Apologies have been received from Deputies Paul McGrath and Finneran. The minutes of the meeting of 4 September have been circulated and are agreed. Correspondence has been received from Mr. John Evans, an economist with the Competition Authority, about the authority's study of competition levels in the provision of non-investment banking services in Ireland. I have said that the joint committee will draft a report, arising from today's meeting and our two previous meetings, to be forwarded to the authority. I suggest that that should be our response to the authority's correspondence.
Business of Joint Committee.
Does the Competition Authority's communication mean that it is not looking at the clearance house system? The system has been mentioned as a competition issue. I have not read the authority's report. I ask this question in the context of our next witness.
The Competition Authority is specifically examining personal current accounts and loans to small and medium sized enterprises. That seems to be the focus of the authority's investigation. The payment service process is fundamental in that regard, so we can easily include it.
In the context of the work we are doing in this area, perhaps it would be appropriate to consider at some stage the direction in which we are going. In other words, we should look at what we want to do and what our objectives are.
We agreed at the last meeting that we would conclude our hearings following our meetings with the associated banks, credit unions, some building societies, money advice bureaux and the organisation we are meeting today. We agreed that we would finalise our report after our three public meetings with the various bodies to bring our consideration of the matter to an end. The report will be sent to the Competition Authority as our input to its process. We will make our own statement on the matter at that stage. We have said that we will conclude our consideration of this issue today before commencing the compilation of the report.
I accept that, but the point I am making is that although we have heard many presentations, I am no wiser. I do not know any more than the general information I had at the beginning about the disparities between the different types of bank. I would like to know about the types of banking services offered to a young person trying to set up a business, for example. It may sound stupid on my part, but my understanding of this area has not advanced. The MABS presentation was very good but we were unable to deal with the access problems encountered by people on low incomes, social welfare recipients and those with problems who have to be helped by MABS. How easy is it for such people to access the banking system? Is it costly? It will be helpful if, as public representatives, we have an opportunity to use our collective wisdom in relation to these matters so that we can mention in our report the issues we feel need to be addressed. This is needed if the report is to be useful.
We started by discussing the fact that the financial institutions were slow in passing on the ECB interest rate reductions. We have moved on somewhat. I felt there was a consensus in that regard. We did not wish to duplicate the work of the Competition Authority, which is conducting an inquiry into this area. We felt we should bring our considerations to a conclusion at some stage. We will consider Deputy Burton's suggestion in the context of the report we will prepare.
It is important to emphasise that the report will be compiled by the committee as a whole. Deputy Burton and the rest of the members of the committee will have collective authorship of the final production. It is not something that will be foisted upon us. The committee's relatively limited deliberative process, which will precede its final conclusions, is only now about to commence. Following the IPSO's engagement this morning, it is important that we start a process of reflection on what we have heard, the responses we have received to our questions and our individual inputs. I hope we will be able to conclude our considerations with a document of consensus. Some work remains to be done however.
Should we consider the possibility of a member of the committee acting as rapporteur in order to pull all the work together? It sounds like a classic project. If a member of the committee acts as rapporteur——
If some help were available——
Financial assistance is available to a rapporteur, if somebody needs to be paid to put the research together.
As we strive to reach our conclusions, perhaps one person from each party or group——
We could appoint one or two persons from each side to produce a draft to be considered by the full committee.
Yes.
Do we want to appoint a working group to put together a draft? Should we ask one person to act as rapporteur?
This comes back to the point——
That facility is there.
Are we producing a stand-alone report that concludes what we have heard and what we were concerned about at the beginning? Are we doing something at a middle level stage - making an input to the Competition Authority's study? This input could contain our observations about certain areas to which we will subsequently return, bearing in mind that the Competition Authority has more expertise than us in this area. That is what I am trying to get a picture of. Obviously Deputy Ó Caoláin has given his viewpoint.
We agreed we would do our own stand-alone report. This inquiry by the Competition Authority has only been announced since we commenced our hearings. We did not know this was going to happen. We will produce a report and lay it before the House independently. We will obviously send a copy to the Competition Authority. We are not doing this work for the Competition Authority; we were doing this before this inquiry was announced.
I know that.
I would agree to the idea of one member from each of the recognised groupings in the committee acting as a steer in preparing the first draft for the full committee.
We will conclude our discussions today. Perhaps for the next meeting we will have volunteers.
I would be happy to do some of it, but I would like some secretarial help. I would also like a steer from some people on how it is going.
Yes, that is why we might officially nominate somebody as a rapporteur who can engage somebody to do the research. Perhaps the rapporteur can have a couple of people to produce the first draft.
Chairman, on the option that Deputy Burton has sketched out, it is the narrower, smaller job that we have in mind here. We are trying to open up a review of the role of banking in Irish society. The background to this was the failure to pass on the new IFSRA, on which we have just passed legislation. There was a degree of scepticism as to whether the new IFSRA was really going to be a strong consumer watchdog. It has spun into the competition issues. It is that narrow focus that the final report should address.
I know that banking touches on every walk of life, but we do not have the capacity to look at banking for small business or banking for disadvantaged groups. It is a very big project that we do not have the scope to take on here.
I want to make it clear that I was not making a proposal that we should do that. What I was talking about was a summary of those areas which in the overview have been addressed to us. No, doing that kind of detailed work is way beyond our scope. Nonetheless, having opened the debate, the fundamental issue that everybody has put to us, one way or the other, is that our banking service is great, excellent or difficult due to inaccessibility to the market. Other groups that we have met have said that it is not: it is hard to shift accounts, it can be expensive, the prices are not always visible and so on. We could all summarise the bulk of what we have heard on the back of an——
That is part of what we will come to when we put the report together.
All right.
The next item of correspondence that has been circulated is the text of a telephone conversation to the secretariat regarding a delegation from the European Parliamentary Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, which is visiting Dublin on 25 and 26 November and would like to meet with the committee. I have suggested that we meet with them on the morning of 26 November at 10 a.m. We probably have a meeting scheduled for that morning in any event. Those who will be available to meet them for an hour before the meeting commences, out of courtesy, will agree to meet at 10 a.m. that day. That is noted. There will be proper notification in due course.
We have an invitation from Dr. Michael Boland, chairman of the board of the Office of Tobacco Control, inviting us to an autumn seminar on Thursday, 2 October, in the Westbury Hotel. This was circulated to members with a cover note on the agenda. If anybody is interested in attending to represent the committee, contact the secretariat. Every TD in the House would have received a copy of that. I have seen it a number of times.
Next item: EU scrutiny document COMREG (2003) No. 371 - a proposal for the declaration of a system for the movement of sums of money across external borders of the EU - has been referred to this committee. COMREG (2003) No. 366 - a proposal for a Council regulation amending regulations EC (EURATOM) No. 1150/2000, implementing Decision 2000/597/EC (EURATOM) on the system of the Community's own resources - will be circulated with the agenda for the next joint meeting.
A letter has been addressed to the Chairman, from Mark Duffy, of Bank of Scotland. That has been circulated. It only arrived yesterday. We will just note that as well. People should have received it in their pigeon-holes yesterday evening. That can be taken into account as part of our comments today, or when drafting reports.
The next item on the agenda is the strategic management initiative programme. I propose we defer that, as the vice-chairman had discussed that and he is not here today. We will deal with it at the next meeting.
The timetable for today's meeting has already been circulated with today's agenda. Is the format of that timetable agreed? That is agreed.
Travel proposal: it was agreed at our last meeting that the committee would be represented at the conference of public works committees of the EU in Rome on 13 and 14 of November 2003. The Clerk was asked to prepare an estimate of cost. The estimate has been circulated. The committee has approximately €12,187 remaining in its travel allocation. It has agreed to send five members. That would involve the Chairman or his representative, as well as two from the Government side and two from the Opposition. Is it agreed that this proposal conforms with our work programme? If that is agreed the business class fares will be used on this occasion as it offers us the most flexibility. Can we get agreement?
Sir, I would certainly be interested but can we find out from the Department of Finance the likely date of the Estimates?
I am sure we can.
I have not been able to get a firm date. The budget is 3 December?
I would expect that.
The Estimates might be around that period. They normally come out on the Thursday, three weeks before the budget.
We will inquire. It is the Thursday and the Friday. I am not sure what date the Estimates are produced.
The secretariat might be able to get a firm date from the Department of Finance.
Yes. Because you would like to be around if they were being issued?
If the Estimates are being published my attendance would be——
Yes, I understand.
From the Government side, Deputy Nolan and Deputy Lenihan have indicated interest. We will ask the convenors of the Opposition parties to agree the Members who wish to travel and communicate it to the secretariat in their own time. That is a matter between yourselves. Those are the travel proposals.
Next item on the agenda is a discussion with the Irish Payment Services Organisation. At this stage we will ask the representatives of the Irish Payment Services Organisation to come in and take their seats.
May I ask a very simple question? Has Sandra had any news?
No, not yet.
I would have proposed that we would have——
Congratulations.
——put pen to paper.
We will do that. We will keep in touch.
On the event, it would be appropriate, Chairman, that, on behalf of the committee, you would send our good wishes.
I am delighted that you should say that and I am delighted to do that. We will keep you informed. Thanks.