Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE OIREACHTAS PUBLIC Accounts Committee (PAC) is set to discuss the costs of the Office of the President at a meeting this morning.
There has been much debate about the move in recent days – with Taoiseach Leo Varadkar and Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin among those labelling it unconstitutional.
Many people have also questioned the timing of the decision, one month out from the presidential election on 26 October.
So, how did we get here?
At a meeting last Thursday, the PAC discussed its plan to scrutinise how the annual budget of the president’s office is spent. The overall amount spent by the office is known (direct expenditure was €3.6 million in 2016), but a breakdown of where the money goes is not publicly available.
The Office of the President is exempt from Freedom of Information legislation, an issue raised by some journalists who have sought information about expenses.
Speaking at the meeting, PAC chairman Seán Fleming said: “If the committee were seen to not want to discuss the matter, it might raise even more significant questions than any questions we might get answered if we had a discussion.”
The Fianna Fail TD said he “would not be comfortable having a meeting on the issue after the close of nominations” tomorrow, so here we are.
“I do not think anyone would want to be here two weeks before an election campaign discussing the matter. If we are to do it, we have to get it out of the way promptly.”
Fleming said he will not allow members at today’s meeting to ask any questions about the president, just expenditure.
The President is not answerable to the House, which is a long-standing principle that we will honour entirely. If anyone asks a question about what the President did or did not do, I will rule it out of order.
Martin Fraser, Secretary General of the Department of An Taoiseach and the Accounting Officer to the Office of the President, has said the decision is unconstitutional.
‘Above politics‘
In a letter sent to the PAC on 17 September, Fraser stated: “The Office of the President is separate and distinct from other organs of State, such as the Executive (including Government Departments), the Oireachtas and the Judiciary.
“This is often expressed in terms of the President being “above politics”, which is a useful description and I believe widely understood and respected, both by other arms of the State and more importantly by the people.”
Fraser added that the legal position in this regard “is set out in detail in the Constitution” – namely Article 13.8.1, which states:
The President shall not be answerable to either House of the Oireachtas or to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and functions of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of these powers and functions.
Fraser said he was surprised that the PAC had not sought legal advice on pursuing the issue.
Speaking at the meeting last week, Fleming said legal advice had not been sought “because I understand that we will not direct any questions to [Fraser] in respect of the President and will question him only in relation to the financial matters for which he is Accounting Officer”.
In his letter, Fraser also raised concerns about the “political impartiality of the Civil Service” as well as timing issues.
“It is an inviolable principle that civil servants should not become involved in election campaigns. The fact that the current campaign is unusual, in that a sitting president is seeking re-election does not affect the principle involved.
“I cannot accept your suggestion that the campaigning period has not yet started. It is absolutely clear that a campaign for the office of the presidency is fully underway,” Fraser wrote.
In relation to timing, Fleming said: “This committee has never in the past or will never in the future allow its work to be dictated by timings of elections.”
‘Impact on presidential election’
Labour TD Alan Kelly questioned why the committee had not sought legal advice about the matter. He suggested that proceeding with the examination “will be damaging to this committee and will have an impact on the presidential election”.
“The fact is that this is an ongoing campaign. If we are going to jump into this now, it will really say an awful lot about this committee,” he said.
Sinn Féin TD David Cullinane said he has “no difficulty” with the committee discussing the expenses but does not “want us to waste our time if Mr Fraser is going to come in and say he cannot answer any of the questions we ask”.
A number of the PAC members criticised Fraser’s letter, with Fianna Fáil TD Marc MacSharry saying the “tone of the letter did bother me”.
We should do it. We should keep the questioning very much to the question of where the money goes and what happens to it.
Independent TD Catherine Connolly said the level of argument against inquiring into the spending worried her, stating that she was fed up of “patriarchal” arguments from people who think “we know best; do it later; now is not the time”.
“There is nothing wrong with information, dealt with properly by ourselves in an open and accountable manner,” she said.
How much we learn about the expenses will become clear later this morning. The meeting is due to commence at 10am in Committee Room 3. You can watch proceedings here.
With reporting by Christina Finn
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
We’re at full employment, time to start cutting the dole by 25% for every year the work shy stay on it, plus abolish the Christmas bonus for those on welfare, expect for pensioners, carers and disabled.
@Pat Hazzard: It’s never going to happen. Get over your yourself .its a political thing. Wake up and smell the coffee.
@Pat Hazzard: nutjob
@Pat Hazzard: Taxpayers are paying for 400-500 new (fake) asylum seekers per week coming in to this country and you’re harping on about dole spongers. None of the above should be getting a penny of our hard earned money. Give us some real politicians who can sort out this embarrassment. Sort it out NOW!
@YKwkSIqW: I have no issues helping people genuinely fleeing war and conflict. It’s obvious they do need initial assistance and I am more than happy for my taxes to fund this.
I do have have a massive issue; however, with my taxes being used to fund the dole payments for healthy and able people who simply choose not not to work or worse have never worked.
@Luke Windak: The fact is that neither our own dole scammers nor the fake foreign immigrant scammers should be getting any of our taxpayers’ money.
The overpopulation numbers of the countries at war simply couldn’t be absorbed in Europe. Talk to people living in Sweeden, Belgium, and many other European countries that have been destroyed by uncontrolled immigration.
@Thomas Sheridan: ‘Sweden and Belgium are destroyed’ ,really?
@Luke Windak: why is that a problem? There will always be a small percentage of people that don’t want to work and they should be supported. This is not a dystopian slave state where we force people to work.
@Peter Fitzgerald: The people that don’t want to work should be supported? Transported more like, to the nearest building site.
@Pat Hazzard: Unemployment is a requirement of “our” economic system.
Those that manage the economy plan to always have a certain level of unemployment. Otherwise the bargaining power would shift to the worker.
Yet you blame the unemployed.
And want to punish them.
@Peter Fitzgerald: Hi Peter, I don’t want to work any more so I’ll send all my bills to you to pay for me. No one should get dole if they haven’t paid into the system, especially when there are vacancies throughout the country.
Someone please pass the memo onto Mr Roderic O’Gorman, he’s wasted ten’s of millions of Taxpayers money on one project alone,it wasn’t too long ago our kid’s were sitting in leaky prefabs because there was no money apparently to fix them or buy new ones, but O’Gorman seems to have been able to find Millions of euro to house all his new arrivals or IPAs as he calls them.
What exactly is his agenda?
Will the government listen? Nah, not a chance. It’s election time freebies for everyone, even those living in D4.
But they’ll try and buy the votes anyway…. they ignored the fiscal advice last year too.
I am still paying USC while the banks make billions in profit. I will not vote for these liars.
@Sean Money: apparently, it’s for our 280 billion debt, but I’m not sure. In 2008, it was needed to bail the banks out. Now, it’s needed to pay the debt. Yet those responsible are drawing pensions of 300k of taxpayers’ money. Only in Ireland and the banks making billions profit.
@did you every wonder: Govt spending has increased by 30+% compared to 2019. They’re also taking in around 25-30% more income tax and Vat since then…… We on the other hand have much less money in our pockets thanks to the cost of living crisis. Fiscal watchdog doesn’t care if we starve. They don’t even seem to care that the departmental budgets have exploded and they waste money left right and centre! Watch the tax “give away” and keep the regular Joe down is the game!… Problem is there won’t be any more to take when the next crisis hits and the govt want to hike taxes again
@another one? what’s going on is the semi state sec: But what was inflation during that time anyway?
(The real rate, which seems to be higher than the official rate.)
If inflation during that time was also 30%, then the state isn’t increasing spending anyway.
@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere: W.O.W….. by that logic we should all have 20% pay increases and tax should be adjusted to match. Which it hasn’t, which is the point. They’re spending is OTT, we are suffering…… Real rate from Jan 2020 to now is 19.57% according to CSO.
@did you every wonder: The USC and other new taxes (e.g. property tax) were not needed to bail out the banks, the money used for the banks was borrowed. The new taxes were to pay for the day to day spending in the country e.g. pensions, public services etc as our tax take was decimated due to it’s overreliance on property taxes and it’s only in the last couple of years that the country has run a surplus, we had been borrowing every year before that, again paying for public services.
@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere: I’ll dumb it down for you. Pay increases are nowhere near 20% for the period, not even in the public sector, but spending is 30+% more. Any pay increases over 42k the govt gets more than half back in tax. Say you get a 10% raise. The increase to net pay is a much smaller percent than 10% but you pay a much bigger percentage of it in tax. Tax credits need to be increased, bands need to be increased, thresholds need to be increased inline with inflation. They’re choking the life out of the majority of the population to increase their departmental budgets……. So you have an idea of the 2016/2019/2023 exchequer returns figures: Income tax €21B, €25.6B, €36.3B. VAT: €18.6B, €20.9B, €28.4B CT: €8.2B, €12.3B, €26.5B. Fiscal Counsel and ERSI scaremongering!!!
@another one? what’s going on is the semi state sec: My point is that if government spending has increased by 30% but inflation has also increased by 30% then government spending is really at a standstill.
Irrespective of anything else.
@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere: yeah except inflation isn’t at 30%, it’s 20%. It’s an irrelevant point when the topic is a giveaway budget when we are being taxed as if it’s still austerity times!….. In your terms, Govt budget has increased by 10+% relative to 2019 adjusted for inflation, value of my paycheck has decreased by 17%. I got a 5% raise. Worth funk all after tax. See the point!?!?!
Its ok to give BAM another contract to build something that no one asked for, just dont help out the vunerable in society.
@bruce banner: We badly need a state infrastructure company.
@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere: That’s the last thing we need if we want to control the costs. We do however need a state department/company that can draw up a detailed tender so costs can be controlled and not allow contractors to move the goalposts after the contract is signed.
As for the new bridge, surely that money could have been better spend on coastal protection schemes in this country (where the coastline is being washed away with each storm and, as we’re being told, these storms will become more frequent and stronger) rather than a vanity project between 2 somewhat rural areas.
Inflation is up over 20% since 2020. Tax bands need to be widened to reflect this. Total tax reform needed. Income tax take has increased massively since 2019, as has VAT. We’re getting bled dry. Govt budgets have increased by 30% with all this extra cash coming in people have much less disposable income. Maybe the fiscal watchdog should call out the govt wasting of money and departmental budget management and realise how Funked most peoples household budgets are with the taxation on-top of the cost of living crisis
When election nears, governments ignore economical advice to buy elections. Sadly, voters tend to be as short sighted as governments are.
Let’s face it though. You are more likely going to vote for parties offering you money etc then a party saying they intend giving you very little or even advising tax increases for services.
@AnthonyK: spot on
It’s lies
NEVER is always the answer from these people…Tell me their thoughts on the RTE Scandal!!!
Regular detached house in Navan for 600k for example.
Yes, give us more money but it still won’t be enough, even for navan
Mmm. Rings a bell.
Crash on the way
I think the watchdog outfit needs to get a pit bull.
@Oh Mammy: an ill-timed comment considering the tragedy last night!
@Clare Power: True that. However, had he said “a Mali” most people wouldn’t understand.
@ Hector turtlehead: There is no ‘regular detached house’ in Navan for 600k. There are however a number of 4 and 5 bedroom detached properties that could be considered ‘regular’ priced between 380k and 450k. Still a significant wedge but a long way from the 600k you used to try and make your point. These things can be verified so presenting false facts is not very clever. As for 600k homes, there are people who can afford them and I don’t begrudge them that. Why focus on a property one can’t afford rather than those on the market that are significantly cheaper in the same area?
Just leave it as is. Social welfare recipients are almost better off than those working on minimum wage already. Tax bands are just fine, no need to fix anything just because elections on the horizon.
have your say