Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs debate -
Friday, 18 Jun 1993

Vote 1 — President’s Establishment.

Vote 2 — Houses of the Oireachtas and the European Parliament.
Vote 6 — Office of the Minister for Finance.
Vote 9 — Office of the Revenue Commissioners
Vote 11 — State Laboratory.
Vote 17 — Office of the Ombudsman.
Vote 10 — Office of Public Works

I would like to inform Members that the Committee of Selection has reported that it has discharged Deputy E. O'Keeffe and Deputy Kavanagh from the select committee and has appointed Deputy Ó Cuív and Deputy Seán Kenny as substitutes for them. On behalf of the committee I welcome both Deputy Ó Cuív and Deputy Seán Kenny. Deputy E. O'Keeffe is acting as substitute for Deputy Martin.

The agreed timetable is that the Minister will make an opening statement from 10 a.m. to 10.15 a.m., the opening statement on behalf of Fine Gael will be from 10.15 a.m. to 10.30 a.m., the opening statement of the Progressive Democrats from 10.30 a.m. to 10.45 a.m, and the opening statement of the Technical Group from 10.45 a.m, to 11 a.m. Following that, from 11 a.m. to 12.50 p.m. there will be a general question and answer session on the Finance group, excluding the Office of Public Works, Votes 1, 2, 6, 9, 11 and 17 and the concluding statement from the Minister will be from 12.50 p.m. to 1 p.m. There will be a general question and answer session on the Office of Public Works Vote No. 10 from 1 p.m. to 1.50 p.m, and from 1.50 p.m. to 2 p.m. the Minister of State at the Department of Finance with special responsibility for the Office of Public Works will conclude.

Chairman and committee members, it gives me great pleasure to introduce the Estimates for the Finance group, including the Office of Public Works, to the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs. It is the first time the Finance Estimates will be considered by the select committee. In that sense we are making a little piece of history here today. I congratulate all who have been involved in bringing this and the other committees into operation and I wish your committee well in its future work.

I will endeavour to give every assistance possible to the committee members. If aspects are raised for which I do not have an immediate response, I will communicate the information later to the Member concerned.

Before turning to some of the individual Votes in the Finance group, I would like to make brief observations on the more general economic and public finances background.

The Irish economy has performed well in recent years. Our rate of economic growth averaged around 5 per cent per annum over the over the last six years, well above the European Community average. Over the past two years, while the international economy experienced a sharp slowdown and some of our major trading partners were in deep recession, our economy continued to expand at a reasonable, if somewhat reduced, pace.

I am reasonably optimistic about the prospects in the present year. Following a difficult period in the final quarter of 1992 and into the early part of this year, when activity slowed down because of the currency difficulties and high interest rates, the economy now appears to be picking up again.

In overall terms, my Department now expects our growth rate this year, in gross domestic product terms, to be 2.75 per cent, among the highest in the European Community. This compares with our view at budget time that growth would be about 2.5 per cent. The more optimistic view now is largely due to the fact that interest rates have fallen a lot faster than had been anticipated — they are now virtually the same as those in Germany. This should provide a boost to both consumption and investment as the year progresses.

Our level of employment has been kept up at a time when many of our fellow EC members states have seen their levels of employment fall. With several large European economies now in recession, it is no mean achievement that we in Ireland have managed to sustain growth and employment at this difficult time.

I would now like to say a few words about the public finances generally. One of the key developments in recent years was the reduction in the Exchequer borrowing requirement from 9.8 per cent of GNP in 1987 to a target level of 2.9 per cent for 1993, as stated in my budget speech last February. Over the same period, the national debt to GNP ratio has been reduced from 129.3 per cent to an expected level of 104 per cent by the end of 1993.

This sustained adherence to a policy of debt and deficit reduction has helped to underpin the confidence of the financial markets in our economy, and has played a crucial part in bringing our interest rates down.

The improved economic outlook since the budget will undoubtedly help to ensure that our overall budgetary targets for 1993 are met. The first quarter Exchequer returns have confirmed that this expectation is well-founded, and I am confident the forthcoming end of June quarter returns will indicate that the trend is being maintained.

To turn to the Finance group of Votes specifically, excluding the Office of Public Works, the group comprises of 13 separate Votes covering a wide range of services, with a net provision of over £291 million for 1993. I can only comment in the time available on some of the more prominent Votes.

A Vote in which Members have a direct interest, Vote 2, covers the Houses of the Oireachtas and the European Parliament. There is a sizeable increase, of the order of 25 per cent, in the Estimate, which comes to nearly £29 million. Apart for the Programme for Economic and Social Progress related increase in the pay bill, the major elements contributing to the increase are new arrangements which have been introduced in the past six months in relation to severance and superannuation benefits, and expense allowances of Members of the Oireachtas as recommended in Report No. 35 of the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Service.

Another factor influencing expenditure is the introduction of standing committees, such as our own committee here, with their associated servicing and operational costs such as travel, subsistence and Members' allowances. The costs involved in the televising of the committees' proceedings have also been taken into account.

I now turn to Vote 6, the Vote for the Department of Finance. The provision mainly covers expenditure of an administrative nature. The Estimate for 1993 shows an increase of about 12 per cent and amounts to nearly £24 million. The increase arises in two areas: — administrative costs of the Department have risen mainly because of salary increases and increments in 1992. If these elements are taken out of the picture, and account is taken of allowable additions, the figures show a 2 per cent reduction on 1992. This result is in accordance with the administrative budget requirements.

The second area of increase is consultancy services. This expenditure arises mainly in connection with the sale of State shareholdings in Irish Life and with costs associated with the Government's intention to develop a third force in banking.

The third Vote to which I shall refer is that for the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, Vote 9. The bulk of the increase of 7 per cent on the Estimate arises for pay and allowances for approximately 6,100 staff. The Estimate total is over £130 million.

The completion of the Single Market on 1 January 1993 has necessitated major administrative and legislative changes in the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. The office has taken on responsibility for the vehicle registration tax, new arrangements for the collection of trade statistics and for the VAT information exchange system. The Customs and Excise service has been reorganised with much greater resources allocated to detection of drug trafficking and enforcement.

Amidst all the changes, a major decentralisation programme has also been put in place. Last year saw the decentralisation of over 300 Revenue staff to Ennis and Nenagh. Staff from the Collector General's Office have also begun to decentralise to Limerick and in the coming weeks over 150 staff will be transferred. The move to Limerick will continue on a phased basis resulting ultimately in the transfer of over 550 staff. These moves express in a very practical way the Government's commitment to regional development and rolling back of centralisation.

The final Vote to which I wish to refer at some length is Vote 10, the Office of Public Works. The total amount sought is over £105 million, an increase of nearly 6 per cent on 1992. It is intended to refer to the office's activities under broad programme headings.

A sum of £54 million is sought for Programme 1, the accommodation programme, which is by far the largest programme in the Office of Public Work's operations. Within this, nearly £20 million is required for capital building. This covers the cost of erecting new buildings as well as adapting and refurbishing existing buildings to meet the State's accommodation requirements.

Expenditure on Garda buildings will be some £4 million. Work has already begun at a number of sites throughout the country, Cahir, Roscommon, Milford and Midleton. The modernisation of stations at Togher in Cork and Glenties, County Donegal, will also be completed. The third and final phase of the current redevelopment project at the Garda Training College, Templemore will commence in 1993 and involves the provision of a new and modern physical education block.

Also included in the accommodation programme are funds for Departments' accommodation. The main expenditure is on the fitting out of a building in Mespil Road to serve as the headquarters of two new Departments, namely the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht and the Department of Equality and Law Reform.

A sum of over £3 million is required for employment exchange buildings. A new employment exchange at Navan Road, Dublin, will be completed and work will begin on a new exchange at Tallaght. The extension and refurbishment of the Government offices in Carlow, which include Carlow employment exchange, is underway with completion expected early in 1994.

Work will continue on the major £6 million refurbishment of the 1968 wing of the National Gallery of Ireland which commenced in 1992 with a two year completion date.

Another notable project is the restoration of the renowned "Turner Curvilinear Range of Glass Houses" in the Botanic Gardens, a sum of nearly £2 million is included for this.

Necessary remedial work on cladding defects in Agriculture House, Kildare Street and at the Meteorological Office, Glasnevin are also included in the programme.

A contract has been placed for extensive repairs to the perimeter roofs of the National Museum of Ireland. Major works to the central roof were carried out a few years ago. Replacement of the heating system, will be completed this year.

Progress continues on the implementation of decentralisation. Deputies will be aware of the importance the Government attaches to this policy of decentralisation which is giving the opportunity to substantial numbers of people to return to their native areas on a permanent basis. The very desirable long term objectives of helping to reduce regional imbalances and pressure on the Dublin area are also being achieved. Offices in Longford and Cork are under construction and will be occupied by the end of the year. Work on the Tullamore project should commence shortly. Preparation work is in hands in relation to two other centres at Portlaoise and Wexford.

The Commissioners of the Office of Public Works are currently examining accommodation in Leinster House. The setting up of the new committees requires that we look in depth at the accommodation needs of both Houses. When the Commissioners' report is to hand, arrangements will be made to have discussions with the appropriate bodies to agree an overall approach and a programme for implementing the plan.

Programme 4 covers our national parks and wildlife services. The expenditure of over £9 million includes the cost of projects which will be part-funded by the EC Structural Funds for tourism-related projects.

Provision has been made for the general management and maintenance of the five national parks, 72 nature reserves and other State-owned lands acquired for conservation. Among the more noteworthy projects which will be dealt with this year are the continuing moves to eradicate rhododendrons at Killarney and Glenveagh National Parks where the introduced species is threatening the survival of our native oak woods. A number of research projects are also in progress, notably on our internationally important raised bogs at Clara and Raheenmore in County Offaly.

Work on the visitor centres for the Burren and Wicklow national parks and the Boyne Valley has been suspended following a recent Supreme Court judgment. In the light of this decision, the Commissioners of Public Works has been instructed to undertake wide-ranging consultations with all interested parties over a two month period, following which my colleague, the Minister of State, will make a decision on the nature of the proposals for which planning permission will be sought.

Programme 6 of the Office of Public Works provides for the National Monuments and Historic Properties Service for which over £18 million is sought, including £9 million for capital services.

There are over 700 monuments in State care and the bulk of the allocation will be spent on the conservation of these monuments. National monuments in State care include the Rock of Cashel, where major works are continuing to Cormac's Chapel. Other Office of Public Works national monuments sites where major works will continue in 1993 include Newcastle West, County Limerick; Tintern Abbey, County Wexford; Fore Abbey, County Westmeath; Barryscourt Castle, Charlesfort and the French Prison, all in County Cork. Continuing works at Carlingford Abbey and Donegal Castle are being grant-aided through the EC INTERREG programme.

Just over £9 million is sought under the capital and EC tourism related programmes. The project at Clonmacnoise is nearing completion, while the new visitor centre at the Ceide Fields in north County Mayo was recently officially opened. Ross Castle will also be completed this year. At the Corlea Bog, County Longford, work commenced early this year on a visitor centre building which will display part of the trackway found in the bog. I am delighted that the work completed last year on saving the bog, and thereby conserving the unexcavated ancient trackway, has proved extremely successful.

The administration of the Office of Public Works is covered under Programme 9, for which £20 million is sought. This cover staff salaries as well as travel charges and the cost of office expenses, machinery and various services necessary for the efficient running of the office. This programme is governed by the administrative budget agreement, the current phase of which concludes at the end of this year. Other important programmes of the Office of Public Works, which time does not permit me to discuss in detail, are for arterial drainage and inland waterways. Committee members will, however, be particularly interested to know in this area that work on the Ballinamore-Ballyconnell Canal restoration, to link the Shannon and Erne systems, is nearing completion. The link will be fully open to navigation next year. This is a most significant cross-Border project that should give a marked boost to the tourism and commercial potential of the whole area traversed by the canal.

Finally, Chairman, I wish to conclude by thanking you for your attention. The Minister of State and I shall be pleased to answer any questions that the Members of the committee wish to raise.

This debate by its nature is brief, speakers have just 15 minutes in which to contribute. Some of my colleagues will deal with the Office of Public Works and the details involved. I wish to deal with three principal areas. The first is public sector pay because the Department of Finance incorporates the former Department of the Public Service. The second area is public expenditure controls, there is a public expenditure division within the Department of Finance and the third is the unit of the Department of Finance which is responsible for exchange rate policy. The Minister for Finance is charged with that area of responsibility and since last year's Estimate this area has been of vital national economic significance.

Regarding public sector pay, the Programme for Economic and Social Progressis due to expire in December this year. It is time to take stock of the combined effects of the Programme for National Recovery and the Programme for Economic and Social Progressbetween 1978 and 1993. Over that period inflation increased by 18.9 per cent according to figures from the Central Statistics Office for the consumer price index.

Average industrial earnings in the manufacturing sector have increased by 28.5 per cent and the total public sector pay bill has increased by 46 per cent. This does not include the £216 million which has been deferred to 1 January next year. This is made up of incremental payments, arrears and pay increases which are the releasing of the capping and ceiling introduced last year. In overall terms, therefore, the public sector pay bill has increased by two and a half times the rate of inflation during the period of these national agreements. Public sector pay has increased from £2.75 billion to over £4 billion in the same period. This cannot be explained by an increase in public sector numbers. I understand from officials in the Department of Finance that the numbers working in the public service in 1987 were 216,000 and the figure is now approximately 205,000. There has been a 50 per cent increase, in broad terms, in public sector pay while their numbers have decreased. Does the Government intend to repeat this level of wage inflation and increase in public sector cost? The taxpayer cannot sustain these increases which are not in the interests of economic growth and employemnt.

What is in the public interest? There is unanimity among all political parties that the employment crisis is the top national political priority and the Government must pursue policies that will minimise this. There are already approximately 300,000 unemployed and since there is a labour market growth of 2 per cent or an additional 20,000 school leavers looking for jobs each year, we must acknowledge there is a direct trade-off between pay increases and the level of job opportunities.

In its annual report last week, the Central Bank emphatically stated that the ingredients for economic growth were low inflation and control and order of the public finances. Public sector pay moderation is essential to control wage inflation and keep public expenditure down. Currently, over half of all public expenditure is represented in public sector pay. The cost of providing public services such as education or health, etc., is increasing. The administrative cost is also rising and while I accept that some areas are highly skilled and labour intensive, the cost is becoming still too high. Moreover, excessive public sector pay increases means more taxation. The first instalment of that was provided for in this year's budget. Taxation this year is due to rise by at least 7 per cent, in nominal terms, on last year's revenue. Increased taxation destroys jobs. The 1 per cent income levy is a direct tax on employment; it increases the tax wedge and the tax burden and reduces net take-home pay and the incentive to work. It also increases the cost of employment and sustaining jobs.

All these add to the tax take which is the difference between gross and net pay. Our gross wage costs, in certain competitive exposed sectors, are higher here than in Northern Ireland and the UK, but the net pay of the same workers is lower —we lose both ways. We lose on competitiveness and the real value of workers is diminished.

Similarly, there have been other tax increases. We will not go into the probate tax now but there has been an increase in VAT on clothing and footwear, which directly destroys jobs. The Culliton report clearly stated that tax reform is the best way to convert economic growth into employment growth by reducing the tax burden on work especially for the lower paid. Tax reform cannot be financed if all available resources of economic growth are spent on increased public sector pay.

The Government must now set out its position clearly on clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress— the local pay bargaining clause. Heretofore, it has said it will not be paid. The Minister for Finance was specific on this point when he said he could not afford it. Now, this is to be negotiated and there is a difference between the payroll neutral and the Exchequer neutral measures for the Minister and Congress. It is clear that, in many areas of the highly skilled public sector such as education, there is no scope for productivity changes that could allow the local pay bargaining clause to be met.

I understand from IBEC in the private sector that, on average to date, only 1 per cent has been paid to private sector workers under clause 3 in the local pay bargaining area.

I acknowledge the special problems of low pay in the Civil Service, which affects about 5 per cent of civil servants. This level of low pay is relative to similar clerical employment in the private sector and can best be rectified by changing the incremental structures and promotional opportunities, specifically for clerical officers and assistants. I support payroll neutral and Exchequer neutral measures that would allow greater productivity and flexibility in work practices. There has been a reluctance in the past to restructure and reorganise which would not cost any more but which would give rewards to those who take technology and other changes into account.

It should be remembered — and it needs to be highlighted — that, between 1986 and 1992, there was a wide variation in pay increases within the public sector. In this period a secretary of a Department got a pay increase of 102 per cent, a principal officer got one of 76 per cent, and a clerical officer received approximately 30 per cent.

I wish to set out my party's view on a new pay deal. In the last election campaign we said the Programme for Economic and Social Progress should be honoured. We voted against the Programme for Economic and Social Progressin the Dáil but a deal, whether one likes it or not, when agreed should be honoured. However, should there be a new deal between now and October? Obviously, there has to be some form of negotiated settlement, but it should not be paid for at any price. The indications over the last few weeks is that this subcommittee of the Cabinet is prepared to pay any price to get a deal. Real increases in living standards should come about through tax reductions. With the 1 per cent income level, private sector workers became worse off while public sector workers got the benefits of substantial increases in pay.

From now on, we must return to the conditions inherent in the Programme for National Recovery. Tax reform should be negotiated with pay increases so that real, rather than gross, increases in pay should come about through tax reductions. This would not only affect all workers but give an overall economic benefit in competitiveness by reducing the tax takings. Therefore, any new deal should be conditional on the removal of the 1 per cent income levy and there should be progressive reductions in income tax imposed on the lower paid. The optimum solution — I am being specific here because someone must draw a line in the sand, given the Government’s weakness in this area — is to have a pay pause in 1994 and no pay increases beyond the level of inflation for the two subsequent years as inflation is at a low level. If the public sector pay bill increases by between 5 per cent and 15 per cent per annum, all the fruits of economic growth forecast for the next four years will not be of benefit because it would all be frittered away in public sector pay increases.

Within this, it is possible to increase public sector pay for some people because of reductions in tax and through productivity and restructuring. However, there should be an overall ceiling on the public sector pay bill as the taxpayer cannot afford to pay for increases in the cost of public sector pay agreed to in recent years.

There is a need for transparent criteria in regard to which an arbitrator could work in relation to special pay increases. The present situation, principally based on case law, is not satisfactory. The new criteria should specifically include direct regard to the State of the public finances, the ability of the taxpayer to pay and, particularly, the agreed economic and fiscal parameters set out in the Maastricht Treaty for economic convergence.

It is interesting to note that, last week, the Central Bank also stated that, at 3.4 per cent Exchequer borrowing requirement of GNP, we had stretched to the limit of what was prudent. In overall terms, our competitiveness, as well as our job prospects, are best enhanced by such a stance on public sector pay.

The second area I wish to address is that of public expenditure control. It is clear that the Government proposes increases in public expenditure and consequent increases in taxation. This year, public expenditure will rise by at least 7 per cent, while inflation is now down to 0.9 per cent. This has to be financed by a 7 per cent increase in taxation. However, this year's Estimate did not take any account of the need for £175 million of equity injection for Aer Lingus or the double Christmas social welfare bonus, only £1 million was provided for the Beef Tribunal when the cost will exceed £20 million. On 1 January, next year, added to the opening deficit will be the public sector deferred pay commitment of £216 million and the commitment to abolish the income levy costing £130 million. The receipts of privatisation are being included as a current revenue item of £150 million. This will not recur. When the Greencore shares are sold they cannot be resold. These measures will result in a deficit of £500 million in next year's budget. This will have to be provided for in further taxation, given that this Government does not have the courage to cut public expenditure.

Public expenditure is growing in real terms and stands at £10.5 billion. What measures are in place to scrutinise value for money and exercise control on such rampant expenditure? The absence of an independent watchdog to control public expenditure is a major gap in our public institutions and administration.

The role of the Comptroller and Auditor General is limited to historic auditing, regulating and accounting of previously expended public money. His role is that of ensuring compliance with the purpose of such expenditure and its correctness. Nobody scrutinises future or current public expenditure.

Each year spending Departments submit their bloated estimates for the following year to the Department of Finance, which then pares them down to a 3 or 4 per cent increase. No transparent process of analysis is in place to reduce the cost of our public services. On a daily basis, lobby groups articulate cases for increased expenditure without anyone arguing on behalf of the taxpayer. In the Civil Service, debates on expenditure control are confidential. Secretaries of spending Departments are appointed accounting officers. However, experience shows that spending Departments become lobbyists in Government for pressure groups in their own sector.

There are many areas of wastage, overlap, duplication, ineffectiveness and inefficiency in the public sector. A new office, a public expenditure controller reporting directly to the Dáil, must be established. This office would be similar to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Approximately £200 million in public expenditure could be saved through the recommendations of such an office, which would be independent and fair.

Competitiveness does not apply in the sheltered public sector. There is a distinction between the issue of public expenditure accountability as opposed to control. This also applies to local authorities which, in combined ways, spent £1.2 billion, but there is no centralised group.

The currency crisis highlighted the fact that we cannot operate without a clear policy. The Government has no policy in this regard. The Central Bank is renowned for its reticence on commenting on day-to-day issues. We must realise that the markets see a direct link between Sterling and the value of the Punt. When Sterling devalued and left the ERM, it was regarded by the markets as unsustainable for us to take the view that the Irish Punt was worth 1.06 or 1.08 against the pound Sterling.

We must note with concern the prospect of inflation recurring in the UK economy. Their competitive advantage from devaluation will be frittered away. The UK would lose competitive advantage from devaluation which, in the medium term, would spiral into a similar currency crisis as that of the past year.

It is unacceptable to work on the basis of crisis management without a coherent policy in the long term. I call on the Government to state if it intends to be part of European Monetary Union, if Sterling is not part of such a single currency. If such convergence does not take place, if the Maastricht European Monetary Union does not proceed and a Deutsche Mark block currency is established involving, for example the Franc, the Dutch Gilder and other hard currencies, will we join such a group, given Britain's absence in the short term?

It is untenable of the Government to have the objective of maintaining a hard currency policy. When the markets act, they will be obliged to devalue. It is clear, from recent reports from the European central banking system, that the Bundesbank will not rescue every currency which finds itself in difficulty. Therefore, we must have a durable policy which is understood by the markets and adhered to in all circumstances. The best interest of the Government, given the national debt of £27 billion, may not be in the interest of the exposed sectors of the economy, particularly, indigenous industries exporting to the UK and those affected by imports at cost advantage from the UK or Northern Ireland. We can accept the option of staying in a narrow band without joining a fixed currency. By pursuing a strong currency, we may reap the benefits of flexibility and stability of low inflation. However, it must be remembered that the British Prime Minister Mr. John Major made one fundamental mistake. He thought that by linking sterling to the Deutsche Mark, low inflation would follow and the necessary economic fundamentals would be correct. That did not happen. If the fundamentals are correct, the currency will look after itself. Regardless of whether we are tied to the Deutsche Mark the fundamentals must be right. It is not good enough for the Government to muddle through and wait for another disaster.

If it is the Government's intention to join the European Monetary Union, we must put in place credible economic, incomes and fiscal policies, which will benefit all concerned. The rhetoric of Government Ministers in relation to the fundamentals of the economy did not prevent devaluation in the past and will not do so again. If the fundamentals of the economy are right in terms of a tight income and fiscal policy, we may maintain our position. Yet, there is little evidence that the Government is committed to such real economic disciplines. At present, there is no pressure on the punt and I call on the Government to lead a national debate in this regard, setting out our policy for the rest of the decade.

I will go through the different Estimates and signal areas which should be discussed. Perhaps the Minister might reply today, although I understand the point he made in his opening statement regarding questions which must be dealt with at a later stage.

Given what Deputy Yates said, it is incumbent on me to make one or two general remarks. He referred to the state of European union, future economic choices and the direction we should follow in terms of narrow bands and a single currency. He also spoke about the need for a durable policy. A durable and flexible policy is emerging in terms of a European consensus. Regarding the second stage of economic and monetary union, we will engage in a process involving durable and flexible policies described in relation to the founder of Fianna Fáil by a historian as a period of constructive ambiguity.

I understand the former EC Commissioner, in an address today will make some interesting points. According to news reports he will suggest that we should sort out our economic house before we contemplate any wider foreign policy questions. Furthermore, democracy and a market economy cannot be sustainted in central and eastern Europe if development measures are not implemented. Western Europe will pay a price if it ignores foreign issues. If the import of the former Commissioner's remarks is in that direction, it will not find any resonance in Irish public policy in that regard.

The issue of public sector pay, is germane to the issue with which we are dealing today. I do not want to develop a long thesis on it this morning but, following Question Time earlier this week, I had the opportunity to consult my two colleagues who were in the Cabinet with the Minister and they dispute his characterisation of their anxieties on public service pay. If the Minister would care to comment——

I will answer that one later, Chairman.

I expect you would not allow an opportunity like that to pass, Minister.

(Interruptions.)

I am such a shrinking violet I might wilt under the weight of the Minister's criticism. On the issue of public sector pay we have now reappointed an abritrator who, presumably, will be intensively involved in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress clause 3 local bargaining process. The Minister has talked to us about the desire for Exchequer neutral bargaining. I wish to ask questions and put down markers on this issue. Extra pay increases will be shown in the Estimates but I am not clear as to how the increased productivity for which such pay increases will be be granted will be reflected in the Estimates. Even if the same level of public service is available with the same number of public servants providing the same level of service, productivity can yield potentially up to 3 per cent of the gross value of the public sector pay bill. It may or may not do that and as the Minister said in the House the other day he does not want to anticipate it.

Given all that it is extremely difficult to measure output in the public service. I would like to hear the Minister's view of the matter. How might one anticipate savings to meet extra expenditures? One is entitled to fear in the absence of transparency in measuring productivity and not seeing productivity and savings, that this would be nothing more than for a further increase in pay. One is entitled to know how one measures those outputs. The Minister should show us the off-setting productivity saving in an Estimate if Exchequer neutrality is the real meaning of what he is saying and not a fig leaf of respectability for another rise in public sector pay.

There is a large increase in the Vote for the Department of Finance in Subhead B on consultancy services. I would like to hear more detail from the Minister on that. What part of that money has been set aside for a precise purpose in relation to the third bank? I do not know if this bank will have all the admirable qualities of Myles na gCopaleen's "Third Policeman" who had an innovative view of atomic theory. Perhaps this new bank is intended to produce a big bang. What kind of progress has been made? The money is mentioned here, this is an Estimate debate and we are entitled to hear in some detail how the Minister intends to proceed with this matter. How does the Estimate relate to that? What are the immediate policy objectives this year?

In the Minister's Department, Subhead I deals with Gaelagras na Stáit Seirbhise. It receives its funding through the national lottery. The lottery arises in subsequent votes, such as the Office of Public Works and some sections. Will the Minister make a list of all the proposed allocations from the lottery, Vote by Vote and subhead by subhead, so that it can be clearly understood by all Members? An excellent table has been produced in the Appropriations account by the Comptroller and Auditor General but it does this task post hoc in appropriations terms. It would be useful to get the same transparency on an annual basis, if possible.

It is in the Book of Estimates.

Is it, in one single table?

It is in Appendix 1, Vote by Vote.

I also have a query about the subhead between M and N. It refers to the Irish Institute of European Affairs.

That was a once off contribution to the Irish College in Louvain.

I was confusing it with the Irish Institute of European Affairs in North Great George's Street which does excellent work. Does that body get any State assistance? If not, it should, because of the contribution it makes.

Vote No. 7 deals with superannuation and sets out some details. I asked a parliamentary questions some weeks ago and received a holding answer because there was not clarity on the liability involved. Will the State carry the liability for all the pensions of Telecom Éireann, part of the former Department of Posts and Telegraphs? How much will it involve? If it is funded can one see the funding provisions in these Estimates or has such funding not yet been estimated? What is the taxpayers' liability?

I see a sum of £15,000 in the Estimates for the Comptroller and Auditor General to allow for external consultants to help with special audits. That is a modest amount. I do not know how stretched the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General is in regard to resources for doing these audits. Nonetheless there is a strong argument for increasing the number of public sector audits. That is a matter partly for other committees to deal with, not just this one. The resource base is so modest it suggests the watchdog aspect of the Comptroller's role is rather limited if the scale of fees is to be accepted.

I have a number of inquiries about Vote No. 9 on the Revenue Commissioners. One relates to what happened recently on the south coast, in particular in the west Cork area. Intensive surveillance has borne fruit in drug seizures. A figure is given for vehicles and boats which is now more relevant because we have seen our vulnerability. What plans are there to provide a more rigorous policing system, in particular a marine base? My understanding, from talking to people engaged in this activity, is that the current resource base for sea patrolling is grossly inadequate. A case can be stated at European Community level since we are effectively an external frontier of the Community and we could look for resources. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether such a case has been made by the Government and if it has, what is its prognosis. Because of our vulnerability there is a clear case for greater patrolling and a quicker response.

What progress, if any, has the Department of Finance made on the sheriff system of tax collection? There has been considerable debate about sheriffs collecting large amounts of money and remunerating themselves handsomely by putting the money on deposit and claiming the interest. The Comptroller and Auditor General believes it desirable and proper that this practice should cease and that any interest earned is given to the Exchequer. If the practice does change perhaps some new remuneration package could be agreed for the sheriffs. Furthermore I understand that the Secretary of the Department of Finance gave an undertaking to the Comptroller and Auditor General to introduce an alternative system which was to operate from September last year. What progress has been made on that?

The sheriffs fidelity bonds are currently valued at £50,000 but, if a sheriff goes bankrupt, that is cold comfort when it is known that some sheriffs have up to £4 million in their accounts. That system needs to be reviewed.

I have one or two other issues to raise. I would like information on the interpretative centres at Luggala and the Burren. When were contracts signed? When were commitments for expenditure given? How much of the committed expenditure was spent on a contractual basis and over what period? There were critical timings — and indecent haste — in regard to some decisions. If that level of productivity existed across the public service local bargaining could have free rein and do marvellously well, so engaged, productive and enthusiastic was the development over a period at these centres. A good deal of the impetus was political and, therefore, questions must be answered about the current amount spent on those projects and whether they will yield full value for money.

I ask the Minister to address two issues on the Vote for the Attorney General. Mr. Whelehan has undertaken on behalf of the Government to investigate the Davys Stockbroker-Greencore saga. In response to a question last week, the Minister said this investigation is now completed. Without wishing to unduly prejudice other examinations, this was the only inquiry, on the initiative of the Minister and the Government. We should know its outcome and hear the reaction of the Government. The Executive is entitled to have and give an independent view on the matter, irrespective of and without prejudice to what may be decided by the Dublin or London Stock Exchange.

Has the Attorney General or any of his predecessors played a leading role in deciding the scale of fees in inquiries such as Irish Sugar-Greencore, Telecom Éireann or indeed the beef tribunal?

Deputy, for your information and to prevent problems later, questions on the interpretative centres will be answered by the Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works.

I wanted to signal the precise nature of the question.

Will that be at 1 o'clock?

Yes, between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Deputy Rabbitte, you have 17 minutes.

This is a major improvement on previous scrutiny of the Estimates. Will the Minister say whether, in a normal year, he envisages engaging in this process before June, since it is tantamount to a review of the year?

In the year will which we are concerned probably the biggest issue affecting the economy is what the Minister calls the currency difficulties and high interest rates. The Minister made initial remarks about the health of the economy but it is euphemistic to refer to the single biggest shock in 1993 as "currency difficulties".

Deputy Cox referred to the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. It is surprising to see in the explanatory memorandum that there is so little expenditure in that office. It was £1.8 million last year and £2.1 million is allocated this year. It must give better value than any other institution of the State.

That should be seen in the context of the number of political footballs being kicked around at the moment about the cost of various inquiries, specifically the beef tribunal. I am reluctant to refer to some of the inquiries because, unfortunately, I am connected with many of them. The former Leas-Cheann Comhairle, Mr. Tunney and myself will, apparently, make ourselves amenable to the Circuit Court on 6 July to answer for temperate remarks we made about fees paid to the Greencore inspectors.

The Deputy is getting used to the courts.

Is he indemnified under the subheading covering public servants?

I am besieged by lawyers at the moment. If I had not gone astray early in life I would be one of them.

The Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General has a staff of 80, costs £1.8 million and does enormously valuable work. One can read the reports over the years of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Dáil, has not exposed the extent of waste, poor monitoring and improper and inefficient public expenditure as well as that office.

The possibility of developing that office should be explored rather than applying the Companies Act 1990 because the system of inspectors is extremely costly. I am annoyed by Government backbenchers drawing attention, for political reasons, to the extraordinary fees paid to lawyers in the Greencore case, the Telecom Éireann case when it arises or in the beef tribunal. These fees were agreed by the Government and there is no point making a fuss about it now. The Attorney General of the day entered into arrangements with these professionals, including lawyers, on a scale of fees. You can allege, if you want to, that the professions look after themselves and certainly to any ordinary taxpaying citizen the level of fees some of these people command is outrageous. Dáil Éireann participated and agreed these decisions, and I resent this political rearguard action being fought when Members could be looking at ways to conduct these inquiries more efficiently. The Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General should be examined in this respect.

I cannot see why the inspectors required to carry out a particular inquiry under the Companies Act cannot be drawn from the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General even though that may well involve expansion of the office and recruitment of staff and so on with suitable skills. I was absolutely flummoxed at the sum of £15,000 for consultancy services. I thought it was £115,000.

The fee for one lawyer for two days.

Exactly. One lawyer was paid £15,000 for two days. I have been a member of the Committee for Public Accounts for four years, I have seen some of those value for money audits and they are precisely the kind of instrument we should use in regard to control and examination of public expenditure in terms of value for money. Those value for money audits are precisely the kind of instrument the office should be given freedom to make use of whenever it is considered necessary. When Members examine this book in terms of the provisions elsewhere for consultants they will realise it is extraordinary to allocate the figure of £15,000 to the Comptroller and Auditor General. What are we allocating elsewhere to consultants?

I put down a question during the week to the Minister and I raised it again with the Committee of Public Accounts about the cost of consultants and the question of privatisation. Deputy Cox raised the question of Greencore. I can see no provision here for that. The only reference in the Minister's speech and in the documents is in respect of Irish Life — I do not know if that is right. It is an extraordinary situation. Leaving out the ideological question of the merits of privatisation, why has it escaped public attention? What is the cost to the taxpayer of paying professionals to privatise two of our major companies, Greencore and Irish Life?

The second area of increase, according to the Minister is consultancy services. This expenditure arises mainly in connection with the sale of State shareholdings in Irish Life and with costs associated with the Government's intention to develop the third force in banking.

During the week the Secretary of the Department of Finance was examined by the Public Accounts Committee in respect of Greencore. We established at that meeting, as a result of questions I put to the Secretary of the Department that the cost to the taxpayer of the privatisation of Greencore was £4.49 million. That was paid out to a panoply of professionals who got their fist into the jar of honey and managed to steal away with £5 million as the cost of selling Greencore to the private sector. The retention in public ownership of Greencore would have been consistent with the recommendations of the Culliton report, with which everybody claims to agree. This was a major indigenous food company with the capacity to expand in the domestic economy and we, for short term gain, for the purpose of balancing the budgetary figures, sold it, but at a cost of £5 million.

It is still a major indigenous company.

The point I want to stick with is the cost of the consultants. The first tranche of disposal of shares in Greencore cost £1,243,153 million. Greencore, which was still pre-dominantly owned by the State at the time, paid £2.86 million in fees. The second tranche brought a charge of £115,940,000 and the third tranche in terms of the recent misplacing or placing of shares, however one wants to put it, cost £725,000 for the consultancy and the fees charged, together with commission charged. We know they were waived because of the déb�cle but that has nothing to do with the argument, £5 million for the sale of shares.

I put down a question to the Minister on 11 May asking the respective cost of sale of shares in Irish Life and in Greencore and the Minister's reply briefly was: "55 million shares sold in Irish Life at a cost of £45,000 plus VAT". He went on to explain that in the case of Irish Life the cost was £175,000 in fees and £550,000 in commission. The cost of sale of £104 million worth of shares in Irish Life cost £45,000 while the cost in the case of Greencore which was about £70 million was £725,000. I could not reconcile those figures. I did not get the opportunity on the day to pursue it with the Minister as the question did not come up for oral reply. I issued a statement pointing out the discrepancy. To my surprise, the Department of Finance replied saying that Greencore was a far more complex affairs because of Archer Daneils Midlands and all that. Here we have £725,000 in fees for one sale and £45,000 for the other but that is not the full story.

I again pursued this at the Committee of Public Accounts last week and I could not extract any more information. People were really confused by this, they could not understand it, their attitude was that stockbroking is a very complex business and that lay people could not be expected to understand it. I was reminded that my colleague, Deputy Gilmore put down a question on 12 November 1991 about Irish Life asking the Minister for details of the cost of the sale and other details. The Minister's reply was: "To date £6,707,000, including VAT, has been paid or authorised for payment by my Department in connection with the restructuring and flotation of Irish Life". What I was questioning in the Dáil and trying to get information on was the last tranche of Irish Life but in the earlier sale of Irish Life the cost to the taxpayer was £6.7 million for selling off the first tranche. It has cost us £12 million in fees to stockbrokers, consultants, underwriters, advisers and lawyers to sell these two major strategic companies in the Irish economy and meanwhile we give the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General £2 million.

I want to refer briefly to the currency crisis. Can the Minister tell this committee when the three wise men, or whatever the number, who are monitoring the handling of the currency crisis will report? Will it be a private report to the Minister or will it be published? There are the most serious questions about why the Minister was advised to persist for so long in betting against the market. He lost and we lost.

We do not know and cannot find out how much it cost us. Deputies put down questions and did not get full replies but it certainly cost a great deal to keep our finger in the dyke and not to face the inevitable when we knew that the pound was overvalued. Unfortunately, the Minister continues to argue that his budget resulted in the return of funds to the economy, and the improvement in interest rates. In fact, the nervousness about the alignment and the value of our currency, has been removed as a result of devaluation.

All the dire predictions, for example, that if they taste blood they will come back a second time, that there would be dreadful knock-ons in the economy and that trade unions would go wild, etc., did not come true. We persisted too long, because of mistaken advice. The Central Bank, presumably the major player in the matter, will not explain itself. The Governor of the Central Bank refuses to answer the most serious criticisms, including some by former members of his staff.

Now this committee has been established, it should devote time to an assessment of the handling of the currency crisis and what lessons might be learned for the future. I do not want a witch-hunt or anybody's head. It is easy to have 20:20 vision in hindsight, but as the Minister knows I was the first finance spokesperson in the House to break ranks on this matter. I issued a statement to that effect on 1 December and, indeed, I had been arguing since October in my own party for a more clearcut stance on it. With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that this committee should have had a special meeting to consider how we handled the currency crisis and the cost to the Exchequer.

There must be detailed questioning on the Estimates. Deputy Yates referred to the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. He was honest enough to say he had voted against it, but thought that since it is in place it should be honoured. I agree. It is interesting that the spokesperson for the Progressive Democrats, Deputy Cox, whose party was involved in drawing up the Programme for Economic and Social Progress accuses the Government of a U-turn for trying to honour it.

Yes, going back on the budget.

Does the Deputy want the Programme for Economic and Social Progress his party agreed to be honoured?

Like 1,200 jobs in Clonmel, we will settle for that.

If we are to have industrial peace when we reach agreement with the trade union movement and the social partners, it is incumbent on the Goverment to honour those agreements. When the Minister wanted to make changes in or aspects of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, I welcomed his negotiating with the people directly concerned and reaching a measure of agreement. Admittedly deferrals will have to be paid for at the end of the day, but at least the Minister, having negotiated on behalf of the Government, has continued that commitment by the appointment of an arbitrator.

It is dangerous for any political party to try to lay down the terms for future agreements before the trade unions, the social partners and the Government have held discussions. Unfortunately, Deputy Yates is drawing his line in the sand and suggesting the terms of the next agreement. That is one of the difficulties of dealing with people. We have that problem with people in Aer Lingus who are trying to come to grips with the trauma——

Trauma for the Labour Party.

We do not have a problem. We gave a commitment, as the Fine Gael spokesman said in the hangar in Dublin Airport — if he uses the term for much longer I am sure Deputy Noonan will be hung from that hangar. Everything uttered then in the hangar——

Deputy Noonan will not be hung.

When the six TDs came out it was promised by——

It is amazing that Opposition spokespersons who have taken all the time for this Estimate so far are apparently objecting to our putting forward our views. I listened to them here and on the radio and television and the only group they want to target is the Labour Party.

Sensitive young man.

Deputy Ferris without interruptions, he is well able to defend himself if he is not sidetracked.

He is well able to hang himself.

We will leave that to some of the Fine Gael people from Deputy Deasy's constituency.

However, a commitment was given that there would be substantial funding for Aer Lingus — nobody else had given such a commitment — and there is now an agreement in Government to make substantial funding available to save the national airline. The Labour Party has also said that like those representing the trade union movement or workers in the airline and everybody else with an interest, it would not like to see compulsory redundancies. If possible, redundancy should be optional and on special terms. The Government intends to make redundancy packages as beneficial as possible for those who, given their first choice, would prefer to remain in work. It is easy, however, to sit back and criticise because no decisions were made in the past on this subject. The Government should not attempt to draw lines in the sand, it should honour the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and move forward.

Deputy, this is a question and answer session and not a mini Second Stage debate.

I will ask some questions but — so far — I have been answered by the wrong people.

On a point of order, under which Vote does Aer Lingus or any subsidiary thereof come up?

Is this a Supplementary Estimate?

The Deputy's speech would be more appropriate to a question on the Order Paper for next week than to this committee. We are debating the Estimates as they were produced with regard to the Department of Finance.

I was speaking in the context of Programme for Economic and Social Progress and how one should treat people in a situation where the Government has already entered into commitments.

Deputy, we have agreed procedure. This is a general question and answer section.

On a point of order — when Deputy Ferris has come in — is the Vote being considered seriatim or can questions be asked of the Minister in any order?

That is what I am trying to do.

Are questions to be raised seriatim or as Deputies rank them in importance?

The basic agreement was that it would be a question and answer session. We should allow Deputies to put their questions as they see fit rather than trying to lock people into a fixed timescale. We have agreed a timescale with regard to our overall parameters and that is what we should live with. Deputy Ferris is doing quite well. He has now taken almost ten minutes and he still has not put any questions.

He is giving answers and still has not put any questions.

I understand that and I would have no problem with the Deputy giving answers if he were in a different position. No doubt he will not put his questions and we can then move on to Deputy Deasy.

I have a whole range of questions, which is appropriate, because this is the first time a person from the Labour Party has had an opportunity to speak.

(Interruptions.)

There is no provision for the Labour Party in what is agreed here.

There is no provision that I cannot ask questions.

The Labour Party is part of the Government; the Government has already made a statement.

I have no intention of allowing the two Opposition parties——

Will Deputy Yates and Deputy Cox please refrain from——

The agreement was that there would be opening statements by four people——

Yes, but I hope that Members will make short statements, not long winded statements. I also hope that I will not be seen to interfere with people's rights as elected Members. Deputy Ferris will, no doubt, put the questions and we will then move to Deputy Deasy.

I welcome the fact that you were liberal with the Opposition spokespersons as to the amount of time available to them. I have no problem with that because I would like to be fair to everybody. I defend the right to make comments on existing statements about the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, lines in the sand or other matters. I am listening to accusations everyday and now it is our turn to say something and ask questions. I will not be stopped by the Opposition.

On the question of the Attorney General's Office, am I correct in presuming that, under this heading, additional parliamentary draftsmen are required to meet the never ending demand from the Programme for Government for new legislation? I know it is specialised work and that it takes a long time to train draftsmen but is there provision under this subhead so that we can, in spite of opposition, complete the Programme for Government? The third level banking force referred to by Deputy Cox as having all the admirable qualities of Myles na gCopaleen's "Third Policeman" is a commitment by the Government and I understand much progress has been made. Will the Minister state if progress has been made in this area? I have seen submissions from the CWU and other people interested in this segment of the Programme for Government which I and the Labour Party consider — it has been continually referred to by the Chairperson of the Parliamentary Labour Party, Deputy O'Sullivan — an essential new development in Irish banking. It involves the State as far as we are concerned. I have heard criticisms of some of the private banking institutions and what they have been doing and it is important that the State, through this third banking force, will make progress in this area. What progress has the Government made in bringing proposals before Cabinet or when we are likely to see the legislation arising from that?

Some of these subheads are demand led. In othe words, the Civil Service, who assist the Minister, would be unaware at times of the final outturn under any of these subheads, whether it referred to Members of the Oireachtas or otherwise. Who knows what claim would be made by any of us at a time? There are three small subheads here. One is the Revenue Commissioners' staff. I hope we can reach agreement that there is a need for further staff, resources and facilities to be available to the Revenue Commissioners. At the moment they only carry out about 2 per cent of the investigation or audit for self-assessment and this has led to difficulties.

Under two other subheads, one of which is Vote 7 there is a figure for the payment of pensions to retired or dismissed RIC members. Will the Minister state — I know there are only three left — how much money is involved? It is quite amazing that in 1993 we are still compensating people who were involved in the RIC. This is another question that I should probably not ask but I will anyway — in Vote 12 on the Secret Service, there is an increase of 53 per cent and the total cost is about £320,000.

That is a secret.

I suppose because it is the Secret Service, we cannot find out what it is doing. It is appropriate to refer to the fact that we have a Secret Service, some of them may be involved in political parties for all I know.

Should Deputy Ferris be mentioned in the Guinness Book of Records for asking the longest question?

I listened to Deputy Cox for 15 minutes.

I was on the agenda unlike the Deputy.

I suggest that the Secret Service investigates broken promises.

I do not have any hangars, hangups or hangings to deal with in my constituency. Fine Gael in Waterford will look after itself. It looks after me, that is the important thing. If there is any problem just tell the truth and one is away on a hack. I want to refer to two items. One is job creation and the other is taxation but the two are interlinked. I ask the Minister to take on board what I say. The Revenue Commissioners should adopt a flexible attitude where job creation is concerned and not tie themselves in legislative knots which means they cannot adopt a strategy leading to job creation.

There is a small town — Tullow — of about 1,000 people on the periphery of my constituency in West Waterford, which has one small industry. In a town like that there is much unemployment and emigration which is common in any county. However, the town has one natural advantage in that there is quite a lot of forestry in the general locality. Hardy young fellows like to make a living. They are proud, they want to work and they cut timber for a living. They use chainsaws to cut timber and they have to drag the logs out of the wood. I cannot think of any more difficult way of making a living. It is a brutally difficult job but they cannot get a C2 tax certificate clearance.

There is an inflexibility in the Revenue Commissioners apparently which does not allow them to get it. This tax certificate does not just apply to people who work in forestry. It may apply to many self-employed but because of the inhibition and difficulty they cannot get the certificate and have to go on the dole. They cannot work because the tax level without this certificate is prohibitive. I believe it is 35 per cent for a start with no allowances.

Ten of these young men attended a clinic of mine in recent months. They were demented because the weather at the time was miserable and if they lost two days through bad weather they could not get any social welfare for that week. Imagine what they have gone through for the last couple of weeks. On the other hand they were automatically disqualified from drawing social welfare benefit or assistance because there is a law prohibiting social welfare payments if a person cannot work for two days of a normal week. I do not know if the Minister is aware of that. It is an extraordinary anomaly and is wrong.

Those ten men told me that there were ten others in the town also trying to make a living out of forestry which is 20 people in a small town of 1,000 people. They said there would be twice that amount of people from Tallow working in forestry if they could get a C2 tax certificate. If that is reflected throughout the country, a large number of people could be employed gainfully and taken off the unemployment register. The Minister cannot allow that to continue, it must be changed.

I understand the regulation applies to people who have heavy equipment such as tractors, trailers, JCBs and so on, and who might be working in the forest. The specific regulation is meant to cover their cases but surely it is not meant to apply to people working with small equipment such as a chainsaw.

The local tax inspector is most sympathetic, and I think tha tax inspectors in general would be sympathetic to such cases, but his hands are tied. The direction comes from the Revenue Commissioners in Dublin and because of that the local tax inspector cannot help these people, although he sees the merit of their case. It would not be a bad idea if the Minister had tax inspectors within the Revenue Commissioners who would visit locations such as Tullow in west Waterford and other towns where there are problems and anomalies and where employment could be created if a humanitarian view was taken of the problems confronting the individuals concerned.

One of those who spoke to me was a young married man in his early thirties with six children. He was unable to claim any unemployment assistance and he was unable to work the previous week because of the weather. He had no income that week. How can the Minister allow a situation where people who want to work cannot get a penny, either through working or from the State through social welfare, to continue.

The Revenue Commissioners should be willing to travel to the smaller towns and villages to see if they can assist people to overcome difficulties in relation to taxation and tax certificates. In a desperate situation one must adopt desperate measures. I do not think that would be a desperate measure, it is a very normal request to make. There should be easy access to tax inspectors. The Minister should consider that.

This makes me throw my hands up in despair. This matter has been raised on the Adjournment in the Dáil and by way of parliamentary question and I have got nowhere. It is incredible that one cannot change the law or relax it to meet the needs of people who want to work. The inflexibility of the system is amazing. What more can I do other than ask questions or raise the matter on the Adjournment? We need a certain amount of flexibility.

The other point I wish to make relates to the taxation of co-operative societies. This is one of the items which was not reached in the course of the debate on the Finance Bill. The Minister should allow co-operatives to claim against buildings, this is a simple thing which is allowed in every line of business. The co-operative societies should be allowed offset their tax liability against new buildings. I will leave the matter with the Minister.

Many Deputies have been nodding in agreement with my first point. They may have had the same experience, perhaps not in regard to forestry but in many small industries where a man is working on his own or has one or two others working for him. I would ask the Minister to adopt a more flexible approach.

I wish to ask the Minister in regard to lottery funding, if it would be possible to produce a simple guide for applying for lottery funding. I confess to being quite confused about how one goes about this and the different agencies to which one applies for funding. There should also be a simple guide to what will be available in the current year because people are having their hopes and expectations raised when, in reality, there is little chance of their obtaining any help.

In relation to the consultancy services which are mentioned under a number of subheads, will the Minister provide more detail in relation to some of them? In particular, in relation to subhead A7, relating to the Revenue Commissioners, the note on that says the subhead covers all expenditure and consultancy services which does not get us very far. A further note is also vague in that it mentions providing about £1 million for miscellaneous consultancies required for training, research, development and so on. I would like further detail on that.

On the State Laboratory, I notice tht £79,000 is provided for two purposes, one of which relates to the detection of pathogenic bacteria in plants. I wonder why that money is spent by the State Laboratory rather than by the Department of Agriculture and Food. On a superficial basis, it seems more appropriate that research on pathogenic bacteria in plants would be done by the Department of Agriculture and Food rather than by the State Laboratory. I would welcome an explanation from the Minister as to what is involved there.

I also notice that all the funding in relation to research and development in the State Laboratory will be covered by the European Community at a cost of £79,000. That is a small amount of money to be spent on research and development by the State Laboratory, which has a total expenditure of £2 million. Will the Minister consider increasing the amount of money spent on research and development in the State Laboratory for two reasons, first, it would improve the expertise in that area of analytical chemistry and, second it may lead to some savings nationally. All Members will agree that the amount of money spent on research and development here is well below what needs to be spent. If the country is to expand and develop it is important that we invest much more money in research and development.

My final question for the Minister relates to the provisions made for people who worked in the former Department of Posts and Telegraphs, who left their jobs for one reason or another, and who now want to work in either An Post or Telecom Éireann. I would like some clarification from the Minister particularly regarding the rights of people who find themselves in unfortunate circumstances which appeared to be covered by the provisions of the Act which set up An Post and Telecom Éireann.

I would like to know the position in relation to people who appear to be qualified under the terms of the Act but find that they must join a large number of people who want to return to An Post and Telecom Éireann, and that it does not seem to be possible. I know of a very worthy case of a lady who is in very unfortunate circumstances. She worked in the former Department of Posts and Telegraphs and is now trying to return to work in either Telecom Éireann or An Post but finds she is unable to so do. My understanding of the provisions is that people in such circumstances may have a right to return. I would welcome clarification from the Minister on that matter.

Does the Minister wish to reply to the questions raised by Deputies Ferris, Deasy and Upton or does he wish us to continue?

As we are moving across the full range of issues the select Committee will appreciate that my replies will be similar. Subhead A7 on the consultancy services, is the work the Revenue Commissioners are doing on the consolidated approach to tax collection on contracts. They are trying to rationalise all the schemes. The issues about pay were discussed earlier and I do not wish to go into any detail on those. The points were made by the partys spokespersons and I welcome Deputy Yates' views on the next pay round in that he is agreeing with the benefits of payroll neutral schemes. They proved very successful in the private sector. We had six years of centralised agreements here which we did not have in previous pay rounds, many of which I was involved in the early 1970s and the 1980s when we had centralised agreements. Deputy Rabbitte is familiar with the fact that we had productivity agreements but everybody is agreed in the end that, by and large, they were bogus productivity agreements and they did not work. In the Programme for National Recoveryhowever we had no productivity basis. It was 2.5 per cent fixed and there was considerable frustration within companies that they could not actually agree — I am talking about the private sector — where restructuring assisted them and could not pay any further increases. Both agreed that the 3 per cent would be on a payroll neutral basis. I have only seen one agreement which recently came up in the food area, where the 3 per cent seemed to be paid without any payroll neutral position. By and large the agreements have been working successfully and they are given considerable restructuring and are beneficial to the private sector.

There are many things in the public sector that have just been sitting there over the years. Disputes have gone on year after year and many of them are minor matters where individuals have views which cannot be taken on board. It seems that many of these could be easily negotiated. Deputy Cox made the point that it is not always easy to see productivity in the public service. We are talking about the security forces, the gardaí and the Army, teachers and health service workers. That is where the big numbers are. There are also officials in the State companies such as Telecom and An Post and the small amount in the Civil Service.

It is difficult if one is producing a can of beans and one agrees to use a machine that works quicker instead of the old machine, then one may be able to produce more cans of beans. If one is a nurse in a cardiac surgery theatre, it is difficult to work out productivity, whether it is where one pumps more blood into the patient or carries more instruments or, if one is a member of the Garda force, whether one catches more petty criminals. I acknowledge it is difficult but that is what we are talking about. That does not mean, however, that there is not a considerable amount one can achieve by doing away with many of the old restrictive practices such as who does what, what grade stops at a certain level of work, where a grade starts, who does photocopying and who makes the tea. There are a million things in the system and I believe they can certainly give a beneficial service.

I know, from being involved in the public service all my life — mainly the health service admittedly and before that in the agricultural sector — that much can be achieved to make the organisation more efficient, the service better to the public and maybe not that transparent and save costs. There are other areas where it is straightforward, where one can see what the saving is because people are dealing with a certain number of patients or people involved in a service are doing so much in a day. In those instances one can operate the scheme. It is certainly worthy.

The restructuring talks are ongoing and I would like to clarify that the talks on the restructuring continue without the arbitrator until the end of October. The arbitrator will not be involved in the process until the end of October and at that stage, depending on what progress has been achieved in the restructuring talks, it can then go to arbitration if there is not a satisfactory conclusion. Naturally we hope that there would be a satisfactory conclusion because these talks have been ongoing for a considerable amount of time and we hope we can reach a successful conclusion on these matters. I note the points made by Deputy Yates on what would go into the next agreement. I am not sure which hand of the Government would be involved in the next agreement but the points he has made are sensible.

I would like to mention one final matter on the pay issue. We had a similar debate earlier in the week but I am not going to get into a row with Deputy Cox as it would only take up time. We all talk about the cost of pay and that pay has gone up. Deputy Yates gave figures which I am sure are correct for individual grades. The services that we provide, however, cost money. If one looks at the Votes one will see there are more than 50,000 in the Department of Education; more than 60,000 in the Department of Health and in the security forces, the Department of Justice and the Department of Defence there are about 30,000. The cost is all pay related because of the numbers when increases or whatever are given and that is for the service that the public want. The public are not prepared to take a reduced service and the saving is only on pay.

Deputy Cox said this morning, in good faith, that in the restructuring costs in the private sector it looks as if they pay 1 per cent of the local bargaining. I am not as familiar with this as I was when in the Department of Labour but I can assure Deputies that if one goes to a private sector company — that is one of the comparable companies — and checks whether in real terms it was 1 per cent, I can tell people the answer before they go. There are many VHI payments, lunch vouchers, car allowances, Christmas bonuses and other matters that have to be taken into account. It is great giving the figure but——

I made no reference to the private sector.

I put those figures. The total public sector numbers have gone down and so the increase must be explained by an increase in pay.

After the early retirement scheme in 1987, public service numbers dropped.

They are creeping back up.

The numbers have crept up in certain areas, mainly in health services, the gardaí and other areas where there was concern about the service being provided. It is better focusing now on where the numbers are allocated. We have moved away from the day when somebody looked for ten or 20 extra people and got them. Extra staff in any area now almost requires a Government decision. On the one hand there is criticism of the public service as being too costly and excessive and on the other hand there is often special pleading on behalf of groups within the service. All Governments over the past ten years, and all political parties, have been involved in this.

Deputy Yates has given a fair outline, which I appreciate. The conciliation and arbitration scheme must be reassessed. There must be a system. It cannot be abolished and not replaced. Pay figures must be related to lower inflation figures, as was successfully achieved under the Programme for National Recovery, as growth figures have not been achieved to the extent anticipated under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.

Deputy Rabbitte asked about the Vote for the Comptroller and Auditor General. I agree with his complimentary remarks on the value of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Part of the reason for the success of the Office is the clarity of its mandate. The functions of the Office clearly establishes its priorities and it is not placed in the position, as are many other sections of the public service, of always responding to current crises. The Office operates under an ordered and well structured system and because of this it manages its brief efficiently.

The future remit of the Office, established under the new Act, stipulates that there be an expert group to advise on arrangements required to give effect to the new functions of the Office as outlined in the Act. It was accepted during the passage of the Bill, that consultancy services and additional staff will probably be required. The remit of the Office is now considerably more extensive and in the course of the passage of the Bill I advised that resources would be allocated based on the result of the expert report.

Regarding questions on the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, that Office has been undergoing a process of reorganisation and radical change in recent years, this is aimed at optimising the available resources to assist in the continued drive to promote a climate of voluntary compliance. This will deter evasion by means of swift action, targeted enforcement and utilisation of all legislative and administrative means to tackle tax avoidance. There are 6,100 staff involved and within the staff a complement of resources is available from surplus staff arising from the decentralisation programme and the completion of the Single Market negotiations. These have been used to enhance and expand the current programmes of collection, compliance and enforcement to generate additional return for the Exchequer.

Customs and Excise officials are now available to provide assistance to the Office of the Collector General and to the Office of the Chief Inspector of Taxes to improve revenue collection, strengthen enforcement and to combat tax evasion. There has been planned development in the administration of the tax system at the Office of the Inspector of Taxes, resulting in a broad movement of staff and routine administration to compliance, audit and investigative work. I am satisfied that the Revenue Commissioners are adequately staffed.

Deputy Cox referred to the activities of the Customs and Excise staff. I would like to put on record my appreciation of the Customs and Excise staff and their efforts. Those who followed these cases would appreciate that it was the Customs and Excise staff who effectively tracked and trailed much of the investigative work and worked closely with the Garda in leading to its success. Unfortunately, more of that work is required. They have focused in on that region for the past few summers. However, it is an issue that becomes continually more sophisticated as those trying to import drugs of various kinds endeavour to use different methods and procedures. There is close co-operation with the Minister for Justice and close cross-frontier co-operation on continental Europe on these matters.

Regarding the issue of the State Laboratory, this laboratory undertakes work for the Department of Agriculture and Food. There is nothing further to advise on this.

There were a number of questions about consultancy work. I assure Deputy Ferris that such work is continuing. The Government, through a number of Departments, are compiling their proposals. Talks are taking place at preliminary levels with various bodies such as the ICC, ACC, Trustee Savings Bank and post offices. No decisions have been made at present. A memorandum for Government is under preparation dealing with particular aspects. Most of the consultancy work is straightforward.

The A7 consultancy service comes under my Vote. There are costs of £367,000 associated with consultancy studies undertaken in connection with the EC Structural Funds initiatives. A sum of £90,000 is allocated as technical support for the central information and technology services bureau in Kilmainham. A sum of £90,000 is payable to the ICC for services to accountants who are on loan to the Department of Finance. A sum of £75,000 is allocated to the efficiency audit group which is reviewing efficiency in some of the public services.

The only difficulty with the expenditure group is that ultimately it is a political decision as to where money is allocated and under what subhead. It is Government Ministers who decide these matters. Under the new legislation, the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General will deal with the efficiency and the effectiveness, as distinct from simply the correctness——

Does the Minister recall "An Bord Snip"?

That is what is required. People came in from outside.

That is correct

I do not agree with all of the workings of the board, however, I do agree with the concept of experts.

Sometimes such bodies make fairly drastic recommendations at variance with requirements.

Could the Minister elaborate?

Some of the work of the board was crazy.

At least the board did not buy a submarine.

Sums of £45,000 have been allocated for the operations of the information services, £33,000 for the Institute of Public Administration, £28,000 for consultancy, training and computing and £14,000 for liability in respect of pre vesting date pension entitlements. A sum of £4,500 has been allocated for training, and employee assistant officers and £27,500 for a range of small studies that were undertaken. In addition there are the fees for the Irish Life programme and the fees for Greencore, which have been waived.

Regarding the Office of Parliamentary Draftsman, there are at least ten employed by the Office. Eight of these are full-time and two former heads of the drafting office are on full-time contracts. This is the largest number we have ever had in the history of the State. Deputy Ferris is correct when he says it takes a considerable amount of time to train them. This matter is mentioned in the Programme for a Partnership Government. The Attorney General has been reviewing the possibility of a more effective training process.

Deputy Cox raised the question of sheriffs' remuneration. The sheriffs have always been permitted to retain interest on short term deposits, as is the norm in financial transactions between a solicitor and a client. In effect, this interest has been their major source of income. The sheriffs' operation would have become non-viable if they had not been permitted to supplement their income with such interest so as to defray their substantial costs. The sheriffs are currently remunerated by a fee of 35p for each certificate issued to them for execution. They also retain interest on the money recovered, which is placed on deposit pending transmission to the Revenue Commissioners. It is expected that proposals for a new package will be finalised shortly. Agreement was reached with the sheriffs and the Revenue Commissioners that funds held in trust on behalf of the Revenue Commissioners would be held in a medium that permits the immediate withdrawal in full. Sheriffs are required to submit audit reports at six monthly intervals. That matter is almost concluded.

Will sheriffs still continue to claim the interest or does the new system provide for an alternative method? The Comptroller and Auditor General's report made the point that the Exchequer should be the beneficiary of the interest, whether it is held in cash or near cash.

Subject to confirmation, the system seeks to try to have a greater fee.

Drug seizures were mentioned. The national drugs team was established by the Revenue Commissioners late last year. It comprises 75 officers, strategically located around the coastline. Drug smuggling and improved co-ordination among the various surveillance agencies is currently being examined by the Minister for Justice. When this examination is complete, the matter will be considered by the Government. The question of additional resources strengthening the external frontier will be discussed at EC level. As I said, they have had considerable success recently.

Have we applied to the EC for additional funding?

We have.

I will consider the issue raised by Deputy Deasy and I will examine his point about co-operatives. The first issue he mentioned was the extension of the C2 tax certificates. This was raised in the Dáil. The regulation applies to the construction industry. There are major abuses in the industry he referred to. It was singled out in a number of reports and questions were asked in the House about the abuse taking place in the industry. I will consider the issue he has raised. The intention is not to take young people who want to work out of work. It only takes 15 days from receipt of an application for a person to receive a C2 tax certificate. The processing of applications requires more time than in the past. If a person's affairs are in order, a certificate will be issued. Otherwise, difficulties will arise.

Did the Minister reply to the question on the exchange rate policy?

On the exchange rate policy and the questions the Deputy raised——

And Deputy Rabbitte.

——the Central Bank, the National Treasury Management Agency, the Department of Finance, IBEC, ICTU and all the outside groups have submitted their reports to Dr. Kieran Kennedy's working group. This working group hopes to complete its work at the end of July. The Government must decide at that stage if the report's conclusions and recommendations for the future should be put forward. The work group is analysing events, as was done in the European reports, to see what should be done for the future. It is a working group made up of technical experts, trade unionists and IBEC people who are involved on the wrong side of the difficulties. It has had discussions.

Will the report be published?

That is a matter for the Government. The recommendations for the future, which are important, should be dealt with.

Will it be possible for this select committee, irrespective of the decision on publication, to consider the recommendations and analyses for the future?

I will be open to talks with the Chairman about that at a later date. At this stage I have been involved in approximately 20 analyses on the issue in various centres around the country. The Oireachtas analysis is more important than most of them, but this type of analysis has been undertaken everywhere. There is the European study group, the universities and——

I appreciate that and I also appreciate that the Minister may become weary of it. As the Minister said, the Oireachtas has not finalised it.

I agree. It is the Government's intention to continue with a tough currency policy so as to remain on course for European Monetary Union, to remain on the road to convergence and to be in the hard core group.

Last evening I had an opportunity to talk to senior banking officials who have been involved in discussions on these aspects. Most of them supported devaluation, even at the end of the devaluation issue. Some of them suggested that we should consider the position adopted by the British Government in relation to sterling. The reason they wanted to meet me last night was that they had changed their opinions, following consideration of the matter. They now held the view that no matter what happens to sterling, we should follow the core group towards European Monetary Union. They will forward their report to me in due course.

They might leave the Minister in the lurch when the heat is on.

During my years in public life I realised that few people can take the pressure. When I was Minister for Labour in 1987 everyone urged the Government to take a strong line during its first strike. There was unanimous agreement that this should happen. The discussions continued for several weeks until the Tuesday morning when the strike was to start and the power was to be turned off at 6 a.m. The day before the power cuts, employer organisations, major employers around the country, chambers of commerce and other groups took a strong line and told the previous Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey, that they supported him. Six hours after the strike I was in Mr. Haughey's office and a number of faxes were sent from business people asking what the Government was doing about the ESB strike.

This is the reality of holding the line and something similar happened during the currency crisis. The Opposition spokesman would love me to concede that the only reason money flowed back into the country was because of devaluation. I consistently said there were three——

A concession is a significant reason.

——reasons and devaluation was one of them. They waited to see what the policy of the new Government would be and whether we were going to follow the Maastricht criteria. The third reason was that it was vital for Ireland to put up a defence of the Punt and no one argued against doing that for a considerable length of time. The argument was about how long it could be done because in order to achieve credibility one must put up a defence. Few of the strongest supporters at the end were people who argued against up to mid-November. Deputy Rabbitte will recall that because at one stage he spoke up against it and issued a statement he was practically beseiged by the whole country. That was about a week after the election at the end of November and there was nobody publicly saying so at that stage. It was only the argument of whether it should be followed in December or January. It can be said now that there were people for and against but there were not. It was only late November and December and the first IBEC delegation came to meet the Government two or three days before Christmas.

I was opposed to saying, "we wrap the green flag round us and do not hit me now with the child in my arms".

I know the Minister took on board what Deputy Deasy, whom I support, said. It applies to a broader range of activities than the harvesting of timber because at present we have many young people who are anxious not to live off the State but to become self employed. This could be in the form of turf cutting which at present is not possible since the bogs are flooded. I know many men who have purchased small machines for harvesting turf. They intend selling it and getting an income for themselves for the six months from April to September. They are now idle and penniless. Last year's money which they used diligently is gone. The Minister should take this on board.

With regard to the application of these guidelines and regulations, officials now seem to be like computers or robots and there is no flexibility or give. God be with the days when an official used the regulations as guidelines and applied them on the ground as they saw fit. People were happy with that. Nowadays an official seems unable to be flexible with regulations and people are frustrated as a result.

It may not be relevant here but this also applies in regard to the grant to those with a handicap. The impression is being given that a person would need to have their leg amputated before they could consider getting this grant. People are anxious to do something for themselves and the little encouragement the State can give them is to advise them to buy a car, get a job and live life. That is not much to offer. We are only talking about a small number of people but the attitude is negative.

Another point that I wish to raise is in regard to a programme this week called "Marketplace" dealing with the activities of directors and executives of building societies and the role of the Central Bank. As a lay person I understood the Central Bank had a role in monitoring the activities of our building societies, their executives and directors. These people put themselves into positions in these building societies and then set about to rip them off with naked greed.

It appears to me that there was a line of communication between all of these building societies and insurance companies where top executives, meeting in cosy clubs, were exchanging information on their various scams. Legal people, senior accountants and others were called in to see how they could circumvent the regulations laid down by the Central Bank so these people could make vast amounts of money on top of good salaries. A young woman who was interviewed said when she applied for a loan she felt she was getting the best value for money. Later she felt extremely let down when she found she was paying well over the odds because of the naked greed of people that were in a position of trust to look after the moneys invested in that society. An elderly person who had a small investment felt whe was getting the best return possible when she was not. The people who were trusted to look after these investments were, in fact, ripping them off and the customers were paying over the odds for their borrowings and getting under the odds for their investments.

If the Central Bank was negligent did the Minister call in the officials or directors of the Central Bank to ask them why they were not alert? If they were negligent, has anybody been dismissed or is the situation still as it was? Do these people go on their merry way with their yachts, their chalets abroad, three holidays a year, big cars and expense accounts, when ordinary people are trying to provide a home for themselves, raise their famiily or make savings for their retirement and are being ripped off. Can these people now be assured that this racket is no longer continuing?

I have intimations from Deputies Finucane, Cox, Penrose, Yates and Connolly and if we are to hear them we will have approximately half an hour left before the Minister replies. Does the Minister wish to reply now or to take an extra five minutes before we conclude?

In fairness to the Deputies who are here I am happy to keep my reply short.

Is the Minister prepared to answer the questions in his ten minute reply?

I am happy to do that.

The point has been dealt with at length regarding these difficulties with C2 certificates and it is a problem the Minister is aware of. There is much emphasis nowadays on creating jobs but the stringency of the regulations that apply to C2 certifictes create a barrier to the creation of jobs and deprive many people of the incentive of being self employed. Adversely they are pressurised into being unemployed and drawing from the State. The difficulties with regard to C2 certificates affect certain segments of the community and should be addressed.

Another point the Minister might clarify relates to many people whose tax affairs are not in order. When it comes to trying to work out a formula for payment of the taxes to the Collector General the business many have excessive liabilities and a specified payment schedule of a duration of perhaps three to four years may be agreed. That may be just horrible for that business. Is there a ruling that the maximum is two years? I understand that if one decides on a one, two three or four year schedule there is a cumulative interest payment building up on that debt. I would like this clarified because there appear to be stringent regulations applied in relation to this matter.

Another point that Deputy Deasy referred to was that of co-op taxation. The marts are being pressurised, and rightly so, on account of the pollution Acts and environmental consciousness, to improve their facilities. The Minister may have received a submission from ICOS on behalf of the marts. Many of those marts turn over a small profit and the concession they are looking is in relation to capital tax allowances. The loss to the Exchequer would be about £50,000. It would be worth considering that because we are trying to improve the environment and there are rigid pollution laws, and a concession to the marts would be welcome.

I read recently the report from ICOS and their argument made sense. They had approximately 44 marts and it was intended to rationalise to 12. Presumably the concession was for 12 because there would not be much point in giving it to the 44 if the policy was to rationalise. I did not know; it was not clear.

Rationalisation is taking place and usually only certain marts can properly afford to go ahead with all these measures. In certain cases rationalisation is taking place because some marts are not viable economic units.

The other issue I wish to raise with the Minister is a general one. In relation to the figures of £150 million or £175 million which are being touted around at present regarding equity for Aer Lingus, what impact will there be on the national finances? The Aer Lingus issue was ruled out of order in the Dáil but the Taoiseach told the House that Aer Lingus executives would appear before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Commercial State-sponsored Bodies. I would like clarification that Aer Lingus executives have refused to meet the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Commercial State-sponsored Bodies next Tuesday. As the investigative body of semi-State bodies the Committee will not have a chance to put pertinent questions to these officials and that is something I very much regret.

Regarding the impact of the £150 million in equity and what the Minister had budgeted for this year, how can he equate that and what disruption it will create in regard to the management of the national finances?

I will be brief. On the comment by Deputy Finucane, I am extremely disappointed to hear that that is the case. Frankly, I am not surprised because I was somewhat taken aback at the prospect of the chief executive and chairman of Aer Lingus being exposed to whatever the political rigours of the committee might be at this point. If the Taoiseach sought last week to palm this matter off to a committee, that now cannot deal with it, it is up to the Whips to give time to debate what is a legitimate issue of public concern. The House should have a say in what happens and if the Committee is not dealing with it, the House should deal with it next week.

I wish to make one brief comment regarding what the Minister said in reply and I wish to ask one or two questions. In respect of public pay — it is not a time to enter a polemic on it and it is not the place to do it — the Minister raised a question, when I spoke about neutrality in local bargaining and the impact on the Exchequer accounts, regarding who are we talking about? Quite correctly we are talking about gardaí, teachers and so on. I did not elaborate on who we were talking about.

I am not arguing.

I made the point that it is virtually impossible to measure outputs. The Minister illustrated this point by stating if a teacher uses more chalk or if a garda catches more criminals, or whatever they are outputs that are impossible to measure. The Minister went on to talk about some of the archaic practices that exist and said if these were eliminated it could justify various increases. I know the Minister only mentioned it in an anecdotal way about who would do the photocopying or who would make the tea and that sort of thing. The problem with all of this discussion and approaching it in that manner is that there will be a real cost to be borne. If there are archaic practices, such as who does the photo-copying, there are 300,000 people who cannot make the tea or do the photo-copying for a wage. I am leaving the points of the anecdote at that level.

We are all in favour of conscience clauses in Programme for National Recovery s and Programme for Economic and Social Progress, stating that there will be area based schemes, and other matters but the unemployed are the residual all the time when it comes to the bargaining table. Understanding as the Finance Minister may be, as a former Minister for Labour, of all the archaic practices that one might wish to set to one side the difficulty is that he has very little room to manoeuvre as Minister for Finance. The national debt has to be paid and it is a large amount every year. The bill for Social Welfare for people in receipt of pensions, the unemployed and so on, is huge and the Minister has no option.

Regarding the public pay bill, again the Minister has little or no option but in so far as he has an option there is an onus on him to use his discretion to create more discretionary funds for application to other urgent issues, such as unemployment. Every time some archaic process is bought out, it is at the cost of resources which are not available to address what is the worst problem in the economy, unemployment. There is an onus.

These are not matters that one can simply make a decision to knock out of the system. They are matters which are part of individuals' conditions of employment and are either written or custom and practice. One cannot arrive to work on Monday morning, whether it is in the private or public sector, and say that the conditions that were related and relevant to a grade, for example, for years are now gone. That is not possible. It does not matter if there are 500,000 people unemployed. These are matters which cannot be brushed out of the system as simply as the Deputy seems to think.

I recall, and it was interesting to note, the extraordinary angst on the part of farmers in the cereal sector when they were told, even subject to getting money to do it, that some of their land would be set aside. Some 300,000 people in Ireland have been set aside. When the Minister is talking about resources for them perhaps a complete examination of these things needs to be carried out. Our society suffers such a sickness in terms of unemployment that the people who have jobs owe it to the unemployed not to start getting hung up on some of those things or putting a cost on them which drains resources which might be devoted to employment.

It is a fundamental issue and that is why I raised the point. I do not wish to engage further in it today but I am putting down that marker. The Minister for Finance has very little manoeuvrability but this is one of the biggest areas where there is manoeuvrability. If it manoeuvres in the direction of giving more, it is at the price necessarily of having less for someone else. That is the fundamental equation and if there is a conscience clause about the unemployed that is its measure. It is not about the residual parts, that small amounts of money are given to the unemployed. It has got to be at the core of the business and that is why I raised the issue.

I remind the Minister that I tabled a question on the Attorney General's report on Davy's and he may have an opportunity to comment on that later. I also tabled a question to the Minister in respect of the State's liability for pensions for former Post and Telegraphs employees, its extent, if it is funded, if it is provided for in the Estimates and will it be provided for in the future?

I wish to ask three brief questions in regard to the Revenue Commissioners. We have discussed tax clearance certificates. However, since 1984, under a directive of the then Minister for Finance whom I think was Deputy Dukes, in respect of public works being done for a contract of more than £20,000, the public authority contracting the works should ensure that the contractor had a tax clearance certificate. Interestingly, the Comptroller and Auditor General in the Appropriations Account for 1991, which is many years after the original date, said that the Accounting Officer — I presume he is referring to the Accounting Officer of the Revenue Commissioners — informed him that it was not within the remit of the Revenue Commissioners to ensure that the objective was achieved, namely that everyone who contracts over £20,000 to the State has a certificate. There was to be a system to be examined by the Department of Finance. Has it been examined? Is it in place and can the Minister state that the 1984 directive is now in operation?

Also, regarding the Revenue Commissioners, under subhead A.10, there is £2.5 million, if I read it correctly, for law charges, fees and rewards. How much of the £2.5 million goes towards rewards? The Minister might give examples, though obviously not particular examples, of the type of situation that would induce the Revenue Commissioners to reward people under that subhead.

Finally, also under that subhead, there is a detailed breakdown on salaries, wages and allowances and mention of the Office of the Appeals Commissioners. I remind the Minister that both Deputy Yates and I tabled an amendment to the Finance Bill, which we never got to, asking that the appeals commission be available for people with grievances relating to stamp duty. I do not mean valuation, as people can already appeal valuations, but disputes of interpretation where there is no avenue of appeal. My understanding is that on the charter for taxpayers, the Revenue Commissioners agreed that the right of appeal was a fundamental right. I know of cases where people have had disputes of interpretation about their extent of liability on stamp duty, which we tried to signal in the Finance Bill. I know there is an appeals mechanism in relation to valuations but not for other matters.

I noted the Minister's comments on the issue of C.2 certificates, which have their origin in section 17 of the Finance Act, 1970. If everything was as rosy as the Minister said, there would have been no need in the 1990 Finance Act to put an appeals system in place for the issue of C.2 certificates. It is a problem and there are many people — apart from those in the forestry area, as highlighted by Deputy Deasy, and people in other areas highlighted by Deputy Boylan, carpenters and painters among others, who cannot get work in the absence of a C.2 certificate. Many questions are relevant in regard to the issue of these certificates — in relation to setting up premises, etc. — but they can prevent people from obtaining them.

This issue of a C.2 on the basis of this information should be re-examined, especially in relation to supplying materials. Often, to get work with local authorities, people must get a C.2 certificate. This is also the case with a large number of civil contractors. If they fail to get it, they cannot employ as many people as they need.

How many people availed of the appeals commissioners since this new section came into being in 1990 and how many were successful? If that is an indicator, we should ensure that there is a relaxation on the issue of the C.2 certificate. This is important because 35 per cent of a person's money is retained, which is a lot when one is trying to start a business. I ask the Minister to look at that because it may be an impediment to the generation of employment.

In the President's establishment, I notice that the Centenarian's Bounty is £250 and that a sum of £25,000 has been allowed, which means that approximately 1,000 will qualify. Since only a nominal number of people will reach that age I ask the Minister to consider increasing the sum to £500 in the future. I am not influenced by the fact that my grand-mother is approaching her 100th birthday.

Send her a cheque in the post.

It is a milestone and I ask the Minister to increase the amount in the next budget.

Deputy Ferris said that ten parliamentary draftsmen, were employed at present, there is a need to double that number to keep pace with legislation outlined in the Programme for Government. I do not have a vested interest in this, but there are a large number of talented young legal people — both solicitors and barristers — and not all of them are earning the large salaries often quoted. Many, solicitors and barristers with four or five year's experience do not earn £5,000 per annum. Many of them would make excellent draftsmen after a few years' training and there are many potential applicants.

One of the issues that exercised everyone's mind is the application for lottery funds. A simple guide should be produced to show where, and how, one can apply for them. Many people have worthwhile projects, but everything in this area seems to be clouded. It is time to remove mystical veil and allow people to know where they can apply, the amount they are likely to get and when they will get it because people approach us with worthwhile projects but often, we are as much in the dark as they are, which should not be the case.

A few years ago, all the entrants were centralised through local authorities. There was a register, which was submitted to the relevant Department. That should be re-examined because it provided on initial focal point for those who wished to make submissions.

I am always interested in employment and in anything said about this subject. Every time there is a reduction in the public service, it has an impact on employment. I hope the Minister will now avail of the opportunity presented by the £8 billion allocation in the Structural Funds. I know county roads, etc., will be the focus of these substantial sums and that will be welcome in rural areas. However, it is important to have an attendant increase in employment in relation to the allocation of the funds. Through the years, local authorities played an important role as employment generators in rural regions and I hope they will get a directive in regard to how this money will be spent and that they will be allowed to recruit extra people to carry out the work. Even 15 to 20 people taken on by local authorities, gives an important boost to local villages because those cheques of £150 or £180 per week will be spent there, which is vital. I say that with the experience of watching the demise of rural villages, as a result of the embargo on recruitment by local authorities. This sounded the death knell for many villages and their local shops.

I hope that this will be tackled in the forthcoming allocation of Structural Funds.

Finally, I welcome the Minister's statement in relation to the third banking force. This is an important item, both for me and the Labour Party. The Programme for a Partnership Government, agreed in January, stated that the Government would establish a third banking force. There is a dominance in the banking area and obviously, oligopolies will emanate from such a dominance. Of course, huge profits have been generated, at the expense of customers, by businesses and individuals. There is now an urgent need for the establishment of a third force in banking on the retail and commercial side.

There is a big difference in the interest rate to depositors and borrowers. Three months ago depositors with £25,000 or less were getting about 4 per cent interest, while someone borrowing £25,000 paid 17 per cent interest, which clearly indicates the lack of competition in the area. This is a staggering differential, despite the advent of other financial institutions to the traditional banking areas.

A third banking force based on the amalgamated resources of the ACC, the ICC, the Trustee Savings Bank and the post office would be the size, and have the branch network. For example, the post office has 600 offices throughout the country. It would have goodwill, a customer base, financial strength and local market knowledge. This would enable it to compete with the large banks. I hope we hear of further developments in this regard. Such an institution would play a vital role in industrial development and would be of long term benefit to indigenous companies.

Deputies Yates, Connolly and Michael Ahern wish to speak. I ask the Deputies to be brief as the Minister will reply at 12.50 p.m.

I wish to ask the Minister if there will be a supplementary Estimate? Is the Minister satisfied that the areas outlined will operate within the allocated budget? I refer to specifically the President and, the level of travel undertaken by the President. The allocation has increased by 74 per cent. The figure of £1.5 million under that subhead is good value, given the number of functions carried out by the President. The sum of £106,000 is small when one considers the amount of travel undertaken and planned by the President. Will there be overspending in this area?

Regarding the Dáil and Senead, there has been an increase in expenditure in this area. Instead of a salary change subsistence allowances or expenses, research assistance should be provided for Opposition spokespersons, particularly in areas of acute responsibility. It is appalling that there is no research assistance or back-up for Opposition spokespersons. It is such a long time since the Minister was in Opposition he may have forgotten what it was like. The Minister has a myriad of civil servants and institutions, such as the Central Bank, the National Treasury Management Agency, the ESRI, etc. advising him, while the Opposition has nobody. We are dependent on individuals who offer their advice and expertise on a voluntary basis. They may be doing so out of self-interest. There is a mismatch between resources available to Government and those available to the Opposition. Under the subhead for the Oireachtas consideration should be given to the appointment of suitable people to assist Opposition Deputies on an advisory basis, particularly in the economic field——

Deputy Yates makes his tea and does his photocopying.

When we returned to Government in 1987, after many years in Opposition, we introduced rental allowances, secretaries for Members and provided computers and single offices, etc.

On behalf of backbench Deputies, I report progress in this regard.

There is a mismatch between resources available to Opposition spokespersons and those available to Government.

The county development teams are included in this subhead. Will they be disbanded when the county enterprise partnership boards are established?

Regarding the Attorney General, is there a proposal to introduce any form of accountability for the Attorney General? In the House of Commons, a system exists whereby the Attorney General may be questioned. Many questions put today remain unanswered.

Will the Minister clarify the situation in relation to decentralisation to County Wexford? Although a former Deputy, Séamus Cullimore, made promises on behalf of the Government, no progress has been made with regard to the Department of Social Welfare and the Office of Public Works.

I understand 600 staff are to be allocated to the Revenue Commissioners for audits. Difficulties will arise in relation to the proposed tax amnesty. Will people who have not been audited be granted immunity and indemnity from having an audit if they come forward with, for example, £200,000 and pay £30,000 in tax? Will they be liable to audit in the future? Will the Minister proceed with the allocation of 600 staff for audits? If the Minister is offering real immunity and indemnity, how will he resolve the unfair situation in relation to those who have been audited?

Regarding people who wish to set up businesses, are the Revenue Commissioners forms available? Are regulations in place in this regard? Employers who wish to set up businesses will face difficulties if this process is complex.

The gap between interest paid on deposit and on an overdraft accommodation is wide. Financial institutions only pay 1 per cent on deposits. If one has £100,000 or more on deposit one receives only 6.5 per cent in interst. If one borrows £100,000 or more from a commercial bank, interest rates are as high as 12 per cent. The Central Bank has control over this situation and I am not happy about that.

I return to the question of C2 certificates. Many of my constituents have problems obtaining these certificates and they relate to policy in Bord na Móna and the building trade. One of the main impediments to obtaining a C2 certificate relates to one's place of residence or business.

A number of people who live or have lived in a particular town all their lives and will continue to do so are not being granted C2 certificates because they are renting accommodation. People are drawing the dole and, I believe, working at the same time. Although I have no proof, this does happen. This situation must be addressed. If people are known to be resident in an area, but do not own the premises they should be granted a C2 certificate. There is a fear that an indiviaul may leave. However, if the history of the individual is known the fact that they do not own the premises should not be an impediment.

I welcome the proposal for a third banking force. Existing banks monopolise that sector. The introduction of another element into this market is important.

The Minister will reply for approximately 10 minutes before we proceed to the Vote for the Office of Public Works.

Deputy Yates asked about the county enterprise partnership boards. Following a recent Government decision, the county enterprise partnership boards have become the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn. This section has been transferred to his Department——

Will responsibility for the county development teams be assigned to the Minister for Enterprise and Employment?

Yes. Regarding the accountability of the Attorney General, the accounting officer for the Office of the Attorney General appears before the Committee of Public Accounts. The accounting officer has been examined by that committee and a number of Deputies have raised this issue. I will consider this matter.

On the questions on tax certificates and contracts, all Government Departments, officials and officers in general in the public service and a wide range of bodies are obliged to operate the scheme but the Comptroller and Auditor General found that some bodies were not operating it properly. The Revenue Commissioners expect Government bodies to operate the system correctly and the Department reminds them of their obligations from time to time.

The question of rewards was mentioned. Where information leads to substantial tax payments there is provision for a small reward. The total amount in any one year is about £25,000, most payments are small. If there were any large payments they would be for exceptional items which rarely occur.

I am sure the Central Bank learned a lot from its examinations with regard to building societies. Much of the data uncovered recently with the changes in the regulations involving building societies and PLCs came about because of the questioning and work of the Central Bank. An examination of the preparatory work carried out for the Central Bank led to the questions it asked. The Central Bank does not seek credit for this but it is only fair to mention that its probing raised many of these issues. The questions raised today are a matter for the Central Bank which is the responsible authority. I have no doubt that the bank will exercise its function on a basis which takes into account the recent developments and disclosures which upset everybody.

Can people now rest assured that their moneys are being managed in the best possible manner?

Yes, the Central Bank is the regulatory authority for the banks and building societies. They are improving their own prudential controls on the data they get. An examination by the Central Bank of the prospectuses prepared by building societies before they become PLCs led to a great deal of the data being uncovered. In other cases it might have been accountants and others hired by building societies who uncovered the data.

Deputy Cox asked about Telecom pensions. Under the present arrangements, the Minister for Finance is not required to make payments in respect of Telecom pensions until the income of the pension fund becomes insufficient to pay the benefits and the pensions as they arise. To date no payments have been made by the Minister for Finance in respect of Telecom pensions. The question is being examined by Telecom and the Department. Quite recently I had discussions with the board and chairman of Telecom to try to devise long term arrangements, there is no short term——

Will it be a departmental laibility in future?

It will, that is one of the provisions of the 1983 Act.

Is there an estimate of the likely liability?

That is now under examination. There will be no difficulty for about 20 years. There will be a long period before the issue arises but it is a Department of Finance liability.

There is a big staff and, therefore, the eventual liability could be very large.

It is a liability but I can assure the board and the staff concerned that this liability will be met, they are both trying to assess the precise extent of that liability.

I referred to forestry workers earlier.

On the matter of Revenue staff being mobile, most of the letters I receive state that they are too mobile. Some of the issues raised by Members this morning regarding some of their constituents are also related to this.

As part of their work they visit local events. I got a letter the other day stating that three of them arrived to check a pub licence at 10.30 p.m. last Friday night, which I doubt, but it is good to hear that they are working hard.

It must have been a big premises to require three officials.

The organisation of the Revenue Commissioners ensures that individual tax inspectors can communicate easily with head office in Dublin as issues arise.

Many Deputies and Senators praised the Revenue Commissioners for their efficiency. During the debates in the Seanad on the Finance Bill Senators on all sides of the House said that when they communicate with the Revenue Commissioners and receive details and replies from that Office they find it the most efficient of all Departments. Perhaps Senators deal with the Revenue Commissioners more frequently than with other Departments. It is an efficient Department.

Deputies will appreciate that in view of the complexity of the Aer Lingus issue it would not be appropriate for me to comment. Clearly any decision on a possible equity injection for Aer Lingus will have to take into account the implications for the budget for this and subsequent years. That is a matter which will have to be dealt with but control of public finances is a priority for this Government.

Deputy Finucane asked about tax arrears; there is no maximum period for repaying such arrears. The main consideration is that the business is capable of meeting the current tax liability. Deputy Finucane also asked about the C2 forms. The scheme was introduced to prevent abuse of the system by people claiming social welfare payments while working. Without the certificate, tax is deducted — as we all know — at 35 per cent but there is no barrier to working, those affected can apply for a tax refund on a monthly basis by completing their P.45 form.

Deputy Upton raised the matter of the State laboratory. Only a small amount is expended on the research and development work of the laboratory. The State is principally doing the analytical service for Government Departments and research and development is carried out when necessary. It is not the chief function of the State laboratory.

On the issue of decentralisation, I gave details on all the centres except — as Deputy Yates asked for — the position in Wexford. The headquarters of the new vehicle registration tax service which will be called the Central Vehicle Office, will be located in Wexford town. Thirty one of the staff are already in situ and housed temporarily in Rosslare pending the provision of the new offices in Wexford town to incorporate centralised offices for all the civil servants in the town. I understand that accommodation briefs are being finalised with the Department. The building will primarily accommodate the locally-based Civil Service staff who are housed in inadequate and unsuitable space at present. A section of the Department of the Environment was also decentralised to Wexford to form the Environmental Protection Agency, its offices will be in Johnstown Castle. There have been some problems in relation to this but it is hoped to invite proposals from interested developers within the next three months.

What about the Attorney General and Davys?

I now have the report but it was agreed at the outset that it would not be published. In his advice to me the Attorney General stressed that it should not be published pending the other report which is being prepared by the London and Dublin stock exchanges. I believe their report is to be completed shortly but I have no definite information on that. The Attorney General warned me that he could not stress strongly enough that if the report were dealt with in anything other than its privileged context, it would cause great difficulties. At this stage the report has not gone to Government but it will shortly.

Is there any form of the report in a edited version which shows the key conclusions because it is an issue of public policy, it involves public expenditure and relates to Estimates with which we are dealing?

When the other inquiry is completed the Government will have to decide on this. I would welcome the publication of the Government's report but we cannot ignore the Attorney General's advice and must wait until the other report is completed. In the meantime this report will go to Government.

That concludes this section, Chairman. Some Deputies asked questions on other matters and I will communicate directly with them. I thank Deputies for their questions and attendance at the Committee meeting this morning.

Thank you, Minister, for your frank and forthright replies to the Deputies' questions.

Vote 10 — Office of Public Works.

We now move on to Vote 10. It is proposed to have a question and answer session from 1 p.m. to 1.50 p.m. and then the Minister will conclude between 1.50 p.m. and 2 p.m. Does the Minister wish to reply to each group of questions raised or reply to Deputies when they are finished?

I have no particular preference, I am in the hands of the Committee. Perhaps if the questions were grouped we could deal with sections as we go alone.

That may not be possible because I had intimations from six Deputies during the course of the last session and I now have requests from three or four more. I suggest we take the first three or four Deputies, hear replies to their questions and then take a similar number. I ask Deputies to put questions rather than make speeches so that we can accommodate the Minister and other Members. We will start with Deputy McGrath, followed by Deputies Nealon and O'Leary. We will then take Deputies Broughan, Cox, Bruton and Finucane.

This is the first opportunity the Minister of State has had to address the Estimates for the Office of Public Works. I welcome him. It is also my first opportunity to address them so I hope all will go well.

The Office of Public Works is a wide ranging department with many responsibilities. Not until I became spokesman on the subject did I realise how vast it was and the number of areas covered by the Office of Public Works.

The first subhead relates to administration. The office is said to have a Civil Service staff of 832. Staff numbers are indicated under various subheads in the brief. Those other staff comprise 1,629 people which means that 832 civil servants look after 1,629 workers on the ground.

That ratio of 1:2 seems very high. Other factors are involved and much of the work carried out by the Office of Public Works is subcontracted. Nonetheless it seems high ratio of civil servants to workers. I notice the arterial drainage construction staff has reduced to 84 employees. Have they the same number of administrative staff or has that been reduced over the years? Will the Minister address that issue?

On Friday last in the Dáil Chamber we discussed the Estimates for Education. The Minister for Education told us the total Civil Service staff in the Department of Education was 840. They are in charge of 45,000 to 50,000 teachers around the country. That should be compared with the position in the Office of Public Works.

I would be an understatement to say the Office of Public Works has not been getting a good press in the past couple of years. That is a shame. I admire much of the work it has done. The handling of the heritage centres in more recent times has attracted criticism. It may not have been the fault of the Office of Public Works but matters could have been better handled.

As a primary school teacher I recall receiving some years ago a flood of interesting material from what was the Forestry and Wildlife Service, now part of the Office of Public Works. It concerned wildlife and birds in Ireland. That information seems to have stopped. On my last visit to the classroom teachers were relying on old material. The Office of Public Works has since issued a new magazine, Heritage Highlights. Is that sent to schools and to what extent is it used by teachers?

There is a great need for material about our flora and fauna, wild mammals, and birds. The Forestry and Wildlife Service was a great provider of that in the past. It should be produced again. For the Office of Public Works it would be money well spent both in terms of public relations and fostering our heritage. That would perhaps arise under the subhead for incidential expenses, A.3.

The most famous Office of Public Works projects at the moment are Mullaghmore and Luggala. Has the Minister allocated moneys in this year's Estimate for work on those two projects and, if so, how much? It seems unlikely any development will take place on them in 1993. How soon does the Minister expect that work to start bearing in mind he has launched public discussion on it which will take a couple of months. He must then formally apply for planning permission with possible appeals to An Bord Pleanála and the courts. Has money been allocated for that?

On subhead E, new works, alterations and additions, one alteration dear to all our hearts in Leinster House is that to the air conditioning in the Dáil Chamber. It was supposed to be carried out this year. Will the Minister confirm if that work will be completed by next session?

It is also important to consider access for wheelchair users to Leinster House. We are privileged to have a wheelchair bound Member of the Seanad, Senator Crowley. He is welcome to Leinster House. Changes had to be made to accommodate people in wheelchairs. However, it may be impossible to allow a wheelchair bound visitor access to the public galleries. It cannot be easily done over a short period because of the nature of the building. Nonetheless such work should be reasonably high on our priority list.

Flooding comes under the arterial drainage subhead. In my constituency flooding occurs on a regular basis along the Shannon and at places like Golden Island. I receive regular calls to go to see the flooding and I have to wade through inches of water on the roads.

It is a major problem although I do not want to drain the Shannon again. Should the flood lands along the banks of the Shannon be considered one of our heritage areas, preserved for wildlife? What do we say to farmers trying to make a living from those lands? Their crops are regularly flooded; they are under water at the moment. The farmers are suffering loss of income. What can the Minister offer them?

The area I mentioned was designated for preservation of the corncrake. The Department of Agriculture and Food offered help for that purpose. Even the poor corncrake has not managed to survive when they are under two to three feet of water on the shores of the Shannon. Does the Minister intend to help alleviate the problems?

On subhead J., national monuments and historic properties, we have a large number of national monuments around the country. We are all the better for it. The visitation of these centres has become very popular with tourists and others in recent times. People come to the country especially to see some of our monuments. There is the vexed question of accessibility to those monuments, the difficulty with insurance cover and, if it is on private property, the problems that arise in relation to occupiers' liability. The Minister has a number of cases pending in relation to accidents that occurred on the sites of national monuments. We must decide what we are going to do about this question. None of our national monuments which are hundreds of year old were constructed with safety in mind. They were constructed with a view to protecting those inside them. It was extremely difficult for somebody who wanted to enter them. They had winding stairs and the steps were uneven to make it safer for the occupants. However, thousands of people are visiting those old castles and monuments and somebody who trips and falls on a step and is injured complains to Office of Public Works saying that they broke an ankle and blames the Office of Public Works. I am sure that payouts have been made. It is time we addressed this issue from the legal point of view. People have to realise that those ancient monuments and buildings were not designed for safety or as visitor centres. When they were designed those matters were not taken into account. We must introduce legislation that will reflect that and people must be told that they enter to those places at their own risk unless they can prove that there was negligence on the part of the Office of Public Works.

We urgently need to address the problem in relation to farmers. This is very pertinent in the Burren where many of our national monuments are now inaccessible because of notices by farmers. We had recently the report from the Law Society in relation to Occupiers Liability which was published in the past couple of weeks. Could the Minister use his good offices in regard to our national monuments which come within his bailiwick. It is very important that the Minister brings pressure to bear on the other Departments. The Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor, was dealing with this. I emphasise the urgency of doing this as soon as possible. We do not want our national monuments to become inaccessible. It is important that the Minister uses his influence to introduce this legislation as quickly as possible.

I appeal to Members to be as quick as possible because it is now 1.15 p.m. Ten Deputies have indicated that they wish to make contributions or raise questions. I would appreciate if Deputies could ask straightforward questions and not make speeches. I allowed Deputy McGrath to make a speech because he is an official spokesperson on the Office of Public Works for his party.

In relation to administration and the Civil Service, the increase in the number of administrative staff referred to was as a result of a number of vacancies which occurred in December 1991 being filled at the commencement of 1992. They should have been filled in 1991 but we did not get sanction. There were other administrative staff in relation to the Botanic Gardens. The figure of 800 is almost half what it was four or five years ago.

On public relations and the Office of Public Works, I agree with Deputy McGrath when he stated that in the recent past the Office of Public Works did not get the credit it deserved. It has many in respects been maligned in the media because of the visitor centres. All the good work done in regard to national monuments and wildlife was cast to one side and doubts about the integrity of the Office of Public Works and its commitment to conservation and wildlife and so on were voiced by some people in the media. I agree with Deputy McGrath that we have a Public Relations job to do. Some damage was done to the Office of Public Works by the criticisms. I am not talking about people that have genuine disagreement with the Office of Public Works in relation to the citing of visitor centres or who have a philosophical argument as to whether there should be any visitor centres or not. Everybody is entitled to freely express their views and put them forward. Some people went overboard in saying that the Office of Public Works was trying to destroy rather than conserve.

The Office of Public Works issues a newsletter as part of the public relations process, but we have not got the information out to everybody. The newsletter is for all schools, and for fifth classes, which includes the heritage highlights we mentioned. Many leaflets are made available in the different centres. A heritage book the Deputy will be familiar with gives full details of all sites. In addition we regard the guide services at the sites as part of the PR process. The visitor centres and videos that we show are also part of that process. We frequently take part in radio and television programmes and we have films commissioned.

In addition — this is a service I would like to see expanded — rangers visit the national schools. I have seen them at work and I know the effect they have. We create an awareness and the right image of what the Office of Public Works is doing. I assure the Deputy I am not going to promise to drain the Shannon — that one is played out at this stage.

What about the Shannon corridor?

Jealousy, Deputy, will get you nowhere. Please allow the Minister to continue.

On the Shannon callows, that will be designated a natural heritage area and the new scheme of grants for national heritage areas will apply to it.

The Deputy also mentioned the support of the corncrake scheme. The Irish wild bird conservancy started this scheme and we co-operated with them in that. We are very active in that scheme. In relation to the Shannon, I am afraid I cannot offer any hope as yet. It is a very special case but it is not a viable proposition. The economic benefit that would accrue to agriculture would be far outweighed by the cost incurred and, I venture to say, the possible environmental damage which might be caused in undertaking it. Any person who might be thinking of issuing a press release about this for the next election should think again. The points made about the three visitor centres and the money that will not be spent there have been raised with the Department of Finance. It will be regarded as savings this year. The forecast for expenditure on the projects up to the time of suspension is £3 million. It is obvious, even with the best will in the world on all sides, that work will not recommence this year, which will mean a saving of £3.2 million. We are having discussions with the Department of Finance but the short answer to the Deputy's question is that money not spent will be regarded as savings. We will be talking to the Department of Finance about that.

I asked for a preliminary draft report to be prepared on a full programme of provision of facilities in Leinster House. An initial draft arrived about a week ago and I propose to talk to the relevant people in Leinster House and on a consultative basis with the Whips of the various parties. We will bring the full plan forward as quickly as we can.

What can be done about overcrowding?

We have to make space available in the College of Art and other places. I want an overall plan, rather than piecemeal developments, which was the case in the past. Even if it takes four or five years I will be happy as long as we know where we are going.

My colleague, Deputy Michael Ahern asked if the plan has been put in place and agreed by the Department of Finance and the Government. It has been and no matter who is in my office the work will be carried out over the next four or five years.

Does the Minister envisage access to extra public buildings, for example, the present site of the museum?

There are proposals to site the museum in Collins Barracks. I envisage that if the National Museum was vacant it would be available to the Leinster House authorities. The Fisheries Yard could provide car park space. I want to come forward with an integrated programme and implement it over a couple of years.

I have had discussions with the chairmen of the various committees, one of the priorities, obviously, is full committee rooms with proper facilities. As I envisage the committees, expanding in the years to come, the chairmen will need offices and back up staff. There must be development but there is no point in expanding willy-nilly without having a clear idea of what we want to do.

Will the Minister agree that backbenchers are badly neglected? They have to work across the road, which is an intolerable situation, one party represented in Government is packed into a small area of Leinster House. The facilities for backbenchers are surely at least as important as for any fugitive chairmen. Sorry Chairman.

Can I take that as a compliment?

Facilities for all Members of the House are equally important. Even since I arrived in the House when I shared a small office with another Deputy and two secretaries facilities have improved considerably.

We know what happened in that office.

Unfortunately, my colleague did not do as well as I did. He is no longer in the House. I appreciate and share the Deputy's concern, but I want to address it in an integrated way rather than piecemeal.

One of the major gripes in recent years has been the air conditioning in the Dáil Chamber — we had a number of protests about it from various Deputies. It is the major improvement specifically for this year, work will start as soon as the Dáil rises and I hope it will be finished by 20 September.

The needs of wheelchair users will also be addressed. There are major problems in relation to access to Leinster House, but the only way I see those being resolved is by lifts and those can be included in the overall development plan.

In relation to the general question the Deputy raised about public liability, the Law Reform Commission has now reported. Access to State monuments and State buildings generally is not a problem. I know resultant claims are always a problem, but access is not. The Law Reform Commission has reported, the Government has given a commitment and is very anxious that a Bill is brought forward as a matter of urgency to address this. As the Deputy says it is a serious problem and needs to be addressed urgently.

Members will now ask questions and perhaps the Minister of State will reply in block. Deputy Broughan may have put his main question in the course of the last debate.

We will now hear Deputies Nealon, O'Leary, Broughan, Cox, Richard Bruton, Finucane and Michael Ahern. Deputy Smith and Deputy Penrose indicated that they wish to ask questions. That leaves us with about two or three minutes each and I would appreciate if members would facilitate their colleagues by being brief.

I will be brief — roughly two and a half minutes — and as the matter I am dealing with relates to Sligo-Leitrim and it is naturally important and in order.

The Estimate for arterial drainage construction works for this year is down by a massive 37 per cent. The total number employed in the country is 84 and the work is in progress only on the River Boyle, indeed the work on it is nearly finished. It seems we are seeing the final run down of arterial drainage; the wrapping up of a process that began in 1945 and which has been of enormous benefit to many parts of the country. Will the Minister confirm this?

It is only fair to state the position so that people will not suffer the delusion that dredgers will be used. They are certainly needed on the Owenmore and Arrow River in my constituency. This catchment area is now at the top of the list compiled in 1945 and, just as its turn has come, it seems the Government intends to pull out of arterial drainage.

If the Minister of State or his advisers visit the area they would realise why the Department should not pull out of arterial drainage on the Owenmore and Arrow. Thousands of acres of pasture, silage and meadows are covered with water. The water is now, in the worst affected area, 11 feet higher than its normal summer level. A harvester which was in place for cutting silage before the floods is now a minor tourist attraction. All you can see is the top of the chute peering over the lapping waters like the periscope of a submarine.

Yeats could not have said it better.

There has been enormous damage, fields are covered with silt and refuse of all sorts — coke cans, beer cans and bottles. Much of the silage and meadows are a total write off, especially as the floods will not recede for a further 11 to 12 days.

We are not talking about just a few farms. The total catchment area of the Owenmore and Arrow is about 140,000 acres — one third of the land area of County Sligo — and 29,000 acres of that are flooded. The last time I asked the Minister in March when the cost benefit analysis would be ready, he told me that the current prospect of devising a viable drainage scheme was not good. That statement — decoded — suggests that the Government is about to pull out of arterial drainage altogether and that it will never be done. I appeal to the Minister of State to ensure that this is not the sad end to a fight that has gone on for so long. The Owenmore drainage committee has been in operation for 60 years and there is no excuse for further delay on the result of the cost draining scheme. All the facts and figures are there, the analysis has been done and it is now well past decision time. I look forward to getting a positive answer from the Minister of State.

Ross Castle in Killarney is one of our most famous castles. Its restoration has taken many years and is now practically complete. I understand that it will be officially reopened on 20 July. I would like the Minister of State to do the honours and perform the official opening. I thank the commissioners, staff and general operators for the manner in which the restoration work was carried out. Restoring the castle was a most difficult and intricate task. We are fortunate that work started and that it was carried out slowly but surely over the years.

I would be grateful if the Minister could tell me that ancillary works and services will be provided in the vicinity of the castle, including a proposed information centre. I would also like to know what will happen to the staff employed in the restoration works after 28 July. Many of these have been employed by the Office of Public Works for many years. Despite the fact that most of them are employed on a contract basis, there is plenty of work for them, for example, in carrying out further improvement works on the national park in Killarney and on castles in west Limerick, the Skelligs and in Ardfert where there is a big job planned regarding restoration. There is also work in Derrynane, in Muckross House and indeed in the eradication of some of the rhododendrons in Killarney which are threatening the survival of the native oak and other woods.

More park rangers and wildlife officers should be employed in the national park in Killarney, they are necessary to ensure the preservation of the flora and fauna associated with a national park of 26,000 acres. I would like to see the red and sika deer herds properly protected and culled as necessary. There have recently been differing opinions as to the extent to which sika deer should be culled each year.

I appeal to the Minister to provide additional money for arterial drainage in 1994. I am talking about the maintenance of embankments where arterial drainage work was carried out, in particular the embankments in the Milltown and Cromán areas of County Kerry. These could be repaired at relatively little cost and the benefits to local land owners would be immense. When the banks break following a high tide or storm, land and roads become flooded and it takes a long time for floods to recede. When they do, irreparable damage has been done to the roads and the land.

As the Minister stated, the Office of Public Works receive adverse media publicity from time to time, which is most unfair. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister of State, the chairman of the commissioners, the commissioners and the head office staff for the co-operation and help to the directors and trustees of Muckross House in Killarney in relation to the provision of improvement works and services at Muckross House as well as the development of large scale car and bus parking facilities adjacent to it.

There is a newly developed country life experience theme park based on three farms and farm houses. The equipment is an exact replica of that used in County Kerry in the last century, and indeed in this century, up to 35 to 40 years ago, before modern agricultural machinery and technology came on stream. This is a typical example of the great co-operation between the Office of Public Works and the directors and trustees in Muckross House. The large scale facilities and improvement works carried out by the Office of Public Works in Killarney's national park are typical of its great work throughout the country with limited financial resources. I hope the Minister does his utmost to get additional money for the Office of Public Works in 1994.

I have some questions regarding the Meteorological Office and Agriculture House. Do we have any recourse to insurance or any other clawback mechanism to get some of the money that was obviously misspent at the time on those buildings and one or two similar cases? Our rentals seem remarkably high at 13 per cent. Do we have any cost benefit analysis in the relationship between constructing our own buildings and renting about 350 sites?

I admire the Office of Public Works and I often wonder if perhaps it could not have a more appropriate name, for example, "Heritage office". My colleague in another Department has appropriated that but we could have some name which would reflect the nature of the work rather than its current boring title. In relation to decentralisation, in or own city for example there is Stephen's Green, Phoenix Park and so on. I often wonder whether there is scope for allowing some local administration in those areas. In Dublin we have an excellent parks department in both city and county. I would like to make a special plea for one important building, City Hall, which, at the moment, is a shambles. The roof is falling in and last week, during the storms, we were going around with buckets trying to prevent flooding. It is the floor where Daniel O'Connell walked, where Bertie Ahern plied his trade and where I now ply my trade. Since it is an historic building could something be done about it?

Finally, I applaud and welcome the remarks by the Minister about facilities for Deputies and Senators. It is unfortunate and a poor state of affairs that at this time in the development of our democracy, there are three Deputies and two secretaries trying to work in one small room. It is singularly inappropriate and we should have facilities reflecting our role as representatives of perhaps 25,000 people. Dublin Deputies have a special problem on Saturdays and Sundays because of the fact that we have our offices here and when we are on a radio programme we have difficulty in getting acess to materials. This is another area which should be examined.

I will stick to a few brief comments although I am effectively the only spokesperson from my party. Questions have already been raised about accommodation. I would like to ask the Minister a question about the reference in the statement of the Minister for Finance today to Mespil Road, which is being refurbished to supply offices to two Ministers and their Departments. As the Cabinet is the same size it has always been, why is it necessary to have additional accommodation for what amounts to an identical number of Ministers? It is not clear why new accommodation is necessary since, presumably, in the past there was adequate accommodation for Ministers. How much will it cost? Will an annual cost be incurred? Are the buildings already in State hands and State leases?

I would like also to raise the issue which Deputy Broughan just mentioned about the cladding in Agriculture House and the Meteorological Office. As they are new buildings, it is unfortunate that £1 million had to be provided for each building this year as part of a wider budget for recladding. Of course they should be recladded, but who is to blame, who is answerable? Was it a problem with the building, a specification or the architect? Is any remedy available to the State? It seems most unfortunate that the taxpayer is picking up liabilities in respect of new buildings. Investment in these buildings could not be regarded as heritage conservation.

I welcome the Minister's remarks on Leinster House. If the museum building became available to Leinster House, it would be a useful addition. If the museum moves to Collins Barracks, I do not know the implications for the leasing of buildings such as Kildare House or whether that would need to continue.

This House is about to consider a Bill on hare coursing and I can tell the Minister that when one is coursed through the front gates of Leinster House on a regular basis for votes and so on, particularly if the weather is inclement, it is not an easy way to conduct one's business. While I do not object to meeting various delegations, meeting them in puddles at the front of Leinster House is not acceptable.

I have questions in respect of the Burren and Luggala centres, and if the Minister cannot answer them today I would like him to answer in correspondence. I would like to know the details of the sequence of contracts, the contract signing dates and the amounts of expenditure. There seems to have been an indecent haste at certain periods to proceed with some of these developments. I would like to be able to evaluate whether this strong impression which I received was correct.

Regarding the wider controversy, I take the Minister's point, that a minority of the coverage in respect of these centres and the role of the Office of Public Works may have been over the top. For a long period I was against the siting of the centre at Mullaghmore and I do not wish to repeat that argument, except to say that the issue was badly handled. I hope that the only lesson to be learned is not that the media got it wrong, because I do not think they did. The Office of Public Works should try to learn the lesson through the Commissioners.

The Office of Public Works and the Commissioners have in some respects, as the Minister pointed out, been brought into disrepute; he talked about them being maligned. Perhaps, healthier circumspection in projects such as this between the Office of Public Works and various political proponents of projects might have helped the Office of Public Works to avoid such controversy in the first place. It is a lesson which I would draw if I was at a senior level in the Office of Public Works because in respect of the project about which I know most, there was a political overdrive operating from an early stage which left the Office of Public Works potentially compromised in regard to the question of site selection.

In respect of subhead F. 1 of the Vote, there is £9.65 million available for various classes or expenditure, one of which is the maintenance and security of vacant buildings. Will the Minister state how many buildings are vacant, for how long and the expenditure incurred by the State? To what extent, if these are not just short term transitory arrangements, is one carrying a burden on buildings, not just in current terms but perhaps in capital cost?

Finally, returning to an issue raised by Deputy Broughan, there are 350 rentals costing £24 million per annum. What are the criteria in deciding to lease or buy? A large amount of rental expenditure is listed. I do not know the options but I would have thought if that is the level of recurrent expenditure, there must be a good case for considering the capital financing by the State of more of these units. The quid pro quo of that is reduced current expenditure in rental or leasing terms.

We have five minutes before the Minister is due to reply. Five Deputies wish to contribute so could they take one minute each and put their main question? It is unfair that we should leave anyone out who wishes to contribute.

I will attempt to be very brief. First, I want to question the Minister about the continued programme of decentralisation from Dublin of public servants. Dublin has lost 4,000 public servant employment places in the last decade and another 2,500 are planned to be taken out of Dublin under the decentralisation programme. This is not acceptable as there have been heavy losses of employment in Dublin in the last decade while it has grown in the rest of the country. It is time to examine that and I ask the Minister to discuss it with his colleagues.

Secondly, I would like to see much more detail on the initial cost of projects and how final costs compare with the initial estimates. We have seen, sadly, even from the Office of Public Works, cases of massive overruns on projects, which were only revealed years later through the examination of the public accounts. We should be presented here each year with the projected cost of a project, how it is performing against its budgeted spending for the duration of that project, if there are projects running over their projected cost and what will be done about it.

Finally, why were the buildings opposite the Dáil allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that water got in through the roof and valuable architectural heritage was damaged, while they were the responsibility of the Office of Public Works? It is unacceptable and not an example to private developers who are only too anxious to allow such decay, which leads to ultimate demolition.

I have a question regarding courthouses. Will the Minister indicate if it is envisaged that the Office of Public Works will take over the administration of the various courthouses? Every county council received an assurance a few years ago that courthouses would no longer be their responsibility. It is a drain on county council expenditure each year, many of these institutions are Dickensian and district justices complain about the conditions. It would be beneficial if they became the responsibility of the Office of Public Works.

I compliment the Office of Public Works on its excellent work in my home town of Newcastlewest where it has been restoring Desmond Castle, a focal point in the square in Newcastlewest. I would like an indication of how much money is projected to be spent this year because there is a reference in the notes that the work will continue. What is the timescale for completion? I recently met a wag who asked me if there was a preservation order on the scaffolding. There is a lack of appreciation of the painstaking work done. I compliment the stonemasons on the work they do on castles and so on.

My final point is in relation to wildlife rangers which are the Minister's responsibility. Would it be feasible for them to have some type of radio contact with base in their cars because it is a hazadous job. I wonder about the adequacy of the backup service with which they are provided.

I commend the Office of Public Works on its work in Barryscourt Castle. Walter Raleigh was connected with that and I believe he was a cigarette importer. I wonder if he was the first drug smuggler in Cork.

In the Justice Vote, £4 million is allocated for the 1993 Garda building programme. Is Cobh Garda station included in that? It is in a bad state of repair. In the context of the development in the area it is important to repair it in the near future.

There are no national parks in east Cork and many tourists visit Cobh, Youghal and Midleton. The Glenbower Wood and Lake in Killeagh is an ideal site for another national park. I ask the Minister to examine the feasibility of this proposal.

I congratulate the Office of Public Works on its substantial contribution to the restoration of the Ballyconnell-Ballinamore Canal. The extension of the Erne navigation from Belturbet through Lough Oughter to Killykeen Forest Park in Killeshandra would be complementary to the Ballyconnell-Ballinamore canal project and a major addition to our inland waterways network. I appeal to the Minister to make every effort to provide money for this project in the next tranche of Structural Funds. To coincide with the opening of the Ballyconnell-Ballinamore canal next May the Minister could arrange for the launch of the Erne navigation project.

The Minister should review the Arterial Drainage Act so that smaller remedial schemes could be undertaken, as happens in that part of my province in the Six Counties. Such works would be of major benefit to the rural economy, particularly the farming community.

What plans does the Minister have for further development of the Royal Canal? Has the Office of Public Works submitted any submission for Structural Funds for that project? This canal should be navigable from Island-bridge to the Shannon. It would be an important tourist amenity.

Are there employment prospects in the Office of Public Works in coming years? It was an important employment source in the 1960s and 1970s.

I ask the Minister to regard Mullingar as a suitable site for the decentralisation proposed for the near future. Its central location and accessibility because of road developments and the proposed allocation of Structural Funds to the Dublin-Sligo railway line will make it an attractive site for decentralisation proposals.

I agree with Deputy Finucane about the responsibility for courthouses imposed on county councils. It is high time the Office of Public Works took full responsibility for all such costs because it has been a severe drain on council finances over the last 30 or 40 years.

I regret to inform the Minister the committee has taken about two and a half minutes of his time.

I will reply as quickly as I can. Deputy Nealon raised a specific issue about arterial drainage. The Deputy is aware we propose to finish the Boyle drainage in Sligo. The cost benefit analysis and environmental impact assessment has been completed on the Owenmore/Arrow project and we hope to have a final decision on that in the near future. Other factors — like environmental impact — must now be taken into account, which was not the case in 1945.

I thank Deputy O'Leary for his invitation to Ross Castle and I will be delighted to open it on 28 July. I hope the Deputy will be there to greet me. Some ancillary work will be done on it but Ross Castle will have a visitor-guide service. The staff who worked there are experienced and skilled and it is hoped to use many of them in other Office of Public Works projects in the area. They will be used at Ardfert, a project mentioned by the Deputy.

There were a number of questions about decentralisation. In relation to that, the Office of Public Works merely acts as an agent for Government, in other words, we do what we are told. If the Government decides an office is to be decentralised to Mullingar or Tullamore we act as an agent for them, to find suitable premises or sites. The questions on decentralisation are more appropriate to the Minister for Finance and, through him, to the Government.

There were questions on problems in Agriculture House and the Meteorological Office. The Office of Public Works has succeeded in getting some compensation for the problems that have arisen at the Meteorological Office. The matter of Agriculture House is in the hands of the Chief State Solicitor. I will not comment any further on that but it is being pursued.

Deputy Cox had a number of questions about spare accommodation, lack of accommodation and rental. I cannot go into the detail Deputy Cox sought but, if he communicates with the Chairman he will be provided with as much information as possible. Accommodation issues are closely monitored. A report on occupied accommodation is prepared on a quarterly basis and the Chairman will be pleased to discuss it with the Deputy.

The Deputy also mentioned Mespil Road and additional accommodation for the same number of Ministers. In some respects the Office of Public Works is a victim of its own efficiency because it has disposed of much spare accommodation over the last number of years and now needs to look for extra accommodation. The Mespil Road office, for instance, is rent free for 15 months and thereafter will be £441,000 per annum. The rent is payable to FÁS so it was already in State hands.

I was asked about the sequence of events for Office of Public Works contracts. I will refer to the Burren because it is of particular interest to the Deputy but I can let him have the others. Phase I of the contract was placed on 23 October 1992; phase II was placed on 4 December 1992. The Deputy may be adverting to the placing of the second phase on the day after the High Court declined to grant an injunction in respect of the Burren development. At that stage we had a favourable High Court decision on that development and the Wicklow visitor centre. Normally we are criticised for not proceeding fast enough——

From the Minister's perspective, there was also the advantage of a single party Government on both relevant dates.

The Government decision had been taken a long time before that. It was subscribed to by both parties then in Government. The Deputy may discuss the questions about the criteria for leasing or buying with the Chairman or the appropriate officials in the Department. That is connected with accommodation, rent and the decentralisation programme.

Deputy Bruton also raised that matter and the question of public servants moving from Dublin. That is a Government decision and would have to be raised with the Minister for Finance. The job of the Office of Public Works is to try to ensure that decisions taken by Government are executed. It acts as an agent.

I was a member of the Committee of Public Accounts and I recall that on a number of occasions, between 1987 and 1989 the Chairman of the Office of Public Works attended the committee to explain overruns, delays and extra expenditure between 1982 and 1985. Since then the Office of Public Works has installed a management programme for each project which has worked well. All the major projects of the Office of Public Works in the last four or five years are operating to schedule and within budget. This is to be commended.

A Government decision was taken that the Department of Justice would look after court-houses and unless the Office of Public Works is instructed otherwise it will not take them over. If the Office of Public Works is asked to take them over it would require a rather large budget because, Deputies said, the condition of many court-houses leaves a lot to be desired.

What about the condition of the buildings belonging to the Office of Public Works in Merrion Street?

The Merrion Street Houses were only maintained and that maintenance had to be within a limited budget. It was anticipated at the stage when the Office of Public Works was in control and maintaining them, that they would be sold and this posed a question regarding the viability of too much expenditure on the maintenance of such buildings.

I agree with Deputy Finucane in relation to wildlife rangers and the support services. Deputy Smith raised the review of the Arterial Drainage Act. This will be undertaken and a feasability study is proceeding regarding the River Erne. In reply to Deputy Penrose, EC Structural Funds have been applied for in relation to the ongoing developments in the Royal Canal. The outcome is uncertain but I hope funding will be available to continue the works there. Other points were made in relation to employment. The Office of Public Works will make any possible contribution to employment provided funding is given by the relevant Government Department. I may have missed some matters for which I apologise to Deputies.

How much is the Office of Public Works spending on Desmond Castle, Newcastle West, and when it is likely to be finalised?

Minister, as we are overtime, you might reply to the Deputies concerned by letter as some of the outstanding questions will require a researched answer.

On a point of order before we finish, I am aware that the Chairman is constrained by the nature of the order under which the committee operates and that the Committee's time has now expired. However, I would like to make the point that when an Estimates Committee meets, its real purpose is to tease out matters on the record. Because this is done in such a rush it is not fair to the Minister, the people here with him or to ourselves. If the Estimates process is to be treated seriously, there will have to be a further examination of time allocation because it is the on the record accountability that gives this committee its particular role and function.

Deputy, I believe we are all agreed that we are on a trial and error basis with regard to the operation of the committees and we will again consider time allocation. In this instance it appears that there has been much more information sought regarding the Office of Public Works than the main Department of Finance Vote.

This concludes our consideration of the Estimates for the Department of Finance. I thank the Minister of State, the Minister, their officials and Members of the committee for their valuable and constructive contributions to the debate.

The Select Committee will meet again on Friday, 25th June 1993 at 10 a.m. to consider the Estimates for the Department of the Environment and it is proposed that the same format be used, namely, that the party spokespersons will have 15 minutes each and then it will be a questions and answers session until it concludes. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Ferris represents the left wing of the House.

The Select Committee adjourned at 2.10 p.m.

Top
Share