asked the Minister for Finance if he is aware of comments made by the president of the Irish Tax Officials Union at the union's recent conference to the effect that it has been impossible for the Revenue Commissioners to make anything other than a token effort to combat tax evasion due to cutbacks in staff, and similar comments made by the president of the Association of Inspectors of Taxes at its conference; if he has any plans to increase staff levels in the Revenue Commissioners in the light of these comments; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I have seen the comments to which the Deputy refers. I do not agree with the views expressed in these remarks and I am satisfied that staffing levels in the Revenue Commissioners are adequate. There are no plans to increase the numbers employed in the Office of the Revenue Commissioners at this time and future staffing levels must be subject to overall policy on Civil Service numbers.

My question to this Minister was also addressed by me to his predecessor. Does he not agree there should be a review of the embargo with a view to ensuring it does not apply in areas of State employment where there is a positive revenue or profit gain to be made? In this connection I am thinking in particular of the Revenue Commissioners but there are other areas such as the Land Registry. Will the Minister not agree that it is long overdue for such a review to be made rather than applying the crude embargo instrument across the board in the State services without taking into account potentially profitable revenue earning and profit-making sectors where the employment of more people would yield a more fruitful result to the economy?

As the Deputy is aware, the White Paper, Serving the Country Better, indicated a review had been conducted of the embargo ——

What has happened?

It indicated arrangements that are being made that are slightly more flexible but are still designed to achieve the same financial result as the embargo. In that context, the needs of the Revenue Commissioners are being examined. The principle outlined by the Deputy is not unreasonable. However, the difficulty is that if one starts making exceptions in any area ——

I know about the difficulty. The problem is that nothing has been done.

A sympathetic, if not a financial, case can be made for practically every area to be exempt.

The Minister knows what I am talking about. I put that question three years ago to his predecessor but nothing has been done about it.