JOINT COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE debate -
Wednesday, 1 Feb 2006

Business of Joint Committee.

Chairman

Apologies have been received from Senator White.

Draft minutes of the meeting of 18 January have been circulated. Are they agreed? Agreed.

The next item is correspondence to which we will devote a few minutes. If any item takes excessive time we may postpone it to a subsequent meeting because the Report Stage of legislation is taking place in the House and members have to attend. If we get bogged down in correspondence we can defer it because we want to deal with the main business of the afternoon which is the proposal on passenger car related taxes. The documentation has been circulated to all the members of the committee. I propose to run through the schedule briefly.

The first item of correspondence, No. 262, is a letter to the Chairman from the Minister for Finance regarding the Information Commissioner fees for appeal. I suggest we note it and send a copy to the Information Commissioner for her information because she——

Deputy Bruton

It is disappointing that the Minister has not done this. This is a case where people are successful in their appeal and they still do not get a refund of the moneys. It is contrary to the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act, as it was conceived. While I note the Minister's reply it should not pass without that observation.

Chairman

Can the committee agree that we are disappointed with the Minister's reply because we made an all-party recommendation on this issue? The Minister has taken a different view. I think we should send it on to the Information Commissioner for her information but it is not in line with the request we made. It is clear-cut.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I am in full agreement with Deputy Bruton's remarks on the Minister's reply and we should make that point to the Minister in response. We should not just record it here. It should actually be brought to the Minister's attention.

Chairman

That is agreed. We will reply noting our disappointment and we will send a copy of our reply to the Information Commissioner also.

The next item is a letter to the clerk from the European Commission regarding a formal complaint concerning Structural Funds. I am not sure if this is strictly within the terms of reference. There are details about a formal complaint. I suggest we note it. I do not propose to take any particular action on it. There is not much in it. If members are happy to note the correspondence, we will move on.

The next item of correspondence is the IMS survey 2006. We shall note that item, a copy of which is available on request. No. 265 is a letter to the clerk from the decentralisation unit of the Department of Finance on progress, or otherwise, on decentralisation. I suggest we note it. Members are free to——

Deputy Bruton

It was envisaged that the report would be somewhat more substantial than what has been provided. I suggest the secretariat should check what we requested. I do not think this meets what we expected in terms of a report.

Chairman

We will agree to that. We asked specifically for a number of issues to be addressed in the regular report but only one aspect was addressed in that report. In future we will ask for a more comprehensive report.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

May I ask a question in association with that? One has to appreciate the amount of material that went around. There is not an envelope in the Houses of the Oireachtas big enough to house the material. It is incredible. Certainly what I as a member of the committee would like to hear from the decentralisation unit is the update in regard to those locations that were initially highlighted and have since, apparently, fallen off the table.

Chairman

Phase 2 is different again.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I know there are further phases but I would like an update. I am not categorising. I would like to know, for instance, what is the firm proposal and the up-to-date information on the replacement tranche for the Combat Poverty Agency to the town of Monaghan? That has never been clarified while the Comhairle move from Carrickmacross has been designated as a further section from within the Department of Social and Family Affairs. There is no indication as to what will replace the CPA proposed decentralisation to Monaghan and its extent. That is an issue that should be addressed on an ongoing basis and should not be long-fingered. There are other examples that I cannot immediately rhyme off but, certainly, I am very interested in the Monaghan proposition.

Chairman

That issue will be specifically raised in the letter to the decentralisation unit.

Deputy C. Murphy

It has given us a progress report but one issue of concern is the public service embargo. Essentially the decentralisation programme is a voluntary one. It appears there will almost have to be replacement staff for a period until there is a levelling off. In the context of a public service embargo I would like to know how that will work. Clearly, at a minimum, there will be a short-term difficulty. From what I can see the embargo seems to be strictly applied at present. It is a central issue to the decentralisation programme.

Chairman

We will ask about that point, the issue of overall staffing numbers in the public service, and how it is envisaged to operate as part of the decentralisation programme. We will ask that question specifically in the letter because we will be getting regular reports. That report is far too skimpy.

The next item is a letter from an individual regarding the conduct of the Information Commissioner. The letter states that there may be items that we may wish to take up with the Information Commissioner. I propose we forward a copy of this letter to the Information Commissioner suggesting that when she visits this committee a member may or may not choose to raise the issue. We would normally meet with her after the publication of her annual report. We will put her on notice that may come up when we are discussing the annual report.

The next item is a letter to the committee from the OECD enclosing a copy of highlights of the six OECD forums. I suggest we note it. The next item is a letter from an individual regarding the Office of the Information——

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Do we ask the OECD——

Chairman

The copy is just a magazine that has been sent to the committee.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Is there an invitation or something?

Chairman

No. It sent us a magazine.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

It states that a forum on rebalancing globalisation will take place on 3 May and that further information can be found on the website. It also reads: "I look forward to welcoming you to the forum."

Chairman

We will make inquiries about that.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

We can put it back on the agenda for the next day.

Chairman

No. 268 is a letter to the Chairman from an individual regarding the Office of the Information Commissioner. I have not had an opportunity to study this but I know we cannot adjudicate on any individual's taxation matters. I suggest we forward it to the Revenue Commissioners.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

As the Chairman will appreciate, I have had only a brief opportunity to examine the correspondence. The whole affair is most unsatisfactory. The issues raised concern the Freedom of Information Act itself. I am not privy to any detail from this letter that suggests that the matter is one for address by the Revenue Commissioners. I do not see any allusion to this anywhere in the text. Does the Chairman have further information to guide him to make this proposal? It is important that if we are to refer on this letter, we would refer it on to the correct ministry or agency.

Chairman

I suggest we hold this letter over until all members have had a chance to study it.

Deputy Bruton

The central issue is whether freedom of information applies to the Ombudsman.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

That is the question.

Deputy Bruton

The Minister for Finance appears to have said it should not. To some extent the Ombudsman would be the first person to whom one would refer a question on why an office should be given immunity from the Freedom of Information Act. That is the central policy issue.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I agree with Deputy Bruton. That would be the more appropriate course of action.

Chairman

We will write to the Ombudsman for a comment.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I concur with that.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

There is a second letter from a Dublin constituent.

Chairman

We will move down through the list. No. 269 is a letter from the Department of Finance regarding information sought on the Green Paper on the enhancement of the EU framework for investment funds. That was requested at an earlier meeting. The documentation has been circulated and is available to any members who are interested in it. Should anyone wish to raise it at a further meeting he or she can do so when he or she has had an opportunity to study the details.

No. 270 is a legislative programme for the next Dáil published by the Chief Whip. No. 271 is an e-mail from the Department of Finance regarding information sought on COM REG 629, which is a White Paper on financial services. That is a briefing note. I suggest we note it for future reference. We may come back to it later.

We dealt with No. 272 previously. At that time we decided to note it. We were not specifically investigating the case. No. 273 is further correspondence from the same gentleman. I suggest we also note it.

No. 274 is a document attaching a report from the January session of the European Parliament. It is for information purposes and we note it.

No. 275 is a letter from the Office of the Information Commissioner regarding the commissioner's report to the committee. The Information Commissioner published a report that had been sent to the committee earlier in the month of January. We can discuss it. This is what I meant when I referred to committee documentation under No. 3 on the agenda. We can come back to it. We will be dealing with this report at our next meeting on 15 February.

No. 276 is a letter to the Chairman from Deputy Burton regarding the scrutiny of European Union affairs. Does she wish to speak on this matter?

Deputy Burton

I wish to find a mechanism for better oversight in regard to the Department of Finance in terms of outstanding European directives and so on. I do not wish to impose any more paperwork on us but oversight is necessary. My colleague, Deputy Quinn, proposed that one way of dealing with this matter would be to have a session every so often with the Secretary General of the Department of Finance to get a sense of where we are at and what progress has been made.

Chairman

I understand individual Departments are responsible for legislation, including the transposition of EU measures within their remit, but an interdepartmental committee on European affairs exists, which is chaired by the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, Deputy Treacy, whose function it is to monitor the transposition of all European measures across Departments. I offer Deputy Burton that information.

Deputy Burton

The Department of Finance has a number of directives outstanding and the same is true of other Departments. We must find a way in which we are kept up to speed at intervals about where we stand on these matters.

Chairman

I suggest we write to the interdepartmental committee on European affairs which is chaired by the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, asking him for a detailed report on the current position. When we receive that report, at that stage we would be free to invite somebody before the committee. The Deputy is looking for information on progress across all Departments.

Deputy Burton

The issue often arises at local level where members of the public are aware that such and such a directive or regulation is in existence and they are seeking information on it, which we may not have. There is an information deficit between Government and the Dáil and committees in regard to the progress of European directives.

Chairman

We will do as suggested and seek that report. When we get the report we will decide what to do then.

No. 278 is a letter requesting that a Bosnian delegation would attend the 2006 Finance Bill hearings. As they are public hearings, I take it that is agreed. The clerk can make the necessary arrangements. We would be happy to meet with the group at that stage.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Are they coming for the free Guinness?

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

We will make them strong coffee.

Chairman

I did not hear that. That is fine.

No. 279 is a letter regarding the interparliamentary meeting in Lisbon. Unfortunately it was received too late for consideration and that meeting has now passed.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

The letter is dated 18 January?

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

How did it take this long to come from Lisbon? I hope the postal service is not as inefficient as our one. This is a serious situation for Europe if the postal service across Europe is as bad as that.

Chairman

We have not had a meeting since 18 January. It did not tie in with our committee schedules. If it had arrived a week earlier we might have had time to consider it. The notice was too short.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

When did it arrive?

Chairman

It arrived in January.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

There are 31 days in January, at least that was the case when I was going to school.

Chairman

We had a meeting on 18 January and we did not have the proposal at that stage. We did not have any meeting subsequent to that. Unfortunately we did not have weekly meetings. We would have dealt with it had that been the case.

No. 280 is an e-mail regarding information from the European Commission. We will note it. No. 281 is further information from the European Commission, which we also note. We are getting through the correspondence. No. 282 is an e-mail to the clerk to the European affairs committee regarding an interparliamentary meeting in Lisbon. That was the meeting held in Brussels yesterday. We will try to get there next year. It is over.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I know.

Chairman

I hope in December the committee will consider attending next year.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

It arrived at 4.51 p.m. on 11 January.

Chairman

Yes. I should have brought the proposal to the last meeting but failed to do so. We had other travel proposals to deal with but I omitted this one.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Deputy O'Keeffe could be placed on permanent standby.

Chairman

That is the message.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

It is a matter of how efficient the committee is in respect of the matters before us. The Chairman is a believer in transparency and accountability.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

We do not doubt the Deputy.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I will comply with the Chairman's request.

Chairman

I was snowed under by the volume of proposals. I cannot do anything about the one I omitted save to deal with the other three.

The next item is No. 284, a letter to the clerk from the freedom of information officer at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I suggest we note it for our meeting on 15 February. It is a matter for a specific discussion.

Item No. 285 is a letter to the clerk from the president of the interparliamentary unit on the follow-up on the second phase of the world summit on the information society. I suggest we note this information. It amounts to a report on previous events.

Item No. 286 is a letter to the clerk from the Joint Committee on Education and Science enclosing correspondence regarding the OECD high level parliamentary seminar, Policy Implications for Ageing Populations, which will be held in Paris. We have already agreed to attend. Attendance has been sanctioned.

The final item is a letter to the clerk from the clerk of the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny, referring for our scrutiny document No. 608, a proposal for regulations laying down the Community custom code, and document No. 609, a proposal for a decision regarding implementation of the Community's Lisbon programme on a paperless environment for customs and trade. We will come back to these items.

I turn to item No. 3, committee documentation, and ask members to bear with me as we might not conclude the matter. We consider all correspondence received in public session. In January we received a report from the Information Commissioner that was circulated to each member of the committee. Other members and I have since discussed it publicly but I am informed that under the rules of the Houses, the report was not published by the committee. Perhaps, therefore, it was not right for us to discuss it. As it had been discussed in the public arena, the Information Commissioner decided to publish the report but it was not the normal procedure. The report was placed before us for our consideration.

What are the views of members on such correspondence and documentation? They should be placed in the public arena when received but under the rules, I am advised that to some extent there is no clear cut agreement. It would be juvenile not to be able to place the report into the public arena. If those are the rules, so be it but it does not make sense from where I sit.

Deputy P. McGrath

In my previous incarnation as a committee Chairman — the clerk to this committee was clerk to the committee of which I was Chairman — we entered uncharted waters in the publication of the very controversial Fitzgerald report, on which we received legal opinion. People beat on our doors to say that, if we published it, we would be in major trouble. The Western Health Board gave it to us, although the clerk might correct me. We discussed it in public session and ultimately published it as a committee document and laid it before the Houses. Lo and behold, not one court case followed to tell us we had done something wrong.

The Chairman is right. Documents dealt with in public session at a committee become documents of the committee once they are discussed and open for public debate. That is the way to do business. Would it not be stupid if a document discussed in public session was unavailable to those interested in the discussion such as journalists who want to write about it and so on?

The Chairman has proposed the right route. He should raise the matter with the group of committee Chairmen when it next meets. A policy document or memo should be sent to Chairmen to ensure there is a uniform approach. The clerk is something of an expert. We entered uncharted waters but came out safely at the other end without having to put on life jackets.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I fully support the position the Chairman has articulated. The idea that we would discuss a document or report here in public session that would then not be accessible is bizarre. It is not acceptable. No outside body can draw parameters in respect of our role and function. We are democratically accountable and there can be no circumstance in which we would openly discuss in public session a document or report that would then not be part of the discussion.

Deputy C. Murphy

It is difficult to see how a report would be published if it does not happen following a discussion here. On general committee documentation, particularly that of the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny, I am not inviting more documentation as it was impossible to assimilate all of the large bundle received this morning. However, it seems the items arising for scrutiny tend to relate exclusively to the financial component, not the public service. Perhaps I just have limited experience in this regard but given that there are other committees engaged in discussing public services, where is the cut-off point? It may be that I have misunderstood.

Chairman

I will explain. There is a separate Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny and every related item goes directly to that committee which, in turn, refers matters to the respective line committee. "Public service" does not include all public services, rather it refers to employment in the public service. It does not refer to external commercial public services. If the sub-committee felt a matter was appropriate to this committee, it would refer it directly.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Each committee meets in private session, including the Committee of Public Accounts which is the most transparent and sought after committee in the Houses.

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

There are nods and winks. Today we discussed two items of correspondence on that basis as we did not want to reveal sources, names and addresses. If I were to write about this committee, I would call it the "Committee of Nods and Winks". A case from County Waterford has been on the agenda for some time but has never been dealt with. It is another case of nods and winks. We should allocate a certain amount of time for sitting in private session. Correspondence is usually of a private and confidential nature. Other committees have established the practice of sitting in private session because of the need for it. We should examine procedures of other committees, such as the Committee of Public Accounts, the committee most transparent and highly thought of in the Houses, membership of which is highly sought after, and we should consider this in a more transparent and efficient manner. The freedom of information issues should have been discussed but we did not do so because of the personal nature of the issues. We are not doing justice to some of the documents that arrive.

Chairman

Is there a consensus on the topic of publication? Deputy Paul McGrath proposed publishing details of a matter after it has been discussed. We have not yet discussed the report from the Information Commissioner. If we follow that line of thinking, none of the members is free to discuss this matter until it is debated in committee on 15 February, even though it was circulated to members several weeks ago.

Deputy Bruton

I presume that if we were being challenged we would have to have a defence of reasonable behaviour. To automatically publish this report without even examining it might not pass that test of reasonable behaviour. Perhaps the Chairman should have to approve the circulation of items of correspondence.

Deputy Burton

I must leave to debate a Bill in the Dáil.

Deputy P. McGrath

If documents are published on presentation to the committee, rather than after discussion, will this not take the wind out of any discussion that might subsequently happen here? For the relevance and importance of the committee, the topic will receive more interest and public debate if it is published. In the other scenario, the topic will somehow emerge into the public domain and one newspaper will publish an exposé on it. No other publication will follow up on this as the story has already been covered. Is it not best that publication take place on completion of debate?

Chairman

Are members satisfied that a document presented to the committee be discussed after publication?

Deputy P. McGrath

Documents should be published after discussion.

Chairman

Should documents be published at that point?

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

We should have a private session. Today's meeting provided an example of why we should; two documents relating to freedom of information, containing two names, were not properly discussed and scrutinised. We are engaging in nods and winks. I am a member of another committee and I used the example of the Committee of Public Accounts to suggest how we should conduct our business.

Chairman

After an item has been discussed we can decide whether to publish it.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Why do we conduct all business in public session?

Chairman

The committee received a letter from the Minister for Finance regarding the freedom of information fees. We have discussed this in public session but, under House rules, we are not entitled to release that letter.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Members of the press may be present if the meetings are held in public session.

Chairman

In this way the rules of the Houses are not logical. I find this rule juvenile. Unless we formally agree to lay that letter before the House and publish it we are not entitled to release it, a nonsensical proposition.

Deputy Bruton

Our general position should be that we publish anything that comes before the committee simultaneously with the discussion thereon. Deputy Paul McGrath is correct in suggesting that circulation should not lead to publication. This stance would be difficult to defend as we would not have examined the material and, as Deputy Paul McGrath states, the role of the committee would be undermined. As a rule we should publish material we receive on the day we discuss it.

Chairman

We will proceed on that basis.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Regarding Deputy Ned O'Keeffe's suggestion that we had approached consideration of a case involving the Information Ombudsman in a "nod and wink" fashion, this is not a fair reflection of the way we handled this case, which was exhaustive. The only thing we did not do was refer to the individual by name, which did not impair our ability to examine the matter, meet the Revenue Commissioners or the Information Ombudsman, or press the Minister on this point. All of this was done and a sub-committee was appointed to pursue the matter. Significant time and effort was employed and it would be remiss if we allowed Deputy Ned O'Keeffe's nod and wink reflection to be the last word on the matter. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Chairman

Although Deputy Ned O'Keeffe is a colleague of mine, I do not agree with him.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

My comments are on the record.

Chairman

We will suspend briefly to allow witnesses to take their places before addressing item No. 4, a proposal for a Council directive on passenger and car related taxes.

Sitting suspended at 3.47 p.m. and resumed at 3.48 p.m.

Chairman

We are discussing EU scrutiny document COM (2005) 261, a proposal for a Council directive on passenger car related taxes.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I would like clarification. I appreciate that we have guests to address us at this meeting. How do we find ourselves competing with scheduled legislation, also under the remit of committee members? We cannot divide ourselves between the Dáil Chamber and the committee room. A number of my finance spokesperson colleagues have had to leave in order to debate the National Economic and Social Development Office Bill 2002 on Report and Final Stages. There was also a division in the Houses prior to the lunch break but I do not have the luxury that Deputy Bruton had, namely, another party colleague on the committee. I can be in only one forum. How can the Chairman respond?

Chairman

I will give the facts to committee members. Today's meeting was scheduled at the last meeting of the committee. At the time we had no knowledge that the issue would arise in the Dáil Chamber. We had arranged for our guests to attend and only became aware of the direct clash recently. We had no knowledge of this when we arranged our meeting. The arrangement of Dáil business does not take into account what happens at this committee. I agree the direct clash is unfortunate. People cannot be in two places at one time and some had to choose to attend one or the other. There is no satisfactory answer to the fact that members of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Finance and the Public Service are involved in both——

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Can we agree it does not ordinarily happen?

Chairman

It does not ordinarily happen but it happened twice during the term of this committee. This is the second occasion of which I am aware it has happened during the past two or three years. It can happen. The point is well made and correct. We could have agreed to suspend a few days ago. However, the Finance Bill will be published tomorrow, with Second Stage to be taken in the Dáil next week. I felt if we suspended discussion of this topic today, it would be March at the earliest before we had an opportunity to return to it. The point is well made, but it involves practical difficulties.