Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 24 Jun 1988

Vol. 382 No. 8

Estimates, 1988. - Vote 1: President's Establishment (Revised Estimate)

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacSharry)

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £240,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1988, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Secretary to the President, and for certain other expenses of the President's Establishment.

The Finance Group of Estimates, which I am moving today, comprises 16 separate Votes as listed on the Order Paper. The House has already passed the other Estimate in the group, that is, the Public Service Early Retirement Payments Vote. I propose in my opening remarks, a Cheann Comhairle, to deal with the group as a whole except for the Vote for the Office of Public Works which will be dealt with by the the Minister of State later in this debate. I shall also be moving a small Supplementary Estimate for the Law Reform Commission at the end of the debate.

The Estimates in the group including the Office of Public Works, add up to some £439 million. Over 90 per cent of this total is accounted for by five Votes; Office of the Minister for Finance (£82 million), Revenue Commissioners (£95 million), Office of Public Works (£98 million), Superannuation and Retired Allowances (£60 million) and Increases in Remuneration and Pensions (£70 million).

With regard to the Vote for my Department, I should mention that almost three-quarters of the total comprises the grant-in-aid fund for the distribution of the national lottery surplus (£60 million). My Department's Vote is used as a vehicle to transfer the lottery surplus from the Exchequer to the various Departments which, in turn, disburse it to the beneficiaries. I am delighted that the lottery continues to be a splendid success, enabling assistance to be given to many worthwhile and meritorious causes throughtout the country.

The salaries subheads of the various Votes of the Finance group account for more than half the total expenditure of the group. A number of this Department's sub-offices are very labour-intensive, for example, almost 100 per cent of the Comptroller and Auditor General's Estimate goes on pay; in the case of the Revenue Commissioners the percentage spent on pay is nearly 90 per cent, in the Valuation Office it is 92 per cent, and in the Oireachtas Vote itself, it accounts for over 70 per cent. The Estimates for the individual Votes being considered today have been drawn up on the basis of maintaining two essential measures: (1) that the policy of non-recruitment be continued; and (2) that the Minister for Finance continues to redeploy staff within the Civil Service to those areas where they are most required.

In relation to the individual Estimates which I am now presenting to the House, the most evident change has been in the salaries subhead of the Civil Service and Local Appointments Commission, which is down 70 per cent on the 1987 provision. While the office is still engaged in some open recruitment (mainly for An Post and Bord Telecom on a fee basis) and is currently interviewing staff from various areas of the public service for redeployment, nonetheless I have been able to transfer some 100 staff from the Commission to elsewhere in the Civil Service, mainly to the Office of the Revenue Commissioners.

Through the continuing use of redeployment I am ensuring that, despite the overall reductions being made in the Civil Service, the numbers serving in the Revenue Commissioners will be maintained at a level adequate for the effective assessment and collection of revenue.

Among the other Departments and Offices in the Finance Group, the most significant staffing reductions are in my Department — down 86 staff from 722 at 1 May 1987 to 636 at 1 June 1988 — and the Valuation and Ordnance Survey Office — down 38 to 494 staff over the same period. Areas to which staff have been redeployed include the Revenue Commissioners as aforementioned (130 by end May 1988), the Office of the Chief State Solicitor (five staff by end June 1988) and the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General (six by end June 1988).

In relation to the Comptroller and Auditor General, I might mention at this point, as I have already indicated to the House, that my Department have completed a review of his role. Also I have recently received a copy of the Committee of Public Accounts special report on this matter. That report represents a valuable input into my consideration of this matter and I would like to express my appreciation of the committee's work. I hope now to formulate proposals for further action within a reasonable period and, as I have already indicated to the chairman of the committee, I will be happy to meet with the committee as soon as I have had an opportunity to consider fully all the issues and the options for action but before final decisions are taken.

I would like to take this opportunity to inform Deputies of certain Government decisions which have been taken on Reports Nos. 29, 30 and 31 submitted by the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector, copies of which have already been laid before the two Houses.

Report No. 31 deals with the pension arrangements for former office-holders and was submitted to me late on Wednesday. Report No. 30 was the general report which I received in November 1987 covering the pay levels of higher grades in the Civil Service, the local authority and health service, the Garda Síochána, the pay of chief executives of State-sponsored bodies and other State agencies, the Judiciary and Ministers and parliamentarians. Report No. 29 was an interim report which was submitted to the previous Government in November 1986 and which recommended an increase of 15 per cent with effect from 1 December 1986 for all the groups which I have mentioned.

I will deal with Report No. 31 first because it arose directly as a result of a debate in the House in October 1987 and the passing of a motion to the effect that the review body be asked to examine the question of pensions for office-holders.

In their report the review body noted that the present pension arrangements for office-holders attempted to address two separate needs, namely, the provision of a pension to be paid in later life and the financial problems that can arise from loss of office. They found that a number of the features of the present arrangements are over-generous, in particular the payment of pensions to office-holders irrespective of age. The review body recommend that these pensions should be payable at age 55 or on later retirement from office. They also recommended that in the case of former office-holders over 55, pensions should, except in the case of a former Taoiseach, be abated by one-half while they are serving as members of the Dáil, Seanad or European Parliament. As regards loss of office, a system of severance payments is recommended which would provide for payment, at a declining rate, of a portion of an office-holder's salary in the two years immediately following loss of office.

The review body considered that there were serious objections in principle to incremental payments to Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas and they do not recommend their introduction.

The review body found that persons with existing entitlements to office-holders' pensions have a right to retain those entitlements. Future service by present beneficiaries of office-holders' pensions and serving office-holders would be dealt with under the new arrangements now proposed. The review body have made detailed recommendations on the transition arrangements that should apply in these cases. The change-over to the new arrangements would take place when a Government is formed after the next general election.

The Government have considered the report carefully and consider that its recommendations are fair and reasonable in relation to this very complex and sensitive issue. The Government, therefore, propose to implement the recommendations which will require amending legislation.

I would also inform the House that the Government also intend to implement recommendations made by the review body in Report No. 30 for a restructuring of the remuneration of TDs, Senators and office-holders. Under that restructuring an annual rate of remuneration would be paid, but it would be subject to taxation in the normal way. In general, claims for deductions from that rate for tax purposes in respect of expenses would no longer be allowed. A separate expense allowance which would be non-taxable and non-pensionable would be paid. The overall result would be to put parliamentarians on the same footing as regards taxation as salaried workers generally.

The Government have also decided to implement the interim increase recommended in Report No. 29, which was submitted in November 1986. Because of the continuing financial difficulties faced by the Exchequer they cannot, however, contemplate any retrospection. The best that can be done while still staying within our pay allocations for 1988 is to implement from 1 July 1988. They have taken this decision because of the serious inequities in pay which have already arisen and which will become more pronounced in July with lower grades being paid more than the grades to which they report.

This situation cannot be allowed to continue without adverse effects on the quality of the whole public service and it has been the subject of very strong representation to me from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and from business and employer interests. I propose, however, to follow the precedent set in other cases and to adjust the lump sums paid in the case of those who have retired or died in service since 1 December 1986. The total cost will be less than £3 million in 1988. While I know that the absence of retrospection involves an average loss of £7,000 or £8,000 for those concerned, I hope they will accept it as a fair and reasonable compromise in all the circumstances.

In my budget speech I said that the Government would have further discussions with the Congress of Trade Unions not later than 1 May 1989 about outstanding recommendations in Report No. 30. I intend to honour that commitment.

I do not really wish to reactivate any of the controversy relating to the Office of the Ombudsman in recent weeks. The fundamental question may have been lost sight of, namely, whether it is reasonable to expect that a staff of 12 investigators and 16 support staff should be able to process the current workload of 4,000 to 5,000 complaints a year. On the basis of the staffing cadres deployed elsewhere in the Civil Service on appeals, representations, and other cases for decision, there seemed to me to be no prima facie reason why 28 staff could not keep abreast of complaints in the Ombudsman's Office. However, in deference to the very real concerns which have been voiced on the matter, I will be reviewing the staffing position, with an open mind, in order to confirm or otherwise whether this assessment is correct. I would assure Deputies that the adoption of the present Estimate before the House will not preclude adjustments later in the year which, on foot of the review, I might recommend as compatible with the Government's economic and social priorities.

The two other major Votes of the group — Superannuation and Retired Allowances (£60 million) and Increases in Remuneration and Pensions (£70 million) — are global provisions to cover, respectively, pension costs for the Civil Service generally and general pay round increases for the public service.

The capital expenditure element of the Finance Group represents about 16 per cent of the total. The bulk of this expenditure arises in the Office of Public Works and in my Department's Vote. The Revenue Vote also contains a capital element which is down about £3 million on 1987. This is attributable to lower expenditure on computer equipment after the relatively high figure of over £6 million in that year. I can assure the House, however, that the Revenue Commissioners are continuing with their programme for computerisation which is an integral part of the modernising of the revenue collection machinery.

As Deputies are no doubt aware, this year's Finance Act gives effect to major changes in the tax assessment system for self-employed and corporate taxpayers as a significant initial step in the move to full self-assessment. These changes have considerable implications for the administration of the tax system, and the Revenue Commisioners are making the necessary arrangements to ensure the smooth implementation of the new system. In this context the Commissioners will be mounting a publicity and information campaign to familiarise taxpayers and their agents with the structure and requirements of the new system. I know that Deputies will agree that this is a positive step on the part of the revenue people and I am confident that it will help ensure that the potential benefits of the new system for taxpayers and the Revenue alike will be realised.

A vital part of the overall strategy outlined in the Programme for National Recovery is the stabilisation of the debt-GNP ratio during the course of the programme. Central to the achievement of that objective is the need to control the public finances. We have demonstrated beyond doubt both in 1987 and in the budgetary allocations for the current year that we can impose the necessary disciplines on public spending and manage our finances in a consistent, prudent manner. While not wishing to pre-empt the results of the half year statement on Exchequer issues which will be available in about a week's time, I am confident nonetheless that we are on course to achieve once again the ambitious budgetary targets which we have set ourselves.

With the success of current Government budgetary policy there is, of course, the danger that complacency might set in. I can assure the House that this will not be allowed happen. As I stated in this House during my reply to the Second Stage debate on the Finance Bill, there is no room to relax on the budgetary front. Expectations in some quarters that economic developments will substantially remove the need for budgetary adjustments next year are unfounded and simply unrealistic. While the ultimate size of any budgetary adjustment next year will depend on how the economy performs over the full year and on international economic developments, it is clear a significant gap will remain to be bridged to reduce Exchequer borrowing and debt to sustainable levels.

It was against that background that the present series of expenditure reviews, currently at an advanced stage, were initiated. As with last year's successful review process, the Government are examining all expenditure programmes in detail with a view to securing further expenditure reductions in 1989 and to ensure the efficient and effective use of the limited resources at our disposal.

That concludes my remarks at this stage of the debate. I have not thought it necessary to refer to matters covered by the other small Votes of the group, but if Deputies wish to raise any points on these, I will address them as best I can when I am dealing with any other items raised during the course of this debate. I commend these Estimates to the House.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): I should like to welcome the manner in which the Minister has presented his Estimate here today. He has done it in his usual efficient and effective manner. The Government, like many of their predecessors, do their best. There is nothing unusual about the present Government either way but we are in a very unusual Parliament. The arithmetic has forced the parties in this House to act differently from the norm. The Leader of the Fine Gael Party outlined our support for the general thrust of Government policy in a speech at Tallaght last September. He said that under certain conditions we would support Government policy through the formation of the 1988 budget. Naturally, that did not confine the commitment to budget day. Obviously it involved commitment to the Book of Estimates in general terms, then the budget itself, the Social Welfare Bill, the Finance Bill and, the last scene of the act, this particular Finance Estimate.

The programme that that set of decisions and legislation has put in train will provide the Minister and the Government with the money to run the country for the remainder of the year. On the day on which the last formal act of our commitment under the Tallaght strategy, is debated in the House it raises some questions. First, it raises the question of what is this strategy which the Government are following. In brief, it means that the Government will cut public expenditure, that they hope this will give rise to some level of public confidence, that it will give rise to falling interest rates, which it has done, and they will match this with effective policies for different sectors of industry. Without consensus in this House, could this policy be effective? I believe it could not. The extraordinary element in the life of this Parliament is not the composition of the Government but the composition of the Parliament.

A second question which arises is whether the consensus will survive in the autumn and into next year. If it does will the consensus be effective? In other words, will the economic policy that is being pursued deliver on the aspirations we all have for our fellow citizens? It seems to me that the Taoiseach can decide he does not need consensus and take the issue to the country before we come back in the autumn. That will be his decision. On the other hand, from the Fine Gael point of view as we see matters emerging, we do not see any possibility of a let-up in the Minister's and in the Government's activity in controlling the public debt. I am glad the Minister has indicated that very clearly in the final pages of his speech.

We believe that the Book of Estimates which the Minister needs to bring in in the autumn in the national interest and the type of budget that needs to follow that will be along the lines of last year's Book of Estimates and last year's budget. We think that is unavoidable. The best figures available to us at present would suggest that the debt-GNP ratio will not stabilise until the Exchequer borrowing requirement is under 5 per cent. Against that background certain difficulties will emerge in the autumn. The Taoiseach may decide to fudge the issue, lose his nerve and not do what is necessary. If that happens, our party will be voting against that particular Book of Estimates. On the other hand, if the Taoiseach decides he must continue on the path chosen — and he must move at least half-way towards that target of 4.9 per cent of GNP for the Exchequer borrowing requirement — then, in general terms, we will be agreeing with that approach but the specifics, especially as the axe will fall more on the current side next year than on the capital side, will present everybody in the House with difficulties and serious decisions will have to be made.

There is a perception abroad that the debt is being reduced, but it is not. The pace at which it is increasing is reducing. Over the 15 months in which the Minister has been in charge of the Department of Finance, the debt has gone up by about £2.5 billion. He has been fortunate with the interest rates, but if interest rates internationally went up, say, by 2 per cent — and remained at that level — the debt of approximately £25 billion would double during the next ten years. These are frightening figures and do not allow us to be sanguine about easing off, hoping that rising tides will life all boats and that no further hard decisions will have to be made.

In the context of hard decisions we hope to play our part but I am beginning to be seriously worried that the focus of Government economic policy is too narrow at present to deliver on the real problems of our economy rather than the book-keeping problems. I am not saying that in any pejorative sense. The aspirations of our people are that the dole queues which are still around 250,000 would be reduced and that there would be work for our people. An aspiration of most people I meet is that their children would have the opportunity to work in this country and that it would not be inevitable that half one's family is destined for the south east of England or the major cities of the US.

I do not think a continuation of the budgetary policy of the past two years this autumn and into next year will alone produce the type of results to which we all aspire in this House and which we are prepared to work towards at the cost of a certain amount of discomfort to our political positions. I am sure the Minister has a major influence over events. If he thinks it is worthwhile in the national interest that the consensus that has been maintained in this House in difficult circumstances is to be maintained among those of us who think along the same lines into the autumn and next year, I urge him to extend the economic agenda. I accept there is very little scope to do anything other than continue with cutting public expenditure, particularly next year on the current side, to reduce the burden of the debt but that alone is not enough. The Minister should seriously consider the proposals we have made on tax reform, or any other proposals along those lines which we would be prepared to discuss, which would have the effect of reducing the top marginal rates of income tax to restore the work ethic to the country and to ensure that the talented people who are being attracted out by more benign tax regimes remain here.

I do not want to go over that ground again. We share common ground with the Progressive Democrats on this issue. Curiously, the Labour Party who regarded these suggestions as silly a month ago have now moved, either for economic or political reasons, and have suggested marginal tax rates where the highest marginal rate would be 45 per cent. The Minister's party should seriously consider these issues during the summer. If there is one extra item on the agenda, on which we will be placing great emphasis in the autumn, it will be the necessity of extending the agenda so that real tax reform is central to any discussions which we will have. I am not proposing it simply for the sake of reforming the tax system. I believe the tax system now, like the issue of the national debt, is crucial to the performance of the economy. It is crucial to growth and, consequently, is crucial to doing anything effective about the length of the dole queue or the 35,000 persons who are now emigrating each year.

There are other items one could add to the agenda as well. We have gone over that ground previously and Deputy Mitchell in relation to the Social Welfare Bill extended the agenda further. We have come to the end of a particular phase during which we underpinned Government policy. It has not been that fruitful for us politically and it has been very difficult for us to continue with it. If the Minister and the Government consider it to be desirable in the national interest that this type of consensus should be continued in the autumn and into 1989, there is a necessity to widen the focus of what is happening, not simply to give the Opposition parties a greater say in decision-making. I believe that the policy which is at present being followed, admirable though it is, is too confined and will not work to solve the real problems affecting people. The opportunity which arises from the curious arithmetic of the Parliament will be missed if the economic agenda is not widened in the autumn.

I should like to deal with some of the specific issues raised by the Minister. I welcome the Minister's statement about the Office of the Ombudsman. In particular, I welcome the commitment he has given that he will not be tied rigidly to today's Estimate in the event of the review of the staffing arrangements of the Office of the Ombudsman recommending that extra staff should be provided in 1988. I welcome the statement that the recommendations in the review, if they are in favour of increased staffing, will be implemented in 1988 and will not be deferred to the 1989 Estimate. I am glad the Minister has given that commitment.

I presume that the major news story that will emerge from this debate will concern the various decisions the Minister has made on the Gleeson reports. In regard to the commitment given by the Minister to increase the pay of all those who fell within the ambit of Devlin by 15 per cent, I consider this to be absolutely essential. We know privately, and it should be stated publicly, that senior civil servants, chief executives of State bodies and others who fall within the Devlin remit, have been badly treated for quite some time. That had to change and I welcome the Minister's decision to implement the recommendations in the interim report of the Gleeson Committee.

The demoralisation in the public service would continue, with all its adverse effects on recruitment and the maintaining of key personnel, if the Minister had not made his decision in regard to the report of the Gleeson Committee. We support his decision. The salaries of parliamentarians are to be increased in the general cohort of increases that fall within the Gleeson remit and we welcome that. It would be invidious if one group of people who have their salaries decided in this manner were omitted from the general increase simply for reasons of political discomfort.

The Minister is presenting the changes in the remuneration of TDs and Senators as part of a package. He dealt with the treatment of TDs salaries for taxation purposes and I welcome his approach in regard to this. It is embarrassing, and difficult to explain why a parliamentarian should have an extra tax free allowance although in logic it can be justified. A TD's salary, described as an allowance, has traditionally contained salary plus expenses within the one cheque. That has given rise to the type of difficulties we have all experienced. I would prefer if our pay, and the method under which we are paid, was transparent. I welcome the Minister's move in accepting recommendation No. 30 of the Gleeson Committee, subjecting TDs' salaries to the same type of tax regime as other PAYE taxpayers.

Some people will lose if it is the Minister's intention to implement the Gleeson recommendation on expenses. At present there is a tax-free allowance of £6,900 and the Gleeson Committee recommended a substitution of that computed at about a 50 per cent marginal rate of tax. Any parliamentarian who pays tax at 58 per cent over a spread of income of approximately £7,000 will lose approximately £700 under the new arrangement and it is worth mentioning that. We had a long, sometimes heated, debate in October on the question of Ministerial pensions. On behalf of my party I proposed a motion that the issue should be looked at objectively by the Gleeson Committee. I am glad that the committee looked at the whole question of ministerial pensions. At the time I thought that a change from the payment of pensions to an incremental credit system for those who had served in office might be the appropriate way to deal with a problem which we all recognised. I note that the report has rejected the incremental approach. I accept the objectivity of the committee in regard to that and the reason they have put forward. Change is necessary and the type of change suggested in the Minister's speech is acceptable to me. I do not think I will have any difficulty in getting my party to accept this when they have time to discuss it but we must remember that it will put future office holders on a par with everybody else. Pensions will not be payable until they reach 55 years of age and, even then, they will have to be out of the Houses of the Oireachtas before they can achieve their full pension rights.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have been very generous to the Deputy but I must point out to him that he has gone over his time.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): The Chair did not give me a signal when I was approaching the finishing straight.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy was speaking with such eloquence that I did not want to interrupt but I must remind him that there has been a silent agreement to him having an extra two minutes.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): I appeal to the Chair to permit me one further minute because it would be inappropriate to stop when I am moving away from a subject that is of great interest to Deputies.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

In so far as we started the debate on this Estimate with a little bonus in regard to time, the Chair will agree to the Deputy's request, as the Chair will in respect of other Members.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): I should like to make a short comment on the Supplementary Estimate of £75,000 for the Law Reform Commission. It always seemed to me that the resources of the Commission were not being used as effectively as they might in the production of legislation on the floor of the House. The excellence of the work of the Law Reform Commission was never in any doubt but I had the experience as Minister for Justice, having received their reports and having had them analysed by the Department, of the Government deciding to move in a different direction on a particular issue. It seems to me that there is a certain amount of unnecessary work taking place. If we had a system under which the Minister for Justice would take the heads or the principle of a Bill to Cabinet for decision on the line the Government wished to pursue before the Law Reform Commisison would be asked to carry out the necessary work it would be more effective than the present arrangement. I do not have time to call over the list but the vast majority of the reports of the Law Reform Commission have not been implemented by the House. In areas like the vexed question of illegitimacy the Houses of Parliament have legislated and followed a line different from that advocated by the Law Reform Commission. While their work is excellent at times it seems to differ from what Members require. Consequently, while interesting, it is not as relevant as it might be. A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, you have been extremely patient with me, I have much more to say and I will have much more to say in the autumn, as I indicated earlier.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy McDowell, to demonstrate that he can say what he has to say within the time restrictions. The Deputy has 15 minutes.

Mr. McDowell

I would appreciate your equal generosity if I can get it. My view on the Minister's speech is very similar in many respects to that expressed by Deputy Noonan. It seems that this may be, if press reports are correct, the last occasion on which this Minister carries out this function and it would be churlish of those on this side of the House not to indicate to the Minister how much appreciated is his performance in controlling public expenditure and in turning the ship of State around.

Mr. MacSharry

I have a lot more to do.

Mr. McDowell

I know that on occasions the Minister clashes with this side of the House, and that is as it should be, but on the other hand, it would be wrong not to acknowledge his achievements in the comparatively short time he has occupied his office. I hope he will continue to carry out these works in the future.

In relation to the Law Reform Commision Vote, it seems that the Law Reform Commission are in many respects a body who have been ignored as far as the output of their reflective study of our law is concerned. This House has a good deal to be ashamed of in the shape of our response to the Law Reform Commission's activities. The answer is that we need a proper law reform committee, not like the legislation committee in the last Dáil which was a bit of a disaster but one which is determined to go ahead with law reform. We should use more select committees to get on with work and to finish work on Bills rather than having plenary committees of this House slowing up the production of reforming statutes.

The Law Reform Commission should be required in future to bring their work, in so far as it takes statutory form, to a completed state and not simply to present heads of Bills, because the disaster is that it is handed over to people who do not have the will, the inclination or the energy to put it into final form for consideration by this House. I suggest that we should give the Law Reform Commission a parliamentary draftsman of their own, expect them to produce finished Bills with options set out and get on with the business of implementing their proposals rather than allowing them to go into a limbo where they are circulated among Government Departments, the parliamentary draftsman's office and the Attorney General's office, which has been the death knell of law reform heretofore. I would like to salute the achievements of the Law Reform Commission, especially in their reincarnated form of recent times. They are doing extremely valuable work for the country.

Mr. J. Mitchell

Nobody takes any notice of their efforts.

Mr. McDowell

I want to deal with the question of ministerial pensions. There is a good deal of public disquiet with the way in which this House is remunerating its Members. It is about time that somebody stood up, as I have done in the past and am doing again today, to say that TDs are paid too little. They should be paid very significantly more than they are now paid. If they were to be paid an income which is related to the following three categories of people, justice would be done. Firstly, their salary should relate to that of the general secretary of a trade union. Secondly, it should reflect the remuneration given to a political correspondent or a senior journalist who is qualified to comment on our activities. Thirdly, it should relate to a middle ranking judge, perhaps a Circuit Court judge. That would involve a very significant increase in the level of remuneration now paid to Deputies. A fair remuneration should be paid to Deputies.

I have no qualms, shame or hesitation in saying that the old adage about paying peanuts and getting monkeys applies to this House. If we do not offer reasonable salaries we will not get people who have careers available to them which offer significantly better remuneration, to come into politics. I do not believe that the people feel that their politicians do not work hard. They know that they do. It is about time that some politicians stood up for the right of parliamentarians to be adequately remunerated. I do so and I have no shame in doing so. I have the rare perspective of somebody who has come into politics relatively recently and seen the disparity which applies to politicians' remuneration compared with that available elsewhere. I know well that nobody could come into politics with a view to making money out of it.

The pensions issue would not have been brought forward in this House in the manner in which it has been were it not for the position adopted by my party. I want to salute the Leader of my party, Deputy Desmond O'Malley, and also Deputy Robert Molloy, for the manner in which they brought the issue to central stage and made it stick by making not simply a gesture but a public commitment to the correctness of the position they were adopting. In relation to TDs' remuneration, in recent times I have become more and more convinced that the Seanad is something which we can easily do without. Their performance in relation to the Courts Bill in recent times underlines the fact that it is not a revising Chamber but an expensive luxury. I also believe that we have too many Deputies and I have constantly said so in the past. Even though a diminution in the number of Deputies in this House might well lead to a diminution in the size of my party, I believe that if there were fewer TDs and no Senators and the resources that are now applied to the Parliament were applied adequately to remunerating those who do participate in politics we would be the better for it.

In relation to the Minister's Estimates, I want to point out that I am not satisfied with his comments on the national lottery. The behaviour of the Government and their Deputies in relation to the national lottery has been found wanting. It is not desirable that the funds from the national lottery should be seen as discretionary funds available to those Deputies in this House who are supporters of the Government to use in such a manner as to give them some form of political advantage. The Bill which this party have introduced to the Dáil in relation to the disbursal of lottery funds should be proceeded with as soon as possible. I note that the Fine Gael Party, who were making noises about co-operating with us on the issue, have not yet advanced that but I look forward to their future interest in the matter.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): I missed that point.

Mr. McDowell

I am asking the Deputy's party to show some degree of interest in getting on with the National Lottery (Amendment) Bill which is before the House.

Mr. J. Mitchell

As the Deputy put it so nicely, we will consider it.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): I will see you in my office afterwards, as the Ceann Comhairle would say.

Mr. McDowell

I want to deal with the office of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman's office is one which is unique. He is appointed by resolution of this House and not on the nomination of the Government. It does not even fall to the Government to make the nomination of a person to be Ombudsman. He holds his commission from the President. He is accountable to this House and the other House of the Oireachtas and not to the Government. He is not a civil servant or a constitutional office holder such as the Comptroller and Auditor General, or the Attorney General. He is a parliamentary officer of the highest rank. When he reports to us that he has not the adequate resources with which to carry out his functions, I take him seriously and I take him at his word.

The present occupant of that office is a man who understands the financial strictures under which we are all labouring. He knows when and how to differentiate between proportionate sharing of the burden of reduced expenditure on the one hand and disproportionate reduction in the resources available to him. He is well aware of the difference and I do not think he has become confused in any way on the matter. I want to salute him as a person who has made a very significant contribution to changing the way in which this country is run. This House should stand by him and should not glibly accept the accusations that he is engaging in propaganda when he takes his statutory functions seriously.

Many things have been said about the overall economic position of the country at this stage. I agree with the Minister's general proposition that now is not the time to relax in relation to the control of public expenditure or its reduction. Now is the time for hard decisions to be made because the capital option is becoming more and more difficult——

Mr. J. Mitchell

A zero option.

Mr. McDowell

We are now getting to the stage where difficult decisions must be made in relation to current expenditure. I looked to the decision made in the Programme for National Recovery in relation to public service pay, and today's inflation rates yet again confirm in my mind that the decision to increase over the life of that agreement, public sector pay by £210 million, leaving out an extra £90 million for incremental pay increases, is unjustifiable and, in the last analysis, we will come to regard the public sector pay aspect of the Programme for National Recovery as an unaffordable luxury which ought to have been avoided at the time.

I also believe the redundancy package negotiated by the Government with the trade unions and with what are called the social partners is overly generous and has resulted in waste of public expenditure. It was so generous that there were far more applicants than should have been to avail of its terms. A consequence of that is that money is being spent creating redundancies, which need not have been spent.

I want to say something about ministerial pensions. The Gleeson Committee, in their report which was handed to me this morning dealing with this issue, suggests that current holders of pensions should not have the ground taken from under them as regards their pension rights but that they should be left as they are on the basis that it may be the case — I use the word "may" because it is used by the Gleeson Committee in their report — that they have some legal rights to retain this money. I do not believe any pension payable under statute is the subject matter of an implied contractual right. I do not believe that where this House decides in relation to any pension payable under any statute — or any social welfare benefit for that matter — there is a contractual right which prevents this House or circumscribes its rights to vary that amount upwards or downwards, or to vary it in quality in any way. In that light the report has been somewhat conservative. My party have yet to consider this report but in general terms there seems to be a lot in it which is worthy of support.

The Minister has come to this House seeking support for an overall financial strategy. He has hinted at the possibility that the mid-year Exchequer returns will be good and will show that this country is on course. It is in some respects on course but our low inflation rate has to do with lower demand, an inactive real economy, and is a reflection of the fact that the economy is still in a state of failure. The real economy, the one that does not depend on Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola syrup to affect it, is in a state of stagnation.

There must be a reform of the system of personal taxation of a radical and far-reaching kind as part of the process of recovery, not as the fruits of economic recovery or economic stabilisation. Tax reform is part of the cure. It is not something to which we can look forward when the cure has taken place. That is an idle pretension. We must look at the fact that we are excluding from the economic life of this country a significant number of people who, by their work, could help get us out of the mess we are in.

As far as I am concerned, between 1977 and 1981 this House and the country learned that we could not spend our way out of our problems. Between 1982 and 1987 this House learned that we could not borrow our way out of our problems. We can neither spend nor borrow our way out of our problems. This country must work its way out of its problems. If we maintain a tax system which is inimical to the work ethic and participation in the economic marketplace, then the process of recovery will be impeded.

I want to say to the Minister's advisers that they cannot see from the perspective of a public service job the effects of high rates of personal taxation in the form of PRSI and income tax on the incentive to employ others and to be employed oneself. It is very easy when your income is determined by regulations and artificial decisions of politicians to be oblivious to the reality of marketplace forces and the will and the incentive to work. It is very easy to become blind to the realities of what makes people participate in our economy. Our present tax system is woefully incapable of sustaining greater economic participation by those who are excluded from our system. Unless there is radical tax reform there will be no recovery. It must form part of it. It cannot be postponed until the end of a process of recovery. It must form part of that recovery.

As far as my party are concerned — and I hear the same message from Deputy Noonan, and I am beginning to hear it even from the Labour Party — until there is a radical tax reform, there will be no recovery. We cannot postpone addressing this issue much longer. This autumn must be the time this House seriously addresses that issue. We cannot wait any longer.

Mr. Desmond

May I deal with the Minister's comments in the order he presented them. The first issue he raised was the national lottery. My party are very pleased that the lottery has been an outstanding success. At all times we should stress that people should not spend too much money buying lottery tickets because if a person is desperate and has very little money there is a great temptation to take a chance and there is a possibility that the families could go hungry. Nevertheless, throughout the country the national lottery has been very well supported. We are pleased this money is being given to sport, culture, health, education and organisations dealing with the deprived and the disabled. This lottery is a splendid success. I am very pleased I was a member of the Government who put this legislation though the House.

I do not intend to dwell at length on this but I was very deeply disturbed, as were my parliamentary colleagues, at the manner in which the allocation of this money was flagrantly abused by some members of the Government, by some Ministers of State and by some Fianna Fáil representatives at local level. I am glad to note the Taoiseach and the Minister put a stop to some of that nonsense. At Question Time, the Minister clearly said he would not tolerate that kind of abuse. Proposals of this nature should be dealt with in the same way as the allocations to help travelling people. An interdepartmental co-ordinating committee meets frequently in this regard. The Minister for Education and the Minister for Finance consulted that committee before the allocations were made so that everything was cleared and no abuse could develop. There are always temptations when there is an election or various problems in different constituencies but I can assure the Minister that if there is any repeat performance in future allocations there will be political uproar and the contributions to the lottery will diminish due to disgust.

I am glad the Minister is going ahead with the review of the Ombudsman's Office. I think his Department were under the impression that, because the Labour Party were not moving their motion, they could drop the question of the review. That was implied, I think, to the Ombudsman. The way in which the matter was handled was very unfortunate. The previous Government decided the director of this Office would hold the Civil Service status of assistant secretary. If he is to have coherent relationships with other Departments of State, that should be the status of the job. The decision to downgrade the position to principal officer, without an allowance for the job, was silly and rather petty. That can be reversed and for very litle money this dispute, which has done us no good at national level and which has created a unique piece of literature at international level, can be settled.

With regard to capital expenditure, I remember arguing that although we are in many respects a nation of philistines when it comes to preserving our magnificent buldings, if we were spending £20 million on Dublin Castle, £20 million on the Custom House and £20 million on the Royal Hospital, we should at least spend £4 million or £5 million giving 250,000 people decent employment exchanges. I am glad to see that £2 million is now being provided for employment exchanges. It is very necessary. We hear a lot about Jobsearch but all people search for in most employment exchanges is a toilet. In most of the exchanges it is not possible to find a place where the quietest and most reasonable of interviews can take place with persons who are out of work and want to be in contact with the system. The sum of £2 million is small when it comes to getting rid of some of the appalling dumps which masquerade as employment exchanges and Manpower offices.

I welcome the decision of the Minister and the Government to accept the report of the review body and to introduce the necessary regulations and legislation. I recall trying desperately in the health services in recent years to ensure that budgets of many millions of pounds would be managed by persons who were competent, capable and reasonably well paid. How can we get anybody suitably qualified if we are offering £24,000 or £25,000 to handle such a budget when such persons can get double or treble that salary for handling a budget perhaps one-third of that size? I recall the desperation in the Department of Health at the fact that hospital managers were being paid perhaps £15,000 or £17,000 per year to handle a hospital budget of £20 million or £30 million annually. It is ludicrous. It is part of our problem that public servants and those who handle major segments of the national budget are regarded with such uniquely Irish begrudging disdain.

Whether we are talking about chief executive officers of health boards, hospital managers, district justices, senior Garda officers, senior Army personnel or, in particular, the chief executives of State-sponsored bodies, both commercial and non-commercial, we must not hesitate to pay the going rate for the job. I recall in Government eminent citizens refusing to accept those positions because they would have to drop £20,000 or £30,000 a year if they were to take over the running of a State-sponsored body. They and their families could not afford it. Within the public service there are hundreds of people, from assistant principal level upwards, who give their lives, energy and work to the public service but who are in receipt of rather miserly salaries. The application of this report, long overdue, is something I endorse as one who has been a full time Dáil Deputy since 1969 and who has time and again had to take the decision to remain such.

I totally accept that there is a serious anomaly in regard to ministerial pensions. I note that the review body have made a particular recommendation relating to the age of 55. That was part of the submission I made to the review body as an individual and a former office holder. I made it in the context of the general retirement age in the public service for quite a number of grades, particularly in the health services and the security services. I am glad my view was accepted. Our colleagues in the Progressive Democrats pre-empted rather precipitously and foolishly the prospect of review.

Mr. McDowell

There would never have been a Gleeson Committee if we had not acted.

Mr. Desmond

I do not accept that. The Gleeson review body had been there for a number of years.

Mr. McDowell

They were never asked to do this.

Mr. Desmond

I do not think we should play politics with this matter. The most important single aspect was indicated by the Minister for Finance when he said that the pensions payable to former ministerial and other office holders are not a matter on which the recipients should be seen to be the arbiters. I endorse that. Accordingly, the review body was established. It has pronounced, so it is out of our hands. I endorse the decision of the Government relating to tax relief for Deputies because there is an impression abroad that as Dáil Deputies we get tax free salaries, free food, subsidised drink and free cigarettes. This is a load of nonsense because of a Deputy's salary of around £19,500, £6,900 is tax free. I am glad that is being abolished because I am sick and tired of reading in the paper that Dáil Deputies are, by and large, in receipt of tax free salaries. They are not; even the salary level is not particularly generous, any more than it is in the UK at around £22,000 sterling. They have a different system and a different pension arrangement.

This morning, the Minister indicated again that depending on the ultimate outcome of the year there will be further reductions in public expenditure. The Minister should get away from this lopsided, inequitable approach. I am totally in favour of the rigorous control of public expenditure.

Mr. J. Mitchell

When?

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): The Deputy talks about it anyway.

Mr. Desmond

As a member of the Committee of Public Accounts I can see where substantial control measures could be introduced, but there must be a parallel reform of the taxation system. We cannot, in 1989, reduce public spending by £4 million or £5 million and decimate social programmes with no effort to bring about an equitable and fair system of taxation. My party have filled that huge political gap.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Desmond

We have said bluntly that we are in favour of a property tax.

Mr. McDowell

The Deputy has not. He has a document from Deputy Spring which is a proposal to a committee which will reject it because it is ideologically unacceptable.

Mr. Desmond

The Deputy may be privy to many things, but that kind of cross-examination will not wash at all.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): The only left wing party which remains in this House has not even turned up.

Mr. Desmond

As party spokesman on Finance and Deputy Leader of my party, I favour the introduction of a property tax on all house property valued over £25,000. We have indicated that we want to see capital transfer arrangements tightened up considerably and a re-introduction of the farm tax which was abolished by the Government. We also want to see major changes in corporation tax because, as the Minister has conceded on a number of occasions, the money is flooding out of the country at a rate of about £1.4 billion a year and the Government have frozen in their efforts to deal with that situation. We also favour the abolition of PRSI ceilings, giving an effective top tax rate of around 23 per cent with PRSI included. There is no reason not to have substantial major tax reforms brought in in the next budget parallel with whatever changes may occur on the expenditure side. The Minister can go down in history, before he goes down elsewhere——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Desmond

——as having made a major contribution to the management of the Irish budget, provided he is not the captive of the public expenditure division of the Department of Finance, and urges those who are in charge of taxation matters in that Department to come to him long before the budget so that time will not run out and so that in the end nothing happens. That would require imagination and political courage of a rare kind. It is easy to cut, but it is very hard to change the taxation system. It would require a major change of political approach on the part of the Minister.

Our party have put up an alternative for public discussion. It has been clearly costed and is workable and viable. More important than anything else, it is widely agreed that the tax system is grossly unfair. It is entirely too narrow. Too many people escape without making a fair contribution. Even if we employed another 300 sheriffs we still must change the basic system. People who own substantial assets and operate a cash economy in relation to their personal and company lives simply slide away from the tackle of the sheriff and of the Minister under the Finance Bill. The hopeless, complicated taxation system requires major change and we do not need any more commissions on taxation or party political programmes or manifestos to bring about these fundamental changes. If the Minister would do this he would indeed be unique. I now pass over to the silent supporters.

(Interruptions.)

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

In common with the practice followed in the last few years, I propose to give particulars of expenditure by the Office of Public Works this year on the basis of the programme format contained in the Appendix to the Estimate for Vote 10 in the Book of Revised Estimates. The total amount sought is £98.548 million. There have been some changes in the Vote to take account of Government decisions on the transfer of the Wildlife Service and the setting up of the Government Supplies Agency.

£56.437 million is sought this year for Programme I — the Accommodation Programme. This includes the capital building programme for which a sum of £22.238 million is required.

My office continue to provide accommodation for the State by the construction of new buildings and the refurbishment and adaptation of existing buildings. Works are continuing on the restoration and development of areas of the Upper Yard of Dublin Castle to provide new conference facilities which will be used for the first time in connection with Ireland's Presidency of the European Community in 1990. The scheme, when completed, will not only bring formerly idle space into productive use but will also generate additional revenue through the upgraded facilities and services which will be available to visitors to this historic complex of buildings. The archaeological finds and structures which were unearthed during the course of the development, and which will be displayed and exhibited, will add to the attractions of the castle.

Approximately £5 million will be spent in 1988 on the erection of new Garda stations for the Department of Justice, including a new divisional headquarters at Letterkenny, County Donegal, for which a contract was placed in December 1987. Work is in progress on other new stations at various centres throughout the country including Tuam, Ennis, Naas, Lucan and Tramore.

In addition to providing new and improved accommodation for the Garda, the Commissioners of Public Works are involved in other major construction schemes for the Department of Justice, for example, a major refurbishing of the Garda Training Centre at Templemore has been approved by the Government and the planning has commenced.

Phase 2 of the restoration of the Custom House stonework will continue throughout 1988. The primary purpose of this scheme is to restore the stonework that had deteriorated seriously, due to environmental and other problems, and to make the building safe for continued occupation. However, I am very pleased to be able to say that the work which has been completed to date has also improved the appearance of the building considerably. When the scheme is completed it will enhance the surrounding area significantly and the restored Custom House will be a magnificent landmark adjacent to the proposed new financial services development on the Custom House Dock site. The project is being aided by the national lottery in 1988. Despite the complexity of the job it is proceeding on target and within budget.

Work is continuing on the structural repair of the north wing of Leinster House and in particular on the north gable wall. The work, which is difficult and painstaking, is proceeding satisfactorily and will be completed next year.

I take this opportunity to thank all those who have been inconvenienced by the works for their patience. I would ask Deputies, Senators and members of staff for their continued understanding and co-operation so that the job can be completed on time and within budget. I assure the House that the Commissioners of Public Works are making every effort to keep inconvenience to a minimum.

The ornate 17th century plaster ceiling in the Seanad Chamber was found to be in an extremely bad state of repair. Indeed, it was the cracking of that ceiling and some falls of plasterwork from it which provided the first indications of the more serious structural problems which were subsequently found to exist.

The provision of new central Government offices at many centres around the country will continue. This year work commenced on the erection of new purpose-designed Government offices in Tralee and it is expected that the new accommodation will be ready for occupation in 1989. New or improved employment exchange facilities will be provided at several locations.

In line with the Government's commitment to an active regional policy my office are proceeding with the reactivated decentralisation programme. Such a policy will reduce regional imbalance in public sector employment by enabling a large number of public sevants to return to their native regions and will reduce the ever-increasing pressure on the Dublin region. The social and economic benefits to the regions will be significant.

The programme is being financed by private developers who will dispose of their interest in the accommodation by way of a deferred-purchase arrangement extending over 20 years. The first phase of the programme involves the transfer of approximately 850 staff from the Departments of Agriculture and Food, Defence, Environment and Social Welfare to Cavan, Galway, Ballina and Sligo, respectively. The annual cost of providing the accommodation required will be less than rented accommodation in Dublin and compares favourably with local rents that could be anticipated in the decentralisation centres. Work is now well under way on these four sites.

The Commissioners of Public Works are now pursuing the second phase of the decentralisation programme involving the relocation of approximately 2,380 staff from the Revenue Commissioners, the Departments of Education, Justice, and Social Welfare, and from a number of other areas yet to be decided. State-owned sites are available for this purpose in Athlone, Ennis and Nenagh and the commissioners, in consultation with, and with the help of, the relevant local authorities, are in the process of identifying and acquiring suitable sites in Dundalk, Killarney, Letterkenny, Limerick and Waterford. Tenders will soon be sought in respect of the Athlone, Killarney and Letterkenny centres and applications for inclusion in a short-list of developers who will be specially invited to tender for the remaining centres will be sought in due course.

I would like to take this opportunity to express publicly my appreciation of the help extended to my office by the relevent local authorities in ensuring that both phases of the programme will be implemented as quickly as possible.

The accommodation programme also includes the building maintenance costs for which a sum of £14.195 million is sought and rental charges amounting to £19 million.

Programme 2 provides for the survey, design, construction and maintenance of arterial drainage and embankment schemes. A total of £8.05 million is sought for this programme.

In 1988, survey and design work will continue on four schemes. The programme also provides for hydrometric survey work involving the collection and analysis of data on many rivers throughout the country. Very useful information on the country's water resources is gained as a result of this survey work.

A total of £4.3 million is required for arterial drainage schemes under construction. This year works will continue on the Boyle, Bonet and Monaghan Blackwater schemes. Deputies will be aware of the importance which successive Governments have attached to cross-Border co-operaton, and the Monaghan Blackwater scheme is a practical demonstration of this.

A sum of £3.5 million is sought for the maintenance of completed arterial drainage and embankment schemes in 1988. The Commissioners of Public Works have a statutory obligation to maintain completed drainage schemes.

A sum of £2.179 million is sought for programme 3 which covers marine works. Some £1.779 million is needed for the maintenance of the three State harbours at Howth, Dunmore East and Dún Laoghaire together with a number of small piers, navigational lights and beacons around our coasts. The Minister for the Marine, pursuant to a Government decision, is at present considering with the Commissioners of Public Works the question of arrangements necessary to enable his Department to assume responsibility for the three State harbours, two of which, Howth and Dunmore East, have been developed as major fishery harbour centres.

In addition, £400,000 is sought for new pier works at Inishturk and Inishbofin Islands off the coasts of Mayo and Galway, respectively. Work has begun at Inishturk on the replacement of the existing dilapidated pier with a new structure 25 metres long. Inishboffin will be provided with a 72 metre pier which will enable boats to berth at all stages of the tide. Work on this project will start towards the end of the year.

Programme 4 provides for the purchase of engineering plant and machinery, the purchase of stores, and the payment of wages to the staff of the Central Engineering Workshops, Inchicore. An amount of £1.328 million is sought to cover the cost of these services.

Programme 5 covers the parks and national monuments work of the Office of Public Works, for which £7.711 million is sought. A provision of £3.613 million is required for the National Monuments Service. This service is entrusted with the preservation and maintenance of over 700 national monuments around the country. The nature of conservation work is both painstaking and costly. Consequently, difficult decisions have to be made between monuments in care when schedules of major works are being prepared. This must also be considered when contemplating the acquisition of other important monuments.

This year major works will be undertaken at about 25 sites, with minor conservation and maintenance being undertaken at a great many more monuments. European recognition of the importance of our national monuments and of the commissioners' endeavours is evidenced by the fact that the European Community is grant-aiding the major conservation works at Cormac's Chapel, Rock of Cashel and at the Skellig Michael monastic settlement.

Recognising that it is vitally important to involve the general public in the fight to preserve our built heritage, the Office of Public Works provides guide and information services at a number of national monuments. These services are of a very high standard and receive regular praise for their quality. They have a two-fold benefit. Firstly, they promote the protection of our built heritage through interpretation and, secondly, they are major tourist attractions. Last year approximately 422,000 visitors, both foreign and Irish, paid admission fees for the interpretative services at national monuments.

Recently, the Taoiseach officially opened a major new visitor centre at Glendalough. It is a splendid facility and I am sure that it will be a major attraction for foreign tourists visiting the east coast, as well as for Irish people who visit Glendalough in great numbers each year to see the early-Christian monuments and enjoy the great natural beauty of the valley.

In order to make scarce financial resources go further and generate additional finance if possible, the Office of Public Works have been seeking sponsorship for appropriate projects. One such project is the Swiss Cottage near Cahir, County Tipperary, a classic example of the "cottage orne". The Swiss Cottage was close to ruin a few years ago but by bringing interested parties together and making the need to rescue the cottage known, enough money was found to purchase the building. At that stage, an American sponsor for the restoration was found and, with the assistance of FÁS, the project is now well on the way to completion. The National Monuments Service will assume responsibility for the cottage on completion of the works.

In the area of underwater heritage, the commissioners have been assisting projects which develop the expertise that will be needed if the riches of our underwater heritage are to see the light of day. By means of a small grant to the Maritime Institute of Ireland, the commissioners enabled the services of volunteer divers to be secured for identification and survey work at historic wreck sites. An excellent survey of the Queen Victoria wreck off Howth was carried out by the Marlin Sub-Aqua Club which discovered the ship. Similarly, in the case of the wreck of a French frigate of 1796 in Bantry Bay, progress towards firm identification has been made in co-operation with the diver who made the discovery. Much remains to be done and the commissioners are working in close co-operation with the National Museum in this new area of endeavour. The guns from the Armada wrecks at Streedagh remain in the commissioners' custody and discussions are taking place with the National Museum regarding the possibility of putting them on display for the fourth centenary of the Armada which occurs later this year.

The foregoing indicates that some progress is being made towards acquiring the necessary expertise in this area. However, there remains the problem of a dearth of underwater archaeologists, maritime historians and conservation facilities. Until there is a marked advance in these areas, a policy of protecting underwater heritage in situ will have to be pursued.

The archaeological survey of Ireland is progressing well. The purpose of the survey is to locate and record all monuments in the country and so facilitate the preparation of a comprehensive policy for their protection. Sites and monuments records for nine counties have been published and a further seven will be completed this year. On the survey of urban archaeology — a survey of the mediaeval and plantation towns of Ireland — reports on ten counties have issued to the relevant planning authorities. These include the reports for Dublin which were launched last evening in Dublin Castle. I hope that reports on most of the remaining counties will be completed before the end of the year.

I hope I have illustrated some of the variety of work performed by the National Monuments Service. This work is of prime importance in preserving the heritage of the country and is a significant help to the tourism industry.

A sum of £4.098 million is sought to cover the maintenance costs of national parks, national historic parks, gardens and other properties as well as some capital works. The three national parks are now well established and they attract almost 250,000 visitors each year. Work is continuing on providing additional facilities for visitors, students and others engaged on research.

The national parks play an important role in raising awareness of natural heritage. There is a wide range of literature available at the parks, seasonal guides are recruited to provide information for visitors and there are regular guided walks led by parks staff. Programmes of evening lectures on conservation topics are provided each year in both Killarney and Connemara. In accordance with the objectives of the management plan for the Phoenix Park launched in 1986, the tree planting programme will reach the half way stage this year when 10,000 trees will have been planted. Further road closures and traffic controls have been implemented. These measures, along with safety works on the roads, are aimed at reducing traffic pressure and accidents in this national historic park. They have met with broad public support and further measures are under consideration at present.

Improvements are also continuing at Derrynane National Historic Park. This year works were completed at St. Enda's, Rathfarham, and I had the great privilege to open the new extension there. The parks service also care for the gardens at Illnacullin, also known as Garnish Island where a new information centre was opened to the public in 1987. Additional visitor facilities will be provided this year.

A sum of £2.414 million is sought under Programme 6 for the operation and maintenance of the inland waterways in the care of the Commissioners of Public Works, namely the Shannon and the Grand and Royal Canals. Between them, these waterways form a network extending across almost 400 miles of the countryside, from Dublin across to the Shannon and via the Barrow to Waterford harbour, and from Leitrim down to Limerick.

A sum of £690,000 is included for the maintenance and operation of navigational facilities on the Shannon which, of course, is already well established as an amenity waterway, attracting many visitors from this country and abroad. It has the capacity, however, to accommodate a much greater number of boats without any risk to its unspoiled character, provided that facilities continue to be maintained and updated.

A sum of £1.589 million is required in respect of the canals. At the end of February, I launched a report of a study of the canals carried out by a firm of planning consultants on behalf of the commissioners. That report stressed the value of the canals from a heritage, environmental and amenity point of view and recommended a management strategy aimed at conserving them and developing their potential.

Programme 7 covers the Wildlife Service, for which £790,000 is sought for 1988. The Office of Public Works were given responsibility for the operation of the Wildlife Service in 1987.

Wildlife staff are employed throughout the State and their main duties are enforcement of the regulatory provisions of the Wildlife Act and management of the various nature reserves. In addition, they provide, at a local level, an extremely important information and education service to the public through their contacts with private groups and organisations, contributions to local newspapers, and lectures and advice to schools.

During the past year, the Dutch Foundation for the Conservation of Irish Bogs purchased Scragh Bog, County Westmeath, and handed it over to the State as a small but internationally important peatland site. The foundation have also made additional moneys available for the purchase of Eirk Bog and Ardagh Bog, County Kerry, and Knocka Bog, County Galway. The acquisition of these three bogs is at present being negotiated by the Irish Peatland Conservation Council, a sister company of the Dutch Foundation, and will be handed over to the State when acquired. We are greatly indebted to the Dutch Foundation for their generosity in acquiring these important sites for conservation purposes.

Programme 8 provides for the activities of the Government Supplies Agency who came into being on 1 January 1988 and who have responsibility for the central management of all Government procurement. A sum of £9.873 million is sought for this programme.

The agency encompass the purchasing and supplies functions formerly undertaken separately by the Stationery Office, the Office of Public Works and the Department of Defence, excluding military requirements. The Stationery Office who in previous years had their own Vote are now provided for in Subhead F2 of the Vote for the Office of Public Works.

The agency operate on the principle that Departments should bear on their own Votes the cost of goods and services supplied. This has already been implemented for some of the activities of the agency and the remaining activities will be put on a similar footing inside the next few years with the implementation of a computer-based costing system.

Programme 9 covers the President's household staff and £86,000 is sought for 1988.

The day-to-day administration of the Office of Public Works is covered under Programme 10. This year the administration programme covers a wider range of services than last year because of the inclusion of the Wildlife Service and the Government Supplies Agency. The amount sought, £16.709 million, is lower than the combined cost of administering the services separately last year.

Programme 11 covers the income of the office and it can be seen that substantially reduced receipts of £7.644 million are anticipated for the current year. The transfer of responsibility for paying energy and furniture costs from the OPW to individual Departments and offices means that the OPW will be recovering less money from the social insurance and occupational injuries funds. Income from sales of some surplus property will help towards redemption of the national debt and will not be a receipt in Vote 10. In addition the amendments to the operation of the Local Loans Fund will result in a substantially reduced income from administration fees.

The Office of Public Works also undertake some works on programmes funded from other Votes, such as fishery harbours and prisons. The cost of the administrative staff engaged on these works is funded from Vote 10 and £615,000 is sought for this purpose.

I think I have covered a substantial amount in this year's speech and I hope that is to the satisfaction of the House.

Mr. J. Mitchell

It would be remiss if the House passed this Estimate without somebody saying something on the Office of Public Works. It is commentary enough on the way in which we organise our affairs that we do not allow the Minister time to read his full speech but yet we are asked on the nod to approve almost £100 million for the Office of Public Works. I have believed for a long time that we are not getting anything like value for money from the Office of Public Works. That office is in the wrong Department because, by the nature of things, the responsibilities of the Minister for Finance are so large that he does not have time to oversee the performance of the Office of Public Works and, of course, this is left largely to the Minister of State. Even though the present incumbent and several of his predecessors are very worthy people, the fact is that they do not sit at the Cabinet table and that is a major disadvantage. There is a very strong case to be made for the transfer of the Office of Public Works to the Department of the Environment where that Minister, even though it is a big Department, might have fewer pressures on him than the Minister for Finance and where a Minister of Cabinet rank would be responsible for that office. I know a number of people who work in the Office of Public Works. I have known different aspects of that office for many years, and there can be little doubt that while the quality of work done by many branches of the Office of Public Works is extremely good and very high, frequently the price we have to pay for their services is also very high.

In passing I want to refer, because it is in my constituency, to some of the changes that have taken place in the Phoenix Park. The Minister alluded to these changes in his speech and said that they had got broad public acceptance. That is not necessarily the case. Traffic restrictions have been put in place in the Phoenix Park, some of which are good and some of which are not so good. The overall effect of the restrictions is that they cause traffic jams in the park and, therefore, more pollution which affects trees and their growth. Many trees have been damaged in the past number of years and much replanting has had to be carried out. I invite the Minister to meet me in the Phoenix Park so that he can see the effect of his policies. He will see traffic jams half a mile long on either side of the main road at the park intersection with leaded fumes coming out of the exhausts of the stalled traffic. This would not be the case if there was a freer flow of traffic, which there was before many of the road closures. I query whether the changes have had a positive environmental effect; I rather doubt it.

There is also the vexed question of the reasons for excluding public transport from the park. Buses from the Dublin 15 area, for example, Blanchardstown, Dunboyne and Meath have to circle the park whereas private transport is allowed to go through it. Any environmental analysis will show that a bus carrying 70 people will cause much less environmental pollution than 70 cars carrying 70 people, yet we allow the 70 cars to go through the park but we do not let public transport go through. Many people who live in the immediate vicinity of the park agree with what the Minister is doing but I query the environmental good sense of excluding public transport from going through the park. I admit that some care would have to be taken if public transport was allowed to go through the park, even on an experimental basis. CIE and others, including the commission who preceded the Dublin Transport Authority, suggested that instead of having to go around the park, perhaps buses should be allowed enter the park at the Ashtown gate and leave it at the North Circular Road gate. Because buses have to go around the park this causes traffic jams on the Navan Road, increases considerably the length of time it takes to commute from that part of the city into the city centre and discourages the use of public transport, which is the reverse of what we should be doing on environmental grounds.

One of the more notable features of the Minister's speech was the lack of economic content. Deputy Noonan and Deputy McDowell referred to the need for widening the agenda of Government action. There now seems to be an acceptance, almost across all political parties, of the need to prune public expenditure and to get better value for public expenditure, so much so that we hardly need talk about it any more except to reiterate that we are far from being at the end of the road in that respect. In itself it will not generate the changes and improvements necessary for their solution of our problems; in fact, on its own, there is a danger of its worsening the problem. It is certainly worsening the problems of unemployment and emigration.

In replying I should like the Minister to tell us what has happened to retail sales in the period since he came to office. If our economy is growing at the rate suggested by the figures presented — 4.5 per cent annually — why is that not reflected in significantly lower unemployment figures? If our economy is growing why is that not reflected in the volume of retail sales? Surely those are two factors that would reflect a real upturn in our economy, rather than what Deputy McDowell described as a Pepsi Cola-type, imaginary, turnaround which would affect the figures but not the facts. Certainly it has very speedily converted the Labour Party to the need for tax reform. To complete the circle all we need is Fianna Fáil to join the three Opposition parties, whose spokespersons have already spoken in this debate, to accept the need for urgent reform of personal taxes and their replacement by others. It needs to be re-emphasised that nobody in this House is speaking about reduced taxes as such, but rather about collecting the same volume of taxes in a different manner, which would have a less dynamic effect, if I might describe it that way, on our economy than the present penal levels of personal taxation. All that is needed is for the Government Party to take that on board.

The reality is that these changes or reforms must be implemented quickly. For instance, if we are to dramatically reduce personal taxation — as three parties in opposition are now proposing — by next year we would practically need to be deciding on and announcing alternatives in the next few months if there is any hope of their being in place as substitutes at the beginning of the next tax year. Therefore, we would really need to be hearing from the Minister for Finance in early autumn and to have a budget in the autumn to put these changes into effect, rather than in January next, because January will be too late to implement radical tax changes by the beginning of the next tax year, 6 April 1989.

The consensus which has brought about a reduction of 6.5 per cent in interest rates has helped to develop the balance of trade surplus which the present Government inherited from the previous one, has helped them to reduce even further the low inflation rate, also inherited from the previous Government. It has helped them to develop further the boom in aviation begun by the last Government and must now be spread over the whole area of tax reform. If it is not then we shall not——

Mr. N. Treacy

The Deputy would not say that about Knock.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I will talk about Knock in a moment if the Minister of State wishes. If those advantages are not spread we shall not achieve any reduction in unemployment, which is the largest economic problem alongside that of the budget deficit; we cannot solve one while ignoring the other. In fact we are spending something in the region of £1,000 million on unemployment payments, without taking into account tax foregone and so on on account of unemployment. A significant reduction in unemployment itself would help to solve the budget deficit problem. That is why radical tax reform is so necessary if we are to effect real improvements in our economy, if we are to relieve the despair and sense of hopelessness felt by many people, some of which is deeper than is justified by the facts. Because of that sense of despair and hopelessness people are giving up good jobs to emigrate, to Britain, America, Australia or elsewhere. People are giving up good jobs because, when they get their pay packets, they find that two-thirds have gone to the Government, or close to that amount. People from farming communities, like the Minister of State present, would not understand or be as conscious of that.

People are emigrating because, in addition to the penal rates of taxation, they feel the outlook is not hopeful for their children. They foresee difficulties in their children finding job opportunities at home and are pessimistic that their children will have to emigrate at a very young age. That is why tax reform is urgent. It is urgent also because of the speculation that there will be a change in the office of Minister for Finance. The present incumbent, whose performance has already been commended by earlier speakers — with which commendation I should like to be associated — has the stature, public and political support to effect the sort of radical changes necessary. That might not necessarily be the case in respect of another holder of that office. Therefore, it is urgent that another bullet be bitten, that major changes be announced this autumn, not merely about public expenditure being cut further but with regard to major structural changes in our economy. I would strongly urge the Minister for Finance not only to address the expenditure side of things between now and September next but also the whole area of tax reform.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I must agree with Deputy J. Mitchell in regard to the Minister's total failure to give the House any idea of what he has in mind, what is his strategy or what are his policies at this half-way stage of the year. He has failed totally to give the House any basic idea of the effects of his policies to date.

We all know that interest rates have decreased and that the rate of inflation is decreasing. That has been shouted from the rooftops for the past 18 months: what a marvellous achievement that is. Nobody sees that as a marvellous achievement. I remember practically two decades when there was an inflation rate of not even 1 per cent but they were the most miserable decades in our history. No inflation means no growth, a dead economy with nothing happening. Minimal inflation means nothing unless one can show some other developments as well. The Minister has failed totally to give us any idea of what is happening in this area. It is very worrying to observe a Minister for Finance who has no overall economic strategy apart from cutting the budget deficit, reducing the burden of debt and, therefore, reducing overall Government expenditure. Apparently that is his overall task as perceived by him. He had nothing to say about growth, about production of goods or wealth; nothing about jobs or the allocation of finance to that area; nothing about what he intends to do, or when the end of the era of cutbacks might be foreseen. We have simply a Minister for cutbacks, not a Minister for Finance, who should be telling us what is happening, month by month, whereas he will not even inform us year by year.

Deputy J. Mitchell raised the subject of tax reform and the desirability of its implementation, as if tax reform or the desire therefor had arisen in the past year or two only, contending that Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats are in total competition as to who have the best tax reform ideas.

Mr. J. Mitchell

We believe in competition.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Deputy Spring came along in the last week with other major new tax reform proposals.

Mr. McDowell

What do The Workers' Party think about them?

Tomás Mac Giolla

We have been shouting for tax reform proposals for a decade now. We marched on the bloody streets, Deputy Mitchell.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I marched with the Deputy.

Tomás Mac Giolla

In 1978 we produced the first document on tax reform. Come on The Taxpayer. We have published a greater body of material on tax reform than any other party — not perhaps as glossy, but published and available. We have continuously, since I came into this House in 1982, pointed out the need for tax reform, for the reduction of PAYE taxation and a widening of the burden of taxation to bring in the area of capital property that the Progressive Democrats are all talking about now, the need for taxation on capital property, apart from personal taxation on workers' wages.

Mr. McDowell

Pat Rabbitte said on television that he was against property tax.

Tomás Mac Giolla

That is a proposal we have continuously put forward. That was the reason 350,000 people marched in this city in 1980, but nobody listened to them. The Commission on Taxation were introduced and that was the end of it. Workers wanted tax reform, to reduce the burden of taxation on workers. The Deputy can snigger and laugh all he likes, but that is what has been happening. That is the fight that has gone on for a decade now. It is extraordinary to see the sudden conversion of Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats to the need for tax reform, for particular reasons of their own there is no need to go into at this moment.

Mr. McDowell

Unanimity.

Tomás Mac Giolla

The Minister has failed to give us any information in relation to his ideas on tax reform. It may be said that is something for the budget, but the budget is a time for introducing particular taxation. The general strategy and general ideas could be given now.

I must refer to the Minister's short piece on the Ombudsman's Office. The Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance have failed totally to understand the position of the Ombudsman, the independence of the office, how it is totally different from any other Department and how nonsensical it is for the Taoiseach to tell us that Department must have their share of cuts, the same as any other Department. The Ombudsman's Office is not a Department like any other Department. It is responsible to the Oireachtas, not to any particular Minister or the Taoiseach. The Government constantly have failed to understand that issue.

The fundamental issue, the crisis in the Ombudsman's Office, does not concern the rights or wrongs of all Government spending, cutbacks and so on. It is the attempt by the Government to use the excuse of these cutbacks in order to diminish the democratic rights of people to access to the Ombudsman's Office, to have their cases dealt with in a prompt and efficient manner. That is what the Ombudsman's Office was set up for. Failing to understand even what happens in the Ombudsmans' Office, the Minister has said that the fundamental, question, as far as the Minister for Finance is concerned, is that a staff of 12 investigators and 16 support staff should be able to process the current workload of 4,000 to 5,000 complaints a year, that on the basis of the staffing cadres employed elsewhere in the Civil Service in dealing with appeals, representations, other cases, etc. there is no reason why the 28 staff should not be able to keep abreast of complaints.

To compare the Ombudsman's Office, their method of dealing with complaints and the type of complaints received by them with complaints received by civil servants or whatever is totally to fail to understand the nature and purpose of the office. One complaint to the Ombudsman's Office could take up more time than 1,000 complaints to Civil Service Departments which are dealt with, in many cases, in a fairly offhand manner after many weeks, or months in some cases.

I ask the Minister and the Taoiseach to look again at the Ombudsman's Office, at the legislation establishing it, to see if they believe that adequate staff have been given for the work entailed. The Minister has responsibility to the Oireachtas to see that the legislation establishing that office and passed by this House is capable of being implemented. That responsibility is laid on the Ombudsman by that legislation. If the Minister is preventing that from happening, he is preventing this House from ensuring that the Ombudsman can carry out the duties which we gave him.

The shock of the day was caused by a series of announcements made by the Minister in regard to the implementation of the various reports, Nos. 29, 30 and 31 as they are called, with regard to pay for the public service and how this affects the position of Ministers, former Ministers and Members of the Dáil. Some of these reports are quite complex. The report in relation to ministerial pensions was made available to us only this morning. I notice from the Minister's speech that it was made available to him only on Wednesday of this week, the day before yesterday. That must establish the Minister for a place in the Guinness Book of Records——

Mr. N. Treacy

He has made that already.

Tomás Mac Giolla

——the implementation on Friday of a report received on Wednesday: I have never heard of implementation of a report in such a rapid and efficient manner. I hope that augurs well for the future of other reports and reviews put to the Minister and that we will have equally rapid implementation in such cases. I have had an opportunity of just a quick look at the reports before I came in here and have not been able to study the Gleeson proposals in regard to ministerial pensions. An initial reading indicates that there is a major improvement on the present situation, which has given rise over a number of years to much public dissatisfaction.

It was The Workers' Party who first drew attention in this House to the position with regard to ministerial pensions, long before the Progressive Democrats Party were formed. Within a year of coming into this House, when we became aware of the situation we drew attention to that scandal. The matter had not been raised in the Dáil for the previous 50 years. We thought it was a wrong, unfair system of remuneration of people in ministerial office. We constantly harried and harassed Ministers for information and published the information we received. The proposals appear to be an enormous improvement, but we would have to study them somewhat more to see the full implications. The report concerning pensions does not refer to, or has ducked, the question of existing pension holders. If it is wrong, it is wrong now. Some existing pension holders in their thirties could be receiving these pensions for the next 20 years or so, before they reach the age of 55 years.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has three minutes left.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): He should use that time to elaborate on his pension from the ESB.

Tomás Mac Giolla

We were disappointed that the incremental system for TDs was not accepted and that the reasons for non-acceptance were not given. In relation to report No. 29, we agree that public service employees need increases. There has been a brain drain and many have left because they can earn so much more in the private sector. However, there is no brain drain from the Houses of the Oireachtas and Members are not resigning. I am glad that the privileged tax regime has been phased out but it is outrageous to grant such huge increases to TDs at present and it will be seen as the two finger sign to the public. They have had to endure cuts in the education and health services and even in social welfare payments. Many people are unable to put food on the table. This is not the time to grant increases to TDs, although there may be a case for such increases in better economic times.

We oppose these enormous increases at a time when everybody else is told to tighten their belts, that there will be more cutbacks and that things will get worse. It is an insult to people on social welfare benefits. There are no arguments in favour of such increases now, particularly when so many TDs are double-jobbing. Deputy McDowell said that judges are in the same position as journalists but I have never heard of a journalist who could sit on the Bench in the Four Courts for a couple of hours double-jobbing or of a judge who could work as a journalist on a newspaper. A TD can work as a solicitor or barrister in the Four Courts; he can be an auctioneer or engage in some other business. Many of them are double-jobbing and the public know that. I am a full-time TD but this increase is not acceptable in the present serious economic circumstances and the cutbacks being imposed by the Government.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacSharry)

I sincerely thank Deputies for their contributions. Most of them had kind words for me. While all the points raised were relevant, most Deputies concentrated on items and issues which have been raised and debated here on numerous occasions, going back to the publication of these Estimates last October. I will not go into great detail in replying except in relation to a few points.

Deputy Desmond said that the management plan in relation to the Phoenix Park, through the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, was approved by his Government. I am sure that any important points made will be taken into account in its further operation. Deputy Desmond also raised the question of the Office of Public Works and capital expenditure in 1988 on improving employment exchanges and facilities. The amount allocated will be £4 million, not £2 million as mentioned by Deputy Desmond. Two million pounds of that will be spent in Dublin.

Deputy Noonan and others referred to the Government's general strategy and the consensus that exists in the Dáil. I mentioned earlier that there was a general consensus in regard to the Gleeson reports Nos. 29, 30 and 31. The last speaker did not agree but he was hypocritical in his remarks about the announcement. Certain categories who have been awarded the 15 per cent interim reward under report No. 29 should get it. However, there are second class citizens in that category also — the parliamentarians — although I, as Minister for Finance, will never accept that.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. MacSharry

Certain individuals here seem to consider themselves second class but the majority of Members have accepted the recommendations put forward by the Government in relation to the Gleeson reports. Deputies will have a further opportunity to deal with these matters when the issues are raised on the passage of legislation which will be required in the next session.

I wish to express the gratitude of the Government and the public for the consensus in the House on economic matters. We all know the difficulties which the Government faced last March 12 months. During the previous ten years the national debt was running wild, unemployment was increasing and the balance of payments was moving in the wrong direction. All parties knew that we had to do something about the problems. The Government set about tackling the issues in March of last year and they have made measurable progress since then with the co-operation — on most occasions — of the Members of the House. Of course there have been times when different views prevailed and the Government had to accept that.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): It was good for the Government.

Mr. MacSharry

Of course it was, because a good, healthy exchange of views and arguments means true democracy. However, as Deputy Noonan rightly said, the debt is still increasing notwithstanding all the cutbacks over the last 15 months. In the years ahead, we will have to stabilise that debt. While I might not necessarily accept the figures given by Deputy Noonan, we said in the Programme for National Recovery that we would see the debt GNP ratio being stabilised at 5 per cent and 7 per cent of GNP. We have moved substantially in that regard and will continue to move in that direction in the programme of expenditure for 1989, that will be published in October next when the Dáil resumes.

Tax and tax reform were mentioned by most Deputies and some referred to the proposals and programmes they or their political parties have put forward. Some of the proposals being put forward are being suggested by individuals and small parties who will never get the opportunity even to have a say in how they will be implemented. They can come forward with any sort of proposal. As Deputy MacGiolla said, the place is littered with tax proposals from The Workers' Party, before and since they came into this House, but they will never have an opportunity to implement any of them.

Tomás Mac Giolla

It is a pity. The problems would have been solved by now if we could have implemented our policies.

Mr. MacSharry

In this year's budget we have introduced more reform than has been introduced for some time in relation to the extension of PRSI to self-employed, the introduction of self-assessment, the incentive scheme for payment of arrears of tax and the operation of the sheriffs which had been introduced by the previous Government and operated very successfully in the course of the last 18 months. There has been some reform. We have honoured the commitment given at election time and we have done more than promised in the Programme for National Recovery in relation to the PAYE sector. We intend to continue down that road.

The Law Reform Commission was referred by Deputy McDowell and Deputy Noonan. I shall bring the points raised by both Deputies to the attention of the Attorney General who will give them careful consideration.

The national lottery has been referred to. I could make a big speech about the lottery, but I will not delay the House because all who have participated in this debate are still here and have diligently listened to all the contributions. We all know the purpose of the lottery and of the work it is doing. I compliment the previous Government on introducing the lottery. The money is being spent more or less in line with what was intended, with the addition of some extra expenditure in other areas because the lottery has turned out to be a greater success than anybody anticipated. When one goes through the list of projects receiving funds from the lottery, although a lot of attention has been focused on one or two areas, thousands of projects, individuals and organisations have been assisted from lottery funds. Were it not for the lottery, these funds would not be available from Exchequer resources. We will see to it that things continue in this way. I sincerely thank the public for the contribution they are making to the very worthy projects which are benefiting from the lottery. Were it not for their continuing contributions the Government would not be in a position to assist these projects.

In relation to the Ombudsman, I repeat that a review will now be undertaken. I will await the outcome of that review and then I will take whatever action is required even if it involves taking action in the course of this financial year. I will not get into the argument and keep it going. What we intend to do now is to get this matter resolved once and for all to the satisfaction of everyone.

As Deputies have said, we must continue to control expenditure. The Government are in the process of examining expenditure under every subhead in every single Department, and will continue that process throughout the weeks ahead when the Dáil goes into recess. Hopefully we will be in a position, as we were last year, to publish the Book of Estimates for 1989 for discussion by the Dáil when it returns in the autumn. Hopefully we will continue to make the kind of progress that has continued to be made during the course of this year.

When I hear Deputy Mac Giolla talk about the failure of the Minister, of the Taoiseach and of the Government, I hope we will continue to fail in the way it is interpreted by Deputy Mac Giolla, in that we have interest rates reduced by over 6 per cent, we have the lowest inflation rate for 25 years at 1.8 per cent and a drop of 4 per cent in unemployment against the corresponding period last year——

Tomás Mac Giolla

Where are the jobs?

Mr. MacSharry

——we have had the Exchequer borrowing requirement go from 13 per cent when we took office down to around 8 per cent and the current budget deficit going from 8.2 per cent to 6 per cent, and so on. The list of favourable indicators is enormous. Such favourable indicators have not been experienced by any Government in the House for the last 20 years.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Nothing is happening.

Mr. MacSharry

I hope we continue to fail as interpreted by Deputy Mac Giolla because I would call that massive progress. That is to the credit of most parties and Deputies in this House because of the way they have conducted the business in this House and supported Government strategies and policies being implemented by the Government over the last 16 months.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): Did the Minister say there was a current budget deficit of 6 per cent?

Mr. MacSharry

It is about 6.2 per cent. We are making progress. All I am prepared to say is that we are on target.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): I will be interested in next week's figures.

Mr. MacSharry

In relation to retail sales mentioned by Deputy Mitchell, I can give more information. In the first three months of this year, the latest period for which figures are available, figures show an increase in volume of 1½ per cent. A good indicator of increasing consumer demand is new private car sales which are up by 8.3 per cent in the first four months of this year. We are now beginning to see the results of policies of the last 15 months as well as having the favourable indicators getting the results on the ground.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. MacSharry

I thank Deputies and political parties for the co-operation and consensus generally that has been shown over the last 15 months, since the publication of these Estimates in so far as this year is concerned and since last October, right through the budget, the Finance Bill and other financial debates we have had. Much of what was raised today had already been covered up to now so I do not propose to go into any other detail. I have covered most of the points.

Vote put and agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would ask the Minister to formally move the Votes.

Mr. MacSharry

I understand that. I was going to conclude these remarks and, with your permission, move each of the Votes individually.