Apologies have been received from the Chairman, Deputy Fleming, who has been delayed and also from Deputy Cregan.
The draft minutes of the meeting of 14 June have been circulated. Are they agreed? Agreed.
Specific items of correspondence deferred from previous meetings include a letter to the Chairman from Senator O'Toole regarding tolls on the M50 between the State, local authorities and National Toll Roads.
I have discussed the matter with the clerk who has pointed out that as it was dealt with at the Committee of Public Accounts, it is outside our remit. I accept this. I will deal with it in that way.
Correspondence——
I sit on two committees, both of which are meeting this morning. The other, the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business, an influential and important committee, has always had precedence over this committee because it meets at 9.30 a.m. I am not taking from the status of this committee but there are other members caught in the same boat when committees meet at the same time. If we are not needed at this committee, please tell us and we can move on. Otherwise, I suggest the matter be put right.
This is the slot that was available to us; we did not have any other option.
I think I speak for many members. Today there will be Leaders' Questions at 10.30 a.m. and later parliamentary questions to the Minister for Finance. It is, therefore, a poor day for many members of the committee. We are here out of respect for the Vice Chairman but, unfortunately, I shall have to leave shortly, although I do not know about others. I have made this point to the Chairman on numerous occasions.
To accommodate members, we could defer certain items to another meeting to ensure they would have an input.
I suggest we have a set time for meetings every week. Deputy O'Keeffe and I are members of the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business which is meeting next door. Given that it normally meets at 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, there is a difficulty.
As the Senator is aware, this committee usually meets every second Wednesday at 3 p.m. This slot was available to us and it was accepted with a view to proceeding with the work schedule.
What happened to the 3 p.m. slot?
It comes up every second week.
That is fine.
I have said to members that if there are items they do not wish to deal with today, they can be deferred to a later date to accommodate them.
Is the substantive item, the Freedom of Information Act 1997, on the clár for today? If so, I suggest we move with alacrity to deal with that issue and see what progress can be made.
I agree.
That is agreed.
I will now deal with correspondence. The Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, sent a letter dated 8 June to the Chairman regarding a committee meeting.This was noted and dealt with at the meeting of 14 June. A letter dated 9 June was sent to the Chairman by the chairman of the decentralisation implementation group regarding a committee meeting. This was noted and dealt with at the meeting of 14 June. A letter dated 13 June was sent to the Chairman by the director general of FÁS regarding a committee meeting. This was noted and dealt with at the meeting of 14 June.
The clerk to the committee received a letter from the Financial Regulator acknowledging the letter sent by the committee and this was noted. A letter to the clerk from the Journal Office, attaching an order passed by the Dáil, was noted and dealt with by the select committee on 21 June. The clerk received a letter from the general secretary of the IBOA, the finance union, regarding the Bank of Ireland pension scheme. The committee wrote to the Irish Bankers Federation on the principle of the defined benefit pension scheme on 8 June.
While I recognise we have written to the Irish Bankers Federation, this is a matter on which we should have a view. I would like to hear from the IBOA, if its representatives wish to come before the committee. If the third most profitable business or industry in Ireland starts to cut back on pension entitlements, that is an issue of major significance. It is unfair and inequitable and does not show respect to stakeholders. I would like to hear the arguments for and against the proposed change and the reason Bank of Ireland which made a profit of €1.5 billion last year is claiming that it cannot afford to maintain the existing pension arrangements.
We will be discussing our work programme later and this is one of a number of items that could be picked.
At an earlier meeting I suggested we invite the chief executive of the Irish Bankers Federation. I have a letter on file about it. What is the up-to date position? Have Mr. Farrell and his staff been invited to discuss switching accounts? I have been writing letters to and receiving letters from the Irish Bankers Federation on foot of a complaint from a constituent who wishes to switch his mortgage from bank A to bank B. I wish to have the issue discussed by the committee and would like to see Mr. Farrell sitting across from me in order that I can ask him questions.
In response to Senator O'Toole, I am not against the IBOA but a profit of €1.6 billion is not very much, given the turnover of the Bank of Ireland.
Only a large Fianna Fáil farmer could say a profit of €1.6 billion is not very big.
As a return on the capital employed, it is very small.
We wrote to all the banks asking them to respond to the query on mortgage switching. The date by which they must respond is 30 June. We will wait until that date.
The switching is being co-ordinated by the Irish Bankers Federation, or so I was told by my constituent who entered into correspondence with it. This is not satisfactory. I want to be able to put my questions to bankers sitting across from me.
The banks were given until 30 June to respond. The Deputy's proposal is acceptable but we must await the response of the banks.
Taking out a mortgage is a very serious business for a family; the position is becoming more difficult with high interest rates.
We will wait until the final date for replies.
Interest rates are shifting every day and people with mortgages want to have the choice to switch. We need to find out what the banks are doing about mortgage switching.
We will be in a position to deal with the matter at our next meeting. We must wait three days, until 30 June.
A letter to the Chairman from the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, enclosing a copy of the committee's report on energy, is noted. A copy of the report is available on request.
A letter dated 13 June sent to the clerk by an individual regarding the Freedom of Information Act is noted, as is a letter of 7 June to the clerk from the Combat Poverty Agency regarding the report on the distributional impact of Ireland's indirect tax system. Attachments are available on request. A copy of Beneficiary News, January to June, is noted, as is a letter of acknowledgement to the clerk dated 19 June from Irish Life and Permanent.
An e-mail dated 20 June to the clerk from the policy manager of the SDLP regarding the committee's meeting on the national development plan is noted and has been responded to by the clerk. An e-mail to the clerk from Western Motors Limited, attaching a letter regarding motor tax and the declaration of vehicle registration tax on imported used vehicles, can either be noted or sent to the Revenue Commissioners for comment. I will be directed by members on the issue.
I think we should seek a response on it.
We will ask the Office of the Revenue Commissioners for a comment.
The EBS has acknowledged receipt of a letter from the clerk. This is noted.
Statutory Instrument S.I No. 272 of 2006, Validation Act 2001 (Global Validation)(Hutchinson 3g Ireland Limited Trading as 3) Order 2006, is noted. Statutory Instrument No. 280 of 2006, Oireachtas (Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices)(Special Secretarial Allowance) Regulations 2006, is also noted. It was deferred from the meeting of 14 June. Statutory Instrument No. 297 of 2006, Freedom of Information Act 1997 (Prescribed Bodies) Regulations 2006 is noted.
There is a letter to the clerk from the clerk of the Sub-Committee on EU Scrutiny. The proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council, Directive 89/665/EEC on improving the effectiveness of review procedures in the award of public contracts, has been referred for information. There is a letter for information to the private secretary of the Minister for Finance regarding the meeting of the select committee on 21 June. There is also a letter for information regarding the cancellation of the joint committee meeting on 21 June, as well as letters to the financial institutions regarding mortgages.
There is an e-mail to the clerk dated 22 June from Senator O'Toole's secretary regarding the preserved retirement benefits of civil servants who retired early before 1973.
A group of retired prison officers have been excluded from the pension regulations that apply to their colleagues. The reason I raise the issue with the committee is that there is confusion. I have been told that if the people concerned were covered under the pension regulations, it would have a knock-on effect, costing the Exchequer millions. That is what I and they are being told officially but I do not believe that is the case. I would, therefore, like to have the matter thrashed out at the committee to learn exactly what the knock-on effect would be. This group has a genuine case which would not apply to others. The Department of Finance is stating that if it was to concede to this group, it would have to concede to hundreds of retired Garda Síochána and Army personnel. I cannot take this matter any further. I honestly believe it is a case of misinformation. I would like the group to come before the committee to put its case to us. We could then hear from the Department. Either the people concerned are right or the Department is. If the Department is right, that should be the end of the matter. If it is wrong, it should concede to them.
We have a work programme to agree. One of the items to be agreed is that of pension contributions, including taxation relief and financial institutions. I have no doubt that what the Senator is requesting could be fitted in under that heading.
If the committee is happy to do that, I am happy.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I have an e-mail addressed to the clerk to the committee from Mr. Kevin Leydon regarding the EP write-up on the own resources exchange at the joint EP-national parliaments meeting on 20 June. The committee will note this e-mail. There is also an e-mail to the clerk from the Swedish Parliament regarding a visit in August by officials to meet officials of the joint committee.
The next item is statutory instruments. SI No. 261 of 2006, Tobacco Products Tax Regulations 2006, is noted. SI No. 297 of 2006, Freedom of Information Act 1997 (Prescribed Bodies) Regulations 2006, is also noted.
Item No. 3 on the agenda is a review under section 32(2) of certain provisions under the Freedom of Information Act 1997. The recommendations are before us and, if the committee wishes, we will go through them.
The tabulated presentation we have received refers to the Department's recommendations, the Information Commissioner's opinion and the Minister's response. Will the Vice Chairman clarify the final determinant in regard to inclusion or exclusion? Who has the final say? Is it the Minister?
I propose we ask the clerk to the committee to give an explanation in private session.
Why should we do it in private session?
The clerk cannot participate in the business of the committee in public session.
To avoid repetition, may I also ask why there are no ministerial responses in some instances? For instance, in regard to the Department of Health and Children, no response is shown. The explanatory note at the end of the report indicates that there is no response. I would like clarification. This is not unique to that Department but is applicable in all cases in regard to it.
I can seek these explanations for the Deputy but I have explained the procedure I must adopt in order to be helpful to him in the matter.
If the Vice Chairman is not in a position to help, perhaps the clerk to the committee could give us the information.
That is what I have suggested. If we go into private session, I can be of help to the Deputy on the matter.
I concur with what has been said by the previous speaker. There is considerable confusion as to the exact status of FOI requests in the context of the HSE and whether the legislation that introduced the HSE passed over in its entirety the FOI framework. The HSE appears to be willing to adopt the FOI standards of the former health boards but I do not believe it has yet done so. The question for this committee is: who is responsible? Has the Minister for Health and Children transferred all her responsibilities to the HSE or does she retain some responsibility in terms of the Freedom of Information Act? This is an important issue in a general sense in regard to access to public material on policy in the HSE. It also emerges as an issue in regard to individuals seeking files relating to personal treatment issues. We need a detailed note on the position and when the HSE will become fully FOI compliant.
I am not in a position to give a response. Nobody other than the Minister or officials within the Department could do so. We would have to find a way of enabling this to happen. Is the committee to proceed in sequence through the agenda or is it to go into private session to allow the clerk to the committee to give a brief explanation in advance?
On my earlier point, we cannot go through it in the way the Chair suggests without the critical information and further elaboration I have requested as to why comment does not always indicate the reason for excluding given legislation, sections or regulations. This is not shown in every instance. We will ask about matters individually as we proceed through them. It is critical that we have this information at the outset. I suggest, therefore, that the Chair take the opportunity to have the clerk to the committee address us in private session if that is how it must be done.
The comments are ones asked for by the committee. They are not legal opinions.
The joint committee went into private session at 10.10 a.m. and adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 5 July 2006.
