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.