Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach debate -
Wednesday, 26 Jan 2022

Vote 10 - Tax Appeals Commission (Revised)

I remind members of the note on privilege. Members attending from outside the Leinster House campus may have just limited privilege, whereas those who are attending the meeting or on the campus of Leinster House are fully covered. Would the Minister like to make an opening statement?

I thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before it today to discuss the 2022 Revised Estimates. As Minister for Finance, I will be discussing the four Votes within the finance group of Votes. They are Vote 7 - Office of the Minister for Finance; Vote 8 - Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General; Vote 9 - Office of the Revenue Commissioners; and Vote 10 - Tax Appeals Commission. The net funding allocation sought for the finance group of Votes in 2022 totals €497 million, compared with a 2021 Vote group total of €494 million, an increase of €3 million, or 0.6%. The primary driver of the increase is an increased pay allocation for the Department of Finance.

I propose to focus on the Department of Finance first and give a brief overview of its structure. The Department is structured around two directorates, the economic and fiscal directorate, programme A, and the finance and banking directorate, programme B. This structure remains unchanged from 2021. There are also a number of support divisions which ensure the smooth operation of the Department. The costs of these support divisions are allocated on a 50:50 basis to each programme.

The net allocation sought for the Department of Finance Vote in 2022 is €42.9 million, of which some €11 million is provided for a fuel grant scheme for disabled drivers and a further €335,000 to fund the Commission on Taxation and Welfare. Leaving these two expenditure lines aside, the Department’s allocation provides for both administrative and non-administrative costs. The single biggest cost remains salaries and allowances, which account for €23.771 million, or 55% of the total. A further €5.74 million, or 13%, is provided to cover facilities and non-pay administrative costs. There is also an allocation of €896,000 to cover a number of bodies that fall within the Vote group, namely the Financial Services Ombudsman, the Disabled Drivers Medical Board of Appeal and the Credit Union Advisory Committee. The remaining €2.2 million, or 5%, is provided to cover the legal, advisory and committee costs necessary to support the Department in the proactive delivery of its remit.

The allocation for Vote 8 - Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, is applied towards a single audit and reporting programme. The Comptroller and Auditor General is an independent, constitutional officer. The Comptroller and Auditor General's mission is to provide independent assurance that public funds and resources are used in accordance with the law, managed to good effect and are properly accounted for. The Comptroller and Auditor General is required by law to issue opinions on the accounts of Government Departments and public bodies that are audited by him; publish reports on important matters at his discretion relating to value for money and the administration of public funds; and authorise, under the comptroller function, the release of public money from the Exchequer for purposes specified by law. The office assists the Comptroller and Auditor General in his statutory functions and is staffed by civil servants. The Comptroller and Auditor General's financial audit role covers around 290 sets of accounts produced by public bodies. Together, these bodies had financial transactions with a value of over €200 billion last year. The net allocation for this Vote is €9.365 million, which is a decrease of approximately 2.6% on 2021.

I move to Vote 9 - Office of the Revenue Commissioners. This organisation collected a record €97 billion in gross receipts against total administration costs of €488.6 million. The relative cost of administration in this context is some 0.5% of gross receipts collected. The committee will be aware of the vital role of Revenue with regard to the employment wage subsidy scheme and the Covid restrictions support scheme. For 2022, Revenue has requested a net budget allocation of €441.1 million, a decrease of €625,000, or 0.1% on the 2021 Estimate. Over three quarters of the total budget allocation for Revenue is related to payroll, with an employment ceiling of 7,024 staff.

Finally, Vote 10 – Tax Appeals Commission, has a net budget allocation of €3.4 million for 2022, an increase of 7% on the 2021 Estimate of €3.2 million. The Estimate is provided for the Tax Appeals Commission to advance its programme of modernisation and reform and to address its caseload, while also meeting its obligations as an independent entity.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to present the finance group of Votes. I am happy to address any questions that members have.

I welcome the Minister to the committee as we take these Estimates. The Minister mentioned the Disabled Drivers Medical Board of Appeal. It is an issue that I mentioned briefly at the last meeting of this committee. Will the Minister clarify who currently sits on the Disabled Drivers Medical Board of Appeal?

All members of that board have resigned.

When was the resignation effective from?

I was notified of resignations from that board between October and November. I do not recall the exact date of the intended resignation of members from the board, but all those members have now resigned.

Is it correct that the chairperson resigned in October?

I am not sure of the sequence or who resigned when, but they have all resigned now.

The board is empty. It exists but nobody sits on it at this point.

That is correct.

What funding has been allocated for that board, which has nobody on it, for 2022? Will the Minister also compare that with the allocation for the previous year?

The Estimate for that is €705,000. That compares with the 2021 Estimate of €570,000. The outturn for the last year was €426,000. I should make clear that an Estimate is in place for it because it is the intention of my Department and the Department of Health to appoint a new board. The recruitment process for that is under way. The internal dimension of launching that recruitment process is complete. I expect that recruitment process to be conducted by the Public Appointments Service in the next few days.

This has gone across the political divide. Sinn Féin colleagues and I, and many Members across the political divide, have raised concerns about the operation of this scheme and the fact that many citizens with disability see their applications rejected and are not able to get primary medical certificates. It is heartbreaking when one hears the individual stories of some of these cases. The board of appeal all resigned en masse. The Minister oversees the board, which met him in March to outline its concerns that this was not fit for purpose. Will he outline to this committee the conversation that it had with him?

I met members of the board via video conference in March. This video conference took place in the aftermath of the implementation of the Finance Act last year, which had brought into statutory law the criteria for access to that scheme, which were laid out in regulation up until that point.

This videoconference took place in the aftermath of the implementation of the Finance Bill of last year. At that point, it had brought into statutory law the criteria for access to that scheme. At that point we laid out the regulation. As the committee will know that this was subject to a Supreme Court adjudication on the matter. In the meeting of the committee, the members outlined to me their dissatisfaction regarding the implementation and execution of this policy at that point. In the videoconference that I had with them, I indicated to them that I was willing, am willing and have work under way to reassess that scheme, as well as the access criteria to it. That work is a part of a broader review of the status of disability issues in services that is being undertaken by the Department of Health. As that work is under way, I will do all that I can to facilitate the appointment of new board members to that board, so that we can deal with any appeals that are in place at the moment.

We are supposed to look at not just the allocation of funding, but also the outcomes on this committee. Could the Minister talk to us about that review? They outlined their concerns about how this was working. I understand that they made recommendations to the Minister. He has said that he would review this. It is now under the Department of Health. When did that review start?

Preparatory work for the review has been under way for the last number of months. We have been inputting to this. I understand that a meeting of that group took place yesterday. It was chaired by the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte.

The first formal meeting of the review, therefore, took place yesterday. This is nine months after the board members indicated to the Minister that they were dissatisfied, that this was not working and that they were frustrated with the progress. Given that they saw nothing happen in March, April, May, June, July, August, September or October, they resigned en masse.

In the meeting, they indicated their dissatisfaction to me with the way the scheme was operating. This is an important scheme. It is valuable and it is needed by those who receive it, given the level of need that they have. However, it is also a scheme that merits review and consideration. That will be done now by our Department in conjunction with the Department of Health. As I have indicated to the Deputy a moment ago, in the meeting that I had with the then board in March, they indicated to me their dissatisfaction with how the scheme was being operated. I said to them that I wanted a review to be put in place on it as soon as I could do so. That is now in place. When that review is under way, I will do all that I can to try to ensure that there is a board in place that implements system policy.

Hand on heart, given the fact that there is no board of appeal here, there are people with disabilities who would like to make an appeal but who cannot. The fact is that the entire board, including the chairperson, has resigned. This is not often seen. Therefore, does the Minister believe that he could have initiated that review any earlier, from what happened in March to its first formal meeting yesterday?

Of course, I very much regret that the board resigned. This is a policy area that is overseen by my Department. I accept that the implementation of the scheme was a matter of dissatisfaction to the members of the board at that point. I very much regret that they felt that the option that was open to them was to resign.

Getting the review up and running has taken some more time to do than I would have hoped. Of course, I wish there had been an opportunity to have the review up and running before we got to the point of the board resigning. All of that being said, I will do all that I can to first facilitate a new board being put in place. Second, within the review of the scheme that is under way and that does need reconsideration, I will do all that I can to get this part of the module done as speedily as possible. This is a matter-----

(Interruptions).

I will just conclude, and I will of course answer all the questions the Deputy puts to me. Many of the criteria require careful consideration of issues about health, as well as about the health of citizens who have a level of need that the Government and the State needs to support. This is work that the Department of Health and with the Department of Finance aims to do speedily.

The Minister promised a comprehensive review of the scheme in January 2021, did he not?

Okay. What happened to that review?

As I said to the Deputy in my opening answers to the questions on this, it has taken longer to get the review up and running than I would have wanted-----

What steps has the Minister taken to initiate that review? Will he release all the documentation to this committee, so that we can independently verify that he actually acted to initiate this review? It is hard to believe that a board is telling the Minister that there are serious frustrations with this, the Minister promises a review and it does not happen until 13 months later. It does not even happen within the Minister's Department. I think it is now being led by the Department of Health.

Of course, I will make available any materials in relation to this that the committee wants. I will ask my officials to do this. I am very happy to furnish the committee with that. While they did, we raised this issue with this the Department of Health, as well as what will now become the Department of children, youth and disability affairs. We raised it with them.

That would have happened at a number of points across last year. By furnishing any material that the Deputy wants in relation to it, we will be able to indicate to him when the correspondences or conversations happened.

Is the Minister suggesting that it is Department of Health that was the block on the review? There are people who have disabilities out there who cannot get the support that they are entitled to. Families went to the Supreme Court to ensure that they are entitled to this. They cannot get the support. This is hugely important, as I am sure the Minister understands, for the independence and the support of individuals with disabilities. Is this just a systems problem?

The Minister promised a review a year ago. No review happened in 2021. The board told the Minister that they were extremely frustrated with the progress. Obviously, the Minister did not do anything between then and October to satisfy their view that nothing was going to happen. Then they resigned en masse. This means that there is no service for individuals who want to make an appeal. These are individuals with disabilities.

I think this is a fair question to ask on behalf of all of those individuals. Where does the buck stop here? It appears to me that the Minister has passed the buck to the Department of Health.

Is it the Minister for Health, Deputy Donnelly, who we need to bring in here? Is it his fault that this did not happen? The Minister for Finance is saying that actions he took were to raise it with the Department of Health.

No, I accept the responsibility for this, and I want that to be very clear. It is unsurprising, given that this is a matter that involves the assessment of health need, that we would seek to gain the views of the Department of Health into the matter. However, I am responsible for this. This is a board that is associated with and is the responsibility of my Department. Indeed, as I have just indicated to the Deputy in my presentation this morning, this is part of my Vote. I am therefore responsible for this. I very much regret that what I was trying to do was not acceptable to the board members, who felt that they needed to resign.

As I have said, I will take steps to try to get a board reappointed. This is because those people who are looking for and who deserve a reassessment of their case are on my mind. We will try to act speedily in their interests. There are broader issues relating to this scheme. They merit consideration beyond my Department, but I accept responsibility for this.

When will the board be populated? When are we likely to have the board up and running again? When will people be able to make an appeal to that board?

I ask the Minister that all of the documentation on this, including the establishment of the review during the period of 2021, be furnished this committee.

I will first answer the Deputy’s second question. Yes, any documents in my Department that are connected to this issue will be shared with the committee. I will arrange for that to happen. On the period of time involved with the appointment of the board, we expect this process to become public in the next few days, at which point I hope that applications will be received for the role.

I believe that the window during which this will need to be made available for public notice is three to four weeks, during which we will accept applications. We will do our best to try to get a new board in place across March or into April. We will need to allow the recruitment process to conclude. That will be overseen by the Public Appointments Service, but we will try to do it very quickly after that.

Under Vote 7 in the Estimates, there is a figure for communication and marketing expenses. It has increased from €5,000 last year to €309,000. What is the cause for the jump in that funding under this head? What, and who, is it to be spent on?

If the Deputy will bear with me for one moment, I will get the details on this. Under Vote 7, according to what I have in front of me, it is €309,000, which is an increase on the estimate for last year of €280,000.

Under Vote 7-----

What happened across this period, and this might explain the gap-----

No. We are looking at numbers here. This is administration under Vote 7 on communication and marketing expenses. The total allocation for the 2022 estimate is €309,000 compared to last year's total of €5,000.

We may well have a discrepancy that we will try to resolve as the committee meeting goes on. In the briefing I have, it is €309,000 with an estimate of €280,000 in 2021. I see what it is. I can reconcile it. The Deputy is referring to €5,000 in 2021, and we can supply further information to him on this point, which was a subhead for administration. That was for training, studies, research and support services for some departmental functions. The overall communication and marketing expenses budget for last year was €280,000.

Why is that not reflected in the Estimates that are being provided to us? The total under that subhead is €5,000.

It is reflected in the documentation that I have, which includes a line going from €280,000 to €309,000.

Under administration subhead 7, communication and marketing expenses, we have €5,000 current expenditure in 2021. It is zero for capital and €5,000 in total. For 2022, the line continues to €309,000 for current and zero for capital giving a total of €309,000.

Is the Deputy looking at professional consultancy and other services?

This is the actual Vote and not any notes or briefing materials. This is the actual Vote the committee is considering.

I am looking at the relevant information regarding the Vote. I have different figures from the Deputy's. There is clearly an issue we need to resolve to make sure we are communicating the correct information to the committee, but I have €280,000-----

For clarity, is the Minister looking at page 7, office of the Minister for Finance, which relates to the actual Vote on the official document we are considering? I am concerned that if there is a discrepancy in this number, the committee may have different versions of this Vote from the Minister's.

In respect of that Vote, where on page 7 is the line the Deputy referred to?

It is subhead 7 under administration.

I see the line the Deputy referred to. I will have to come back to the committee on this because the information I have, which I accept does not correspond to the line Deputy Doherty referred to, states that our estimate across that period for 2020 was €280,000. I will have to come back to the Deputy with further information on that. I see the line he referred to.

How did it feel when Deputy Doherty was over there?

I could get well used to it and, hopefully, any members of the public who are looking on might think so as well. Hopefully, we can proceed on the basis that the committee has the correct figure. There is obviously a discrepancy, but we will proceed on the basis that these are the correct Estimates and they have not been altered. The question is what that expenditure related to. What, and who, is it being spent on?

First, to assure the Deputy and anybody watching, the committee has the correct information and the correct Vote, but during the meeting I will try to clarify the issue the Deputy raised. On what that subhead is used for, it provides for the communication and marketing expenses of the Department, including fixed and mobile phones, voice telephony and data network links.

Okay. This is the core question. If we have the correct estimate, it has gone from €5,000 to €309,000. The question, which is very relevant, is why there has been such a jump in one year in the marketing expenses of the Department.

I am informed that there has been a change in the subheads due to changes in our financial management system and our accounting. We will provide a note to the committee regarding that.

I have one other question because my time is almost up. As a matter of good practice, if there is a change in the subheads when documentation is presented to the Minister comparing year-on-year, that should be outlined to the committee.

My last question in on the Revised Estimates notes for Vote 7. This relates to the asterisk for administration that is on the same page I referred to. The note states that this includes €350,000 from the Housing for All fund. Will the Minister outline the reason for this? What is this money being spent on?

This is being used by my Department to assist in any research needs we may have during the year with regard to the implementation of Housing for All.

What has been identified in respect of research needs?

As far as I am aware, we have not made a definitive decision about how it will be used as of yet.

What area of research? More than €250,000 is being allocated. It is not a case of "Let's put this in just in case". There is obviously an identification that this may be needed. What area is the Minister thinking of?

The kind of areas that are important to me are trying to understand, for example, what is driving cost within construction at present and those particular elements of it that may be relevant to the Department of Finance. That is the kind of issue that fund could be used for.

I have a couple of brief questions on Vote 9, which deals with the Revenue Commissioners, and a few related ones. They are all related to Brexit and the change in the roles of the Revenue Commissioners and general customs operations since the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement came into place and the transition period ended. Will the Minister put a little more flesh on the figures - the overall amounts have not changed much - in respect of individual staff members who are working specifically in this area? Is there any vision to change where they are based?

Will there be more people allocated to ports of entry? Bearing in mind that while there has been a deferral for customs checks from the UK for this year, they still loom. I would appreciate if the Minister could elaborate a bit more on the figures?

There are 950 staff now involved in work that is related to Brexit. Our focus in 2021 was to support traders during the initial Brexit transition with more than 100 staff deployed in that role. As it stands, we now have 715 staff involved in customs-related duties, 87 staff in control functions, six staff in legislative services, 25 staff in support functions and 117 staff in trader declaration service roles. The total is 950 staff.

Has any thought been given to the fact that going forward, there may be a benefit to posting staff either from the Revenue Commissioners or the Department more widely, for example, to the Irish Embassy in London, as is done by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and various other Departments and the permanent representative to the EU to allow for direct communications on the ground in London itself?

That is a really good idea. So far, the need for it has not arisen. What we do have in the Department of Finance is a number of members of staff who are seconded to different embassies. For example, we have Department of Finance officials based in London, Berlin and other embassies across the United Kingdom and the European Union. To date, there has not been a demand for Revenue officials to be located there because of what we have been able to do through officials from the Department of Finance. However, it is a really interesting idea and perhaps as we move through the year and we get further clarity on some issues regarding Brexit it could be that it is something there is a need for, but so far there has not been.

Given that the Minister no longer meets the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for example, as regularly as he would have when the UK was part of the European Union, on an informal basis outside Council meetings or at various other opportunities, there is a need to fill that gap, both from a political point of view as well as an administrative point of view to ensure that engagement on an official basis is at least maintained even if there are difficulties.

My final question moves in a completely different direction. It is on the area of remote working and working from home in the Department overall, not specifically Revenue. It is light of the proposed legislation announced yesterday by the Tánaiste, which the Minister and I have discussed at least twice during oral questions, about his ability to encourage his officials to maximise the opportunities that remote working presents to them and more widely. What efforts are being made and what accommodation is there within the Estimates to allow people to tool up to work remotely or possibly at home? Does the Minister envisage that would require any changes to the Estimates or is it something that is under constant review?

As the Deputy says, he has raised this with me on a number of occasions in the Dáil. At this point, it is not something that I anticipate will require revision to our Estimates at all. What the Department did across last year was to undertake a survey regarding what will be the home needs that we will have as we move to a more hybrid form of working. In terms of what the balance will be between working from the office and working from home, it will probably take a little time for that to settle and become clearer in the Department of Finance. Following the change in the public health guidance, a lot of officials have been coming back into the Department in recent days who have not been in the building for quite a while. During the pandemic, quite a number of officials were working in the office in the Department more than the norm because of how much work we had to do with our economic supports, some of which required more regular meetings than perhaps were involved in other Departments. It will be a few months before those who are working for the Department become clear themselves on what is the balance between home and the office. This work will be under way between the public service unions and the Government centrally to provide guidance. The Department will be consistent with that.

Sin é. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as teacht os comhair an choiste.

Allocations for current expenditure by the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman, FSPO, have fallen from €570,000 to €491,000, which is a 14% cut. Could the Minister explain the reason for the decrease and also outline if the FSPO raised any concerns regarding the decrease?

The FSPO has not raised any concerns with me regarding the decrease in its Estimate across that period. I have regular contact with the office, and I have regular engagement with the ombudsman himself regarding it. The Estimate for 2022 does reflect the funding that the organisation brought forward and the requests it had for how it would be funded across that period.

It is worth noting that this is an organisation that has gone through a merger in the aftermath of 2017, when the Pensions Ombudsman and the financial ombudsman were merged into a single office. It could be the case that in the Estimate for 2022, some of the efficiencies in regard to that are apparent and coming through. Any of the key funding needs the ombudsman has brought forward, we have endeavoured to meet in this Estimate. The office has not raised any issues with me regarding it.

It is interesting that figures that my colleague, Deputy Doherty, received from the Department on 9 December 2021 show that as of 8 December, 4,443 complaints were open and had yet to be resolved, with 1,982 still open despite being received more than a year previously. There are concerns regarding the capacity and resourcing of the office to get through its caseload. Given the figures the Department furnished to my colleague, Deputy Doherty, is the Minister concerned and has he spoken to the FSPO in regard to it? How does the Minister reconcile the caseload with the reduction in funding for the FSPO, as outlined in Vote 7?

I met the ombudsman and members of his management team a few weeks ago. They raised no issues with me regarding the Vote. I do not have the information with me today on the progress the ombudsman has made on dealing with issues, but my understanding is that despite the impact of Covid on the operation and functioning of the ombudsman, the office has been successful in resolving many issues that were presented to it. To reiterate, the FSPO has not raised any issues with me regarding the Estimate.

Okay. It is worth highlighting the issue in the committee given the figures that were received by my colleague, Deputy Doherty, and raising it with the Minister to see if that is something on which he could touch base with the FSPO.

In June last year the Committee of Public Accounts published its examination of the 2019 Appropriation Accounts for Vote 9 – Office of the Revenue Commissioners. The committee examined Revenue's approach to bogus self-employment which, as the Minister is aware, is a practice whereby a worker is falsely classified as self-employed. The code of conduct for determining the status of an individual as employed or self-employed was published by the employment status group, which sets out the criteria to provide clarity on whether a worker is an employee or self-employed. There is a lot of concern out there. I am sure the Minister is aware of the discussion on bogus self-employment and that it is depriving the State of vast sums of money while reducing the protections and benefits for workers. It is something that has come up a lot more in conversation. Official statistics on the financial impact of bogus self-employment are not available.

Revenue has said it has the power to report on it. Has Deputy Donohoe discussed this issue with Revenue in his time as Minister for Finance and will he direct Revenue to report on the issue and its financial impact on the State?

I have discussed this matter with my officials on many occasions during my time as Minister in the context of Finance Bills and other debates that have taken place but it is not my role to direct the Revenue to do anything in relation to this. They are independent in the exercise of their functions. Deputy Mairéad Farrell will be aware, from the appearances of the Revenue Commissioners here in front of this committee, that it is a very robust authority. If they feel that the publication of any information in relation to this serves their needs in the effective implementation of tax law, they will act accordingly but it is not my role to direct action on it.

Has the Minister had a conversation with them in relation to it?

I have not had a conversation with the Revenue on this specific matter. That is a matter which my officials would raise with them. On a number of occasions, I have raised this issue with my officials. This is a matter of those aspects that relate to the development of policy. I have raised this and discussed it with my officials on a number of occasions. In relation to the execution of that policy, that is a matter for the Revenue.

A tax agreement was signed between Revenue and the courier sector in the Burlington Hotel in 1997 which allowed courier companies to voluntarily register all couriers as de facto self-employed from 1997 onwards, allowing companies to reduce their PRSI obligations and also weakening workers entitlements. This was discontinued in 2019. However, it may have had a significant impact on the culture and practice of employee classification and the practice of bogus self-employment, especially with the rise of the gig economy. I am wondering if the Minister would mandate Revenue to commission an investigation into this 1997 agreement and its impact on the following 20 years because such an investigation would be of significant interest.

In fairness, I am here presenting the Estimates of the Revenue Commissioners to the committee. I am not aware of the 1997 agreement that the Deputy is referring to. I re-emphasise it is not my role to mandate the Revenue Commissioners to initiate an investigation into this. If the Revenue Commissioners believes this matter merits investigation, they themselves would do so. It is not my role to require them to do so.

I have one more question on something that came up under these Votes under discussion for today's committee and I would be interested in the Minister's view.

We are aware that the Comptroller and Auditor General does vital work. I am wondering what is the reason behind it being based within the Department of Finance here. As the nominee independent auditor of Departments, public bodies under the aegis of those Departments, etc., I would have through that the Comptroller and Auditor General would be independent of the Civil Service and fall under the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, DPER. Given DPER's role in ensuring that public funds and resources are used in accordance with the law, managed to good effect and properly accounted for, and to contribute to improvement in public administration, I would have thought it would fall under DPER.

Under the current arrangement which sees it as part of the Civil Service, the Comptroller and Auditor General lacks autonomy and resources in the office. One report found that limitations on the role of the office included a restricted mandate to carry out value-for-money audits, a generally limited mandate to examine the effectiveness of public expenditure and the limited extent to which the Comptroller and Auditor General can follow public money once it gets into the hands of a non-Government organisation. I am wondering had there been conversations at any point either on moving the Comptroller and Auditor General to DPER, the Department which carried out public service reform, or making the Comptroller and Auditor General independent so that these issues could be addressed. I would be interested in hearing the Minister's point of view. That is my final question as I must run to the Dáil Chamber.

The Comptroller and Auditor General is fully independent in the exercise of his functions. The Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General is associated with my Department's Vote for reasons of history. As far as I can recollect, the Minister for Finance has always brought forward its Vote but it is fully independent of us in the exercise of its roles and, as the Deputy will be aware, has carried out reports on matters associated with the Department on a number of occasions. I guess you could make the argument that if it were associated with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, given that the Department also oversees the use of public expenditure, it might be better that its Vote were separate to that Department and more associated with us. Regardless of where the Vote sits, it is an independent body. The Estimates process is never used in any way to impact on its operation. We make every effort to meet the resourcing needs that it brings forward.

I welcome the Minister and his officials to the meeting. I want to raise a couple questions on Vote 9 - Office of the Revenue Commissioners.

Revenue collected a record €97 billion in gross tax receipts against total administration costs of €488.6 million. Would the Minister like to elucidate further on the success of Revenue in collecting such a record amount, whether there are still amounts outstanding, and if it is expected they can be collected or are they collectable, and would he comment on the breadth of measures that were responsible for the delivery of such high amounts of tax in the year that has just expired?

The Revenue Commissioners have done an exceptional job over the past number of years as we have confronted the darker moments of the pandemic. I note the role that they have played in two different areas. The first was the exercise of their key function of collecting tax across that period, and doing so in a way that reflected the exceptional circumstances that taxpayers were in. They performed a great service to the State across that period. The second is the broader roles that they performed. If, before the pandemic hit, I had said to Deputy Durkan that we would get to the point where the Revenue Commissioners would be paying the wages of people, the Deputy would have dismissed that out of hand. By the implementation of the employment wage subsidy scheme, the Revenue Commissioners paid a share of the wages of hundreds of thousands of people during the pandemic and also performed important functions, such as the role they played in the Covid vaccination certificate in mailing them out to those who needed them so that they could access business services or even travel. They have performed an exceptional role during the pandemic.

To what extent might other services be referred to the Revenue Commissioners given their success in the current and challenging circumstances?

I certainly have no plans to refer any more services or collection roles to the Revenue. They have a full agenda as it is. I look at the work they will be doing this year. The zoned land tax is a big example. There is the work that is under way now as we exit the employment wage subsidy scheme. Their agenda is full now with the delivery of their core functions and I have no plans to expand it any further.

Throughout 2021, €4.6 billion was paid under the employment wage subsidy scheme to which the Minister referred. Some 628,000 employees received payments.

Has it been possible to quantify the full extent the benefit that was to the economy and its sustenance and to offsetting the threat created by Covid? Has it been money well spent?

The vast majority of it has been very well spent. As to whether any detailed evaluation of the use of that funding and the operation of the scheme occurred, I do not believe it has yet, or not in a substantial way. Obviously, the scheme is scheme is still functioning. We are about to commence the exit strategy from that scheme. I anticipate that in the months and years ahead a large amount of research, analysis and inquiry will be done into the operation of the scheme. We should learn from what worked well and what did not in case, God forbid, we ever need to do something like that again. In addition, it involved countless billions of taxpayers' money. That alone merits and requires an overview of its use across that period.

The Covid restrictions support scheme, CRSS, provided further support to businesses significantly affected by public health restrictions. A total of 21,300 businesses received subsidy payments totalling over €470 million. Has it been possible to quantify the extent to which that was a vital payment from the business sector's point of view?

The sector itself thinks it was absolutely vital. The operation of that scheme in particular has been acknowledged by the sector as something that was incredibly timely and helpful for it. The Deputy will remember we introduced the scheme in the context of budget 2021. At that point we were literally about to go into another phase of our economy being shut down. Businesses that were going to have to close down again very suddenly were facing a really high level of cost. We designed and brought that scheme in to seek to reduce that cost and defray the expenses those businesses were facing and it has been acknowledged as a very valuable support by the sector. To tie this to the Deputy's previous question, we will need to do work, and I imagine the work will be done for us by other organisations as well, to review how that money was spent and what the learnings are. I expect the work will begin when we exit the CRSS and the EWSS.

I conclude by congratulating all and sundry for the interventions that took place over the past two years. They were necessary interventions. I congratulate all those in the Minister's own office, the Department of Finance, the Revenue Commissioners and everybody associated with the positive interventions that were made at a vital time in the country's history when there was not much by way of positive news on the world stage. Everybody should take a bow for the work they did at a vital time.

There is neither time nor need for a bow. We had many employers we needed to help. I hope they can all successfully reopen. That is the most important thing. We now need to move ahead with trying to exit this scheme in a careful way, which is what we are trying to do. As we move through the second half of this year and see a jobs market that does not have the EWSS in place, I hope we will continue to see and expect to see jobs being retained and growing, and viable employers. Once we get to that point there will be a review of the scheme. I am sure we have much to learn from how it was implemented.

I thank the Minister and the Chairman.

Gabhaim míle buíochas leis an Aire as teacht isteach agus as a chur i láthair freisin. He opened his presentation with increased pay allocation. There has been a significant debate over the last number of months on the enormous increase in the cost of living. That relates very clearly to pay allocations right across the public service, in his own Department and obviously in the rest of society as well. That rapid cost-of-living increase is reducing the purchasing power of every citizen throughout the country. Thus, people's real income currently is falling countrywide. The Government has stood four-square against trying to ease that difficultly by reducing VAT or even asking the EU for a derogation to reduce VAT because of this crisis. The Government has also stood four-square against the idea of wage inflation to maintain the purchasing power of citizens. Despite this, we heard the unbelievable news that top civil servant Robert Watt, who awarded €81,000 last year, was also in receipt of a €3,000 increase in October on top of his wage. On one level citizens are dealing with cost of living spikes, we had a deficit of €7 billion and when he was in last week the Minister mentioned there was €3 billion in tax that has been warehoused because businesses could not afford to pay it, yet the Government is actually involved in creating wage inflation among the political and Civil Service class. How is that acceptable in any way?

It is worth noting that across the period in which the current public service wage agreement was in place we had inflation levels significantly below the figures the Deputy is referring to for November and December. If we look at the period for 2020 we actually had some modest deflation of 0.5%. For 2021 the average inflation level across that period was 2.5%, although it increased very significantly across October, November and December. Across the period in which that wage agreement has been in place it has been either ahead of, or in line with, the rate of inflation. However, for the very latter part of last year the price inflation considerably increased. Our expectation is though that as we move through this year we will see an improvement in some of the price pressures many families and businesses are facing at the moment. As I said on the floor of the Dáil earlier, we as a Government have put in place a whole set of policy measures aimed at responding to this inflationary pressure many have faced. I detailed what they are, including changes we have made in personal taxation, changes made in social welfare and changes we have aimed to make in relation to the cost of medical care and the cost of childcare. They are all in place. As the Deputy knows we have, even for this early part of the year, put in place a measure to seek to reduce energy bills for the first quarter. I fully appreciate the level of challenge and anxiety this is causing for many at the moment but this is why we have put the measures I referred to in place.

I thank the Minister. Obviously, most people will have felt in their pocket the significant increase in the price of petrol, diesel and electricity. Farmers are seeing their fertiliser costs triple and the cost of foodstuffs has increased. The Minister would present himself as a fiscally-responsible Minster during this period of time. Is it fiscally responsible to give a civil servant an increase of €81,000 and then one of €3,000 within the same year? Is it fiscally responsible to have wage inflation within Departments? This committee has done a wonderful report on the process, or lack of process, by which that wage increase was picked out of the sky. Contrast the largesse experienced by the political class with the rest of society who are seeing their spending power reduced at this point in time.

Again, it is in recognition of the challenges society is facing that we have made the changes that formed the core part of our budget day measures. We have made changes in personal tax credits. We have made changes to the level at which a person pays the higher rate of income tax in our country exactly in anticipation of the issues the Deputy is referring to.

We have measures in place in relation to the cost of childcare and medical expenses, particularly those that help families to deal with the costs of medical expenses for families and children. There are a whole array of measures in place in the Department of Social Protection, such as the living alone allowance, the fuel allowance, the qualified child payment, not to mention the needed increase in core rates of €5. All of this is because we fully understand the challenges that many are facing. It is worth saying that while I have responsibility for the measures that we have put in place to try to mitigate some of the issues that many are facing, the issues around the cost of energy are being faced by the entire world at the moment. They are being caused by issues that are being led elsewhere. These are not issues that we control. However, where we can influence, we are doing so. That is why we have the different measures that I have summarised in place.

Briefly, the restrictions path that this Government has taken over the last two years was an outlier restriction path. It was not followed by any other European country. That led to significant damage to supply chains in the State. I mentioned to the Minister earlier today that we were the only country in the whole of the European Union that closed building sites for four months last year, while we have the biggest housing crisis in all of the European Union. That has meant that 10,000 houses were not built. Supply is a big influence on the price of houses, as well as on rent.

The Minister has done a wonderful job in studiously ignoring the name of Robert Watt in both of his answers. He has studiously ignored the €84,000 pay hike that one civil servant achieved in the space of one year. There is a contrast to be made between the largesse in wage inflation that was in the control of the Government, with the fall in income and the fall in spending power for citizens across the country. Citizens experience frustration right now when they see those two different Irelands. There is the Ireland in which they exist, where cumulatively, all the measures that the Minister for Finance has mentioned have less effect on their spending power than the inflation and the cost of living they are experiencing. That is their Ireland. Yet, the area that the Minister of Finance controls sees senior civil servants magically achieve €84,000 pay hikes in the space of one year. Will the Minister for Finance address that pay hike and how it reflects on the rest of society?

I have addressed that particular issue on other occasions before this committee. I was a member of the Government that agreed to this appointment. I was also aware of and supported the process that led to it happening. I know that the committee has strong views on it. The Secretary General of the Department of Health is an important post. The role of the Department of Health has been central to us being able to regain our public health, despite the loss of life and loss of health that we have endured and that many have experienced. This, in turn, has been important for what we have been able to do with our economy. The Secretary General of that Department has played an important role in it.

However, the Ireland of which the Deputy speaks, as well as the issues that he recognises and is putting to me, are issues that I also recognise. I experience these issues through my constituency work when I engage with members of the public and with my own constituents. I am aware of all the challenges and pressures that they face. However, the attitude of which the Deputy speaks is also the same attitude that put in place the pandemic unemployment payment to support citizens in a time of need. It put in place the employment wage subsidy scheme. We had the backs of our citizens when we got hit by a pandemic. That speaks to my attitude regarding the need to support our country during a time of challenge.

Finally, by the time we come to vote on next year's Estimates, there will be no doubt, as sure as night follows day, that there will be a raft of public sector pay demands due to the fact that income is reducing in real terms at the moment. We will see pay demands, as well as increases in pay, happening right across society, unless the Government ameliorates the sources of these cost increases. How can the Minister for Finance, or any other Minister in the Government, have any credibility if he tries to back away from those pay claims in the next 12 months, given that today he stands over a pay hike of €84,000 for the highest-paid civil servant in the country?

Later in the year, we will have engagement with the public service unions on a future wage agreement. That matter will be led by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Michael McGrath, who I will fully support. Our public servants have played a vital role in the delivery of public services during the pandemic. We look to recognise those who have been most immediately on the front line through the pandemic recognition payment, which will be paid in the coming months. The unions will present their cases and the views of the members to us. They will make reference to all kinds of issues that they believe are important.

The Deputy offers a prediction of what the unions will do. I also offer a prediction of what Deputy Tóibín will do. No matter what agreement we come to, it will never be enough, in his eyes. He will always condemn it. That is a prediction that I can make with certainty, given the Deputy's past track record. This Government, and I in the last Government, have negotiated a series of wage agreements with the public service unions. We have then implemented them in good faith. We will do that again.

I want to support Deputy Tóibín's comments about the increase of €81,000 plus €3,000 for Robert Watt. I refer to our report. While we can all take political positions on many issues, there is a factual aspect to this increase, as well as how it was arrived at. Quite frankly, the manner by which that increased was arrived at was bad governance, bad administration and it reflected badly on the Civil Service.

I hate when Ministers that I admire, such as the Minister for Finance himself, go into an almost blind defence of the Government, instead of calling out what happened. We tried to do a report here, but we had nothing but obstacles put in our way by the Taoiseach. One Minister did not even respond to it. The fact of the matter is that this was a cosy deal that was done for one Secretary General in Government Buildings. Then, the Cabinet was bounced into it. That is the reality of it, as I see it and as the public sees it.

I have to agree with the comments made by others about the €81,000 and that €3,000. Earlier on in the Minister's contribution, he referred to the fact that old age pensioners got an increase of €5. Honestly, I am not making this up, and the Minister must find in his own constituency too that it is difficult to explain all of that. This is particularly the case when it has not been explained to this committee, because we are the central figures in the debate around it. They studiously avoided the committee. The Taoiseach did not even turn up for the second day of his Estimates. It does not look good. That is all that I would say on that. I would rail against all that nonsense that goes on in the Government. I have respect for all the civil servants who are decent and honourable men and women and who are trying to make their way in a difficult environment. There is a select few of the civil servants that are running the country. It is not good.

I referred to the pension. I could also refer to report 42, which recommended increases for certain employees at a level within the HSE. It was never honoured by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

That was at the very same time as that Department was being run by the Secretary General who got an increase of €81,000. These people are still not being paid. I asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Michael McGrath, to provide us with a report on this matter to allow us to understand what report 42 is about and why these officials, most of whom are retired, I think, are not being paid. How can an argument be made against them, given the looseness of the process which arrived at this figure and the appointment of the Secretary General of the Department of Health?

Turning to the tax exemption level, this aspect interests me concerning pensions. A man with a brewery pension, who is over 65, contacted me because he is paying tax. The exemption was reduced from approximately €40,000 to €35,000, and the effect overall is that he is losing €11, which is a lot when the income and status of the individual concerned is considered. Are there plans to raise the threshold to bring it back to where it used to be set at €40,000 or €42,000? I would like the Minister to comment on the topic.

Again, regarding pensioners and increases, and the negative message being sent out, and I raised this issue with the Taoiseach as well, the cost of living is soaring. Costs for hauliers, for example, an industry I know well, are significant when it comes to diesel. Those costs are also going to be passed on at some stage to the end users, namely the customers of companies that use the services of couriers or bigger hauliers. On the matter of the Office of the Revenue Commissioners and warehousing of tax during the Covid-19 pandemic, I ask the Minister to comment on what will happen in that regard now. Some businesses have significant sums warehoused. When it comes to the question of repaying those amounts, will the Government be leaving it up to the Revenue to arrive at its own method of recouping that money or will there be some sort of policy change whereby those in this warehousing arrangement for taxes will have a longer term to pay? The dates have been set, but given the problems that are going to be faced in this regard, I ask the Minister to comment on this subject.

Regarding the two specific questions posed to me, and starting with the warehousing of tax liabilities, the policy in this regard is and will be that companies availing of the ability to warehouse their tax liabilities will have a 12-month period in which no interest will be charged. After that point, they will move to an interest rate of 3%. For many companies that will be affected by this, the period during which the 3% rate will apply will begin after the first quarter of next year. Concerning how that liability will be managed, it will be up to the Revenue to determine the situation company by company regarding the appropriate way in which that tax should be repaid.

I strongly believe this tax must be repaid. Many taxpayers went ahead during times of difficulty for them and paid their taxes when they were due. Some did not avail of tax warehousing and for some it was not even an option. While I appreciate that the payment of those tax liabilities in future could be a challenge to those who availed of warehousing, I am sure the Revenue will deal with this process in an appropriate manner in respect of agreeing to a payment schedule. The policy on this issue, however, is clear. That tax is to be repaid. It will, though, be repaid over a long period, and for the first year of that period, a 0% interest rate charge will be applicable.

Turning to the point raised by the Chair concerning the pension and taxation issue, I will need to get more detail from him, including perhaps the letter from his constituent. I will need to respond to that query separately because I cannot at this meeting. I will respond, however. I am very much aware of the cost-of-living pressures that I debated in the Dáil earlier today and now with several members of this committee. The Chair will be aware of the measures the Government has introduced to try to deal with these pressures. The inflation changes in this context have happened recently, but they are a real challenge for those facing them. I have outlined to the Chair and the committee on several occasions what the Government has done to try to help our people with these higher costs.

Ministerial drivers are mentioned in a general way. Will that cost now be covered by the Department of Justice because I understand this whole area is being changed?

I will answer that question generally. That matter will be dealt with by the Department of Justice in future and paid for through funding allocated to An Garda Síochána. Therefore, there will be a change regarding the costs of the current arrangement, because the Garda will now have responsibility for Ministers, as individual circumstances change.

Regarding the Comptroller and Auditor General, in the context of Vote 8, a significant number of agencies and accounts are audited by that office. Why has the overall spending on that Vote not increased to give a greater level of resources to the Comptroller and Auditor General to enable him to delve further into the detail of these audits? It is clear from the work of the Committee of Public Accounts and the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General that much more needs to be done in respect of auditing Departments and agencies across the board.

There has not been a change in the number of agencies audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. There has been no increase. To consider the present position, while there has been a slight decrease in the overall Vote for that office, it still has an Estimate for this year of €9.4 million. It is a considerable sum, which reflects the importance of the office.

I understand that point and I acknowledge the positive work done by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Having examined the role of the office over the past ten to 15 years, however, has the Government not determined that there is a clear signal from that analysis of a requirement for the office to do much more detailed work on the accounts? Should it perhaps be looking at more than the current number of agencies, particularly those under Departments, to allow the detail to be drilled down into? The Government should be encouraging a greater level of auditing, and that can only be achieved by increasing the numbers of staff, the various headings in the allocated budget and by ensuring that the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General is more widespread and inclusive than it is.

In his opening remarks, the Minister mentioned the Comptroller and Auditor General and the valuable work being undertaken by his office. He also talked about the functions of the office and that it examines the spending of taxpayers' money. The office does not, however, look at all the spending of taxpayers' money. The Comptroller and Auditor General does not examine the role of local government.

There is very little real detail in that in the granular format we want in order to be able to analyse the efficiencies or otherwise of local government. I encourage the Government, as I have been doing for a while, that there should be one audit service, namely, the Comptroller and Auditor General, which should incorporate local government and everything else. That would achieve greater efficiencies and a better audit because it would be able to go down into every figure. I would like to see the office being expanded, not for the sake of it, but to include more value for money reports and investigations into how money is spent in, for example, big organisations like the HSE and local government. We are spending a lot of money on housing and should look at that too.

We have increased the number of staff available to the Comptroller and Auditor General and responded to a request for additional reporting staff in his organisation to deepen the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General and help him in the discharge of his functions. The Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General has 199 whole-time equivalents planned for 2022; at the end of 2021, the figure was 171 whole-time equivalents. We have increased the staff available to that organisation in recognition of some of the points the Chairman has raised. The current budget of the department has gone up by just under €500,000. Included in this is a specific request for €300,000, which we received from that organisation to help it deepen its reporting capacity. They way in which we have looked to deal with the matter is by making more staff available to that department. It has gained the equivalent of 28 whole-time members of staff since the end of 2021.

The amount of money being spent in, for example, the third level sector is enormous. The Minister, Deputy Harris, is constantly reforming and creating new entities. History over recent years shows a greater study is required of how that money is spent. Now a greater amount of money is being spent and there needs to be a focus on sectors like that. I hope staff levels in the Comptroller and Auditor General's office and the ability to audit these figures are improved and enhanced by Government policy. Rather than the Comptroller and Auditor General asking for money, Government policy should be to ensure it happens with greater efficiency and with a greater desire to carry out full audits and get to the end of the wastage of public money. It is in the Minister's remit and I would love to see him bringing about a reform of the whole system, in terms of the Comptroller and Auditor General, local government, how the HSE allocates money and how it is chased to the end user to ensure efficiency, transparency and value for money. Has the Minister any notion regarding reform of the office?

The responsibility for the use of money in higher education, first and foremost, should sit with the new Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science. The Chairman has raised in the past a number of issues related to the use of funding. There have been some issues that the Committee of Public Accounts has looked into. I believe one of the rationales for the setting up of that Department is to bring more focus onto the use of money in that sector. While issues have developed in the use of some funding in the sector, in the round the money that goes into our universities, technological universities, institutes and colleges is well spent and plays a valuable role in supporting students and our economy. The issues the Chairman is referring to are, first and foremost, dealt with by the responsible Department. I am sure the Chairman has had representatives of the Department in this committee or they have been in front of their own committee, raising issues regarding the use of money in that sector.

I am not singling the Department out and respect what the Minister, Deputy Harris, is doing. I have no issue with that. He is doing a fine job. I am talking about the audit of all these agencies, departments and so on that the Comptroller and Auditor General is responsible for. The reform I am asking about is the obvious one of bringing everything under the Comptroller and Auditor General, in terms of the work being done by the Comptroller and Auditor General now and local government, for example. There is no policy change planned in relation-----

There is not a policy change planned in relation to the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General but our desire to support that body in the discharge of its important role is demonstrated by the increase in staffing it will receive across this year.

Okay. Finally, I ask the Minister about the bank and the repayment of moneys into his Department. We bailed out the banks and I see lots of big figures here for the banking sector. Will the Minister explain those?

Those figures refer to the directorate in my Department. That group is responsible for banking policy, which is laid out in Vote 7. We are making progress on reducing our shareholding in Bank of Ireland and AIB but the proceeds of that will not be captured in these Estimates because, as the Chairman will be aware, this refers to the money we will be spending.

Yes, but where does the money being recouped from the banks from the crash stand now? What level are we at there? Is it all paid back?

When I was in front of the joint committee last week, I gave a statement regarding how much overall is outstanding. It will take longer than was expected to ensure we regain all the money invested in Bank of Ireland, AIB and Permanent TSB. The procedures under way with regard to Bank of Ireland and AIB are going well.

As to what happens to that money when it comes in, it does not represent new money for the Government. We have an asset that is defined by the value of the share and the nature of that asset is changing into cash when we receive that money. It does not represent new money that we are planning to spend.

That is fine.

This question flows on from last week when we had the Minister before the joint committee. The Minister took it upon himself to give information to the committee on the role of legal advisers and the Attorney General in advising the Minister that he cannot recoup pandemic payments from insurance companies. That information is still outstanding. Has the Minister made any progress in being able to furnish it to the committee?

As soon as I came back from the joint committee, I asked for that information to be shared with members subject to any legal constraints, which there may well be, regarding such sharing. What can be shared with members will be shared. There are constraints in relation to the legal advice I can share with the Oireachtas but I will ensure that that which can be shared is shared.

As the person who posed the question, I understand the restrictions on legal advice, but the question is also about who provided the advice.

Was it the Attorney General or the in-house legal team? While there may be a prohibition on sharing the advice, there is none on stating where the advice was garnered from.

I mentioned the allocation of €350,000 for administration in respect of Housing for All. Under which of subheadings, namely Nos. 1 to 8, does the allocation go? Is it under consultancy, as we discussed, or salaries? There is no detail in the Estimates on that.

The €350,000 is under salaries.

On the question the Deputy asked me on legal advice, I recollect that it was not just a matter of its content but also a matter of who supplied it. I remember both issues that the Deputy raised.

Regarding my earlier question on what the €350,000 was for, the Minister said it might relate to an assessment of the housing market and of why house prices are increasing, or of other housing matters connected to Housing for All. If the sum pertains to salaries, it means the Housing for All portion will be to directly employ individuals within the Department of Finance. Could the Minister explain how many individuals within the Department the salary figure will cover? Will the overall complement of whole-time equivalents within the Department of Finance be increased if the money is allocated for salaries?

It relates to moving three more people into the economic division. The €350,000 will be used to pay for their salaries. On the question on whether it leads to an increase in the number of staff within the Department of Finance, there was an increase in the overall number of staff from 349 from 369. Therefore, there are to be 20 more staff in the Department this year by comparison with last year.

Is the Minister saying the Department is going to get three individuals who will each be paid in excess of €100,000 and who will focus solely on housing issues? Is that what the €350,000 is for?

No, I am not saying that. Housing policy and issues in relation to housing will be covered by all members of the Department of Finance, or by many different members of staff. The figure of €350,000 is the figure we will go up to in order to bring approximately three people into the Department to help with this work.

Three into €350,000 amounts to over €100,000 each. Therefore, the Department is planning to recruit the individuals at a very senior level. Given that it is funding for Housing for All, is there now a subdivision implying that the three individuals will be tasked with dealing with housing? Alternatively, will they deal with other issues related to economics?

We have to begin the work on moving these people through and appointing them. I expect that the salaries and status of the recruits are yet to be determined. It may well be the case that the figure will be considerably below €350,000. As I have said to the Deputy, these are people whose sole role will be to consider housing issues relevant to the Department, but this will be on top of all other housing work carried out by the Department.

I thank the Minister. Maybe he will keep us up to date when those positions are being populated.

Yes, I will do that.

I thank Deputy Doherty. Any further information the Minister wishes to send may be sent to the clerk. We have now finished our consideration of the Supplementary Estimates for the Finance group. A message to that effect will be sent to the Clerk of the Dáil in accordance with Standing Order 101.

I remind members that we are to meet at 3.30 p.m. in private session. The select committee shall now adjourn until 1.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 2 February 2022, when we will deal with the Revised Estimates concerning the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform with the Minister for that Department, Deputy Michael McGrath. I thank the Minister and his officials.

Top
Share