asked the Minister for Finance whether the Government will review, in the interest of economy, the services and amenities enjoyed by members of the Government and by Ministers of State, in matters such as (a) the provision of State cars and drivers in cases where no special security risk is envisaged; (b) the discretionary provision of entertainment by Ministers; (c) the number of officials escorting Ministers on official occasions abroad; (d) the number of civil service staff in Ministers' offices engaged principally in political work relating to Ministers' constituencies; (e) the production of printed material as information on departmental activities; and if he will set firm standards and maxima, as appropriate to each category of activity.

(Clare): All State expenditures including expenditures of the kind mentioned in the question are reviewed regularly with a view to ensuring economy. Where it is feasible to set standards in the interest of economy, without diminishing excessively the effectiveness of Government, or the quality of service given to the public, this is done.

Sir, I have bundled a whole lot of things into this question and it will take a little while to hound the Minister over all that ground——

Deputy, Question Time ends at 3.30 p.m. and we could not wait for you——

If I may take things one by one.

The Deputy will have to put them by way of question.

Would the Minister accept that, rightly or wrongly, the public feel — particularly in recessionary times — that a degree of comfort or amenity which in their eyes seems to be excessive is enjoyed by officeholders in several respects; that although there may be good reasons, particularly security reasons, for those amenities in some cases, there are all too many cases in which the public see no such reason and feel particularly resentful and are therefore that much less co-operative with the State whichever side is in or out? Therefore would the Minister not agree that this whole matter deserves very urgent attention in order to produce a more modest appearance personally on the part of whatever Government are in office?

(Clare): There are a number of factors involved in this question. On the question of (1) service provided for Ministers and Ministers of State, I should say there is a vast difference between living in Dublin, as Deputy Kelly does, and living over 150 miles from Dublin as I do, particularly when one realises that a car of which one has the use could be doing in excess of 60,000 miles per year. If a person is obliged to drive that number of miles, and endeavour to do a reasonably good job with regard to a Department, or wherever he may be I do not think it is physically possible to do that. As one who drove that distance himself for many years as a backbencher I know what it can take out of a person. Therefore it is not an unreasonable service to have.

I accept unreservedly that there is a big difference between the Minister's situation and that of a Dublin officeholder in that respect. But the unrestricted, unqualified, unlimited use of——

I am sorry, Deputy, a question, please.

Would the Minister not agree that there is some room for rationalising the system without having to use less convenient modes of travelling the distance he speaks of and in which I entirely sympathise with him in his position? Would there be not some case for demonstrating to the Public that some economy was being practised, even on this front, while quite accepting that there are dimensions, particularly security dimensions, which may necessitate an escort? That is apart from the other parts of the question I have put down.

(Clare): This matter, I understand, is kept under constant review. There is more than one Department involved. As the Deputy knows, the Department of Justice have a large involvement in the Deputy's question.

May I come to another part of the question? I asked the Taoiseach a couple of weeks ago about a retinue, I can only call it such, of 14 persons who accompanied him to a Disarmament Conference at the United Nations, and I mean no disrespect to him when I say that no one in this House can now remember what he said at that conference or whether it would have made any difference to anybody had it remained unsaid. That a retinue of 14 persons should have to travel at public expense——

Deputy, you are making a statement——

He had 25 cars in Castlebar at the unveiling of the monument to himself.

Would the Minister not accept that there is room for setting some kind of standard or criterion in such matters? I do not say that anybody deliberately abuses them but that is too much money to spend on accompanying a Minister, even if it is the Taoiseach, on an occasion of that kind. Would he not accept also that there is a case to be made for the Department of Finance setting certain standards which are transparently fair and reasonable, and not leave it to the discretion of an officeholder to take along whoever he likes or whoever is wished on him — and it is frequently the initiative of his officials rather than the officeholder which produces these immense entourages?

(Clare): With regard to the number of officials, advisers or others who travel abroad with a Minister on a given occasion, that is purely a matter for the Minister concerned himself to decide. With regard to the setting of standards, surely there would be some difficulty in so doing because the agendas of these conferences or meetings vary and the numbers needed vary also, as Deputies who have attended such conferences and meetings will realise.

A final supplementary, Deputy.

Might I ask the Minister, in view of the fact that on my own ministerial stints I have been at conferences abroad at which I doubted the utility of my own attendance let alone any of the people who accompanied me——

Deputy, a statement would arise on an Estimate but not at Question Time, when there is no such provision.

Could I ask the Minister what is the position about the committee established by the previous Government on, I think, 9 January last, to examine the use of State cars with a view to recommending what economies could be achieved in that area by one means or another? Has that committee reported? Have this Government disbanded it and, if it has reported, what action has been taken on the report, or where does it now stand?

(Clare): The Government are considering whether it is necessary for that committee to continue at present and no decision has been taken.

Does the Minister accept that when that committee was established it was required to report within a period of about a month? It seems odd that in regard to a committee which was to report in February last the Government should be considering in July whether it should continue. Did the committee report and, if not, why not?

(Clare): As far as I know there were options under different headings in their terms of reference. Options were set out——

So they did report and put options that the Government are now considering. Is that the position?

(Clare): The Government have not decided yet whether they wish it to continue in being.

Will the Government make the report available and publish the options?

Can the Minister give the House details of the options that were put before the Government?

(Clare): The best I can do is let the Deputy have them. There are quite a number of different options——

Yes, thank you.

(Clare): I will try to let the Deputy have them.

I would be very grateful for that. In his rather comprehensive question, Deputy Kelly, in regard to paragraph (d) asked the Minister the numbers of civil service staff in Ministers' offices engaged principally in political work relating to Ministers' constituencies. May I ask the Minister whether he can give us any information on that? Is it a fact that as many as 24 civil servants, in some cases, are engaged on constituency work for Ministers? Is this not a matter in respect of which the Departments of Finance and of the Public Service could lay down standards as we do not have the same problem here that we have in regard to conferences held abroad?

(Clare): The number of people recruited to a Department for that purpose is a matter for the public service. The Minister for the Public Service has to sanction any further recruitment, just as in the case of the civil service at all times.

The question here is not the recruitment of people but the deployment of people within a Government Department, when a Government may change and when a Minister might not previously have had anybody engaged on constituency work — as I know was the case in at least one instance — and a new Minister who comes in takes 24 people from other work in his Department and puts them onto constituency work. Does that not require standards to be applied? Could the Departments of Finance and of the Public Service not apply themselves to that and make proposals to regulate what appears to have been an abuse, particularly in cases where there is a completely safe seat and there is not even a political objective to be gained by it?

(Clare): I do not know to which seat the Deputy is referring. Surely it is a departmental matter for the Minister concerned. I am talking about re-deployment now as against recruitment.

Is it not a matter for which the Minister for Finance has a direct responsibility? May I just interpolate?

Deputy, we are reaching an all-time low of 11 questions only so far——

Sir, this has been an excellent Question Time in my judgment. I put this question originally to the Taoiseach as Head of the Government. He just passed the ball to the Minister present. I am now asking the Minister, who the Taoiseach thinks is the right man to answer this question, since finance is what we are at here and trying to save money, would he agree that circumstances which emerged here last week where Deputy McEllistrim told us that ten officials, and I hope I am not doing him an injustice, were added to the staff of his own personal office — I hope I am recalling that correctly — and a similar number to the office of the Minister in chief in the Department of Fisheries and Forestry for no other purpose, as far as any Member was able to elicit, than to deal with constituency correspondence? Surely the Department over which the Minister partly presides has a responsibility and an interest in this matter? Surely this cries out for regulation and cries out for an iron hand?

(Clare): With regard to the question of the ten or 12, as I can recall it was not clarified if they were to be involved in his personal work, meaning constituency work. It is possible to have a number of people attached to any Minister's office to deal with matters that come in from Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas and many other people. It is possible that those people are involved in that work also as well as the work the Deputy has referred to.

The Minister is dropping below the standard he has set for the last 30 minutes and he knows that he is engaged in stone-walling of the most primitive kind.