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

Policy of Commercial Banks Customer Charges and Interest Rates.

Chairman

The next item on our agenda is the draft report on the policy of commercial banks regarding customer charges and interest rates, which has been circulated. The first draft contains an introduction and summary of the evidence given to the committee during the meetings held in July and September 2003.

If members wish to suggest amendments I propose that they be submitted in writing to the clerk before the next meeting, at which we will consider the report in more detail. We will consider the amendments and agree the elements of the report at the same meeting. An overall view of the committee will be prepared.

The purpose of today's meeting is to take the views of the committee. All we have provided in the report so far is a summary of the evidence given by the ten groups who visited the committee. The clerk will then proceed to prepare a draft report of our review and conclusions and summary for the next meeting. None of that is in front of us today.

Perhaps when the clerk has drawn up a draft, a representative of each of the groups on the committee could meet informally to try to reach an agreement so that at our next meeting the committee will be in a position to finalise the report.

Deputy R. Bruton

I would like to make a few comments about the direction we should take. The procedure the Chairman is proposing seems a sensible one. There has not been a history of pro-consumer legislation in the banking area. It is only with the recent IFSRA legislation that for the first time we are seeing any serious attempt to address consumer issues. We are at something of a formative stage in this and it is right that the committee should have an input.

I must repeat a concern I expressed before that in IFSRA we have attempted to combine the prudential regulation of banks with consumer protection. Virtually no other country has sought to put those into the same institution in the way we have, albeit that we have tried to give them some independence. That is not just an academic issue. To protect prudentially is to encourage high profit margins and quite high charges by banks because there is no risk.

If one wants to promote vigorous competition one is looking at very different things. One wants low profit margins, highly contested markets and consumers getting a good deal. I remain concerned that IFSRA is trying to look in two directions and that when it comes to the test of consumer protection it will always err on the conservative side and the consumer will tend to lose out to banking interests. We should note at least in our summaries that there is a difference of opinion as to whether the way we have gone is the right way.

One of the substantive points that came out of the evidence is that the National Competitiveness Council, from which we did not hear in evidence, has published evidence to suggest that the spreads between lending rates and deposit rates are exceptionally large in Ireland and 35% higher than the European average of quoted countries. In other words, banks are taking much more substantial margins in Ireland than elsewhere. The banks in their evidence have disputed that. We need to recommend that some clarity be obtained by an independent group in regard to spreads and whether we are uncompetitive, as the National Competitiveness Council would tell us, or whether, as the banks claim, we are competitive.

There is no disputing that the banks in Ireland have had much higher profitability than in the UK, for instance, and they have performed extremely well. That is not necessarily evidence of a rip-off and could be a result of high efficiency. However, we should express serious concern that over the last two or three years, when the ECB rate has come down, the cuts in the interest rate, which were of the order of 2% or more, were passed on to mortgage holders and big business but not to personal borrowers or small business. It is very clear that the mortgage business is much more contested and competitive and that big business can go anywhere, making that area very competitive. There is a concern that it is the small punter, the personal borrower or small business borrower, who is left to carry the can.

The evidence is that in the last two years the banks have tightened the screw on those two categories of borrowers. The Competition Authority is looking into this but we should seek to make some recommendations to protect the small and personal borrowers and should seek explanations whenever banks fail to treat different categories of borrowers equitably.

Another issue that came up very clearly, apart from this fear that small people are being ripped off, is the inability of ordinary people to shop around. We should make very clear recommendations on changing those rules. For instance, there is no code of practice that obliges banks to facilitate a customer moving an account from one bank to another, whereas in the UK codes of practice have been worked out to facilitate this. A lot of drag is possible, for instance in regard to direct debit arrangements. There should be automatic rules that those direct debits be set up immediately on request. That should be an obligation of the banks. We need to recommend a code of practice to facilitate quick and easy transfer.

We also need to recommend that the State look to its role in this regard. Take the recent increase in stamp duty on credit cards. They are set up in such a way that if one shops around one pays the stamp duty twice. That is wrong. It is discouraging shopping around and putting an obstacle in the way of people. We should recommend that this be changed in the forthcoming Finance Act.

Similarly, in regard to mortgages, one has to pay separate and fresh stamp duty if one shops around and moves one's mortgage business. We should recommend that the Finance Act change the rules so that one does not pay stamp duty just for moving one's account. We should look seriously at getting the Department of Finance to respond to such a proposal.

I also have other concerns about the mobility issue and right of consumers to choose. We have large institutions who have a big corner of the market. This gives them the opportunity, as IFSRA said, to bundle up products and have captive selling of products. I know of cases where financial institutions are handling other business such as insurance. They are not even providing renewal notices to those who are insured through the financial institution so that they can shop around. I know of a case where, because the financial institution was handling the insurance business, the customers were actually paying three times the premium they could have if they had shopped around. They were not being notified on a regular basis that this cover was being provided and what the cost and terms were.

We should seek rules that prevent captive selling by banks to their own customer and oblige them to issue renewal notices so that people can shop around. We should be looking for rules applying to the banking sector that would enforce this.

The banks raised the point that we are the only country that regulates bank charges, and they said that this is creating efficiency and cross-subsidisation. It is one of the few areas where consumers have protection in Ireland and we should recommend that this remain intact. If experience proves down the road that there are a lot of changes happening that are achieving consumer protection we might then reconsider this issue. We should retain the obligation on banks to get permission to increase charges because that protects the consumer.

We heard conflicting evidence from various banks about the clearing system. The Bank of Scotland described it as a cosy cartel and others defended their positions. The evidence seemed to suggest that it was not a cosy cartel and that was an unfair portrayal of the system. Nonetheless, there was very poor transparency on what exactly constituted the entry requirements and the obligations of people who wanted to join the club. We should look to IFSRA to have more transparency on the rules of entry and engagement, and fair procedures, and at the possibility that it become more involved in managing this rather than leaving it to a private sector body on which it is represented. I would not make a categorical recommendation on that but I would say categorically that the rules of engagement and operation should be transparent and subject to regulation by IFSRA, rather than being a private agreement by a board on which IFSRA has one representative. It should be clearly and openly approved by IFSRA as an independent regulator. They are my main recommendations.

We should be recommending immediate action in some of these areas rather than waiting for yet another Competition Authority study of personal and small business banking. We should make immediate recommendations on the transparency of the clearing system, the codes of practice to facilitate consumers in shopping around, the stamp duties on credit cards and mortgages, and the obligation to pass on cuts in interest rates in an equitable way across the range of borrowers. We should not echo the Competition Authority which seems to say that it will not take any action on these until another study is complete. The other study is justified but it should be conducted after something is done and we can then focus the study on fresh issues, having taken some serious action to protect consumers.

Chairman

The Deputy's comments are very helpful.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

May I clarify the Chairman's proposal as to how we proceed? This is a cursory discussion but the Chairman is inviting us to make a written submission——

Chairman

Allow me to explain. Members have received a summary of the ten presentations we received, which I hope are reasonably accurate. If a member thinks that some of these do not reflect a presentation as the member might feel it should, he or she can contact the clerk who will correct that. The key element is the report which is the background to our overall recommendations and conclusions. We are starting today with a blank sheet. The clerk and I wanted to hear members' views. As a result of today's meeting the clerk will prepare a draft taking into account what everyone says here today. Then I suggest that a member from each of the groups meet in a week or so, whenever the clerk has put it together so that we can get some consensus. At the next meeting hopefully it will be clarified.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Thank you. I have some suggestions on our approach to our recommendations and, while it is to be hoped that we will reach a consensus, it may be that there will be elements which will constitute a minority report. We should not rule that out because there are important points that each of us may wish to see reflected there and on which there may not be unanimity. That should not require exclusion. We want to have the most inclusive report possible.

Proper examination of the issue of Government control of intervention in the area of bank charges is very important. I have no doubt that most of our citizens would empathise with this. Proposals in this regard are repeatedly dismissed as either ineffective, based on whatever other experiences there may be, or not in line with EU directives, and are almost in breach of EU rules. As a committee we should be recommending serious examination of this option, outlining as well what proposals might be considered to overcome whatever obstacles, if any, there are to moving in that direction.

I do not need to recite all the examples of the incredible raft of charges to which bank customers are currently subjected. For the issue of every document from cheque withdrawal, direct debit, standing order or lodgment a fee calculation applies. There is also the incredible situation whereby reviews and renewals of overdrafts which can be three or six monthly, or if one is lucky, annual, also attract a further charge in addition to the interest and fees one pays for each negotiable instrument or bank transaction that one initiates. These charges vary. For example a flat charge of €200 might be applied merely for having one's overdraft facility renewed. When one is issued with the documentation to sign, of which one keeps one copy and returns the other to the bank, one is signing an agreement to initiate an immediate debit from one's account. Most people are left in the invidious position that because they need the overdraft facility to function properly in terms of their financial requirements, they feel they are not in a position to challenge, or feel inhibited about challenging, such arbitrary charges. That is the reality. Arbitrary charges are being applied across the board in a cartel-like fashion which is absolutely unacceptable.

There has been a small think-tank operating in the head offices of the major financial institutions over the years looking at new ways of further taking from bank customers and these are replicated in each of the banks. There is no real competition and that is the major problem customers face which needs to be addressed. It is incumbent on this committee to look seriously at what interventions can be organised and not to just dismiss it as unworkable or impossible because the European Union says no. Let us try to get the European Union to change and say yes because until such time as this is properly addressed this situation will continue. That is at the heart of the problems people face in their business dealings with financial institutions.

There are also excessive charges on credit cards, a fact which was identified in the course of the submissions. It is a real problem and must be addressed because Irish customers are being penalised for being Irish customers. We saw the comparative figures that apply in these islands and across the European Union. At almost every turn Irish citizens are being further penalised in an increasingly expensive economy or market and this puts us into the top league in terms of EU comparative figures. The excessive charges on credit cards, an ever-growing and popular means of doing one's business, are crippling individuals and families. This needs to be seriously addressed.

Increased powers for the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority need to be reflected on. The Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Coghlan, and her Department should be encouraged to increase the powers of the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, support and expand its role. In the submissions we received, it was interesting to note the level of interest in MABS contribution. To many, its importance was dissipated in the minds of some in comparison with the submissions from the major banking institutions. When we heard the submission from MABS, the room almost emptied. MABS is important in terms of the crucial back-up it gives to the sector it supports. It is important that we have a rounded and holistic view of all the areas that need to be addressed. I lay as strong an emphasis on the MABS as I do on the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority. They all need to be recognised as important players in assisting people to make ends meet.

I agree with the Consumers' Association of Ireland recommendation that the Director of Consumer Protection should have the power to request the removal of a financial product that is found to be unfair or unbalanced within the overall financial market. There have been examples of these products and the committee questioned those invited to make submissions on particular products that were introduced in the banking sector and the building societies, etc. Extensive public concern has been expressed about some of these products in recent years. In recognising the inequities inherent in some of the products that have been or may be introduced, the Director of Consumer Protection should be given the power to demand their withdrawal from the market.

Recognising the very successful sector that the banking and financial sector is in this jurisdiction, the Minister for Finance imposed a banking levy in budget 2003. It seems to have disconcerted banking institutions. However, with profits of €1 billion per annum, rather than the levy ending in its third year it should be continued and extended. The money secured from this should be ring-fenced into particular areas such as the disability sector, social housing or the provision of special needs education. We should say to the banking sector, with such colossal profits, that there is a social dimension to all of this. Very importantly, this levy should be continued and ring-fenced for areas that will be able to make valued use of it.

I concur with Deputy Richard Bruton that interest rate cuts should apply to all loan and borrowing products, not just to mortgages, as has been the case. The mortgage sector is an important element in the overall lending business conducted by these institutions However, the reality is that, in the majority of cases, the mortgage business is the small end of the banking sector's product range. The reduction in interest rates, arising from a Eurozone drop, needs to be across the board. The greater number of people have gone beyond having a mortgage. Sadly, in this economy, many are not able to reach a mortgage situation in their lifetime. They all need to be able to benefit from a reduction in interests rates.

There should a guaranteed 24-hour processing of all cheques, withdrawals, standing orders, direct debits, lodgments, credit transfers and other financial instruments. It is absurd and outrageous that one can get a Lotto ticket at 7.40 p.m. which is recorded in the system and qualifies for that night's draw. However, when one presents a cheque or another negotiable instrument, it takes several days for the banks to process. These are institutions with vast profits and the most up-to-date information technology systems, yet they cannot credit an account with a negotiable instrument for several days. To call a spade a spade, the banks are not being honest with people when they say that it takes days to process these. It does not, it should not and it is not acceptable. Within 24 hours, all of these instruments should be put through the accounts of various customers. That is allied to Deputy Richard Bruton's point on the clearing houses and their reform is a requirement.

There should be legislative provision, if necessary, to facilitate the transfer of business requests. If one wishes to move business from one banking institution to another, there is not the level of accommodation and facilitation that some of those institutions, which made submissions, claim. In the experience of ordinary banking customers, the reality is that if one seeks to transfer business, there are a whole range of obstacles and difficulties presented. One may wish to make the change because one is attracted to the competitiveness of another banking institution or one may simply have fallen out with one's branch manager. Whatever the reason, one has the right to transfer business from one banking institution to another. They must be prepared to facilitate that in a willing way. That is a necessity. If legislation is required to enforce that, then it should be considered.

Deputy Burton

I wish everyone a happy new year. I apologise for being late but I thought the committee was sitting in the Dáil chamber.

This report should concentrate on what we set out to do originally, which was to reflect the concern about bank charges to customers and to ensure that interest rate reductions be passed on expeditiously. We met an eclectic set of people from the different arms of the banking industry. A number of other issues arose which were very interesting, and possibly important, but not central to the first one.

Regarding bank charges, interest rates and the charges for a range of financial services, whether for personal account cheques, credit cards or whatever, there are a number of important points from a Dáil point of view. The first is the quality of the regulation. The new regulatory structure now in place is obviously learning, as it were, and seeking to be customer friendly. The best one can do for customers of financial institutions is to give them as much information as possible when they are carrying out transactions, and on a timely basis thereafter. If they are getting a rough deal from their institution, or the product they are buying is unsatisfactory, they are then in a position to make informed choices. That is the primary issue. In the report, we need to address the question of whether there is sufficient information accessible, particularly to people who might not have a lot of financial expertise, and whether it is available in a timely fashion, and if the quality of information facilitates levels of competition between different products and enables industrial and commercial customers, as well as the individual, to make a choice which allows them to get the best service at the cheapest cost. It is our job to go for whatever facilitates that — for information, accountability and the clear publication of costs.

Whenever a financial product is advertised, there should be an indication of the cost elements involved, and the true rate of interest, i.e. APR. That is particularly important for credit cards. People need to know as much as possible about the interest rates attached to them. They need particular information about store credit cards, for example, where interest rates can vary enormously, tied in to the price at which a product is sold. In any recommendation, we should be pushing for information to be given on store cards, loyalty and credit cards in as much clear detail as possible. It should be obligatory to state clearly the changing rate of interest attached to those products in the event of someone borrowing by means of them.

Regarding house loans and interest rates, the financial institutions, particularly the EBS in its presentation, said that obviously they had to balance the interests of the lenders, in effect their savers, against those of the borrowers. When the European Central Bank lowers interest rates, there ought to be a protocol worked out, either through the Department of Finance but probably more appropriately through the Financial Services Regulatory Authority, about how and when rate cuts should be passed on, so that if the rate cut cannot be passed on immediately because of technical problems, it can be passed on over a period of time. From an information technology aspect that is relatively easy to do. We should consider asking the Financial Services Regulatory Authority to address that issue so that people would be confident of getting the benefit of any lower interest rate decided on by the ECB. People should be guaranteed such benefits, whether they get them immediately or whether passed on to them over two or three months.

The Bank of Scotland (Ireland) presentation set out its stall as the new kid on the block. The bank's managing director said that he saw himself as something like the Michael O'Leary of Irish banking. The bank made a very graphic presentation. I do not know if as yet we have looked satisfactorily at the clearing house structure. There are a number of points we can extract. In any market — and the banking service is a market — it ought to be possible to swap and change without undue penalties. That is essential if one is talking about a free market. On the other hand, the Bank of Scotland (Ireland) appears to be targeting a particular segment of the market, namely high value accounts, as distinct from ordinary customers. We need to be clear that in the presentations made to us, different vested interests were involved. We must look at the broad picture.

One important issue which emerged was the question of moving to electronic payments. The IPSO made quite a strong case that we are lagging behind in this movement. That is one of the reasons for the high costs of certain financial transactions. Clearly, Government Departments have a major role to play in this area because currently they are probably the biggest writers of cheques. Mobile phone technology and other technology is developing, not just in terms of on-line banking, but in allowing people to access banking services through their mobile phones. The Department of Finance should be proactive in helping this economy to become more electronic in relation to banking. We have lagged behind. Given that in terms of job creation we put such a focus in this country on IT, we should address the issue.

Another issue may be appropriate to consider in this post-Christmas period. Many people are facing the results of pre-Christmas splurges, with credit card and store debts rolling in. From the presentations made by St. Canice's Credit Union and by Liam Edwards and the MABS team, it is obvious that this economy, like most western economies, is now floating on a sea of debt, which is generating consumer spending, which in turn is generating and maintaining high levels of economic activity. However, people are falling through the nets, and the financial institutions are not sufficiently responsible.

As an accountant, I have often visited the financial institutions on behalf of people. At times, the kind of debt accumulated by people is staggering, often involving consumer goods which last for a very short time, such as designer clothes. People end up thousands of euro in debt and very often families and their stability are threatened by the kind of credit card debt people incur because they are encouraged to spend. We should make a strong recommendation for the MABS system to be extended, but the banks too have a role to play. They might either link into or endorse the MABS system, which to some extent they do. If one sends someone to MABS, and the financial institutions or credit card companies get a phone call, that is an indication that a person who is over his or her head in debt is trying to deal with it. I am not sure that this is enough. The response of different financial institutions to people who fail to pay their credit card bills or other kind of debt is staggeringly diverse. There are financial institutions in Dublin that charge penalties which leave businesses and families on the road to ruin if they fall behind with mortgage payments. There is no code of practice in this area and we should call for one in our report.

Much of the excess debt is generated by the banks throwing money at individual customers or businesses. The rainy day then arrives, interest rates go up and, like Shylock in The Merchant of Venice, the banks look for their money and, by God, some of them want their pound of flesh. The penalties charged by some institutions for non-fulfilment of financial contracts are outrageous. We did not investigate it but the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority should address the issue.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I do not agree with much that was said. I listened to the presentations made by the major banking groups on the day and, in fairness, Irish banks deliver a very good service. In recent times we have seen adverse reports in the media about their profits margins compared to other banks but they are vulnerable to take-overs in spite of those huge profits, which are often not related to the scale of the business. We should, therefore, be more prudent in our judgment.

We have gone regulation mad, and the IFSRA is everywhere. We talk about deregulation but all sectors of society are over-regulated. If we do not pull back there will be no banking system, similar to the situation in New Zealand.

I thought Deputy Richard Bruton would have a greater understanding of financial matters when he talked about deposits and lending. Deposits have always received less interest than that payable on loans because banks must have a profit margin. Banks do not want deposits now because they can buy money on the market more cheaply. In this State, the western sea board was a deposit area while the eastern sea board was the lending area, as it was more productive. Much of that came to light in the tribunals, where banks in the west had large amounts of money on deposit. We can exaggerate the problems and criticise the system as much as we like but bank charges are good value for money.

Deputy Burton, however, made many points with which I agree. Store cards are outside the regulations to a degree and we should examine this area. Credit charges are also outside the banking sphere and they should be regulated. People are often unable to meet their commitments on a monthly basis. Those charges are much higher than the bank rates.

I support MABS and the work it does for those on the margins. It is a great service that should be expanded, not contracted. There are difficulties now but they should be sorted out to enable MABS to return to its previous level of business.

People should pay for a service. I pay €100 per annum for my credit card and that is the best value I can find. The banks give us a good service in this area. The two major institutions in the State, AIB Bank and Bank of Ireland, have almost a million customers each and serve all parts of the island. Problems with changing from one bank to another have been exaggerated. If the bank is paid what it is owed, it will hand over the documents if they are available, although securities may take time to arrive from the securities department. There is no real difficulty in the area.

We can bash the banks because it is popular politically and wins a few cheap votes. If we continue in this manner, however, the banking system will deteriorate instead of becoming a model. IFSRA has been running after the financial institutions and I criticise them for that. There must be some discretion but regulation does not solve anything. Over-regulation makes things even worse and leads to greater costs for the banks and the customer.

We are inclined to criticise our banks but the stock market returns show that the shares of the two major banks have not been very productive because they do not have a margin, although they are now much higher than a year ago. If we continue down this road, there will be no banking service in the State and outside banks will take over our banks, leaving people much worse off.

Deputy Nolan

We should acknowledge the role of the banks in business and social life. They have invested huge amounts in IT in the last ten years and now have a system that compares favourably with any other in the world.

I would like to see customer charges and interest rates referred to in the report, particularly the substantial rates charged on credit cards. It is timely that we should be talking about this issue immediately after Christmas, when many families have large credit card bills that they will not be able to pay off in full within the timeframe that would avoid interest.

The banks also have an obligation to ensure that credit card fraud does not take place. Internationally, there is a huge market in stolen and counterfeit credit cards. The banks have a duty to improve verification systems to ensure the level of fraud is reduced.

Banks should be only allowed to charge the surcharges on credit card balances for a short period, such as two months, and then they would be obliged to transfer the balance to a loan or overdraft for those hard-pressed individuals who would otherwise pay off the outstanding balance. They should not have to pay surcharges of 20% to 25% on credit cards. Will we be able to make written submissions on these issues?

Senator White

I do not have the same benign view of the banks as Deputy Ned O'Keeffe. They give out umbrellas when it is sunny and take them back when it is wet. We do, however, need them to keep the economy moving.

I completely agree with Deputy Burton about people getting into debt through credit card borrowing. I am part of an institution that exists to help those who cannot do everything right with the banks, as Deputy Ned O'Keeffe does. That is fine if everything is going well and a person can handle the situation. Everybody knows what I mean. The British Broadcasting Company in its business programmes during the Christmas period told the British people to bring cash, not the credit cards, to the sales. The chief executive of Barclays Bank, an Irishman from County Meath, said he would not use his credit card.

I agree with Deputy Nolan that credit card charges are extremely high. Members know that if they do not pay a credit card bill in full on time, it attracts interest at the rate of 20%, but some people need to be told that. A core group of people get themselves into dire circumstance with credit card debt and need to be educated about it. I was very impressed that in a business programme and not a special documentary the BBC believed it should tell the British people to tear up the credit cards. I am talking from——

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

If you work within the guidelines, there will be no problem.

Senator White

From Deputy O'Keeffe's viewpoint, certain people should not be given a credit card.

I do not want to labour the point, but members have a role in communicating with the people and, as I see it, we should suggest to RTE that with vision and imagination it should produce programmes on practical skills for managing money. At this minute, some people are in desperate need because of what they spent on the credit card during the Christmas period. As I said during the first committee meeting, we should have procedures for communicating the work of the committee to the Irish people. I feel very strongly on this point.

Deputy Twomey

Members have contributed to the discussions on bank charges and interest rates and have said that when the committee is drawing up its report it should consider what action is possible on legislative proposals to restrict borrowing or bank charges. Is that within our remit? We should look at the consequences of our recommendations and the possible outcome of our actions. On the point made by Senator White, we have learned that informing people does not always work; sometimes we need to legislate. What role have we in recommending legislation?

Bank charges have been an issue for years. The interest rate on normal loans is 5% to 6% higher than the mortgage rate. The banks are obviously making money as otherwise they would not be giving mortgages. The interest rate on credit cards is 8% to 9% above the mortgage rate. The banks have massive profit margins on credit cards, but can we recommend substantive action that will have consequences for the banks and financial services providers? The rights of both customers and the banks are important.

Chairman

We will conclude our discussion on this topic. We have a wide cross-section of views and the clerk will prepare a draft report which will be circulated and then at least one member from each of the groups will meet informally to refine the draft before it comes before the committee. We will deal with the format of the report and such issues as consensus when the first draft is discussed.

I propose the committee should meet next Wednesday, 21 January at 3 p.m. to consider our draft report for 2003, which summarises what we concluded, as we want to lay a report before the Houses of the Oireachtas, and to discuss our work programme for 2004. We should start putting down the points we want to consider for our work programme as early as possible.

I propose also that we meet on Wednesday, 28 January when the chairman of the Irish Pension Reserve Fund comes before the committee. Given the value of the fund and its importance to the economy, it is important that we meet the chairman and I hope he will have provisional figures for the fund at the end of 2003. I think it would be helpful to hear how the fund is performing.

I have mentioned already the arrangements for the Latvian delegation, whom we will meet at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday, 27 January 2004. Is that agreed?

Mr. N. O’Keeffe

Are we meeting the Bank of Scotland?

Chairman

An individual letter was sent to each Deputy and Senator inviting him or her to a presentation on 29 January in the Merrion Hotel. Every member is free to attend and I will probably attend. I understand from the correspondence that we are one of the groups invited together with the media and others.

Deputy Burton

What time?

Chairman

The meeting is scheduled for 12 noon to 1.30 p.m. in the Wellesley Room of the Merrion Hotel. Light lunch will be provided.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

We should not have meetings on Dáil sitting days. The dual mandate has now gone and we should be more relaxed to meet on a Friday or a Monday evening to discuss matters. If one is not here, one is neglecting the plenary sessions, constituency work and so forth. Wednesday is a very busy day. I do not know why we cannot be accommodated on a Monday or Friday. The idea of abolishing the dual mandate was to give space and more time to legislation. The Finance Bill will be discussed very shortly. When will that be?

Chairman

We think it might be 24 to 26 February, but that is not definite.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

We should consider having our meetings on Mondays and Fridays, not on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays because we are not doing justice to anything. We are not being fair to this committee.

Chairman

We will begin the discussion on our work programme at our next meeting and we will discuss the timing of the meeting. The meeting has been set after a great deal of toing and froing and we selected the time convenient to most members. If this is to be changed in 2004, it is a matter for the the committee members as nobody is telling us when to meet.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I do not want to be in conflict with the Chairman. My point is that the dual mandate was abolished. We are running around from meetings to the Dáil and to our offices and we are not doing justice to anything. We are not giving the time here we should.

Chairman

That is a fair point which we will discuss.

Deputy Finneran

I support Deputy Ned O'Keeffe regarding Monday evening or Friday morning meetings.

Chairman

The arrangements for meetings are as follows: we will meet next Wednesday, 21 January and on Wednesday, 28 January we will meet with the Irish Pension Reserve Board; on Tuesday, 27 January we will meet the Latvian delegation at 10.30 a.m. Is it agreed that we meet at 3 p.m. on Wednesday next? The Dáil will not be in full session but there will be a special debate in the Chamber.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

It will be on Wednesday 21 January at 3 p.m. I do not have the schedule for that day but I know I am participating.

Chairman

It is taking place on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of next week.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I am participating in the statements in the House on Wednesday. I do not know how my schedule will work in terms of the committee, but I am anxious to be here. I acknowledge there are some merits in what Deputy Ned O'Keeffe is asking us to consider.

Chairman

For now we will decide on 3 p.m. so that Deputy Ó Caoláin will be able to work around his speaking time in the Dáil. He will do his best to be here.

The joint committee adjourned at 1 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 21 January 2004.