Apologies have been received from Deputy Catherine Murphy and Senator O'Toole. The draft minutes of the meeting of 23 May have been circulated. Are they agreed? Agreed.
Business of Joint Committee.
I do not have a copy of the minutes.
I have a copy for the Deputy. At the last meeting items of correspondence were deferred because the relevant members were not present. A letter from Senator O'Toole on National Toll Roads will be kept for our next meeting as the Senator is not present.
From where is the Chairman starting?
We are dealing with the minutes, of which the next item forms part. A number of items of correspondence were mentioned at the last meeting and included in the minutes because they were not dealt with.
The next item of correspondence is a letter to the Chairman from the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, on Tralee Beef and Lamb. A second letter on an individual case relating to Tralee Beef and Lamb was also received. Will the committee note these letters or what actions do members propose? Some time ago a group met to discuss this matter but I was not present. It has not been concluded by the committee. Do members want to comment on it now or hold it over?
We have left point position to Deputy Ned O'Keeffe. Is there any issue he would like to raise?
Did I write the letter?
No. A letter was received from the Minister of State outlining the up-to-date position.
Although we had a meeting with the bank, it was never satisfactorily concluded. We did not attend the meeting with the imprimatur of this committee. We went on an ad hoc basis, of which the banks were aware, and this made it more difficult. The bank officials, with some exceptions, were conciliatory. We met representatives of Anglo Irish Bank, who were quite difficult, and Bank of Ireland, who took a different view. We made proposals but left the meeting with our cap in our hand. We did not have the authority of this committee. Deputies Cregan and Paul McGrath accompanied me to the meeting. If there is a change of attitude from committee members, we could be firmer on the matter.
We will be guided by Deputy O'Keeffe's report and recommendations. This should be addressed on a cross-party basis and if some of us are not in a position to participate we can deputise colleagues to participate. I will support that proposition if Deputy O'Keeffe formalises it.
I agree with that. I suggest adding it to the agenda for the next meeting. Deputy McGrath is not present but I met him in the yard and he will be a participant, as will Deputy Cregan.
I agree with that but I will seek the participation of my colleague Deputy Ferris in my place.
He was here when the matter was first discussed and has a keen interest in it.
If the delegation requires the imprimatur of the committee we should afford it to them.
As it was just a group that travelled, that is what we will call it.
The last item deferred from the last meeting was a letter from Deputy Burton regarding decentralisation. A meeting on that topic has been arranged for two week's time.
The next item on the agenda is correspondence. Members have received the schedule, which is routine. The first matter is a letter to the Chairman regarding freedom of information. We should note this correspondence and inform the person of that. The next matter, item No. 395, is a letter from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform regarding freedom of information and will be dealt with during today's meeting. Item No. 396 is a letter from Deputy Burton regarding a conference at which she represented the committee. Item No. 397 encloses a copy of a letter sent to the Information Commissioner and is related to the first item of correspondence.
Item No. 398 is from the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources regarding freedom of information. The next item is a letter to the chairman of the committee from the Chief State Solicitor's office regarding the joint committee meeting on 12 April 2006. At that meeting we asked the office for a breakdown of legal costs incurred by the State to be furnished to the committee. The reply stated that the task is being undertaken by the Department of Finance with input from the Chief State Solicitor. I propose we write to the Department requesting the report. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The next item is Statutory Instrument order No. 2006, Members', ministerial, parliamentary, judicial and court offices allowances. I propose to note it.
The next item is a letter from the clerk regarding EU scrutiny. It will be dealt with along with other EU scrutiny items. Correspondence sent by the committee is the next item. It was included for information of the Minister for Finance on 17 May and invitations for information on decentralisation have been issued.
Have we had a response from the Minister for Finance to our request to appear before the committee to address the substantive issue?
No, not yet. SIPTU has contacted us to arrange the membership of its delegation. The Department has not contacted us but we will receive an early indication.
We are trying to synchronise opportunities to appear before the committee.
Ideally, all delegations would appear on 21 June. Next Wednesday we are meeting with the Minister for Finance to discuss the national development plan. The meeting will take place at 12 noon to suit the Minister's diary. The following week, at 3 p.m., we will address decentralisation.
The Chairman recalls my proposal on this matter. What do we expect? We expect some Civil Service input and the implementation committee
Yes.
Do we also expect the Minister and the Minister of State to attend?
There will be ministerial representation, it may be either one or both. We have not yet received confirmation. A delegation from FÁS will also appear.
I wish to reiterate that ministerial representation is essential. It appears there have been changes in the programme. Following the decision not to transfer the probation officers to Navan, it seems that a Secretary General may substitute one cadre of civil servants, previously assigned to decentralisation, with another cadre. This was announced on the radio by the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, when it was decided that probation and welfare officers would not be transferred to Navan because the majority of their work was in the courts in Dublin. The Minister of State was confident that the numbers would be replaced by others in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I would like to note these statements because it is important to clarify if this is true. The statements appeared in the print media and the Minister of State made the point on various radio programmes.
That meeting is scheduled for 21 June. Item No. 402 is a letter to the clerk from the Department of Finance regarding the questions raised during the meeting on 1 March on the increase in public service numbers between 2005 and 2006 and the monitoring of expenditure on consultation in the Vote of the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. Deputies Burton and Bruton, respectively, raised these matters and have received replies. In correspondence sent by the committee, the next item is a letter sent to the Minister for Transport regarding freedom of information. As a result of changes we had to reissue the letter to the Department of Transport.
Item No. 403 is a letter to the Chairman regarding freedom of information. Item No. 404 deals with he same topic. I suggest we note it and take it into consideration. Item No. 405 is an e-mail regarding the annual meeting of budgetary committees of the national Parliaments on 21 June 2006. Do members wish for the committee to be represented? It is a Chairmans' conference so it is an invitation for me or someone on my behalf to attend. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The next item is a letter to the Chairman from the Minister for Finance regarding home reversion products. Did Deputy Bruton receive that reply?
I sent the Chairman a copy of a reply to a parliamentary question.
The next item is letters to the Chairman from the Ministers for Finance and Agriculture and Food regarding the Freedom of Information Act. We will deal with that. An e-mail has been received from Irish Autism Action attaching a response to testimony given to the committee on 12 April by the Department of Education and Science and the Chief State Solicitor.
I believe we should meet with Irish Autism Action. Given the import of what is involved, it would be appropriate to accord them the opportunity to come before the committee and elaborate their response to the testimony given here on 12 April by the Department of Education and Science and the Chief State Solicitor. That is appropriate and I expect my colleague, Deputy Catherine Murphy, would be anxious that we take that course. I formally propose we accommodate an opportunity for Irish Autism Action to come before the committee as is indicated in the notation circulated.
How far can we take a topic such as this? I am dealing with correspondence and this is in response to comments made by the Office of the Chief State Solicitor and the Department of Education and Science. I do not want to go down the road of discussing these legal difficulties as it is outside our remit. However, the correspondence is as a direct response to the committee's hearings. From that point of view, it flows from our Estimates. Is it agreed that we invite Irish Autism Action at an appropriate time?
I think so. It deserves at least an opportunity to elaborate and present its position. The meeting does not have to go on all day. At the very least, we should extend that courtesy and allow the group an opportunity to highlight its perspective.
We will invite it in as an agenda item at an appropriate time.
The next item is a letter to the Chairman from the Minister for Finance regarding a meeting with the Minister on 14 June. It is important to note that in the letter the Minister states that from the Department's perspective, next week's meeting will deal with the National Development Plan 2007-2013. A mid-term review has taken place and other documentation presented on the outcome of the current plan. We should be clear that the Minister wants to discuss the next plan, not review the last one. The committee was asked whether we wanted to make a submission for the National Development Plan 2007-2013, we replied that we did and the Minister is available to discuss it. A review of the previous plan is on our work programme in any event.
The next items are with regard to statutory instruments on counter-terrorism and financial sanctions. I propose we note them. We see them emanate from the UN on a regular basis and they deal with the financial accounts of suspected terrorists. No. 412 is a letter from the Joint Committee on European Affairs regarding the annual meeting of budgetary committees of national parliaments. It is the second reference to this matter and we already dealt with it. No. 413 is similar. No. 414 is from an individual regarding the Freedom of Information Act. We will take the points into consideration and note them. No. 415 is a letter from Deputy Bruton regarding home revision products, which we already dealt with.
The next item is an e-mail regarding the joint committee's attendance at the European budgetary control committee with corresponding committees from national parliaments on 9 and 10 October 2006. Will the committee be represented? I do not know whether it is an invitation for the Chairman only. We will agree in principle to get the cost for a maximum of two people. I attended as Chairman of this committee at a previous meeting.
When is it on?
It is on 9 and 10 October.
It is a long time away.
We will get the cost for a maximum of two people to attend. That concludes the correspondence.
The next item on the agenda is the work programme. The principles of the work programme were agreed at the last meeting. It has been laid before the Dáil. Do members want us to consider any other items during the course of the year, such as Irish Autism Action?
When the Minister of State and Chief Whip, Deputy Kitt, was before the committee the Central Statistics Office was briefly mentioned. As it is responsible for the census of population, perhaps it would be a good idea to see how it carries out its work. We could put that on our work programme for this year.
We can see how they get on with compiling the census information and how quickly the information will be published. It might be interesting to visit the CSO to see what is taking so long.
Will the Chairman let us go on a trip to Cork? I hope Deputy O'Keeffe will be out with the red carpet if we go to the independent republic.
We might go to the office in Glasnevin.
There is a new train now.
I was on it about a month ago.
There is a newer train.
The Irish Bankers Federation has introduced new systems for its affiliated banks making the transfer of accounts simpler. Will the committee hear its views on the progress to date of that project? It is a sensitive area which affects many people.
This is with regard to switching accounts.
Is that the term used?
That is what the banks call it.
It has been an issue for a long time, particularly the charges involved. It is relevant to current accounts. I was recently approached by a home owner with a mortgage wondering how it could be switched. No procedure is in place for switching mortgages. I would like an update on that from the Irish Bankers Federation.
We will write to it first and get a response.
I support Deputy O'Keeffe. The banks have a number of new or developing products on the market. It is difficult at times to know how good they are. The business of subprime lending involves rolling up mortgage packages. The bigger banks do not offer such products but many of the smaller and newer entrants to the market do so.
We now hear about people getting 40 year mortgages. In terms of mortgage costs, that is at the outer edge of viability in terms of the relationship between interest costs and costs. We must get figures on that. People who sign deals now will end up paying dearly for 40 year mortgages.
It is reaching the stage of diminishing returns.
A person who agrees a DCF at 40 years is on the outer edge.
I did not hear of 40 years but I am aware of 30 year arrangements. We should invite the regulator to attend the committee rather than write to request information.
We could then follow up our earlier deliberations on the matter by getting a profile of some of the costings. The 40 year product appears to be incredibly expensive.
I have similar concerns about the shared ownership schemes operated by local authorities, under which a person who takes out a 70% mortgage for 25 years will face the remaining balance after paying off the mortgage. I consider that a horrendous product.
Could we meet with the regulator?
We will put that on our work programme.
We might ask our friends in the regulatory body to do the mapping exercise.
Should we request information before inviting people to attend the committee?
We should get an overview of some of these new products in order to follow up our investigation of the banking sector. People are thrilled when they are approved but banks are making their money by selling mortgages to other agents. They do not care if they sell a 40 or 90 year mortgage. The situation is different from many years ago, when a bank or building society held the mortgage, because profits are now generated from the fees charged on mortgages. Soon, there will longer queues in banks than in accident and emergency departments because of all the people who want to buy mortgages.
If Deputy Burton had read this morning's newspapers, she would be aware of who made money in the banks and on the stock market.
We could conclude half our work programme in July if we meet two days per week. We will have to address a number of relevant issues next year and there will not be much time after next March for committee work. It will be difficult enough to get a quorum.
Should we write to the regulator?
I would ask the regulator to outline for us some of the newer mortgage products, such as long-life mortgages.
We should also ask the Irish Bankers Federation for information.
The IBF may have a view of the matter.
While we are discussing this topic, I wish to raise an issue communicated to me by Deputy Timmins on dynamic currency conversion.
I have spoken personally to the Deputy but the matter is not on my agenda for today.
He sent me an e-mail on the issue dated 26 May.
I do not think the matter came to my attention.
I will forward the e-mail to the Chairman.
Should we ask IFSRA for a note on dynamic currency conversion? We will include it in our request.