Mr. Niall Cody:

As I said, sometimes in doing our work we do not have full regard to the media issue. In regard to the review of flat-rate expenses, it has been subject to significant discussions and negotiations with the relevant representative bodies. In the sectors reviewed, we did not withdraw or say we would withdraw without prior detailed negotiations with the unions involved.

That engagement took place throughout 2018. We go through a process and all the figures are teased out. It becomes a problem for the union or employees involved when it leads to a reduction or withdrawal because, following that engagement, we can show that the flat-rate expense is not wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred. That process has come in. We or the committee then get representations from unions to ask why we are doing this and stating their case, such as that they pay a lot of tax. No sector had this withdrawn without engagement with stakeholders. We fell down a little in that we should have advised earlier that we were reviewing these across the sector. I take responsibility for that. The individuals involved in carrying out the review have had substantial meetings with all the representative bodies. In a review, the representative body provides the documentation, expenditure and what those provisions are.

I have looked at some historical issues. No Revenue official gets a flat-rate expense for health and safety gear. We send people out on site visits. People working in customs and in the ports wear high-visibility clothing and helmets. People operating X-ray equipment face radiation risks. We would not ask our staff to get boots themselves. We said that we would not move until 1 January 2020. Our normal approach to controls is to look at what the largest number is and how much is involved. In this case, we have decided that it is better to do them all. If there are other categories in which people are entitled to flat-rate expenses, our door is-----