Madam, – Mark Mulqueen, (Head of Communications, Houses of the Oireachtas, September 3rd) refers to my article (Opinion, August 28th) as “speculative” when it gave the facts – the expenses system pre-March 2010 and now, as well as some background to the expenses regime for politicians.
He says I am incorrect in stating that the new system increased the amount of “unvouched expenses”. He is incorrect. Under the new system, expenses which previously had to be claimed, like turning up money and mileage expenses for country TDs, are now paid automatically based on a round figure allowance which bears no reality to any costs actually incurred. And the new public representation allowance can be vouched or unvouched.
I am not totally sure what he means when he criticises my reference to Article 15.15 of the Constitution which allows the Minister for Finance to set tax-free allowances for politicians. I argued that it makes politicians “more” equal than other citizens in the context of expenses.
Is he saying that, as anyone can stand for election and, if successful, get these generous tax-free expenses, then all citizens are “equal”? He says my argument is simplistic, but conveniently doesn’t mention that I commented that the Constitution was drawn up at a time when politicians were not as well paid as now.
Yes, the expenses regime was indeed being reviewed from 2007. But nothing had happened two years later, so it is hardly surprising accountant Tom O’Higgins resigned as chairman of the Houses of the Oireachtas Audit committee over the slow rate of reform. I don’t think it’s “speculative” to suggest that the resignation of this respected independent figure may have “speeded up” the introduction the following March of the new system, inadequate as it was in my opinion.
In The Irish Times(October 8th, 2009) a copy of Mr O'Higgins resignation letter, obtained under FOI, is printed in full. He refers to a meeting with the secretary general of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission at which he expressed his disappointment "that some of the concerns and reservations I had raised on a number of occasions in relation to the continuing issue of members' allowances and the reimbursement of expenses, without an adequate vouching scheme, had not been accepted by the Commission".
It is interesting to note that on the same day that Mr O’Higgins’s resignation letter was published, Brian Lenihan was quoted in The Irish Times saying that a new regime involving fully vouched expenditure needed to be introduced – yet the system actually introduced six months later was the opposite of what he said.
I mentioned that “extraordinary circumstances” can be claimed to justify poor attendance and that such claims are dealt with on a case by case basis. I never said that illness, bereavement or official business abroad should not be valid reasons for poor attendance, but Mr Mulqueen’s letter might be taken to imply that I did. He might have commented on why the required attendance is only 80 per cent of Dáil sitting days. Ordinary workers cannot turn up four days out of five. Or he could have commented on why there is no provision for the deduction of salary for unexplained absence.
He concludes by selectively quoting from my conclusion when I suggest there is no point in writing to TDs about the expenses regime as they clearly feel they are entitled to them. He omits my crucial point that as politicians make the expenses rules and have a clear conflict of interest, there is no point in asking them to change the system.
I suggest that it is Mr Mulqueen who is guilty of inaccuracy, selectivity and over-simplification rather than myself.
However, I do agree with him that the expenses issue is a serious one. Ordinary people are very angry and unless there is proper reform instituted by an independent body, the reputation of politicians will suffer. And it will be much harder for us ordinary mortals to accept the tough budget to come if the system is not reformed. – Yours, etc,