Apologies have been received from Deputy Twomey and Senator Higgins. The minutes of the meeting of 1 June 2004 have been circulated. Are they agreed? Agreed. Do any matters arise from them?
Business of Joint Committee.
I missed the last meeting and I want to know the position on seeking compellability status for the committee.
While the Senator is quite in order to ask, as it is referred to in the minutes, we will come to that matter under correspondence.
Where does it come up?
It is under correspondence. We will deal with it under the next item on the agenda. A number of items are to be considered under correspondence. The first concerns statutory instruments. On 28 April and 12 May, the committee's attention was drawn to a number of statutory instruments concerning the valuation of properties occupied by certain telecommunications companies. An information note on the mechanism for establishing rateable value was sought from the Department of Finance. A more detailed note was requested following the meeting of 12 May. The note was received and circulated before the last meeting and deferred for consideration to today's meeting. Are members satisfied with the information that has been provided in the briefing letter from the Department of Finance concerning the methods of valuation for public utilities? If members are satisfied, we will move on. Is that agreed? Agreed. Accordingly, I propose that the committee should not proceed with formal consideration of Statutory Instruments 146, 147, 148, 149 and 162 of 2004, because they are connected with that matter. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The next item of correspondence concerns Maynooth College chapel. On 28 April the committee agreed to seek further information from the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, concerning the way in which grant in aid was approved for the refurbishment of the chapel at Maynooth College. The Minister of State's reply was circulated before the last meeting and was deferred for consideration today. Do members have any views on the matter?
On behalf of Deputy Paul McGrath, who is not here, I know the question he would want to pose. What was the process through which this money was granted? Was it given out without an application having been made?
You have the letter.
I have nothing against the chapel in Maynooth.
No. The letter sets out the process in so far as there was a process.
Thank you, a Chathaoirligh. I have read the letter.
Okay.
I am not any wiser having read it, however. I want to know what is the broader picture. I would like to get information on the number of grants that were provided through Departments for which no written applications were made. I am delighted to hear about this matter because we all have situations we would like to see being dealt with, without having to go through all the bureaucratic red tape, including signing forms, arguing with civil servants to make the case, and shouting about this, that and the other. Now, however, we find there is an easier way and I think that easier way should be shared. I would like to compliment the Government on being able to give out money without having received written applications. I want to know how many such grants were given out in the last year. Is that a fair question?
It is. I call Deputy Richard Bruton.
I agree with Senator O'Toole's question. It strikes me, however, that the only reason this came to the committee's notice was because the money was originally sanctioned on the basis that it was for the library. The OPW then had to come back with its tail between its legs and introduce a supplementary estimate to correct the situation. Otherwise, the committee would never have been alerted to the fact that money was given out in this fashion.
While there is a good deal of humour in Senator O'Toole's question, there is also a serious element in it. The committee would never have known about this process other than by accident. It creates the impression that the Department of Finance, which we are led to believe is the guardian of proper financial procedure, does not seem to be particularly worried about the financial procedures the Minister and those close to him apply. There is a serious element in this Maynooth case that is worthy of note by the committee. We should seek reassurances from the Minister for Finance that proper procedures will be put in place. The Minister tends to shrug off such requests as sour grapes on the part of the Opposition, but that is not the case. In a modern democracy one expects proper standards to be applied in scrutinising such cases. The process should be fair, open and transparent.
It is perhaps timely for us to assure the president, staff and student body of Maynooth, that the college is not the issue here. The issue is the practice and methodology used in processing and approving applications. In this case the Minister for Finance has clearly acted independently of any such process. There was no application and there appears to have been no methodology for appraisal. Approval seems to have been issued arbitrarily by the Minister in the course of his budgetary address. We are trying to ensure best practice, which clearly was not employed in this instance. I support Senator O'Toole's request for an outline of all such approvals that have been issued in the past. It would be interesting to see if any of them occurred in areas outside the Minister's own constituency. It is hardly a coincidence that both the Maynooth and Punchestown cases are in Deputy McCreevy's electoral area. The information should be exposed so that we can be made aware of the extent of such grants over the years. We want to receive an assurance that there will be no repeat of this type of practice and that best practice will be applied in the future.
It has taken seven months to bring this matter to finalisation by the committee. It is a bit like drawing hens' teeth to get the information we required concerning what has occurred at Maynooth College. It was merely by accident that we stumbled across what has now become something that has serious implications for the committee and for the Minister for Finance, as well as how he does his business. Like other speakers, I have no difficulty with Maynooth College's chapel being grant aided by the State. It is a fine building which is being refurbished and there is no reason why State money should not be used for that purpose. However, I am greatly disturbed by the method by which it was done.
I am sure that every member of this committee has been involved with a local sports organisation — be it a GAA, gymnastics or other club — as well as a senior citizens' group or others seeking State funding. Such groups receive a bundle of papers to be completed and they must fill out all kinds of details about their plans, planning permission, what funds they have in the bank, and who is on their committee. That information is then processed centrally following which someone comes out to inspect what is happening. All those procedures were set aside in the case of Maynooth College, however. It now transpires that there was a casual meeting — it might even have been a telephone call — between the president of Maynooth College, Monsignor Dermot Farrell, and the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy. Arising from that meeting, for which no minutes were taken and no civil servants or other witnesses were present, the Minister decided to disperse largesse from the taxpayer to the extent of €750,000. That is outside the normal procedure that should be followed when one is disposing of taxpayers' money and it raises serious questions about how it was done. We know it was done to win votes — that is the bottom line.
How many other grants have been made in the same way? This committee is a financial watchdog, so it is incumbent on you, Chairman, to use your good offices to find out how many other such disposals have been made. We have discussed what happened at Punchestown and the similarity between that and the Maynooth case is that both are in the Minister's constituency. Were there other such cases? The committee will have to summon the relevant people who are aware of other cases, if such exist, so that they can tell us all about them. The taxpayer is entitled to know. It is not fair to have a set of rules with which the Minister can dispense because he wants to curry favour with people in his constituency. What about the question of accountability for taxpayers' money? Is this the type of issue the Comptroller and Auditor General should consider? It is clear that all procedures were set aside.
It is also interesting that when we first made inquiries in respect of this matter, we received three letters from the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, before we received the letter informing us that proper procedures were not followed. What was the Minister of State attempting to do? He was busily trying to cover up in the hope that we would drop the issue and go away. For a supposed Progressive Democratic watchdog, he failed in his job. When the initial query was received, he dithered and sent correspondence to the committee which did not answer the questions we raised——
He was working on decentralisation at the time.
——and he set aside the procedures.
This is a serious matter and we should report to the Dáil in respect of it. The Chairman should use his good offices to establish whether there were similar cases. If there were, the committee should be informed about them.
I wish to put a number of proposals to the committee. The first is that the committee should write to the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Purcell, and ask him to undertake a review of this series of events to discover whether the standards laid down for accounting officers — the Secretaries General of Departments — regarding the expenditure of money were met or whether it is possible for Ministers to personally dictate how money should be spent without there being a process in place to examine a Minister's suggestion in that regard. We do not know whether this type of behaviour applies generally across the Government.
Pressure is exerted on Ministers from all sides by people from their constituencies seeking support for worthwhile projects. The normal reply Ministers issue is that they will support projects but that such projects must take their place in the queue and be examined and vetted by the Department of Finance. Leaving aside the merits of the project involved, in this instance the Minister of State engaged in some form of casual interaction perhaps at a meeting or at mass in Maynooth where he met the celebrant who had a word in his ear. I do not know where they met. Perhaps they merely spoke on the telephone. This is unlike the position that obtains in respect of schools throughout the country, some of which are falling down or are rat-infested. It is also dissimilar to what happens in the case of sports clubs in my constituency, which have been obliged to undergo an annual charade by the Government for the past seven years. Sports grant allocations are re-announced every two to three years or, in the event of an election, every year. A large number of sports clubs are obliged to re-apply for funding.
There is now a huge bureaucracy in place as regards the grants issued by the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. When I was Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare, I was involved, with Deputy Woods, in instituting many of those grants. The system was simple and it was dealt with by three officials. Now, however, a Department is employing hundreds of people to deal with the grants. Much of what goes on is about political pandering and patronage.
I formally propose that we write to the Comptroller and Auditor General asking him to examine this series of events, to compare what happened with how grant funding is made available to other institutions and bodies and to establish whether there is a fair balance between how applications from people in the social economy who are seeking support for social inclusion——
I agree with the Deputy's suggestion that we write to the Comptroller and Auditor General. However, he would be precluded from commenting on the policy aspects of the decision. He can check the merits of the process and report on the functions of the accounting officer but he is not permitted to deal with the policy or political aspect of the matter.
Fine.
Commenting on whether something was fair falls outside his remit. The committee can decide if there was fairness.
Perhaps the Comptroller and Auditor General could inform the committee if there are application procedures which are enforced in other Departments in respect of sports grant allocations and community, social and school grant allocations. There are a number of discretionary headings in the budget of the Department of Education and Science as regards schools. As I understand it, however, schools must undergo an application process. Writing to the Comptroller and Auditor General is the first thing we should do.
The second thing we should do is invite the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, to meet the committee, perhaps at the conclusion of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. I do not want to meet senior civil servants from the OPW. This was a political decision and the person responsible for the OPW is the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon. The Minister of State's office was also recently the subject of a PricewaterhouseCoopers report regarding tendering procedures for the supply of services to Dublin Castle for the EU Presidency. This report was extremely critical about how things were done by the OPW. PricewaterhouseCoopers indicated that during the Presidency there were to be something of the order of 27 events. However, once the Presidency commenced, the political pressure was such that the number of events for Ministers in their constituencies and in Dublin Castle quadrupled. As a result, the OPW's structure for vetting tenders, etc., was under such pressure that it could not cope. The report in question outlines a number of clear faults.
This is again a matter of political responsibility. The Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, must come before the committee to answer questions about Maynooth College and the PricewaterhouseCoopers report on the tendering process at Dublin Castle. Both of these matters involve political responsibility, they are not merely the responsibility of civil servants.
I have no difficulty with the chapel at Maynooth College receiving a grant. However, the university part of Maynooth College is State-funded. As I understand it, the chapel there is a private institution owned by the Catholic bishops of Ireland. That is fine. However, church and State are separated in the Constitution and it is inappropriate that one particular religious body should be seen to be favoured in a casual way. If we provide money for the upkeep of religious sites — an action I support — there are many Church of Ireland properties throughout the country which are in a bad state of repair. In fairness to the different church bodies on this island, a sense of procedure and fairness is needed. It is the duty of the Oireachtas to uphold its distance from any particular religion and to treat all religious bodies which own heritage properties — as are quite a number of them — fairly. The procedure followed must be known to be fair and transparent.
The Deputy is, therefore, suggesting that we write to the Comptroller and General along the lines she suggested and, at the conclusion of his report process, that we invite the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, to come before the committee to discuss the matters in question.
I am interested in the earlier proposal regarding provision of details in respect of the extent of this type of approval of moneys during the past decade and, if necessary, even earlier. We need to obtain a clear picture as regards what happened. Senator O'Toole made that proposition and I support him.
It would be reasonable to——
To go back two years.
Exactly. It would be acceptable to cover the period during which the current Government has been in office.
So it would cover the period back to 1997?
No. There was an election in 2002.
In my view it should cover the period of Deputy McCreevy's tenure as Minister for Finance. I do not believe covering two years will provide an adequate picture.
Under the Constitution the State is forbidden from endowing religious institutions. The Douglas Hyde Centre was established many years ago but questions were asked because it was located in a Church of Ireland property. This issue must be explained to the committee. It may not be interpreted as an endowment of a church but, if it is church property and it is used for religious purposes, this would be an endowment of a religious institution by the State, which is unconstitutional.
I can think of a number of churches that have received funding through the Heritage Council. It not only happened for this church.
However, such funding follows procedures. It does not matter which church is involved. A church was endowed by the State without procedures being followed. That is unfair.
We must move on. Five statutory instruments have been sent to the committee — four from the Department of Finance and one from the Revenue. Under its orders of reference, the committee has power to select and consider statutory instruments laid before the Houses by the Minister for Finance. The committee has no authority to examine statutory instruments made by the Revenue. However, where a statutory instrument made by the Revenue involves the implementation of Government policy or pertains to the operational results of the Revenue, the committee has a remit. The time within which the Oireachtas can annul statutory instruments is usually limited by statute to 21 days after they are laid.
SI 193 of 2004 was laid before the Oireachtas on 28 May. The instrument amends existing regulations by specifying the maximum proportion of marker that may be added to gas, oil or kerosene where such oil is intended for use other than as a propellant. The 21 day probationary period does not apply. I propose that the committee should not consider the matter. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SI 198 of 2004 was laid before the Oireachtas on 28 May. It gives effect to an EU directive made in 2001 requiring the regulation of the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions. As these regulations are made under the European Communities Act 1972, they can be annulled by the Oireachtas within one year of being made but the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Europe Affairs must made a recommendation to annul them. If the committee was to form a view that such regulations should be annulled, it would not only have to persuade the Houses but also the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs. Does the committee wish to consider this at a later date?
This is a substantial and important issue but I have not had time to study it. The instrument could go through unnoticed.
Does it arise from an EU directive?
Yes. If the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs seeks to have the regulations annulled, it can make a recommendation to the Houses.
I thought legislation had to be passed to transpose EU directives and that regulations then underpinned the legislation.
The regulations are made under the European Communities Act 1972. I do not know what are the merits of the instrument but perhaps we should obtain a briefing note and that will be the quickest way to deal with it.
A briefing note should be provided so that the committee can make an informed opinion. The outline provided by the Chair is inadequate.
Is that agreed? Agreed. SI 203 of 2004 was laid before the Oireachtas on 28 May. The instrument exempts a range of services that individual credit unions can offer under the additional service requirements detailed in section 48 of the Credit Union Act 1997. The probationary period applies. Does the committee wish to discuss it? The committee requested these statutory instruments earlier this year. Had it not done so, we would be none the wiser.
Is it not the case that more information is required given the issue involved? I suggest taking the same course as with the previous statutory instrument.
As soon as the briefing note is received it will be circulated to members because of the brief timescale involved. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SI 201 of 2004 was laid before the Oireachtas on 8 June. The instrument excludes tobacco products transported from certain EU member states from the relief of excise duty as provided for in the Finance Act 2001. The probationary period applies. There is no need for the committee to discuss this.
SI 232 of 2004 was laid before the Oireachtas on 8 June. The instrument appoints 28 May as the commencement date for section 102 of the Finance Act 2003, which provides for a single registration certificate for motor vehicles. The probationary period does not apply. I propose the committee should take no further action on this. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Sub-committee on European Scrutiny has forwarded a list of documents and proposals to consider. It has referred two proposals to the committee for further scrutiny. COM 227 concerns general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and the holding, movement and monitoring of such products. It is regarded as being of major significance. Unanimous agreement is required but it is not anticipated that agreement will be reached on the proposal at EU level as it stands. A briefing note has been circulated. Should officials be invited to appear or will the briefing note suffice before making a decision?
We should study the briefing note. The amount of documentation, which has been circulated, is extraordinary.
We asked for the statutory instrument but I take the Deputy's point. The sub-committee has drawn our attention to COM 593 but has not recommended that we should scrutinise it. The proposal involves a preliminary draft budget for the surplus resulting from the implementation of the 2003 EU budget. In addition to the usual material, the sub-committee has provided a detailed brief. Is it agreed the proposal does not warrant scrutiny?
No note has been provided by the Department of Finance. The surplus results from the Government not spending €65 million in Structural and Cohesion Funds between 1994 and 1999. This money will go into next year's pot but that is deeply regrettable, given the significant infrastructure deficit in Ireland. Many people have not received funding for projects. The committee should obtain a report on where the €65 million was supposed to go. People in rural Ireland would be interested to know how we underspent. I would like a more detailed note on that.
I draw members' attention to that document which is contained in the briefing note. Also included is a general statement on revenue.
It does not give us a breakdown, it only gives us the total.
Is Deputy Burton suggesting the committee write to the Department requesting a detailed breakdown in that regard?
Yes. If that is an underspend, does it mean, in terms of next year's policy, that the Minister will cut next year's funding? These surpluses are effectively real cuts in expenditure. It is regrettable, in the context of our infrastructure deficit, that we failed to spend €65 million on infrastructure. I would like to know, though I think I can make a good guess, the areas in which such money was not spent. I would like an explanation from the Department of Finance in that regard.
The essence of what the Deputy is saying is that current spend should be the 2004 estimate plus what was not spent last year.
Yes.
The committee will seek detailed information from the Department on the matter. That completes our discussion on the EU scrutiny documents.
The next item of correspondence relates to freedom of information legislation. A letter has been received from the Information Commissioner concerning this committee's obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 1997. Section 32(2) of the Act provides that the joint committee duly authorised by both Houses must review from time to time the operation of legislative provisions which authorise or require the non-disclosure of records and report to the Houses on the results of any such review.
Subsection (3) requires the Government Ministers to report every five years on these matters to an authorised committee. As this is the fifth year since the last reports were furnished, reports are now being received by the clerk. Subsection (5) allows the Information Commissioner or requires her on request from an authorised committee to report to the committee her opinion and conclusions on the report from the Minister. The Commissioner has stated in her letter that she intends to report to the committee proper in late September or early October.
The committee has not yet been duly authorised by the Houses in accordance with that Act. Does the committee wish to request that the appropriate authority be conferred on the committee by order of the Houses? The legislation provides for an Oireachtas committee and does not specify the matter should be dealt with by this committee. We must request that the House specify this committee as the relevant committee. Is that agreed?
May I make a brief comment?
I would rather the Deputy let me finish.
The clerk has not yet circulated any of the seven reports received from the Government Departments. Some Departments have already submitted their reports and it is intended to circulate all reports in an index folder when received. Members will be aware from previous experience that that file will be voluminous, given that it will contain reports from 15 Departments. Are members happy to receive the information in that manner? Agreed.
The Information Commissioner has also published her annual report in which she notes the virtual collapse of the use of the Freedom of Information Act.
Was that report published today?
Yes. The Information Commissioner points out that the number of requests by journalists is down 83% and that effectively large parts of the usage of the Act have collapsed. The number of ordinary requests not related to personal records is down 75%. She points out that the attitude of Departments to releasing information has become more stringent and that the fees regime, which we were told by the high level civil servant group which reported to us during our hearings was only to deter serial requests, has deterred others making such requests.
It is evident from the Information Commissioner's report published today that the Freedom of Information Act has virtually collapsed. It has resulted in this country becoming a more secret society. I welcome the Information Commissioner's attendance on matters relating to compliance. However, I also ask that this committee request her to attend in the autumn to discuss her report in detail. In that regard I want to refer specifically to the section of her report which refers to requesters under the Freedom of Information Act now feeling hopeless and helpless about seeking information under that Act because various Departments are operating a policy of positive deterrence, deterrence in relation to the principle of information and deterrence regarding the level of fees which it is suggested should be charged. There is a crisis regarding the notion of freedom of information. The system has collapsed. The Government got its way. When one considers the issues surrounding Maynooth college and Punchestown one knows why the Government wanted to collapse the system.
I hope the committee will be given an opportunity not only to examine specific technical compliance by a number of Departments but to discuss with the Information Commissioner her report as published today. What is contained in that report indicates a catastrophe in terms of the notion of a free information society.
I agree with the Deputy and propose that we invite the Information Commissioner to attend as urgently as possible.
I second that proposal.
I agree.
We will deal with the matter as soon the Information Commissioner can attend. There is a separate procedure for parts of legislation which require non-disclosure of records. There is a separate exercise over and above last year's amendment. The committee will deal separately with that matter.
I support that.
We will invite the Information Commissioner to attend at the first available opportunity.
On the review regarding compliance, the Information Commissioner has power under a section of the Act — I do not have a copy of the Act with me — to demand that information be released. The report, which was published bilingually yesterday — a fact which should be recorded — provides a league table of the worst offending Departments. The Department of Education and Science has, for the past four years, been on top of the list. Can we, under the terms of our inquiry, deal with that issue? Does our review cover that aspect?
No. This is a complicated issue. We have agreed to invite the Information Commissioner to attend to discuss her annual report which covers all matters with which members wish to deal. However, from recollection various Schedules to the Freedom of Information Act 1997 contain a list of exemptions. The committee will not discuss matters that cannot be disclosed.
I understand that.
An example would be IDA grants and security issues. Many Schedules contain items that are excluded from the provisions of the Freedom of the Information Act. The Schedules are reviewed every five years by each Department, the Information Commissioner and a committee of the House. That is the specific task which we will undertake.
It may also consider new items to be added.
Yes. However, the committee would prefer to deal with the lifting of exemptions rather than adding new ones. We will invite the Information Commissioner to attend to discuss her report at the first available opportunity. We will then undertake the bigger task during the course of the year.
We will now deal with the next item of correspondence. The chairman of the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food has passed on to this committee an invitation from the Russian Embassy in Belgium to a conference in Moscow in November. The purpose of the conference is to support the further strengthening of the image of Russia in the external economic space, the development of trade, economic relations with foreign states and expansion-investment in Russia. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges travel rules require that any proposal for travel by a committee must be directly and explicitly linked to the 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. It is clear that the subject matter of the conference does not meet the criteria. I propose we note the invitation but not take it up. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The next item of correspondence relates to a number of documents regarding recent events at AIB. Following the last meeting, I wrote to the chairman of AIB regarding its decision not to appear before the committee at this stage. The letter and reply have been circulated. I do not wish to enter in a debate on the matter but will hear members' pertinent comments.
I would like to offer a comment. The brevity of the reply is breath-taking.
The reply speaks volumes about the culture of AIB, a phrase used by me in my last letter to the chairman.
I am here in substitution for Senator Mansergh. It is true to say the writer does not mince words. It is an insult.
My letter to him was not too polite either.
Given the background to the letter, I appreciate what it might have contained.
The committee agreed at the last meeting to defer until today consideration of the advice on compellability of the parliamentary legal adviser. The advice sets out clearly the process of acquiring compellibility powers and the scope of these powers. Unless there are any related matters on which members require more information, I suggest that we note the advice at this stage. In other words, we will hold open whether we go down that road.
I am not happy to do that. As a member of the compellability sub-committee, I understand the process. The process of application is straightforward and comes under the 1997 or 1998 Act whereby we seek authority from the compellability sub-committee to be allowed to compel people to come in here. This can be done in two ways. We can either seek a general compellability authority, which would allow us to demand people, persons and records to be produced. This can be done either through seeking a general compellability authority or seeking a directive on specifics saying we want named people to come in here or we want access to named records. We know what we want in this instance.
We look like a group of weaklings in the public eye. We have asked the largest and wealthiest banking institution and company in the State to come in here and it has turned up its nose at us. Whatever happened this time, we are putting ourselves in the situation of being turned down again in the future. We need to make it absolutely clear that if people are not reasonable with us we will be prepared to use the authority which is democratically available to us through legislation, properly discussed and properly used. That is what we are here for and it is what people want to see us do.
I concur with what Senator O'Toole said. He tabled a motion on compellability at this committee the last day, which I seconded. I propose that we proceed to seek powers of compellability for this committee. Mr. Gleeson's reply as chairman of the bank is basically giving two fingers to the committee. There is no other way to describe it. I said previously that I believe the attitude senior management of Allied Irish Banks has taken to the committee, and the culture that appears to exist at various levels in the bank, has been unwise and ill-advised. I still think there is a question of public accountability. We can ask pressing and pertinent questions about the culture of Ireland's largest bank without in any way impinging on the detailed examination which is properly proceeding by the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority.
The Governor of the Central Bank came to the committee a couple of weeks ago. He put on record that he saw no problem with senior executives of Allied Irish Banks coming here. The Governor of the Central Bank had and continues to have strong responsibilities and powers in this area. He is very familiar with the rules and regulations and he put on record that there was no problem in this regard. He did not give a view as to whether the bank should come here.
We need to discuss with Allied Irish Banks the governance issues in the bank. It is not good enough for the largest bank in the country to have a drip feed of scandal coming out week after week in regard to both its charging practices and various other aspects of its operations.
There was a letter from Dorothea Dowling indicating her concern that a form of churning was happening in regard to fees for products or loans which had an insurance element. There has been a drip feed of information, including information about Faldor. There was the terrible crisis where the wife of a poor unfortunate former managing director of the bank made a little investment — the price of a modest house in Rathgar — and they never knew it was invested in a bank in the Virgin Islands.
There is a governance crisis in regard to the culture in Allied Irish Banks which affects all banking in Ireland. We need the compellability powers because my guess is that when this examination is completed there will be an attempt to close down on the whole issue. The chairman's reply is disappointing but there is no point in more correspondence. We should attempt to enact the compellability powers. It is up to the Government parties to indicate they are happy to give us these powers. I am satisfied that the committee should exercise these powers carefully and judiciously and not in any way infringe the detail of the six items being examined in regard to AIB.
I must take an opposite view on this matter. I do not think we can have the banks in here and not ask how a subsidiary of the bank set up an offshore company that apparently was designed to facilitate tax evasion in payments to senior executives. This is allegedly a serious breach of criminal law and highly improper. I do not think we can have the banks in here to talk about such issues and not touch on issues that are the subject of detailed investigations by three enforcement institutions of the State.
There are other less serious matters in terms of offence but, nonetheless, overcharging is an offence. Unfortunately, it is an offence for which no sanction was set up in the legislation. If we want to discuss the issue of setting charges — how come there was no process to pick this up — we cannot deviate from the fact that this is an offence which is being investigated. Similarly with the other misselling of products, the breach of the Consumer Credit Act is very clear whereby they failed to inform people of products they were selling to them. People were sold a product which they were not informed they were being sold. This is in breach of the Consumer Credit Act and it is an offence into which an investigation is under way.
We must be honest with ourselves. IFSRA has said that it will publish the reports and it will not leave these issues unexamined. We cannot put in place watchdogs and do the barking ourselves. It is not up to us to compel people who are accused of law breaking to come before our committee. There is a real danger we would prejudice the case taken by the enforcement agencies.
Like other members, I would like to pose these questions to the AIB, but we are seeking to get them in before the report is available. They have not said they are not willing to come in; they said they are willing to come in. However, it appears they are willing to come in here when the reports are published and when the issues are investigated by the enforcement authorities.
I can understand the frustration in this regard. I am conscious of the fact that the NIB investigation took six years to complete and we still do not know what happened. I am also reassured by IFSRA saying it will report by mid-July.
It has now been extended to August.
It is now the autumn.
The central question is, can we bring in the chief executive and not ask about the collapse that resulted in law breaking. Those law breaking acts are being investigated by agencies on behalf of the Oireachtas, people to whom we gave the power. We had them in here to give them the power. We must be reasonable in our approach. I am as angry as any other consumer of AIB products at what seems to be going on but we must separate our own anger about that from our proper role on this committee, which is to make sure the policy implications of these investigations are properly pursued vigorously and that responsibility is laid where it should when these investigations are complete. It is not for us to do the investigation and the turning over of the detail.
That is not the proposal.
It would be naive to think we can examine the culture of the bank distinct from these serious offences which have occurred. We could not have such a hearing. The attempt to have such a hearing would make the committee look stupid.
It is regrettable that we have to consider going down the road of compellability. It indicates that we have reached a sorry situation where the largest financial institution in the country has, over a period of time, fobbed off the committee's request to appear here following a previous presentation where assurances given have shown themselves to have little foundation in addressing the culture within AIB.
The IFSRA inspection which is taking place is not a judicial inquiry. While they are enforcement bodies there is no judicial conflict. That has been clarified by others who have come before the committee. Deputy Bruton is right. Some areas will, undoubtedly, overlap but I doubt that would prejudice future judicial action in any way. As an Oireachtas committee we have a responsibility to address these matters in their currency. The initial response from Mr. Buckley was to defer meeting the committee until a date in July which, as other speakers have already pointed out, is not feasible because that would take us into the August recess. These latest developments will postpone matters until the autumn. Perhaps the underlying agenda here is to await the NIB report so that AIB will not stand alone.
This is, regrettably, a course we must pursue. I emphasise that regret. The committee is left in an almost impossible situation. If we are to have the necessary teeth to address issues within their currency, compellability is the only course we can seek and I support my colleagues in their proposition.
This saga has given real meaning to the Harvey Smith sign. We would not be carrying out our duty on behalf of the people whom we represent in the Oireachtas if we did not go down the road of compellability. We have no other choice. The people who sent us here will tell us ad nauseam that if they are slightly in arrears in their payments to a bank they will be written to and told, in various ways, the implications of failure to pay up. We do not have a choice. Public confidence in the banking institutions is at stake. Banking must be saved from itself. If the bank has nothing to hide why will it not come before this committee and make a clean breast of the situation?
Very disturbing revelations have emerged so far. It appears that bank officials have been instructed to carry out certain duties. Some of them are well known to the general public, to members of this committee and to Members of the Oireachtas who got a serious rap on the knuckles. It appears that the small guys and girls have taken the rap while the big guns have got away.
What is the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service to do about this matter? We have no choice but to proceed down the road of compellability.
What Deputy Richard Bruton said about matters being prejudiced sounds reasonable but I fundamentally disagree with that concept. I agree with the point made by Deputy Ó Caoláin that we are required to discuss things in their currency and that topicality is important. This does not mean that we would prejudice an investigation. There is no connection between what would happen here and an investigation being undertaken by IFSRA. The work of this committee could not prejudice that investigation because IFSRA will come to its own conclusions. It would not be like prejudicing a court where a jury can be interfered with. I am not suggesting we do that. I merely make that point and park it there.
I want to hear about the banks' compliance structures, the status of their audit committees, the relationship between the audit committee and the internal auditor and the relationship between the audit committee and the external auditor. Do the non-executive directors of a bank meet separately and do the non-executive directors meet with the auditors externally and internally without the involvement of senior management? I want to look at a variety of issues. I also want to look at the wider issue of forex and all foreign exchange issues. Why is there a structure of three, four or five levels of charges which seem to mean nothing to anyone except the people who run the banks? What happens to an ordinary person's money between the Monday when he or she initiates a foreign exchange transaction and the Thursday or Friday when it arrives? Who has use of the money, lean on it or access to it and what use is made of it in the intervening days? Why are Irish punters being penalised by paying the highest credit card charges in Europe because we are tied into an anti-competitive, anti-European franchise system which refuses to recognise the full market? There is a variety of things we can ask these people without ever going into the detail of this specific case. There may be an overlap but it need not prejudice the findings of IFSRA.
The representatives of AIB do not want to come here because they do not want to have to say, on the public record, what is the situation. I agree with Deputy Richard Bruton on one point. I have a fundamental opposition to two people doing the same job. IFSRA is doing a job and I want it to continue to do it. Therefore, I am not proposing that we replicate that work. At a recent meeting, Chairman, you asked what is our relationship with IFSRA. We discussed the question on that occasion and it is very clear. We are here to support IFSRA and to raise and identify issues which we would then ask IFSRA to investigate and to report back to us. On listening to the findings of IFSRA we would use them to inform Government policy or legislation. That is our role. It is not to replicate and that is not the proposal. It is a specious argument to suggest we would be prejudicing what IFSRA is doing. That is not our intention, it would not happen. What we propose doing would not replicate its work.
I am not a lawyer. The reality is that there has been a collapse of internal audit compliance procedures. Individuals have clearly failed in their duty in this case. We expect disqualifications to arise in this regard. We expect that individuals will be disbarred from continuing to work in the banking sector. We also expect individuals to be disbarred from becoming directors of companies.
I am not in a position to say whether the asking of such questions prejudices IFSRA's work. However, it is not our skill to go after these individuals. Senator O'Toole's questions regarding compliance procedures are important to every bank in the country. It is important we ensure IFSRA, the Director of Corporate Enforcement and other agencies have robust procedures in place to ensure this culture changes. The legislation is based on principles. It is very important that banks internalise an ethic of how they handle matters.
This committee will not be able to ensure that is done by holding hearings when issues surrounding individuals' reputations are being investigated. It is unrealistic to think we could make that ground in a period when there is a massive amount of internal investigation being undertaken by bodies appointed by the Oireachtas. Obviously, if no evidence arises from such investigations we would then be in a position to demand information regarding what happened to IFSRA and to ask the AIB to honour its commitment to meet with us.
The notion that we, having been frustrated by our initial attempts, now go down the road of compellability and try to set ourselves up as being a star chamber for trying these issues is not the best way for us to handle the matter. Perhaps my judgment is wrong. I am not trying to protect the banks whom I believe must be vigorously and rigorously pursued. We must also do our duty to ensure policy enforcement changes the manner in which regulation is operated. I take a different view on the short-term tactic being proposed by the committee at this stage.
I want to reiterate again my position on why this committee——
We cannot have repetition.
Other speakers have been allowed to make a statement. I will not be repetitious. I want to explain why I believe we could and should speak with the senior executives of AIB without in any way——
Why not the board members?
——impinging on any detailed inquiry taking place. It is important there is an accountable discussion by the leadership of AIB at board, chairman and senior executive management level on the corporate governance culture of its bank.
AIB has endured a series of scandals. It employs many thousands of people and is extremely important to our economy. Clearly, the internal control system has failed. If a proper system were in place, much of what we are hearing would have emerged. The question then arises as to whether it did emerge and, if so, whether it was suppressed. Were employees afraid to speak about it? Was it known to the bank's audit committee at the highest level? Was it reported by the bank's internal auditor? If so, what happened?
This matter relates to corporate governance and the ethical governance framework to which the bank operates. We are coming out of a structure in Irish banking where, it appears, there was a rule that anything goes. Neither tax legislation nor other frameworks or codes have deterred people within the bank from wrong-doing. However, as I pointed out before, as a person who worked as an auditor and chartered accountant, given the system of internal and management controls which banks have to operate, there are questions to be asked about the culture involved. Were employees under such pressure to perform and make profits that the ordinary rules were discarded? In turn, has that culture changed?
I believe this committee has reasonable questions to ask of very senior people of the board, chairmanship and management regarding the corporate governance culture in AIB. It is important we do so. AIB is Ireland's biggest bank and we must sort out this problem. Post-Rusnak the bank was supposed to have gone through its compliance and internal audit with a fine tooth comb. My understanding is that post-Rusnak the internal auditor either resigned or retired. Why did that happen? What type of reporting was made in that regard? These questions do not relate to any detailed inquiries on the matters under investigation proper by IFSRA. They relate to corporate governance culture by this bank.
Currently, the bank has a board of directors. Under Stock Exchange rules it has an audit committee and a very expensive external and internal audit culture. I would like to pose a reasonable question. If a member of staff in AIB or another Irish bank comes across a clear attempt to avoid Irish tax law and to put money out of the reach of the Revenue Commissioners, does that employee feel empowered to report that incident to a senior person in management or will he or she be afraid to do so? This is what corporate culture is about. Will such a person be afraid he or she will end up as a small person standing on a large carpet in front of a large desk where, basically, he or she is told that as a junior such matters are not for his or her examination or comment? They are the critical questions which must be asked. Does AIB have in place a structure whereby if a person has such concerns he or she can report them without fear?
These questions do not relate to the individual inquiries now taking place. They relate to the bank's future compliance. The average bank employee is an honest person and would not be employed by the bank if that were not so. Are such people being encouraged and empowered to deal with wrongdoing where it occurs? Matters such as Faldor and so on could not continue without the involvement of a significant number of people, some of whom may have been afraid to report and speak about it.
I understand the point made by Senator O'Toole and others. As far as I am concerned, as Chairman of this committee, if IFSRA which is undertaking the investigation does not receive an answer to every question which people have indicated they would like to ask of AIB, then it will have failed in its duty. IFSRA was set up to do this job — to ask the questions. The matters being raised come within IFSRA's remit. A key function of its inquiries, apart from this specific inquiry, will be to examine the relationship between the board of directors and the internal and external audit committees.
I would like to put on the record again today that Mr. Gleeson, chairman of the board, is a former member of the audit committee. He will be in a pivotal position to answer many of the questions. I would expect on a prima facie case that IFSRA would enforce changes at managerial and board level. There are many questions which IFSRA must ask in terms of its competence. The Revenue Commissioners will by then have initiated its investigation, as will the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement. Immediately on receipt of their reports, we should invite them before the committee to discuss them. I am convinced that everything that has been suggested today on the broader corporate culture issues will be addressed by IFSRA. It will not just go in and check foreign exchange rates or mortgage protection policy documentation. I am satisfied it will examine the broader context because if not, it fails in its job. Then, as a Legislature, we will have a job to do.
We may have more power if we do not take the compellability route. Compellability involves legal procedure which will straitjacket us and witnesses will then be advised to come in with legal representatives. Nobody here has given me a document, specifying the good reasons why this committee should be allowed to compel witnesses, to present to the Houses of the Oireachtas. Everything that has been mentioned can be dealt with by IFSRA.
As a committee chairman I have asked how the three different State agencies, IFSRA, the Revenue Commissioners, and the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, will work. There will be demarcation lines. A review of Revenue powers as a result of this investigation will be necessary. I understand that the Revenue officials occupy the room adjacent to the people from IFSRA in the AIB investigation. However, if the Revenue Commissioners come across information in respect of senior staff who have caused tax problems they are not permitted by law to tell the people in IFSRA in the adjacent room.
The committee can see the direction this is taking. We will have three separate State agencies, some of which, for various good reasons, are not allowed by law to talk to the other agencies. One can imagine the implications this will have. We may find that the Revenue Commissioners may have information they are not allowed to give to IFSRA. Then, IFSRA will be asked to conduct its operation in the dark. This committee should focus on this issue to ensure that the bodies we set up operate cohesively. We are not the body charged to go in and carry out the investigation. This situation will be a significant test for some of these new State agencies and I expect that before we conclude our examination of their reports, we will have serious recommendations to make. This is my concern.
The Director of IFSRA came before the committee recently. He stated clearly that he was in favour of powers which were not given to him under the Companies Act and the Central Bank legislation currently going through the Oireachtas. The provisions in that to require compliance statements to be signed off by directors and auditors were softened as the legislation progressed. That is an example of how we have, to some extent, fettered him.
I understand what the Chairman is saying on the matter but we have reached the end of the road and it is time to vote on it. I do not want to delay the committee because I know people are waiting to make a presentation but I am unhappy about it. Effectively, we are showing the white flag to the moneyed people in AIB.
To be fair to the committee, allow me to give the gist of my letter.
I have no problem with the Chairman's letter.
It was to the effect that we are disappointed that AIB people have not come before the committee. In their earlier letter the chairman said it was a key objective of the chief executive to bring about culture changes in the practices of AIB since mid-2001 but it has clearly failed in that objective. I go on to list the three State organisations and state that as a result of the extensive powers given to these organisations I am satisfied they will help ensure whatever changes are needed in the culture and organisation practices of AIB occur. I believe we will achieve that over the heads of the key people in AIB and that the changes will happen.
I have no criticism of the Chairman's letter and fully support it. However, the AIB chairman's reply to that letter beginning "Dear Deputy Fleming, Thank you for your letter dated 10 June" shows how seriously they take it.
The final sentence of my letter read: "The decision of AIB not to appear voluntarily before an Oireachtas committee at this stage speaks volumes for the culture and organisational practices that persist in AIB in June 2004." That was a serious rebuke from this committee to AIB. The invitation to them to come before the committee when their report is concluded stands.
Although it may take some months, I suspect these reports will be in before we could get compellability powers through the Oireachtas, set up a compellability committee and get our legal team in place. We would also have to send AIB the issues we would discuss and their people would have to take legal advice. I am not ruling it out but I think the procedures we can use provide a more pragmatic way of getting a result.
Embarking on the course of compellability would not per se address this case alone. It would ensure that in the future this committee would have the opportunity to perform as the broad electorate and broad opinion within the Oireachtas would expect. Compellability does not only relate to this specific case.
We cannot get general powers of compellability. Specific powers are required.
The Committee of Public Accounts has compellability powers. We should have established that right for this committee. If the Chairman is indicating that we can only apply for it on a case by case basis ——
The current provision is that it can only be on a case by case basis.
If that is the case, much of the preparatory work could already have been done and any repeat performance in the future would not be as time consuming.
I am concerned that the Chairman has moderated his position somewhat in terms of what he is now prepared to demand. This is the wrong time to back down. If this vote is pressed how will the Chairman reconcile the voting pattern of his colleagues? This morning, his colleague Senator Glynn supported this course of action. I do not believe the position the Chairman has taken heretofore, and that expressed by Senator Glynn this morning, can be reconciled with opposing a vote if it is taken.
We will not be taking any vote.
Will the Chair oppose a vote?
No.
I welcome that and will just wait and see how this plays out.
It will run into a cul-de-sac. However, I do not want to make the committee look foolish by running it into a cul-de-sac.
We may not be able to resolve the issue now. I put a series of questions to the governor of the Central Bank and the chief executive of IFSRA which broadly related to the internal control and corporate governance structures in AIB in the context of the specific cases that have arisen. Rather than specific replies, we received general statements from the governor of the Central Bank and the managing director of IFSRA. We still have a number of questions to ask. Perhaps after the presentation by the IBOA, we may have the answer to some of those questions. It may, therefore, be better not to determine our response now but to proceed with the IBOA presentation.
The critical question remains. When a major bank has serious and serial lapses a question arises as to whether other lapses exist. If staff, at any level, are aware of other lapses, are they empowered to assist in helping to stop non-compliance and wrongdoing or is the culture of the bank such that it is about making money at all costs? This is at the heart of the ethical corporate governance issue. We all know the bank is there to make money. However, it is to make that money in a compliant ethical framework which honours the law and tax laws of the State. If Mr. Dermot Gleeson were to choose to appear before the committee, those are the questions which remain to be answered. I am prepared to leave the question until after the committee has heard from the bank officials' association. I have worked in banks and I am aware that in a bank, one is dependent on the management information system, the internal control system and the individual initiative of people who work in the bank, who see things that are wrong, whether it is an abuse of a client's account or some other form of abuse, to be able to report with confidence that something is not right. The question remains whether the corporate governance structure of this bank is sufficiently reformed to address that problem. There will always be problems of non-compliance in every institution because nobody is perfect. We do not wish to kill banking with excessive regulation but we want assurance that the corporate governance is responsive and that staff are empowered to act, not in a vindictive manner but to be aware of what compliance means. Those are the questions the committee wants to ask and it is entitled to be given the answers.
Is it agreed to hold off on the committee's decision?
We do not agree with holding off.
We will hear the officials from the IBOA first.
There are two final items of correspondence. As a result of our discussions at previous meetings, several members of the committee have received telephone calls and contact from various disgruntled customers of several banks. In respect of one case, I asked the clerk to write to IFSRA seeking information on the extent to which IFSRA regulates organisations based outside the State but which provide investment finance, act as investment intermediaries or provide investment advice in the State. Copies of the request and the reply from IFSRA have been circulated. While the committee has been doing its job by dealing with specific issues, there are broader issues which it needs to address.
The essence of the reply I received from IFSRA recently is paraphrased. Some 243 foreign credit institutions offer banking services in Ireland. These institutions are incorporated in other EU states and are authorised by the financial regulators in those states. They operate in this country under what is called a passporting provision. This compares with approximately 90 banking institutions authorised by IFSRA to operate in this State who provide most of the retail banking. None of the 243 foreign institutions comes under the remit of IFSRA. They are dealt with by the regulator in their country of origin. While I accept the majority of these 243 companies are in the wholesale end of banking and many are in financial services, they deal with quite a number of Irish people. If an Irish person has a particular problem with the operation of any of these organisations, IFSRA is not in a position to help them in any way. They must take their complaints to the relevant home country regulator. I consider this to be a serious issue. As these institutions are not regulated or authorised by IFSRA it is not possible to discern the scale and level of the banking services provided by these organisations in Ireland. Some of them may operate on a branch basis and are not necessarily required to provide that information. That information may be available on an EU-wide basis.
I draw the attention of members to what I regard as a potentially serious problem. Any of the major Irish banks can provide banking services to customers here in Ireland but if these are provided through a subsidiary incorporated outside the State, they will not be regulated by IFSRA. The situation is a joke, a farce. The committee is discussing the 90 banks controlled by IFSRA but it has no remit over 243 banks. In addition to the details being discussed, these are the issues which this Oireachtas committee should investigate. We need to see the wood for the trees. I regard this matter as an extraordinary potential loophole in the system, where any bank can set up a subsidiary in, for instance, Northern Ireland or England. I will go so far as to say as politely as possible that during our discussion on banking services, the chief executive of one particular bank did most of the talking on that side of the table when he attended the committee last summer and his organisation is not regulated by IFSRA because it is incorporated in Scotland. He lectured this committee about how the Irish run their banking business and he is not subject to any regulation in this State. There are many issues with which the committee needs to deal.
Some 909 investment firms operate in this country in insurance and as financial intermediaries in the brokering business. The majority of companies operating in this country are not actually under the regulation of IFSRA. In the EU situation, Ireland takes the regulatory authority in the EU home country and so to an extent Ireland is operating at what I would term the lowest common denominator level of financial regulation yet we talk about beefing up IFSRA's powers. People can simply operate and incorporate outside the State and not be governed by IFSRA. I ask members to study the letters and make their own inquiries if they wish. I was amazed when I saw one particular query and I felt there was a potential issue, hence the letter to IFSRA to which it has replied. It has not been able to give the committee any indication of the level of banking activities operating in Ireland by companies incorporated outside the country. I think I have opened up an issue to which members can return.
I do not wish to enter into any debate about the issue. I suggest the committee writes back to IFSRA and seeks its advice on the adequacy of this system. It appears the Irish codes of conduct, regulation and legislation, are being enforced by the authorities overseas. The committee should ask its advice on whether IFSRA believes that is a robust system or, as the Chairman suggests, a very inferior and unsatisfactory situation. The committee should seek IFSRA's advice before drawing policy conclusions.
The consumer protection provisions protecting the Irish consumer apply to these institutions.
If they breach these provisions it would appear the enforcement goes back to an authority in their own country. Before making a recommendation to the Oireachtas——
We should seek further information.
I agree the committee should seek advice from IFSRA.
To add to what Deputy Bruton has said, the Central Bank has oversight powers in respect of prudential regulation. Part of the problem is the conflict between the Central Bank's prudential role and customer regulation and protection. While the Governor of the Central Bank, Mr. Hurley, made a fine presentation to this committee, the conflict between his desire to safeguard the security of the banking system versusregulation which seeks to protect the individual customer and business, is not resolved. It goes back to the political conflict between the Minister for Finance and the Tánaiste which the Minister for Finance and the Central Bank won. Nevertheless, it remains the case that the Central Bank retains extraordinary powers to close down or limit operations which lack a prudential aspect. This is a matter to which the committee can return. IFSRA is a very expensive regulatory structure. It will cost €19 million next year, most of it paid for by bank customers. If there are gaps, why did Mr. O'Reilly not say it to the Minister for Finance in the case of the recent legislation? The Governor of the Central Bank told this committee that those gaps, if they exist, can be addressed by the Central Bank. We need to have the Governor of the Central Bank and representatives of IFSRA back at a later stage to clarify this matter. The reply from Mr. O'Reilly was addressed by the Governor of the Central Bank who said there were no problems.
Can the Deputy clarify the point?
This committee has a problem that the Chairman may be able to address. We are getting the minutes of these meetings and the blacks many months in arrears. This series of ongoing inquiries is important. I do not have a detailed record of what the Governor of the Central Bank, Mr. Hurley, said. However, he expressed a high level of confidence in the regulatory structure, implying that everything was now subject to regulation. In addition we are part of the European Central Bank system, which regularly advises us that a little credit union somewhere down the road is not totally compliant and that it wants matters tightened up. The Central Bank and the ECB have extraordinarily strong powers. Unfortunately, I do not have a record of what Mr. Hurley said.
The blacks are available on the website. The printed version of the Official Report may be six months late, as we have seen.
It is quite unfortunate that working journalists and expert bodies like the bank officials' association with a particular technical expertise in this area, which the members of the committee do not possess, cannot access the reports fully. Given the importance of this debate, it is important to have a record. I asked many questions of Mr. O'Reilly and Mr. Hurley, which were not answered. I am not saying they should have the answers on the spot. I asked detailed questions about internal controls in AIB, as did other committee members, to which I still have no replies. Our procedures could be helpful not just to ourselves but also to other individuals and bodies involved in trying to improve regulation.
I sat here for all of Mr. Hurley's presentation and he was very willing to address any question he had omitted to answer. When I put it to him that he had not answered one or two questions, he agreed he had not dealt with those matters.
I am not saying he was unwilling.
He stayed here until the end of the meeting. It is untrue to say he did not answer questions. He could have been asked again why he failed to answer a particular question.
On one technical point, I asked a number of questions about the reports the Central Bank had received and the copies of the internal audit reports of AIB to the Central bank. While he confirmed that the Central Bank got those materials, I did not hear him specify whether the Central Bank was aware of issues and problems. Deputies Richard Bruton, Ó Caoláin and I had to leave because of Dáil votes and business. While Mr. Hurley may have subsequently answered those questions for the committee members who remained, he certainly did not answer them entirely to my satisfaction.
It is important for the historical record of the committee to note that he was willing to do that.
We will write to the Editor of Debates or whomever is the appropriate person on the point the Deputy raised.
Representatives of the IBOA have sat patiently for the past hour or so and I want to invite them in. At our last meeting, the committee agreed to invite Ms Dorothea Dowling to meet us and discuss issues concerning AIB, which she had brought to our attention. While she was unable to attend today's meeting because of a prior commitment, she has indicated her willingness to attend on another date. I propose we agree to try to arrange a date as soon as practicable. That is agreed. At this stage I want to move on.
I apologise for holding up our visitors. The Chairman has correspondence from Dóchas. I propose that we accede to the request from Hans Zomer of Dóchas. Only three budgets remain to meet the overseas development aid target of 0.7% by 2007.
I thank the Deputy for bringing this matter to my attention. Is it agreed to invite representatives from Dóchas to appear before the committee? Agreed.