JOINT COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE debate -
Wednesday, 14 Jan 2004

Business of Joint Committee

Chairman

I welcome everyone to our first committee meeting of 2004 and we hope it will be a productive year.

The first item on the agenda is the minutes of the meeting of 10 December 2003. The draft minutes for the last meeting of the joint committee have been circulated. Are the minutes of the meeting of 10 December agreed? Agreed. Are there any matters arising from the minutes not dealt with on today's agenda? There are no further matters arising.

A number of items of correspondence have been circulated to the committee members with the notice of the agenda and subsequent correspondence. The first of these is a letter from the National Irish Bank, dated 10 December 2003, where the bank's chief executive officer requests a meeting with me as Chairman of the committee to update me on steps that have been taken by the bank to change its practices and procedures in the wake of serious allegations made against the bank in 1998. It relates to investigations into bogus non-resident accounts carried out by the Revenue special investigation units subsequent to the DIRT inquiry. They wish to meet me and I propose that the clerk and I have an informal meeting with them to hear what they have to say. It is probable that we will report back that it is more appropriate for the Public Accounts Committee to deal with this matter. I wish to meet them and I will report back on the outcome of that meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed.

A delegation of the budget and finance committee of the Latvian parliament is to visit Ireland from 23 to 27 January. The visitors have asked to meet this committee. The delegation arrives on a Friday and leaves the following Tuesday afternoon. As the delegation is large, containing approximately 15 people, an informal meeting may not be appropriate and they prefer a formal meeting. I suggest that we convene a meeting on Tuesday, 27 January at 11 a.m. and they will arrive at 11.30 a.m. If we are to meet them, it has to be on Friday, Monday or Tuesday. Perhaps Tuesday morning would be best.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

At 11 a.m.?

Chairman

At 11.30 a.m. I am sure it will take only an hour or so.

Deputy R. Bruton

Have we options?

Chairman

They will be here from Friday until Tuesday afternoon.

Deputy R. Bruton

An earlier time such as 10 a.m. suits me better.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

The only difficulty is that members who do not represent Dublin constituencies are travelling that morning. It is not feasible.

Chairman

One member from each of the groups should be present. We do not expect the full membership of the committee to attend but we will need a quorum.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I can meet Deputy Bruton halfway on that. I do not mind whether it is at 10.30 a.m. or 11 a.m.

Chairman

Let us say we will meet the Latvian delegation at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday, 27 January. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator O’Toole

Are there any structures to that meeting? I do not suggest a formal agenda but we should be creative in writing an agenda. Perhaps it would be helpful to have the clerk prepare three points so that we can have something solid rather than wonder what we shall talk about. I do not really mind what they are.

Chairman

I suggest that the delegation give us a note in advance of particular areas of interest to them.

Senator O’Toole

That is perfect.

Chairman

They might have three or four issues of interest. We met a delegation before Christmas and they had several specific questions. If we are aware of that in advance, at least we can address our comments to it. We may have issues to raise with them too.

The clerk has been informed that a delegation from the European Parliament Committee on Budgets will visit Dublin on Friday, 6 February. The visitors have requested a meeting with the Chairman and members of the committee. As the House is unlikely to sit that day, a formal meeting may be problematic. It may be more convenient for myself and other members who wish to attend to meet the delegation informally. It is likely that there will be fewer than four visitors as it is not a big group. In the circumstances, I propose some members of the committee be available to meet the delegation from the European Parliament Committee on Budgets, preferably on the morning of Friday, 6 February. It looks as if we will have many European visitors but that is up to us. I suggest that four members will be more than enough from the committee. Perhaps we will not meet formally as a committee as their group will number four at maximum. It will be a strain if we must meet every group from Europe that wishes to meet a finance committee. We will see how many further requests are made.

Deputy Nolan

Can we request that they come on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday?

Chairman

They must like coming here for the weekend.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

It is good that we are in charge and in a position to meet all of the groups. It is good for Ireland, irrespective of what is on their minds when they come.

Chairman

Can we agree that a group of the committee will meet them informally?

Deputy Ó Caolain

I wish to indicate——

Chairman

We will ask for volunteers.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

This will become a feature of the current six-month term of the EU Presidency. I will attend as many of these as possible. I do not believe that I will be able to attend on that day. The informal approach will be better.

Chairman

Fine.

Deputy Ó Caolain

I welcome that and support the proposal.

Senator O’Toole

I wish to mention a suggestion made earlier. If that many people are coming, must they always be met in Dublin?

Chairman

Is the Senator suggesting Portlaoise?

Senator O’Toole

It is a serious point. If people only ever see a capital city they do not get any feel for a country. I am not suggesting they should all be in Laois-Offaly. It is something that might be considered if the visitors' agenda takes them outside Dublin.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Cavan-Monaghan might be an ideal location.

Chairman

Yes, the Border counties. It may involve expenditure from our travel budget, but that is fine.

Senator O’Toole

Does that include internal transport?

Chairman

Yes. If we meet in Cork, for example, that comes out of the travel budget.

Senator O’Toole

Is the Chairman saying that if we have a meeting in Cork the travel expenses claim comes through this committee rather than the normal channels?

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

That will all change with the new Oireachtas Commission.

Chairman

The new Oireachtas Commission will be making these rules in future. I accept the point about the venue. Some of these groups are here to meet the Department of Finance. However, if they are here for several days they should not spend all their time in Dublin.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

What time is the meeting? I will be present.

Chairman

It will be in mid-morning. The clerk will confirm the date.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

What about the Latvian delegation?

Chairman

That meeting is at 10.30 a.m. Both those items are agreed.

The Sub-committee on EU Scrutiny has sent this committee a list of documents and proposals considered by it and the decisions taken at the meeting of 4 December. The committee has referred proposal COM (2003) 613 to this committee for further scrutiny. It has drawn our attention to COM (2003) 604 but has not recommended that we scrutinise the proposal. Negotiations on document COM (2003) 613 are expected to continue during the Irish Presidency and the proposed implementation date is 1 January 2005. Does the committee agree to scrutinise this proposal? Agreed. The clerk will ask the Department of Finance to alert the committee to any significant changes and the timetable for agreeing the proposal. We should make arrangements to obtain a paper from the Department on that document and we can then set a date for a meeting with representatives of the Department if we wish. Explanatory statements are enclosed with the document but we will ask for a summary briefing note as well.

Is it agreed that COM (2003) 604 does not warrant scrutiny by the committee? Agreed. Is it agreed that none of the other proposals considered by the sub-committee on 4 December warrants scrutiny by the committee? Agreed.

The Sub-committee on EU Scrutiny has sent the committee a list of documents and proposals considered and a decision taken at its meeting on 18 December. The sub-committee has not referred any proposals to the committee for scrutiny. Is it agreed that none of the proposals considered by sub-committee warrants scrutiny by our committee? Agreed.

A number of statutory instruments have been received. Under the orders of reference of the committee we have the power to consider such statutory instruments as may be made by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance and laid before the Houses as it may select. It should be noted that the time within which the Dáil can annul statutory instruments is usually limited by statute to 21 sitting days after the regulation is made. SI 717 of 2003 is entitled European Communities (Taxation and Savings Income in the Form of Interest Payments) Regulations 2003. The 21-day rule does not apply in this case. The regulation must be confirmed by an Act of the Oireachtas passed within six months or it will cease to have statutory effect. Is it agreed not to consider this statutory instrument, as we are not required to do so? There will be separate legislation to confirm it.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

The notification of the agenda of today's meeting indicates that copies of three separate statutory instruments SI 717, SI 718 and SI 723, the last dealing with VAT invoices and other documents, were enclosed. Have they been circulated to members?

Senator O’Toole

I have received them. The reference of matters to the committee, particularly statutory instruments and ministerial orders, always causes a problem. Why was SI 723 referred to us if it needs a positive decision of both Houses, only for us to decide not to discuss it? There is something missing there.

Chairman

It allows the committee to consider the matter and offer an opinion to both Houses.

Senator O’Toole

I am not sure what happens in the other House, but in the Seanad when these items come up people ask why we cannot have a discussion in the House. We have all agreed it should be discussed at a committee meeting, if at all. It comes back on the agenda some weeks later, after we have discussed it, on the Order of Business. It should be presented on the Order of Business in both Houses on the basis that the committee has considered this and decided it is fine and that no change is to be made.

Chairman

What the Senator is saying generally applies to various items that come before the committee. It may consider Estimates which then go back to be decided in the House, normally without debate. Statutory instruments are different, however. They are laid before the House and procedural legislation dictates that they must be confirmed within 21 days.

Senator O’Toole

That is not always the case, however. It may be rejected.

Chairman

The House can overturn it within 21 days. It is within the terms of reference of this committee to discuss it within that time and report to both Houses if we choose to do so.

Senator O’Toole

That is my point. Should we not have on record a decision that we accept the matter without change, so that we may send it back to the Houses on that basis?

Chairman

Yes. A message can go from the clerk saying we have considered the matter.

Senator O’Toole

I am not trying to be awkward. This leads to rows in both Houses; there should be clarity on the issue. I have no difficulty with what the Chairman is proposing. For example, during a recent discussion of a regulation — perhaps dealing with freedom of information, but I am not sure — Deputy Bruton made the point that perhaps some changes were required, but we could not make the changes here. The view was that the matter must be raised in the Houses, which is the correct procedure. However, the regulation came back to the House in the same form as all the others, implying there was total agreement on it, which there was not as Deputy Bruton objected to it. Is a distinction required?

Chairman

I know it is the case that in the Dáil these matters regularly come back on the agenda to be discussed without debate, but that has been agreed by the Whips or voted by the House. That is where the problem arises. The House has voted to take it without debate. It is possible for the House to vote to take it with a debate.

Senator O’Toole

I am happy to blame the Whips.

Chairman

I did not blame the Whips; I said the House could vote.

Deputy R. Bruton

I am not sure that is altogether accurate. As far as I recall there is no provision for tabling amendments.

Chairman

No.

Deputy R. Bruton

This means that if there is a difference of opinion in the committee which is not resolved there is no provision for the Dáil to debate this. This is something of a procedural problem.

Chairman

I am not an expert on this matter and I will try to obtain clarification for the future. We need to find out more.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

What is the Chairman now suggesting?

Chairman

I am making a proposal about SI 717 of 2003. I take it we are agreed that because separate legislation will be enacted within six months to deal with this statutory instrument——

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Will this accommodate full scrutiny on the floor of both Houses?

Chairman

Yes; it is normal legislation. Because of this there is no benefit in discussing this statutory instrument.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I can accept that.

Chairman

SI 718 is entitled National Development Finance Agency 2002 (Amendment of Schedule Order) 2003. This will allow the National Development Finance Agency to take some of the transport companies under its remit under this schedule. We should consider this matter. I request that we have a briefing note on the statutory instrument for the next meeting.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I propose that because both SI 718 and SI 723 should be addressed——

Chairman

I was recommending the same for SI 723. We should get a short briefing note first and have it circulated and we will address these at our next scheduled meeting. That is agreed.