asked the Minister for Finance the value of goods confiscated by the Revenue Commissioners in 1981 and 1983; how these goods were disposed of; and the amount obtained from such disposal.

I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that records are not maintained in such a manner as would enable precise figures requested by the Deputy to be given. However, it is estimated that the values of goods seized by Customs and Excise in 1981 and 1983 were of the order of £800,000 and £2.3 million, respectively.

Depending on the circumstances of each case, Customs and Excise seizures are normally disposed of (a) by being released subsequently on payment of compromise sums in lieu of proceedings, or (b) by being destroyed, or (c) by being sold by public auction or by tender.

In many cases, seizures are not disposed of until the relative offences have been dealt with by the courts or by acceptance of a compromise sum in lieu of proceedings. It is not possible to relate receipts from the sale in any year of seized goods to the year in which the goods were seized.

In view of the fact that on the Minister's estimated figures, and according to his own statement that is all they are, there is a threefold increase as between 1981 and 1983. Does that not suggest a very considerable increase in the level of smuggling and would the Minister not acknowledge that that increase is due almost entirely to the differential in prices which is a consequence of the huge impact of indirect taxation here last year?

To the extent that these figures reflect what the Deputy claims they reflect, they would reflect partly the increase in tax differentials as between here and Northern Ireland from 1981 to 1983 and possibly going back further. Another element is the increased effectiveness of the Customs and Excise services while a third element is probably an increase in the value of the goods in any case.

Would the Minister not agree that the tax differential is almost totally a consequence of the indirect taxes imposed in the 1983 Budget? Is he not conscious of the fact that throughout this year all the traders who were being put at risk because of the smuggling were claiming that the level of supervision and control at the Border posts and elsewhere was not in any way adequate? Does that not suggest that even this growth is only a very pale picture of the reality of the smuggling being engaged in?

The tax differential does not arise only from the 1983 Budget. It arises from earlier budgets and also from a number of other factors. Secondly, the difference in prices which encourages people to engage in illegal transactions does not stem only from differentials in taxation. It arises from a number of other causes. Part of the increase in the figures I have given is attributable to the increased effectiveness of customs operations.

During the past year has the Minister met with representatives of all the legitimate trading interests, the electrical trading distributors, people in the drinks industry and so on and, if so, have they not all pointed out to him that the main reason, though not the only reason, for the growth in smuggling has been the increase in the level of indirect taxation imposed last year? Will the Minister endeavour in any further decisions he takes to ensure that that level will not be sustained?

This would be more appropriate to be raised during the budget debate.

I have told the Deputy on a number of occasions that I have met representatives of the various trading groups. I have told him also on other occasions that I do not accept that the differentials in taxation are the only cause of the problem. The Deputy is as much aware as I am that before any differential arose in terms of taxation there is a problem arising from other factors. That problem relates also to goods on which there is no differential in taxation.

Would the Minister agree that there has been a threefold increase in apprehensions in the past two years and that this is sufficient to indicate the seriousness of the problem?

That question would be more appropriate to the budget debate. I will allow a final supplementary from Deputy Wallace.

Would the Minister not agree that the taxes imposed in the past couple of years are the main cause of the increase in the figures for smuggling? We are aware that there were taxes in other years, too, but the present high level of taxation on goods is an encouragement to people to engage in smuggling.

I have made it clear that I agree entirely that differentials in levels of taxation are part of the problem.

They form the main part of the problem.

However, all the forms of indirect taxation go back considerably further than 1983, back through the years 1982, 1981, 1980 and 1979, so the problem is not one that has emerged only since 1983.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald rose.

I must move to the next question.