I return to the issue of tax reliefs and allowances and what the Taoiseach has stated is a deferral of the withdrawal of a tax allowance and how the policy will be implemented after 21 January 2020. While it represents a kicking of the can down the road, it still does not address the key issue for thousands of workers. One major sector of the 130 being reviewed is Tara Mines in my home town of Navan, where 700 miners are set to lose the allowance. The allowance was designed to cover specialised creams and treatments. It is a genuine allowance for workers working in very difficult and stifling underground conditions. It is hardly archaic, as I have heard some suggest in the last 24 hours. It has been in place for 40 years and helps to mitigate the harsh impact on the workers. The Taoiseach has suggested they can become vouched expenses, but it is frustrating that it will mean another layer of bureaucracy to receive a small amount of money. I spoke directly to Revenue about the matter and the review of the allowances claimed by those working in the mine has been completed. Notwithstanding the deferral of implementation, is the communication detailing the breakdown of qualifying expenses still going be issued to workers this year, or will it too be deferred as it seems to fall into the bad news category?

The review is being carried out by the Revenue Commissioners. It has not yet gone to the Government and no Government decision has been made on it. I am not happy about how it transpired in the last couple of days because it has caused enormous, unnecessary concern for people who fear they may be losing their flat rate allowance for expenses. It appears as if it is something for which the Government has looked, which is not the case. As I said, the review is being carried out by the Revenue Commissioners. No changes will be implemented before 1 January 2020, if at all. I will make sure changes are politically proofed before they happen.

What is the position on qualifying expenses?

When one looks through the list of flat rate allowances for expenses, it is clear that a review is necessary. There are all sorts of anomalies within it. A male cardiac technician receives a different flat rate allowance for expenses than a female cardiac technician, for example. Someone who works for CIÉ on a bus or a train receives a flat rate allowance, while someone who works on a bus for a different operator does not. It is full of anomalies and a review is necessary, but it should be carried out properly and politically proofed.