JOINT COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE debate -
Wednesday, 12 May 2004

Business of Joint Committee.

Chairman

Apologies have been received from Senator Higgins. The first item on our agenda is the minutes of the meeting on 28 April 2004. The draft minutes of the last meeting of the joint committee have been circulated. Are they agreed? Agreed. Do any matters arise from them? No matters arise.

The next item on the agenda is correspondence. In my capacity as a Member of the House, I recently wrote to the Minister for Finance regarding new tax arrangements for certain GAA players. As the Minister's reply is very detailed and informative, I have circulated it for the information of members of the committee. I have also sent a copy of the reply to the Gaelic Players Association. Is that noted?

Deputy P. McGrath

Did you sign the pledge in Buswells Hotel?

Chairman

It is interesting that the Deputy should ask. When I was there that day I did not say to the GPA people that I was for or against it. When I saw the number of people who had signed in support, I said that I would not do so as I would be voting against the proposal a couple of hours later. I pointed out that a number of people who had signed the GPA proposal would do the exact opposite in the Dáil, even though the GPA players told me it could not happen.

Deputy P. McGrath

I did not think you would be a hypocrite.

Chairman

I could not agree more. There were quite a lot of them, many of them in my party.

Deputy P. McGrath

Of course they were in your party.

Deputy R. Bruton

According to the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, Fianna Fáil has a monopoly ot shame.

Chairman

The next item of correspondence relates to free legal aid. I have also circulated the Minister's detailed response to a letter I wrote to him on behalf of the Free Legal Advice Centres. I have also sent a copy to FLAC. Is that noted? Noted.

A statutory instrument has 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 the 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. SI 162 of 2004 was laid before the Houses on 7 April. The instrument is related to a number of others dealt with at our last meeting. It seems that the Department inadvertently overlooked sending this order to the committee.

The order requires the Commissioner of Valuation to carry out a valuation of relevant properties occupied by Eircom for the purposes of rates. On re-examination of the legislation it appears that this order and those considered last week are subject to the 21 day probationary period. The Department was asked to provide a note explaining how the work involved would be carried out. This was received and circulated yesterday. Are members satisfied with the note or does the committee wish to consider further the statutory instruments concerning the valuation of properties occupied by the telecommunications company?

I glanced at the letter we had received from the Department of Finance regarding the valuation of public utilities arising from our last meeting. I am not satisfied with the level of detail in the briefing note. It uses phrases like "valuation under contractor's method" or "valuation under income and expenditure method". While the officials know what they are talking about, I do not. I want a more detailed note.

The public utilities may be unique in that their rates bill will be determined on a self-assessment basis. All other companies have their properties investigated. However, based on the legislation, public utilities such as those we mentioned the last day — Eircom, Vodafone and Meteor — must supply to the Valuation Office a list of their assets and properties, on which the valuation is based. While I may be misreading it, it appears to be almost a self-assessment system. I would like to know what checks are carried out by the Valuation Office on the submissions it receives from those companies. Does it take them at face value? Given that valuations in the Valuation Office are a matter of public record, I would like some of these to be submitted to the committee in order that we can see whether everything is included. I do not know how they are going to go about that. There are many shared facilities, facilities from pre-planning permission days and facilities with different planning exemptions.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Having raised this at the last meeting, I am very disappointed that we are only marginally further along the road in terms of clarity on this matter. The notion of global valuation as opposed to individual valuation of the various support structures — for instance, antennae — is very emotive in many cases and requires careful consideration of what is involved. The number of antennae that any of these facilities can be empowered to sustain varies. I can picture in my mind's eye one that is located in a residential area of my home town that I am told can support up to 13 antennae devices with the multiplication of each of their radiation levels by that number. This is of great concern and it is only one example that is replicated in communities across the country. The wider issue of suitability of location needs to be addressed.

The brief response from the Department of Finance with an accompanying letter and a copy of the Valuation Act 2001 is inadequate for our purpose. Reluctantly I support the proposal to seek more information. It is very unsatisfactory that the committee is not provided with the salient information we sought. I am sure this was well communicated and it was clear what the committee required. We will have to defer further consideration until the information is provided and we have the opportunity to address it in a more substantive way.

Chairman

We will communicate with the Department. We know what we are seeking.

Deputy R. Bruton

We are seeking a written submission. Officials do not need to appear before the committee at this point.

Chairman

We will get it in writing and take it from there. That is agreed.

The next item of correspondence relates to AIB. Letters have been received from Deputies Ó Caoláin and Burton regarding overcharging by AIB for foreign exchange services and these have been circulated. Deputy Ó Caoláin proposes that the company's general manager of branches and other relevant executives be invited to meet the committee to discuss the matter. Deputy Burton has proposed that the committee convene a meeting to examine the matter in the context of the committee's work on bank charges. Before making a few observations as Chairman and inviting Deputies Ó Caoláin and Burton to speak, I remind members that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses of the Oireachtas.

When I heard about its overcharging for foreign exchange services, my rueful reaction was to think, "here we go again with AIB". I may not have been around for very long, but I remember in the case of the Insurance Corporation of Ireland debacle in 1982 that the public had to bail out AIB. That problem arose as a result of managerial incompetence but no lessons were learned at senior managerial or board level in the bank. As a result of the DIRT inquiry, a €90 million tax settlement was made by AIB, the largest single settlement as a result of a tax scam by any organisation in the history of the State. The scam can only have been conducted with the overt knowledge of very senior AIB executives. It was a not a matter for front-line staff. The DIRT issue was ongoing in AIB from at least 1986 to 1999. No lessons were learned at board or managerial level as a result of that either. In recent years, we had the Allfirst debacle in the USA which cost the company in the region of $750 million. I am not aware of any real lessons having been learned by AIB senior management or the board on foot of that.

We are in the same place again today. In this instance, we are talking about overcharging in foreign exchange transactions to the tune of €25 million. I have no reason to believe that there are not further activities occurring in AIB which will emerge in due course. Every couple of years a new AIB issue has come to the fore but never has a lesson been learned by its executives or board. I do not understand how these issues can continue to arise. They damage the integrity and honesty of the banking system and the confidence the public has in it. We should do more than simply act on our knee-jerk reaction — I do not use the terms pejoratively — to call on AIB executives to attend the committee. They will do so and give very polished and commanding performances no matter how long we keep them here. After they leave the bank will continue on its merry way.

I view the issue much more seriously. There is a systemic problem in AIB. The issues which have arisen are the result of a particular culture. We should call in the Governor of the Central Bank, Mr. John Hurley, and the chief executive of IFSRA to discuss what powers they have and what sanctions they can impose. We must ask what level of mistake a bank must reach before these bodies query the integrity and fitness for office of senior management in conducting banking under licences granted in the State. Until banks realise the seriousness of the issue, problems such as the ones we have seen will continue to occur.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Since I wrote to the Chairman, the situation has deteriorated further. In an increase from the original estimate, we see that some €25 million is involved. Perhaps "guesstimate" would be the more appropriate word. We have no guarantee that this figure represents a ceiling on the abuse which dates back to 1994. Over the past decade there has been systematic overcharging of AIB customers in foreign exchange transactions above a particular ceiling. This is a very serious matter. Mr. John Hickey, the general manager of retail banking in AIB who came before us previously, should attend the committee. We should not sign off on or conclude our report on bank charges without revisiting this matter. There are no adequate checks, guarantees and securities in respect of the conduct of banks in general and AIB in particular as far as the broad customer base is concerned.

I heard recently from representatives of another banking institution that they find it almost laughable when members of this committee claim IFSRA does not have sufficient powers. We cannot but conclude that IFSRA must be further empowered to impose the level of scrutiny and compliance enforcement required to bring about a complete change in the culture of the banking and financial institutions sector in this jurisdiction. I concur with the Chairman's view that the chairman of the Central Bank and the head of IFSRA should come before the committee and that we should place great emphasis on the concerns we outline to them. AIB should be also brought back before the committee. The assurances its representatives gave us when they appeared previously amount to nought. Before signing off on our report on customer charges and interest rates within the banking sector, it would not be in conflict with the opinions expressed by the Chairman to bring AIB back before the committee. I concur with those opinions in great measure.

Deputy Burton

I wrote to the Chairman on this matter as the committee is conducting an ongoing investigation into banking services, charges, competitiveness and customer relations. In the course of preparation for the study, IFSRA was established. To a certain extent, IFSRA took over a role which this committee was playing in trying to assess the quality of practice in Irish banks. As we have not concluded our report, the committee should convene a special hearing as a matter of urgency. It should take place as a full day's session on a Thursday or Friday rather than on a Wednesday for reasons we have suggested to the Chairman before. As well as asking representatives of the AIB to account for what happened, we must also call in the chief executive of IFSRA, Dr. Liam O'Reilly, and the Director of Consumer Affairs.

There are a number of separate issues to consider. We must discover the full extent of what has happened in AIB and the loss incurred. We must also find out what arrangements are being made to recompense customers who were overcharged. Contrary to media reports, it will be within the bank's capacity to identify a significant number of the customers who were subject to overcharging. Many people keep detailed records of financial transactions, as do the banks. While it will be difficult to compensate a person without an AIB account who bought a foreign exchange draft, it is important that AIB should seek to recompense its customers.

In the context of this committee's study of banking and the competitiveness and fairness of bank services, it is crucial that AIB is forced to find the people who were overcharged and make recompense. Simply placing a sum of money which represents a fraction of the bank's profits into a holding account will not serve to make recompense to customers. I have not seen a freefone number advertised or the establishment by the bank of a hotline to allow customers to discover if they were overcharged. That is one element of it.

The second element is that we should talk to the representatives of IFSRA. There has been a political stand-off for the past six years between the Tánaiste and Minster for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Minister for Finance, on behalf of the Central Bank, about who should have control of the regulation of financial services. It has been shown yet again that this stand-off has cost Irish bank customers dearly. The first stage of IFSRA legislation was introduced last year, three years late in the seven year life of this and the previous Administration. That legislation gives IFSRA the power to examine and scrutinise. It is also a structure which is expensive. IFSRA currently has approximately 90 staff and significant costs will be charged to all financial service institutions and banks, including credit unions. The credit unions have suggested that the level of costs proposed to fund IFSRA will be so high that they may have to stop providing small loans.

While this regulatory structure is large and expensive, it is a watchdog which has no teeth because it has no power to impose any kind of sanction. The second part of the IFSRA legislation was passed by this committee some time ago and we have not heard anything about it since. I recall that during the Second Stage debate on the legislation in the Dáil and during the debate on it at this committee, I pointed out to the Minister for Finance that this doorstopper of a Bill includes panels and regulatory bodies which will involve in the order of 63 appointments. It is a full-scale quango. The Minister did not disagree with me. I reiterate this point because the committee should take a stand on this.

I recall some members being understandably amused when I suggested to the Minister that this authority should not be composed of the usual suspects in terms of persons with party political connections, persons from the financial services industry, banks and so on, but that it should be composed of genuinely independent persons who have expertise in consumer affairs. The Minister gave no such undertakings. I also strongly suggested that such membership should be gender balanced. After a long campaign by me last year, the Minister has appointed one woman to the reformed board of the Central Bank, Ms Deirdre Purcell.

When this huge quango is up and running in respect of which approximately 60 appointments will be made, we will not know if it will have among its membership consumer champions. I suggested that organisations such as St. Vincent de Paul, people who deal with consumer credit, people dealing with the credit unions and, particularly, representatives of consumer interest organisations should, as a matter of determination, be appointed to those various panels and boards. This committee should revisit this issue and make such demands afresh.

During the debate on the Bill I also raised a question, which now arises again, of the role of internal audit in regard to all the financial service institutions. Where were the internal auditors, never mind the external auditors, in AIB who could have prevented this problem from arising? A programme was set up to charge customers and it went wrong. In most organisations there is an internal audit function which is particularly strong in banking and financial services and an external audit function. If this was going on since 1994, where were the internal auditors?

I ask that we meet representatives of IFSRA. We should ascertain the level of its supervisory and inquiry roles, but we also need to call back the Minister for Finance to find out when he and the Government intend to finalise part two of the IFSRA legislation in order to give this watchdog a few small teeth. Currently it has no teeth which is pointless in terms of what has happened.

We also need to ask the representatives of IFSRA whether it is carrying out any scoping review to ascertain if there are similar problems in other financial institutions. This issue arose as a result of a whistleblower but not as a result of any effort by IFSRA, although it responded quickly. We need to discuss this matter with its representatives before we sign off on our report. That was the purpose of my letter to the Chairman.

Deputy R. Bruton

We cannot pre-empt findings in respect of where individual responsibility lies within AIB. Since I became a member of this committee it has become clear to me that there is an environment within the banking sector which is extremely hostile to consumers. In the short time we have been members of the committee, we have seen only half of the interest rate cuts announced by the European Central Bank passed on to small business and personal borrowers while big business got the full benefit of them. There has also been mis-sellling of products to savers, many of whom are elderly. With this latest discovery, it transpires that staff, even up to head of department level, were not aware of their obligations under consumer legislation. Top management within AIB had no system for ensuring compliance with consumer law. This is out of kilter with what is acceptable. The Dáil has passed legislation where directors of other non-banking companies have to sign off on detailed compliance statements that include compliance with health and safety law and many other provisions. The banks and their top management are not ensuring that they are compliant with consumer law, one of the areas in respect of which they are supposed to champion the customer.

If an accountant was advising an investor on investing his or her money, the accountant would have to meet detailed compliance requirements, but such requirements do not apply within the banks. The picture that emerges is one where the consumer gets very little hearing within the banking system and no proper compliance obligations have been created by the State to protect the consumer.

While we are rightly focusing on AIB, there must also be some red faces within the Government in this regard. As Deputy Burton said, this discovery was made by a whistleblower, not from effective regulation. When it was discovered it was found that there were no sanctions under law for this offence. Over a period of eight years, regulators — first, the Director of Consumer Affairs and then IFSRA — conducted no monitoring of whether the banks were compliant with their obligations under these consumer laws. There are no legal compliance requirements in respect of directors and senior management in the manner in which they apply to other companies.

We have been caught flat footed. This failure of the system is a tragedy for the Director of Consumer Affairs who is a vigorous person trying to make IFSRA work. It is a tragedy that on the first test of her authority, we discover that the system has failed her. It has failed her primarily because the ministerial responsibility to create a legislative framework where she could be effective and impose sanctions was not put in place. That is not an accident. It is the product of a turf war in which there were real issues as to whether this legislation was designed to be vigorously and strongly pro-consumer or whether it was to be very much within the banking corral and concerned with liquidity, prudence and other elements associated with high profit. The consumer lost out.

I support the request by Deputies Ó Caoláin and Burton that we need to examine this matter but the context in which we need to do so is important. Report Stage of the IFSRA Bill will be soon taken in the Dáil and that will be the last opportunity most of us will have in the lifetime of this committee to consider the regulatory system for this sector. This committee needs to have hearings with a view to strengthening that legislation and coming up with proposals that would give the regulators more authority and ability in terms of protecting consumers and to drive a pro-consumer culture into a banking system that has not had it previously. It is on this that we should be focused. We have one last shot at this Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority Bill and the committee should take the lead in having hearings to determine if we are up to best practice and, if not, the way we can get to that position.

When we rejected the first IFSRA Bill on Second Stage I tabled a reasoned amendment to the effect that we should defer consideration of the Bill for three months to allow us have an audit of the adequacy of the consumer protection provisions in the legislation we were handing over to IFSRA, but that was rejected by the Government. We now see that was a serious mistake. We should have had that audit. We should have seen what is best practice in consumer protection and we should have been driving that best practice in this IFSRA Bill. Having lost the turf war, we should have ensured that happened. The train has almost left the station now and we are the last station master who can say we need to load this train with some new consumer protection equipment before we let it leave.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Thank you, Chairman, for the opportunity to discuss this matter but I was somewhat taken aback by some of your opening remarks. You said there was a culture in the bank. I would like an elaboration on that because I do not like the use of that term. We have to first look at the success of AIB and what it does for our economy. It has the highest level of mortgage investment compared to any other institution and the most generous bank to the building sector which has been the growth area in our economy over the past four or five years. It has a huge exposure in that regard. We have to recognise that fact. Deputy Burton will be delighted to hear that it has also been the major lender to the horse racing industry which has been another new development in our country.

Deputy Burton

I did not know that.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

That might help her in the local elections. She might get a few extra votes.

The banking sector employs in excess of 30,000 people. They are all in good employment and give a good service. We have been discussing this issue for the past 12 months. All our blue collar and white collar workers will retire one day and will depend on the profits of those organisations to fund their pensions. In the past few days, in spite of all the criticism about Irish and other banks, the stock market has placed confidence in them, with little change in the pricing. To be fair to AIB, it is the most pragmatic financial institution in the country in terms of lending and all the other services it provides. I was very impressed to hear it was prepared to lend €25 million to the Central Bank as a gesture because of this problem. That is the truth. Its mortgage rates are as attractive as those of any other institution.

Deputy P. McGrath

Is it all right to rip off others?

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

No.

Deputy P. McGrath

Is the Deputy a shareholder?

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Yes, I am. I have declared that fact. It is easy for those of us sitting around this table to adopt a highly responsive attitude and bash the banks because we will get something for it.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

The irresponsible attitude is on the part of the banks. That is what we are seeking to address.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

As I see it, two Irish banks are under siege from the whole world, yet we are the greatest knockers of those institutions. Deputy Ó Caoláin has a higher national profile than me.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I worked for one of them.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I am fully supportive of them. I admit there were problems but the bank came out with its hands up and admitted it had found a problem. Someone made a point earlier about internal audit. I accept an internal audit is about finding out matters.

Deputy Burton

Does the Deputy accept that to make one mistake is understandable but when the mistakes pile up, it is legitimate, if we want the bank to sustain itself in the long term, to seek to have a proper structure within that organisation?

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

The Deputy can tell me all the mistakes that were made. This was an error on the bank's part but it came out and admitted it. If we read all the national and foreign newspapers we will see other firms and organisations admitting there were difficulties. I read last week that in regard to the motor industry, for example, some 50 or 60 cars had been sent back to a firm because the braking system was not good enough. That was a hands-up approach. The bank came out——

Deputy R. Bruton

Maybe it was saying, "Look, no hands."

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

If we follow the Deputy's suggestion we will continue to regulate and impose more and more restrictions in law on our financial institutions. This country is being over-regulated and people are sick of it. If we are to impose more regulations we would be wise to nationalise our banking system because it will be unworkable for them. Deputy Burton will have an influence on the nationalisation of the banks. As I see it, we will screw up the system so badly it will be unworkable for financial institutions and further difficulties will arise. Like drink driving, etc, the more regulation, the more people will try to buck the system and it becomes unworkable.

As a Government Deputy I want to take a responsible attitude to this problem. Our banking system and all our banks which are fully funded by Irish people work well but they are getting an awful time from politicians and others who have a vested interest in trying to knock the system.

Deputy McGuinness

It will be difficult to follow that. Deputy O'Keeffe is correct in everything he said. This is a fine institution which lends a good deal of money and employs many people. I respect that fact. I should declare an interest in that I am a customer of AIB and have been at the other end of borrowing and so on. I understand the business it does and the help it gives. I understand all of what Deputy O'Keeffe said but from the time of the bogus non-resident accounts, the various fiascos worldwide and now this fiasco, there is an issue in regard to the banks and they have to act responsibly. They might have come out with their hands up, but this committee has an obligation to the public, the Oireachtas and ourselves, as legislators, to examine what is happening in the banks.

It does not come as any surprise to me, as a member of the Committee of Public Accounts, that something like this can happen when we read the stories currently coming before us and about what happened regarding bogus non-resident accounts, what people had to say about them, the "Prime Time" programme, the other issues we are all familiar with and now this issue. The banks should be brought before this committee. I do not know of any major issue that arose where the banks came out and said they had overcharged but they are giving back the money. It does not happen in that way.

In terms of how they do their business and the structures that are in place to report something or police the system, we and the public have to know about it. An issue of credibility arises also in terms of IFSRA and regulation and the public and the banking system. I support the suggestion that the banks should be brought before this committee. I would support any scrutiny of the banking system that needs to take place in terms of our work as legislators. I share Deputy O'Keeffe's concern about over-regulation but notwithstanding that, the banks have a responsibility in terms of what they are doing. There are serious questions to answer. I am not surprised by the issues that have arisen in the banking sector when one considers what was being said at the time in the banking sector about bogus non-resident accounts. Anything can come out of a culture of that kind and that is what we are witnessing. I hope we will get the opportunity to have a good review of the whole spectrum of activity and regulation then and now and where the banks are going in the future.

Chairman

I do not want to go on with this much longer because there is only one item of correspondence and we will decide what we are doing in a moment.

Deputy O'Keeffe referred to my remark about the culture, but Deputy McGuinness answered that question. The bogus non-resident accounts were one example of it and the Insurance Corporation of Ireland was another. There are various examples of that culture and this incident represents a cultural issue.

I thoroughly agree with Deputy O'Keeffe when he says there are up to 30,000 staff employed by the bank. Thousands of junior front-line staff have been in receipt of abuse at bank counters because of decisions taken by some senior people. I am concerned about the staff who are being abused by the public who feel badly let down in this situation. People have asked where was internal audit and that is a question I would like to see answered when the report comes out. I suspect, but no more than that, that had AIB been charging 0.25% instead of the 0.5% it was allowed to charge, internal audit would have discovered that the bank was undercharging. I will say no more because we want to move on.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Deputy O'Keeffe talked about the committee and politicians being out to screw up the banking system, but nothing could be further from the case. We are trying to ensure that consumers are protected. Bank customers need that support most especially. We want to see an end to the culture of screwing the customer, if one can use that term, because that is the sole direction in which it applies. With respect to the Deputy who is a shareholder and will know better than most, Allied Irish Banks recorded record profits last year. I do not begrudge it that, but the stance it took on its share of the contribution of the levy applied by the Minister for Finance shows it has a poor attitude to reinvesting sums directly into society. That is different from lending and making returns from interest on community projects. It is not credible that a practice continuing for ten years that was allegedly discovered two years ago had not up to last week filtered through to the awareness of senior AIB executives. I do not buy it and do not believe the vast majority of ordinary people will accept that. The Chairman is absolutely right. I was a front-line service provider in the commercial banks for quite a number of years and they are the people who are getting it in the neck, although that is completely unfair. Recognising that the Irish Bank Officials' Association is a significant player in all of this, we should be cognisant of the concerns of its membership and take note of what IBOA spokespersons have been saying over the past week. We should take a variety of steps in this regard because none is mutually exclusive of the others.

Chairman

We will try to arrange that. If we are bringing in the banks, there will be an opportunity to put questions.

Deputy Burton

An elaborate regulatory and legislative structure is currently going through the Dáil and I share some of Deputy O'Keeffe's concerns about its size. The second Bill is a door-stopper, it is so big and complex. It has so many legs and wings to it that it is architectural. Every bank customer and borrower will have to pay for that. IFSRA already has more than 90 staff because it has taken on the former complaints procedures staff from the banking structure. We are entitled to pause and ask, in the context of this whistleblowing generated investigation, whether this situation applies to other banks. I was involved in the audit of a number of banks a long time ago. When I worked as an auditor, banks put a huge amount of resources into internal auditing which is an expensive operation. Deputy McGuinness will recall that the role of internal audit was critical to the ultimate revelations concerning the DIRT inquiry. There are legitimate questions concerning why, over a ten year period, the internal audit and audit committee function within the bank did not raise queries about this area. If they did raise such queries, why were they not red-flagged? I raised this at the time of the debate on the Bill. No status is given to internal audit within the regulatory framework that we have evolved. Internal audit is a private matter subject to the control of the bank. The Stock Exchange takes a view of the role of internal audit, but our recent legislation does not. That is one of the questions that we ought to ask Mr. Hurley of the Central Bank should he choose to grace this committee with his presence.

Ultimately, as bank customers we pay for all this regulation whether it is the bank's own regulation or that of IFSRA. No more than Deputy O'Keeffe, I do not want to see people being burdened with excessive regulations because, like excessively high rates of tax, they really do not work. We want regulation that is cost-effective and fast. I would like to see some specific questions being addressed, both by the Central Bank, IFSRA and AIB itself. Over a ten year period, why were the bank's internal audit, audit committee and its external auditors not in a position to red-flag this issue? Can we revisit the IFSRA structures legislation that is going through the Dáil to see whether the banks' internal audit structure is given additional protection? The Stock Exchange is tough on this aspect — far tougher than Irish regulations are. Because, as Deputy O'Keeffe appreciates, it will affect the share price, bank boards and courts of directors take it seriously. We need to re-examine this matter.

I reiterate my point about the structure of the regulatory boards' panels of membership. We need to make sure people who are on those boards do not serve on them forever, but only for a limited period. They should be genuinely representative of the different interests involved, including particularly the consumer interests. The appointments should be public and balanced, otherwise it is a case of quangos and "Here we go again". I hope the Chairman will see his way to holding such a hearing relatively quickly at which AIB's directors, the Central Bank chief, IFSRA's chief executive and the Director of Consumer Affairs will appear.

What oversight does ISFRA have to satisfy itself that other banking institutions do not have similar problems? That is a legitimate question for this committee to ask.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

We are always making an issue of bank profits but they are never high enough for reinvestment in the system. If one examines the amount of money it takes to run the system, while profits are reinvested in the market, banks have to borrow more to fund their economic developments. We never give the banks recognition for money written off as bad debts, even in good times. Many matters such as these must be taken into consideration. We saw what happened to Barings Bank, a huge international commercial institution, which was ripped off by one individual and went into liquidation.

Deputy Burton

Where are they now? They have gone.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Yes, that is the point I am making.

Deputy Burton

We do not want that to happen to AIB.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Our people have survived in spite of all the things the Deputy and the Chairman have talked about. It is like a shopping list but it is not all bad. I admire her intelligent and fair remarks, with which her party would not always be identified. When listening to Deputy Burton, I often wonder whether I have gone too much to the right or to the left.

Chairman

I propose that as soon as is practicable, we will invite in the Governor of the Central Bank , the chief executive, Mr. Liam O'Neill; the Consumer Director, Ms Mary O'Dea, and senior representatives of AIB. We will start immediately with the Central Bank and IFSRA. For their own reasons, AIB's representatives may or may not be able to attend immediately, given that an investigation is currently under way.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

We have agreed to invite them, in line with the proposal.

Chairman

We are inviting them in now. I suggest next Thursday, perhaps, if those people can come then.

Deputy Burton

We should consult our diaries.

Chairman

That is all subject to availability.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Next Wednesday morning.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

If it could be done by Tuesday or Wednesday it might be better.

Chairman

What about next Thursday or would Wednesday suit better? We could commence proceedings on Wednesday morning next at 11.30 a.m. after the Order of Business. The only concern I have about Wednesday would be the availability of a meeting room. Bookings have already been made by a number of other committees for rooms on that day. There are no rooms available on Wednesday afternoon because other committees are already scheduled to meet.

Deputy McGuinness

The Chair should check if members will be available on that day.

Chairman

This is all subject to members being available.

Deputy McGuinness

What about Tuesday?

Deputy Burton

Tuesday is too soon.

Chairman

I agree. People will not have had enough time.

Deputy Burton

They will not respond by then.

Chairman

We could even meet the following week.

Deputy Burton

It would be better to offer them a realistic timescale.

Chairman

We will meet the following week.

Deputy Burton

No, they should be requested for next Wednesday and then we could——

Chairman

There are no committee rooms available.

Deputy Burton

What about meeting on Thursday or Friday?

Chairman

We will try for Thursday.

Deputy McGuinness

The Committee of Public Accounts sits on that day and members of this committee also serve on that committee.

Chairman

I am conscious of that fact. I am a member of the PAC and would not be able to be in both locations. However, I do not want to rule out Thursday entirely.

Deputy Burton

At what time do meetings of the Committee of Public Accounts commence?

Chairman

At 11 a.m.

Deputy Burton

I am open to us starting earlier. Perhaps at 9 a.m.

Chairman

We could be obliged to spend an hour or two with each of these speakers.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

What about Wednesday? There must be a room available.

Chairman

Not next Wednesday. Other committees have already booked the various rooms. Our next scheduled meeting is in two weeks.

Deputy R. Bruton

Surely we could deal with one of the bodies on Thursday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. and hear from the other the following week.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

That would be better.

Deputy R. Bruton

The problem with omnibus meetings is that people become exhausted because the same thing is said time and again.

Deputy Burton

We could meet from 9.30 a.m. until 11.15 a.m.

Chairman

Yes, we will meet at 9.30 a.m. on Thursday. We will only have time to deal with one speaker and will be obliged to deal with the remainder the following week.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Let us be more pragmatic and reasonable. Why do we not meet on Wednesday week when the bank might be in a better position to provide information?

Chairman

That would be at our regular meeting which is scheduled for that day.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Can we not defer the agenda for that meeting until a later date?

Chairman

We could deal with this matter in our regular slot and there would be no difficulties about obtaining a room. We could begin in the afternoon and allow matters to proceed for a few hours after tea, thereby completing the full day's business with IFSRA and representatives of the bank, if they are able to attend.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Unfortunately, some members have a number of responsibilities——

Chairman

I am just making suggestions.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I accept that. I do not disagree. However, I do not know if all the witnesses are going to appear together and, in my opinion, a staggered approach would be better.

Chairman

What about next Thursday?

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I would be amenable to taking one of them next Thursday morning.

Deputy Burton

I would prefer that approach.

Chairman

On Thursday afternoon.

Deputy Burton

In the past the committee has had extremely long sessions involving many witnesses appearing before it. It might be better to break it up in order that members would have an opportunity to reflect on what people have said.

Chairman

We will try to arrange it for 9.30 a.m. on Thursday next.

Deputy Burton

With a meeting on the following Wednesday to hear from other witnesses.

Chairman

Yes, in our regular slot. We will begin with the Central Bank and IFSRA and proceed from there. I will ask the secretariat to inform members as soon as we know what is involved. We will also write to AIB to indicate that we are inviting it to agree a date for a meeting as soon as is practical.

The next item of correspondence involves a 17 page letter from a person who is dissatisfied with the outcome of a settlement with the Revenue Commissioners and also with the role of the Ombudsman in the case. It is a long letter and I, for one, have not had an opportunity to read it in full. I propose that we defer it until our next meeting. I do not want to mention the individual by name.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Deputy McGuinness has spoken about this matter in the past and I have also alluded to it. I have only had an opportunity to give the letter which is lengthy and detailed a cursory reading. However, I wish to flag the important point made on the first page which I do not believe will challenge anyone. The correspondent has asked the committee to address the issue of the recommendations of the Ombudsman and the various State agencies and the failure, in some instances — as in this case — of the latter to respect those recommendations. As I understand it, it is not that he is inviting any further attention to the specifics of his case. He is, however, highlighting the fact that there is a major issue vis-à-vis the power of the Ombudsman. On yesterday’s or today’s Order of Business I asked the Taoiseach or the Tánaiste about the Ombudsman and the legislation scheduled to be taken early in 2005 to increase that office holder’s power.

The committee could spend some time addressing this issue and filter through ideas relating to it. It is extremely questionable if a determination by the Ombudsman can be either rejected or ignored by the Revenue Commissioners or any other such body. The power of the Ombudsman is crucial. I have not read all of this lengthy item of correspondence but that matter is at the heart of what the writer is urging us to consider. He has made a reasonable request and we should take it on board.

Chairman

We discussed the net issue at our previous meeting. We have since written to the Ombudsman and have received an acknowledgement from her office which is dated 6 May. It states that the Ombudsman wishes to acknowledge receipt of our letter of 5 May 2004 in connection with seeking information on recommendations made by her that have been rejected by the "public body concerned".

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I apologise. If the Chairman recalls, I was unable to be present for the entire meeting on the previous occasion.

Chairman

We have already commenced the process. If it transpires that this is the only occasion on which something like this has happened, that will be fine. However, if it transpires that it is one of a hundred such——

Deputy Ó Caoláin

It should not have happened at all.

Chairman

When we receive the information we will be able to make a call in respect of this matter.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Is there further information to come?

Chairman

The letter from the Ombudsman's office is only an acknowledgement of receipt of our request for information. We have commenced the process in respect of that issue.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

That is fine.

Chairman

The next item is a draft report to the Committees on Procedure and Privileges on statutory instruments. At our previous meeting, we agreed to write to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in each House drawing attention to our concerns relating to the consideration of statutory instruments by this committee. Standing Orders require the committee to review its procedures and its role generally and to report on these matters at least once a year to the two CPPs. A draft report on statutory instruments has been circulated. The two key points in the report are that there was not a proper system in place under which Departments could notify the committee of statutory instruments and that the 21day period is not always included in legislation. We asked the CPPs if this had wider implications for all committees. Is it agreed that the draft report be a report of the committee? Agreed. It is agreed that the report will be sent to the Committees on Procedures and Privileges and, in accordance with Standing Orders, laid before the Houses.

The next item concerns the consideration of the draft report on EU proposal COM (2003) 789. At the previous meeting, the committee heard a presentation by officials on this proposal which concerns the compilation of non-financial accounts on a quarterly basis for each institutional sector. It was agreed that a draft report be prepared and this has been circulated. Since the last meeting the Central Statistics Office wrote to the Clerk by e-mail, detailing a number of amendments that had been made to the proposal. However, these amendments predate our last meeting and do not constitute new material. Is it agreed that the draft report be a report of the committee? Agreed. In accordance with Standing Orders, the report must be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. I propose that copies of the report be forwarded to the Sub-committee on European Scrutiny, the Department of the Taoiseach and the director general of the Central Statistics Office. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 5 is concerned with travel proposals and a consideration of the report of the delegation which visited the public works commission in Rome. The Report has been circulated. Is it agreed that it be noted? Agreed. A report from the delegation which visited the World Summit on the Information Society in Geneva in December has been circulated. Is it agreed that the report be noted? Agreed.

Item No. 6 deals with a presentation by officials regarding the scrutiny of EU legisative proposals, specifically COM (2003) 797 re administrative co-operation on excise duties. I will ask the officials——

Deputy R. Bruton

Apart from the banks, we do not have any indication as to what we are going to do as a committee in the immediate future. It is most unsatisfactory that we drift along. There is a widespread desire to look at decentralisation, for example. The implementation group and a number of the unions have raised this issue. There has been no opportunity in the Dáil to discuss the matter of public concern and this committee is the forum to discuss it.

We need to agree one or two priority issues. We will be dealing with the banks but we should back that up with hearings on decentralisation. We should not drift from week to week, loading our agenda with these EU legislative proposals, effectively putting an end to our accountability remit in other areas.

Chairman

I propose that the first item after correspondence at our next meeting should be to prioritise the work programme. We have listed ten items on the programme, as per the document. We had a good discussion on these two meetings back.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Deputy Bruton is saying we need to get into it.

Chairman

There are ten items though we have not prioritised them. The first issue is to clear the report on banking charges and interest rates.

Deputy R. Bruton

What is the second item?

Chairman

They are not in sequence, but it is Delivering Better Government. The third item is the role of the European Central Bank, the fourth is the Standards in Public Office Commission and the fifth is the national development plan. The sixth is a review of FOI legislation and seventh is the role of the IMF and World Bank. The eighth is a review of the tax system and certain tax reliefs, the ninth is the Civil Service and public service decentralisation and the tenth is the potential of the euro having regard to two currencies on the island of Ireland. They are listed as they appear on the work programme.

Deputy R. Bruton

In terms of timeliness, we should insist that decentralisation be addressed by the committee. We should plan a meeting on this and alert whoever necessary, otherwise it will be continually pushed to the end of meetings. It will then be pushed aside in favour of dealing with the banks.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

The work programme that we have——

Deputy R. Bruton

We have no work programme. We have had it on the agenda about ten times but we have no work programme.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

We had a work programme the last time I was present.

Chairman

The only item people wanted to consider was the tax reliefs. That was suggested several times.

Deputy R. Bruton

We should decide what we are going to talk about.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Decentralisation has been discussed and agreed. It is going to happen. What will we be updating? Is the Deputy for or against it?

Deputy R. Bruton

Our job is scrutiny. The Deputy comes in here and says we are going to over-regulate the banks, rightly so. We need to do our job rigorously and properly. We need to look at decentralization. Are there going to be problems for organisations and staff? What is going to happen to the spatial strategy? Will this back it up? If not, we have to suggest how it can be improved. Asking for a "yes" or "no" is simplistic and if the Deputy was asked to respond in such a manner to other issues he would feel the same. He should not make such remarks. We need a work programme. We cannot have a committee loaded with Committee Stages of lengthy Bills and endless scrutiny of EU legislative proposals in the absence of having an agenda on how we want to put a stamp on how Ireland inc works.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I do not want to make a political point but I saw the draft programme. Decentralisation was announced in the budget and it is now six months later.

Deputy R. Bruton

There has been no discussion of it, six months on.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

It is not necessary.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Deputy Burton has allowed me to raise a different matter. The Combat Poverty Agency came to the committee to discuss decentralisation to my home town, the smallest part of the decentralisation programme. I have met the agency three times since, including yesterday, and each of its representatives has indicated that apart from their presence already as CPA-ADM administration of Peace 2 in European Union House, Monaghan, there is no prospect of decentralisation of the CPA to Monaghan and that it is illusory to suggest otherwise. The 25 person body is all that was proposed, yet, clearly, it is something that will not come to pass. This comes from the mouths of those at the coalface. It is the reality and something we need to address along with other propositions, as we must separate what is going to happen from the pre-election announcements.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

The Deputy should not despair. This will happen.

Deputy Ó Caolain

I am not despairing. I hope we will get something else instead.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I guarantee the Deputy it will be honoured before the next general election.

Deputy Burton

The issue I raise is a related one, as it concerns the OPW. I would like some discussion about how to approach it as I have raised it on several occasions in the Dáil. It relates to how the OPW handled events related to the Irish EU Presidency. I put these questions to the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, who is not lacking in self-confidence. Last week he published the PriceWaterhouseCoopers report on the investigation of certain problems with the tendering and provision of services in relation to the OPW, specifically in the context of the Presidency. I am sorry Deputy McGuinness is gone because he has also pursued this several times.

The report is a damning indictment of both the tendering practices and procedures of the OPW and of the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, who sits at the top of the table. The report shows the OPW went from managing seven Presidency events to 32. In the context of that huge expansion, perhaps the procedures for tendering did not follow.

This is related to the earlier issue. While the Minister of State does not lack confidence, it is the job of the committee to make him accountable here for that report, because many small and medium-sized business people provide services at Government functions. I raised this issue before and will do so again. When there is a fiercely competitive market such as catering services, it is important that those supplying such services, whether in Mitchelstown or Dublin Castle, feel confident there is a level playing field. That is critical. If the PriceWaterhouseCoopers report is indicative of what is happening in the OPW, what will happen when and if the Combat Poverty Agency is moved to Monaghan town? What will happen with the cleaning and other services attached to a Department? The report is damning and though the work programme lists 20 items, this report deserves examination. I am not suggesting that it happen before the local elections. We have a list of about 20 items but given its seriousness, the PricewaterhouseCoopers report deserves to be examined.

Deputies Ned O'Keeffe, Finneran, McGuinness and others have indicated that now that the dual mandate has ended, there is no reason some committee meetings should not be held on Mondays or Fridays and that some committee work could be done by sub-committees. It is essential that the committee examines the decentralisation proposals because of its close connection with the Office of Public Works. It should also examine the PricewaterhouseCoopers investigation into tendering procedures because, as with the AIB case, it is indicative of a mindset. We should attend to these issues as part of our scrutiny and accountability function. It is difficult to carry out an investigation of this nature on Wednesdays when members are very busy. Examination of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report will require more time and we are all under pressure as the elections approach. For this reason, I have an open mind as to the timing of the investigation but it may be better to wait until after the election. It is the most important report on Government practices in recent years.

The Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, is a member of a party of watchdogs. We want to know how he exercised his ministerial functions. This is a legitimate question and he should come before the committee to address it and the issue of decentralisation. He is the man with the auctioneer's sign and hammer selling off some properties and buying others. We need oversight and scrutiny of the decentralisation process which could be either very successful or, if done badly, the most expensive, inefficient measure ever undertaken by the State. The PricewaterhouseCoopers report on the OPW tendering process does not fill me with confidence. I want the matter addressed and there are ways and means of doing so.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I support Deputy Burton's comments on the PricewaterhouseCoopers report. Transparency is necessary in tendering, a sensitive and closely watched area. However, I reject her comments on decentralisation, with which we are playing politics. We should be realistic and accept that decentralisation will happen. I assure Deputy Ó Caoláin that he will have the Combat Poverty Agency in Monaghan, Castleblayney or Carrickmacross. I agree that the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, should come before the committee to discuss the PricewaterhouseCoopers report. I also support Deputy Burton's proposal to sit on Mondays and Fridays.

Deputy R. Bruton

Deputy O'Keeffe is undermining our role of scrutinising the actions of the Executive. That is the job of the committee, including the Deputy. The Accounting Officer of all the organisations proposed for decentralisation is obliged to carry out a risk assessment of the impact of the proposed move on his or her organisation, given that it is such a major change. As a committee charged with scrutinising Executive actions, we have an obligation to examine the manner in which such risk assessments are being carried out, their findings and the Government's response.

As has been correctly pointed out, political momentum has developed with regard to decentralisation. This momentum is, however, divorced from the merits of decentralisation and driven specifically by the Minister for Finance. Very important issues are at stake. There is a real risk that the considerable political drive behind the process will result in adverse risk assessments being suppressed or in the Government opting for public private partnerships and buying into bad risks from the private sector in order to deliver on time to suit a political agenda when other ways of dealing with the issue may be available.

We are elected to keep an eye on public money and have a job to scrutinise the process. This applies to Government back bench Members as much as Opposition Members and they should not wash their hands of the matter and retire into the undergrowth because the Minister indicates that decentralisation is a major political issue for the Fianna Fáil Party.

Deputy Burton

He does not have a blank cheque.

Deputy R. Bruton

We must take our scrutiny role seriously. Just as we should have proper public procurement in the Office of Public Works, we should also have proper public procurement as regards the way the public service relocates around the country to ensure a quality public service is delivered at the end of the process.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Before the announcement on decentralisation, this committee discussed the issue for days and interrogated officials from the various Departments.

Deputy R. Bruton

The officials listed criteria which were supposed to be assessed before a decision was made. There was supposed to be a strategic plan showing how the proposals matched up with the criteria, the national spatial strategy and so forth. None of this was done.

Chairman

I propose to conclude the proceedings. The file provided for members contains a list of ten items on the work programme. Deputy Burton has suggested adding a further item. I ask each party to submit to the Clerk its three priorities from among the ten items.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

When should that be done?

Chairman

Tomorrow.

Deputy Burton

I want to make a point on procedure——

Chairman

I will allow the Deputy to speak in a moment. We have narrowed the agenda down to ten items. To make progress, I ask that each party rank these items in order of importance. This will be the first item on the agenda at the next meeting once the minutes have been dealt with and we can then sign off on the matter. Instead of discussing the matter for another quarter of an hour, let each party submit its priorities.

Deputy Burton

As long as a year ago, we had a discussion led by Deputy Finneran on establishing a sub-committee to examine the strategic management initiative. The PricewaterhouseCoopers report on procurement in the Office of Public Works published last week should be examined and scrutinised by this committee. While I understand that Wednesdays are particularly difficult for Opposition Members, why should the committee not adopt Deputy Finneran's proposal on holding meetings on Mondays and Fridays? It would allow people who are available to carry out a scrutiny function. We could wait until immediately after the election before proceeding. It would be wrong, however, if the committee did not examine the PricewaterhouseCoopers report. We could do so in conjunction with an examination of the decentralisation proposals. I am trying to find a way to help the committee to progress some of our work.

Chairman

Every time we have a discussion such as this, we add more items to our agenda which results in other members complaining that the list is getting longer. The PricewaterhouseCoopers report was not on our work programme last week. We could add it to our agenda today and another item next week. I ask the parties to submit a list of their priorities to the Clerk as soon as possible.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Highlighting the PricewaterhouseCoopers report is welcome. From what I have been apprised as regards the report, although unlike Deputy Burton I have not had an opportunity to study it, we should address the matter.

Before I leave, I wish to comment on No. 6 which we skipped. I apologise for my departure but the clock has beaten us and I am also aware that officials of the Department are patiently waiting which is unfair. I welcome the briefing note they provided for us but, unfortunately, I will not be able to remain for its presentation. Having read it, I no longer have the concerns I expressed at the previous meeting of the committee as regards the implications of the proposal to enhance co-operation in the field of excise administration. My concerns related to the effect of the proposal vis-à-vis those involved in the retail sector in the broad Border counties region. We need scrutiny of matters such as this to ensure they do not have a downside, in this case for people who have been out of business for years because of unfair competition from north of the Border. As the position has reversed in recent times, those affected will have an opportunity to catch up again. The briefing note clarifies that this would not be a by-product of the proposal and as a result I do not have any outstanding concerns.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I support Deputy Burton. The committee is not doing justice to the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, a most important issue. The Deputy suggests that a sub-committee sit on Fridays and Mondays. We have considerable work on our agenda and are often accused of not sufficiently examining and discussing documents and issues. All committee members are in the House on Wednesdays when we run around with our tails at our backs and nothing happens. If we are going to have meetings on Mondays and Fridays, it is important we put a structure in place for those days. I agree with Deputy Burton, Mondays are working days for us. We must be serious about our business. Is a finalised document and bank report due before the committee?

Chairman

Yes, but they are not completed yet. They are being drafted and will come before us when complete.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I support Deputy Burton's proposal.

Deputy Burton

I apologise, but I have to leave now. Wednesday is an extremely difficult day for people who are Front Bench spokespersons.

Chairman

It was the members of this committee who set Wednesday afternoon as the meeting time, not me. At this stage I must apologise to the witnesses waiting that we do not have a quorum. Is Deputy Bruton able to remain for the presentation?

Deputy R. Bruton

Yes.

Chairman

As a representative of the Opposition will be present I will ask the witnesses to come forward. While they are taking their seats, I wish to inform the committee of some other business. Members may recall that on 14 January the committee considered a letter from John Trethowan, chief operating officer of National Irish Bank, who asked for an opportunity to update me, as Chairman, on the business operation of NIB in Ireland. It was agreed at that time that I would meet him informally with the Clerk to the committee and report back to the committee. We met Mr. Trethowan and Mr. John Anderson of NIB last Wednesday. The two gentlemen updated me on how NIB had dealt with the consequences of the two "Prime Time" programmes of 1998 which highlighted difficulties concerning the bank's sale of offshore insurance products and discrepancies in interest charges. Since then we were told NIB had co-operated with all investigations, put in place reimbursement schemes for customers, examined its procedures and put new control procedures in place. The final report of the High Court inspectors is expected soon. I understand the bank is also briefing other members in a similar way, although it may have commenced by meeting me as Chairman of this committee.

I also wish to inform committee members that a note is included in today's package of information on the operation of allowances for rapporteurs. I take it that it is noted.

Deputy R. Bruton

There is nothing wrong with NIB briefing people about what it is doing.

Chairman

The bank wrote officially to the committee last January seeking to update me as Chairman on the changes the bank had made since the 1998 "Prime Time" programme highlighted a number of difficulties. The final report of the High Court is expected soon but I have no information on it and the bank did not comment, but it wanted to inform me of the changes as a matter of courtesy. NIB did mention that it had also spoken with the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts.