Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 28 Feb 2012

Vol. 757 No. 1

Priority Questions

Public Sector Staff

Sean Fleming

Question:

57Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he is satisfied with the progress made by the transition teams put in place to manage the wave of retirements from the public sector in order that the delivery of key frontline services will be maintained; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11455/12]

Mary Lou McDonald

Question:

58Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the final number of public service employees who will leave the service between 1 January 2012 and 29 February 2012; if he has received a report from each of the five transition teams on the way the impact of the end of February retirements will be managed; if he has submitted to Government a memorandum of the reports received; and if he will provide details of the pro-active communications strategy to relay to the public the plans that are in place to deal with the impact of the retirements to end February. [11410/12]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 57 and 58 together.

The latest information from across the public service indicates that 7,464 people have applied to retire in the first two months of the year. The sectorial breakdown of applications is health, 2,567; education, 2,058; Civil Service, 1,236; local authority, 931; defence, 362; and Garda, 310. This gives a total of 7,464.

When public service salaries were reduced in 2010, it was agreed by the then Government that persons retiring during a transitional, or grace, period would have their retirement benefits calculated on the basis of the previous payscale levels before the salary cut. That grace period will expire on 29 February 2012 in accordance with the law. Public service managers have known about the grace period for the past 18 months and have therefore had a long time to plan accordingly.

As the Deputies are aware, the Government has ensured that transition teams have been put in place in each of the sectors to deal with the specific short-term challenges arising from the ending of the grace period and to manage the process in their respective sectors. These teams are drawn from the existing workforce planning groups that have been in place for many months.

The transition teams have reported on their plans to manage the reduction in staff numbers arising from retirements to end-February and I have brought these proposals to Government. Based on the information received from the transition teams, I am satisfied that due consideration has been given by each of the sectors to the impact of the staffing reductions and the most appropriate and expeditious ways of managing the changes. The departures represent less than 3% of staff serving in the public service. Therefore, it would be unduly alarmist to categorise the exit as a "wave".

As they have the most current information on service provision at a local level, each sectoral transition team has been directed to actively communicate with the public via whichever means appropriate in order to allay concerns with regard to critical front-line service delivery. Public concerns about service levels should be addressed proactively and the public should be kept informed of business continuity arrangements that are being put in place. In the case of the Civil Service, material from the transition team process is available on my Department's website. For information on the wider public service, I would advise Members of the House to look at individual departmental websites.

Beyond the February 2012 grace period deadline, the strategic workforce planning groups in each sector will continue to ensure that sectoral employers develop plans to deal on an ongoing basis with the operational and strategic consequences of the changes and to keep the public informed step by step.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the issue. The Minister gave a general outline of the numbers leaving but he did not give any commitments in practice on the ground in terms of front line services. He has said that 2,567 people are leaving the health service in this eight week period, coupled with 1,800 who left immediately before Christmas. The 4,300 staff leaving the health service will cause problems on the front line, especially nursing grades. Every time we have spoken on this topic we speak about nursing grades. I believe Ministers are asking the Minister for concessions on Revenue staff and other staff. There should be a concession on a significant redeployment of nursing grade staff. This morning on the radio we heard that circulars have been sent to nursing unions suggesting a change from the 12-hour shift to a six-hour shift basis. If that is emerging in the 24 hours prior to people retiring, how can the Minister possibly expect proper arrangements to be put in place?

Will the Minister clarify the position on staff in the Department of Social Protection? Given that 246 staff are leaving, will the Minister ensure there will not be a further increase in delays in terms of processing means-tested payments such as jobseeker's allowance and carer's allowance and that arrangements will be in place for the appeals office with the line Minister, as some appeals are running over 12 months at the moment in cases where there is an oral hearing?

I am aware the Cabinet again discussed filling key vacancies in the Garda Síochána. In my constituency the chief superintendent has retired and two superintendents have retired in County Laois but there has not been any information about replacing them. Will the Minister give a commitment before this week is out on the filling of those posts?

A number of questions were asked. I appreciate the Deputy's general concern on the matter. The exit at the end of this month is of the order of 3% of the public service. It is one of which we have had much notice and a lot of strategic planning has been ongoing. I cannot guarantee that there will not be a glitch because it will be the area in which we least expected a problem to arise. However, I do expect managers at local level to address problems as they arise and to solve them.

In terms of the specific points made, as the Deputy is aware, some nursing grades are not subject to the moratorium and they can be replaced immediately. Some €16 million is available to the HSE to fill critical grades. As all consultant posts are outside the embargo, they can be filled.

We need to examine different ways of delivering services. The process of downsizing the public service is being done in tandem with delivering services differently. The Deputy mentioned the Garda. Garda rosters have been in place since the 1970s, yet people have been trying to change them to put the maximum number of gardaí on the beat at the points and times they are most needed and the least number at the points and times they are least needed. This level of flexibility has not existed to date, but it will from 1 April. Across the public service, this level of flexibility is being found.

The Department of Social Protection has a large volume of staff. Indeed, its staff levels have increased, given the influx of community welfare officers and the FÁS cohort. Some of the latter went to the Department of Education and Skills. There will be redeployment, as there has been already. All of the issues in question will be addressed.

In the past fortnight, the Government approved 32 - I am going from memory - senior Garda appointments. We are reviewing staffing requirements on a case by case basis. Perhaps we can now consider what the best management structures for the public service are, including agencies and the Garda.

The figure is 3% of the entirety of the public service. The Minister referred to the extent of the planning done to date and the advance notice given in respect of the incentivised retirement package.

It is not incentivised.

It is, actually. One would not ordinarily see this type of exodus from the service without a clear incentive being in place.

I will explain it again.

I have not had sight of the individual sectoral reports that the Minister stated were on each Department's website, but I have with me the Civil Service sectoral plan. The contingency plans are contained in an appendix to the document, which can be found on the Minister's departmental website. What is striking is the fact that the appendix is scant on detail. It repeatedly makes assertions that redeployment will be the first port of call, but that the Government will be seeking additional sanctioned posts. The appendix does not supply numbers in that regard. Commitments on protecting front line services are made. The Courts Service has helpfully stated that it hopes to keep the courts operational, yet it is losing nearly 60 personnel.

There is no evidence of the type of detailed, robust planning that the Minister claims has been under way for some time. Will he give the House a stronger sense of the planning in respect of the Courts Service and our health services? Some 500 mental health nurses are due to exit the system. Money has been ring-fenced for 400 new personnel, but that will leave us 100 short. This is the mathematics of it. There comes a point at which one cannot do more with less.

I will answer the last question first. The mathematics of it is that we are downsizing. It is a falsehood to claim that, after reducing the full quantum, one must add everyone back again. The idea is to do things better and more efficiently and to change work practices. This is the maths of it from the Government's perspective.

We have been involved in planning this process for each sector for months. For example, the Minister for Education and Skills laid out his plans in the House months ago and I have repeatedly heard spokespersons from the HSE outlining its detailed plans right down to hospital health care level.

The Deputy referred to advance notice. I sought three months notice from everyone who wanted to avail of it. People were not required to do so, but many did, which gave us a good idea of most of the numbers leaving so we could account for them. The Deputy is wrong, as she knows, in regard to incentivised schemes. This is simply the playing out of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2009, which came into force in 2010. That Act provided for a grace period in which people could avail of their pre-cut retirement conditions, in other words, calculate their lump sums and pension rights based on their old salary levels. The Government is not providing an incentive. These are people who are approaching retirement and the previous Dáil enacted legislation to allow them to hold on to their pre-cut pensions and lump sums if they retired by a certain deadline. That deadline has now arrived and we are going to deal with the matter. They are not being incentivised by design nor are they part of a programme of targeting individual areas. The next phase of downsizing will certainly be targeted.

On the specific points raised by the Deputy regarding the Civil Service, the information is on the website. Local managers in Departments and offices are individually reporting to my Department and they have not signalled difficulties in respect of Civil Service provisions. It is important that local managers are allowed to manage. I do not sit in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform individually controlling and managing every local office of the public service.

The Minister stated that his workforce planning groups have been in operation for quite some time but when the Taoiseach indicated there was a need to appoint transition teams and drew staff from the planning groups for this purpose, he must not have been satisfied with them. Will the Minister explain why it was necessary to change the processes applying to the workforce planning groups?

He used a new phrase when he referred to the next phase of downsizing for the public service. He might like to elaborate on his comment because we have just completed the voluntary retirement scheme. He said it will be targeted. Will he confirm that it will not include a compulsory element?

It will be news to virtually all the retiring public servants that the incentivised exit mechanism was not in fact an incentive but we will agree to differ on the semantics of it.

Is that a question?

The Minister stated that the objective is to downsize further. I ask him to explain what he means by that. I presume he is envisaging something that falls within the parameters of the Croke Park agreement. He might enlighten us in this regard. He also says the objective is to act more effectively and efficiently but his record to date has been purely about reducing headcount via an incentivised scheme for people to exit the service early. Nothing in the master plan or the planning, scant as it is, addresses the question of improving excellence in service provision or efficiency. The Minister is engaged in a crude cull.

That was more a speech than a question but I will deal with the two points raised. On Deputy Fleming's questions, the workforce planning teams became transition teams and were augmented-----

Same thing, new title.

No, it was the critical final phase when the numbers were clear. As the Taoiseach rightly felt, we needed an even more proactive engagement and the workforce planning teams that had been established in every sector became transition teams and brought in additional expertise to ensure, as best we could, everything was running smoothly. We may face problems but I hope we do not because we have done everything that is humanly possible.

In regard to downsizing, we have set targets for reducing public sector numbers between now and 2015. It will be done within the umbrella of the Croke Park agreement, which means there will be no compulsory redundancies.

Deputy McDonald accused me of being fixated with numbers. I am fixated with two things, namely, restoring the economic sovereignty of our State, which is a job I have been given, and reforming the public service. That is why we have a Department dedicated to both economic management and political and Civil Service reform. We will do both and are in the process of doing both. In the first year we have achieved a remarkable amount.

Sale of State Assets

Clare Daly

Question:

59Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the breadth and timescale of his plans to privatise State assets; if discussions have taken place with the trade unions whose members’ jobs will be affected; and if he or any other Department have estimated the amount of job losses that will arise from the sale of these assets. [11409/12]

My announcement last week contained the details of the breadth and timescale of the Government's plans to dispose of certain non-strategic State assets. We have agreed with the troika on the sale of assets up to a value of €3 billion based on the guiding principles that there will be no fire sales, integral transmissions and distribution systems will be retained in State ownership and full value will be derived for the State. The assets to be sold will be Bord Gáis Éireann's energy business, but not including its gas transmission and distribution systems or the two gas interconnectors, which will remain in State ownership; and some of ESB's non-strategic power generation capacity. Consideration will also be given to the sale of some assets of Coillte, but not its land holdings, and the sale of the State's remaining shareholding in Aer Lingus when market conditions are favourable and an acceptable price can be achieved.

In the case of the energy State companies, meetings take place between the Minister for Communications Energy and Natural Resources and union representatives from time to time. However, no meeting has been held since the Government decision was announced last Thursday. Job losses are not, as the Deputy's question suggests, an inevitable outcome of this process. Apart from the receipts from the sale of assets that the Government will retain for reinvestment in the economy, the sale of certain business units of State companies offers the prospect of access to significant new capital to grow these businesses, which might not have otherwise have been available to them, given the current position in capital markets.

This question was tabled before the Minister's announcement last week, but I am still none the wiser. It is regrettable that the announcement was made in the media and not in the House, which would have allowed us to debate some of these issues. The Minister says he has not spoken to union representatives but the question of job losses is critical. The Minister has attempted to dress up what is in essence a selling off of valuable State assets in order to pay a debt as something that will somehow create jobs. That does not add up.

How does the Minister intend to achieve what has never been done in the privatisations that have already taken place? Eircom's workforce has increased from 14,000 to 7,000 and is targeted to fall to 5,000. Aer Lingus's workforce has been reduced from 7,500 to 3,500. How will the Minister accomplish the miracle of a privatisation that does not involve job losses? Where is this factored in his decisions?

I made the announcement as soon as I could after the Cabinet made its decisions. I readily agreed to have an early debate in the House. I very much welcome an open debate on all these matters and I believe one is scheduled for next week. I entirely agree with the Deputy on learning from the past. The method of sale of Eircom was not in the public interest because it sold off a strategic asset into the private sector and then it was asset stripped in many ways. That is why we are not selling off the strategic assets. We are holding on to the distribution of gas and electricity, and the interconnectors. That core is important. However, Bord Gáis Éireann may have, for example, bought a particular wind farm. While the Deputy might believe that is a strategic asset, I do not. Some are of the view that everything owned by the State is a strategic asset but that is not how we should operate.

The Minister is dressing this up as a job-creation measure. However, apart from the job losses which inevitably flow from a privatisation - there has never been one that did not involve job losses - how does the Minister answer organisations such as the Woodland League, which would argue that a country such as Switzerland which is half the size of Ireland has twice the area of forest? While we employ 11,000 in forestry, it employs 120,000 people in that area. What does the Minister say to the idea that our State assets could be used on valuable indigenous industry job creation programmes that the Minister is forfeiting by his short-term measures?

I do not agree with the Deputy. She is simply wrong on the forestry side. We have an ambitious forestry programme. We will be growing more trees. We are suggesting that we sell off some of the crop. Trees will grow again and the idea is that one harvests trees and sells them but one keeps the land. The suggestion is like suggesting to a farmer that he should not sell the crop.

Deputy Daly referred to downsizing and losing jobs at Aer Lingus. Every airline has lost jobs during the past decade. I do not imagine the Deputy is suggesting we should hold on to State companies as employment agencies to keep non-commercial numbers. The company must operate in the commercial reality.

They are outsourced to other private companies.

The Deputy has twice mentioned that I am dressing up the pro-jobs issue. This is a pro-jobs issue. After long-term negotiations we have changed the view of the troika to allow one third of the total assets to be used to create new jobs. This is a significant advance in an economy starved of capital for productive purposes.

Sean Fleming

Question:

60Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will provide an estimate on a company by company basis of the protocols from the sale of State assets in order that the €3 billion target will be raised; the timetable he envisages for completion of same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11456/12]

The Deputy will understand that I do not propose to indicate to the market how much I expect to raise from the sale of the individual assets in the programme of State asset disposals that I announced. However, I assure the House that the sales will be transacted via an open, transparent and competitive process.

On foot of my announcement, work is progressing on plans for the disposals I have outlined. All of the relevant Departments will participate, overseen by my Department and with the assistance of NewERA entity created by this Government. The objective is to identify by the end of next month any remaining policy, regulatory, legislative or financial issues that may need to be addressed prior to individual disposals. Great care will be taken at all times to ensure any decisions are in the national interest and represent good value for the taxpayer. It is intended that any issues arising will be addressed by the end of this year to facilitate the commencement of sales next year.

I realise the Minister has stated in his reply that he cannot give details of the projected sales on a company by company basis. The Minister claims he cannot put this information in the public arena for commercial sensitivity purposes. Does the Minister know? Does he have an estimate on a company by company basis? Has the Government discussed the estimate on a company by company basis? Has the Department in conjunction primarily with the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources agreed on the basis for it? Who came up with the estimates on a company by company basis? The Government cannot have put out a magic figure of €3 billion without knowing approximately where it would come from.

What professional advisers have worked with the Departments on this matter? What tendering process took place and when was it advertised? How much were they paid? Will these people have an interest in advising potential purchasers later on when they make bids for some of these assets in terms of the methods of sale? The Minister has given no indication of whether it will be a sale of shares, as happened in other companies, whether it will be a trade sale or whether the Department will invite submissions from interested parties and perhaps invite a limited tender. Will the Minister explain the process? Presuming the Minister has professional advisers, has he locked into this process that they must not be in a position to advise any potential purchasers in due course?

I thank the Deputy for his questions. The Deputy does not expect me to quantify the value I expect from each item or company we put up for sale. However, I wish to give as much detail as I can to the Deputy. Subsequent to the decision made by the Government last September we set up two parallel processes. The first was to establish what regulatory and other difficulties were presented by the decision made originally on a minority shareholding sale in a vertically integrated ESB. That process was carried out by my Department and the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. The parallel process involved the valuation of other State companies. This was carried out by the NewERA entity, drawing on the expertise of the NewERA entity along with the National Treasury Management Agency. They have put a tentative value on them. It cannot be all that completely precise until we test the markets.

The Deputy referred to a tendering process. We have not held a tendering process. Therefore, we do not know the true value. However, I would expect to get a very good price for the State for the energy component of Bord Gáis Éireann, BGE. The idea, and this is what attracted the troika and helped us in our negotiations, is that this will contribute in two ways to our economic growth. Not only will we get one third of the proceeds to invest in the productive sector of the economy, but it will also create competition within the energy market, because BGE is the nucleus of an alternative player that will be a competitor for a vertically integrated ESB which will remain a State company.

I thank the Minister for that information. He has confirmed that he has received no external professional advice with regard to how he came up with the figure of €3 billion, but said it was proposed by the NTMA in NewERA.

Yes, in NewERA and they would have had expertise with them.

Perhaps if the Minister is not in a position to provide the information today, he will send the information on to us regarding the level of expertise the particular staff in NewERA have on estimating value of companies where privatisation the selling off of strategic State assets is planned. The Minister says the sale of Aer Lingus is not the sale of a strategic asset nor is the sale of forestry, but some people would disagree. Who in the NTMA who was involved in the decision process had experience - perhaps from another country - of making these decisions or was it that it was just a group of public servants, which those in the NTMA are, coming up with a figure and presenting that figure to the Minister? There appears to be no independent verification of any of the figures by anybody outside of officials employed by the Government. That is not a sufficient basis on which to proceed and I would like to see some verification or benchmark as to whether this is a realistic figure.

The Deputy is quite disparaging of the qualities available to the NTMA. Based on the amount of money we are paying those working in the NTMA, I sincerely hope they are not run of the mill civil servants. They are individuals who are highly qualified for treasury management, to run our national debt process and to involve themselves in a range of the strategic funding issues that affect the State and they are well placed to look at these matters and get expert advice on them. I am confident of that.

The Deputy also asked how we determined what was strategic. The NTMA did not do that, the Government did and that is laid out in the plans we have made. The Deputy asked who decided Aer Lingus was not a strategic asset. The problem is the Deputy's party sold off 75% of Aer Lingus. The remaining 25% is not a strategic holding. We do not have any leverage on the slots in Heathrow or anything else. Fianna Fáil sold that, unfortunately.

We did not sell the slots.

We are moving on to the next question as there is a limited time for questions.

Ministerial Remuneration

Mary Lou McDonald

Question:

61Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will provide a full list of all payments and allowances paid to members of the Government; the changes, if any, he plans to make to these payments and allowances; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11411/12]

The Government decided on taking office in March 2011 to reduce the salaries of An Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and Ministers with immediate effect. The reductions were implemented on a voluntary basis pending the passage of the necessary legislation giving statutory effect to the reductions. Section 6(c) of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Amendment) Act, 2011 provides the legislative basis for the pay reductions from 1 January 2012.

The gross annual salaries now applicable to An Taoiseach, Tánaiste and Ministers amount to €200,000, €184,405 and €169,275, respectively. The gross salaries indicated are inclusive of the pay element for a Deputy amounting to €92,672. The effect of these reductions is that the gross annual salary of An Taoiseach has been reduced by nearly 30% since December 2009, and that of the Tánaiste and Ministers by nearly 25% over the same period.

Since 1 May 2011, Cabinet Ministers with the exception of the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Justice and Equality now use their own cars on official business. All Ministers are now paid for official mileage up to 96,540 kilometres or 60,000 miles per annum. Ministers of State have used their own cars on the same basis since 1984. Ministers, including Ministers of State, may appoint two civilian drivers, the salaries for whom are paid by the Minister's respective Department. At the time the change was made, it was estimated the savings to be achieved by Cabinet Ministers using their cars would be approximately €4 million in a full year.

Ministers do not receive overnight payments while in Dublin. Ministers on overnight business away from their home or headquarters may claim the vouched cost of a hotel room, including tax and up to 15% in respect of any service charge. They may also claim an overnight subsistence allowance of €72.66 which is half the civil service Class A overnight rate of €108.99, increased by one third. Slightly higher rates apply in the case of travel to the USA and Canada.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

As with all Members of the Oireachtas, Ministers may receive the public representation allowance element of the parliamentary standard allowance. Under the public representational allowance, Ministers may claim an unvouched amount of €12,000 per annum or a fully vouched amount up to €20,000 per annum. The purposes for which this allowance may be used includes expenses related to constituency offices, home telephones, newspaper advertising, distribution of leaflets, newsletters, conferences and other matters related to their duties as a public representative. From 1 February, additional secretarial support as well as public relations, certain information technology and training services are included within the scope of this allowance. The overall cap remains unchanged. Since the commencement of the parliamentary standard allowance, Ministers' Departments are responsible for paying the cost of telephones in Ministers' constituency offices.

While it is not possible for me orally to go through a full list of the headings under which costs incurred are recouped by Ministers, I am arranging for the material to be made available to the Deputy directly. The Government has introduced a range of changes to the regime of payments and allowances paid to Government Ministers which has resulted in significant financial savings to the Exchequer. It is my intention to continue to ensure that the greatest value for money can be achieved in relation to payments and expenses of this nature on an ongoing basis consistent with ensuring maximum efficiency and output from officeholders and their offices.

The Minister had my full attention. I am sorry that he was cut short.

It is a rule of the House.

I appreciate that. I was introducing a note of levity, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I would like to focus on one or two specific matters. What, if anything, does the Minister propose to do about the laundry tax deduction allowance of €3,500 that is available to Ministers from outside Dublin who stay in hotels?

Can the Minister comment on the dual abode allowance, which is offered to Ministers who maintain second residences in addition to their primary residences and who represent constituencies outside Dublin? The allowance makes it possible for such Ministers to make a claim to the Revenue Commissioners for a tax deduction which can amount to €6,500 per annum. Such expenses and perks cannot be justified at any time and are particularly unjustifiable in the current climate.

The Minister mentioned the issue of mileage and the use by Ministers of their own cars. Can I ask him to address the recent controversy involving his colleague, the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn? The controversy suggested that there is some difficulty in measuring the number of kilometres covered by Ministers.

I would like to respond to the three specific points that have rightly been made by the Deputy. I will not bring in extraneous matters or claim other things. I heard about the laundry issue on the radio. I had never heard of it before then. Nobody in the Cabinet had ever heard of it. I cannot find anybody who has ever claimed it, or even heard of it. I have no idea where it came from.

No, as far as I am aware. It is not on any list that I have. I have no idea where it came from. The day it came up, I specifically asked whether anybody had ever claimed it, or heard of it. Nobody in the Cabinet of this Government had heard of it or claimed it.

So it does not exist.

As far as I am concerned, it does not exist. It is one of these interesting things that make for a good headline.

The Deputy also asked about the dual abode allowance. Her colleagues who come from outside Dublin claim an overnight allowance. Ministers are not entitled to that. When our colleagues who are Ministers and Ministers of State come to Leinster House they pay their hotel bills out of their own salaries. There is a dual abode allowance for those who actually have-----

There is no longer an overnight allowance for Members of the Oireachtas.

Do not go there.

The Minister should correct what he has said.

There is an overnight allowance.

It is factored into the allowances that are paid. That is why there is a requirement to be in attendance for a fixed number of days each year. It is understood as being factored in. No such allowance is available to members of the Government. A dual abode allowance, which is a tax concession, is available to Ministers. I assure the House that it does not come close to covering the cost of staying overnight. I am willing to debate this matter because it needs to be addressed in a much fairer way.

The Deputy's final question related to mileage. When we came into office, we said we would abolish State cars, etc. In the last Dáil, the cost of State cars was €280,000 per annum per Minister. The cost of the new regime we have introduced is less than €100,000 per annum per Minister. We have reduced it by more than 60%, which is a very credible performance.

My question on that final point related to the measurement of the travel in question, which was the source of the controversy. The Minister might come back to that. It is curious that the Minister has said he had not heard of this laundry allowance. His colleagues were similarly unenlightened. It does exist. I strongly suggest that it should be abolished forthwith.

The Deputy can consider it abolished.

I do not think a long review is needed.

I had never heard of it.

It has been cited in response to parliamentary questions. Perhaps the Minister might consider that point.

The Minister dodged the question on the dual abode allowance by referring to overnight rates. This allowance allows for a Revenue write-off in respect of a percentage of the interest paid on the purchase of a second property or vouched elements in respect of the maintenance and so on, of a second property. There is a world of difference between public moneys legitimately covering accommodation in a hotel or a bed and breakfast or whatever, as against public moneys being a contribution to the purchase of a second residence or, for that matter, the maintenance and upkeep of that second residence. I put it to the Minister once more that this dual abode allowance is yet another of those that should be abolished.

I can inform the Deputy that in my own case, the dual abode allowance does not cover a fraction of the cost of my accommodation in Dublin. I am not complaining about this fact. If I were entitled to claim as a Deputy I would be able to cover the costs. I would be very happy to-----

The Minister could swap places.

-----take the Deputy's allowance instead. I will happily abolish the dual abode allowance.

With regard to the issue of laundry as raised by the Deputy, I cannot find the reference but if the Deputy can provide me with same, I would like to hear it or see it. I suggest she sends me the details.

Top
Share