The draft minutes of the meeting of 21 April 2004 have been circulated. Are there matters arising?
Business of Joint Committee.
Chairman, how did you arrive at a position regarding the issue of the settlement with the Revenue Commissioners? At a previous meeting, the committee unanimously agreed it would seek a meeting with the Revenue Commissioners. While I missed the last meeting, I do not want to re-hash what was discussed at it. However, I record my dissatisfaction at the way in which this matter was dealt with. All the committee has done is pass messages from the offices of the Revenue Commissioners or the Ombudsman to the individual concerned. This was not why I raised the issue at the meeting. I wanted to find out how the decision was reached, whether a Dutch auction took place between Revenue and the Ombudsman and why the individual concerned, who was the first to raise the issue, was not consulted.
The minutes state it is not within the remit of the committee to investigate individual cases. However, it happens that this is the only case of its kind, which I discovered when the Revenue Commissioners were before the committee some time ago. Despite this, it is the principle of the case which concerns me. While it is fine if members want to allow the Revenue Commissioners not to meet us, this should not be the case. We have asked for a meeting and should pursue it. Justice and fair play have not been done in this case, which was the strong view of committee members at the meeting before last, at which this matter was raised.
I ask that members do not refer to the individual by name as we are in public session. While I do not have the details of previous meetings before me, we contacted the office of the Ombudsman earlier this year. Its senior investigator spoke to me and to the clerk of the committee and sent a detailed letter to the committee explaining the background to the case. I spoke with the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners in regard to the case and he was fully satisfied the final agreement was made with the agreement of the individual taxpayer concerned.
The outgoing Ombudsman dealt with the case but it has also been reviewed by the current Ombudsman, Ms Emily O'Reilly, who was satisfied there was full consultation with the taxpayer. The Ombudsman's office is emphatic that it intervened on behalf of the individual taxpayer to ensure that a cheque of approximately €300,000 issued expeditiously, and this was done within nine days, specifically on behalf of and at the request of the taxpayer.
What the taxpayer does not seem to understand is that the office of the Ombudsman made a specific recommendation to the Revenue Commissioners that a payment of €600,000 should be made. It is important to note the Ombudsman has no legal power over the Revenue Commissioners but can only make recommendations. The Ombudsman holds that the strength of its office derives from this lack of legal power and that if it had legal power, it would be forced to go to court in many contentious situations. However, its only power is that of persuasion. In this case, the Revenue Commissioners refused to be persuaded and unless the Ombudsman decides to lay a special report before the Houses of the Oireachtas, we have no power to investigate an individual case.
What you said, Chairman, was on record and available to members long before the debate at that meeting took place. To bring some balance to this discussion, it would seem from what you said that €300,000 was the settlement for this individual. However, it should be noted that it was double the amount requested by the Ombudsman of the Revenue Commissioners. A Dutch auction was entered into.
It was not double the amount but half the amount.
Half the amount was paid but double the amount was asked for by the Ombudsman.
Did the Ombudsman ask for €150,000?
No, the Ombudsman asked for over €600,000. The Revenue Commissioners started the horse trading at far less than €300,000. I raised this issue to highlight how this kind of trading can go on between two Government agencies. If this committee or various Departments are to have any respect for the Ombudsman's office, what should be paid is what the Ombudsman decides having investigated the case. I do not understand how the Revenue can assume the power and horse-trade in any particular case. It is the principle of that which concerns me relevant to the powers of the Ombudsman.
The second issue is that it was unanimously agreed that we would have a meeting with the Ombudsman, but that did not happen. While I accept your position, Chairman, in regard to your conversation, and that of the Secretary General, that is not what we set out to do. We set out to do something completely different. Members' views and what they expected to happen were spelled out clearly in the context of that meeting, but that did not happen.
I am wholly dissatisfied that we have arrived at this point, not just on behalf of the taxpayer in question but on behalf of the system in regard to the Ombudsman's office. I had hoped the explanation that might have been given at that meeting would have given us a greater understanding of the difficulties in the Ombudsman's office in terms of dealing with Revenue or any other office and that, as legislators, we could consider that and decide how legislation or other provisions could be improved. I am dissatisfied that is not happening, as is the taxpayer concerned, and unless this aspect is clarified the legislation as it stands will result in further horse-trading on behalf of people who come before the Ombudsman, which is wrong.
The Ombudsman's office and the Revenue Commissioners have told me they are fully satisfied the taxpayer consented to the settlement. That was after the horse-trading, to use your words, Deputy.
He disagrees with that.
There is a point of fundamental difference but at the time he agreed. He might have disagreed subsequently. He asked for the cheque to be paid as urgently as possible but subsequently disagreed with the figure. The essence of what the Ombudsman does is to do a bit of horse-trading, to use the Deputy's phrase, regularly where a person has a complaint against a public body, the public body is reasonably satisfied it has not acted unreasonably and the member of the public is not satisfied with the performance. Every day of the week the Ombudsman seeks to negotiate a compromise. That is the essence of the Ombudsman's office. People say it should not be involved in reaching compromises but the basic function of the Ombudsman's office is to try to reach an accommodation between an individual and a public body.
I will conclude on this point. If Revenue tells you, Chairman, that you owe them €600,000, you will pay that plus the interest. I cannot understand how a powerful body like that, understanding that philosophy in business in terms of collecting money, can tell the Ombudsman's office that it has conducted an inquiry into this matter but that it will horse-trade from x sum to €300, and then settle. That is wholly unsatisfactory, not just for this client but for the general system and the principle of how it operates.
We have a new Ombudsman whose annual report was issued this week and we are due to call in the Ombudsman to discuss the report as part of her work programme. The points raised by the Deputy, not on the specific case but on the principles involved, can be put to the Ombudsman at that time. It will not solve this particular case but that is as much as I believe can happen.
I draw members' minds back to the time when the Ombudsman made a special report to the Dáil on the other cases. Revenue still refused to pay the refunds to the taxpayer and it was only on foot of an amendment to the Finance Bill, when there was a change in the law, that Revenue paid the refunds. The Ombudsman had a choice. She could have made a recommendation and laid a report before the Dáil on the case but Revenue could still have refused to do anything, as it has the legal power to do. The Ombudsman felt it was better to come to a compromise because there was a risk that the taxpayer would have got nothing once the Revenue refused to act. The only option then would have been for the taxpayer to go to court. The point is that none of the State organisations is legally bound to accept a recommendation from the Ombudsman. Most people believe a decision of the Ombudsman is binding on a public body, but that is not so.
To alleviate the problem of the constituent of Deputy McGuinness, would it be possible for the Chairman and Deputy McGuinness to meet with representatives of the Revenue Commissioners? Could a private meeting be arranged with the Revenue to help Deputy McGuinness because it is obviously a sensitive issue which we do not really understand, other than what we have on paper?
One of the reasons this committee decided last week not to investigate the individual case further is because the Oireachtas set up the Ombudsman's office with independent functions and if we, as an Oireachtas committee, were to start investigating individual cases dealt with by the Ombudsman we would be undermining the Office of the Ombudsman.
The Chairman is wrong to talk about individual cases. It just happens that there is one person in that category. No one knew there was only one person in that category until I asked the Revenue here one day at a meeting. That was when we discovered it. It is easy for Revenue, given its powers, to deal with Joe Public by putting him in his place but the principle of this case is all important, including to the Ombudsman's office. That is the reason I raise it. We should not keep referring to individual cases. There is only one case and a decision was taken by this committee which should have been followed, regardless of our powers, to explore an issue which needs to be addressed.
We had a long discussion about that on the previous day and the committee was satisfied to leave it at that.
My dissatisfaction should be noted.
We will do that. The essence of the debate is the power of the Ombudsman in these cases when it makes a recommendation.
It is also about the power of the Revenue.
Yes, and the power of the Revenue.
To help Deputy McGuinness will the Chairman seek a private meeting with the Chairman of the Revenue which Deputy McGuinness could attend?
Do I have any authority to intervene in the case of an individual taxpayer?
You have, of course.
I do not know.
As I did last week, I propose that we conclude on that point. I do not believe we have a role because the legislation does not allow the Ombudsman to force the issue. What convinced me, and I accept it is not the detail of the case, were the three issues raised. Two of them had to do with the fact that both the previous and the current Ombudsman examined this case and both specifically said they thought this was an acceptable outcome. That was written down. There was a third reason which I cannot recall now but that was the basis on which I did it. I felt we were trying to second-guess two Ombudsmen, although I accept I do not know the detail of the case.
While I understand the frustration about this case the course of action the Chairman is proposing is correct. When the Ombudsman is called in Deputy McGuinness should have an opportunity to raise this type of problem and have a proper response. We can then reflect on whether there is a deficiency in the law, but part of the non-binding nature of the Ombudsman's office is also its strength. That is something that is defended, and its right to report to the Oireachtas is seen as an element of its armoury. I do not agree that the Chairman should become involved in setting up meetings. As the Chairman indicated, he ought to stay aloof from individual cases such as this. He is answerable to the committee and should only represent the committee on issues of policy rather than resolving individual cases. I would be nervous about setting up a meeting where the Chairman would become some sort of arbiter or broker in the affairs of an individual taxpayer. That would not be a good precedent for the Chairman to set. While it offers short-term attractions, in the long term it would not be a good approach to take.
I disagree with some of what is being said because the Revenue has significant powers when it comes to Revenue issues. As has just been pointed out, the Ombudsman has limitations put on what she can say. From a legislative point of view this is the Committee on Finance and the Public Service and whether we represent groups or individuals, we should ensure we are not seen to be rushing over this significant case which may have an impact in the future. If we set a precedent like that and issue a report, the issue could arise in 12 months or 12 years and it could be stated that when this case arose at a meeting of this committee this was said and, therefore, we would be limited in what we could say.
We should try to clear up this issue through the committee to the satisfaction of a member of the committee. I am not 100% au fait with the details of the case, but if Deputy McGuinness believes it is significant enough to warrant an answer——
One point comes to mind on foot of what the Deputy said. The Ombudsman published her annual report this week, which I have not yet had an opportunity to read. I do not know if this issue appears in the annual report but perhaps we could write to the Ombudsman asking how many recommendations her office made to public bodies, and the number that was ultimately rejected by the relevant public body, from Revenue down to the local authorities. Perhaps this is a one-off case or perhaps it happened quite often in public bodies. There might have been one individual case in this regard but perhaps there were other cases in Revenue that have not come to our attention.
I would like to know the number of cases with which the Ombudsman deals in respect of which the relevant authorities refuse to implement the recommendations of the report. What happens in those cases is the acid test of the Ombudsman's powers. I am aware there are a limited number of such reports per year, but I would like to have an estimate of the number of such cases. Will the committee agree that we should seek that information? Would that be helpful or should we wait until the Ombudsman comes before the committee in the normal course of events, as is done every year? Can we get agreement on that?
When the Ombudsman makes a recommendation on a case to a public body, regardless of the public body, the principle of this issue is the number of those cases in which public bodies refuse to accept the decision of the Ombudsman. I do not know that information and I would like to get it on a public body by public body basis. We will then know more about what happens in these stalemate situations, and whether there is horse-trading afterwards. I suggest we seek that information now by way of correspondence rather than wait until the Ombudsman appears before the committee.
What the Ombudsman's office can and cannot deal with is covered under the Ombudsman's Act. If we want to improve the Ombudsman's position in terms of enforcing regulation and Revenue investigations, we will have to amend the legislation. We can recommend that.
Fine, but I would like to hear from the Ombudsman on that before we make a recommendation to amend the legislation.
We make the law.
Yes, but I would like to hear the Ombudsman's view on that proposal.
It is important that we do not close the door on our ability to investigate individuals or groups in respect of any issue in the future.
I am conscious that in the Ombudsman's report published this week it is stated there are cases in respect of which the office was not able to achieve satisfaction because of the law and the Ombudsman recommended changes in law in regard to foster care payment allowance. It is not unusual for the Ombudsman to recommend a change in procedure or a change in the law where the recommendations were not implemented by the public body concerned.
I propose we seek information regarding cases where the recommendation were not accepted by the public body concerned. When we get an indication of the number of cases, we can examine the principle involved in dealing with the Ombudsman as opposed to the individual cases concerned. We will invite the Ombudsman to appear before the committee in due course. A Deputy could seek a meeting on behalf of a constituent, but as Chairman of this committee, I would be loath to do so.
I will withdraw my suggestion and I second the Chairman's proposal.
That is agreed. That concludes the minutes.
The next item is correspondence. There are a number of items of correspondence to be considered. Item one is Maynooth College chapel. On 4 February this year, the joint committee agreed to seek from the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, copies of the original application and supporting documentation for a grant-in-aid for the refurbishment of Maynooth College chapel. A reply from the Minister of State was received on 24 March and we have deferred consideration of this topic twice. Do members have a view on the response received from the Minister of State?
I am glad I arrived in time to speak on this matter. We allocated €750,000 for Maynooth College library last year. A Supplementary Estimate came before the committee at the end of the 2003 to allocate further funding for Maynooth College chapel. When we questioned the reason, we were told there was a typographic error and that Maynooth College library should have read Maynooth College chapel, hence it was back on the agenda.
I found it strange that a typographical error should occur in this way. We queried it and asked to see the original application for the allocation of such taxpayers' money. There are GAA clubs in my area and all sorts of sports clubs and if they seek even €1,000 of lottery funds or taxpayers' money, they have to fill in elaborate documentation. We asked for the documentation and lo and behold the last correspondence we received indicated there where was no documentation, no application in writing was made and only a verbal application was made at a meeting.
This committee is entitled to know when this meeting took place, who was present, if civil servants were present, if minutes were kept of the meeting and how, on foot of this high level meeting, an allocation of €750,000 of taxpayers' money was made. I have no difficulty in the money being used for the purpose for which it was used, but it is awful to think that the Oireachtas should be treated in that way and that taxpayers' money should be thrown around like snuff at a wake in those kinds of circumstances. It smells of Punchestown all over again.
We might have to investigate Punchestown.
We should go there.
The recipients of this grant aid are in the constituency of the Minister for Finance.
That is a coincidence.
This matter is worthy of the Chairman asking the Minister about it, or I could submit a parliamentary question to the Minister for Finance asking about this meeting, who was at it, where was it, when it took place, what was discussed at it, whether civil servants were present, whether minutes of this meeting were taken and what case was made. We should follow up this matter.
(Interruptions).
A good friend of mine.
Is the Deputy proposing to submit a parliamentary question or that a letter should be sent?
We should deal with this through the committee and failing that we could go the other route.
I have no problem with a letter being sent from the committee to the Minister of State on foot of his reply seeking that information.
Another point that can legitimately be made is that since we started querying this in October last year, we have had to drag this information — like pulling hen's teeth — out of the Minister and the Department. I recall that at one meeting the Chairman was anxious to dispose of this matter fairly quickly. This response is not good enough. Taxpayers' money is at stake here and information should be readily forthcoming.
Absolutely. I have no problem sending a more detailed letter as suggested by the Deputy to the Department.
The chapel will be finished before we get a reply.
I am sure that if there was any irregularity, the audit carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor General's office would have discovered it and raised issues regarding it.
I do not believe the money has been drawn down yet.
I concur with Deputy McGrath's history lesson on this matter. What concerns me is that the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, gave us to understand, in a series of responses, that everything was there, all the i's were dotted and the t's crossed. However, as was clear in a previous meeting, when I sought its deferral in Deputy McGrath's absence, there was nothing in writing. This was an oral understanding. It is alarming this can be an element of the Minister for Finance's conduct of the affairs of his ministry. It is highly questionable, particularly as this is another incident arising in his constituency.
I have no argument in principle against the funding and support for works at the NUI campus at Maynooth. So far, however, all we have received in response to the valid questions posed is a series of examples of support for both domestic and international Irish institutions on a similar level. That is not the question we posed. The question is the methodology of the application, its approval and how it was conducted. This was only brought to our attention by a typographical error or the slip of a tongue. The reality is that, with regard to this decision to grant a substantial amount of public money for certain works, it would never have been brought to our attention that this had not been properly applied for and there was no adherence to the normal channels of application. It is a serious matter and I concur with the view that the full detail of this should be addressed by the committee. It should not require a parliamentary question to elicit information.
With respect to Deputy Parlon and the representatives of his Department who accompanied him on each of the occasions this matter has been addressed, they have failed properly to address this committee's function and responsibility to question such matters. I regard that as seriously as the failure to adhere to a proper approach in granting money to the Maynooth library.
Is it agreed that we send a letter from the committee along the lines proposed by Deputy McGrath?
Was it a budgetary announcement?
Yes.
That is at the discretion of the Minister for Finance.
It was not part of the budget but subsequent to it. However, it was announced by the Minister for Finance.
We do not have a right to interfere then under the Constitution.
We have the right to know. It is the expenditure of taxpayers' money. We have the right to know the circumstances under which it was sought and so forth. Is the Deputy disputing that?
We cannot change the Minister's decision. We are simply asking for information on the background to the decision.
Where will that get us?
Hopefully, it will ensure best practice in future.
There are probably huge decisions being made in Punchestown today.
I went there yesterday.
I will clarify the point for Deputy O'Keeffe. The provision for this was included in the Revised Estimates volume on foot of a decision by the Minister but it was not announced in the budget. I am aware of the point the Deputy was making.
Was it opposed?
No. The committee passed the Supplementary Estimate last year on this issue. We had a debate on the Supplementary Estimate and this has arisen from that debate. The Estimate, however, was passed.
We have had an amount of moralising that would do credit to Maynooth. We spend a great deal of time in this economy complaining about red tape. Where there is a clearly——
Why bother having systems at all?
Where there is a clearly worthwhile project, there is something to be said for getting on with it. I know from my experience of dealing with the Minister for Finance on similar type projects that officials are involved and consulted in the execution of the decision. They would not co-operate if they did not consider it right and proper to do so.
What were the other similar projects?
We have a fine Minister for Finance.
Will the Senator outline the similar incidents in which he was involved and the sums of money involved?
I will not interfere with the Deputy trawling through the Estimates and budgets of the last several years.
We have agreed to ask the question——
It is a worrying admission. Before the Chairman smudges over it, it is a worrying thought.
God forbid that a Minister should make a decision.
God forbid that there be any accountability. Heavens above, we are not here for that.
I hope we will make a better success of it than was made of the Punchestown investigation, even though I got embroiled in that. In the conclusions that were reached the Opposition was more questionable than the Government.
Did the Deputy make a mess of the investigation too?
I got my tuppence worth out of it.
The Deputy was part of it.
The next item of correspondence is the letter from Bank of Scotland. The letter was received from the chief executive of Bank of Scotland (Ireland) in which he indicates that the bank has applied for full membership of the Irish Payment Services Organisation but still holds the view that the rules and structures of the IPSO inhibit competition. Enclosed with the letter was a study of the economic impact of increased competition in Irish banking services which was prepared for the bank. I propose we write to Mr. Duffy thanking him for the study and confirming that we have explicitly included the need to examine money transmission systems in our work programme for the coming year. Is that agreed?
I do not think much of him or the fellow in Ryanair, to tell the truth. The two have the same type of genes. He should get on with his business of banking and leave us alone. The same applies to the fellow in Ryanair.
We will write to him on that basis. The next item of correspondence relates to statutory instruments. Six statutory instruments have been sent to the committee by the Department of Finance. Under our orders of reference, the committee has the power to consider such statutory instruments made by the Minister for Finance and laid before both Houses as it may select. The time within which the Houses can annul statutory instruments is usually limited by statute to 21 sitting days after the regulation is laid. I wish to include in our discussion on this topic consideration of the advice concerning scrutiny by the committee of statutory instruments, which was prepared by the parliamentary legal adviser and supplied to the committee in advance of the last meeting.
The statutory instruments that have been sent to us, Nos. 146 to 150, inclusive, of 2004 were laid before the Houses on 21 April. The instruments require the commissioner of valuation to carry out valuation for the purposes of rates of certain properties occupied by certain public undertakings. It appears the 21 day prohibition period does not apply in this case. Statutory Instrument No. 151 of 2004 was laid before the House on 21 April. That instrument requires the commissioner of valuation to apportion the global valuation of the ESB between the relevant local rating authorities. It appears the 21 day prohibition period does not apply in this case either. I wish to ask the Department of Finance to give the committee a briefing note in respect of the statutory instruments.
This was the reason we sought the legal opinion. It is a wholly unsatisfactory situation. We assume there is a 21 day period but in the case of the majority of statutory instruments referred to this committee in the last couple of months, there was no legal provision in the original legislation for the 21 day period. That appears to be a general misconception, based on our limited experience. It is not our function to get into a detailed investigation of how these statutory instruments work. All we can do is express our dissatisfaction at what we have seen. We should request the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to investigate what is an unsatisfactory situation.
There is a problem. Over the years, I have questioned them many times about statutory instruments, ministerial orders and regulations. I have asked what distinguishes one from the other and how that is decided. I have received all sorts of explanations concerning earlier decisions. What happens every time is that they will say, "This is what the draftsperson recommended." I have been a Member of the Seanad for 20 years but I have only met a draftsperson twice in that time. They are shadowy people in the background who always seem to go for the one that does not need a decision of the Houses of the Oireachtas. That is what the Chairman touched on — many of the regulations do not need to come before the House, they just need to be laid before both Houses. They do not need to affirmed nor can they be changed. There is no set of conditions determining which should be which and how we opt for one rather than the other. It is a shadowy area and Members of both Houses would welcome a clear understanding of how they work.
Would members agree that this committee is not empowered and does not have the expertise to deal with this broader issue which affects every committee and both Houses? I understand that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges examines these procedural matters.
There should still be a note for members of this committee. These are simple issues. With one piece of legislation, the schedule allows one to change figures over the years to keep up with inflation, but with others we are still faced with fines of sixpence for serious crimes because nobody every changed the legislation. It is vague and mystifying. I do not know how they do it. I would like somebody to provide a note for us so that we would have some understanding of how they come to a decision.
I have the note from the parliamentary legal adviser.
I saw that note from Lia. I raised three further questions on that and I could add a dozen more. It is correct as far as it goes but we do not know why a decision is taken to go for one form rather than another. Why do they go for something that needs affirmation, or an annulment or something that simply needs to be laid before the Houses with no action?
The sponsoring Minister has the legislation drafted and the Houses pass it ultimately, with or without the faults to which the Senator is referring. The committee can make amendments if it is not happy with legislation. To short-circuit all that, our committee should express dissatisfaction with the whole procedure as it is apparent to us. We should ask the CPP to address this issue in its annual report on behalf of both Houses of the Oireachtas. I find it is unsatisfactory to get these things and more often than not we are told that the 21-day rule does not even apply.
The six statutory instruments to which you referred deal with the telecommunications companies in the main, as well as Bord Gáis and the Electricity Supply Board.
Yes.
They are talking about the rateable valuation of properties. The one thing all these people have in common is that they have massed structures to accommodate communications antennae of one variety or another. There is a number of very serious matters at the heart of all this. In my home town, there is an ESB facility at the very heart of two housing schemes, on which a further antenna was erected last Friday week by Meteor.
The restrictions on the number of devices that any of these support structures can sustain need to be revised. Currently, the number is 13 but that is a licence to erect everything. This has been done in the heart of a residential area, overlooking family homes where there has been a recorded high instance of various forms of cancer. Nobody has been able to establish properly that there is not a relationship between the presence of the structure, the devices it supports, and the health concerns of the local community. One may say that is another issue and that it is not related, but it is all related in my view.
The siting of these could also affect valuations. It is not only the circumference of the structure, be it of bricks and mortar or steel — the reality is that their location is another matter. Measures should be considered to make the erection of such structures in urban environments in close proximity to residential properties, schools and workplaces a less attractive option for these providers of what I acknowledge is an important range of services. This matter must be examined.
It is not a case of a blanket issuance of statutory instruments of the calculation of valuation relating to the six bodies listed. There is a much wider matter that needs to be addressed. Before directives such as this one permeate down to local authorities, there needs to be careful scrutiny and consideration of the consequences of these proposals. My concern is that this will be passed from pillar to post and from Johnny to Mick, yet nobody will give it the serious thought and consideration it deserves and that the wider community demands. I need to know for sure that we are not kicking this matter to touch. If it is not to be addressed by this committee, it should be addressed substantively at some other committee. I would like to have that assurance before we agree to pass it on.
There are two separate issues here. The first relates to how statutory instruments and various items of legislation are dealt with in the Oireachtas and with which we have run into difficulty. We are writing to the CPP to express our dissatisfaction with our limited experience of that matter.
As regards the Deputy's point about the valuation of mobile telecommunications masts, the ESN network, and Bord Gáis, including underground networking and piping, I recommend that we seek information from the Department on precisely how the Valuation Office is going about this work. I am curious to know how these things are valued. Is it based on each mast or do they revalue it every time another antenna is added? None of us knows that and we should seek the information.
Is that for the CPP or this committee?
It is for this committee. It is specifically under our remit because the legislation that was passed — the Valuation Bill that went through the last Dáil — introduced mechanisms for doing this as well as a global valuation where they ultimately assess the valuation of all the structures.
As regards the statutory instrument before us today, the valuation has already been done for the entire country. The statutory instrument proposes to allocate the valuation to each local authority proportionately, based on the census of population. There is another way of looking at it. They have assembled the information on a site-by-site basis so perhaps the rates should be paid on that basis, rather than on the general population. There are a few issues relevant to the Valuation Authority and to our committee on which we should seek information, separately from the overall issue of statutory instruments. I propose we should seek that. We will pursue it.
I support that view.
That deals with the correspondence concerning statutory instruments.
The next item of correspondence relates to EU scrutiny. The sub-committee on European scrutiny has sent this committee a list of documents and proposals considered, and the decisions taken, at its meeting on 22 April. It has drawn to our attention document SAC (2004) 604 but has not recommended that we should scrutinise the proposal. The proposal caters for a new Intelligent Energy — Europe programme and creates a new budget line to receive the operating subsidy for the Intelligent Energy Executive Agency. Is it agreed that this does not warrant scrutiny by the committee? Agreed. Is it agreed that none of the other proposals considered by the sub-committee on 22 April warrants scrutiny by the committee? Agreed.
Before we deal with the main item on today's agenda, I wish to deal with the proposal on travel.
What about the work programme?
That is further down the line. We had a major discussion on this matter on the previous occasion.
The proposal on travel is only listed at No. 7.
It is a small item. I am happy to leave it until the end of the meeting.
What is a small item?
The travel proposal.
I intend to travel.
I am trying to facilitate the Deputy.
I want to be top of the league in terms of claiming expenses and that is the only way to do it.
The Deputy nearly made it on this occasion.
At least he had his photograph published.
An invitation has been received from the British and Irish Ombudsman Association to attend its annual meeting in London on Friday, 28 May. The theme of the meeting is "Ombudsman Services: Their Place in the Landscape". An estimate of the cost of the visit has been circulated. Is it the view of the committee that the invitation should be accepted? Is that agreed? Agreed.
There are a number of issues to be considered by the committee. Rules governing committee travel require that any proposal for travel by a committee must be directly and explicitly linked to an area of work in which the committee has decided to become involved pursuant to its orders of reference and in the context of its work programme. We are also required to state the reasons the travel is considered necessary. The Office of the Ombudsman is one of the bodies for which we have oversight responsibility under our orders of reference. Our work programme explicitly recognises our role in respect of such bodies and our key functions. We have stated our intention in our work programme to prioritise such bodies for scrutiny.
At a recent meeting the committee dealt with a case which highlighted the limits of the Ombudsman's powers to enforce her recommendations. It would be useful to hear the views expressed at the meeting in London on the balance to be struck between the weight to be given to the recommendations of the Ombudsman and the prerogative of public bodies. Is it agreed that this is the reason for the visit? Agreed.
The reason for the destination and time of the visit are self-evident. The committee must consider how many members should travel.
Before the Chairman deals with that matter, it is evident from the budget that flights are costed at €214 economy class and €274 for business class. Surely when we have sufficient notice to book flights a month in advance we should be able to obtain better value for money than €214 return.
That is a valid point. Do we use any kind of negotiating power in respect of travel expenses? No normal person would pay €214 for a flight to London one month in advance of booking it. I do not know who is responsible but surely our travel agent should be able to negotiate the price.
There is a travel agent for the Houses of the Oireachtas who submits a competitive tender on a regular basis to obtain the work.
I would be prepared to offer a more competitive tender than that.
A better rate can be obtained. However, if there is a last minute cancellation on our tickets a full refund can be obtained. Flights can be booked at a cheaper rate but if somebody does not travel, the fee will be lost. There are a combination of factors to be considered. Another is the lack of flexibility in terms of coming home if a flight is delayed. There is more flexibility in the booking arrangements made through the travel agent of the Houses of the Oireachtas.
There is hardly much point travelling business class. Members can buy a newspaper on the way to the airport and read it on the flight.
As the difference between economy and business class is so insignificant, is it agreed that members will travel business class?
What about using Irish Ferries and the train?
Members would have at least two more overnights and no money would be saved.
Travel rules provide that economy class should generally be used where practicable and reasonable. In view of the insignificant difference between the two prices, it is my opinion that members should travel business class. Is it agreed that an allocation from the travel budget of up to €1,000 for each member to travel business class should be sought from the working group of committee chairmen? It is a matter for the convenors to decide which members should travel. The names of those going should be notified to the clerk who will make the necessary arrangements. I am not travelling but those members who wish to travel should arrange to have their names put forward to the clerk.
Will Deputy O'Keeffe represent the views of the Independent Senators? I will not be able to travel.
Of course. I would love the Senator to accompany me. In my view it is ridiculous to travel business class on a trip from Dublin to London or Cork to London. If I am travelling, I am not interested in going business class.
Are members in agreement on travelling economy class?
I have made the case at other committees that people should travel business class on long flights. However, for a 50 minute flight I do not believe it makes any difference.
On the condition that the economy fare is refundable if there is a cancellation, we will oblige Deputy Ned O'Keeffe.
I will not travel if we are flying with Ryanair.
We have agreed to travel economy class subject to that proviso. I leave it to the convenors to notify the clerk of the number of members who wish to travel.