I have received apologies from Deputies Finneran, Nolan and McGuinness. The first item on the joint committee's agenda concerns the minutes of the meeting of 13 April. The draft minutes of the last meeting of the joint committee have been circulated. Are they agreed? Agreed. Are there any matters arising from the minutes?
Business of Joint Committee.
No. The joint committee should move on.
The next item on the agenda is correspondence, of which there is considerable volume, but it should not take long to go through it. The joint committee has continued the practice followed in recent meetings in which a schedule has been circulated, outlining the correspondence, the reference number and the proposed action. The process will be speeded up if members have the schedule before them.
I wish to circulate the O'Keeffe letter.
The joint committee will come to it shortly. The first item is that the joint committee has received the report on the hearing of the Chairs of the budgetary committees of the national parliaments of the European Union in Brussels on 23 November 2004. I propose that this be noted. Is that agreed? Agreed. The next item is a letter from Deputy Ned O'Keeffe regarding flooding in Fermoy. I propose the committee notes the letter and forwards it to the Minister of State at the Department of Finance with special responsibility for the Office of Public Works for direct reply to the Deputy.
No. In fairness to the people of Fermoy and other people living close to the River Blackwater from Rathmore in Kerry to Youghal, they want to make their case before this joint committee as a change is taking place. Other committees meet deputations of a similar nature with similar requests. Half an hour of the joint committee's time would be helpful to the people of Fermoy.
I second that.
There is a request to meet a deputation regarding the flood plain of Fermoy in respect of the river. What useful function can this joint committee have in this matter?
The deputation wishes to express its views on the matter. There is some talk that——
Should the joint committee arrange a meeting directly with the OPW?
No, the joint committee is the place for the meeting. The Chairman is influential.
It would be more efficient to arrange a meeting with the OPW
No, the Blackwater is flooding Fermoy from Kerry. It is going down there from Rathmore.
In all seriousness, there is a real issue here for the people of Fermoy, but it is not the joint committee's issue, in the sense that there is nothing it can do about it.
This is the joint committee that deals with such matters.
I do not——
Yes, it is. Other committees with similar responsibilities receive deputations. I have seen deputations concerning marinas and all sorts of other matters attending committee meetings from time to time. I have been invited to attend.
The matter can be put into the joint committee's work programme, but it has many items scheduled before it.
A deputation could also meet the Minister of State responsible first. Has it not met him? If there are unresolved issues——
The members were all present when I asked him about what was taking place. He gave a kind of stumbling answer to the effect that there was a problem with finance.
Typical Fianna Fáil.
The Minister of State is a member of the Progressive Democrats. I had forgotten that.
How does the joint committee wish to proceed with this matter?
It is unfair to bring people before the joint committee if it can do nothing about the problem. It would make much sense to set up a meeting between a deputation and the OPW. The joint committee should insist that the OPW meets such a deputation and I would support that. Unless there is something on which we can take action, meeting people gives them a false sense and is unfair to them. I can understand that Deputy Ned O'Keeffe wants to get an audience for a deputation. However, unless I am missing something, it should get an audience with the OPW, which would be more effective.
I agree with Senator O'Toole and recognise his input and his sympathy for my position and for the people of Fermoy. If he can get me a meeting with the Minister of State at the Department of Finance with special responsibility for the Office of Public Works, I will defer the matter to the OPW.
Very well. This joint committee will formally request that the Minister of State at the Department of Finance with special responsibility for the Office of Public Works meets the delegation.
Within three weeks.
The joint committee will request the OPW to do so and will await a response directly from the Minister of State at the Department of Finance with special responsibility for the Office of Public Works. The next item of correspondence refers to the decisions taken on 14 April by the Sub-committee on European Scrutiny. I propose that the joint committee notes them. Further down this document are decisions taken at two meetings on 28 April. I propose we note and agree that none of these proposals warrants scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
There are 14 statutory instruments in total. I propose that we note the relevant statutory instruments. There is nothing of particular relevance at this stage.
There is one that I would like to comment on concerning disabled drivers and passengers' tax concessions. For a number of years this has been an ongoing problem. The former Minister for Finance, Mr. Charlie McCreevy, promised the issue would be examined and it was reviewed but there are many significant anomalies within this tax concession regime. Although one case does not make for good law, I recall being involved in a case in which common sense prevailed. A young man who was quadriplegic and had an electric wheelchair needed suitable motor transport. He was a big man and, because of the size of the electric wheelchair, he needed to have a minibus adapted to suit him. The one recommended to him was a Dodge with a 2.3 litre engine. However, because the engine was over two litres, the man was not allowed a concession on the vehicle initially. Eventually, common sense prevailed and he got the concession but it caused a major problem.
Hard and fast rules on matters such as this cause difficulties. I know why the limit was there, since when it was not people exploited the system by buying 4.6 litre Jaguars and selling them two years later at a profit and so on. I know a clampdown had to occur but there must be a mechanism whereby genuine cases can and should be looked after. There have been a number of cases of people obviously disabled — having lost an arm, for example — but who have not been able to get the concessions because they were not "sufficiently disabled" to qualify. We need a realistic approach.
Before we enter into discussion on this, the Deputy is correct as this item is on our work programme already. We are conscious of the tax concession issue regarding disabled drivers and passengers. The statutory instrument is about increasing the number of medical assessors on an appeals panel. We should deal with this issue before we break for the summer and have the Department of Finance attend the committee. The matter has been on our agenda for the past year but we have never really tackled it. Many people are talking about the issue.
I agree. In that context, perhaps the Chairman should alert some of the interested organisations that we are going to examine this matter.
A report is in the Department of Finance somewhere.
Yes, but there is a lot of dust on it by this stage. Some of the people in the Department got their hands on it and wrote such comments as "not to be looked at " and "not to be touched" across it. We must have a clear examination of the report.
We should do so before the end of July. Is that agreed?
I agree. On another matter, and I do not expect the Chairman to know the answer immediately, I wish to have the committee reassured about the sheaf of regulations to control money transfers by Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's estate that we are passing and that we have passed previously. We are also passing a regulation on the sanctions that can be taken against these people. Within Ireland and in the event of IRA money being laundered, for example, have we the same level of sanction and control? Are similar powers available through regulation to take action in these cases?
I do not know the answer.
I do not expect the Chairman to know the answer. I cannot recall how this fits in with the legislation but it would be a severe embarrassment if we found we had gone to great efforts to ensure we controlled the man in the cave in Afghanistan while millions of euro floated around this country because we did not put in place the appropriate regulations to deal with people here.
We will ask the Minister for Finance to give us the information.
Having said that, I have no problem with the actual regulation.
This follows on from the UN and EU regulations. We are doing what has been done in other EU countries but we will ask for an information note on the topic of the Senator's request.
The next matter is the extensive reply in a letter from the Joint Committee on Education and Science to Senator O'Toole's letter regarding a school in Donnybrook. Does the Senator wish to make a comment?
I did not read the reply in question but received some material, including another letter, and examined it. An issue has been raised that must be examined in terms of legislation at a later date.
Yes.
There is a reply from the Revenue Commissioners indicating that four schools out of 29 appear to be under scrutiny. The legislation seems robust and the issue is whether schools have gone beyond its provisions. I am not sure there is a problem with the legislation but there may be issues that are not properly private to the two parties involved.
I accept that. The Revenue Commissioners said they are examining a part of the issue and gave me an assurance they would talk to me about the matter at a later date. That the issue has been raised by the committee and that it is being dealt with is important. There seem to be some difficulties involved.
We can dispose of the reply from the Revenue Commissioners with this, as the two items of correspondence are connected directly.
Yes.
Can we agree to forward the information to the Joint Committee on Education and Science?
Yes.
There is a reply to our request concerning views on the NIB report. Can we note this?
It is reassuring that not everyone involved in the NIB abuses will be able to continue in the financial industry automatically and that IFSRA appears to be taking action. Something of a scandal exists in respect of NIB. There were no offences of aiding and abetting and it appears that many of the people involved were allowed to continue working in the sector. IFSRA being seen to take a stand on enforcing probity in this area is important.
We will note that. The next item of correspondence is the reply from the Minister for Finance regarding tax relief on charitable donations. I notice that the last paragraph of the letter deals with a pre-budget submission we received concerning tax relief for psychiatric hospitals. Can we note the Minister's response? He said he will examine the issue in the context of the next budget.
On the matter of a letter from the Irish Writers' Association regarding tax exemptions for artists, I propose that the committee should devote some time during a meeting or two in July to the review of tax concessions and exemptions that is being conducted by the Department of Finance at present. We have mentioned this issue off and on. The statement from the Minister requested a submission from the Oireachtas and this committee is the obvious channel. Without going into further detail, we should hold this as part of our discussion as it would be remiss of the committee not to afford some time to this particular topic of tax reliefs and exemptions. We must provide our submissions, inputs, comments and hearings on the matter as it is ongoing at Government level and there is no point addressing this matter in August when most of the work has been done.
I support the view. Can the Chairman determine for us what status the committee will have in respect of the research and its findings? Governments have, on occasion, viewed such findings as part of the deliberative process and they would not be released to Members of the Oireachtas even though Members have a proper right to be involved in any assessment. We will have to vote on the Finance Bill on issues that emerge from this process. Therefore, we should be party to whatever findings are made in order that we can be informed in our decision-making. It is not clear to me if the Minister will allow the joint committee to be privy to the findings of research undertaken. The Chairman should advocate that we have access to some information, with anything deemed confidential removed.
I ask that we do it in early July because members will wish to spend time with their families. I understand we are to cease on 1 July. If we could work on it in the first couple of weeks, that would be the wisest use of time. One of the substantive matters to be addressed is the report on bank charges. I have alerted the joint committee to a specific case I want to revisit. I have not yet completed gathering the information but will bring it to the committee's attention. I would appreciate its ongoing willingness to look at the matter subsequent to presentation of the report. There are other areas we did not have an opportunity to address.
We will deal with that matter with the next topic on the agenda. We will inquire at the Department of Finance about the role of the joint committee and the possibility of it having access to information. I share Deputy Bruton's concern and see no indication that we will receive that information. The matter will be raised in advance of the next meeting.
The next item on the agenda is a report from the Department of Finance on decentralisation. It is a detailed report, containing new information on the implementation group's report, the advance parties, the central applications facility, industrial relations issues that have not been discussed before as well as property issues. It is significant.
It is an important report and deserves some comment from the joint committee. We are at the halfway mark in the three years of the decentralisation programme. We are told 620 individuals have been assigned, only 5% of the total. Of the 47 centres chosen, no one has been assigned to move to 21. In nine cases, five people or less have been assigned. This underlines the fear expressed at this committee that the programme has not been well thought-out. It is running into implementation difficulties.
It is important we sustain these reports. In the next reports we should be given some idea of the targets set for assignment in order that we will know how performance is corresponding with the targets set at the end of the year. We are entitled to see how they are performing. We also need information on whether the staff assigned are coming from Dublin. One of the central motivations was the belief decentralisation from Dublin formed a positive part of the programme. If we succeed in delivering a decentralisation programme that only recycles staff already located outside Dublin, it will not have achieved what was intended. I ask for those two additions to be made.
I notice in the letter on page 2 under the heading "Central Applications Facility", the last paragraph states, "A table of the most recent data available from the Department showing the number of assignments made to decentralising posts in Dublin for training is enclosed". I interpret this to mean the people concerned are in Dublin where they have been assigned for training. That is my reading of it but we will have the matter clarified in subsequent reports.
The two pages of statistics on CAS posts and those assigned by Departments and other agencies contain a good number of the posts originally signalled but there are omissions. For instance, it is very important we know the status of the Combat Poverty Agency which was assigned to Monaghan. It does not appear at all. Although there are other examples, I use my own area to highlight the need for a clear indication in the report of what is being done in respect of transfers that are not to proceed. A recent parliamentary question to the Minister for Finance received the reply that the Combat Poverty Agency remained signalled for Monaghan but having met the agency we know it will not happen. It is important, therefore, that we have all the information.
Some posts were signalled such as the 100 posts assigned to Mitchelstown and 100 to Fermoy from the Department of Agriculture and Food. It is noted that no one has been assigned in each case. Why is the Combat Poverty Agency, with 25 positions assigned to Monaghan, not listed? The report is not comprehensive as some centres have fallen off the list. I request that we ask Mr. Errity to provide a comprehensive statement on the intent signalled by Mr. McCreevy in his Budget Statement two years ago. Will the Chairman follow up on this?
I will.
The Chairman can cite the Combat Poverty Agency as an example but I know there are others.
I note in the report from Mr. Errity that the emphasis is placed on the early movers. It does not deal with those not listed as such. He states all the early mover organisations were asked to prepare new versions of their implementation plans. I understand these are supposed to be on the websites of the Departments concerned.
With respect, I do not think that will hold up because the more than 7,000 posts signalled, reduced from the 10,000 originally mentioned, will not all be delivered. There is a need for revised figures.
I think Deputy Ó Caoláin is right. I see no mention of Bus Éireann, one of the groups mentioned which had plans for Mitchelstown. There is a focus on Departments. There are also omissions. I have sought the information in tabular form all along and this is the first time we have received it. We must build on this but we need more columns. I presume the figures in the column for CAF posts represents the number of posts envisaged for that area, and the figure in the "assigned" column denotes the number of people assigned to those posts. As Deputy Bruton stated, we need to know the number of people coming from Dublin that have been assigned to posts.
We need a column to state how many applications have been received for the CAF posts. Unless I am misreading it, that information does not seem to be included in the table. I understand that 595 Department of Agriculture and Food posts will be in Portlaoise and 69 people, who may or may not be there currently, have been assigned to those posts. Do these 69 people come from Dublin? How many people have applied for the 595 jobs?
That information is not there.
That information would help us. We must consider meeting Mr. Finbar Flood, who the Government has appointed to deal with this.
We will reserve our view on that. Senator O'Toole is correct to state that we do not have information on the number of applicants. My understanding is that staff in the Department of Agriculture and Food has first priority for transfers to Portlaoise.
This report also makes clear that the industrial relations issues are dealt with through normal channels within the Civil Service and public service, not through the implementation committee. I had the impression the implementation committee oversees all aspects of decentralisation but that does not seem to be the case. We can build on this as a starting block.
We took a decision on artists' tax exemptions and I should have declared an interest as required by regulation as I am a beneficiary, which is not surprising for a creative person such as myself.
Does Senator O'Toole write fact or fiction?
Is Senator O'Toole a member of Equity?
No I am not a member of Equity. I am a poor starving artist.
I suggest that the new chairman Mr. Finbar Flood should address the meeting on decentralisation and explain his plans.
I second that.
We will put that on the list and invite him in at a suitable time. That is noted. The next item on our agenda——
We are seeking this in tabular form on a monthly basis. We should explain to the Department that it does not require much new work, merely updating the figures.
On rereading the point the Chairman made I do not believe his interpretation is correct.
Am I wrong?
It states, "showing the number of assignments made to decentralising posts in Dublin for training". I read that to mean that people were moved to Dublin to be trained but it does not mean they have come from Dublin.
I take the clarification. The next item is a letter from the Bank of Ireland Group in response to our letter offering it an opportunity to come before the committee. This correspondence shall be noted. Is that agreed? Agreed.
We received a letter from the Irish Writer's Union.
We dealt with that and stated that we would deal with tax exemptions before the summer recess.