We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
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.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
LAST UPDATE | 25 Sep 2018
THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS Committee has dealt with confusion surrounding an annual payment of €317,000 that’s been paid to the Office of the President since 1998 that the Comptroller and Auditor General has no oversight over.
The payment is made from the central exchequer accounts and Fianna Fáil’s Marc McSharry TD this afternoon described it as “bizarre”.
Questions surrounding the payment were raised by McSharry as part of the Public Accounts Committee’s examination of the costs of the Office of the President.
The meeting heard that the presidency had direct expenditure of €3.6 million in 2016 but that this increased to €8.2 million when the cost of related items such as security and the maintenance of Áras an Úachtaráin were included.
The upkeep of Áras an Uachtaráin for the year was said to cost €2.6 million.
The payment of €317,000 was included in the above €8.2 million figure and Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) Seamus McCarthy described it as “an allowance” and not connected to the President’s €249,000-a-year salary.
McCarthy said that the amount is prescribed for in law but that the law does not dictate what it is used for.
McSharry said that he had noticed the figure while researching ahead of today’s meeting and sought clarification on behalf of PAC.
“What we have is €317,000 per year, provided for under an act. We don’t know what it’s for, it’s an allowance. We don’t know what’s purpose is for, it could be spent theoretically on anything, it mightn’t be spent at all presumably,” the deputy stated.
We want to get to the bottom of the procedures but what we do know is that the Secretary General of the Department of An Taoiseach doesn’t know, the C&AG is not responsible and doesn’t know and the Department of Finance Secretary General doesn’t know, according to yourself C&AG, or doesn’t have a role in auditing that money.
Martin Fraser, Secretary General of the Department of An Taoiseach and the Accounting Officer to the Office of the President said that he was equally unaware what it was used for.
“I don’t know, but I presume there’s procedures in Áras an Úachtaráin for dealing with it,” Fraser said.
When details of the act governing the payment were confirmed in the committee, Fine Gael TD Alan Farrell searched for the relevant law and found that it related to a pension scheme and was introduced in 1998.
“That’s here and it relates to pensions, I don’t understand why we’re confused as to what it is. I’m just offering it for information because I was confused as well,” Farrell stated.
A spokesperson for the Office of the President said this afternoon that the allowance has been available to each of Ireland’s nine presidents
“The allowance payable from central fund referred to is provided for in the Presidential Establishment Act 1938 and has been available to all Presidents in the last 80 years. The amount has not changed since 1998,” the spokesperson said.
This allowance is used to meet additional costs not covered elsewhere in the President’s Vote, for instance costs related to hospitality for the 20,000 people that visit Áras an Uachtaráin each year, State Dinners for visiting Heads of State and for the hundreds of events hosted by the President at Áras an Uachtaráin each year.
Costs
The timing of the meeting, coming as it does a day before nominations for the presidency close, was described as “unfortunate” by Social Democrats TD Catherine Murphy and was criticised by other members.
Despite this, Murphy asked Fraser about the fact that the Office of the President does not come under Freedom of Information legislation.
Fraser said that this was due to both policy and constitutional reasons.
Article 13.8.1 of the Constitution prevents the President from being “answerable to either House of the Oireachtas or to any court” and Fraser said that because FOI requests are enforced by the courts it would be unconstitutional to include the presidency in FOI legislation.
Fraser was also questioned about the fact that an internal audit committee which looks at presidential expenses did not meet until February this year despite being set up in 2014.
The civil servant said that this was due to the chairman of that committee being “indisposed” due to personal reasons and that he took the decision not to proceed with the committee’s work without him.
Instead, Fraser said that he relied on the annual report of the C&AG.
Fraser agreed this situation was “sub-optimal” and said that the audit committee has now met three times since February with a new chairman was in place.
Amid a testy exchange with Independent TD Catherine Connolly who sought the exact dates of when the audit committee had met, Connolly asked Fraser: “I don’t know why you’re throwing your eyes up to heaven?”.
Fraser responded that he was in fact wincing due to a broken elbow and pointed to his left arm which was in a sling.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
That’s so sad. Fair play to the volunteers.
Misuse of alcohol is a scourge. Misuse of alcohol in a closed environment causes awful domestic tensions.
The long term traumatic impact on children is greatly underestimated and under appreciated.
It is indeed underestimated. . It never leaves you .. from childhood right up to adulthood. It stays with you forever and I wish parents were more aware of that. Never stay for the kids sake .. the kids are better off away from the situation .. no child should have to ring childline. Shame on the parents !
Very true. A lot more collateral damage than any other drug.
I grew up in that very household, it has had a life long affect on me. I rarely drink and can count the amount of times I’ve been drunk in the last 18 years on my two hands (less than once a year and even then I stayed at a friends house) I don’t believe kids should see their parents drunk. And don’t get me started on single parents who get drunk and are home alone with the kids. How are they supposed to protect their kids in the event of a medical emergency or house fire?
When I met my husband at 17 and I had our first child at 19 I told him he couldn’t move in with me if he ever intended on coming home drunk. He moved in when she was 2, if he intended on getting drunk he stayed at a mates house. In her 17 years she has only seen her dad drunk once and that was a couple of years ago.
People thought I was mad putting those restrictions on him, but I had my reasons.
I don’t mind having a drink or two around the kids, but getting drunk is a No no. It teaches the kids to respect alcohol and only consume it in moderation.
Very good post. I did not drink alcohol until my mid thirties. I control it and enjoy it moderately. It never controls me and am glad it doesn’t.
Truly well done to the volunteers. What a wonderful thing to do.
The average calls a day to childline in 2015 was 400. It’s a damn shame this is the effect Christmas has on our nation. I even find those with the money to afford a good Christmas get too caught up in the competitive consumerism of spending on useless garbage that doesn’t live past January.
@Kevin Higgins: good point about competitive consumerism.
I think often people get into far worse conditions when drinking at home than in pubs. Societal constraints don’t exist there by comparison and lines get blurred in more ways than one. You can get drunk and go upstairs to bed. Due to a nasty viral gastro infection none of us in this house are drinking this Christmas and it’s very nice so far.
have your say