JOINT COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE debate -
Wednesday, 25 May 2005

Business of Joint Committee.

Chairman

Apologies have been received from Deputy Ned O'Keeffe. The first item on the agenda is the minutes of the meeting of 18 May. The draft minutes of the last meeting have been circulated. Are the minutes of the meeting of 18 May agreed? Agreed. There are no matters arising from the minutes.

The next item on the agenda is correspondence. A schedule has been circulated to members summarising the points in correspondence issued over the past week or so. The first item concerns an Office of Public Works property report from the decentralisation implementation group. I suggest we note the report. It is an update on the property aspect; it is not part of the previous report we received from the OPW at the last meeting.

Deputy Bruton

Has any progress been made on the other requests for additional information on the way the reports were to be presented? In previous meetings we requested a revised presentation of their information. Will we get that or——

Chairman

We will but this item was received too late for inclusion in the last report; it arrived separately. We have been in contact with them asking them to include the item we referred to the last day in the next report. I am talking about issues such as those who are not on the early movers list.

Deputy McGuinness

Can we discuss that matter at another meeting or will we continue to get reports? Will we have an exchange at some stage?

Chairman

We get regular reports from the decentralisation implementation group and we can have discussions on the topics any day under "correspondence".

Deputy McGuinness

I am talking about another exchange with the implementation group arising from those reports.

Chairman

We said we would invite Mr. Finbarr Flood, the new chairman, to come before the committee. That letter has gone out to Mr. Flood. We will let him settle into the job first but the letter has issued.

The next item of correspondence is SI 234 of 2005 entitled Superannuation (Designation of Approved Organisations) Regulations 2005. I suggest we note those superannuation provisions for certain cross-Border bodies. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next two items include an information note on the list of various bodies such as Fáilte Ireland, Waterways Ireland and an invitation to the OECD conference in Paris on 6 June. This matter is appropriate to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business which deals with this area. I suggest we note the invitation and forward it to that committee, as this matter does not come under the remit of this committee.

The next item is the revised interim report from our consultant on bank charges. We will deal with it shortly as a separate item on the agenda.

The next item is a draft letter from myself to the Minister for Finance about a case we dealt with regarding the Ombudsman, an individual taxpayer and the Revenue Commissioners. Members might want to read it and comment on it. I circulated it for discussion yesterday.

Deputy McGuinness

It states nothing. It is one of those letters we are all used to receiving. I am not making a case for the taxpayer in question, but this is not a case about an individual; it is a case about a category into which only one individual falls. The letter should reflect that to show that we are not dealing with an individual's case. I cannot recall the wording of the letter, but we were dealing with that category and only one person comes under it. I had hoped that aspect would have been reflected more directly in the letter. We should also state something about the case. Perhaps we should state that the Ombudsman had made a recommendation at the beginning and that is the recommendation the committee would like implemented. We should then leave the matter to the Minister for Finance and others, and pass it on that way, because it is not within the remit of this committee. If we do not say that, we should not say anything.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I concur with Deputy McGuinness in regard to the broad thrust of this draft letter. I do not believe it adequately reflects the views of the subgroup of members of this committee who met on a number of occasions to try to progress the issue. A recommendation was agreed that the matter would come before the committee and that we would write to the Minister for Finance not only in what I might describe as broad brush stroke terms but in greater detail in regard to the individual case. It exemplifies a situation which is unique but could present itself again in the future. It is important that best practice applies in this and any other such case. If we do not get this right now, we will continue to get it wrong into the future.

My understanding was that we had a request to recommend that the Minister would show a given disposition on this case. There is no recommendation indicated in the thrust of these two pages. The letter is bland, innocuous, and does not get to the heart of the matter or reflect what the three members who discussed this case wanted. They sought that the individual citizen should have the detail of the case presented not only in an attachment format but in the content of the letter and wording to the effect that the committee, having exhausted all forms of address, was referring the case but with a recommendation substantively to address the matter concerned with a view to ensuring whatever reliefs could be provided would be provided.

Deputy Bruton

I was not party to the various meetings but as I understand it the Ombudsman's only recourse when a recommendation is not accepted is to make a report directly to the Oireachtas. In this instance, the Ombudsman appears to have chosen to try to negotiate half a loaf rather than no loaf at all. It is unsatisfactory from the individual's point of view that the individual was not party to any of those discussions where the half loaf was agreed upon.

We cannot second-guess the Ombudsman. That is the difficulty we face. The truth of this matter is that nothing will happen on foot of the Chairman's letter. It will be put into a file and left there to gather dust. Perhaps we have exhausted the addressing of this case in that the Ombudsman, presumably, would still have the power to make a direct report to the Oireachtas and that option is still open to the Ombudsman. I am not sure that the Chairman can do much more than he has done, other than perhaps recommend that the Revenue Commissioners pursue the original course. The Ombudsman has taken a different view. We are a little bound in regard to this matter. There is little more the Chairman can do other than what he proposes to do.

Deputy Nolan

One issue that has emerged from this investigation, as clearly stated in the letter and which would be helpful if it could be highlighted for the information of the public, is that while the Ombudsman has legal power under the Ombudsman Act 1980 to make recommendations, the Act does not give the Ombudsman the power to ensure that such recommendations are legally binding. That is not generally known, as we are aware, having all dealt with the Ombudsman's office. To a certain extent, there is general public satisfaction with the manner in which the Ombudsman and staff of that office do their business, but there is the perception that once the Ombudsman makes a recommendation it is binding. That is not the case. If that message could be put across it would be helpful, although I agree it is not satisfactory from the point of view of the individual taxpayer concerned.

Chairman

I circulated the letter for members to give their comments and discuss. The only point I want to make — I am guided by the committee members — is that the original recommendation was made and then a compromise deal was struck which the Ombudsman accepted. If we state that the original recommendation should have been honoured in full by the Revenue, essentially we are saying — we are entitled to do so — that the Ombudsman should not have agreed a compromise figure. To some extent, we would be criticising the Ombudsman for accepting the compromise figure. That was the considered view of the Ombudsman as the best deal that could be achieved and perhaps it was. I am simply making that point.

Deputy McGuinness

That was not the considered view of the committee. A subcommittee dealt with this matter and we had many meetings to discuss it. If the Chairman does not intend to state something in the letter, he should not state anything. If he does not state something in the letter, it is a waste of time to send it and a nonsense, similar to other such letters we receive, for which I have little tolerance.

What Deputy Ó Caoláin said is true. We should reflect in the draft letter what was discussed at the subcommittee meeting and let the members consider it. What is in this draft letter is not what we discussed or, alternatively, what we discussed is not in the draft letter. I am not criticising the Ombudsman. What we discussed should be in the draft letter. We should return to the draft stage and draft the letter in the manner requested and present it to the committee for it to decide what to do with it.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I fully support that suggestion and in that regard I do not believe there is anything about which to be concerned. It is better that we show a little courage and state the position because we could make a paper aeroplane out of this draft letter and it has about the same value. It will make no difference, as it will not be heeded. We should spell out exactly what we discussed and agreed. I understood that all three members who dealt with this matter were of a common disposition at the conclusion of our deliberations. That is not reflected in the letter. If we reflect what we already agreed, I have no doubt it will secure the support of the members of the committee without exception. If we are not prepared to reflect the rights of an individual, we are setting a bad example for the future. I suggest that, as both the Chairman and the clerk to the committee were privy to those discussions and know what was agreed, that should be reflected in the text. I have no doubt that we would all sign off on it.

Chairman

It is clear-cut. We will redraft it from scratch and will re-circulate a revised draft. The next item of correspondence is a letter, which members have, from Mr. John Fingleton, chairperson of the Competition Authority. In the text of the letter, the chairperson says he understands that at a meeting on 11 May, one of the members expressed no confidence in the authority and alleged that it was particularly close to one political party. He wishes to refute those claims in the strongest possible terms. I understand he would be happy to meet me in my capacity as Chair of this committee to discuss the draft report in greater detail. Does the committee have any comment to make on the letter?

Deputy McHugh

What is the political party?

Chairman

It is not represented in this room.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Deputy Bruton and I are in the one boat again.

Chairman

It is a serious charge.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I appreciate the concern of the chairperson of the Competition Authority. I suggest that the Chairperson of this committee could be mandated to assure him that it is not a view that has any currency among the broad membership.

Chairman

I will talk to him with a view to having a meeting. I wanted to bring that matter to the attention of this meeting because we received that letter. That is the final item under correspondence.

Our next item is the draft interim report on bank charges and interest rates. I propose that at approximately 3.30 p.m. we should meet the Standards in Public Office Commission, from whose representatives there will be a short presentation. I suggest that we lead off then with a maximum of 15 minutes per group for Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Labour Party — if that party is represented — and the Technical Group in rotation. After people have had an opportunity to contribute, it will be an open forum if people have further comments to make at that stage. That is the way in which I intend to operate.

We will now consider the draft interim report on bank charges and interest rates. We will suspend the meeting for a short period to allow our consultant, Mr. Dorgan, to take his seat.

Sitting suspended at 2.53 p.m. and resumed at 2.54 p.m.