Apologies have been received from Senators Higgins, O'Toole and White. With the committee's agreement I convey our congratulations to the newly appointed Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen. We will send him a note wishing him well in his new position. No doubt he will attend the committee in due course.
The first item on the agenda is the minutes of the meeting of 15 September. The draft minutes of the past three meetings——
What about Deputy Conor Lenihan?
Is he a member of our committee? I extend congratulations to him.
And to Deputy Twomey.
And to Deputy Twomey on his move over the summer. The list is getting longer. Congratulations to all concerned.
Would Deputy Twomey fill the gap between himself and Deputy McGrath? I am concerned about it.
We are building bridges.
The first item is the minutes of the meeting of 15 September. The draft minutes of the joint committee have been circulated. Are they agreed? Agreed. Are there matters arising from them?
The next item is correspondence. I draw to the attention of members the new system for numbering the committee's correspondence. Members expressed the view that a numbering system for correspondence would help them to manage the large number of documents they receive. The system now in place involves a unique number appearing on the bottom right-hand corner of each item of correspondence. The first element of the number is the current year and the second is a sequential number. I will refer to the unique number as we deal with each item. They make it easier for people to find documentation when we have a large volume of it.
Item No. 2004/01 relates to the Civil Service code of standards and public behaviour. The Department of Finance has informed us that the Civil Service code of standards and behaviour was approved by the Government on 1 September and introduced in the Civil Service on 9 September. The Department has sent us copies of the code and the memorandum for Government in which the proposal was explained. Members will know that the memorandum deals with the recommendations made by this committee in our report of June 2003. I propose that we note the documentation. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item No. 2004/02 relates to transcripts of committee meetings. A reply has been received from the secretary of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission to the committee's request, made in July, that the commission take account of the need to keep committee reporting up to date in view of the staffing of the office. Members will be interested to know that the transcript of the committee's meetings are fully up to date on the Oireachtas website. I understand all outstanding printed transcripts are with the printer and should be delivered to members shortly. I also understand procedures for accepting corrections to transcripts from witnesses have been changed, which will result in the fully edited transcripts being generally available on the Oireachtas website within one week of a meeting. The unedited version will be available on the website within a day or two of each meeting. I suggest we note the letter from the commission secretariat. Is that agreed? Agreed.
A number of statutory instruments have been sent to the committee by the Department of Finance. Under our orders of reference the committee has the power to consider such statutory instruments made by the Minister for Finance and laid before the Houses as if being select. The time for which the Houses can annul a statutory instrument is usually limited by statute to 21 sitting days after it has been laid before the Houses. Item No. 2004/03 is the National Development Finance Agency Act 2002 — amendment of Schedule order 2004. The order provides for the addition of the digital hub development agency to the list of State authorities that the National Development Finance Agency is to advise and support in accordance with its statutory functions. Members received a briefing note in March this year on the effective inclusion of a body in the Schedule when the CIE group of companies was added to the list. This is a similar procedure. The 21-day probationary period applies in this case. Can I take it that the committee does not wish to consider the statutory instrument? Is that agreed? Agreed.
The next item is No. 2004/04. Some 100 statutory instruments were laid before the Houses by the Department of Finance on 19 July. All of them provide for the designation of certain areas within specified towns as qualifying areas for the purpose of certain tax reliefs under the town renewal scheme. This is an ongoing issue for several years. The statutory instruments are not circulated because of the volume of material involved. However, a list which indicates the towns involved was circulated and copies of any orders can be requested from the secretariat. The 21-day probationary period applies. I suggest there is no need to consider these statutory instruments. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item No. 2004/09. At our last meeting the committee agreed that it would consider the disabled drivers' and disabled passengers' tax concession amendment regulations 2004. The Department was asked to provide a briefing note and copies of the full report prepared for the Minister on the question of amending the regulations. The briefing note and report were received and circulated yesterday. The note explains the scope and reasons for the regulations. The report, which was published in July, deals with a wider range of issues. It appears the scope of these regulations is not as wide as we first thought. In the circumstances, I propose that we decide not to consider the regulations further. I say this because this is a particular issue in terms of the number of people dealing with appeals and not the wider issue of the rules and regulations and disabled passengers that we thought it was at our last meeting. I suggest we note it and move on. We can come back to the wider issue on another day. It is not covered in this issue.
We should list the rules and regulations on disabled drivers and passengers for consideration at some point. The Minister has published his report. In the past he has always rejected changes. The committee should examine this in the context of other tax revisions.
I contributed on this issue at another meeting. I agree with Deputy Bruton that it should be debated here. Now that the report is at hand, it provides us with the ideal opportunity.
We will agree to put that item on our work programme, but not specifically under today's statutory instruments.
Will it be on the work programme before the budget? It is normally at budget time that such measures are announced. It is relevant to the Department of Finance and should be considered urgent. The rules and regulations contain some very restrictive measures, for example——
We do not want to get into the content. We will come back to it. We do not want to open a debate on this one issue now. The Deputy wants a debate before the budget.
Will the Chairman write to the new Minister for Finance to point out to him that the issue has been on the committee's agenda, that we are not satisfied with the report issued and that we would like him to examine it and report to us? We made no progress at all with the previous Minister. Perhaps the new Minister will choose to see things in a different light. It is the Minister's personal call whether to amend these regulations and whether to accept satisfactory standards of certification of disability. That is all it takes.
The committee has not decided it is not satisfied, because we never discussed the content of the report. We may or may not be satisfied. We did not discuss it. I understand that might be Deputy Burton's view, but perhaps it is not everybody else's. That decision must be left until we discuss the matter.
I suggest we write——
To the Minister.
Bearing in mind what you have said, we should write to the incoming Minister because it is really the Minister's call. If we are to have any fruitful discussion, it will depend on whether there is a change of attitude on the part of the Minister.
We will write to the Minister and ask about the specific regulation. We want to discuss the broader report.
The next item of correspondence is item number 05. The Sub-committee on European Scrutiny has sent this committee a list of documents and proposals considered and decisions taken at its meeting on 9 September. The sub-committee has drawn our attention to the following proposal but has not recommended that we scrutinise it. Document COM (2004) 468 amends the sixth VAT directive as regards VAT on services provided in the postal sector. The original proposal was scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and the amended proposal is being referred to the committee for scrutiny. Is it agreed in line with the recommendations of the sub-committee that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny by this committee?
Is the proposal to levy VAT on post?
Yes, but the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources has considered it and made recommendations. It is not for this committee to duplicate what another committee has done.
What is the recommendation of the committee?
I do not know. We can ask the committee.
Before we make a decision not to look at it, I think we ought to hear what the committee recommended. Many people would be concerned about the application of VAT to postal services.
I am informed that the Government's position is that it will oppose the proposal because it involves the imposition of VAT. We can ask for a note of the views of the other committee. I do not wish to duplicate its work.
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 involved the preliminary draft budget for the surplus resulting from the implementation of the 2003 budget. The committee sought a briefing note from the Department of Finance and, having reviewed the note on 14 July, we requested a detailed breakdown of any funds unspent and not drawn down by Ireland in 2003. The note explains the situation in some detail and in particular states that it is not possible to identify from the EU budget data the country composition of any underspending in respect of the Structural and Cohesion Fund allocations. I would prefer to defer consideration of that letter to the next meeting because it does not seem to answer the questions we asked and we will then have an opportunity to consider it further.
An invitation has been received for me as Chairman of the committee to participate in a meeting with the committee on budgets of the European Parliament on 23 November. I will raise this issue at that meeting on behalf of this committee. Is it agreed to defer consideration of that issue today? Agreed.
The next item is a consultation paper from IFSRA. The clerk of the committee has been informed that the deadline for submissions to the IFSRA consultation paper on financial planning, education for consumers, has been extended to 1 October. The committee agreed on 7 July that the question of making a submission was a matter for individual concerns. I suggest it be noted by the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Irish Insurance Federation has sent the committee a copy of its pre-budget submission which is primarily concerned with proposals to address the private pensions gap. The federation has previously requested an opportunity to address the committee on this matter. The committee agreed at its meeting on 23 June to meet them at a suitable opportunity. I propose we acknowledge the pre-budget submission and reconfirm that we will meet the federation at a suitable opportunity, subject to the constraints of our work schedule. It is a general policy that the committee does not hold detailed meetings on every pre-budget submission because they are happening every day of the week and other mechanisms exist. We could spend every meeting from now until Christmas on it.
I ask Deputy McGuinness to speak on one ongoing item of correspondence.
I wish to report back to the committee on the meeting we held about a settlement by the Revenue Commissioners. Having followed through on the recommendation of the committee that we should meet the individual concerned, the Chairman and I met him. As per the correspondence which we have all received, it appears the man has a case. As stated by the Ombudsman in his report, the Revenue's actions constituted improper discrimination and were contrary to fair and sound administration relative to the McGrath-type settlements. It still is the case that the matter, although settled by Revenue in the context of payment to the individual, does not represent the payment which the Ombudsman suggested should be made. Therein lies the dilemma for the committee. The Ombudsman recommended a figure and half of that figure was paid yet, in the Ombudsman's report and in the reference to the McGrath settlement, the full figure was recommended for payment.
The individual concerned secured payment and action in this case arising from the matter being raised at a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts and at a meeting of this committee. Most of the members believe that an injustice has been done to a taxpayer and that the full recommendation of the Ombudsman should be honoured by the Revenue Commissioners. I do not know what further action should be taken by this committee on this matter. The Chairman and I met the individual on behalf of the committee and I have investigated the case fully. I now believe the case should be discussed again perhaps with the Office of the Ombudsman in a more formal way by this committee. I do not know what can be achieved but based on the information given by the Office of the Ombudsman and by the Revenue, there is a case, and an injustice has been done which should be rectified.
This is an individual case and I do not wish members to mention the taxpayer's name, because the committee is in public session.
Before Deputy Ó Caoláin speaks, may I say that it was only discovered in the course of the debate with Revenue and with the Ombudsman's office that this was in fact an individual case. Up to then it was presumed that there were a number of individuals in that category. That is not the case and may be a little more awkward to deal with. A fundamental issue of principle is involved in this case which needs to be addressed.
I thank both the Chairman and Deputy McGuinness for meeting the correspondent on behalf of the committee. He has kept up a significant correspondence with the committee. I welcome Deputy McGuinness's report. It was my sense, from reading the detail of the man's case, that something was not right. Clearly, if the Ombudsman's office had made a recommendation and the Revenue Commissioners could then literally write their own cheque as they deemed appropriate, there was quite a chasm there to be bridged.
The powers of the Ombudsman are obviously called into question here. While I believe that is something which the committee should address with the Ombudsman, the only legislation dealing with the Ombudsman's office is in respect of the increase in the number of bodies that can come under the aegis of the Ombudsman's inquiry. This is an element which the committee should flag. A major deficiency exits.
As a result of the report from Deputy McGuinness and following a further meeting with the Ombudsman, the committee should write directly to the Revenue Commissioners and give its view, based on Deputy McGuinness's report. It is unsatisfactory that the Revenue Commissioners should treat a citizen in this manner. It is not only disdainful of the taxpayer but also of the Office of the Ombudsman which they are clearly and absolutely ignoring in terms of the recommendation made. I recommend that the committee correspond directly with the Revenue Commissioners, based on the report for which I thank both the Chairman and Deputy McGuinness.
I do not wish the person's name mentioned. We are in public session and he is a private individual. We will refer to him as the taxpayer or the correspondent. Normally other committees deal with all correspondence in private session but I want to keep it in public session. As a result the members must respect the rule of not mentioning individuals by name.
I have received a number of calls from the gentleman concerned who is very upset and annoyed. There is a principle involved. I fully support what Deputy McGuinness said. The person concerned is entitled to a fair trial and to get his money back.
I congratulate Deputy McGuinness for the work he did. I accept the proposal that he should now go to the Revenue Commissioners. There is no point in the rest of us getting involved if a process has started. If the Deputy has a suggestion for taking the process further to see whether a settlement can be reached, I suggest that the committee should empower him to do so.
As I met the gentleman concerned on behalf of the committee, this should go from me to the committee acknowledging that we both met him. It may not be appropriate for this to go to Revenue from just one Deputy.
I have spoken to the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners who is adamant that the case is closed and was concluded by negotiation. The main issue I picked up from the meeting was that the taxpayer was adamant that he had not been made aware that a compromise was being struck on his behalf and that he only became aware of the compromise after the deal had been struck. That was the essential point. To an extent I believe Revenue struck the compromise on the understanding that the Ombudsman was acting on behalf of the taxpayer. The main point of conflict that I have established is that the taxpayer is adamant he did not give the go-ahead to the Ombudsman to negotiate a compromise figure. Perhaps the Revenue Commissioners are still not aware that the compromise was reached without the taxpayer's consent. On that basis they should reconsider it when we highlight to them that in reality this deal was done without the taxpayer's consent. The difficulty is that the former Ombudsman has retired. The new Ombudsman has stated the case is closed and she is not re-entering it. That is part of our difficulty.
I do not want to delay the meeting further. We have heard, on behalf of the committee, one side of the case and should hear formally from the Office of the Ombudsman and the Revenue Commissioners. Others from the committee should go rather than just me. I do not want to do it on my own. I would prefer if a second and perhaps even a third person came along to represent the committee.
We will agree that, on behalf of the committee, Deputy McGuinness and I will arrange separate meetings with the Revenue Commissioners and the Ombudsman. We have received correspondence. We have received new information in our discussions with the taxpayer.
The key point is that the Chairman's efforts should have the imprimatur of the committee rather than being seen as individual Deputies taking an initiative.
I appreciate that.
It should be cross-party. Perhaps Deputy Ó Caoláin will join the Chairm an.
I have every faith in the report that has been given. While I do not think it is necessary, I am willing to participate.
It might be just as well if it was cross-party.
That would widen it significantly. A number of parties are represented here.
We should not have too many members involved.
It should be kept to three.
The Chairman can establish my availability.
I have two matters of concern, the first of which is the stockbroking matter in Cork which is part of IFSRA's responsibility. I have received representations from people who have investments with W & RMorrogh Stockbrokers and who are concerned they may have lost them. We have not yet discussed the substantial report of the National Irish Bank which is now in the public domain and should be discussed and examined here as many people have deposits. We were very quick to examine other banking institutions but seem to have forgotten about this one. These are two issues relevant to this committee affecting ordinary people on the street.
We will include them in the work programme. We have a meeting with AIB scheduled for the 19th.
Following what happened with W & R Morrogh Stockbrokers, the legislation needs strengthening.
The NIB report is a finance report. I agree with Deputy O'Keeffe that we should discuss it. It would be appropriate to have somebody give us a presentation summarising what is an enormous report for half an hour or an hour.
Is the Deputy aware of the stockbroking concerns in Cork?
I am.
We will include it in the work programme after we talk about AIB. The next item is a presentation on the Government's public service decentralisation programme by the officials in the Department of Finance administering the central applications facility and Mr. Phil Flynn, chairman of the decentralisation implementation group.
I must apologise to the departmental officials and Mr. Flynn that I will not be able to stay for this section of the meeting. As the Chairman knows, this engagement was arranged for last week but was changed.
That is correct.
While consultation took place, the fact that it did not suit did not change the proposition — a call the Chairman, himself, had to make. I wish our guests well. I will be replaced by Deputy Crowe. Deputies trying to cover a number of portfolios are stretched to the limit in trying to work a diary. When a date is set and a change is necessary, such a change should only be made when it is convenient for all members of the committee. Clearly, apologies have been sent by others who were very interested in participating in this engagement, as I was. It is most unsatisfactory. I have made my protest personally to the Chairman and I am now doing so here. Best practice should be that when a date is set which needs to change — I understand events will happen to make this necessary — certainly an item of this import, it should require the acceptance of all members of the committee or at least representation from all political views. It is most unsatisfactory that this meeting happens to clash with another engagement to which I was already committed.
I appreciate that. For the benefit of other members, we had this meeting scheduled for last week but the time did not suit our guests. We sought and obtained the agreement of more than two thirds of the committee membership, as we are required to do under Standing Orders. We did not have unanimous agreement. However, when more than two thirds agreed to the change of date, I, as Chairman, went along with them, although I accept it has caused difficulties for some members.
Some members are not here. As one who is, I wish to articulate my concerns.
The point is noted.
I wish the committee well in its deliberations.
Wednesday is not the best day for meetings as it is the busiest day in the House. With deputations and activities in the Dáil Chamber, we should look at an alternative. We are not doing justice to the portfolio with which we are charged.
The committee is free to reconsider the time at which we hold our regular meetings. It has decided on Wednesdays and is free to change this on another occasion. However, it is not a topic for discussion today.
