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

Business of Joint Committee.

Chairman

The draft minutes of the meeting of 7 July have been circulated. Are they agreed? Agreed. As there are no matters arising from the minutes, we will proceed to correspondence under which heading there are a number of matters to be considered. On 23 June the committee's attention was drawn to SI 381 of 2004 which was laid before the Houses on 22 June. I understand the instrument streamlines the system for charging fees in respect of requests for the revision of rateable valuations. The committee decided on 23 June to seek a briefing note on the regulation before deciding whether to scrutinise it. The note has been received and circulated and a 21 day review period applies. Having reviewed the briefing note, I suggest we do not need to consider the statutory instrument. It appears to relate only to internal administration within the Valuation Office and how it accounts for the collection of fees. There is no new fee involved and no change in the regime. It is almost like a tidying up exercise. Is it agreed not to study the statutory instrument? Agreed.

On 12 May the committee discussed EU proposal COM (2003) 797 with officials from the Department of Finance and the Revenue Commissioners. The proposal concerns administrative co-operation in the field of excise duty. The committee agreed a report at that meeting expressing its satisfaction with the approach being taken in making no specific recommendations. The officials were asked to provide a note on carousel fraud for the committee's information. This note has been received and circulated. I propose that we note the briefing note received. Is that agreed? Agreed.

On 17 June the committee's attention was drawn to EU proposal SEC (2004) 593 but the Sub-committee on European Scrutiny did not recommend that we scrutinise it. The proposal involves a preliminary draft budget to budget for the surplus resulting from the implementation of the 2003 budget. As it appears that Ireland's demands on the 2003 budget were lower than might have been the case, the committee decided to seek a breakdown of how it had been intended to spend the surplus attributable to Ireland. The Department clarified the position in a note which has been circulated. It was signed on 7 July by Dermot Nolan of the EU budget section. I have not had an opportunity to consider it in detail but it does not appear to contain the information we requested. Members asked under what headings Ireland had under-spent but the briefing note seems to list only the total amounts of under-spend for each of the relevant EU countries. I propose that we consider this further as the level of detail I had anticipated is not evident in the reply.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Is the Chairman referring to the response by the Department of Finance of 7 July?

Chairman

Yes. It was signed by Dermot Nolan. It is a little over one page in length.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

It is probable that none of us has studied it. I received it in the past 15 minutes. It was delivered to my office just before I came to this meeting. How can anyone get through all the information in that period?

Chairman

It was circulated only yesterday.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

It is not appropriate to proceed to make any judgment on it.

Chairman

Yes, we shall postpone making a judgment.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Further scrutiny is required.

Chairman

We will agree to defer our consideration of the document until our next meeting. One or two of the other items of correspondence were not too serious.

Deputy P. McGrath

Pending the deferral of the document, with which I agree, we should contact the Department to say the level of detail we received is inadequate and that we want to look at all the different headings and subheadings under which the money was not spent. This is crucial. It is the kind of information we want and which we believed we would get.

Chairman

Yes. I appreciate that. The second paragraph of the letter from the Department states any surplus left over from the previous year's EU budget is entered into the current year's budget as additional revenue. This effectively means that the amount of money which states have to contribute is reduced commensurately. The gist of our view was that if there was a surplus, we would spend it in future years rather than reducing future contributions. We wanted to know the headings under which there was an under-spend in Ireland that led to the surplus of €65 million, but we have been given no such detail. If needs be, we will write to the Department for specific clarification on this matter.

The next items are items we deferred from the previous meeting. A number of letters concerning the committee's consideration of recent events at the AIB were deferred. Before discussing these letters, I ask members to refrain from referring to correspondents by name as they may not have anticipated that their letters would be discussed in public. Some committees have a practice of dealing with such items in private session, but I prefer to deal with them in public session if we do not mention the correspondents by name. Some of the letters are straightforward and we might be able to dispose of them very quickly. They were circulated in advance of the last meeting.

The first is by a correspondent from Dublin 4 who says he has had difficulties arising from financial advice given to him by the AIB. He has suggested that the committee put a number of specific questions to the chairman of the AIB. I suggest that a reply be issued to the effect that the members of the committee will take account of the questions raised in the context of any meeting we will have with AIB representatives in due course. Is that agreed? Agreed. We will note the queries.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I wish to make a general observation. Many of these items of correspondence reflect each other. They show clearly that there is a significant body of people who have had less than satisfactory experiences with banking and other financial institutions. I am looking at the matter in the round, so to speak, rather than at the individual details. This committee needs to take on board that a very small number of those with such experiences would take the time to write to this committee or even be aware of our deliberations. We need to recognise that there is a vacuum. There is no clear avenue to allow individuals to seek redress in circumstances such as these. We need to factor that in regarding the proposed legislation and the extension of powers to IFSRA.

There needs to be a unanimous acknowledgement on the part of this committee that people need to be advised of how to proceed and that the public needs to be informed. The manner in which people should set about bringing their complaints to the appropriate office needs to be promoted proactively. I acknowledge that this committee is not the appropriate office in circumstances such as those under discussion, but it is good that it sometimes gets a little glimpse of what is happening.

Chairman

It is the tip of the iceberg.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Absolutely. At least it keeps us on our toes and keeps us informed. I congratulate those who have taken the time to write to us and I welcome their correspondence. We should acknowledge them as a courtesy in all cases and also advise them of their current options in terms of referral of their individual cases, deficient as these options may be. We should take it on board in terms of the powers of IFSRA.

I have had a recent experience of bringing a case directly through the offices of IFSRA. It is currently not out at the other end but it was charting new waters. It was an interesting experience and perhaps I will share its broad brush-stroke detail with the committee at some stage.

There needs to be greater public information on the options open to people. The present options are not adequate and the powers are not sufficient. It is not enough to acknowledge queries from individuals; we should incorporate the necessary detail in our responses. I ask that the responses in these cases be circulated to the members in order that we will know exactly what information we are disseminating on behalf of the committee.

Chairman

That is agreed. We will briefly run through and acknowledge the other correspondence. A letter from a woman in County Tipperary states that she yielded to pressure from an AIB official to invest a sum and suffered a net loss when the investment matured. I suggest that the committee should reply stating that we will bear her experience in mind in the context of any meeting with the AIB and we will include Deputy Ó Caoláin's suggestion also.

A letter from an elderly couple in Dún Laoghaire describes their being put under duress by an AIB official to invest in a bogus offshore account and their current current fear of impoverishment arising from consequent demands for unpaid tax and penalties. As the letter is anonymous, I suggest we note it since we cannot acknowledge it. However, I bring it to the committee's attention.

A firm of accountants in County Tipperary alleges that a number of its clients with modest savings were put under pressure by AIB officials to invest in bogus non-resident and offshore accounts. I suggest that a reply issue to the effect that the committee will bear in mind the points made in the context of its consideration of cultural and organisational issues at the AIB.

A correspondent in County Galway has offered to give advice to the committee concerning complaints about the interest rates spread of the AIB and Bank of Ireland. I suggest that a reply issue to the effect that the committee has noted his concerns but, as its focus is on general cultural and organisational issue in the AIB, we have no plans at this stage to take evidence from individual investors. However, we will take the point into account when we examine AIB officials here.

A representative from the business in County Down which reviews clients' bank accounts and recovers money which has been overcharged has offered to meet me to suggest questions which might be put to the AIB by this committee. I suggest a reply should issue to the effect that members of the committee will bear in mind the company's experience of recovering overcharged money and suggest that any questions the correspondent feels might be usefully put be submitted in writing. This is an interesting letter because it is different from the others. The company specialises in going through interest being charged to companies and individuals and it states that it has been successful in obtaining settlements on behalf of a number of clients, primarily in Northern Ireland but also in the Republic. If the company could submit some further examples to us in writing, it might be very useful in our considerations. We will agree to leave it at that.

A correspondent in London has alleged that the AIB sought money it was not entitled to from the administrator of her late husband's estate. I suggest that a reply issue to the effect that the members of the committee will bear her experience in mind when we are discussing matters with the AIB. A correspondent in County Kildare alleges that he was overcharged by Ulster Bank for a foreign exchange transaction. I suggest that a reply to the effect that the committee is not investigating specific instances of overcharging by banks and recommend that he bring his allegation to the attention of IFSRA. Should we also forward the correspondence directly to IFSRA? We will inform the correspondent that we have forwarded the letter and suggest that he make contact.

A circular letter has been received from Mr. Niall Murphy on behalf of AIB shareholders committed to the restoration of honesty and integrity throughout AIB. I suggest that this letter be noted. Is that agreed? Agreed.

A reply has been received from Mr. Pat Farrell, chief executive of the Irish Bankers' Federation, to a request from the committee for its comments on questions raised by Ms Dorothea Dowling about the rate of commission charged by the AIB on credit protection insurance products. The comments of IFSRA have been sought and a reply is awaited. I suggest that Mr. Farrell's letter be noted at this stage and be reviewed when the reply from IFSRA has been received.

I have received an item of historical correspondence concerning Icaron plc. It has been circulated for the information of members but I suggest that it just be noted as it is very dated at this stage.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I know that Deputy O'Keeffe has requested putting on hold his item of correspondence. Is it possible to indicate when that might be revisited? In regard to the Chairman's proposal on No. 4 on the revised agenda for today, I presume other matters would not be accommodated in the course of that two day opportunity.

Chairman

My suggestion is that when we have hearings on decentralisation, we might meet 15 minutes early to deal with any urgent correspondence on our agenda. I will try to keep the meetings for their stated purpose.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Are we meeting next week?

Chairman

I suggest we meet the following week because if witnesses have to be invited, it is too short notice. I suggest we meet 15 minutes early as it is the easiest way of dealing with the matter. We will postpone the letter dealing with Tralee Beef and Lamb until our next meeting.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Those meetings are proposed for 28 and 29 July.

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

It will be taken at the outset of the business on 28 July.

Chairman

Yes, at the commencement and it should be brief.

The next item on the agenda is consideration of the draft report on EU proposal COM (2003) 822. On 28 April, the committee heard a presentation by officials in the Department of Finance on EU proposal COM (2003) 822, which concerns the rules on the place of supply of services for VAT purposes. Further information from the Department was considered at the last meeting and it was agreed that a draft report be brought forward before this meeting for agreement. The draft report has been circulated. It expresses the committee's satisfaction with the proposal and the progress being made in negotiations and the discussions with officials. It makes no recommendations.

The Department is being asked separately to keep the committee informed of progress and approach the Revenue Commissioners with a view to simplifying the procedures for the recovery of tax paid on dividends on share options by Irish persons working for European-owned companies.

Is it agreed that the draft report be the report to the committee on this proposal? Agreed. In accordance with Standing Orders, the report must be laid before both House of the Oireachtas. I propose that copies of the report be forwarded to the Oireachtas Sub-committee on European Scrutiny, the Department of Finance and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners.

The next item on the agenda is the arrangements for the consideration of public service decentralisation. The proposed arrangements for consideration by the committee on public service decentralisation have been circulated. I suggest that we meet for two days — 28 and 29 July. Next week would not give witnesses sufficient time to get ready. The pattern of the schedule reflects that used for the hearings on tax relief for the film industry and the time slots allocated to particular parties are longer than they were on that occasion and occur in a repeating sequence across the whole schedule. This is obviously subject to the availability of witnesses suggested because we do not yet have any confirmation from the witnesses.

I propose that the composition of the union delegation be decided by the ICTU in order to take account of the different and distinct points of view. I propose that they be heard, as far as practicable, in specific slots designated for the individual Civil Service unions. Two slots are reserved for other public service unions and we can consult the ICTU as to the best way in which to allocate these. The schedule signals that we will conclude our examination of this issue in September.

Deputy R. Bruton

I am very disappointed. We held a lengthy discussion last week during which I made a number of points about what I would like to see included in such hearings. However, they have not been reflected in the presentation the Chairman has made. Why did we spend so much time discussing the issue if there was not to be any attempt to reflect the views of committee members?

We should start with a very clear presentation by the Government as to the basis of its proposal, why it selected particular locations, how it sees it working, what strategic planning went into the selection and how it sees problems that may arise being coped with. None of that is reflected in the Chairm an's proposal.

I also propose that we specifically hear about the risk assessments which the accounting officers in each agency are obliged to undertake in respect of these arrangements. These risk assessments are obviously designed to show where problems might arise which might threaten the quality of the public service being delivered by that group. That suggestion has not been reflected here. I am very disappointed in this presentation.

On the mechanics of the hearings, the proposal to have more than one hour sessions with each of a number of individuals is very wasteful of committee time. We should get the people who are coming under the same general rubric to make presentations. If necessary, the Chairman could then permit one or two questions of clarification at the end of each presentation and after they were made there could be a period of general discussion between committee members and those making presentations.

This scheme is far too lengthy in the way it is presented and what the committee will hear will be very repetitive. Unnecessarily allocating time to different groups will give the impression that people must occupy the time they have been given, even if they are not adding to our knowledge. I would prefer to see the session of presentations under different headings truncated to a greater extent. While the committee should be allowed to deliberate for as long as it likes, we should obtain the presentations and assess them with a view to truncating considerably the amount of time we devote to them.

I reiterate that the first thing the committee must hear is the rationale for the design the Government has put before us. The Government should outline its view of the strengths of the proposals to provide the committee with the opportunity to understand its thinking, how selections were made and the analysis which was carried out. The committee was presented in October 2003 with a quite detailed matrix of the factors which were to be taken into account in choosing locations and members are entitled to see how that was applied by Government in making selections.

We hear about stress testing in other areas of Government proposals and we know there has been a poor response with only 2% of people in State agencies expressing a willingness to consider moving to the locations in questions. While there is a slightly higher overall level in the public service of 6%, that still means 94% are not expressing an interest in moving to the locations.

There are serious issues about the way in which the Government put its proposal together. I have outlined the starting point after which we should move on to hear the views of critics or supporters and unions. The work can be done more effectively than is proposed.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I concur with Deputy Bruton that the failure to include an opportunity for the committee to engage directly with the office of the Minister for Finance or his officials is a major omission, given that theirs is the facilitating Department in the context of this proposition. Such an opportunity must be incorporated. As Deputy Bruton said, the appropriate time to engage with the Department is at the outset. If the Chairman considers this to be unlikely for inclusion in the opening engagements, can he at least indicate to us that there is a willingness and unanimity of the committee to offer that facility in the concluding sessions in September? I am open to accepting the opportunity at that point, after we have had the opportunity to engage with a variety of different opinions of people affected in a myriad of ways. Perhaps, we will have fine tuned our own contributions and positions in terms of dealing directly with the Department and, quite specifically, with the Minister himself, Deputy McCreevy. While I support Deputy Bruton in his contention, I am willing to accept the opportunity in the September scheduling. I would appreciate if the Chair would indicate positively his intention to make that arrangement on behalf of the committee.

It would be helpful in terms of the proposed invitees to procure brief biographies. I understand that Mr. Van der Kamp has corresponded with the committee previously on this matter.

Chairman

I shall run through that aspect of the matter briefly.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

That would be helpful. Having proposed that Dr. Bannon who wrote to us on the last occasion be invited due to his undoubted knowledge and expertise in this area, I welcome his inclusion.

I ask the Chairman, in response to my argument on local government and the host counties, to explain the raison d’être behind the selection of Westmeath. Given that he is very much a midlands man himself, the Chairman might elaborate a little on this.

I note that on the afternoon of 29 July there are two ICTU opportunities, but the reference is non-specifically made to public service unions. Will SIPTU be included in that opportunity? It is very important as we are quite non-specific about SIPTU in the outline for 29 July. SIPTU represents a significant body comprising at least one tenth of those whom it is proposed to relocate and it is important to accord the union the same access as the Civil and Public Services Union and the Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants. The contribution of each will be equally important.

Chairman

I will respond to those points presently. On Deputy Bruton's points, the original intention was to begin with Phil Flynn, but he has indicated that neither he nor the central applications facility will be available until September. He will respond. Certainly we will include the Department of Finance as Deputy Bruton requests. We will probably have elicited a great deal of information before the end of July to help us in our discussions with the Department of Finance, which will know which issues have been raised.

We will address risk assessment and Secretaries General through the Department of Finance which is overseeing the entire process rather than with individual Departments.

Deputy R. Bruton

The Department of Finance has indicated that it has no responsibility for these matters and is unwilling, by way of parliamentary reply at any rate, to provide any information. It says the matters are entirely the responsibility of the Departments involved. The Chairman will find it difficult to mediate the issues through the Department of Finance.

Chairman

That was the reason we met representatives of two decentralised offices which have been through the experience. We can learn from the lessons and mistakes.

Deputy R. Bruton

The point of this process is to examine the scenario for bodies which are most likely to be adversely affected. If we are to select two, they should be bodies which have indicated a zero response to the initial trawl to give us an understanding of the risks and whether it is considered possible to persuade people to come on board or whether we must think again.

Chairman

Perhaps during our discussion we can identify one of the particular agencies.

Deputy R. Bruton

They were identified in the initial trawl. There are several major——

Chairman

I mean for us as a committee to identify a body and bring it here in the September session. I agree with the Deputy. Wearing a different hat as a member of the Committee of Public Accounts, I saw that the move of Coillte from one Department to another, with some of its offices moving to Johnstown Castle in Wexford, gave rise to many difficulties. The transfer was not handled very well. For that reason, I considered initially inviting the Comptroller and Auditor General to contribute as he has direct experience of the failure to carry out decentralisation well. He is precluded from doing so, however. We will invite one of the agencies to which Deputy Richard Bruton refers.

Mr. Hendrik Van der Kamp is from the Dublin Institute of Technology and has written articles in favour of the decentralisation process. Dr. Ed Walsh has written articles and made many comments while at the University of Limerick expressing dissatisfaction with the process. I am trying to give both arguments equal time. Dr. Michael Bannon considered the matter from the perspective of the national spatial strategy and planning in the context of hubs and cities. He was not supportive of decentralisation.

I picked Portlaoise and Mullingar as towns to which the significant transfer is taking place of the headquarters of the Departments of Agriculture and Food and Education and Science, respectively. I suggested Mullingar having spoken to Deputy Paul McGrath. Perhaps the other office will bring up a representative. On the point the Deputy made about inviting somebody from the local authority, not just from the chamber of commerce, we will try to accommodate the two representatives in one session.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I welcome that.

Chairman

That is the logic. It is as simple as that.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I understand Westmeath County Council would also have a lot of experience because there is already a section of the Department of Education and Science in Athlone.

Deputy P. McGrath

We have no experience because there was never any decentralisation to Mullingar. Athlone is within the ambit of Athlone Urban District Council and therefore a different set of circumstances obtain.

Chairman

It is a local authority.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

That is a new way of presenting the béal bocht.

Chairman

I believe Deputy McGrath is actually trying to tell us that Athlone is not part of Westmeath.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

We are so sorry for them all. My heart bleeds from the Border counties.

Deputy P. McGrath

Is Parlon country only Offaly?

Chairman

There are several other bigger parties in the area, including mine and that of the Deputy. Even Deputy Ó Caoláin's party did well there on 11 June.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

It is only the start.

Deputy P. McGrath

On the logistics, is the Chairman proposing to invite the manager and an elected representative?

Chairman

Maybe the cathaoirleach and the manager or the senior director of service. At most, there should be two people, two from Portlaoise and two from Westmeath. We might suggest to them that they talk to each other in advance in order that they will not replicate what they have to say at the meeting.

On previously decentralised offices, the Office of the Revenue Commissioners is the biggest office to have been decentralised to date. Deputy Burton indicated that she herself was involved in respect of the Department of Social and Family Affairs.

I am keen that the committee should work through the Irish Congress of Trade Unions because, as Deputy Ó Caoláin has said, SIPTUwants to be invited to attend. I do not want this committee to cherry-pick individual unions only to be told afterwards that it missed one. We will say to congress that we will consider SIPTU, and there will certainly be scope for other unions.

If a committee does not have some structure to give people an opportunity to express their views and a timescale in which to do so, some members of the committee could talk for so long that others, not to mind the witnesses, would not wish to listen to all they have to say — I will put it as politely as that. That is why I have provided for ten minute slots. I have given everyone a fair crack of the whip by rotation. It is as simple as that.

Deputy R. Bruton

It is very wasteful in respect of these to have——

Chairman

There are vastly divergent views among the trade unions.

Deputy R. Bruton

We are not idiots. We can listen to what they have to say and we do not have to ask them questions after every presentation. We could easily have all the presentations at once but, if necessary, a question of clarification could be allowed by the Chair if an obscure point is made.

Ten minute slots result in party spin rather than questions. After the presentations the parties can engage in spin and ask questions and have discussions. It is an insufficient use of the committee's time to work from 10 a.m. until 5.45 p.m. and only deal with a small number of presentations. We could be much more efficient and avoid repetition.

Chairman

It will be guided by the members. I find it hard to believe members of the committee I chair will listen to a presentation by a leading public service trade union and not wish to ask questions.

Deputy R. Bruton

We could listen to three presentations and then direct questions to different groups. We will not use 50 minutes by four or six——

Chairman

We will achieve consensus on it.

Deputy R. Bruton

We have 300 minutes assigned to questions.

Chairman

That was my stab. I have allocated a full day to the public service unions and they comprise a sectional interest. I agree we may be overkilling but I do not want to be accused of restricting the views of the public service unions.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I compliment the Chairman on the well drafted programme. Logistically, it might not suit all those concerned. Deputy Bruton is making the point that the programme should be broadened to facilitate greater representation. We should invite the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, to the committee as he seems to have great knowledge of the logistics of decentralisation.

Deputy R. Bruton

Agreed.

Deputy P. McGrath

Deputy Parlon only knows how to put up posters about it.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

He is good at that too. If Deputy McGrath keeps him out of Mullingar he will be okay. He should make an introductory speech on the issue.

Some aspects of the programme have been agreed. I am concerned for my local area because Bus Éireann is to be privatised. It was stated that Bus Éireann would be located in Mitchelstown but I do not see any future for it there if it is privatised. It will be a different company. I seek clarification regarding some of the locations that have been named.

While the programme is very good and much work went into its drafting, the days will be too long. This committee has sat for hours on previous occasions, and this can be very stressful and tiring. One gets fed up and goes for a cup of coffee. The programme should be rolled out over three days rather than two.

Deputy Nolan

I am inclined to agree with Deputy Bruton. I wonder if we have too much time. About 50 minutes are allowed for contributions by the various political parties and an open discussion of 20 minutes. Should we be allowing more time for the presentations by the various individuals? I also agree with Deputy Bruton that we would elicit more information on the basis of a question and an answer than we would on what will amount to a presentation characterised by party spin. Each party will take ten minutes if allocated them.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

On the threatened privatisation of Bus Éireann, I hope the signals of climb-back and the statements of the Minister for Transport are to be believed.

I commend the Chairman on making an honest effort at ensuring equity of participation. I recognise only too well the point he has made on the potential domination of the exercise by one or more speakers. Equality of access, which the Chairman has tried to ensure, comprises the basic premise of his approach and I commend him for it. However, I agree with the other speakers. Perhaps slots of ten minutes are more than would be required. We do not need to make repetitious speeches to each of the trade union representative bodies before the committee or to those with earlier opportunities for discussion. Five minutes might be sufficient.

The formula for the rotation is correct. There will be some opportunities where the Technical Group will not participate — this will also apply to each of the other parties — because the Chairman is accommodating three in each of those opportunities. Perhaps he could accommodate all four by reducing the time allocated to members to five minutes. This would save ten minutes. Rather than having three ten minute slots there would be four five minute slots and there would still be ten minutes remaining in every opportunity. Therefore everyone would have a chance to participate with each of the presenting groups.

Repetitious spin by each party is futile and wasteful. I and any of my colleagues present during the course of the process intend to ask questions and elicit useful information in informing our own position for the much more substantive engagement, as I see it, in September. My proposal on the allocation of time is one amendment that the Chairman could make.

Deputy P. McGrath

In the light of what has been said, there seems to be a consensus that we should have a shorter timeframe. The list indicates that the first three groups are groups of academics. If these are taken together by way of three ten minute presentations and each of the four political groups has a maximum of ten minutes, the first session would run to 70 minutes. Then there could be two ten minute sessions and a maximum of 40 minutes, which should be another hour. Would that not be a better use of our time? Would that be acceptable?

Chairman

Carry on then to the next day too.

Deputy P. McGrath

Let that carry through also in order to group them in the same way. That would be an hour and something in the morning and perhaps an afternoon session or carry right through.

Chairman

We will start at the beginning. Mr. Van der Kamp and Dr. Ed Walsh and Dr. Michael Bannon should be brought in for three presentations of ten minutes each and then we should go into our general discussion. Is that what you are suggesting? We will work through the rotation of the sequence — Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Labour Party and the Technical Group.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Rotating with everyone participating in each of the modules.

Chairman

In other words we are truncating that into——

Deputy P. McGrath

Those three into an hour and ten minutes or an hour and a quarter.

Chairman

The four groups will have five minutes each at least, to give every group and opportunity.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Deputy McGrath indicated ten minutes.

Deputy P. McGrath

A maximum of ten minutes.

Chairman

Four ten minute slots.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

That allows for double participation as required — for Deputy Bruton and Deputy McGrath, Deputy Twomey and myself in whatever way we wish.

Chairman

Yes. We could include the chamber of commerce and Westmeath County Council rather than the Government offices later because they give a regional perspective which is opposed to what——

Deputy R. Bruton

Four speakers are too many. Let the three stand together and the other two are an actual group.

Chairman

The chamber of commerce and Westmeath County Council and then the Office of the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social and Family Affairs.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

We have very distinct opportunities on the first day.

Chairman

Shall we have three groups or sessions in that day?

Deputy P. McGrath

No, two sessions.

Chairman

Was the Deputy proposing to include Portlaoise Chamber of Commerce?

Deputy P. McGrath

Yes, those two groups together.

Chairman

Then the Office of the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social and Family Affairs.

Deputy P. McGrath

Yes. Two ten minute slots and another four tens after that, which is an hour.

Chairman

That is the second session.

Deputy P. McGrath

Do we go from 10 a.m. to 11.15 a.m. and then 12 noon to 1.15 p.m. or do we do the second session at 12 noon or 2 p.m.?

Chairman

We could actually do all that in the morning if we stated it.

Deputy P. McGrath

We should work from 10 a.m. until 11.15 a.m. and then 12 noon to 1 p.m.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

On a point of caution, the Chairman has already indicated that he will take a small segment of 15 minutes at the outset to address another item which Deputy O'Keeffe has asked be dealt with, as well as whatever else might present. The Chairman should be mindful of the fact that the commencement time will be affected by that. If we are commencing at 10 a.m., we will not get into the substantive issue until approximately 10.30 a.m. It needs to be factored in.

Chairman

We will aim to do both. It might run until 1.30 p.m. but we will get it completed by lunch time. Should we then come back from 2.30 p.m. until 6 p.m. if needs be to deal with the trade union representatives, in other words, truncate the whole thing into one day?

Deputy P. McGrath

We should make a second day of that and truncate it again.

Chairman

The same principle will apply to the three unions. They will each make a ten minute presentation followed by four ten minute sessions for each of the groups. The ICTU may wish to make its own presentation on the issues or have other groups from the agencies to bring in too. We will stick with 28 and 29 July because we want to give time to the witnesses to be here as it is in less than a fortnight.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Have we looked at a list?

Chairman

Two morning sessions will complete that.

Deputy R. Bruton

Deputy O'Keeffe and I believe the Government should be present in the form of the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, and his officials. It should be factored in and I would like to see it done first in an ideal world. Should that be done next week?

Chairman

My first port of call on this matter was to the chairman of the implementation committee through the Department of Finance. The indication I received was that it would prefer to come in September having had more information and heard all the issues addressed by the committee.

Deputy R. Bruton

Whatever the Department might prefer, the truth is that the Government is proposing this and we ought to hear its view on the strengths of its position and why it is adopting this course, before we hear critics. We should not hear the critics and then find that the criticism was of an issue that was never proposed by the Government in the first place, or whatever the case may be. The order should be that we hear——

Chairman

It was on that basis that Deputy Burton proposed that we should shelve the hearings altogether until next September when we hear the Government's presentation.

Deputy R. Bruton

The Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, is around all the time and he knows about this. He ought to be in here. Let him present the case and let us have an understanding of what the Government proposal is before we move on. It is fairer to the Government as well as being better for the committee.

Chairman

I am not in a position to give a commitment on that now. However, the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, announced the decentralisation programme. Every issue here is public service, in which the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, has no role whatever. The only function of the OPW is to source the sites and offices either by build, rent or lease. One could say that is the easy bit. It is a big job and a logistical one.

These are not the issues which are of concern to people. Rather they are about staff moving, agencies moving, efficiencies and so on. These are matters appropriate to the senior Minister in which the OPW has no role.

Deputy R. Bruton

Both Ministers should be-——

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Both Ministers have functions in this regard and the ideal situation would be to have both before the committee whenever that can be arranged. It is the only issue outstanding. They should be here.

Chairman

It think that will be in September because I have no commitment or understanding.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I do not see the Minister for Finance having much function. The logistics of the programme are very important in terms of the availability of sites in the various towns. In that context, the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, might give us an overview on how he is working on the project. I think there may be difficulties in that area. He has been making contributions on decentralisation around the country. We might get an idea of how to put up posters too.

Deputy R. Bruton

Deputy O'Keeffe is correct. However, it is the Minister for Finance who is responsible for applying the matrix of criteria which we know the Government was operating in the selection and planning and strategy behind decentralisation. The Minister is central to that and the officials who advice him in this regard. He is central because he can give us an understanding of the process before we hear critics, supporters and others with an interest.

Chairman

I am not in a position to give a commitment that they can be present before Wednesday, 28 July. I suggest, as did Deputy Ó Caoláin, that we proceed with the people we have on the basis that we talk to the others in September.

Deputy R. Bruton

I ask the Chairman to endeavour to get the Minister and Minister of State.

Chairman

I will. In any event, before we conclude our hearings, we will have to hear from them.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Having looked through the list, I note that no area of the southern region is represented by the panel of witnesses. During the week I read that they did not like Youghal, for example. We have no one from the southern area. I know Westmeath is represented and that the Laois football team is in the final and I wish them well.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

There is no one from the west, north west or north east.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

They are near Dublin.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

They are what?

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

They are near Dublin.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

That is a very revealing comment from a Deputy who was a Minister. It tells me a great deal.

Chairman

We will start with those who have indicated because they are where departmental head offices will be located. There are issues surrounding moving head offices. By putting them on the agenda, I am not seeking to duck them. We will proceed on the basis that we have confined both dates to two morning sessions and we will complete the process with the officials or Ministers from the Department and Mr. Phil Flynn in September.