The draft minutes of the last meeting of the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service have been circulated. Are they agreed? Agreed.
A schedule has been circulated to committee members, which summarises the correspondence received to date. The first item is a letter to the clerk from the Department of Finance regarding the progress report on the decentralisation implementation report. The letter was circulated on 2 September.
I know there is a related letter from Ms Áine Stapleton on behalf of Mr. Finbarr Flood. Is the Chairman in a position to confirm that Mr. Flood and his colleagues will appear before the committee on 21 September regarding the decentralisation implementation group's work?
We had hoped he would be present today. He was in hospital and is recovering. Therefore, we postponed his meeting until a fortnight from today. We will have to check on his progress to determine whether he will be well enough to attend on 21 September.
I understood a question arose over this circumstance. For the committee's information, if Mr. Flood is not available on 21 September and as we all have busy schedules, is it proposed to proceed in any event? Will an agenda need to be addressed apart from the proposal to meet Mr. Flood?
If the meeting on decentralisation does not transpire, the only immediate issue will be whether we wish to hold a further meeting on the examination of tax reliefs and exemptions.
May we defer a decision until our later deliberations?
Yes. If members wish to continue discussions with the Department of Finance or the Revenue Commissioners or invite people who have made submissions, I propose we do so on 21 September if the decentralisation meeting does not take place.
I support that. I had noted the question of whether we could invite a selection of those who have made submissions. That may yet prove to be the most valuable engagement we could have at this time.
This is an opening session with the Department of Finance and the Revenue Commissioners. It is the beginning of the debate.
On the report on decentralisation, issues arose that this committee should investigate. I noticed that, in the case of the 21 early movers, in respect of only one of the projects has any building of any nature commenced. In some cases, sites have been acquired, while others are still under negotiation. We will, at best, have four sites completed by the end of 2006.
If one takes out of account Drogheda, Trim, Carlow and Portlaoise, which are within commuting distance of Dublin, staff assignments are fewer than 5% of the 21 early movers. It strikes me that the rate of progress is very slow even if the reduced ambitions for the programme are to be achieved. It is strange that Clonakility is listed as an early mover but we have no report on the property development in this case.
Significant slippage appears to be occurring in terms of the programme. It is fine to receive these reports but we ought to have reports that explain why slippage is occurring, what is being done to address it and the critical deadlines for each project. It is not particularly useful that reports are sent to us monthly if no one is available to answer questions or shed light on events. The purpose of this was that the committee could see that concrete progress was being made. This report provides evidence of a great deal of slippage. On the crucial matter of staff assignments and working out personnel issues, with only 5% of the staff assigned outside of the four aforementioned locations, it does not appear that many pieces are falling into place.
I understand the Deputy's remarks. It was intended that Mr. Flood would be here today and that we would discuss the details to which the Deputy refers but he is unfortunately indisposed. I do not wish to open up a debate on decentralisation that we will hold with the chairman of the implementation group when he is available. Deputy Bruton's points would have undergone discussion today if Mr. Flood had been present.
We should at least ask for a report on Clonakilty, which appears to——
I looked at the situation in Clonakility, for which it is reported in terms of the property solution, that a deal on a site is agreed and contractual formalities are close to finalisation.
That is not in my material.
It is reported in the first line of the second page of the letter from the Department, under "early mover locations".
I have a list of all the locations but it does not appear to be included.
It states that it is expected that work will begin on site by the end of 2005. That is one of the early movers. I accept the Deputy's point, but perhaps it would be better not to discuss any points until Mr. Flood is present. We will try to move on with the rest of our agenda.
The next item is a letter from the clerk of the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny. There are no proposals to refer to the committee for scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. We note another letter to the clerk from Mr. Ciaran Smith, deputy director of the committee, about the annual report by the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny. We also note a letter from the financial regulator enclosing the annual report.
We have also received a letter from Mr. Edward Kearns about the Revenue Commissioners. This letter was circulated on 2 September.
I had a brief opportunity to look at this in advance of today's meeting. Mr. Kearns refers to the response from the Minister. I appreciate things are upside down in my office, but I do not have a copy of that letter. Mr. Kearns said he received a copy. Perhaps it has been circulated, but I did not see it. I would like to see the Minister's reply to relate one to the other.
I am speaking from recollection, but it was a short straightforward reply from the Minister. We had it at our last meeting. It stated that they were two independent bodies and he did not propose to interfere in the matter.
Could I get a copy? I was not in attendance at the last meeting if it was circulated.
We will defer consideration of this matter until our next meeting in order that members will have an opportunity to consider it.
As one of the three who were considering it, I request that we defer consideration of it because we want to be able to relate one to the other.
Arising from the last meeting, we sent the gentleman a copy of the letter from the Minister. He subsequently contacted me and I met him a few weeks ago. He gave me the letter at that meeting. He telephoned me to meet me immediately on receipt of it.
As a result of your engagement with him, can you make any recommendation?
He is still dissatisfied. His view is that he has not been treated satisfactorily by the State agencies. The Minister's view is that independent organisations have reached their decisions and he will not interfere. He is still not satisfied that he has got fair play from the State agencies involved.
Did you indicate to Mr. Kearns that this committee felt it had exhausted the opportunities open to it in terms of seeking satisfactory address of the difficulties he has experienced?
Yes. He pointed out it was similar to a previous case where the issue of redress for taxpayers came before this committee. That happened during Committee Stage of a Finance Bill when the Opposition tabled an amendment and the Minister rejected it and followed the advice of the Department. However, he changed his position on Report Stage. He knew of the previous case where the Minister gave what appeared to be a final definitive solution to the committee and then subsequently changed that. He is looking for the same in his case.
It is his choice that we do not close.
Absolutely. That is why the letter is here. We will come back to it at the next meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The next item is a letter from the managing director of Laing O'Rourke regarding tax incentives for property development. A copy of its submission to the Department of Finance is enclosed. I suggest we note that and consider it as part of our discussion later in the meeting.
The next item is a letter to the clerk about the date of the meeting between the committee and Mr. Flood. We have spoken about this already and will try to get it sorted out as quickly as possible. The next item relates to a conference held by the Combat Poverty Agency on mapping poverty. A copy is available and was circulated on 2 September. I suggest we note it unless someone has a particular interest in it.
We have also received a copy of a report from the National Women's Council on a woman's model for social welfare reform.
I note the proposed action is that it be noted.
Yes.
Nevertheless, there is an important paragraph in the correspondence from the National Women's Council of Ireland. It says: "We would be delighted to have the opportunity to make a presentation on both reports referred to in our correspondence to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service, to inform the committee members about the findings and discuss the recommendations."
The proposed action of noting the correspondence is not sufficient or appropriate in this case. We should respond positively to the National Women's Council of Ireland's request to meet the committee and to have the opportunity to present the findings of both reports. It is exactly as they suggest, a worthwhile exercise. As a member of this committee, I would certainly welcome it. Therefore, I formally propose that we should respond positively to the council's request.
I support that, too.
Do we have agreement to invite the council's representatives to attend? I have no doubt they have probably written in a similar context to other Oireachtas committees. We might check that to see that we do not duplicate presentations of a similar nature on a similar report at other committees. We need to check if they will come to home in on the aspects with which this committee could specifically help.
The report also concerns the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Department of Finance, which is not unusual.
I would say the council also wants to meet the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, among others. I want to avoid finding that there is a group doing the rounds of three or four committees, making the same presentation. That would lead to a duplication of work. I would prefer them to gear what they have to say to this committee. If they do not propose to go to another committee, that is fine. However, I would like to check that out.
This morning, I was at the launch of their pre-budget submission. They will launch a pre-budget submission on child care next week. I support Deputy Ó Caoláin's suggestion to invite them to attend the committee.
Is that agreed? Agreed. We will try to arrange a suitable date.
The next report is the seventh report of the Minister for Finance on the Freedom of Information Act. That published report is in the Oireachtas Library and available to all Members of the House. The Minister for Finance has specifically sent it to our committee for its perusal. The Information Commissioner has already appeared before the committee.
When the Information Commissioner appeared before the committee, one of the issues that arose concerned the extraordinary situation whereby even if one successfully wins an appeal, one must pay all the charges levied for the appeal on the earlier case. There was a general view on the committee that this was not sensible. Have we heard back from the Minister for Finance as to his view on whether we ought to change that fairly bizarre structure?
I do not think we asked. We just took the presentation that day and, to my knowledge, we have not made that recommendation to the Minister for Finance as a result of the last meeting. The meeting just ended with the presentation.
We ought to do so in the context of this report which shows a fall-off in the use of the Act for a number of reasons. The charge structures do not seem to conform to natural justice. If one wins a case one should not be left to pay. We should ask the Minister to revisit that structure.
As regards the letter from the freedom of information central policy unit, which is the covering letter on behalf of the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, have the 20 copies of the report been circulated? Can we have confirmation of this? If Deputy Bruton has it, it must be there.
I understand the report was circulated. It will be available through the committee or the Oireachtas Library. Is it agreed to write to the Minister for Finance on that basis, concerning the point Ms Emily O'Reilly made when she was here before the summer recess — that where a person is successful in his or her appeal to the Information Commissioner they should have their fees refunded? They should not be out of pocket having won their case against the State. Is that agreed? Agreed. Therefore, we will make that recommendation to the Minister as a result of the last meeting.
The next item is a letter to the clerk regarding Statutory Instruments 146 to 157 of 2005. We do not need to delve into them too deeply. They relate to various Commission regulations providing for financial sanctions under EU Common Foreign and Security Policy against Osama bin Laden and a variety of other regimes. The statutory instruments result from a request by the Central Bank. We will note them.
The next item is the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland quarterly bulletin. As members have received a copy, we will note it. We then have an acknowledgement letter from the financial regulator.
I understood representatives of Anglo Irish Bank and the Bank of Ireland were to appear before the committee to discuss the Kerry beef and lamb issue. Deputies Cregan, Paul McGrath and I met officials of both banks some weeks ago, which was not satisfactory, but I would not like to rule anything out at this time. We made our case on behalf of the people in difficulty. A substantial amount is owing to them because the company involved has gone into receivership. A developer has put an amount on the table and we sought matching funds from both organisations, but they are not inclined to come forward with them. We would like greater support from the committee in our endeavours to assist the beleaguered people, who have been left short. Perhaps my colleagues will elaborate on this. Deputy Cregan has a keen interest in this issue because many of his constituents are in dire straits as a result of what happened. We even attended a meeting in Charleville. The committee's support is needed. We investigate other matters. I was surprised to find out that this issue was not on the agenda and that it was not included in the report.
I accept the issue is not on the agenda but it should be put on the agenda at the earliest opportunity because we represented the committee at the meetings. While the bank officials were cordial and welcoming, regrettably, we derived no satisfaction. People are in dire straits and they need to be recompensed for what was illegally taken from them. I ask the Chairman to put this issue on the agenda at the first available opportunity in order that the committee can support the people concerned.
I support the earlier comments. We can save the discussion until a later date.
The committee discussed the issue several times before the summer. Our role is limited but we should bring it to a conclusion and we will do so at the first available opportunity.
I propose that we note the list of statutory instruments to which I referred. Is that agreed? Agreed. I propose that the committee should note a letter to the clerk from Mr. Tom Considine, Secretary General, regarding a correction to the official transcript of the meeting of 27 July 2005. The last letter is also from Mr. Tom Considine regarding his attendance at the joint committee meeting today. He says officials will be present but he stresses that they cannot speak about policy or political matters to be considered by the Minister for Finance or the Government in advance of the budget.
The joint committee, in the interests of informing itself in pursuance of its terms of reference, agrees to accept the invitation from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to participate in the high level parliamentary seminar, China — Current Economic Policy Challenges, which will take place at OECD headquarters in Paris on 6 October 2005, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. The estimated cost of attendance is €2,052 for two members and €1,026 for an official. We have agreed to send two members from the committee, one from the Government side and one from the Opposition. Deputy Ned O'Keeffe has indicated his interest. I ask the Opposition nominee to inform the clerk of the committee as soon as possible. Is that travel proposal agreed? Agreed.
The next item on the agenda is the review of tax reliefs and exemptions submissions. The committee will meet representatives from the Department of Finance and officers of the Revenue Commissioners. The meeting will be suspended for the moment while the witnesses take their seats.
