Apologies have been received from Senator O'Toole and Deputy Ó Caoláin. Is it agreed that the committee will send its best wishes for a speedy recovery to Deputy Ó Caoláin, who is not well at present? Agreed. Are the draft minutes of the meeting of 24 January last, which have been circulated, agreed?
Business of Joint Committee.
Is the item that was deferred on that occasion covered under the minutes?
I will deal with it before we move on to the next topic. There are three matters arising from the minutes. At the last meeting, we discussed the case of a taxpayer who is not satisfied with the outcome of his dealings with the Ombudsman and the Revenue Commissioners. The letter that I propose to send to the person in question has been circulated. It is unusual for the committee to send such a letter, but I suggest that it should do so in this case because it has exhausted every other avenue open to it in the normal course of events. It has consulted the Minister for Finance, the Ombudsman and the Revenue Commissioners, but the matter has not been resolved.
The committee decided last month that there has been a breakdown in public accountability in this case. As the Chairman of the committee, I propose that it should send a letter to the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste, as the heads of the Government, to ask them to use their good offices to examine this matter. It would be pointless to send another letter to the Department of Finance, the Ombudsman or the Revenue Commissioners. I have circulated a draft of the letter, which is quite straightforward and to the point, so members can see where I am coming from. I am trying to be fair to everyone in this situation. We will wait for a response from the offices of the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste.
I propose to defer the committee's consideration of an e-mail from Senator O'Toole until the Senator is present. On 24 January, the committee deferred its discussion of the comments of the Minister for Social and Family Affairs on the position of farming women in the social insurance system until Senator John Paul Phelan could be present. The committee has received further correspondence on the matter since its last meeting. Does the Senator wish to comment on the issue now?
I thank the Chairman for agreeing last month to defer the committee's consideration of this matter. In the Minister's original response to the committee on 11 January last, we were treated to the standard departmental response. It was made clear in the last paragraph of the letter that the Department was adamant that farming women were covered under existing social welfare provisions. We have received a further letter from the Minister to tell us he is discussing this matter with the farming organisations. I welcome such positive attempts to reach some kind of resolution. The Minister's letter does not tell the committee when it is likely to see an outcome from those discussions. While I am prepared to wait for further positive developments, I would like to know when they are likely to be evident.
We will thank the Minister for his most recent letter and ask him to keep us informed of developments as they occur. I thank Senator Phelan for raising this matter of concern, which is being considered in the new discussions.
Three items of correspondence which have been received by the committee in the last day or so were not on the schedule for this meeting but have been circulated nonetheless. The committee has received a letter from the Association of Retired Prison Officers, on foot of its request to the association to respond comprehensively to the Minister for Finance's earlier comments. Do the members of the committee want to make any observations on the letter? Should we ask the Department of Finance to comment on the specific points made in the association's detailed response, rather than on the general issue of allowances? Our letter should make it clear that we do not want a comment on the general position — we want a specific response.
That is what we wanted in the first place.
We did not get it. The response from the Association of Retired Prison Officers was not circulated because it was not received until yesterday. We will ask for a specific response to the specific issues, rather than a general reply, which is what we have been given so far.
The next item to be considered is a notice of referral to the select committee of the National Development Finance Agency (Amendment) Bill 2006, the Second Stage of which was completed last night. I understand that it is proposed to take Committee Stage of the Bill, which may not take too long, at 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 1 March. I ask Deputies to put that date in their diaries. The select committee will consider the Finance Bill 2007 next week. I hope members agree to take the National Development Finance Agency (Amendment) Bill 2006 on Thursday, 1 March, which is the only date on which the Minister is available.
The committee has also received a letter from the Minister for Finance regarding the Estimates process, which will change next year, as members are aware. We can note that and move on. The next Dáil will deal with that matter.
I would like to inform members about further meetings of the committee. The select committee will consider the Finance Bill 2007 next Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. The committee has agreed to meet a delegation from the Czech Republic at noon on Wednesday, 28 February, and we will go to lunch with them afterwards. The committee has received a further request, at short notice, from the finance committee of the House of Commons, which is travelling to Ireland. Its members want to meet the members of this committee in the same week. Given that the select committee is meeting on the morning of Thursday, 1 March, to discuss the National Development Finance Agency (Amendment) Bill 2006, I suggest that we have a one-hour meeting with the UK delegation at 11 a.m. the previous day, before meeting the Czech delegation at noon. If we do not facilitate the House of Commons committee at that time, we might not be able to meet it at all, which I would not like.
I suggest that we meet the UK politicians at 11 a.m. and the Czech Republic delegation at noon. It has already been agreed that there will be a lunch in the private dining room for the members of the committee and the Czech delegation at approximately 1 p.m. The full details of the day's business will be circulated at a later stage. The committee will begin Committee Stage of the National Development Finance Agency (Amendment) Bill 2006 at 10.30 a.m. the following day, which is a Thursday. We are facing two busy weeks — we will deal with the Finance Bill next week and we will have the two meetings I mentioned the following week. I decided to deal with this issue at this point early in the meeting, while members are present, rather than in the sequence that was circulated.
The list of correspondence has been circulated to members. The joint committee has received a request for a meeting from the National Youth Council of Ireland.
I have no objection, in principle, to meeting the council. We should deal specifically with a number of important points which have been made by the council. The council has pointed out that if one is required to clear €500 off one's credit card balance but one clears just €450, one is charged interest on the entire amount — one does not get credit for the €450 one has cleared. That seems to be a bad and unfair practice.
Is it true?
The council has drawn attention to other credit card issues, such as consumer awareness of minimum balance requirements. I suggest that we should ask the consumer director of the Financial Regulator, which is considering the development of codes of practice for the use of credit cards, to respond to the specific concerns which have been raised by the National Youth Council of Ireland. The consumer director should outline to the committee the improvements she intends to propose in the codes of practice. The committee should consider what the council has said and what the Financial Regulator has proposed, to see whether it can add value to the process. Perhaps it would be better for the committee to meet the council after it has been advised of what will be proposed by the Financial Regulator.
We will write to the consumer director of the Financial Regulator.
Yes. We can ask her whether the codes of practice she is considering will address the council's specific concerns.
We will send her a copy of the letter and ask her to comment specifically on it. The fairest thing to do is to write to the National Youth Council of Ireland to tell it we are happy to meet it, but we cannot set a date for such a meeting at this stage. That is agreed.
We have discussed the invitation that was sent to the joint committee to meet the treasury committee of the House of Commons on 28 February next. We have also discussed the correspondence from the National Youth Council of Ireland.
The committee has received a letter from an individual about a High Court case involving that person and the Information Commissioner. As members do not have any words of wisdom on the topic, we will note it.
The next item is notice regarding the Finance Bill 2007, which we have discussed. No. 26 is an invitation to attend a conference of finance committee chairpersons of European Union national parliaments on 30 April 2007 in Berlin. Deputy Ned O'Keeffe is confident of retaining his seat so perhaps he would like to attend.
Perhaps I will.
As I will not attend, another member may attend on my behalf. Any member who wishes to do so should contact the clerk to the committee and we will clear a travel proposal as soon as practicable.
No. 27 is information relating to the second national infrastructure summit on 13 and 14 March. Does anyone wish to attend the conference?
Without wishing to put members off attending, I will be one of the speakers at the event.
I am disappointed the Deputy's photograph is not included in the photographs of speakers featured on the programme cover. The joint committee's budget will cover any fees connected with the conference.
No. 29, a quarterly bulletin from the Central Bank and Services Authority of Ireland, is noted.
I propose to deal quickly with a number of statutory instruments. Statutory Instrument 17 of 2007 is an order for the designation of approved organisations under superannuation schemes. Statutory Instrument 20 of 2007 is a commencement order for a section of the Finance Act 2006. Statutory Instrument 27 of 2007 refers to superannuation regulations for the designation of approved organisations. The organisations in question are the Commission for Taxi Regulation, the Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority and the National Standards Authority of Ireland. SI 29 of 2007 is a routine order for the approval of a scheme of National Irish Bank and Danske Bank under the Central Bank Act 1971.
I wish to dispose of a number of statutory instruments the joint committee did not deal with at its previous meeting. If any member wishes to defer disposal of any measure, it will be possible to do so. SI 644 of 2006 deals with excise duty on cigarettes from Bulgaria and has been noted. SI 556 of 2006 deals with Financial Services Ombudsman Council levies in the financial sector. SI 581 of 2006 is an order for a commencement date for a section of the Finance Act 1999. Statutory Instrument 613 of 2006 deals with European regulations re bank accounts. SI 599 of 2006 relates to the Commission for Public Service Appointments. SI 600 of 2006 is an order regarding the function of the Commission for Public Service Appointments in the area of disabilities. SI 601 of 2006 relates to the same issue. SI 602 of 2006 deals with public service recruitment licences which are being provided for in legislation.
SIs 587, 588 and 589 of 2006 concern the global valuation for rates for Chorus, RTE and NTL. When national organisations operating in the commercial sector carry on business across a range of local authorities, instead of each local authority setting a rate for the specific facilities located in its county, the valuation rate is set at national level by the Valuation Office and apportioned on a per capita basis to each local authority. This valuation must be approved by statutory instrument because it is not done by the local authority. These valuations have come before the joint committee previously.
I suggest we note all the statutory instruments and deal with several others at our next meeting.
The next item of correspondence is EU scrutiny. COM (2006) 721, a proposal for a Council regulation amending a financial regulation applicable to the ninth European Union development fund, has been referred to the joint committee for consideration. COM (2006) 687, a decision of the European Parliament and the Council on the community statistical programme 2008-12, and COM (2006) 760, a recast of a Council directive concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, have also been referred to the committee for scrutiny. We will return to the EU scrutiny programme at the next meeting at which we may present a summary of outstanding matters under that heading.