Richard Bruton
Question:84 Mr. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance the Government’s attitude to plans of the EU tax Commissioner to deal with vehicle registration tax. [26662/05]
Other Questions.
Tax Code.
While The European Commission has published a proposal for a directive on car taxes, nothing has been decided at this stage. The Commission proposal has not yet been discussed by all member states although these discussions will commence shortly.
In essence, the Commission proposal supports the gradual abolition of registration taxes which it believes impact on the functioning of the Internal Market. However, the aim of the proposal is that such registration taxes would be replaced by circulation taxes which would have a CO2 element.
We are willing to enter into the debate with the European Commission and other member states of the EU about the merits or otherwise of this proposal. However, from our perspective, it must be said that VRT provides significant revenue to the Exchequer —€946 million last year — which is used to fund vital public services. The collection of this tax is also very cost efficient, with the large majority of transactions now being on-line. In addition, its existence, while obviously not popular, has not impacted negatively on car sales in the State. Latest data show a 12% increase in new registrations to the end of September compared with the same period last year and strong sales are expected next year.
We regard VRT as a national tax that falls within the national competence. The mix of taxes, their levels and rates are a matter for EU member states based on legitimate choices. As regards the balance of taxation, Ireland has prioritised tax reductions on income earned by employees in preference to other tax areas, and this policy has helped create record employment levels.
While we are open to considering environmentally based tax measures, we again see this as an area for member states to decide themselves. Notwithstanding this point, I accept that the Commission in its proposal is attempting to design a structure which ideally would go some way towards incentivising behaviour that reduces carbon emissions and as discussions commence, we will be interested in the further views of the Commission in this area in conjunction with the views of other member states.
The Minister gave quite a clever answer. I must admire his capacity to go a little bit of the road with everyone.
Unlike his usual stance.
I can be reasonable at an early stage in discussions.
This tax adds 61% to the price of a car and a high cost to the price of commercial vehicles. The argument being put forward is that it is not the ownership but the use of vehicles that has damaging environmental effects. Will the Minister elaborate on his thinking on this tax measure? He has recited the argument for and against it. He thinks this tax is an easy way to gather revenue because the consumer is a soft target in the car market and as the market is booming he might as well roll in the money while he can. He is also saying there is merit in examining the possibility of putting in place a more sensible environmental structure.
Taking a long-term view, does he agree that it is time Ireland recognised that extremely high rates of VRT are out of line, that we need to reduce them over a long period to ensure such a change does not disrupt public finances and that we need to examine a more environmentally sound basis for raising tax from the motor sector? Does he agree it is time to consider such a policy in more open terms rather than trying to avoid being committed to either side of the debate?
I hate taking the long-term view of looking to the third tenure of this Administration in case it upsets the Deputy opposite. In this regard, I can look to the longer term.
The Minister can dream on.
The year 2007 is not that far away.
Is the Deputy involved as well? I did not realise that.
The Minister's party might be talking to his party yet. It should keep that door open.
The point to be made in this regard is that this proposal is at an early stage. The Commission has an idea and, as Deputy Bruton knows from his ministerial experience, many a proposal has been put forward by the Commission on which it was difficult to maintain a consensus when subjected to the white fires of domestic politics in the Council of Ministers. I could take the easy road and suggest that we will consider this positively on the basis that I know it is not imminent, but rather than taking both sides of the argument I make the point firmly that VRT is an important part of our tax system in terms of what it raises in revenue for the country. We must take that into account in terms of the mix of policies we have, including reducing taxes and keeping taxes on employment low, because that is a strategic view we have taken which has proved successful in terms of attracting foreign direct investment, generating economic activity and creating jobs for our people, which historically it could be argued was the major challenge facing successive Governments since we gained independence.
I listened this morning to some people who promote the interests of the car sector and they said that this proposal was imminent and asked why would we not begin to address this immediately. That is a narrow sectional view to take. I make the point clearly that this tax accounts for €1 billion in revenue, it has that benefit and it has not affected, as Deputy Bruton said, people being able to own their own cars which people need for transport purposes.
If the Commission has come forward with an idea that seems to be good and sends all the right signals, we should discuss it. However, I make it clear that if it is an attempt to harmonise taxes or bring the EU into an area of competence in regard to which we have carefully negotiated ourselves to a position where we retain our own competence, this is a fundamental issue. It is an issue I raised in regard to aviation fuel tax and one I will raise in regard to this and other areas where I consider a principle is being conceded which would have wider ramifications than simply the benign measure that has been suggested here.
Has the Government carried out a study on what would constitute a more environmental approach? We see a great number of what can only be described as mini tanks driving around areas in Dublin 4 where the roads, or their surfaces at any rate, would be in a much better state than those of the farm roads in Laoighis-Offaly. Has the Government undertaken a study on how we might take a more environmentally sensitive approach to this issue?
We also have a few of those vehicles in our part of the country. Now that we are operating in a higher energy environment, the question of energy efficiency, the use of alternative fuels and securing greater efficiencies is something countries must consider now, as was discussed with ECOFIN. At an informal ECOFIN meeting held by the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, in Manchester a few weeks ago, this issue came up for considerable discussion because of the ramifications of higher oil prices for the future. There is also a responsibility on car manufacturers and others, as the Deputy said. This morning I heard people who defend the car industry suggest that the CO2 emissions from these newer vehicles are less than the level of emissions previously. They regard that as a plus.
From our point in regard to this measure, we will carefully consider its ambit and scope. I set out in my reply a number of important considerations from this country's point of view as we seek to examine what way we can move the issue forward with the Commission.
Thought should be given not only to reviewing VRT but to the wider reform of motor taxation. Despite the increase in figures the Minister cited, people should be encouraged to own cars, particularly because of the Government's policies in regard to public transport, but where the use of cars is avoidable, especially in urban areas where public transport should be available, that is where the focus of our taxation policy should be.
The Minister's earlier crack in regard to energy tax convinces me that he does not understand that tax measure. It is a tax per volume rather than an ad valorem tax. If the Minister did what the ERSI recommended and reduced VAT and excise duties, whenever an increase in inflation in fuel prices occurs, the tax would remain the same. One need only compare the idea of vehicle registration tax and annual registration tax to the approach in other jurisdictions where as much as possible the bias is placed on the usage of vehicles and not on engine capacity. It is placed more on the effect to which Deputy Burton referred, namely, the effect and weight of the vehicles as much as on access to public transport in communities. If that is not the approach taken, as the Minister said in his reply, vehicle registration tax only exists to give the impression that we are lowering other headline taxes such as corporation tax and personal income tax.
It is a discretionary tax in that respect. We are all open to environmental initiatives. If someone can think up a way whereby €1 billion euro can be discarded, just like that, it would be interesting to know how the public services he or she wants can be maintained. We cannot have it every way. There are environmental initiatives to be looked at and we can look at this one. However, as Minister for Finance, I am entitled to make the point that there are revenue implications here which must be considered.
Decentralisation Programme.
Róisín Shortall
Question:85 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Finance the list of properties which have been purchased, leased or where contracts to purchase or lease have been entered into arising from the Government’s planned decentralisation programme; the amount spent to date; the total anticipated spend in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26635/05]
Shane McEntee
Question:90 Mr. McEntee asked the Minister for Finance his estimate of the cost of the property commitments in the early mover decentralisation locations and the number of locations within the decentralisation programme which will have buildings available for occupation by the end of 2006. [26697/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 85 and 90 together.
I would like to emphasise once again that the Government is committed to the full implementation of the decentralisation programme. This programme is a major undertaking involving the relocation of 10,300 civil and public servants, 60 Departments and offices and more than 56 different locations around the country.
When?
Order please.
It is probably one of the biggest infrastructural projects undertaken by the State in recent times.
From the OPW's viewpoint there are two main aspects to the programme: the identification and procurement of suitable sites and the construction and fitting out of buildings on these sites. Overall, the programme of site identification and acquisition is progressing satisfactorily. To date, property acquisition negotiations have been completed or significantly advanced in 23 locations.
In Athlone, the Curragh, Navan, Furbo and Sligo, OPW owned sites have been identified and will be used to accommodate decentralised offices. In Longford and Newcastlewest, sites have been acquired from the relevant local authorities. Privately owned sites have been purchased in Buncrana and Clonakilty. In Tullamore, the OPW has entered into an agreement to purchase an office block when it is completed in September 2006.
From whom?
Contracts for sale have been received in a further 11 locations including Carlow, Donegal, Dungarvan, Killarney, Knock, Portarlington, Portlaoise, Thurles, Tipperary, Carrick-on-Shannon and Thomastown. Other locations at which site acquisition is at an advanced stage are Cavan and Trim.
The total purchase cost for the 18 non-OPW owned sites, together with the building in Tullamore, is estimated to reach €35.7 million. Of this amount approximately €13 million is in respect of sites acquired from local authorities and State agencies. The overall site acquisition cost of the entire decentralisation programme is expected to be in the region of €75 million to €100 million, excluding VAT.
The average cost per acre to date is about €430,000. The cost per acre ranges from €65,000 in a rural location to €3.8 million for a prime development site in a town centre location. The prices paid to date for sites are considered by the OPW to be in line with market prices. The OPW's decisions to acquire sites are based, inter alia, on professional valuation advice, which reflects the prevailing market conditions in the locations concerned. Factors which influence market conditions for sites in a particular location include zoning, accessibility, proximity to amenities, and the general supply of, and demand for developments sites. By end 2006, it is expected that permanent buildings will be available for occupation in four locations. These buildings, together with temporary space, which is being sourced in a number of locations for advance decentralisation groups, will provide accommodation for upwards of 1,000 civil servants by the end of 2006.
The OPW is continuing negotiations to secure sites and property solutions for the balance of locations involved in the programme and significant progress in this regard will be achieved over the coming months. In summary, I want to reiterate that the site acquisition programme is proceeding at a pace which will facilitate delivery of the decentralised office accommodation within the indicative timescales set out in the decentralisation implementation group's June 2005 report.
Does the Minister of State not consider an average cost of €430,000 an acre for decentralised sites to be an extraordinary price? Is the Government intent on driving up land prices in the 53 decentralisation locations, with knock-on consequences for local businesses and indeed for young people trying to buy houses in those areas?
The Minister has indicated that he now expects only 1,000 civil servants to be decentralised by the end of 2006. In a previous answer to me he indicated that only around 130 will be decentralised by the end of 2005. That indicates that to the end of 2005 decentralisation will have cost about €230,000 in site costs per civil servant moved. Is this not turning out to be one of the most costly exercises in the history of the State? I do not want to hear about a hut in Ladd Lane being sold for an extraordinary price. If the Minister of State gets good prices, that does not mean that he can go on a drunken sailor's spree as regards buying land in decentralisation locations throughout the State.
As regards the price I indicated, which was an average between €60,000 and €3.8 million, it reflects almost exactly the market situation. I recommend the Deputy to travel around the country to see what is happening in rural towns.
The Minister of State does not need to patronise me. Just as he knows about Dublin, I know a good deal about matters outside the capital. There is no need to patronise me.
Perhaps she should be more up to date, as indicated by the fact that she is surprised by the figure of €430,000. One of her Labour Party colleagues in the Seanad referred to the God-forsaken places down the country that some Departments are being sent to. I have not heard the Deputy withdraw that particular statement on behalf of her party. There is a vibrant property market in the country and it is important to note that the €22.3 million we got for a one acre site in Dublin compared to the €430,000 on average around the country still reflects very good value. There is further speculation that a site which we will be offering to the market shortly may make in the region of €50 million per acre in Dublin. It is a matter of location, location, location. We have striven to get the very best locations for the decentralised offices. The €430,000 accurately reflects the current market value of land throughout the provinces.
A different controversial site, at Thornton, cost €200,000 an acre. That was an extraordinary increase in land values. The Minister of State is basically celebrating driving up land values at 53 locations around Ireland. It is great for the landowners, the speculators, auctioneers and the people handling the legal deals because they are all on percentage cuts. What about the young couple trying to buy a house in an area or the local business person who is trying to compete with the prices that the Minister of State and his friends are artificially driving up? He is telling the House, in effect, that he is proud of inflating property values because he is mismanaging the decentralisation process so abjectly.
How can he justify the movement of only 150 civil servants? Only 100 have gone so far and 50 more may go by the end of the year. By the end of next year, he has just told the House, 1,000 may have shifted at a total cost of up to €40 million. Where is value for money for the poor old taxpayer in this?
The Deputy mentioned the Thornton site, which comprised 150 acres within ten miles of O'Connell Street, as recommended by experts, and bought for development. That was the market value of that particular site.
The site next door sold for two-thirds of that amount.
I have listened to the Deputy's questions. I would like the opportunity to answer them. As regards the 150 civil servants that will be decentralised before the end of this year, those are people who have gone as advance groups. I cannot click my fingers and create buildings. Also, it is a voluntary scheme and we are involved in intense negotiations with the trade unions representing the civil servants and making progress.
We are only going on what the former Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, said.
Some 9,000 have applied to go. A further 13,000 have applied to decentralise since the closing date of the early move, or since the end of September.
He said there would be 1,000 by the end of 2006.
There will be 1,000 by the end of 2006. I can go though the figures for 2007 because we have laid down indicative dates. As soon as the buildings are complete the people will be ready to move.
Is the Minister of State confirming that only five of the 77 locations that were to be entirely moved by the end of 2006 will even have buildings available? There are only five locations, and only two, Tullamore and Sligo, will have any staff moved. Therefore the deadline set by the Minister as a critical test for Deputy Parlon's performance as Minister of State seems to have been totally abandoned.
We have yet to hear about the building costs for the newly purchased sites. The Minister of State referred to €75 million for the purchase of the sites and €900 million for the total cost of moving. I examined the figures on decentralisation. Is it not the case that less than 10% of staff in the vast majority of the organisations designated for an early move have indicated a willingness to move? How will staff be moved with the haste intended by the Minister of State, as demonstrated by the building work already under way, if 90% of staff and in some cases more than 90% of skilled essential staff in the organisations in question have indicated they wish to remain in Dublin?
Will the political ambition to be seen to deliver have a serious impact on the capacity of the organisations affected to deliver? This is an important issue which the Minister of State has never addressed. He has never told us what serious risk assessments have been done by the organisations on the impact of the move, particularly as so many people do not want to move and so many key skills will be lost as a result. The danger is that the next report of the Comptroller and Auditor General will state that while all the buildings have been constructed and sites acquired, the Departments were unable to move because no staff planning has been carried out.
The Minister of State indicated that the Office of Public Works is in the process of buying 75 acres of land to accommodate the early movers and their 3,000 staff. How many square feet of property will be vacated in Dublin as a result? I presume this is how the State will secure a payback on its investment of €900 million. How many sites will be vacated in Dublin and where are they? The Minister of State must provide this information given the revenue from vacated sites was held out as the quid pro quo for committing €900 million to the decentralisation programme.
In addition to property considerations, there are many positive reasons for taking the decentralisation route. The purpose of the programme is to promote essential balanced regional development. Given that the Government encourages incoming multinationals to locate throughout the country, there is no reason it should not put its money where its mouth is. Decentralisation will provide a massive impetus in this regard.
To address an issue raised by Deputy Burton, thousands of civil servants spend hours commuting from towns and villages located within an 80 mile radius of Dublin. Decentralisation will offer them an immense opportunity to improve their lifestyles.
The buildings for the first five candidates will be completed and staff will be at their desks in the five decentralised locations. The following tranche of buildings will be under construction and some of them will be semi-complete. I have provided indicative dates, all of which I can provide to the Deputies, but all the early movers will be finished by 2007. The term "early movers" is used for the first group of organisations because of the large number of staff who applied to move under the central applications facility and the availability of property solutions. There is no difficulty in this regard.
This week, intense negotiations will take place between management in the Department of Finance and the IMPACT trade union, which represents the most difficult sector in terms of the professional grades involved. I have no doubt solutions will be found for all the human resources problems. Decentralisation is entirely voluntary and a commitment has been given that those who choose to remain in Dublin will have gainful employment and career opportunities. The programme will provide significant career opportunities to civil servants in place around the country and those who move outside Dublin.
Does that mean staff who do not move will not have career opportunities?
The Minister of State did not answer either of my questions. I asked about the fact that in the vast majority of the organisations affected, less than 10% of staff indicated a willingness to move. Will it transpire that, having committed to buildings and sites, insufficient staff will be available to run services in the new locations? What square footage is being vacated in Dublin? The Minister of State went off on a tangent instead of answering those questions.
I answered the Deputy's earlier questions. As I stated, the decentralisation implementation group, an independent body chaired by Mr. Justice Fergus Flood, has indicated there will be no difficulty in terms of factors such as the loss of skills. The reason certain Departments have been included on the early mover list is that no difficulties are envisaged and a large number of staff have signed up for the programme. Those who applied may not come from the original Department. Staff are already switching Departments. For example, in the Office of Public Works several people——
How can we allow members of staff in a non-related Department or agency join the Health and Safety Authority as inspectors? We want the organisations affected to do their job effectively. We do not want to fit square pegs into round holes.
Of the 10,600 civil servants affected by decentralisation, approximately 1,000 are specialist staff while the others are ordinary civil servants from various grades. Transfer to other Departments does not present a difficulty because civil servants currently transfer between Departments all the time. It will not impinge on efficiency by virtue of the fact that members of staff choose to move to a different Department.
The Minister of State should read the individual reports.
I anticipate that the ability of staff to work in a Department of their choice in a location close to where they live will have a positive impact on efficiency and eliminate the need to commute for five or six hours per day.
How much property will be vacated in Dublin?
I do not have the specific figure to hand but expensive, valuable property owned by the State will be vacated. In addition, the State will be in a position to surrender leases which are costing it substantial amounts of money. Property in Dublin 2 fetches the highest prices for lease or purchase in the State and, as such, the programme is positive from the point of view of property.
As the Deputy will be aware, to meet its additional accommodation requirements, the Oireachtas will make extensive use of the building which houses the Department of Agriculture and Food. Already, a substantial amount of office space in the building in question is being used by parliamentary assistants to Deputies. Approximately 130 members of staff at the Department of Agriculture and Food have already moved into temporary accommodation in Portlaoise in advance of the Department's new headquarters being built in the town. I note also that the Department of Health and Children recently decided to move out of Hawkins House temporarily. Everyone agrees the building offers the most horrendous accommodation one could find for civil servants.
It is moving to the north side of Dublin.
Yes, and a commitment has been given that the Department will move back to Marlborough House, the current headquarters of the Department of Education and Science, as soon as it moves to its new decentralised offices in Mullingar. A definite plan is in place and I assure Deputies it will work out positively.
Will the Minister of State send me the details I sought on the properties being vacated?
I will furnish the Deputy with all information available to the Department.
The Minister of State indicated that thousands of civil servants will have moved by the end of 2006. Did he specify a figure of 3,000?
The actual number of posts within the five Departments in question is 555 but I expect, with the advance movements of other Departments, that the figure will increase to close to 2,000 by the end of 2006.
Economic Growth.
Michael D. Higgins
Question:86 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Finance if he will make a statement on his Department’s recently published economic review and outlook for 2005. [26628/05]
As is usual my Department published the annual economic review and outlook, ERO, in mid-August. The economic forecasts for 2005 contained in the ERO were based on data to the end of July. The ERO forecast was broadly unchanged in overall terms from that published on budget day, with growth in real GDP again forecast at 5.1% and growth in GNP revised upwards slightly from 4.7% to 5%.
The composition of the two forecasts, however, was different. The forecasts for domestic demand were significantly strengthened in the economic review and outlook. In particular, the forecasts for personal consumption and investment were increased as lead domestic demand indicators such as retail sales, tax revenues, etc. indicated the domestic economy was growing more strongly than anticipated on budget day. In addition, the projected increase in employment in 2005 was revised upwards on foot of strong data for the first quarter of the year. However, weaker than expected trade data and higher oil prices prompted a significant reduction in the forecast contribution from net exports. The forecast for growth in exports of goods and services was reduced from 7% to 3.9%. My Department will update the ERO view on budget day in December. Account will be taken of all published data since July when framing the budget day forecasts.
Has the Minister read recent commentary indicating that the economy is softening? A number of forecasters have suggested a revised figure for economic growth of 3.5% for this year. What would be the implications of such a development? Yesterday's Exchequer figures, for instance, showed an increase of approximately €1 billion in VAT receipts, whereas revenue from corporation tax and income tax, once the special collections by the Revenue Commissioners are subtracted, is softening, particularly as regards the former. Has the Department carried out an analysis of the reason for the decline in corporation tax? What are the implications? While American multinationals are big players, what is the impact of the continuing strength of the dollar on the Irish economy, corporation tax outcomes, and employment in the multinational sector in this country?
As the Deputy states, there are more downside factors coming into the equation on the international economic scene than would have been the case six months ago. The energy issue is certainly one of which people would be much aware. It is against a background of world trade growth, which is still strong when one looks at the emerging economies such as India, China and other Asian economies. The American economy continues to defy some of the odds, despite some downsides in terms of its imbalances, both fiscal and budgetary.
The point we would make is that this situation must be managed. This country is achieving growth rates much higher than our European counterparts. Officially, there is recession in Italy. There are the difficulties of high unemployment in Germany and France. Compared to some of these European economies, one aspect that is different in Ireland is the strong domestic demand and that is a stronger component in our growth than would have been the case previously. It is good that we have that domestic demand. Indeed, the Achilles' heel of the European economy is that they cannot generate any and that is having its effects on them in terms of higher unemployment — double our unemployment rate.
This is an issue which must be managed. The Department does only two forecasts in the year, one in August and one on budget day. If we were doing one every month one would take into account developing data all the time. As I say, we must wait for the final quarter and see what is the final issue.
On corporation tax the trend evident all year has been one of just about meeting the profile. In some cases, it is down.
On exports, we are seeing a reduction in the profile in terms of an increase, from 7% down to 3.9%. These are competitiveness issues of which we must be mindful and we must make sure, in the context of our social partnership talks and our policy responses to some of the higher energy environment issues arising, that we make the right choices. Unless we concentrate on increasing productivity and making sure we maintain our position in the international marketplace, we put at risk the volume of goods and services that we can provide which is the means by which we have generated the activity, created the revenues and created the jobs.
While the macro-economic environment is good in Ireland, there is never any room for complacency. As I stated, the downside factors have increased. The international environment is getting a little more difficult. The European economy certainly needs to take some strategic decisions, structural reforms that would greatly help us given the shape, nature and destination of our exports. It is an issue we must manage and certainly we are conscious of that as we prepare our estimates and budgetary position.
Would the Minister comment on a concern of mine? Over a period a little longer than two years, exports growth rates have fallen from 15%-16% to 3% and the figures indicate that 40% of the extra employment has now been generated in the construction industry. The figures also indicate that in the housing market there is a significant volume of vacant houses. What worries me is that while our growth was driven traditionally by a strong export sector, with exports driving growth, we are now, as the Minister stated, in a position where construction is predominately driving growth. Is this a much more fragile basis on which to build our economic performance and must we be a little more concerned about the problems occurring in our export sectors?
Employment in export industries has fallen consistently for nearly six — certainly five — years. The IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland stable of jobs is falling off quickly. Is this a serious issue, that we need to get back the balance between the development of these critical export sectors based on technology and productivity, and the construction industry which is now dominating the scene? Clearly there are limits to the construction industry's growth.
This brief supplementary question relates to Deputy Bruton's questions. Is the Minister concerned about what happened Hospira in Donegal? That multinational company made significant investments in plant in this country in recent times and yet pulled out at short notice with consequent enormous losses of jobs. Everyone must be concerned about the kind of marker that may indicate for the future.
In reply to Deputy Bruton, the components of the growth are changing all the time. We have an issue with manufacturing industry about which we must be mindful, both in terms of international mobile investment which continues to be strong and in terms of the strategy Enterprise Ireland is undertaking in building more successes in the SME sector and in building bigger Irish companies. There is a strategic framework in place.
There is still a significant sector of our manufacturing industry which is low-paid, that is, between the minimum wage and the average industrial wage. There are a couple of hundred thousand people in the manufacturing sector from traditional industries which are with us since the 1970s and the 1980s, and much of our taxation policy has been geared towards trying to ensure that those industries are prolonged and remain with us for as long as possible. It points up the fact that there is no room for complacency. We all talk about building a knowledge economy. We must make sure that we take the necessary strategic decisions which enable that to happen to the greatest extent possible.
As I stated, there is no complacency on this side of the House in terms of the challenges that continue to face us. Among the public and some commentators, there is a view that the economy is on automatic pilot and it does not matter who is in here at all. The fact is we need a strong handle on the economic management of the country and we must watch for the competitiveness issues. One of the challenges of the social partnership process and dialogue into which we are entering this winter is to ensure that we focus on the need for more productivity in the exposed sectors to which Deputy Bruton referred so that we can generate the revenues to continue with the improvements in public services that we all desire.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.