth and sport projects, £1,750,000 to arts, culture and the Irish language and £2,100,000 to projects in the health area. The lottery is enjoying considerable popularity and all the signs are that the surplus available to the Exchequer will be well in excess of £7 million. I am consulting with my colleagues as to the allocation of the additional funds anticipated.

The remaining Finance Group Votes which are before the House tonight are largely administrative in nature and with the exceptions of Votes 9, Revenue Commissioners; 10, Public Works and Buildings and 22, Superannuation and Retired Allowances, involve relatively minor expenditure.

The Vote for the Revenue Commissioners is one of the largest within the group amounting to £95.138 million in 1987. I have referred earlier to the redeployment of staff from my Department to the Revenue Commissioners. While it would not be in order to debate taxation policy on this occasion, I would like to mention again the Government's commitment to improving the administration of the tax system. The revenue task force who were set up on foot of the budget this year have now completed their training and have been in operation for some weeks. It is confidently expected that the task force will achieve the target of collection of £10 million in tax arrears to which I referred in the Budget Statement.

Also in the Revenue Vote there is a capital provision of £6.3 million for the purchase of a new computer system. This will upgrade the capacity of the Revenue Commissioners mainframe computer system to provide for continued growth and enhancement of existing systems. Additional computer terminals are being acquired to enable staff to take advantage of new on-line services which will provide them with improved access to information. These developments are aimed at improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the Revenue Commissioners' operations.

In the case of the Vote for the Office of the Attorney General Deputies will note that there is a 30 per cent increase in the provision for Fees to Counsel in subhead D. This increase is due to the particularly heavy legal costs incurred in the Single European Act case in both the High and Supreme Courts. The total legal cost to the Exchequer arising out of this case could be in excess of £250,000. Quite apart from this, the practice of multiple representation in personal injury and other High Court cases is quite costly to the State — as it is to the private sector — and I am therefore, awaiting with interest the outcome of the Restrictive Practices Commission study of the legal profession.

I should also like to comment on Vote 19 for the Farm Classification Office, which provides for the estimated expenditure of the Farm Tax Commissioner and the Farm Tax Tribunal in implementing the Farm Tax Act, 1985. It is the view of the Government that farmers should be taxed in the same manner as other sections of the community, that is on actual income. I, therefore, announced in my budget speech on 31 March that the farm tax was being discontinued from 1987 onwards and that legislation to give effect to this would be introduced by the Minister for the Environment.

Because of the discontinuance of the farm tax, the Estimate for the Vote is down to £2,471,000 from the 1986 outturn of £4,298,000. This 1987 Estimate represents the actual cost of the Farm Classification Office up to 31 March 1987 together with the residual cost of winding down the office's operations, including the processing of appeals to the Farm Tax Commissioner and to the Farm Tax Tribunal, if such appeals arise, in relation to 1986 farm tax demands.

My colleague, the Minister of State at the Office of Public Works will deal with the Vote for that office. At the conclusion of this debate before I formally move the individual Votes, I will deal with as many as I can of the points raised by Deputies. I, therefore, recommend this group of Votes to the House for approval.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): I hope, a Cheann Comhairle, you can guide me in this debate. The Minister said that his colleague will deal with the Vote of the Office of Public Works. Does that exclude me from dealing with the Vote of the Office of Public Works at this point in the debate?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy can deal with that Vote.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): I like to be in order so, therefore, I want to establish the ground rules before I commence. I thank the Minister for coming into the House with these Estimates. He is a very busy Minister at present. The Finance Bill is being debated and I appreciate the pressures that are on his office. I would like to comment very briefly on some of the issues he raised and then I would like to ask a series of questions with which I hope he will be able to help me.

I was glad to hear that the Minister's economic strategy is on target. I will await with interest the figures that will be produced at the end of this month for the half year to see will both revenue and expenditure be absolutely on target. I am interested in his reaffirmation of further expenditure cuts later this year after an examination of various programmes has been carried out by officials of the Department of Finance.

The Minister said that his pay policy is in line with what he committed himself to in the budget speech. I take issue with this. I am worried about the progress the Minister has made in pay policy. The guidelines laid down by the previous administration have been adhered to in theory but in practice disturbing developments have emerged in the ESB settlement, in Aer Lingus and in other suggested settlements. It is not enough to theoretically stick to pay guidelines and then top up this by benefit in kind.

I am seriously worried about the ability of the Minister to hold to the pay guidelines in the public sector and I am seriously concerned he will not be able to hold the line when pay policy in the public service as distinct from the public sector is established. I know talks are being engaged in on a continuing basis between the Minister, the Taoiseach and some of his colleagues, and representatives of the trade union movement. I wonder at the wisdom of moving back towards national pay rounds again. We do not have a lot to go on except newspaper reports, but it seems it is now the policy of the Government to move back to a national pay round. It seems also that part of this pay round would have some involvement by the trade union movement in the whole area of income tax reform and income tax relief and I am worried that the Minister will find himself with his pay guidelines seriously askew at the end of the year and facing very heavy bills in the next financial year. So far the Minister has succeeded in holding the line. It is easy to hold the line during the summer when the public service unions are not seriously negotiating. Once the autumn comes if the kind of agreement which is emerging in significant areas of the public sector is reached as a national round the Minister will face demands in 1988 of £100 million and £120 million for what looked like very moderate agreements, at the end of this year.

I wish the Minister success. I will not go further on it because pay is a very sensitive area and one certainly cannot negotiate pay agreements by way of statements in the House. However, I can see difficulty for the Minister. It may not upset his budgetary profile to any great extent in 1987 if he can keep a national pay agreement back to the latter part of the year, but certainly it reduces his leeway in 1988.

I would like the Minister's comments on Government pay policy now. Are the Government absolutely committed to a pay freeze for the remainder of this year, or are they using that statement as their initial negotiating position as they move towards a national pay round to be paid from 1 November of this year with the consequent full year effect in 1988? I notice there is an item on the Estimate which deals with the review body on higher remuneration in the public sector and there is a figure of £100,000 included. Will the Minister now tell us what is the function of the review body? Is it still operating to the terms of reference laid down by the previous administration? Is their work real or theoretical at this stage and does the Minister intend to implement the preliminary report of the review body? Is there any commitment to implement the full report when it comes to hand? It is unfair to our public servants to have a review body on their remuneration if there is no intention to implement the findings of the review. The preliminary report was available to the previous Government but it was not proper for us in the last days of an administration to take a decision which could have a profound effect on the pay policy of our successors. I would like the Minister to deal with this item. What are the Government's intentions on the preliminary report? If the review body is to continue, and it seems from the Estimate that it will, what are now its terms of reference?

There is a figure included for the civil service arbitration board. When will the arbitrator be appointed and is it the Minister's intention to reappoint Mr. Hugh Geoghegan? I note what the Minister said about transferring staff now that the Department of the Public Service has been amalgamated with the Department of Finance. I hope that in that amalgamation the Department of the Public Service will be left with a real function and that it will be more than simply a payroll function. I note that in the appointment of a new Secretary to the Department of Finance, the Top Level Appointments Committee was not used and I understand it was not used either when the previous Secretary of the Department of Defence was transferred to the Department of Finance to take charge of the public borrowing programme. I wonder is this correct and is this practice to continue?

What is the status of the Top Level Appointments Commission now as it applies to the Department of Finance? Without naming names, will the Minister tell us the hierarchical structure now in the Department of Finance, how many Secretaries are there, and how many Deputy Secretaries? I understand the Minister acquired four Deputy Secretaries from the Department of the Public Service, plus a clatter of Assistant Secretaries. Will he explain to the laity exactly the new hierarchical structure in the new amalgamated Department? Is it his intention to hold onto all the new Secretaries, Deputy Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries in that new amalgamated Department or does he plan to redeploy top level civil servants as well as redeploying the 40 reasonably junior staff to whom he referred? Obviously pay policy, the control of pay and the control of numbers in the public sector is a major plank in the Minister's policy for 1987.

Another major plank is the issue of interest rates. I will not go back over the ground I covered already in the debate on the Finance Bill and which will be covered in greater detail in the debate next week. I understand the Minister has a primary plan that exchange rates will be maintained and that there will be no devaluation of the Irish pound in the near future. I was astounded to see a leading industrialist here openly advocating devaluation of the Irish pound recently. If people of high credibility — and the person who was involved in speculation is a man of very high credibility, a man who has absolute access to Minister of whatever administration happens to be in power and he serves on the boards of State bodies — have submissions to make on exchange rates they should make them privately to the Minister and to the banks. There are two possible effects which can result if credibility is given to theories on devaluation.

First, the flow of money which is going to fund that portion of our domestic debt that is funded from abroad will stop. I am sure the Minister has figures available, but from reading the newspapers it seems that £250 million or £300 million has come in and been invested in Government paper by citizens of West Germany, the UK and possibly Denmark. If there is any speculation of a devaluation of the IR£ not alone will that source of investment dry up for the Government but what is here will be cashed in quickly and moved out.

Secondly, and again I speak from experience, if the trading sector of the economy believes that exchange rate policy will not be maintained there is tendency to take advantage by leading and lagging purchasing of currency. We have seen that previously. I would like the Minister to take this opportunity of making a categorical statement once again on exchange rate policy, and the message should go out from this House that people who speculate on our policy on exchange rates at the moment could do serious damage to Exchequer funding for the remainder of the year.

I would like to raise a number of points in connection with the Board of Works, some of a general nature, some of a particular nature. I welcome the Minister of State and would be glad to listen to him. Could he say something in greater detail about the Government's policy on decentralisation? The amount of money provided in the Estimate is quite small and could not possibly fund the work which has been announced. What is the plan for the next three years? What kind of capital investment are we talking about in 1988, 1989 and 1990? If the locations selected are the only locations which civil servants will be decentralised or if the selection of the locations which will be familiar to many people in the House from a previous announcement on decentralisation are still under consideration, which Departments are being considered for permanent movement to places beyond Inchicore?

What is the position about arterial drainage? The previous administration decided that arterial drainage would be a matter for the Department of Agriculture. Has this decision changed? From the Estimate it seems that it has. There are quite significant sums of money for arterial drainage in the Estimate. What is the status of those rivers to which the previous Government had committed themselves? Their priority listing——

Mr. MacSharry

The old priorty or the new priority?

Mr. N. Treacy

What about the ones before that?

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East):——which arose from the 1945 Arterial Drainage Act was changed by the previous Government. I do not know whether the Minister for Agriculture is responsible now but if the Minister gets the opportunity he might ask him whether the Mulcaire or the Suir will get priority now. Is the Mulcaire still at the top of the list or is the Suir at the top of the list? Very little money is put in for new work.

Mr. MacSharry

It is all back to the Department of Finance.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): From the figure that is included it looks very like that. A figure of £50,000 is included for comprehensive drainage surveys including cost benefit investigations. Will the Minister of State inform the House as to what comprehensive drainage surveys are being undertaken and on what rivers in 1987? What cost benefit investigations are being undertaken and on what rivers? Does the priority on design hold to the decision taken by the previous Government? Does priority on drainage work follow the priority on design which was laid down by the previous Government?

Dealing with the OPW, I am not point scoring; this is for information purposes, under subhead E — new building works alterations, and additions—will the Minister give an indication of what is involved in the £8,400,008 which is being spent for works for the Department of Justice? Will this enable the Garda station building programme to be continued at the level promised to the Garda representative bodies? Is enough provided in the Estimate to complete works which are progressing at the moment or is money included for new starts in 1987? If so, could the Minister inform us of what new starts will take place?

I would like the Minister to comment on the restoration of Dublin Castle and the building of the conference hall. I notice that provision has gone from £2,730,000 to £8,521,000, a significant increase. I presume that the programme has got to the stage where significant sums of money can be spent satisfactorily on the site. I would like the Minister to give us a progress report of what is happening in Dublin Castle——

Mr. N. Treacy

The Deputy is looking for a great deal this evening.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East):——and how he sees the restoration work and the building of the conference hall developing, where the target date will be achieved and if we will have the accommodation when we next hold the Presidency of the EC.

Finally, I thank the Minister for explaining his intent in the national lottery. Significant sums of money are now accruing. I know that percentages have been changed but obviously if there is more money to distribute any leeway which is found necessary to be made up can be made up. I would like the Minister to give a commitment that the extra revenue accruing to the national lottery will not simply be subsumed into central funds but will be used and will be disbursed for youth and sport, for health matters and for arts and culture. I hope moneys expended for the Department of Health are not simply going to be thrown into the general Health Estimate but that specific extra work will be provided. I thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, for calling my attention to the time. I did not realise that we were so confined tonight.

The issue of tax collection has been raised here time and again and the Minister dealt with it last night. I notice that in the Estimate for the Revenue Commissioners there is a token estimate of £1,000 for consultancy services. Where there is widespread dissatisfaction with the efficacy of the Revenue Commissioners in collecting tax at the moment, is it not time moneys were provided to bring in outside expertise to examine the difficulties of which we are all aware, which have been going on over a number of years and which seem to be no nearer solution? If the expertise existed internally I do not think we would have the constant round of questions, the constant round of comment and reassurance on the part of successive Ministers for Finance that all is well and that we are simply misreading the balance sheet. I would like the Minister to have a look at this, to encourage the Revenue Commissioners to avail of the expertise available across a whole range of services which would be of benefit to them.

We shall have plenty of time to discuss finance policy next week on the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill. I should like to thank the Minister again for having given me the opportunity of making those few short comments.

Mr. McDowell

I shall be very brief. I have had a full day and I want to finish reasonably early this evening. I do not want to delay anybody unduly.

There are a number of things I wanted to raise with the Minister in relation to the Revenue Commissioners. It seems to me to echo what Deputy Noonan has just said, that there is a widespread feeling that the Revenue Commissioners are not very efficiently organised, that they are not coming to grips with their task as well as they might. Although it is easy to criticise from the outside as a layman — to use Deputy Noonan's phrase about the Revenue Commissioners — nonetheless one gets the feeling there is an opening for the employment of consultants, or a radical rethinking on the operations of the Revenue Commissioners. I fully agree with what Deputy Noonan has said in relation to the desirability of looking again at their operations.

Two points in particular strike me. There has been frequent criticism — at this stage it is classical — that the relationship between the assessments branch or function of the Revenue Commissioners and their collection function seems to be somewhat disjointed. Although I appreciate the Minister talked about the computerisation of the Revenue Commissioners — and it may be that that will assist in co-oridnating their two functions — still I have misgivings that there is some kind of administrative hiatus between assessing tax and collecting it. In addition to all the inefficiencies, loss of revenue and delay in collecting revenue which one can readily imagine would flow from such a disjointed approach it also gives rise to figures which, on occasion, appear to be scandalous and hard to defend in relation to uncollected taxes. From some of those figures sometimes trotted out in this House — and I know how highly artificial they are — it seems there is not a well recognised or understood system of writing off bad debts by the revenue such as the ordinary layman would be acquainted with.

I have to tell the Minister that, in his absence one day, the Tánaiste was taking questions on his behalf. I asked on that occasion whether it was desirable, for instance, that directives which issue from the Revenue Commissioners to their collecting staff should not go before the Minister for his approval and assessment, so that he could keep in touch with the collection policies, those in relation to the writing off of bad debts and the like and policies in relation to tax collection priorities. On that occasion the Tánaiste indicated that, for instance, the circular which was then the subject of some controversy in the newspapers and a subsequent circular referred to in this House, had not been viewed in the Minister's Department, that these were internal matters for the board of the Revenue Commissioners to deal with themselves. The Tánaiste agreed with my suggestion. I do not know whether he was purporting to bind the Minister policywise but he did agree it was desirable that the Department of Finance should be intimately aware of the policy decisions being taken by the Revenue Commissioners and should be consulted in relation to them.

That brings me to what I want to make by way of a more general point. To a large degree the Revenue Commissioners, once appointed, are independent in their functions and to some extent their independence is a very valuable thing. However, I wonder whether we are not now reaching the stage at which we should have what they have in the Dominion of Canada, that is, a system under which the Revenue Commissioners are not simply an independent part of the Canadian Minister for Finance's portfolio but are more than that — they are represented at Cabinet level by a separate Minister called the Minister for National Revenue. It seems to me there is a lot to be said for having ministerial responsibility for tax collection as well as tax expenditure.

Bearing in mind what the Tánaiste said at least on the occasion he was answering for the Minister, to some extent there appears to be a political dislocation, an absence of responsibility or direct control on the part of the Minister for Finance over the activities of the Revenue Commissioners. To be brief on that point, it seems to me the Revenue Commissioners need a detailed review. They did not get a detailed review in the Fifth Report of the Commission on Taxation. It is noteworthy that the Revenue Commissioners' responses to the commission — reading between the lines of the commission's report — were defensive and hardly outgoing toward the commission on some occasions. It appeared that existing procedure and practices were defended almost as a knee-jerk reaction when innovation was adumbrated by the Commission on Taxation.

I am posing the question whether we have reached the time when the Revenue Commissioners should be examined as to whether they are functioning efficiently. In that context I re-echo what Deputy Noonan said, that to provide £1,000 for consultancy services in an area which could be of vital importance in terms of improving Government finances seems to be somewhat niggardly compared with the allocations for consultancy fees in other areas. I want to sound a note of warning that I detect a conservatism in the Revenue Commissioners' outlook on their functions which alarms me slightly.

I also want to put to the Minister that the time has certainly come for a radical review of the law in relation to customs and excise. I had some dealings with it in a legal capacity on occasions. It was so antiquated, so unworkable in that field, the law on which it is based is so old, so Victorian in concept, and it should not be beyond the capacity of the parliamentary draftsman, the Revenue Commissioners themselves, or whoever, to revise the law in relation to customs and excise and to modernise the powers contained therein, rendering it more applicable to the early years of the 21st century rather than the dying years of the 19th century to which it seems to be best suited as at present drafted.

One of the Votes being dealt with here this evening is that in respect of the Government Publications Office. I want to make a minor point in relation to that. The backlog in relation to the production of bound volumes of Statutes in both Irish and English is now well known. In recent weeks the Government Publications Office have come up with a copy of the 1980 Statutes in English and Irish. They fill two volumes. It is curious that on this occasion the bargain price being charged for the bound volumes in English and Irish is £92.50. It is curious that the bound volume in English only, when issued in 1981 or 1982, cost £18. It makes me wonder is there any political will at all to keep the Statutes up to date in that form. It appears they are now becoming so prohibitively expensive, they are so far behind times, it is likely that somebody at some stage will call a halt to their production in their present form.

Another point I should like to raise is in relation to the moneys raised under the national lottery. I appreciate that in times of financial crisis such as these we are now experiencing the availability of £7 million to the Minister is important. The decision to be taken in relation to it are ones which undoubtedly will have the call of many deserving causes. This morning in another context in this House I raised the issue of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal. That body has been funded to the tune of about £2.5 million or £3 million each year. It has been effectively mothballed so far as compensating victims of violence for the general damage they suffer is concerned. I raised this morning, and I put it again to the Minister for Finance, the question whether a society which organises a fund to compensate persons injured in road traffic accidents, whether they be drivers of cars insured under the motor insurance law or uninsured under the motor insurance bureau agreement, and at the same time scraps or mothballs the tribunal which compensates innocent victims of violent crime has not got its priorities very wrong. I ask the Minister, in the context of the £7 million which is subscribed by people to a lottery, to make it, or some portion of it, available to compensate the victims of crime because they have not been compensated since that tribunal was effectively wound up by the last Government.

I wish to ask the Minister if the withholding tax will apply to the servicing of the national debt and the services of the Government stockbroker and stockbrokers and money brokers generally who work for the Government. I have had queries on that matter from people who are, and people who are not, affected. They see those as professional fees analogous to the ones provided for in the withholding tax in the Finance Bill. They want to know whether this function, which is a professional service rendered for the State, will be subject to the withholding tax. I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say in reply.

Mr. Desmond

I wish to refer to a number of specific items raised by the Minister in his introductory speech. I support him in the merging of the Departments of Finance and the Public Service. This will lead unquestionably to a more coherent policy on the public service pay side. Provided there is some imagination, though there is not much of it in the Department of Finance, on the training side and on the industrial relations side and provided the Department of the Public Service subsumed will not be totally emasculated by the Department of Finance as is their tendency whenever they get their hands on other Government Departments, the marriage can be fruitful. There is no reason it should not be fruitful. Provided the Department of the Public Service are not absorbed into a mere service division personnelwise of the Department of Finance, the integration, co-ordination and functional development of that critical area of our public service could expand and develop and could play a very dynamic role. I favour integration in that regard just as I have favoured integration between the training side of the Civil Service and the Institute of Public Administration because there is limited availability of skills in the public sector even on the training side. Therefore those that are there must be carefully husbanded and expanded.

The Minister said that the first officers have been redeployed from his Department as a result of reorganisation and that they have been assigned to the office of the Revenue Commissioners and to the Department of Social Welfare. The officers concerned have my sympathy because frequently people are redeployed in the public sector without any real assessment of their capacity to make yet another contribution in yet another area. Very often they are told they are being transferred and they have to go. Whether they go in a moralised or a demoralised state is very often open to question.

That brings me to the question of the embargo as applied to the office of the Revenue Commissioners. As a public representative, I do not necessarily hold the view that all areas of the Revenue Commissioners are grossly overstretched. That would be a very serious over statement but there is an absolute need to examine the work of the Revenue Commissioners. They have managed to fend off successive Ministers and administrations with great dexterity and they pride themselves in that capacity. I very seriously question the effectiveness and the organisation of 7,000 staff in Revenue and the extent to which they are making a real contribution in the elementary work they do, that of tax collection and ensuring that unpaid taxes in particular are collected.

If the Minister said that on a paper basis only £700 million was owing in PAYE contributions — we could work out the balances as far back as 1974 and I got many memoranda when in Government showing how the balances progressed from opening balances to collected amounts — he would simultaneously have to declare a national emergency because the other sectors of the community would be in a state of insipient revolution. For all practical purposes whole areas of revenue collection have broken down. To transfer 42 staff from the Minister's Department, some to the Revenue Commissioners and some to the Department of Social Welfare, with the prospect that they might collect £10 million between July and the end of the year is ludicrous. You would lose that amount in a tot on the Revenue computer.

Mr. MacSharry

If there is any to be lost I would be glad to find it — even £1 million.

Mr. Desmond

I advocated in the course of the general election that we might set up an office of revenue collection. I had close associations with some of the Revenue Commissioners particularly around 1970 when they stood by the country when they were badly needed and when their independence was sorely threatened. I have great admiration for them but I think they should be abolished forthwith provided we, the politicians, keep our hands off the revenue collection procedure and stop putting prospective control over them a matter of grave political scandal. There is not at present what I would call true political accountability. As I said to the Minister on the Finance Vote, his duties are so multiple and the discharge of them is so onerous that by the time he sits across the table from the Revenue Commissioners, perhaps once a month, and asks what is going on in this sector, and why revenue trends have slipped, eminently reasonable and eminently courteous and serious contributions are no longer enough. We have a major crisis because the public have no confidence in our taxation system. It is not the fault of the Revenue Commissioners that our tax system is a hodge podge of developmental, incremental accumulations of tax revenue bits and pieces, but it is the fault of the political system. I firmly believe that we must abolish the Revenue Commissioners, and bring them into departmental day-to-day accountability and have ministerial control over the operation on a day-to-day basis. I have no doubt that at the end of his term of office the Minister will not stand the slightest prospect of being re-elected. This is one of the drawbacks he will have to be prepared for, of course, I would pay him an enhanced Finance salary. We must face this situation, and I say that as one who wants to refrain, and has always refrained, from making representations to the Revenue Commissioners.

Apart from the 42 transferees — God help us — the Minister has not given any information about the application of the embargo to the Revenue Commissioners. I would not dream of having the embargo applied to the Revenue Commissioners. The position is too serious to apply a blanket embargo to the Revenue Commissioners. If any area of State expenditure should be totally exempt it should be the Revenue Commissioners because flexibility is required right down the line in that office. The purpose of the Revenue Commissioners is to get in money to run this God-forsaken country and ensure that everybody pays their taxes. As I said, I would immediately exempt the Revenue Commissioners from the public service embargo and I would be very ruthless with internal industrial relations reactions. I know some of the things they get up to and we would require a very tough régime.

What broke my heart when I was Minister for Social Welfare was the remoteness of the Revenue Commissioners. It was as if they were on another planet. People practically knelt in front of Aras Mhic Dhiarmada when the Revenue Commissioners were mentioned, at the prospect of getting a few bob into the social insurance fund. Our social insurance fund was facing annihilation if we did not get money from the Revenue Commissioners, the £900 million needed for social welfare. What are we doing now? The Minister is providing a new computer system costing £6½ million. I would be prepared to bet all the points Ireland did not score in the World Cup that that computer is not matched up to the social welfare machine. The Minister could spend another £6½ million and it still would not be matched up. Like certain people, Revenue and Social Welfare never seem to be compatible. Is there any hope that the main frame computer system will be integrated directly into the Social Welfare computer system on which we have spent millions?

Mr. MacSharry

And the Deputy spent four years there.

Mr. Desmond

I spent four years there with an outstanding public servant, the secretary of the Department of Social Welfare.

Mr. MacSharry

And computers.

Mr. Desmond

That man knows more about computerisation and taught me more than I ever hoped to know, as did another outstanding public officer, the Assistant Secretary, who has left the public service and gone into one of the financial service companies. He, too, broke his heart trying to see if there was any prospect of marrying the two systems. Unless we manage to do that, huge areas of public expenditure in terms of taxation and expenditure on the social welfare side, there is no prospect of having an integrated system for a mere three and a half million people. We are not a country of multiple ethnic races, multiple languages and income profiles; therefore it is not beyond our capacity to do this job.

I want to mention the farm classification office. Is it true that the records are being destroyed? We need a straight answer to that. If it is, it is a national scandal. I would not be a bit surprised if they were being destroyed. I have heard rumours that this material was being dumped. How many farm profile forms have gone out under the alternative taxation measures being proposed by the Minister? I would not be surprised if nothing has happened.

There are a few other brief comments I wish to make on the Minister's statement, particularly the provision for the distribution of the surplus of the net proceeds from the national lottery. I notice the Minister is giving £2.1 million to projects in the health area. That money is already spoken for — £500,000 for the AIDS programme and the other £1.6 million will be just enough to keep the Health Education Bureau afloat until the end of the year. That £2.1 million was taken from the budget provision of the former Government and transferred to the national lottery. It is true that there will be another £14 million available by way of net surplus to the Government. Do we have to wait until next Friday to learn how that money will be distributed? It should be distributed now. If a few million pounds of that money were given to the health areas which are critically affected by the current cutbacks, particularly the community health areas, a lot of the appalling hardship being suffered by families, particularly in the Eastern Health Board area on the mentally handicapped side, could be alleviated forthwith and this would take some of the poor law smell away from the odium of this House. I strongly urge the Minister to review the overall situation.

It has been suggested from time to tiem, and denied, that the Revenue Commissioners make subventions of one kind or another in respect of information received relating to alleged revenue offences. We need to put that suggestion to bed or have it confirmed because there seems to be some confusion among officials on the accounting side as to what is happening. The Minister should clarify that matter in the public interest.

I have been critical from time to time of the role of the Revenue Commissioners because there is a serious crisis in Government in regard to revenue collection. There is a crisis of organisation more than anything else. The public servants involved have my admiration because they have to tolerate the likes of us who change our minds from budget to budget as to the system of collection and the form of taxation we want. Those officials every 12 months have to get involved in new areas of taxation. It must be a most frustrating exercise for any public official but that is not to give an exemption to the fact that the system has become so decrepit and mismanaged, largely because of political action, that the revenue is not coming in as it should. As a consequence the financing of essential social services is gravely affected. A root and branch restructuring of the Revenue Commissioners under the various Finance Acts, under the Ministers and Secretaries Act and under the Constitution is needed. In my view that would be welcomed by the majority of the staff of the Revenue Commissioners and officials in the Department of Finance. Certainly, it would be welcome in the House.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. N. Treacy)

I propose to give particulars of expenditure by the Office of Public Works this year on the basis of the programme format contained in the Appendix to the Estimate for Vote 10 in the Book of Revised Estimates. Some changes have been made in the layout of the Estimate itself to give more information to Deputies, and to the public, about the activities of the office. The effect of these changes is that parks, harbours and waterways now have individual current subheads whereas, previously, they were grouped under the general maintenance provision.

Programme 1 — the Accommodation Programme — is by far the largest of the OPW programmes and a sum of £73,205,000 is sought for 1987. The largest entity within this programme is the capital building programme which accounts for £26,754,000. The building programme includes for both the construction of new buildings and the refurbishment of existing ones. These two aspects are exemplified in major projects now in progress at Dublin Castle, namely the construction of a new international conference centre, and the extensive restoration and development of existing buildings. These works are due to be completed in time for Ireland's next Presidency of the EC in 1990.

It is of interest to note that during the course of the site excavations at Dublin Castle, important ancient historical structures were uncovered. In order to ensure that these structures are preserved the scheme for the restoration and development has been amended and some of the structures found have been incorporated into the scheme as features which will be made available for public viewing. Deputy Noonan asked for a progress report on this project and I will endeavour to accommodate him.

New Government offices have been completed and occupied in Sligo this year. Staff from eight different Departments are now housed in the new building and it is hoped that the rationalising of Government services in this manner will result in a better and more efficient service to the public.

The Government decided at the end of April last to reactivate immediately the programme for the decentralisation of certain Government services of the Departments of Agriculture, Defence, Environment and Social Welfare to the towns of Cavan, Galway, Ballina and Sligo respectively. It is envisaged that the accommodation will be provided by private interests on the basis that they will meet all building costs and lease the properties to the State with an option to purchase. The developments will be constructed on sites in public ownership.

I am sure this decision has come as no surprise in the light of the Government's commitment to an active regional policy. We have been stressing for many years the need to initiate positive action which would go some way towards redressing the imbalance of development between Dublin and the rest of the country. It is a fact that the east coast of the country around Dublin has been developed more than other regions and the concentration of public services in Dublin contributes to this situation. The Government recognise this imbalance and intend that this trend be reversed in so far as is feasible by a decentralisation programme in respect of certain State services.

Not alone will such a programme allow public service personnel, if they so desire, to return to their native regions but it will also give a much needed and timely boost to the construction industry. It will foster the development of local service industries to cater for the demands which will be created by such a move and will be of tremendous benefit to the regions chosen.

My Office is proceeding with the necessary arrangements and I am happy to say that there has been a very strong response to the initial advertisement in the newspapers. We are pressing ahead to the next stage, with a view to having schemes started as soon as possible. The Government provided £1 million in the budget to accommodate the necessary expenses incurred in promoting, managing and bringing the initial part of this excellent programme to commencement stage.

Approximately £10 million will be spent out of the OPW Vote on building work for the Department of Justice. New or improved accommodation for the Garda accounts for £5.3 million of this programme. New District Headquarters and Garda stations at Tallaght, Dungarvan, Belmullet, Swinford, Sligo, Patrickswell and Aglish in Waterford have been completed during the past 12 months. Work is in progress at Roxboro Road in Limerick, Oughterard, Ennis, Tuam, Naas, Lucan, Ashbourne, Ardagh and Tramore. Tenders have been invited for a new divisional headquarters at Letterkenny and among major projects at an advanced stage of planning are Shankill, Tipperary, Watercourse Road and Togher in Cork, and the largest regional Garda project undertaken to date, a new divisional headquarters at Anglesea Street, Cork to replace the old station at Union Quay.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): Has the Minister got money for new starts?

Mr. N. Treacy

Work is nearing completion on a further stage of the Garda Headquarters at the Depot in the Phoenix Park which will house various services including the forensic unit. Also a new building for court staff at Inns Quay on the site of the former Four Courts Hotel is now practically completed and will be occupied on a phased basis over the coming months.

The Office of Public Works continue also to provide and maintain accommodation for embassy staff abroad and during 1986 a new embassy complex was completed and occupied in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The accommodation consists of a chancery and residential accommodation for the ambassador and other essential staff.

The commissioners' conservationist role is reflected in the provisions for the restoration of stonework at the Registry of Deeds and the Custom House. The work of restoring the stonework in the Custom House is progressing well and an improvement can already be noticed in the areas where work is completed. Indeed, I was glad to have the opportunity lately to observe at first hand the work which is being done.

Copies of the new works list have been circulated to Deputies. I have highlighted some of the major building projects being undertaken by the commissioners and do not propose to go through the full list. If any Deputy has a query relating to a particular project I will try to provide the information later.

The rest of Programme 1 is concerned with the routine costs arising on the extensive property portfolio for which the Office is responsible on behalf of the State. Office accommodation accounts for a large part of the total — there are approximately three million square feet of office space in the OPW's care in Dublin alone, but the Office's responsibilities include other buildings such as Garda stations and employment exchanges. Much of the total holding is State-owned but there is also a substantial proportion held on lease, and a sum of £20,049,000 is being sought in the current year to cover rents. The outgoings on maintenance and supplies are estimated at £14,750,000 and fuel and electricity are expected to account for £8,484,000.

Programmes 2 and 4 provide, respectively, for the survey and design, construction and maintenance of arterial drainage and embankment schemes, and the purchase and maintenance of engineering plant, machinery and stores required in connection with these and other engineering services of the Office of Public Works.

A total of £10,520,000 is sought for Programme 2. A sum of £250,000 is required in 1987 under subhead L.1 for survey and design work on four new arterial drainage schemes, viz. the Mulcaire, the Owenmore, the Suir and the Dunkellin and for hydrometric survey work involving the collection and analysis of data on many rivers throughout the country. This survey work is a valuable service providing much useful information on the country's water resources.

On the construction side which is funded by subhead L.2, the reduction by some £3 million in the 1987 provision, compared with last year's outturn, reflects the fact that major schemes on the Boyne, Maigue and Corrib-Mask-Robe rivers have been completed. This year sees the continuation of works on the Boyle, Bonet and Monaghan Blackwater for which a total of £6,770,000 is sought. Deputies will be aware that the Monaghan Blackwater scheme is a practical demonstration of cross Border co-operation, the success of which, I am happy to report, is reflected in the satisfactory progress of the works on both sides of the Border. The commissioners are fully aware that there can be no question of the allocation being exceeded and that all necessary steps must be taken to ensure that budgetary targets for the construction works are met.

The maintenance of completed arterial drainage and embankment schemes is met from subhead L.3 and an amount of £3,500,000 is sought for this service in 1987. This allocation shows a modest increase on the 1986 outturn but, bearing in mind that significant expenditure will be incurred on maintenance of the three recently completed schemes, it will be abundantly clear that there is an overriding necessity to ensure that economies are effected in this service.

Programme 4 provides for the necessary back-up of the arterial drainage and other engineering services undertaken by OPW in terms of purchase of plant and machinery, purchase of stores and payment of staff in the central engineering workshops in Inchicore. These workshops provide a wide range of engineering skills and equipment which are made available, countrywide, to the office's engineering fleet. A total of £1,578,000 is sought for this service in 1987.

Programme 3 covers marine works and a sum of £160,000 is sought to complete new harbour facilities at Roonagh Point, County Mayo, which involve the provision of a landing pier, access road and parking area. These new facilities are an important step towards improving the communications infrastructure for the islands off the west coast as Roonagh is the mainland pier serving Clare Island where improved landing facilities were provided by the commissioners some years ago.

Maintenance of the three State harbours at Howth, Dunmore East and Dun Laoghaire, together with a number of small piers, navigational lights and beacons around our coasts, will require, in 1987, a sum estimated at £1,779,000.

A sum of £173,000 is sought for the ongoing maintenance of coast protection schemes completed by the commissioners pursuant to the Coast Protection Act, 1963, and for the undertaking of a sampling survey of material in offshore banks in connection with the proposed new coast protection scheme for Rosslare Strand. The ongoing task of maintaining the direct sea defences at Rosslare Strand will continue in 1987 in order to prevent damage to valuable property at this important tourist location.

Programme 5 covers the parks and national monuments work of the office. The provision of £3,833,000 sought under subhead G covers the maintenance of national parks, national historic parks and other gardens and properties.

Ireland's national parks are an essential part of our heritage. They are among 3,000 protected areas listed by the UN and although conservation is the overriding objective, the other main aim is to provide visitor facilities in the parks so that the public can appreciate this heritage.

There are three national parks in Ireland which comply with the criteria set down for such parks; these are Killarney, Glenveagh and Connemara. A start has been made on the establishment of a fourth national park in the Burren, County Clare.

Glenveagh National Park was officially opened to the public in July last year and attracted a total of 85,000 visitors. This magnificant park contains a splendid new visitor centre incorporating an audiovisual theatre, a restaurant and exhibition areas. Glenveagh Castle was officially opened to the public in 1986; the refurbishment works are not yet completed and will continue throughout this year.

Killarney, which includes the three famous lakes, was our first national park. It is now well established but further improvements and extensions are made as resources permit. This year I expect to officially open Knockreer House and the interpretive facilities which have been provided there for the public.

There are four parks in the care of the Commissioners of Public Works which comply with the accepted definition of national historic parks. These are Derrynane, St. Enda's, Kilkenny Castle Park and Phoenix Park. In 1986 a management plan for the Phoenix Park was launched. The plan officially designates the park as a national historic park and recognises the importance of its historic buildings and landscape and its value as a centre for both wildlife and recreation. The management objectives are set out in the plan and work is well under way towards achieving those ends. A massive tree planting programme is continuing and will see 20,000 new trees planted by the end of the decade. Further road closures and traffic controls will be implemented.

It is also proposed to restore the park's unique gas lighting system and work will commence this year. Management plans are also being prepared for the other properties under the control of the commissioners.

The third category includes such properties as St. Stephen's Green and Garnish Island and it also covers the cost of maintaining the Glebe Gallery, County Donegal. The world famous artist Derek Hill donated his properly at Churchill, Co. Donegal, and his collection of paintings and other works of art to the State. A gallery was created from one of the outbuildings in order to display the paintings and other objects and works were carried out to the house itself to make it suitable for the public to visit it. The gallery was opened to the public in 1983 and the house will be officially opened in July. This will coincide with the unveiling of an exhibition of the paintings of Derek Hill to celebrate his 70th birthday.

I turn now to the Estimate for the National Monuments Branch for which a provision of £3,551,000 is sought. In this, the European year of the Environment, it is appropriate to say a few words about the contribution which the Office of Public Works make to the conservation and preservation of our built heritage, and which they have been making for over 100 years now. That contribution began when, following the passing of the Irish Church Act of 1869, a number of ancient church properties were vested in the Commissioners of Public Works. Today, there are over 700 national monuments in the direct care of the commissioners and over 2,000 other monuments have been afforded special protection under the National Monuments Acts. In all decades, the amount of work which could be done was limited by available finance and difficult choices had to be made when selecting which of our rich collection of ancient burial mounds, castles, abbeys, churches, round towers and archaeological sites would receive funds for conservation. Much has been done. Much yet needs to be done. At times the task appears daunting but the attitude and expertise which the office have built up over the years gives them the confidence to face the challenge with pride. In the parks and monuments service, conservation is a way of life. The staff are involved in many specialist areas and all are dedicated to the achievement of one goal, namely, the preservation of our historic built heritage. They are the recognised experts in the field of conservation, using old skills and modern, but appropriate, technology and methods to ensure that the monuments which were created by our ancestors, in some cases over 5,000 years ago, will be passed on to future generations to appreciate and admire.

This year, major projects will be carried out at some 30 of our national monuments sites and minor conservation and maintenance works will be carried out at many hundred others by a trained workforce of about 200. Most notable amongst the major projects are the restoration of Cormac's Chapel at the Rock of Cashel, the conservation of grave slabs and the provision of visitor facilities at Clonmacnoise, interpretive exhibitions at Boyle Abbey, County Roscommon and Aughnanure Castle, County Galway. I am pleased to announce that approximately ten acres of amenity land, which will comprise a future park adjoining the Casino, Marino, have been acquired and enclosing works have commenced there preparatory to landscaping the entire site.

I am also very pleased to reiterate the decision announced by the Minister for Finance recently that the Government will provide funds of £1 million over the next four to five years for Kilmainham Jail, to be used for conservation of the fabric of the building and for the provision of improved exhibition and visitor facilities. This year a provision of £200,000 has been designated to enable a start to be made on the programme.

The Office of Public Works, recognising that the most effective tool in the preservation of our monuments is a public well informed of the significance and importance of our antiquities, embarked on a programme some years ago for the provision of interpretive visitor centres at our better known monuments. This continues apace and this year a valuable addition will be made to the 15 sites at which visitor services are already in place. I speak of Glendalough, County Wicklow, where a £1 million development will be completed shortly to provide interpretive facilities consisting of guided tours, exhibition and audiovisual presentation for this very important and popular collection of national monuments. I expect that this centre will be opened to a limited extent to the public later this year and that it will be in full operation in 1988.

I might mention that, exclusive of Kilmainham Jail, the number of visitors who paid admission fees for interpretive service in 1986 was 335,674. Despite the fact that 1986 was recognised as a very poor tourist year, these attendances represented a reduction of only 5 per cent on the previous year and otherwise, were the highest yet recorded this decade. The guide information service helps to promote the attraction of the sites for visitors by highlighting their cultural and educational aspects. The service, which will employ over 50 persons in the current tourist season, is self-financing.

This year post excavation work is being carried out on the artefacts and materials recovered during major archaeological excavation completed at Dublin Castle earlier this year. This years work will be concentrated on researching medieval and post medieval ceramics, analysing botanical remains and interpreting Viking levels. The ceramics include pieces imported from throughout Europe and the Islamic world and the botanical research is revealing information about the diet of the Viking inhabitants. Interestingly, theirs was a high fibre diet. As I mentioned earlier some of the features revealed by the excavation are being retained and will, in due course, be accessible to the public.

Provision is also included here for grants totalling £80,000 for archaeological research purposes made in consultation with the Royal Irish Academy.

The archaeological survey of the country, the purpose of which is to locate and record all monuments so as to enable a comprehensive policy for their protection to be formulated, will make steady progress during 1987. Sites and monuments record for about seven counties are expected to be produced this year bring the total completed so far to 12. Inventories, which are descriptive, mapped records and which follow the completion of sites and monuments records, have been published for two counties and this year, a further county, namely County Meath, will be issued.

The special survey of medieval and plantation towns is also making steady progress and this year reports on at least six counties will be completed and made available to the relevant planning authorties to enable them to take account of archaeological factors when drawing up development plans and when considering planning applications. This will bring the number of completed counties to 13. The remaining counties should be completed in 1988.

A pilot survey of thatched houses in County Dublin has been completed and results are being studied with a view to devising a policy for the preservation of this threatened part of our vernacular heritage.

As Deputies know, new legislation which will provide better protection for our heritage than exists at present is currently before the House. The Commissioners of Public Works have prime responsibility for that heritage.

I trust that this necessarily fairly long account of the range of works, for which £3,551,000 is sought this year for the National Monuments Service, will serve to illustate how these necessary ongoing programmes will conserve and preserve our national heritage for present and future generations.

Programme 6 covers Inland Waterways and the provision of £2,399,000 sought this year will cover expenditure on the Shannon navigation, for which the commissioners have had responsibility for many years, and also expenditure on the Royal and Grand Canals, including the Barrow navigation, which were transferred to the care of the Commissioners last year under the Canals Act, 1986.

The development of the canals so that their full recreational and amenity value for the general public can be realised represents a major challenge, but it is one to which I am certain my office can respond. The planning consultants retained by the commissioners to carry out a study of the canals have completed the study and their report, which will contain detailed proposals for the future development and management of the canals will be available shortly. It is clear from the study that a significant level of co-operation between the Office of Public Works, other State bodies, local authorities and the many voluntary and community groups with an interest in the canals will be rquired in any programme for their future development.

In the meantime, priority is being given to increased maintenance work such as dredging, weed control, improved maintenance of the canal banks and replacement of lock gates. To this end, the sum of £1,589,000 is included under Sùbhead H of the Estimate for maintenance work on the canals. This figure represents an increase of approximately 25 per cent on the amount spent on maintenance of the canals in 1986 and is a clear indication of the importance which is attached to dealing with the backlog of maintenance which had built up in the years prior to the commissioners taking them over. The recent re-opening of the Naas branch of the Grand Canal, following a programme of extensive dredging, lock gate replacement and tree planting along the banks, has provided an additional pleasant amenity for the people of the area and a further stretch of navigable waterway for boat users to enjoy. I hope that it is but the first of many such restoration projects on the canals which my office will complete.

The balance of the Subhead H provision, £690,000, will be spent on the maintenance of the Shannon Navigation. Pleasure cruising on the Shannon has developed into one of the country's major tourist attractions and maintenance work on the various harbours, sluices, locks and other navigation facilities, which is carried out on a year round basis, ensures that the highest standards are maintained at all times. In addition to this maintenance work, the commissioners will continue their programme of new development works on the Shannon this year, with continued work on the extension of Lecarrow Harbour, with further improvements at Hudson's Bay and with the commencement of work on new mooring facilities at Galey Bay on Lough Ree. These developments undoubtedly will increase further the popularity of this area with boat users.

Programme 7 covers the President's household staff for which an amount of £86,000 is sought this year.

The administration of the office is covered in Programme 8 for which a sum of £14,061,000 is sought. This includes the salaries and wages of the staff as well as official travel and staff training and development. Deputies will note that the overall amount sought is down on last year's outturn, which reflects a reduction in staffing levels within the office.

Programme 9 covers income and it will be seen that receipts, expected this year to be £6,800,000, will be down substantially on last year's outturn. One of the main reasons for this decrease is that the OPW are no longer required to seek recoupment from county councils of expenditure incurred on the maintenance of completed arterial drainage schemes.

Before I finish, it is, I think, worthy of mention that the office also undertakes for other Departments, works such as prisons, fishery facilities and some court work which are funded from outside of Vote 10.

I will, of course, be happy to note any comments Deputies may wish to make on the Office of Public Works Estimate.

Miss Colley

On the public service aspect of the Estimate, I am disappointed at the apparent neglect in this part of the Vote, and in the Minister's speech. I checked the Estimate published in January and I find that it was for a sum of £12 million, which amounts to only one-third of the Vote for the Department of Finance. In looking at the figures tonight, that is not obvious, and I am afraid this reflects the lack of importance being given to the Department of the Public Service. I do not share Deputy Desmond's idea that it was a good move to merge the two Departments. He spoke of the dangers involved and he hoped they would not occur.

The Department of Finance have taken over the functions of the Department of the Public Service and the priority of that Department has been subsumed. If that Department were given the proper priority it would go a long way towards relieving the public purse in restructuring the Department. That has been left aside in the now reconstructed Department of Finance. When I last checked the pay bill in regard to the public service it was about £2.6 billion and the only way to reduce that was to reduce the numbers. That must not be done willy nilly but in a structured manner, a way which will not detract from the present structure of Government. I do not believe that with the Department of the Public Service now being subsumed in the Department of Finance we will see any development along these lines in the near future. I appeal to the Minister for Finance to consider what the priorities should be and to give priority to the restructuring of the public service as proposed in the 1985 White Paper which suggested possible solutions. Much progress could be made in bringing the State finances under control if there was a review of how the public service in general is run. It was my understanding that was what the Department of the Public Service were doing but the indications are that they are not being allowed to continue that function.

If we look at the increase in public borrowing over the past seven or eight years, which amounts to about £16 billion, and at the figure for the rise in unemployment, which is about 150,000, it becomes clear we have not been spending the money we have raised through borrowing in the right way. There should be a responsibility on each Department to report the progress they are making on various programmes, particularly those in relation to personnel, — I realise that essentially the Department of the Public Service dealt with that but responsibility for it could be devolved to other areas. Although Departments are accountable for the money they are spending they do not have to show that it gave a return to the State. We have borrowed an extra £16 billion in the past seven or eight years but we have not made proper use of it. While we have increased the number of State services and have increased the numbers employed by the State, we have not solved the country's problems.

In that time the industrial sector has contracted while the State sector has expanded. The problem has to be looked at very carefully and I do not believe that the Department of Finance as at present constituted will be able to tackle that problem. Very simply, if there is one Minister at the Cabinet table who is responsible both for restricting spending and allowing spending and also responsible for reform of the public service I do not believe reform of the public service will take precedence as money matters will take over. That has been the case up to now.

I had hoped the Department of the Public Service would have looked at the area of financial management systems as they are absolutely essential to the proper budgeting of public moneys. Most Departments do not have these systems. Until recently the Department of Social Welfare who have an enormous budget had no accountant employed to examine how that money was being spent. It has now one accountant. Departments are not called on to show whether the money which they are spending is being spent effectively. Financial management systems must be introduced.

Last year the Progressive Democrats suggested that a system of zero-based budgeting should be introduced in each Department, meaning that the figures for last year should not be just taken as read and added to. I think that is a system we will have to seriously consider introducing because if we go on the basis that the figures for last year were appropriate and should be continued we will never get to the point where we will review on a regular basis the spending in each Department. That is something which should be done constantly. That is a function the Department could carry out but I do not see it happening.

A restructured public service is the key to the recovery of our economy. We have invested heavily in State services, in money and in personnel. There is a huge number of people working in the public service and unless we restructure that service the country is not going to benefit in the way it should. We do not seem to know what we should do with the public service. Should we do as the Labour Party suggest and increase its size or should we do as we suggest and reduce it? I have not heard any member of the Government talking to any great extent about substantially reducing the number employed in the public service and I put it to the House that it is essential for us to do so if we are to move forward.

We need to widen our productive base. The State sector is placing an enormous burden on the Exchequer. As I have said already, the industrial base is contracting. We need to look at the problem radically because if we do not do so we are going to get radical solutions. There are thousands of dedicated public servants many of whom are not given the encouragement they deserve. They try to be effective but the structure of the public service does not allow them to do so. Some changes have been made in recent years and these have gone some of the way towards allowing them to be more effective, but once more I have to ask how is that momentum going to be continued? How are we going to allow our public servants to be as effective as they can if the structures work against them? The Department of the Public Service who were responsible for achieving that aim are now part of the Department of Finance and as such they have no clout in the matter.

Expenditure management rather than public service reform is going to and has taken over and that is a terrible pity. As I said earlier, the way to get the economy moving again is to make the public service slimmer and more productive. Otherwise, lack of planning will lead to things being done on an ad hoc basis and we will not achieve the ends we wish to achieve.

I would now like to refer to public service pay. I was glad to hear the Minister say he believed the figures were holding and that they will continue to do so. I would encourage him to stay on the path of keeping pay within the guidelines but I am not totally convinced there is not one rule for the semi-State commercial bodies and another for the Civil Service and the non-commercial semi-State sector. Most people have a perception that the Aer Rianta, Aer Lingus and ESB pay settlements contravened the guidelines which the Government have laid down and, perhaps, the Minister could tell us if this trend is going to continue. Is it the case that semi-State commercial bodies will be allowed to go over the guidelines simply because they are in the commercial world? If so, the Minister should say that quite clearly, that we have one rule for the commercial sector and another for the non-commercial sector. We have a pay claim that has been lodged by 20,000 civil servants, I believe, on reading the papers. This is being looked on as being a challenge to the pay guidelines the Government have laid down. I do not know if the Minister has decided what he is going to do about it, but I have no doubt that the civil servants will not accept the guidelines lightly. While I would urge him to stay within them, we need more than his just saying that he is going to do it. We need to see action on it.

Mr. MacSharry

I trust that the Deputy, as well as urging, will support it.

Miss Colley

Indeed, and we have supported it up to now. We have to know whether the Minister is differentiating between commercial and non-commercial semi-State bodies. The Office of Public Works, in a way, come in under the Public Service. I have been thinking about that office for some time. It seems that they are spending quite a bit of money on behalf of many individual Departments and the Departments themselves do not have to account for that money. It is not spent by the Departments under their Votes. As a result, the realisation of the cost to the Exchequer of certain projects and the ongoing costs of maintenance and other aspects perhaps are not realised by the individual Departments. I would favour a system whereby individual Departments had to account for that money when it had to come in under their Vote rather than under that of the Office of Public Works.

I am not saying that I would like completely to abolish the Office of Public Works without further thought. They do much very creditable work and I was very interested to hear the detailed statement of the Minister of State. I would certainly commend the Office of Public Works for some of the work they are doing, particularly in conservation, restoration and so on. That does not mean that I do not see other Departments doing it as effectively. The essential thing in terms of the Public Service is that each Department should know what is being spent on their behalf and not alone know, but be responsible for it. Would the Minister consider that in the future?

I end on a query. Could the Minister elaborate on the difference between the figure in the Estimates published in January and the revised published Estimates for Vote No. 50, or 51 as it was known then? That is for the increases in remuneration and pensions. There is a difference of £10 million on an initial figure of £16 million, an allowance made of £6 million. Perhaps the Minister would elaborate on that.

Mr. Leonard

The Minister of State referred to programme 2 of arterial drainage and mentioned in particular the Monaghan Blackwater scheme. This is the first cross-Border scheme embracing both sides of the Border, with the main channel forming the Border for upwards of ten miles. We had separate contracts for north and south and the contract for the main channel. This is the first real indication for people in the Border region of practical cross-Border co-operation which was a substantial benefit to the farmers on both sides. It brought back into production thousands of acres of good farming land in an area where the farms are small. I should like to compliment the Office of Public Works on their progress to date and on the way in which they have applied themselves to that scheme in a short 12 months period. The funding was provided partly by the EC under FEOGA aid and by the two sovereign Governments. It is particularly satisfactory to a person like myself who has been involved in cross-Border co-operation, in meetings and in the compilation of projects which it was felt would be beneficial to both sides of the Border.

Included in that scheme with the Monaghan Blackwater was another cross-Border scheme, the Finn-Lackey scheme. While no mention has been made of that, we would hope that with the provision of a headquarters in Monaghan, with a substantial building, workshops and repair units which would be there as a permanent fixture, that the Finn-Lackey scheme would be next in line. The Office of Public Works, in the past number of years, have been carrying out a hydrological survey of the wonderful Ballinamore-Ballyconnell canal. I hope that the result of the survey will soon be published. With the present emphasis on the development of tourism the opening up of the tourism potential of that area would be a practical approach. If that canal were developed as it was intended to be when first constructed, to link the Erne and Shannon systems, it would constitute one of the finest waterways in Europe. This is an area with tourism potential and here again we have our friends across the Border placing much emphasis on tourism development also. Seemingly, they will use the moneys being made available under the agreement towards the development of tourism. That would be a positive approach.

I notice that the customs clearance stations are also provided by the Office of Public Works, along with the roads stations. We have one customs clearance station on the Dublin-Derry road, a national primary route, just north of Monaghan town. A number of years ago when that clearance station was being erected, I made the point in this House that it had been moved half a mile down the road away from the built-up area. I knew that it was being moved from a hazardous position to an equally dangerous position. The position now is that large articulated trucks are parked on the roadway. On the surrounds of that station there are large areas of greenery. For a small outlay of £5,000 to £7,000 the grass could be removed and the area tarmacadamed. This has been brought to the notice of the Department on numerous occasions. I ask the Minister to consider this possibility.

I compliment the Department on the Blackwater drainage scheme. I hope the scheme will be continued because it would give a real lifeline to areas. The Minister said that the commissioners are fully aware that there can be no question of the allocation being exceeded and that all necessary steps must be taken to ensure that budgetary targets for the construction works are met. I believe there is a set capital allocation for the Blackwater drainage scheme. I think 100 workers are employed on the scheme at present. It was hoped that this number would be increased by a further 10 to 20 per cent. This is the time of year, when the weather is good, that the capital allocation might be increased.

Mr. MacSharry

I sincerely thank Deputies for their contributions on this debate. They said at the start that they would be short and sweet and they all were but this did not in any way diminish the importance of the subject matter raised by all of the Deputies. While I will do my utmost to reply to the points that were raised as they were raised, I may leave some out but I will try during the course of my reply to get all the information that was requested and to give it to the House.

For the third or fourth time in recent days I can assure Deputy Noonan, Deputy Colley and others that the targets are being met. There is no doubt whatever about the Government's determination to ensure that both the expenditure and revenue targets will be achieved at the end of the year. Deputy Noonan rightly pointed out the position that emerges at the end of June in every financial year, and definitely as far back as 1982 when I last had the honour to hold this position before. We all know that because of the way the major proportion of tax comes in between October and December, at the end of June figures can be misconstrued to the effect that the budget deficit has already been surpassed at the end of the six month period. Many Deputies have had ministerial experience and understand perfectly what the position is. I have no doubt that the targets will be met but if for any reason there may be some slippage action will be taken. I think every Deputy realises and accepts that we cannot continue the way we did for the past ten to 14 years. It is not sustainable. If we are to have democratic control we must take action. The Government have taken and will continue to take action to ensure that we begin to reduce the huge level of borrowing.

Deputy Noonan and all other Deputies referred to pay policy. In my budget speech I said that we, like what the previous Government proposed in January, will not be making any additional provision for pay increases beyond the expiry of the 25th round. That is the position and it will remain so. There is no money available to meet any pay increases.

Deputy Noonan referred to the review body on higher remuneration. He asked what were they doing and why was there money in the Estimates for them. They produced an interim report during the previous Government's time and it was left to the incoming Government to deal with that report. We have deferred it indefinitely but the review body are continuing to produce their final report which will be presented to the Government. This is why additional moneys have been made available for the review body in this year's Estimates.

Reference was made to the reappointment of the arbitrator. The arbitrator will continue to operate until 31 July. Therefore, the matter does not arise at present. I am sure the matter will be discussed between now and then. I want to refer to some of the points raised by Deputy Desmond, Deputy Colley and Deputy Noonan in relation to the Department of the Public Service, one of which was, I understand, about the continuation of the top level appointment committee. This committee have done very useful work and all of the relevant appointments, with the exception of some in the sensitive areas like Finance and Revenue have been made as a result of recommendations made by that committee.

I have some details on the structure of the Department which I would like to give to Deputy Noonan. We now have two full blooded central Departments in one. Obviously, the structures that existed in two full blooded central Departments will look very top heavy in relation to structures in other Departments but I think these structures are very necessary. There are three secretaries; the Secretary of the Department of Finance, the secretary for national debt management and the secretary for public service management. Those positions were put in place out of necessity. There are also two second secretaries, two deputy secretaries, and 13 assistant secretaries. It may appear to many that that structure is very top heavy but bearing in mind the workload that falls on the personnel in what were two major central Departments which have now become one they are necessary in the interim. I can assure the House that we will be looking at these structures very carefully to ensure that there will not be an overburdened top heavy structure in any Department, including the Department of Finance.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): Are all of these permanently attached to the Department of Finance or are some of them subject to reallocation?

Mr. MacSharry

Nobody is subject to reallocation or redeployment in any part of the public service since the budget speech. As of now they are in the Department of Finance. That could be reviewed and could change.

In raising a very important point I am delighted that Deputy Noonan gave me the opportunity to emphasise policy in relation to the exchange rate. There is no doubt that the Government must maintain the value for our currency. That is fundamental to our survival. Speculation was raised by top personnel in recent days and I totally dismiss it.

My colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, has dealt quite extensively with some of the points raised in relation to arterial drainage and decentralisation. Deputy Noonan raised the issue of the £1 million allocated for the decentralisation programme. A totally different approach is being taken to decentralisation by this Government than was taken by us before when in office. There have been a large number of inquiries from parties interested in building these offices in the four locations decided upon by the Government and subsequently leasing them to the Government with a view to purchase by the State. The intention is that we will end up having rented accommodation at a lesser rate than obtains at present where these offices would be housed. The Minister of State, Deputy Treacy has already said that that is the beginning of the reintroduction of the decentralisation programme. I assure Deputies that it is the resolve of the Government to continue to pursue that policy vigorously.

I have already referred to the point relating to the Review Body on Higher Remuneration. I have referred to most of Deputy Noonan's points. It is not that I want to delay the House at this hour, but I want to avail of the opportunity to reply to all the matters raised.

Deputy McDowell referred to the Revenue Commissioners, the task force and the new computer. I am sorry that he is not here now. The Deputy was very critical of the Revenue Commissioners. I must defend the Revenue Commissioners in the way in which they operate. New Deputies like Deputy McDowell will soon learn that his constituents think that the Revenue Commissioners are over-efficient in the way in which they pursue tax arrears. Every Deputy in the House gets letters from constituents, companies and individuals, asking him to intercede on their behalf with the Minister for Finance or the Revenue Commissioners because of how efficiently and effectively the Revenue Commissioners and tax inspectors are doing their job.

Miss Colley

That could be a misconception.

Mr. MacSharry

Perhaps, but I must try to state the facts. Customs and excise law was raised by Deputy McDowell, who suggested that it be updated and revised. I am not in a position to respond to his comments but I will have the points carefully examined. Deputy McDowell and others referred to the national lottery. The funds allocated by the Government are broadly in line with what was decided by the previous Government. While Deputy Desmond suggested that there would be as much as £14 million in additional revenue, he is probably suggesting a sum of 100 per cent or 150 per cent more than might actually accrue. There will be additional funds and when these Estimates are passed we will be in a position to release the funds available.

There is to be a question on the Adjournment about the lottery but I will refer to it briefly now. It has been an outstanding success. It behoves all of us in this House and particularly those who have responsibility for allocating the resources, to be seen, for the benefit of those who have participated in the lottery, to be using their contributions to provide useful facilities and services for the arts and culture, sport, the Irish language and health services. That is important. There has been some adverse publicity about the lottery but the way in which it is being supported and the contribution it can make in the areas outlined will be seen as a very useful exercise and as a very important source of funds for the areas mentioned. The Government will decide which way additional resources over and above the £7 million will be spent.

Deputy McDowell also mentioned the withholding tax on professional fees for those involved in borrowing on behalf of the State. They will be statutorily subject to withholding tax just the same as anybody else.

Miss Colley

Stockbrokers?

Mr. MacSharry

Deputy Desmond made a point about the Department of the Public Service no longer existing. It has been completely integrated into the Department of Finance and the integrated Department is working efficiently and effectively.

The Revenue Commissioners, like any service, have room for improvement. It is not good for taxpayers to hear statements being made about tax arrears of £700 million being collectable. It is essential that we realise that much of the amounts stated as being outstanding or collectable are not outstanding or collectable. I have referred to that in a number of areas in recent days.

Reference has been made to the Revenue Computer. The Revenue Commissioners provide to the Department of Social Welfare, after the end of each tax year, a tape for input to the social welfare computer giving particulars, supplied by employers in relation to their employees, of the social insurance deductions made during the year and this information is updated at a later stage as the P35 returns come in from employers. That is not satisfactory and I agree with what Deputy Desmond was saying. I hope that we have not moved too far from the stage where we can have the integration that he has rightly suggested not only here but in other debates and at Question Time. Deputy Desmond asked if the Revenue Commissioners pay informers in any way, or at least that was what was implied in the question. In Vote 9, subhead F, there is provision for law changes, fees and rewards so I assume — I am not sure — that some rewards are given in some instances by the Revenue Commissioners. To get a more detailed reply to that, perhaps the best process would be to put down a parliamentary question and I will do my utmost to reply to it.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): There is a figure there of £250,000 for secret service work.

Mr. MacSharry

That is for a different Vote. It has nothing to do with the Revenue Commissioners. The secret service is to deal with Justice and Defence mainly.

Deputy Desmond spoke to Vote 9, subhead F, and the control of the Revenue Commissioners. The Revenue Commissioners Order of 1923 which established the board of commissioners called the Revenue Commissioners conferred on them all the functions which were formerly exercised in the State by the British Commissioners of Inland Revenue and the British Commissioners of Customs and Excise. Paragraph 9 of that order provides that the Revenue Commissioners shall, in the exercise of their duty, be subject to the control of the Minister for Finance and shall obey all orders and instructions which may be issued to them on that behalf by the Minister for Finance. The intent of that provision appears to have been to subject the Revenue Commissioners to the Minister for Finance so far as the general control of their staff was concerned and their qualifications and hours and conditions of service, but not to involve the Minister for Finance in matters relating to the assessment of taxes payable by any person. So far as that is concerned, the commissioners have to act independently and judicially. That is the way that Order has been interpreted since 1923 by successive Governments. That covers the points made by Deputy McDowell and Deputy Desmond.

Deputy Colley is disappointed I did not spend more time in my initial remarks talking about the expenditure on the public service of the Department of Finance. She is absolutely correct in this, but I had hoped there would have been even more contributions to the debate tonight, although important contributions were made from all sides of the House. I could have spent all of the time allocated to this debate speaking on all of the detail that would be available on the 19 Votes before the House for debate. I tried to refer to some of the points I thought should be highlighted, and others have been raised to which I am now doing my best to reply. If Deputy Colley were Minister for Finance — I have no doubt that some day she will be — she would realise as I have, the responsibility and the work involved in the integrated Departments which occupies a great deal of time of the Minister for Finance and that the restructuring she referred to on a few occasions in her address will continue to be a priority. In the last couple of months we have ensured that the input that was there and the expertise and experience that have been built up since the divorce that took place between the public service and the Department of Finance will not be lost. That brings me back to my reply to Deputy Noonan about the existing structure and the new structure in the Department of Finance which could be suggested by many as top-heavy. I assure Deputy Colley I am very concerned about the points she raised in that regard.

Miss Colley

The retraining branch or a good number of them are now a task force with the Revenue Commissioners. That is hardly consistent with keeping the public service together.

Mr. MacSharry

I do not think that retraining was the most important aspect. It was an aspect and it is still there. They are not all gone. I could not agree more with what Deputy Colley said about financial allocations to Departments. She is probably correct in suggesting that last year's figures of expenditure or outturn were more or less taken as the starting point for budgetary discussions on what might be spent in the next year which is utterly ridiculous. What is required is detailed examination of every item of expenditure under every subhead in every Vote to ensure that we are getting value for money in every area of Government activity. We have already begun to examine that very seriously and I assure the Deputy that process will continue.

Deputy Colley talked about a reduction in numbers in the public service and we are committed to that. We must have a slimmer and more productive Civil Service and we are working towards that end. Everybody involved in the administration of Government, the Houses of the Oireachtas, the public service, the public sector and the public at large must realise that if we are to do anything to overcome the horrendous problems we have with over 245,000 people unemployed, we must expand our productive base. There is absolutely no other way we will get out of the difficulties in which we now find ourselves with the imbalance in the public finances.

The question of public service pay has been raised by all Deputies. In relation to the issues that have arisen, bearing in mind what has been said in the Budget Statement and since then, that we have had matters affecting ESB, Aer Lingus, Aer Rianta, An Post and BTE all either resolved or about to be resolved and that other discussions and negotiations will take place in relation to public service pay, the Government are discussing all aspects of expenditure, unemployment and taxation with the social partners, as they are described, including the ICTU. Those discussions will continue in the weeks and months ahead and I hope we will be able to come to a sensible approach for all concerned. It never can be in this economy any more "them against us", no matter who "them" and who "us" are. It is a question of all of us in the difficult circumstances we find ourselves in trying together to overcome the difficulties. That is the only way we will begin to make progress.

The last question Deputy Colley raised was the difference in the original Estimate for 1987 and the provision of £16 million to meet the commitments which were then expected to arise on pay and pensions throughout the year. On coming into office, the new Government examined all the Estimates including the Estimate for remuneration and pensions. Arising from that examination and from the new policy on special pay increases in the public service which I outlined in my budget speech the Government decided that a figure of £6.7 million would be sufficient to meet all of the demands in Vote 50. This represented a saving of £9.3 million on the original figure. That remains the position and £6.7 million is believed to be sufficient to meet all the demands which will be made on the Vote. Most of that additional resource was in relation to special increases which have been discontinued, as the Deputy knows, since my budget speech.

Deputy Leonard raised some very important points which the Minister of State referred to already. I can assure the Deputy that we have taken careful note of some additional points he made.

That covers most, if not all, of the points raised in the course of the debate. I know we have quite a bit to do to go through the 19 votes now.

Vote put and agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister has already moved the appropriate motion in respect of Vote No. 1 but I require him to move the formal motions in respect of the other 18 Votes, that is in respect of Votes Nos. 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 50.