Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)

I will first ask the Minister a couple of general questions before addressing the issue of the levy. The table provided by the Department on prospective savings states that total current and capital savings under the programme will be €2 billion this year. Under the heading on the 8% reduction in professional fees, an example is given of "Medical and Legal". What does this mean? To take the case of a person who is currently charged for a private visit to a doctor, will his or her €60 fee be reduced by 8%? Will all doctors reduce fees by 8%?

Is this a direct reduction in fees paid to doctors and lawyers working for the Government on Government contracts? Will they have a reduction of 8% across the board? Does the reduction apply to those working in tribunals? I recall valiant efforts, starting with former Ministers Charlie McCreevy and Michael McDowell and others, who all said the fees of tribunal lawyers would be reduced. I think there was a promise made that they would be reduced during the 2004 local election but they were never reduced.

What legal and medical practitioner fees will be reduced? If, for example, as is suggested in one newspaper today, medical fees from the State are reduced, instead of a reduction in fees from my GP, could I face an increase because the doctors will be authorised to recover their loss of State income from private patients? It is important to clarify that matter, particularly for people in the middle income sectors who, by and large, do not have access to medical cards or free medical facilities from the State at the point of use, although they pay tax.

My second general question is on heading five of the announcement, a general administrative reduction in Government costs of €140 million. There will be all-party agreement on this question. Does the Minister have proposals included in that heading to reduce the number of Ministers of State and Oireachtas committees? Everybody in the Opposition parties would be happy to sit down and see an across the board package that would refer to Ministers of State because we believe the number could be reduced by one third or one half. The Government would work better. One would not have to try to remember the names of the five Ministers of State in the Department of Education and Science or those in the Department of Health and Children. It would make work in Government much easier.

The committees would be better if almost all of the paid positions were abolished or reduced by at least two thirds. Almost everybody, including the Minister's own backbenchers, want to make committees work better. There are too many of them; understanding what they do is very confusing and we do not even have enough rooms to service them all. There is competition in booking rooms by the gaggle of committees. We would be prepared to co-operate with such a measure and I am sure the other Opposition parties would also be happy to do so. Can the Minister make his proposals clear to us? Would he meet the Opposition to discuss them because we would be willing to discuss them with him?

The same could be said about Deputies' expenses. If there was a general discussion, the Minister would have no difficulty in reaching agreement across the House with political parties. I am offering it and trying to be positive.

See this speech in context