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

Business of Joint Committee.

Chairman

I apologise for the late start. I was delayed on my way here. Apologies have been received from Deputy Cregan and Senators O'Toole and White. I understand Senator Leyden is substituting for Senator White and Deputy Dan Wallace is substituting for Deputy Cregan. The draft minutes of the meeting of 16 February last have been circulated. Are they agreed? Agreed. If there are no matters arising from the minutes, we will proceed.

Some items of correspondence have been received. The Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny of the Joint Committee on European Affairs has sent this committee a list — item of correspondence No. 0070 — of the documents and proposals it considered and the decisions taken at its meeting of 17 February last. Members will note that no proposals were referred to this committee. Is it agreed that none of the proposals considered by the sub-committee on 17 February warrants scrutiny by the committee? Agreed.

A private submission — item of correspondence No. 0072 — has been received from an insurance broker about the broker's experience when dealing with the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority. The submission was made to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, who is the broker's local elected representative. The broker sent copies of the submission to the Minister for Finance, this committee and the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business. I propose that the committee should forward the submission to IFSRA and ask it to respond to the issues raised.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

With what item of correspondence is the Chairman dealing?

Chairman

I am dealing with item of correspondence No. 0072.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Did the Chair deal with item of correspondence No. 0071? I thought he dealt with No. 0070 before proceeding to deal with No. 0072.

Chairman

I did.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

The Chairman skipped No. 0071.

Chairman

I think——

Deputy Ó Caoláin

He dealt with No. 0070 and he then went on to No. 0072.

Chairman

That is correct. No. 0071 is a travel proposal. I will deal with it at the same time as another travel proposal. The Deputy is absolutely right.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

More than that is involved in No. 0071.

Chairman

We will discuss it separately when we are considering the next item on the agenda, which will be travel proposals.

Items of correspondence Nos. 0073 and 0081 relate to decentralisation. A letter and a property status report have been received from the OPW in response to the committee's request for outstanding monthly reports from the Department of Finance about decentralisation. A further letter has been received from the secretary of the Department's decentralisation implementation group clarifying the position in respect of the provision of monthly reports. I met the secretary of the decentralisation implementation group earlier. That was one of the reasons for my late arrival. The secretary and I discussed how best to obtain the information required by the committee. Members were concerned that the lack of reports might indicate a lack of activity.

As Chairman of the committee, I am keen to get information in the format required by the committee and I met the secretary of the implementation group 20 minutes ago for that reason. It is better to explain the type of reports we will examine on a face-to-face basis rather than by means of correspondence. He said the reports will be provided on a monthly basis. We spoke at the last meeting of this committee about writing a letter but it was decided that it would be more productive to speak to the secretary of the implementation group face-to-face in order that he will know what we are seeking.

Deputy Bruton

The report we received does not seem to meet the needs expressed by the committee. It relates to property status only. A number of columns need to be added to it to give information about the number of persons already moved, for example, or the preparations for the transfer of individuals. We need to suggest additional column headings to be included in the report to be provided to the committee. The critical milestones during the decentralisation of a Department or agency should be identified and reported. I expect a number of additional headings, under which it will be possible to identify the point on the critical path each project has reached, to be included in future reports.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I agree with Deputy Bruton in this regard. It is important that the committee should be informed about the number of staff involved in each of the proposed relocations. I would like to be apprised of the current position in respect of all the relocations which were signalled in the Budget Statement of the former Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, in December 2003. He announced that the Government intended to pursue a programme of decentralisation to more than 50 locations, which were highlighted at that time. It is clear that a number of proposals have gone off the boil in the intervening period. It is no longer intended to decentralise certain Departments, offices and agencies to the locations that were signalled. I refer to a number of towns in various parts of the country. Such bodies have now been earmarked for other locations. It is important to ensure that all the towns in the initial list are included in the decentralisation programme, rather than allowing them to fall off the table entirely.

There is a need for information about matters which may not be in the OPW's remit. The Department of Finance will need to update the committee about the alternative proposals being introduced for the locations which are not included in a current or active list. That is important. The OPW may not be the vehicle for the provision of that detail, which is just as relevant and pertinent to this committee's consideration as the detail about which the committee has already spoken. I ask the Chairman to secure such information from the Department of Finance. It should be provided in tandem with the monthly report from the OPW. An enhanced report, which includes statistical and other information that can be properly provided by the OPW, should be made available.

Deputy P. McGrath

The information supplied about the locations for decentralisation does not include an indicative timeframe and does not state when the relocations are likely to happen. It mentions that some locations are being given priority status and will be included in the first phase and that lesser priority is being given to those in the second and third phases. Negotiations are ongoing about the acquisition of a town centre site in Mullingar, with which I am familiar. Although planning permission has not been received and details of what will be involved at this stage have not been clearly indicated, the report states that negotiations are under way in respect of a town centre site.

Will further discussions take place about the benefits of town centre sites? Offices have been located on the outskirts of Athlone, for example, without causing further traffic problems. The Chairman is familiar with Tullamore, where offices are located on one side of the town. This is ideal when staff and those who have appointments are looking for car parking, etc. Development in town centre sites tends to lead to further congestion of such areas. It causes difficulties when people have meetings and appointments or are obliged to look for parking. Have such matters been discussed? Will decisions to opt for such sites be justified to the committee? Are there guidelines? Will the Department simply say "that is what we are going for, good luck, good night"?

Deputy Finneran

This has been the most talked about item on the agenda of the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service in recent times. While I appreciate the points being made, I have difficulties with Deputy Paul McGrath's proposal on office location. Civil servants will wish to have access to town centres for meals and other business and it would be appropriate to accommodate them. I cannot think of a more appropriate site for an office than one which allows civil servants to avail of town centre facilities during lunch breaks. The suggestion that they be located in green fields away from towns is one which I oppose. The fine development in Roscommon town is in the centre and will shortly accommodate 191 civil servants who will have access to local hotels, shops and restaurants. While I cannot speak for others, the civil servants I know in Roscommon consider the town centre location to be very appropriate.

Chairman

I will speak again with the secretary of the decentralisation implementation committee and ask him to take on board some of the points being touched on by members. These matters form part of the risk assessment of locations undertaken by each Department. If an office is too far from a town centre, staff will eat their lunches at their desks and leave work at the earliest possible time. This has implications for the public and for the quality of services.

I met the secretary of the implementation committee in advance of today's session and told him I expect that the report to the joint committee will have to be refined during a second and third meeting in order to put it in the format we require. The implementation committee is meeting next week, which indicates that progress has been made. The central applications facility has said it has already begun to move staff among Departments in the Dublin area to allow them to commence their training in advance of decentralisation. That is the type of information we need to know.

Deputy Bruton

To ensure that the benefits of today's meeting are not lost, I would be grateful if the secretariat could itemise the proposals suggested by members. We would then be in a position at our next meeting to compare members' suggestions with the report and would not be obliged to reinvent the wheel.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

This is the first phase and the second is well outside the RAPID and spatial strategy areas. I would like to know what will happen during the second phase.

Chairman

We will request that information.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I congratulate the Chairman. Looking through the list, I see negotiations on site purchase in Portlaoise are well advanced. As Chairman, he is doing very well.

Chairman

Since that letter was written, there have been further advances.

Deputy P. McGrath

What is happening at Mitchelstown?

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

The Chairman, given what he has achieved for Portlaoise, might help Bus Éireann to come to Mitchelstown.

Chairman

I will ask the implementation committee to specify the differences between the status on decentralisation of Departments and State agencies. It is obvious at this stage that there will be significant differences as to how decentralisation will pan out for each type of body.

The joint committee has received a further fax from a taxpayer on dealings with the Ombudsman and the Revenue Commissioners. While Deputy Ó Caoláin, Deputy McGuinness and I met briefly before the meeting, we have not concluded our consideration of the matter. We will report at the next meeting.

Items Nos. 0074, 0076 and 0077 are statutory instruments from the Department of Finance. The time within which the House may annul a statutory instrument is often limited by statute to 21 days after it has been laid. S.I. 851 proposes to provide for the amendment of the European Communities (Mutual Assistance for the Recovery of Claims relating to Certain Levies, Duties, Taxes and Other Measures) Regulations 2002 to facilitate the admission of ten new member states. There is no great need to discuss or examine the statutory instrument in further detail. Is that agreed? Agreed.

S.I. 81 of 2005 seeks to determine the capital subhead and Votes against which Departments will spend, as a first charge in 2005 and as provided in the Appropriation Act 2004, the carryover of €236.967 million in unspent capital from 2004. In other words, unspent capital provision from 2004 is to be the first item of expenditure by the listed Departments in 2005. A schedule of the Departments involved has been circulated.

Deputy Bruton

The report does not adequately inform the committee about what is involved. More than 10% was underspent and some moneys may have been lost completely as a result of the way certain programmes were managed. For future reference, the committee ought to be provided with a fuller report of the amount of underspending in different projects. Where there are notable sums on the list, we should be informed as to why progress on roads, coastal erosion or other projects was not made in the year in question. The committee must adopt a more demanding approach to capital spending. It is no secret that some projects have been the subject of serious overspending and have not been brought in on time.

As a committee, we ought to demand better reporting when things are not going according to plan. The report in question, which will be an annual report of the Department of Finance in future, represents an opportunity for the Department to offer the committee a more analytical assessment of whether projects have met their budgetary standards and of why slippage occurred. The committee requires a fuller report for an impression of the capital programme than the rather dead list of items it has received.

Chairman

I concur. In the interests of clarity, the document before us sets out simply the statutory instrument to be signed by the Minister. It was never intended to constitute an information note. The only reason it is before us is that the committee has sought to have all statutory instruments brought to its attention. In any event, we can write to the Department of Finance to request a detailed breakdown of underspending in each Department's subheads.

Deputy Bruton

We ought also request information on the extent to which projects under different subheads are on budget and on target. We need a brief outline of how matters stand.

Chairman

We will request that report. The document before us is just a statutory instrument.

Deputy Bruton

I appreciate that.

Chairman

S.I. 84 of 2005 provides for a revised secretarial allowance for Oireachtas Members to facilitate vouched or unvouched options. All committee members are familiar with the details which they will have seen as Oireachtas Members.

The 21-day review period does not apply to the statutory instruments I have outlined. I take it we do not need to consider them further with the exception of requesting the additional information note suggested by Deputy Bruton. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The last item of correspondence is provided for the information of members. An e-mail has been received from IFSRA on the commencement of a public consultation process on the framework of standards for testing the competence and probity of directors and senior managers of financial services. While members are free to comment publicly, I suggest that the committee note the matter. Members are free to make submissions to IFSRA. Is it agreed to note the information note from IFSRA?

Deputy Ó Caoláin

It indicated in the opening paragraph that the consultation reviews the current standards and means whereby proposed directors and managers are tested with a view to developing a comprehensive, fit and proper testing framework. It does not mention looking at those who are currently directors and managers within the existing financial services sector and appears only to apply to those who might be new players coming into the industry or already in it but coming into positions of directorships or senior management roles. There is a failure to address the current reality which is very important. Does this not merit at least a clarification from IFSRA? I ask that this be done.

Chairman

We will ask IFSRA.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

That would be reasonable. We should ask if it has any proposals regarding the sector currently.

Chairman

We will write to IFSRA and ask for clarification as to exactly what personnel are covered, whether existing directors or proposed new directors.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I would like to know what are the proposals regarding existing directorships, directors and managers.

Chairman

We will seek to have the matter clarified by IFSRA. The next item is No. 3, travel proposals.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Could we defer the issue until a fuller meeting is held?

Chairman

No, it will only take a moment and we need to take decisions on several matters now. It was agreed at our previous meeting to authorise two members to attend the fourth Munich economic summit entitled, Europe and the Lisbon Goals: Are we halfway there?, which will be held in Munich on 9 and 10 June 2005. The convenors have advised that the nominees are Deputies Finneran and Burton. An estimate of the cost of the visit has been circulated and a number of issues stand to be considered by the joint committee. Rules governing committee travel require that any proposal for travel by a committee must be clearly, directly and explicitly linked to an area of work in which the committee has decided to become involved pursuant to the order of reference and in the context of its work programme. We are also required to state the reason the travel is considered necessary. I suggest that the committee, in its work programme, has prioritised economic development and that the issue of the euro in the economic life of the State is directly linked to the remit of the joint committee. Is it agreed that these are the reasons for the visit? Agreed.

The reasons for the destination and time of the visit are self-evident. Travel rules provide that economy class should generally be used where practical and reasonable. It is the view of the joint committee that, given the short distance, economy class travel is practical and reasonable for the visit subject to fares being fully refundable. From the schedule members will note that the total cost per person travelling economy class, including flight, subsistence, insurance and miscellaneous, is approximately €950, while the equivalent cost per person travelling business class is approximately €1,500.

Deputy Finneran

It is not clear whether travelling economy class would require members to take a connecting flight at Heathrow Airport.

Chairman

The economy class option is a direct flight from Dublin.

Deputy Finneran

That would be more appropriate.

Chairman

We are discussing the Munich conference. Is a travel budget of €950 per member agreed? Agreed. An invitation from the European Parliament has been forwarded to the joint committee from the Ceann Comhairle seeking a delegation of at least two members to attend an interparliamentary debate entitled, European Economic Policy: National and European Perspectives, to be held in Brussels on 25 April. The questionnaire attached was forwarded to the Department of Finance for completion and has been sent to the conference organisers. Is it agreed that the joint committee should be represented at the debate?

Deputy Ó Caoláin

While I have no issue with our attendance, I seek clarification regarding the questionnaire in appendix 1. Who prepares the response? Will the joint committee have an input? Are draft replies prepared which will be placed before the committee in terms of reflecting our collective view of the matters addressed in the six questions or have they already been responded to? If the latter is the case, could we please have an explanation of the methodology of determining such replies and sight of them?

Chairman

The conference organisers requested a submission within a tight timetable and I asked that it be sent to the Department of Finance to draft a response. I understand the deadline has been extended to 25 March. The joint committee was given short notice and no meeting was scheduled in the interim. I take the Deputy's point that, ideally, a response should be forwarded to the joint committee before being submitted to the conference organisers on the committee's behalf. However, because of the short notice, we obtained a response from the Department and submitted it to the organisers as representative of the view of the majority of Members of the Dáil, that is, the Government. I understand the Deputy's point.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

The document indicates that these are questions for national parliaments. Is the Chairman indicating that the replies were drafted by a Department of the Government?

Chairman

I am indicating that a reply from the Department of Finance would represent the majority view of the Dáil.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Does the Chairman think so?

Chairman

Yes, it would reflect the majority view in the Dáil.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Has he seen the responses?

Chairman

No.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

How can he make such a judgment blind to whatever has been constructed? With respect, some of the questions——

Chairman

We took a short cut.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

The Chairman took more than a short cut; he kicked the matter to others to deal with and has no idea what they said. There are important points involved in the six questions in the questionnaire. Perhaps there would be a consensus on some of them and differences on others. The appropriate body for determining those responses are the members of this committee entrusted on behalf of the Dáil and Seanad. Such responses could be presented to us either in draft format to allow us an opportunity to propose amendments or whatever the case might be. This needs to be both scrutinised and democratised and clearly on this occasion, neither has been the case because the Chairman has not even seen sight of the submission.

Chairman

I am honest enough to say that.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I know the Chairman is a decent man and I would not expect other than an honest answer from him. However, he will acknowledge, being the honest man that he is, the reasonableness of the points I have made.

Chairman

Yes, the Deputy is correct. We were informed today that the deadline for making the submission has been extended. The joint committee has an opportunity to participate and we will resubmit.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Will the Chairman circulate the appropriate part?

Chairman

Yes. The general briefing note from the Department of Finance has been circulated. The joint committee can sign off on any amendments members wish to make at the meeting scheduled for next week. Now that the deadline has been extended, members have ample time to submit a replacement briefing note. Is that agreed?

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Was the other briefing note forwarded?

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

The Chairman referred to a replacement.

Chairman

The first briefing note, as drafted by the Department of Finance, has been submitted. The matter will come before the joint committee next week. Is it agreed that the joint committee should be represented at the conference? Agreed. Will the convenors please nominate a member each and advise the clerk as soon as possible in view of the timeframe involved? The same rules as already discussed apply. I suggest that the joint committee, in its work programme, has prioritised economic development and it is necessary for the committee to interact and share ideas with other policymakers and experts whose views could help inform policy in our consideration of matters within our remit. Is it agreed that these are the reasons for the visit? Agreed.

The reason for the destination and time are self-evident. Is it the view of the joint committee that, given the short distance involved, economy travel is practical and reasonable for the visit, subject to fares being fully refundable?

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Is the select committee being represented there?

Chairman

It is the joint committee. Invitations were received by the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad, Senator Kiely, and the Ceann Comhairle, Deputy O'Hanlon.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Some members are very keen on this. I suggest that a three-person delegation would go.

Chairman

That is fine. A minimum of two have been requested. The norm would be somebody representing me as Chairman and two other members. Is that agreed? Agreed. The clerk will make the necessary arrangements. The convenors should inform the clerk as to which members intend going as soon as possible.

Is it agreed that we seek an allocation of up to €800 for each member of the working group and the committee Chairman? Agreed.

The next item on our agenda is consideration of the draft interim report on bank charges and interest rates. I will suspend the meeting to allow Mr. James Dorgan, the consultant we appointed, to take his seat.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

There is only one other item on the agenda.

Chairman

Does Deputy Ó Caoláin want to take that first?

Deputy Ó Caoláin

It is up to the Chairman.

Chairman

I expect that once we get into the report, it will take a significant amount of time. I suspect we will not get around to any other business. I propose that we defer further scrutiny of EU proposals COM (2004) 103 and COM (2004) 104 and the draft work programme to our next meeting. A meeting is scheduled for next week.

Sitting suspended at 2.41 p.m. and resumed at 2.44 p.m.