JOINT COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, PUBLIC EXPENDITURE AND REFORM díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 18 Apr 2012

SI 28/2012 and SI 37/2012: Discussion

Chairman

The committee is in public session to deal with the scrutiny of statutory instruments 28 and 37 of 2012. Members will recall it was agreed at the joint committee meeting of 15 February to invite the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, to discuss these two statutory instruments in detail. In that context, I welcome the Minister, Deputy Howlin, and thank him for accepting the committee's invitation.

Regarding its format, the meeting will move directly to a question and answer session which makes sense because members have been circulated with the statutory instruments concerned and may proceed to put questions to the Minister. I remind members, witnesses and those in the Gallery that all mobile telephones must be switched off and remain so throughout the meeting. I advise witnesses that by virtue of section 17(2) (l) of the Defamation Act 2009 witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. If you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in regard to a particular matter and you continue to do so, you are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of your evidence. You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, you should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Equally, members are reminded of the long-standing ruling of the Chair to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I call Deputy Fleming.

Deputy Sean Fleming

Are we taking questions first?

Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Deputy Brendan Howlin)

If I may, I will make a few opening comments.

Chairman

Please do, Minister.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

We are taking each statutory instrument in sequence so I shall say a few words about SI 28. To speak bluntly, I am a little surprised to be asked to explain the statutory instrument which is simply about the provision of a Minister of State's wages. There are two Ministers of State involved. After the formation of the Government the original statutory instrument in regard to the two Ministers of State who attend at Cabinet was signed. As members know, the former Minister of State, Deputy Penrose, resigned and was replaced as Minister of State by Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, who then received the allowance. The statutory instrument to provide the appropriate wages was signed, circulated and promulgated in the normal way.

I do not know what is the issue in regard to this statutory instrument but it is useful for me to put forward some facts in terms of the pay rates, if that is what it is about. Perhaps a member of the committee believes that Ministers or parliamentarians are paid too much. If that is the case I would be interested in hearing his or her views and will entertain any views that oppose them because all these matters are constantly under review.

Take the Taoiseach, for example. Taking into account the reductions plus the pension levy, the Taoiseach now earns some 37% less than his predecessor. Again including the pension levy, Ministers earn some 32% less than their predecessors. One can go through this - I brought the table with me. Ministers of State with the right to attend Cabinet, namely, the category we are discussing, earn some 28% less than their predecessors. I suppose I should also mention Deputies. Taking into consideration the pension levy, Deputies earn some 23% less; the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad some 16% less; the Leas-Chathaoirleach 15% less, and so on. If one looks across the public service generally, very significant reductions in wage rates have been applied through four different pieces of legislation under the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act, or FEMPI. That is in addition to the impact of the pensions levy. Bluntly, the political class, to use a phrase beloved of some, has taken much more significant cuts than public servants generally. That is right and proper.

In essence, that is the backdrop. There are categories of pay. Ministers of State are paid more than Deputies. Ministers of State who attend Cabinet because of additional duties in accordance with the long-standing practice in law, are paid more than Ministers of State and Cabinet Ministers are paid more than that again. The Tánaiste is paid more than Ministers and the Taoiseach is paid more than the Tánaiste. That is the hierarchy of the pay scales and I would certainly expect the hierarchy would be maintained. If there is any issue about the actual pay scales I reiterate I am happy to entertain it. We might hear people's views in regard to that.

If there are particular issues members wish to mention I am happy to hear them.

Chairman

I thank the Minister and call Deputy Fleming.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

I draw the attention of members to the ESRI report published today and a contrast in it concerning which we should be mindful. Something that surprised me in a report just published is the statement that private sector workers' pay is virtually unchanged by the recession. The average earning of private sector workers remained virtually unchanged through the worst of the recession, according to the new ESRI research. In spite of the unprecedented fall in output and the sharp rise in unemployment, average earnings and average labour costs hardly changed between 2006 and 2009. Perhaps things have changed subsequently but during that period public sector workers certainly took a very significant reduction.

Deputy Sean Fleming

I thank the Minister for agreeing to take this issue. I had hoped his first appearance at this committee would be to deal with the annual Estimates. I must put on public record that I find it unacceptable that the annual Estimates for this year of more than €50 billion in expenditure will not be discussed until the month of May.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Is the Deputy not happy?

Deputy Sean Fleming

We should have done it months ago.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

I am a servant of the people.

Deputy Sean Fleming

The Estimates must come from the Minister's Department before we can discuss them. As recently as today there were some further revisions and revised Estimates that we must consider tomorrow.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

No doubt we will battle on that on another day.

Deputy Sean Fleming

We should have it here. The only reason we are having the discussion on the Estimate of any Department is that the Government needs to approve funding for the Referendum Commission before the week is out to commence spending money on the campaign. It is dreadful that it is only on foot of an EU referendum that we are discussing Estimates in the first four months of the year. The briefing note referred to orders made by the Government under these provisions being made on the proposal of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. I note the statutory instruments are signed by the Taoiseach. Perhaps the Minister can explain.

No one disputes that the Minister of State should receive the proposed salary but it is an additional allowance of €17,205 for merely attending Cabinet meetings. I do not know how many Cabinet meetings are held in a year but if there are 30, it amounts to €573, on top of the ministerial salary, for attending a one-hour or two-hour meeting. If there are only 20 meetings, the figure rises to €860. How does the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform feel about a person receiving a good salary and while acknowledging the reductions that have been made, receives €573 for attending a one-hour meeting once a week? Is this good value for money?

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Deputy Fleming characterises it very badly and bluntly. The Deputy was happy to support Ministers of State who attended Cabinet meetings receiving €20,000 during the last regime. We have reduced the sum. There is a category of pay scales. For example, the Chairman of a committee is paid more than a member of the committee. There is an allowance for the additional work, which is normal. Within the hierarchy of politics, Deputies are paid a salary, Ministers of State are paid more and Ministers of State with the additional responsibility of Cabinet are paid more again.

It is as if Deputy Fleming is characterising teaching as only the time one is physically in front of the class. A Minister of State who attends Cabinet meetings has access to all Cabinet documentation and input to all Cabinet debate. He or she does not have a vote at Cabinet but in my time in three Governments there was only ever one vote at Cabinet, on the appointment of the President of the High Court. It was the last vote of that Cabinet. It is normal for the Ministers of State to be very involved in Cabinet. Only two Ministers of State attend Cabinet - the other in that category is the Government Chief Whip. The business of the Chief Whip is considered significant because he is advising the Taoiseach. Some ten years ago, this was independently determined by an independent review to merit a pay grade higher than a Minister of State.

The first issue is whether one agrees with the hierarchy of the Minister of State with the responsibility of attending Cabinet deserving to be paid more; the second is the quantum of pay. People may have views on it and I am happy to hear their views.

The order is signed by the Taoiseach because, under the Act, the statutory instrument is a Government order, not a ministerial or departmental order. The signature of the Taoiseach is required for a Government order.

Chairman

We are dealing with the statutory instruments separately. The first one is SI 28 of 2012.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

That is fine. The Minister made reference to the ESRI report, which reflected the hammering public sector workers had taken relative to their private sector counterparts in the years in question. The Minister also made reference to a series of financial emergency measures in the public interest legislation that was passed by the House. The premise of the provisions was that the State was in economic crisis, that crisis measures had to be taken, that we were all in this together, as the saying goes, and that the pain had to be shared proportionately and equally. This was the position of the Minister time out of number so I cannot see how he can justify an allowance of over €17,000 for a Minister of State, or super junior as they are called, to attend Cabinet. I do not understand how that makes sense even though I hear what the Minister says about the hierarchy of pay and the levels of pay enjoyed by politicians from the Taoiseach down.

All of us, and certainly all of the Government, are overpaid and we have debated this matter before. We are here to discuss the specific allowance. Given the emergency measures introduced for pay cuts and pension levies, how can Deputy Howlin, as the Minister charged with overseeing public sector reform, politically and personally justify the payment of the allowance? It is most unlikely the super juniors or the Chief Whip would refuse to attend Cabinet meetings on the basis that they were not in receipt of these moneys. If I am incorrect, the Minister can tell me.

The sum of money may seem peanuts when we look at the broader parameters of the financial crisis but it is nonetheless most significant that the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, who made budget day announcements on deep expenditure cuts, is standing over this. Will the Minister reconsider this or revoke it?

Deputy Brendan Howlin

I will repeat what I said because the Deputy is great at broadcasting but not great at receiving. I believe in the hierarchy of payments for different jobs. I am sort of a trade unionist and maybe I am trained to think the labourer is worthy of his hire. There is a hierarchy of pay. I am not sure whether the Deputy disagrees with the first set of principles, that there should be a hierarchy, and that the Minister of State attending Cabinet meetings has a different role and, because of access to all Cabinet documentation and input into all Cabinet decisions, does not have a departmental function but a whole of Government function. It is not a matter of a number of hours being spent on it; it is a different job and they should be paid more.

The Deputy has a strong view that they should be paid less. That is fine and we can have a debate on it. We have substantially reduced the pay of all public servants and certainly politicians. The gross pay of the Taoiseach is 37% less than his predecessor and we have also increased taxes. The figure for Ministers is 32% and 28% for Ministers of State attending the Cabinet. There is no parallel reduction in pay among others who have been asked to share the burden. Should we go further? I am open to suggestion but we should not single out two individuals. There was no objection when the former Minister of State, Deputy Willie Penrose, received this allowance and when that statutory instrument was placed before the Dáil. When a woman gets it, suddenly there is an objection to it.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

Can I just say-----

Chairman

Please do not interrupt.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Is it because it is Deputy Jan O'Sullivan that what was unchallenged for Deputy Penrose is now challenged? The principle is very simple - one either accepts or rejects a hierarchy of pay. Either we should be paid a flat rate for everything, and some regimes have tried it, or we pay people for work done. If one believes in different jobs, a hierarchy of pay and appropriate differentials accruing to different functions, the only matter to be determined is the appropriate pay level for each. We have made substantial reductions in the pay of all public servants and I will not pick out two individuals and say that they, alone, should not receive their wages. If the suggestion is to apply cuts to everybody, I will entertain the notion, but I will not pick out two people. It is unfair of any individual to try to do that. I do not agree with Deputy McDonald that the allowance is peanuts; it is a substantial sum of money. The allowance is there to match a significant job.

Some Deputies opposite have views on pay for politicians uniquely. I think politicians do an important job in holding the Government to account. Members of the Government make extraordinarily difficult and onerous decisions. All of my colleagues work all the hours God sends. Are we making mistakes? Of course we are, but is there a notion that politicians, or the people who are making these hard decisions and governing the country, should somehow be treated differently from senior administrators, Garda officers or medics? If we are examining public sector pay we must do so in the round. I know there is popularity attached to bashing office holders, and there are some out there who believe that if we paid nothing at all to politicians it would be too much. We need to ensure people are paid an appropriate wage. To answer the question directly, I recommended to the Government this particular set of wages as an appropriate wage. It may well be, in the context of all allowances payable to everybody, something to which we have to return.

Chairman

Perhaps Deputy McDonald would like to give a brief response.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

I assure the Minister there is nothing wrong with the reception on this side of the desk. I can hear clearly what he is saying. He is advancing a notion of hierarchy of pay. This is about fairness. In my experience of dealing with and debating with the Minister, he has resisted at every turn any suggestion for dealing with very high pay within the public sector. He has hidden from the issue and run away from it. It is clear that he stands over this sum of money. I used the term "peanuts" in respect of the overall budgetary situation, because non-payment of these moneys obviously would not rectify our financial woes, as I am very well aware. We can use this as a reference point for the Government when it next decides to come in and make further announcements of cuts to services that people rely on. Notwithstanding the cuts that have been made to the pay of politicians - particularly in the senior ranks, including the Taoiseach - they are still, by international standards, overpaid.

Chairman

Does the Minister want to reply? I want to facilitate the Opposition spokespersons.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

I am afraid I cannot allow these soundbites to sit unchallenged.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

It is not a soundbite; it is a political position.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

The Deputy is very good at soundbites, and she plays to it. It is absurd to suggest that I have either hidden or run away from the issue of high pay. I am the only Minister who ever put a ceiling on pay in the public service. We set a threshold when we came to office, a little more than a year ago, of €200,000 for the Taoiseach, which is a significant reduction compared with the pay of his predecessor, and we have graduated all others below that rate. It was a battle to enforce that ceiling across all grades of the public service. Some resigned and moved out of the public service; that is fine. We put in those ceilings and we may well have to go further, but the notion that we have not done so is incorrect. If 27% is nothing, what about 50%? I am sure if we made cuts of 50%, that would not be good enough for the Deputy either because there is a soundbite to be had in saying that we should beat people more.

I am acutely aware of the pressure people are under. We need an appropriate level of remuneration across the public service generally. I respect public service. The notion that if one is in the public service doing an extraordinary job, as people in the hospital services and others are doing, one should be in a different category from the private sector is incorrect. I was given the ESRI's surprising report about the maintenance of pay levels generally in the private sector. I am sure that is not uniform - many people have taken pay cuts in the private sector as well - but statistically, that is what has happened. Statistically, within the public service, people have had pay cuts or levies of the order of 14%. That is important. Maybe we do need to go further. If the Deputy has specific proposals - not for two individuals to get a headline, but for larger groups of people - which will save substantial money, I would like to hear them, and we may have to consider them.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

We should dispense with red herrings. Those of us who are critical of some aspects of politicians' and public servants' pay or allowances are not directing our criticisms - or at least, I and the United Left Alliance are not directing them - towards the vast majority of public servants, who, as the Minister rightly says, have been hit extremely hard with levies and effective pay cuts of 15% to 20% over the last few years. In the majority of cases, these cuts were unfair and unjustified, and they have resulted in significant economic damage. My concern is about pay at the top level of the public service, and not only the public service; I am concerned about excessive pay in the private sector as well. I find it obscene in almost any circumstances, but particularly in circumstances of recession and the imposition of brutal austerity measures on low and middle-income families, that any public servant, or anybody paid with public money or employed by a fully owned State or semi-State company, is earning ten or 15 times the lowest wage. In the case of ESB, I believe the chief executive is getting in the region of €800,000.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

He was. There is a ceiling now.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

What is he on now? Is it €600,000 or €500,000?

Chairman

The Deputy should confine himself to the business we are discussing.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

This is the issue. The Minister is suggesting that we are looking for soundbites. The issue is justice in the context of economic recession. I find it unjustifiable that politicians or people paid with public money can be earning ten times the amount somebody on the lowest level of income is getting - somebody who is living in poverty in the current climate. Of course there should be fair remuneration for a job done, but I do not see why the Taoiseach needs €200,000 a year and I do not see why Ministers need €140,000 or the Tánaiste needs €180,000. I do not see how it can be justified when we are imposing brutal austerity on people on the lowest level, who are being plunged into poverty as a result of Government decisions. How can it be justified? When allowances are thrown in on top of that, as well as significant budgets for public relations-----

(Interruptions).

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

Look at the figures that were published in The Irish Times during the week.

Chairman

Deputy, there are two statutory instruments under consideration. This may be relevant to the second one but I ask you to stick to the first one, which deals with two named Ministers of State, and then we will deal with the other one, which apparently does include provision for PR budgets.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

Yes, but it is all of those things combined.

Chairman

Would you like to make your comments when we come back to deal with the second statutory instrument? I must manage the business.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

All right. On the issue of PR-----

Chairman

No, we are not on the PR. Please discuss SI 28/2012, which deals with an order of the Minister in respect of two named Ministers of State. That is the one we are dealing with at the moment. If we could dispose of that one, then we can move on to the next one. I have to try to manage the business.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I do not think it is justified. It is as simple as that.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

I am interested in the Deputy's view that the majority of pay cuts imposed were not justified. I would like to hear his views on which ones were not justified. We have made significant reductions across the public service and we have also reduced the number of people working the public service, because we have to pay our bills. I know there are Deputies who oppose all taxes except notional ones - notional taxes are okay but any real tax proposal is to be rejected - and all cuts to services, indeed demanding additional money for services. However, in the real world we have to cut our cloth. I am open to hear the views of members as regards the pay rates of anyone in the public service and I accept the bona fides of Deputy Boyd Barrett when he says that he believes that there should be a lower threshold for all public service employees. However, there are difficulties. My fear is that we will be unable to employ accountants, lawyers, senior medical people, etc., and it will only be possible to hire them from the private sector because we cannot pay them in the public sector. This is a model I would not favour. However, I do not wish to stray from the Chairman's admonition.

The principle I have set out is that there should be a hierarchy of payments, graduated to responsibility. This should apply in politics just as exists in any walk of life, that the more onerous the task given, the higher the remuneration. If there is a view that there should be a flat payment for everybody, that the Taoiseach would be paid the same as a Deputy, I am willing to hear that view. However, I do not think this works in the real world. It does not work in the private sector. We need to pay reasonable rates and this has to be linked to what we can afford.

Chairman

In accordance with our normal practice when a Minister is in attendance, I will facilitate the Opposition spokespersons and if other members wish to contribute, they may do so. However, we have another statutory instrument to deal with and also some substantial business relating to the whistleblowers legislation. I ask members to bear this in mind.

Deputy Peter Mathews

I thank the Minister for his attendance. In my view we have to be very careful. As we speak, the troika people are in town and they are talking about matters which will have very great consequences both now and in the immediate and near-term future. It is not appropriate to be doing too much navel-gazing with regard to a statutory instrument such as this one. It is much ado about nothing. The Minister has explained that there is a hierarchy of responsibility beginning with being a Dáil Deputy or a Senator and moving ultimately to the Taoiseach, just as in any body of organised activity. I refer, for example, to the Army. I do not think anyone would join the Army unless there was a hierarchy of pay. I do not know what is the top rate of pay in the Army but perhaps it is quite close to what the Taoiseach earns and the same applies in the Garda Síochána. These rates are merited.

It was reported in the newspapers yesterday that Tullow Oil International paid its chief executive £2.3 million. Admittedly there was an element of bonus of approximately 50%. Our nationalised bank, IBRC, paid its chief executive €839,000. We need to retain a sense of proportion and not waste time. This statutory instrument ought to be signed and moved along and then we can deal with important business.

Deputy Michael McNamara

The Minister indicated at the outset the various pay grades for Deputies, Ministers of State, Cabinet Ministers and "super junior" Ministers of State. He also explained that politicians and the political class have taken a greater cut than any other class in the country and we all agreed that this is how it should be. Nevertheless, as we attempt to deflate the Irish economy, we are trying to drive down public sector costs and public sector pay to bring it in line with the EU average rate. However, the EU average pay of parliamentarians is approximately €84,000 and this is reflected in the pay of MEPs. It is still slightly less, not substantially less, than what Members of the Dáil earn. Has consideration been given to cutting the pay rate for Deputies so that it is at the level of the EU average rate which we encourage all other sectors to match?

Senator Thomas Byrne

While this Government has taken a 6.6% pay cut, the pay cuts to which the Minister refers, by and large, were introduced by the previous Government and were bitterly and ruthlessly opposed by Fine Gael and the Labour Party at the time. I do not wish to criticise the Minister too much but the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Act was opposed and the other pay cut was also opposed at the time. The Minister referred to making a cut of 25% or 35% more than the cuts under the previous Government. The allowance to which he referred was €18,421 under the previous Government and this had been reduced by that Government from €20,023 in September 2008. The Minister then reduced it by another €1,200 or so. Therefore, the previous Government had done much of the work and we were attacked for it. The Minister may not have said specifically that we should not have done that but he attacked the overall legislation which we introduced. It is unfair to quote the 2008 salaries and say that this Government took a cut based on those figures when in fact the cuts were made from 2008 onwards.

Chairman

Any further comments from colleagues on this statutory instrument? I will ask the Minister to conclude and we can then proceed to the next business.

Deputy Arthur Spring

I will speak in support of the Minister's proposal. Some members of this committee are of the view that Members are paid too much for the work we do. This is a commonly-held populist viewpoint. However, these members should also declare that they take every single cent of the expenses and the allocation of salaries allowed from the Exchequer and what they do with this money is up to themselves. This needs to be put on the record of the House.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

In reply to Senator Byrne's comments, it is true that the bulk of reductions were introduced just before the end of the previous Government's time in office. It was interesting that this was done after 14 years. I can refer to the actual figures. In September 2008, the Taoiseach was paid €285,583. The Taoiseach today, after the pay-related deduction, PRD, is paid €181,050. This is a reduction in excess of €100,000 over those few years. The Senator is correct that the Financial Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Act was enacted in 2010 and the pay-related deduction was introduced subsequently. There have been a number of deductions in pay over time. However, in truth, the very substantial payments which members of the previous Administration enjoyed for their 14 years or the bulk of their 14 years has been greatly reduced and rightly so. I know that no matter how far one goes, there will be some who will say it is not enough.

I am reminded that when the Labour Party first entered Parliament in Britain at the turn of the 20th century, one of its first demands was for payment for Members of Parliament because up to that time it had been the prerogative of the landed gentry to represent the shires and the notion that ordinary working people should be given a wage for being a Member of Parliament was a novel concept. We need to put this into context. We need to be objective and fair in this regard. In my view, while the political class, to use that phrase again, should take a very significant pay reduction because it needs to give leadership, this should not be cruel and unusual punishment. If pay grades are to be reduced, then we should look at the public sector in its totality and generally. I suggest we reduce pay in all analogous grades on the same basis and we may well have to do this. However, we have made substantial reductions in the past three years and it behoves the committee to acknowledge this.

Chairman

We will proceed to deal with the next business, SI 37/2012. I invite the Minister to comment.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Members will be aware that a public representation allowance is available to Deputies and to Senators. I refer to the list of categories under which sums can be claimed and which has been circulated to members. For instance, it shows allowances for rent and rates for constituency offices, improvement in office accommodation, signage in respect of constituency office, maintenance of office furniture and equipment, purchase of stationery, insurance costs, cleaning of office, web hire, and so on. I was formally approached by the representative group of Dáil Deputies. I received a formal request signed by two Deputies acting in a representational capacity asking me to include in the list not one cent extra but to include extra secretarial assistance. The list of priorities in the support base of Deputies changes over time. For example, before I had the statutory power to do it myself, one recommendation I made to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, was to reduce the number of envelopes available because over the past ten years more work is done through e-mail. I believe we can go considerably further on the envelope side. The way Deputies deliver their service with the same sum of money has changed.

Over the past few years, the volumes of business coming to a constituency office of a Deputy have become enormous and mean a single secretary cannot cope. A formal request, which initially came from a Fianna Fáil Deputy, was made to include additional secretarial assistance. I believed this was a reasonable request as it does not cost the State a cent extra. Rather than spending money on delivering leaflets, the same money can be used to employ a person one day a week to give a helping hand in a constituency office. I know public relations came into it but that was because the line approved was for additional secretarial assistance which in the original statutory instrument encompassed public relations work. Some secretaries did media contact, press releases and that sort of thing which is encompassed in this.

I made this order because I was approached by a cross-section of Deputies who said this is what they needed. If I hear from this committee that it is not needed, I will have no difficulty in rescinding the instrument.

Deputy Sean Fleming

I agree with the Minister.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

Which Oireachtas Members lobbied the Minister for this change? Is he satisfied this change will not compromise the proper vouching of the moneys of which each Deputy is in receipt? With this additional spend-----

Deputy Brendan Howlin

It is not an additional spend.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

No, I mean this additional category of spend. Is the Minister satisfied it can be fully accounted for and there is no capacity for the moneys to be used in ways perhaps they should not be?

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

On a point of order, before the Minister answers, it is important he clarifies that it was a cross-party representative group rather than name the two individuals who acted on behalf of that group.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

I understood it was two members of the Oireachtas commission who made the representations on behalf of the Joint Administration Committee. I do not believe the two Members would have difficulty with their names being made available.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

The commission is made up by all parties of the House.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Yes, it is made up by all parties.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

The proposal, therefore, would have gone through the committee.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

I cannot say that definitely. Separately, I know the Joint Administration Committee is due to make representations to me on a range of other issues which include although I have not received them formally yet, different supports for IT and so on which all parties favour.

I do not believe these allowances should be fixed in stone. What was appropriate for delivering services five years ago may not be the case now. I am open to have this debated in a public forum.

In monitoring it, it is simply an extension of what is allowed already which is an additional secretarial assistance. I am sure there will be no difficulty in vouching it exactly the same way. If one applies for the vouched system, one must show who has been paid, the dates worked and so on.

Chairman

If the Member chooses unvouched, then it does not arise.

Deputy Michael McNamara

I notice some Members have an inordinate need for stationery. Would it be possible to spend all the allowance on ink cartridges?

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

That is a separate issue.

Chairman

I shall allow this as a question.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Due to excesses identified in recent times, I believe House rules have been introduced dealing with the quantum of toner that can be drawn down by any individual Member. It is accounted for, however.

Deputy Arthur Spring

As regards the vouched expenses scheme, it was very unjust the way the press conveyed what was taken by Members. The allocation is not exactly what was used. I felt particularly aggrieved that having taken a lot less than was allocated, the media purported Members had taken everything given to them. Will the Department next time point it out as expenditure, not an allocation, because moneys are returned?

I have tabled several parliamentary questions on public relations. For example, the Department of Defence in 2007 - a general election year - spent €494,000 mainly on newspaper advertising. In 2011 this was reduced to €44,000 while public relations expenditure was nil. This shows the level of reform that has gone on since the new Government took office.

Senator Thomas Byrne

When I first heard of this arrangement, I said I would not avail of it. However, my local organisation is still getting the same number of representations we got when I was a Deputy. After letting one staff member go, I was told we might take someone back on with this new money. Instead of advertising or leaflet dropping, this might be a better way of spending money. I have yet to make a decision on this, however.

I am concerned that if one is employing a family member under this allowance, it should be declared above and beyond the vouching requirements that are in place as it cannot be discovered under freedom of information requests. That is one of the main points that arose from this controversy. My sister worked for me in 2007 election campaign but afterwards I refused to employ her as I believed it was not the right thing to do.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

That is a fair point to which I will have a regard.

Chairman

I thank the Minister for the briefing and discussion on this statutory instrument.