Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE debate -
Wednesday, 16 Feb 2005

Business of Joint Committee.

The draft minutes of the meeting of 19 January 2005 have been circulated. Are they agreed? Agreed. We have many items of correspondence but they may not be as tortuous they appear. The first item is No. 0040 regarding the Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability, Feasta. The committee noted previously a circular letter from Feasta, concerning anticipated legislation, to be sponsored by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, which would allow the Irish Nationwide Building Society shed its mutual status. The committee deferred consideration of any appropriate course of action. I propose that we forward this letter its attention to avoid a duplication of discussion between two Oireachtas committees. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next item is Tralee Beef and Lamb. A letter from Anglo Irish Bank has been received following our invitation to the bank to meet the committee to discuss the receivership of Tralee Beef and Lamb. The debt to Anglo Irish Bank has been cleared and the bank is no longer directly involved. The receiver has indicated he acted in accordance with the current legislation and has discharged his functions since February 2004. This leaves the liquidator and the farmer creditors, as represented by the IFA, the two key groups involved. Perhaps now we should meet the farmer creditors. Is that agreed?

What is this letter about?

It was distributed at the last meeting but we did not deal with the correspondence. The reference No. is 0048. It is the second letter. The committee wrote to Anglo Irish Bank and the Deputy can see its response.

Is that in this week's correspondence?

I have a letter from Phil Healy, Brandon Vale, Ardfert, County Kerry, who was involved in this. He sent information to Deputy Ferris' secretary last August and this is a copy of that information. According to this the receiver was allowed to take over all the assets and spend as he wished, leaving nothing for the farmer creditors. There was not enough left from the liquidator to take legal action against the accountants who he thought produced false accounts. The letter is dated 4 August 2004. I will give it to the secretary.

The only groups now involved in Tralee Beef and Lamb are the liquidator and the unsecured creditors, the farmers. The Deputy raised the issue out of concern for the unsecured creditors.

Why can Anglo Irish Bank not come here to answer the questions? It is sheltering behind the liquidator.

The bank says its debt is cleared and it is no longer involved.

It withdrew the facility from Tralee Beef and Lamb to put it into liquidation. That is the issue. On what grounds did it do that?

The unsecured creditors are left swinging in the wind and they are the source of the Deputy's points. If we are to meet anybody — and this is not strictly within our remit — it should be the unsecured creditors.

If the bank can make the defence that it is no longer involved and therefore does not have to answer questions, nothing would ever be proved. That is not a defence. I do not say that the bank has a charge to answer but this approach should not be accepted.

I appreciate the Deputy's point and in fairness to Anglo Irish Bank I have not read out the text of the letter because so much correspondence has been circulated. The bank writes that it notes the committee's determination to be fully informed and wants to assist in the most appropriate way. It needs to know what issues remain unresolved before evaluating how its attendance at the committee would help in its work. It is not saying it will not come but it needs information from us if it is to help us.

It would make its own defence.

If we are to pursue that, although it is not within our remit. The unsecured creditors are the people with the issue.

These people have been badly served but we can do nothing about it. We cannot intervene. I would be delighted if someone could point out how we might help but I would hate to give them hope. I would not mind bringing the bank in and putting it through the wringer as to why it withdrew the facility in the first place. That, however. would not help those who have been stung, the unsecured creditors.

Even if we were to do that I do not have any information to put to the bank. I can get that only from the unsecured creditors.

In October 2000 Anglo Irish Bank made further credit available to the company. The debit for a company of the scale of that operation was very small, at £760,000. Then the bank pulled the pin, to use a rural term, and left the farmers high and dry. The bank also left other bankers carrying the can but took a major portion of what was left.

We have a role to defend those who have suffered in this debacle. A serious campaign is running on this.

I do not disagree with the Deputy but if the bank is to help it wants us to clarify what questions we want to ask. I do not know those questions.

We should bring in the unsecured creditors first.

Very well but strictly on the understanding that we do not give them false hopes. I met some of their representatives on a picket here last autumn. They are in a difficult position. It may be possible that they will be left carrying the can. I do not want them to think that by coming here they will get redress.

What about other farmers who lost out selling beef and so on to various entities around the country? Will we bring them in too? There might be answers nearer to hand.

I was waiting for that.

To whom is Deputy McGrath referring? Mullingar was famous for good quality beef and the Mullingar heifer was very well-known in days gone by but what factory is affected?

There is an ongoing problem about farmers not paid for beef supplied.

This is a major bank that gives little or anything to the ordinary community in terms of branch structure or any other way but it has pulled the pin on a group of vulnerable people and closed down the facility through liquidation. It must answer for what it has done. A Deputy who sold stock to the company was affected but he was not prepared to speak about it although he mentioned it to me. It is not my area but I am doing the best I can as a public representative. If it was in my backyard it would be a different story.

The Anglo Irish Bank says that on 9 October 2001 the directors of the company said it would cease trading. Next day the bank appointed a receiver to protect its assets. The sequence of events outlined in the letter is simple and straightforward. Many other people would have done the same. If the Deputy was told that someone who owed him money was going out of business he would move to recover his debt. Everyone would.

That is fine but what about all the small people affected by this recovery of the debt?

I am trying to get the Deputy to agree to bring in the farmer creditors.

We will make arrangements to bring in the farmer creditors.

What about the directors of the company?

We will start with the farmer creditors.

We could have the directors in after the farmers, on the same day.

No. We will decide what to do after we hear from the unsecured creditors.

The next item on the agenda refers to National Irish Bank. A letter has been received from Senator O'Toole concerning the report by High Court Inspectors on the bank. Senator O'Toole proposes that we invite representatives of the bank to meet us to examine the issues raised in the report. As we had representatives of the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority waiting to discuss this issue with us at our last meeting, we deferred a decision on this matter. I propose that we proceed with the invitation to National Irish Bank now that we have heard from the authority.

As I stated in the letter, it is crucial as it is the most significant report on banking with which the committee has dealt. It is the only one that has identified and named people and given an indication of structured fraudulent behaviour in the bank. We need to know and reassure ourselves as to what it has done to remedy the problem. Has it been completely rooted out and can one be satisfied that similar activity is not continuing? I would welcome a decision. We are obliged to meet the people concerned.

Given the major investigation conducted over so many years, it would be remiss of the Oireachtas if it showed no interest in the outcome.

The report was published in the last week of July after which it seemed to die a death. The media did not show much interest. To add balance to the discussion, we were quick to call in representatives from AIB. I was one of the ones asking them all the hard questions. There is considerably more clarity about the NIB report and more issues of concern to us and investors in general. We should do this.

Is that agreed?

I agree. I understand Danske Bank has today agreed to the merger of National Irish Bank for €1 billion. What effect will this have on our proposed meeting?

We all know that the people in question are no longer involved in the bank which will make it slightly difficult for us. However, we should not simply walk away from the issue. The bank still continues to operate in this country.

Am I right in saying it was sold for €1 billion?

The company has made €1 billion in profit, give or take €100 million here or there. Even though none of the people in question are now working in it, I understand some of them still work in influential positions in the financial services industry. We need to know more about that matter.

Is the Senator aware of this?

Out of the €1 billion received from the sale of National Irish Bank, some contribution should be made as a gesture of goodwill. It is not good enough for a bank to walk away with €1 billion and the employees and directors to move to other employment. We called in representatives of AIB and reprimanded them for a misdemeanour regarding charges.

I will move to the next item. A letter and CD have been received from James Stewart of Financial Outrage in the United Kingdom which refer to bank frauds and, in particular, interest-only endowment mortgages. As the issue of endowment mortgages is listed in our draft work programme, I suggest we consider the letter in that context.

A letter from Nationwide Health Solutions has been circulated to members. The company is seeking support for an amendment to the Finance Bill 2005. I suggest we forward the correspondence directly to the Minister. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We have received a letter and press release from Senator O'Toole regarding the repayment by the Revenue Commissioners of tax overpaid by taxpayers. The Senator proposes that we invite the Revenue Commissioners to meet us to examine the issues covered in his press release. As the Revenue Commissioners are due to appear before us, we should notify them in advance that we want to discuss this matter with them.

I want to outline my reasons for the request. I could not get this information when I was investigating the matter. I eventually issued a press release at some risk to myself because I could not be certain about the facts until they agreed. I give credit to Fine Gael for immediately jumping on the story and trying to make it its own but in supporting me——

We always help the lame.

——it clouded the waters to a certain extent. I have discussed the matter with it. I am not talking about people who neglect to apply for relief in respect of their medical expenses or prescription drugs and thereby pay an excessive amount in tax. While that is equally important, it is a separate issue. I am talking about those who at the start of the year receive a certificate of tax credits etc. from their local tax office which they hand to their employer who applies it to their pay and at the end of the year gives them a P60. Some 99.9% of taxpayers believe this is the amount they are due to pay and believe the two items tally. They file the documents or throw them in the bin and think no more about the matter.

A significant number of people will experience some change in circumstances during the year, for example, the taking of maternity or other leave for a period. For some reason they might not earn so much or might earn more. However, as they pay tax throughout the year, they end up paying too much. It is possible to say that while this might happen, people should check it out for themselves. However, at the end of each year the Revenue Commissioners check what every taxpayer pays. This is all processed through a computer. The P60 is reconciled with the earlier tax certificate and the actual amount paid in tax. The computer is programmed to highlight any underpayments by the taxpayer. If he or she has underpaid, he or she is immediately billed for the outstanding amount, as one would expect.

I did not expect to find, however, that the computer is deliberately programmed not to indicate overpayments. I did not expect to find that, even in the event of overpayments being discovered, the Revenue Commissioners did nothing about them. Therefore, some taxpayers are being defrauded by them. This does not apply to those subject to self-assessment; it only applies to PAYE workers. A significant amount of money is involved. I venture to suggest a figure of approximately €500 million. In reckoning that one in 20 taxpayers might be overpaying by less than €2 per week, that amount alone would run to considerably more than €100 million.

The computer needs to be programmed to establish overpayments. Disgraceful parts of previous Finance Acts have prevented the Revenue Commissioners, by law, from making certain repayments which I daresay most elected public representatives never noticed during their passage. The Revenue Commissioners have covered themselves and can claim to have done nothing illegal. While it may be immoral and unethical, it is not illegal.

I seek the support of the committee for a proposal. An easy solution would be to issue every taxpayer an annual tax reconciliation or balancing statement to be carried into the following tax year. This is all it would take and would resolve the problem forever more. We owe it to taxpayers to ensure this be done. When I mentioned this to the Revenue Commissioners, they were panicked into silence at the thought of having to send out such a reconciliation or balancing statement to every taxpayer but I reminded them that the man or woman running a corner shop in the smallest village had hundreds of documents to sign every year. We support them in having to do so to ensure they are compliant. The least we expect from those who act on our behalf is balance.

First, I apologise for being late owing to another arrangement. I support the Senator's case and welcome his exposure of what is a most objectionable practice on the part of the Revenue Commissioners. Many people, particularly older citizens, faced a terrible vista when the Revenue Commissioners pursued outstanding moneys in accounts held north of the Border and elsewhere. Interest and penalties were applied, leading to additional sums being demanded on the basis that they wilfully knew they were withholding tax. No grace was given and no relief offered. Many older people who have worked hard all their lives to scrape a living but have little to show for it in real terms have lost a great deal of money in this way. The financial institutions which directed them by giving them so-called "professional advice" have been able to escape scot-free.

The Revenue Commissioners which have pursued those to whom I refer are knowingly holding moneys due to taxpayers in respect of excess payments, made for many years in some cases. They seem to have completely exonerated themselves from the responsibility of returning to taxpayers the moneys to which they are entitled as of right. It smacks of double standards. The Revenue Commissioners are pursuing a most objectionable double approach. They consider that it is fair game to take multiples of interest in penalties from every citizen if they can get away with it, while holding excess taxes paid. It is simply unacceptable and needs to be addressed immediately and urgently.

I support the proposition that the Revenue Commissioners be called to appear before the committee to discuss this matter in full and open public session. Every citizen has a right to an annual balancing statement that properly and openly sets out the full details of his or her relationship with the Revenue Commissioners in every calendar and financial year. To this end, the committee has a responsibility to take up the issue highlighted by Senator O'Toole. We should ensure justice for our citizens is secured and achieved at the earliest possible date.

I support the comments of my colleagues and would like to reinforce what they have said about the Revenue Commissioners. Public representatives meet people in receipt of social welfare payments on a regular basis at clinics. We have all heard of people who received an overpayment because a mistake had been made in the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Every last cent is repaid in such circumstances. Deputy Ned O'Keeffe spoke a few minutes ago about the difficult times being experienced by the poor farmers who are punished heavily when mistakes are made on application forms for headage payments, etc. It often transpires that such mistakes emanate in the Department of Agriculture and Food but nonetheless farmers have to repay all additional moneys they may have received.

Senator O'Toole has spoken about the Revenue Commissioners who do not give a damn about those to whom they owe money. They are not making any effort to identify such people or ensure the moneys owed to them are repaid. The Supreme Court's decision today about people in nursing homes who had money taken from them is a related issue. The Government introduced legislation to overturn the existing law in that area but thankfully the Supreme Court struck down the relevant portion of the health Bill. As a result, repayments will have to be made to those who had money taken from them illegally. The matter raised by Senator O'Toole is related to the Supreme Court decision, as is the Ombudsman's identification of an individual who was owed a certain amount of money by the Revenue Commissioners who would not give it to him.

There seems to be a double standard in this regard. The Revenue Commissioners seem to be willing to go to the ends of the earth to reclaim money owed to them but if they owe money to a taxpayer, he or she will have to go in search of the money and the commissioners will make it as difficult as possible for him or her to get it back. I support Senator O'Toole's proposal.

I support the fair and reasonable proposal to invite the Revenue Commissioners to a meeting of the joint committee. Given that they can issue tax free allowance certificates on an annual basis, it is not beyond the realms of possibility for them to issue balancing statements on the basis of the information available to them at the end of each tax year. They receive P60s from employers and know the tax reliefs to which each employee is entitled. On that basis, it would not be a significant problem for them to issue a balancing statement.

There is an onus on individual taxpayers to apply for balancing statements. While many taxpayers do so, the vast majority of PAYE taxpayers do not receive such statements. There is now a statutory limit of four years on one's right to seek a balancing statement if one believes one may have paid too much tax. If Senator O'Toole's prediction is right, many will be irate because they will find they have been paying too much for a number of years. I presume the committee intends to ask the Revenue Commissioners to issue balancing statements on an annual basis on the basis of the information available to them. Individuals will continue to be responsible for submitting invoices in respect of matters such as medical care and orthodontic treatment. The proposal is fair and reasonable.

I would like to make two comments about this issue, on which the joint committee has reached complete consensus. In recent years mortgage interest relief has started to be given at source through mortgage institutions, other financial institutions, VHI and BUPA. There was a time when most people with mortgages and health insurance had to check their tax documents at the end of the year to ensure they had been given the correct level of mortgage interest relief. I suspect fewer people are looking for balancing statements now that the relief is given automatically at source.

Does the committee agree to seek an early meeting with representatives of the Revenue Commissioners on this specific issue? I would like a detailed briefing on their procedures in this regard to be supplied to the committee a week before the meeting. I am tired of witnesses arriving at meetings with documents which we do not have time to consider. It often happens that the issues we would like to cover are not dealt with in such documents. I would like to study the current position before the representatives of the Revenue Commissioners arrive in order that members can go into detail during the meeting. I would like such briefing documents to be forwarded to the committee seven days before the meetings to which they pertain. Is it agreed that the committee will proceed on that basis? Agreed.

The Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny of the Joint Committee on European Affairs has sent this committee a list of the documents and proposals it considered and the decisions it took on them at its meeting of 27 January last. The sub-committee has referred two proposals to this committee for further scrutiny. COM (2004) 641 is a proposal for a Council regulation laying down implementing measures for a common system of value added tax. The Department of Finance has welcomed the regulation in principle because it defines technical terms relating to value added tax. It has sought the advice of the Attorney General because the regulation will automatically become law in all EU member states without transposition being necessary. Discussions on the proposal commenced in December during the Dutch Presidency and are continuing under the guidance of the Luxembourg Presidency which has indicated its desire to complete the dossier at an early stage. The next meeting on the proposal has not yet been scheduled, although it is likely to be held in March. The proposed implementation date is not yet known. I suggest that we scrutinise the proposal, as requested. Is that agreed?

We should scrutinise it.

Agreed. COM (2004) 728 is a proposal for a Council directive amending an earlier directive with a view to simplifying VAT obligations. The directive will set out detailed rules for the refund of value added tax and administrative co-operation arrangements in the context of the one-stop scheme and the refund procedure for value added tax. The Commission is anxious that the proposals be agreed as a single package. Discussions on the directive commenced in November 2004 but little progress has been made to date. There have been indications that the proposal will not be progressed during the Luxembourg Presidency. The proposed implementation date is not yet known. I suggest that we scrutinise the proposal.

The committee agreed to scrutinise four proposals near the end of last year — they are part of its work programme — but it has not yet done so. The two directives before the committee today will have to be considered with the four other proposals. We will ask the clerk to ensure the Department of Finance alerts the committee when any significant changes are made. We should make arrangements to discuss all six documents as soon as practicable. Is it agreed that none of the other proposals considered by the sub-committee on 27 January warrant scrutiny by this committee? Agreed.

Ten statutory instruments from the Department of Finance have been received. Under our orders of reference, the committee has the power to consider such statutory instruments made by the Minister for Finance and laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas as it may select. The time within which the Houses can annul a statutory instrument is often limited to 21 days. Statutory instruments 720 and 727 to 734, inclusive, of 2004 were circulated last Thursday. The 21 day review period does not apply to them. They are technical, routine items and I do not believe any of them is worth dealing with specifically. Can I take it the committee does not want to consider them?

Statutory instrument 52 of 2005 proposes to amend the Schedule to the National Development Finance Agency Act 2002 by adding the Digital Hub Development Agency to the list of State authorities covered by provisions of the Act. Essentially, this is to allow the Digital Hub Development Agency to seek the advice of the National Development Finance Agency on any public private partnerships in which it may seek to engage. We do not need to consider this any further.

The next item concerns decentralisation. A reply has been received from the Department of Finance in response to the committee's request for outstanding monthly reports from the Department on the issue of decentralisation. It is signed by the secretary to the decentralisation implementation group. Do members have any comment to make on the letter? As Chairman, I have no comment to make.

The correspondent is agreeing that he will send us a list of the movements under the programme in tabular form each month.

I do not believe he is.

The fourth paragraph reads: "As will be evident from these reports and presentations, the acquisition of sites, procurement and construction of buildings, and disposal of existing properties will take place over a period of time." The fifth paragraph reads:

Clearly the transfer of sections and public servants to the various locations cannot proceed until suitable office accommodation is available . . . It will also be necessary during this period to transfer staff to their chosen departments and train them to carry out the tasks attaching to the post, and to put in place all the other arrangements necessary to ensure the programme is implemented successfully. It follows that very few, if any, staff will move to the new locations during the next phase of implementation. I can, however, confirm that details of any staff relocations will be provided to the committee and once the actual relocation phase of the programme gets under way we will be happy to provide regular tabular returns of staff transferred to each location.

I am sorry. I misinterpreted the letter.

I will cut across the Senator. It is outrageous.

It is completely unacceptable. I proposed that arguments between all the parties involved on whether the process was working could be stopped by requesting a monthly report on the locations chosen, the movements made and the decisions taken. I stated we did not need a long report each month but a report in tabular form which should indicate the months in which there are developments. At the end of the year or after three years we would know who was right.

The first decision to have an impact was that of the Government when it decided to accept that three years was too short a period. This was reasonable and I accept it. The idea is a good one but it could not be realised in three years. However, the only way to stop the argument is to be provided with the relevant numbers. Mr. Errity should note that his reply is certainly not good enough.

I understand the point he is making in the letter.

He is saying we will be given details on the movement of staff once they start moving. However, he is also saying that until all the offices are built, staff will not start to move. We wanted a report that would indicate, in respect of list 1, for example, the number of sites available in the relevant towns, whether one of these sites had been selected and acquired, the number of staff who had agreed to transfer thereto, whether public private partnerships were required and when the projects would proceed to tender. It should also indicate the proposed timescale. It could be three or four years.

The Department is stating we will be given information when the whole programme is completed.

I agree with the Chairman absolutely. We should receive the kind of report he has outlined. I remember Deputy Ó Caoláin raising the issue of Monaghan being dropped from the second list. People worry that there are other places on the list where nothing is happening. We can give Mr. Errity the relevant headings of the tabular statement we require if he cannot figure them out himself. The headings should concern the sites sought, the sites located, the planning permissions sought, etc.

The second point with which I am not satisfied is that the Department is requesting the OPW to report to the committee on the issue of buildings. The purpose in the Government having an implementation committee is that there be one person, such as Phil Flynn, responsible for all aspects of the programme. If the process is such that a report cannot be made to the committee through one person, it demonstrates that there is a fragmented approach in the first place. We should be receiving on a monthly basis one report on the whole process from the implementation committee.

We should reply to Mr. Errity who is secretary to the decentralisation implementation group and indicate exactly what this committee requested. There needs to be an understanding on the group's part of what exactly we require. We want the details to be precise. The bottom line is that we want to be informed. With respect to its author, the correspondence contains no information. What is the current position? Is there a promise regarding staff numbers, property, facts and figures? We have received no information except for a long letter that totally fails to take on board the crystal clear request made by the committee. We should remake and reaffirm that request and ask that it be acted upon as a matter of urgency.

We are agreed on that suggestion.

According to the letter, the Department of Agriculture and Food has transferred 50 staff to Portlaoise.

Sixty more were approved last week.

That is precisely the information we need.

Yes but the Senator should not have to find it through me.

We should not be too fussy about the letter. Progress is being made which we should welcome rather than becoming disgruntled and upset about the issue. I recognise the difficulties but the first phase is progressing. We should accept that it will be a long haul.

It will affect some more than others.

It was to avoid party political disagreements that we sought monthly reports in tabular form to be noted at each meeting of the committee. We will give the Department the relevant headings, if necessary.

The next item concerns the expenditure review initiative. A reply has been received from the chairman of the OPW in response to the committee's request for his views on issues affecting the capacity of the OPW to participate fully in the initiative. He has given the committee a phenomenal list concerning the biggest investment programme ever undertaken by the OPW and the range of activities involved. The correspondence outlines all the reasons the OPW will not be able to participate in the initiative. It seems it is too busy in achieving a record level of activity. If it is doing all this work, it is all the more necessary for an expenditure review system to be in place. If any organisation needs an expenditure review initiative, it is the OPW in view of the work programme outlined in the letter. That is the reason it should not be excused. I am concerned about any State agency which states it is too busy to participate in an expenditure review initiative. It would have to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts two or three years later.

I do not fully understand this issue. In all cases of decentralisation is the parent Department required to use the Office of Public Works to identify sites and look after property? I was under the impression that some Departments were conducting their own business.

Advertisements appeared in the media last year seeking office accommodation in a list of towns to be returned to the Office of Public Works. The Office of Public Works consults with officials in Departments about the suitability of particular buildings or sites for their purposes. It is directly involved in the process in every case.

The third paragraph of the assessment from the Office of Public Works states it has to plan and manage its own decentralisation to Trim, Claremorris and Kanturk. What does this mean?

The Office of Public Works is being decentralised to several regions, rather than being mainly based in Dublin. There are operations in other cities, too. A substantial number of staff are going to Trim while staff in Cork city are complaining that they are being decentralised to Kanturk, although most of the buildings requiring the attention of the Office of Public Works are located in the city. That matter has been raised here before.

Whenever the Office of Public Works tries to procure premises in an area, it works with the local authority. The Chairman is right about staff in Cork city being moved to Kanturk which is a nice place but it seems ludicrous to move staff 45 miles down the road where there is insufficient housing and so on. This is breaking up a very efficient service which we will regret for a long time to come.

I thought there was decentralisation from Dublin to the country, not from Cork.

Not necessarily.

The announcements about decentralisation included substantial numbers of staff being decentralised from other locations such as Cork to smaller locations.

I agree with the Chairman about the Office of Public Works. It developed a flood relief scheme in Kilkenny which was needed and is very good. While it was scheduled to cost €14 million, the final cost was €48 million. It is unacceptable for the Office of Public Works to say it is too busy to carry out reviews of expenditure.

Is the salmon weir in order?

It is not functioning properly. That aspect of the scheme did not go according to plan. People would be satisfied if they knew where the money went in a huge overspend.

The weir was built 200 years ago.

Apparently, a new one was built. Therefore, there are two weirs where previously there was one. This was done for aesthetic reasons. It lies below the castle and looks well but the salmon cannot get through. An angler told me last week that hundreds of fish had been washed down the river almost as far as New Ross because they could not make it through the weir on the Nore. That is a disgrace when one considers how much was spent.

I live upstream on the Nore and salmon will not come up through Kilkenny to Laois and surrounding areas this year because of this. The mind boggles.

Designers and architects have taken over the world.

We must respond to the Office of Public Works. It is not acceptable that it is removing itself from participation in the expenditure review initiative. It should reconsider. While we cannot direct it to do so, we should express the committee's concern at the tone of the letter. The commitment of the OPW to decentralise to Trim and other locations is hardly reason enough for its non-participation. We should ask it to re-evaluate its position.

We have to respond to the Office of Public Works. We have heard figures from Kilkenny involving a discrepancy from €14 million to €45 million which begs investigation by the committee. It cannot even build a salmon weir, although ordinary labourers could do so 200 years ago. One of the finest is to be found in my town, Fermoy. There is also one in Mallow on the Blackwater. We now hear that salmon cannot go up the Nore to the Chairman's village. Every salmon is worth approximately €10,000 to the tourism business. This is a disgrace.

The Committee of Public Accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General discussed this matter at length in recent weeks. It would be pointless for us to duplicate that discussion. Every point we have made here was made at the Committee of Public Accounts. We will respond to the Office of Public Works stating we want it to make whatever arrangements are necessary to comply, even if that involves seeking outside assistance.

There is a problem with the Blackwater flooding in Fermoy and Mallow. The Office of Public Works has a plan but I do not know what is happening. People living in the area are now nervous about fishing on the river. I intend to bring a deputation from Fermoy to discuss the issue because of the nervousness resulting from the Kilkenny debacle. I do not know who discusses it but it is an issue to be addressed. A total of €31 million has gone astray.

The next item of correspondence concerns the visit of a German delegation. The clerk has been informed that a delegation of the committee on finance of the German Parliament will be visiting Dublin on 9 and 10 June. The visitors have requested a meeting with the members of this committee to discuss issues of mutual interest such as taxation, the possibility of a common taxation base in the European Union and topics regarding financial services, supervision and competition in the financial services industry. As the Houses are unlikely to be sitting on that day, a formal meeting could be problematic. It may be more convenient for members to meet the delegation informally. It is unknown at this stage how many members will travel. In the circumstances, I propose that some members meet the delegation informally. The clerk will contact members in advance of the visit to arrange a suitable time and date for those interested in meeting the delegation. I want to do this informally because as it is not a sitting week, we might not have a quorum and, therefore, would not be able to meet formally.

Another item of correspondence, No. 69, refers to the Munich economic summit which will surely involve the same German committee. As it is taking place on 9 and 10 June, some members may prefer to meet them there. I am not available.

We could meet them on the fringes of the conference.

I propose that we attend the summit in Germany.

We will deal with that matter in a moment.

I apologise. I thought the Chairman intended to deal with both issues together.

I understand the Senator's point but the German delegation is coming here. We will, therefore, try to meet them informally.

The next item is a letter from the Irish Charities Tax Reform Group seeking support for an amendment to the Finance Bill 2005. I suggest that we send it directly to the Minister for Finance. We will discuss the issue on Committee Stage.

The next item is a settlement with the Revenue Commissioners. A further letter has been received from a taxpayer who was dissatisfied with the result of his dealings with the Revenue Commissioners and the Ombudsman. As the letter was just received yesterday, it has been circulated today to members. It deals with the same issue. The person concerned is not satisfied with the information on which we signed off at our last meeting. He disputes the report we gave in good faith. Unless members have read the letter, I propose to defer consideration until our next meeting when we can deal with it in detail. In other words, this issue has not been concluded to the satisfaction of the taxpayer. If members have time, they should read the correspondence in which the correspondent makes a cogent point, the essence of which is that the Ombudsman reached an agreement with the Revenue Commissioners without his imprimatur. However, in reaching agreement with the Ombudsman I am satisfied from what I have seen to date that the Revenue Commissioners acted in good faith and on the understanding that the taxpayer concerned was fully involved. The problem appears to centre on the way the issue was handled by the Ombudsman's office in reaching agreement without reverting to him prior to agreement being reached.

The correspondence from the Ombudsman attached to the handwritten note from the taxpayer concerned is also relevant in considering——

I want to read a paragraph from the letter. It is unfortunate the issue has reached this stage. It is the letter of 22 January from the Ombudsman to the taxpayer concerned. It reads: "I now wish to inform you that I have confirmed to the Revenue Commissioners that, on the basis that they will offer you a payment of €300,000 in full and final settlement of your complaint, I will not proceed with a special report under section 6(5) of the Ombudsman Act 1980." It is clear the Ombudsman has made a decision. The Ombudsman would not proceed with a report once there was an offer and there was nothing in the letter about its acceptance by the taxpayer concerned. Once the Revenue Commissioners had made an offer, the Ombudsman decided that that was the end of the matter. That was not clear to me on the last occasion.

That appears to be at variance with the information provided when three members of the committee met representatives of the Revenue Commissioners.

We met the Revenue Commissioners and the Ombudsman. It is possible the Revenue Commissioners believed the taxpayer concerned was fully involved in negotiations. It is entitled to believe this. When the Ombudsman contacts the Revenue Commissioners on behalf of a taxpayer and does a deal on his or her behalf, it is not unreasonable for the commissioners to believe the Ombudsman is acting with the taxpayer's consent. The dissatisfaction in this case lies more with the Ombudsman than with the Revenue Commissioners, although the original complaint concerned the Revenue Commissioners. I am aware we will be returning to the matter but the taxpayer concerned raises a legitimate point.

Three members of the committee — the Chairman, Deputy McGuinness and I — were given a responsibility, based on availability, to inquire into it. I only had an opportunity to participate in the discussion with the Revenue Commissioners. I subsequently engaged with the Ombudsman. Perhaps it would be appropriate for the three Deputies concerned to discuss the matter. I have not had an opportunity to consider it in depth but a cursory reading of the documentation distributed by Ms Kennedy brought to my attention some of the key and salient points as well as the point covered in the attachment. One or two points need to be further addressed. I do not wish to add further disappointment to any hurt already felt by the taxpayer concerned but the committee may not be able to substantively alter the position or win redress. However, it is important that we are seen to pursue the matter to the nth degree. The taxpayer concerned should at least expect that of us.

I was not part of the group but note from one of the letters——

I ask the Deputy not to mention the taxpayer by name because we are in public session.

There is a sentence in a letter to the taxpayer concerned, dated 22 November 2002, from a senior investigator in the Office of the Ombudsman at the time which reads, "The Revenue Commissioners informed the Ombudsman that they could not accept his recommendation that the taxpayer be paid €612,616 [the following is the crucial part] in recognition of the direct financial losses sustained by him." In other words, the Ombudsman was saying he had identified that the taxpayer concerned had sustained direct financial losses of €612,000. If that is the case, how can the Ombudsman subsequently decide to take a figure less than half that without the agreement of the taxpayer concerned? That is the nub of the issue.

The Chairman is right in saying the problem lies with the Ombudsman's office for conceding on this point, if it did so. This relates to the earlier discussion involving Senator O'Toole that if a taxpayer owed the Revenue Commissioners €612,000, they would bring the taxpayer concerned to the High Court and make him or her jump through the hoops. It seems the taxpayer concerned is entitled to his payment — end of story.

Has the Chairman not met the Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners, Mr. Frank Daly?

Yes. I have also met the Ombudsman and the taxpayer concerned. Deputy Ó Caoláin made a good suggestion. At the previous meeting Deputies McGuinness, Ó Caoláin and I were nominated to look into the matter. The three of us should meet and report to the committee.

While I was interested in the case, I was not interested in going anywhere with those members. Mr. Daly came to Leinster House to meet the Chairman and Deputy McGuinness one day recently.

Mr. Daly spoke to me about it. I understand the book has been closed on this case.

It has.

Mr. Daly claims he has no further case to answer. From what he told me, I believe him.

That is the reason it is possible that when the Revenue Commissioners reached a settlement they thought that was the end of the process but the taxpayer concerned is saying he did not consent.

They welcomed the discussion on the day we met them.

Yes. The three Deputies who have already discussed the matter on behalf of the committee should it discuss in advance of the next meeting and report whatever suggestion is made. However, we have no legal powers of remedy. It is important that the taxpayer concerned is aware of this.

What is the gripe against what Mr. Daly said? Was the person concerned not present at the meeting?

I have seen the letter. What is the problem?

The problem is that the taxpayer concerned is saying he did not consent to the compromise agreement.

Who agreed the compromise?

The Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman did not pay up.

There you go.

Does liability not rest there if there is a wrong in this case?

The taxpayer concerned wants to avoid having to resort to a legal remedy because he believes we have other mechanisms in place to deal with such issues. He also believes he has not yet been given a fair deal. The three Deputies who discussed the matter will report to the committee on the case.

The next item concerns travel. An invitation has been received to attend the fourth Munich economic summit entitled, Social Union Migration and the EU Constitution: Integration at Risk, to be held in Munich on 9 and 10 June 2005. The invitation was addressed to me as Chairman but if one or two members would like to represent the committee, they should contact the clerk.

I propose that we be represented.

A Deputy

I second that proposal.

Will we agree with maximum representation of two members, one from the Government side and one from the Opposition?

I propose three.

What do we agree?

It should be kept to two.

Yes. The convenor for the Opposition and the convenor for the Government should contract the clerk if members wish to travel. We will consent to this proposal.

One of us can travel.

We have discussed the banking system for the past year. We have also talked about the New Zealand model. There is irregularity. In recent days Ms Mary O'Dea has commented about various issues in this regard.

Can the Deputy name the New Zealand model?

It involves deregulation of the sector but New Zealand has returned to regulating it. It has provided for trustee status because of the cost factor and the fact that it does not have a proper banking system.

We discuss the banking system on a regular basis and there are different opinions on it. In recent days Ms O'Dea, the financial regulator in IFSRA, raised various issues. She referred to Internet and private banking where banks often advise customers to take out unnecessary loans. I do not have that problem because I have not received such a notice.

We should examine the issue of deregulation because if we deregulate the banking system, there is a danger we will end up in the same position as New Zealand. We are moving in that direction. Members of the committee should meet representatives of the banking system and Department of Finance in New Zealand to examine the systems in operation there and the failures and successes of the new system in place.

As I recall, in New Zealand a State-owned bank was sold but in the finish was bought back again. That is my understanding of what occurred. There is no doubt that New Zealand is the country that most closely resembles Ireland. It has a population of 3.9 million, while the population of Ireland is just over four million. It is an ex-British colony or dependency which was ruled from Westminster for a long while. It inherited the same banking, legal and constitutional systems as ours to which it has made numerous changes. I undertook an investigation there for one of the committees in the last Dáil when it was examining the establishment of a parliamentary commission. New Zealand has a very efficient parliamentary commission. Many things have happened there in parallel. It was mainly an agricultural economy but now depends on new markets. However, it is very much in the shadow of Australia. I agree with the points made by Deputy O'Keeffe that there are issues on which we could learn from New Zealand's experience.

We will ask the clerk to investigate that possibility at a suitable date during the year.

The last item of correspondence is provided for members' information. We have received from IFSRA the financial regulator's published draft consumer protection code which has been reported on extensively. IFSRA has sent a copy of the press release, the consumer protection code and a consultation paper to us. Members are free to comment publicly but, as a committee, we will just note it. I thank members for their help as we had many items of correspondence to get through.

The next item on the agenda is the selection of a consultant to prepare a report on the commercial banks concerning customer charges and interest rates. At our last meeting we agreed to ask the clerk to issue a request for a tender for a consultant to prepare a report on the matter. Once agreed by the committee, the report could be distributed, laid before the Dáil and forwarded to the Competition Authority. The clerk has received three tenders which have been summarised and are being circulated to members. I propose that the committee examine the documents with a view to awarding the tender to one consultant who will be notified of the award and asked to prepare a draft report by 14 March for the approval of the committee.

Before the discussion begins, I remind members that our comments are protected by parliamentary privilege. They should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the committee or the Houses. For that reason, I ask them to refer them to tenders A, B and C. I have full details of the tender documents which are available to members. In the terms of reference I specifically insisted that all documentation submitted to the committee be available, if requested, by any member of the public. It will not be restricted by any restrictions in the Freedom of Information Act.

As regards tender A, the consultant concerned has previous experience. He worked with the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny of the Joint Committee on European Affairs.

Has the Chairman interviewed the people concerned?

No, I have not seen them.

Is it not usual that a recommendation is made?

We have three tenders.

We cannot make a recommendation.

As Chairman, I will make a suggestion. We have three tenders before us and all of the individuals concerned are competent. Tender A is the cheapest at €7,260, including VAT. It is based on ten days' work. The tenderer has worked here before. He reviewed EU legislation for the Joint Committee on European Affairs from 1998 to 2002. In 1995 he produced a review of Report No. 96 of the National Economic and Social Council for the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs. Therefore, he has been around the Houses and knows the format of committees. This tender is the most reasonably priced. I do not know anything about the person involved but can see no necessary reason not to pick the lowest tender.

I regret that I was unable to attend the January meeting. I seek clarification of the matter. I know that we want to see closure of our examination of the banking industry and the financial services sector as a whole and I am mindful of the various groups we have met during the series of special meetings we conducted. However, if a serious matter presents itself within the overall banking and financial services sector that needs to be addressed by the committee, can we proceed on the basis that we are open to the proposition of revisiting any specific matter? Closure on the matter of charges and others is contingent on what we have heard. While this is not a biblical account that we seek to set in stone, we certainly want to have a printed summation of the submissions and opinions of the committee to hand. As matters of import present themselves, members have a right and responsibility to bring them to the committee's attention and seek further hearings if the committee deems it appropriate.

I completely agree with the Deputy. One way of dealing with the matter is to call it an interim report on the current position, although we may revert to it on another occasion. I do not have to hand the documentation sent as part of the tendering process but we specifically inserted a provision that the report reflect the views of members. I have seen other reports by other committees of the Houses which were unduly balanced in terms of the formal presentations made by people with vested interests. This report will reflect the views of members having considered the presentations made. It is possible that we may have differing opinions and that not every member may wish to sign up to every paragraph. Therefore, we will not restrict the consultant in that way. As I can see the report containing differing views, the best way to proceed is to call it an interim report, to which we will be free to return at a later date.

If the proposal is to proceed with the "interim" description, I will be pleased to accept it.

This is an ongoing topic, as the Deputy stated.

What is the consultant saying?

We had a series of meetings with several representatives of the financial agencies last year, including some credit unions, the money advice bureau and a variety of organisations dealing with interest and other charges in the banking and financial services sector. Having done so much work, we said we would pull together the conclusions.

We have not yet met National Irish Bank. As its representatives will be coming in, will we defer the report until after that meeting?

The committee decided to do something now because there will be ongoing developments. We will call it an interim report covering the hearings held in the past 12 months.

Will the staff write it?

No. We have discussed that matter in detail. With Committee Stage of the Finance Bill to be taken, we had a choice of asking the staff to try to do it or going outside. As there is a provision covering the employment of a consultant, there is no reason the committee should not use the resources available to it.

May I have a copy of the terms of reference?

They were circulated to every member. This is the first time an Oireachtas committee has discussed in public session the appointment of tenderers. It is the first time we have ever discussed the issue of price. I am making available publicly to anybody who asks the details in respect of each of the tenderers, their qualifications, the work involved and their proposals. I made it clear in the documentation issued with the tender that the process would not be subject to the restrictions of the Freedom of Information Act. In other words, every document submitted will be made available to anybody on request, which is most unusual for the Houses. We asked each of the Opposition spokespersons to contact us if they had a problem with this. We have broken new ground in how we are doing the work involved.

I acceded to the proposition on first inquiry. I commend the Chairman for taking that approach.

It is very important. I agree with the proposal to go with an interim report. I was going to express a caveat. I suggest we go with tender A on the basis that it is an interim report and a desk study, which it should be. Unless someone convinces me otherwise, I do not want the person concerned to contact members of the committee individually on this occasion. I agree with Deputy Ó Caoláin and would like to read the desk study in an anodyne form before the discussion takes place here. We could then bring our own views to bear on it. From this, the final report could emerge. I propose that we seek a desk study from the person concerned with tender A. That should be the first step in the process that will lead to an interim report being produced.

I formally second the Senator's proposal.

Is that agreed? Agreed. If Deputy O'Keeffe requires a copy of the documentation and specification issued, we will supply him with it.

I do not know how anybody could agree on the various tenders without meeting those involved.

According to the information on their professional competence, the person responsible for tender A has worked in the Houses of the Oireachtas previously. Therefore, he knows what we are talking about.

What work did he carry out for the Houses on that occasion?

He reviewed EU legislation on behalf of the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny from 1998 to 2002. He also produced a review of Report No. 96 by the National Economic and Social Council for the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs in 1995. He has worked for the Houses on at least two occasions.

I now wish to deal with the matter of the annual report. This is a routine issue, about which there should be no contention. A standard format is used each year for every Oireachtas committee. In that context, I inform members that the draft annual report of the joint committee covering the period 1 January to 31 December 2004 has been circulated. Standing Orders require that the annual report detail the work carried out by the committee and work in progress. They also require the committee to report to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges at least once a year on its role and procedures generally, to prepare a work programme which must be laid before the Houses and to lay our minutes before the Houses. Standing Orders permit the committee but do not require it to include these matters in the annual report. The structure of the report is broadly in line with the template used by all committees. Normally draft reports are discussed section by section. However, as this is purely a factual summary report, I do not see the need to do this on this occasion.

I draw the attention of members to the following points in respect of section 9, appendix 5. Section 9 deals with the requirement to send a report to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges of both Houses on this committee's procedures and role in general. It reports that this committee is satisfied with its current procedures and role. It should be noted that the committee can report at any time to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges on this issue and is not obliged to wait for an annual report.

Appendix 5 contains the minutes of the joint committee. These are as agreed by the committee except for the following changes: first, wherever it appears, the name of a correspondent who was dissatisfied with the outcome of a settlement from the Revenue Commissioners has been deleted and the note indicating that fact has been inserted; and second, in the minutes of 11 and 24 March 2004 details of matters considered in private session have been deleted from the published report.

Is it agreed that the annual report be adopted as the annual report of the committee? Agreed. In accordance with Standing Orders, it will be laid before both Houses.

We will leave consideration of the work programme for 2005 until our next meeting.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.25 p.m. sine die.

Top
Share