Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. We have received apologies from Deputy Barrett.
Business of Joint Committee.
Deputy Bruton sends his apologies as he has been unavoidably delayed.
Are the draft minutes of the previous meeting of the joint committee agreed? Agreed.
We will now deal with correspondence received since the previous meeting. No. 41 is an invitation to attend a conference on the history of double taxation, which will be held in Austria in July 2008. It is proposed to defer consideration of the invitation until closer to the date of the conference. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is proposed to note No. 42, an invitation to attend the sixth annual European financial services conference on 29 January 2008. The conference is similar to a conference on financial matters I attended recently. Unless members have a different view, I suggest the issue has been adequately covered.
We have also received an invitation to attend a conference on the European Union tax treaties of the central and eastern European countries, which will be held in Vienna on 14 January 2008. It is proposed to note this item, as the treaties in question are not directly relevant to the joint committee.
The joint committee agreed to be represented at a meeting in Brussels on 22 January 2008. I ask spokespersons for the groups to indicate to the clerk to the committee whether they wish to send a representative.
Do members wish to comment or make suggestions on any of the matters raised? It is a matter for the joint committee to decide whether we should be represented at the conference in Austria in July 2008. If there is no interest, we can leave it. It is similar to the ECOFIN meeting we attended recently but if the committee wants to be represented, I am agreeable. We can move on if there is no proposal on the matter.
No. 43 is the IFSRA strategic plan 2008 to 2010, which I propose to note, unless any member wishes to comment?
I have my own copy which I have read. I was interested in the reference on page 48 to two consultative panels; one representing consumers and the other, industry. We discussed having a meeting with the Financial Regulator. If that were to happen, it would be worthwhile hearing from the two panels also. Meeting representatives from the industry and also customers is exactly what we should be doing, apart altogether from meeting the regulator.
Is that what the Senator is proposing?
I second that proposal.
It is a good idea.
We received an acknowledgement from Mr. Patrick Neary, chief executive of IFSRA. Did he give any indication as to when either he or Mr. John Hurley, Governor of the Central Bank, would attend?
Yes, I understand he is available to meet the committee on 24 January 2008.
What about the Governor of the Central Bank?
He will be here on the same day.
Mr. Joe Meade does much good work in the area of financial regulation, yet we have not included him in our programme.
As I indicated, I am open to suggestions at all times from members about areas for which we have responsibility.
Will the Chairman agree to add his name to the list?
We can do that. We operate on the basis of invitations.
He is a watchdog for certain areas of finance and insurance and has done much good work in the past 12 months. Reference to many reports compiled by him have appeared in the newspapers.
We can write and extend an invitation to him.
He could attend on the same day.
Yes.
We will move on to Nos. 45 and 46, acknowledgements of invitations to the Central Bank and IFSRA. As I indicated, a meeting with these bodies has been included in the programme for 24 January 2008. I propose to note these two items.
Did we note item No. 44?
No, I circulated the correspondence relating to it, on which members are welcome to comment.
I was surprised that the person concerned had expressed the view that it would not be worthwhile coming before the committee. Did we invite him?
Yes, we received a request from Deputy Bruton on the matter and wrote to the body in question to ask if its representatives would attend a meeting. I have circulated the response. Do not shoot the messenger.
Of course, not.
It is an enormous pity that the person concerned will not appear before us. It would be most interesting to hear from him on exactly how he came up with his calculations in the light of the fact the Government has seen fit to defer the increases by approximately 18 months to three years and how he views this matter in terms of building in reforms. Can the committee force him to attend?
I am not sure whether we can. In his response he stated they made recommendations, not decisions. Obviously, decisions have been made since the report was issued, one of them only yesterday where one category of persons for whom increases were recommended did not get them but the rest did. I accept that is not the decision of the individual or body concerned. If members wish, we can invite him to attend.
It would be important to do so in the current climate.
Yes, I agree with the Deputy. It would be good to have a public discussion on the matter.
We should state in the strongest possible terms that he should come before us. All he has done is make recommendations; it is up to the Government to decide whether they should be implemented. The basis of his recommendations is critical. We should write to him again and impress upon him that we would like him to appear before the committee.
The committee should understand it can only extend an invitation to attend.
The last paragraph reads: "While the review body did recommend a system of performance related rewards for some groups based on the achievement of performance targets, as indicated in paragraph 19(3) of the review body's report, the level of awards is far below that applying in the private sector". Because of the level of publicity, he would benefit from having the opportunity to openly discuss the matter with us.
We will write to him.
I exhort him to attend.
If it is the decision of the committee to write back, we will do so but we can only invite him to attend.
I reiterate what Senator Quinn stated. It would be mutually beneficial and in the public interest. He would learn about the private sector also. Has he been invited to attend previously?
No, not to my knowledge. This group has not been in situ for long.
Was he asked to attend a meeting of the previous committee?
That would be a matter of record.
If the position is different, I shall inform the committee at the next meeting but I do not believe that is the case.
It is purely academic.
We have discussed No. 47. Mr. Tony O'Brien is the chairman. We have taken a decision to write back.
No. 48 is a letter from an individual about an ongoing issue, on which the previous committee was in the process of agreeing a report, a copy of which has been circulated today. I propose to defer consideration of this matter to allow time for a discussion of the report with a view to agreeing to it at the next meeting of the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The next four items relate to scrutiny of EU proposals. No. 49 lists the decisions taken by the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny. It is proposed to note this correspondence. No. 50 is a proposal for a decision to provide Community macro-financial assistance for Lebanon. This proposal was referred to the committee for its information. The Department's note indicates that it has no direct implications for Ireland. It is proposed, therefore, to note the proposal. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 51 is a proposal to lay down measures necessary to protect the euro against counterfeiting. This proposal was referred to the committee for its information. The Department's note indicates that its adoption would have no material implications for Ireland but that there would be a need for a minor amendment to section 39 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001. It is proposed to note the proposal. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 52 is an amending letter to the preliminary draft budget for 2008. This proposal was referred to the committee for its information and concerns the mobilisation of new funds to support the stability and development of Kosovo and of additional funding to support the Palestinian Authority. The Department's note indicates that the approval of the European Parliament for this funding would result in an increase of €2 million in Ireland's contribution to the EU budget in 2008. It is proposed to note the proposal. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The following three items of correspondence were circulated. No. 53, circulated today, is a letter from the National Assembly of Slovenia which was referred by the Joint Committee on European Affairs outlining future meetings to be held during the Slovenian Presidency. It is proposed to note this item. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 54 is the questionnaire pertaining to the European Parliament Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, which is to meet in Brussels on 22 January 2008 and 23 January 2008. The matter has been referred to the Oireachtas Library to research background material and to the Department of Finance. When the Department makes its views known to us, they will be circulated to members. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 55 concerns correspondence from Senator Quinn on adding a review of public expenditure to the work programme. It should be noted that there are approximately 90 value-for-money reports and policy reviews being prepared across Departments which will come on-line over the next two years. Each committee can examine the reports and reviews from the Department under its remit. However, this committee could agree to consider the quarterly or end-of-year Exchequer statements in this context. Is it agreed that we add a review of public expenditure to the work programme? We must allow other committees to deal with relevant matters pertaining to their Departments in advance.
I understand that various committees consider proposals on what they intend to do. I was not sure about the extent to which we look back to determine whether value for money was achieved.
I was talking to an ambassador recently and asked him how he judges success at the end of the year. I made the point that if one is in business, one judges it by profit or the number of customers. I did not get the impression that ambassadorial success was very easily measured and it dawned on me that we have a responsibility to ask whether Departments have achieved what they set out to achieve. Two years is a very long time to wait. I would have thought most businesses could give their results within weeks of the end of the financial year. We can only ask the relevant bodies whether they achieved value for money in respect of what they set out to do.
I have decided that this can be included in our work programme. It is a good idea but we must bear in mind that there are other committees dealing with other Departments. We certainly do not want to be crossing swords. The Senator's suggestion is good.
It is an excellent suggestion. How soon after the end of the year will we be able to gain access to figures?
I cannot give the Deputy an answer today. We will have to check with the Departments.
As I understand it, implementing Senator Quinn's proposal is the key. In modern business, a review of figures two weeks after the month's end would be regarded as well overdue. There is a contrast in practice between the attitude in the public and private sectors. Both sectors can learn from each other. Proper reviews allow one to make early adjustments. If the Health Service Executive had the wisdom of the proposed procedure, it would have known in February that there would be an over-run for the rest of the year, as is clear from the minutes of its meetings in March. Certain steps could have been taken well in advance so the elderly would not suffer as they did from September or October onwards.
Senator Quinn's suggestion is excellent but the time factor is critical. Figures received three or four months after the event are too late and this makes the process not nearly as effective.
As I said, the updated work programme based on our discussion at the last meeting has been circulated. Senator Quinn's suggestion to review public expenditure has been included. I am sure the members will apply considerable pressure when implementing the suggestion.
Did the Chairman refer to a timeframe of two years?
No. We will have more information.
Soon after I entered the Seanad 14 years ago, I sought the RTE report.
I remember it well because we joined the club the same day.
I sought it in February 1995 but RTE did not even have one for 1993.
Yes.
I try to include in every Bill setting up an organisation a stipulation that that organisation should report within three months. It took a few years to achieve this. Almost every Bill being passed today includes a stipulation that new organisations should report within six months and therefore we have made some progress. Deputy O'Donnell and I both made this exact point.
Is the addition to the work programme agreed? Agreed. Members will recall that the committee agreed to be represented at the meeting of the European Parliament Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs in Brussels on 22 January and 23 January and to send up to three members thereto. The deadline for registration is 7 January. I ask the convenors or Whips to send names to the secretariat in this regard so the travel arrangements can be made.
What about the Chairman?
We agreed that there would be up to three members.
Is the Chairman on the list?
I will leave it to the Whips to provide a name from each side to the secretariat. Let us proceed to more mundane matters, namely, the Finance Bill. The Department of Finance has indicated that the likely dates for taking the Finance Bill will be from 19 February to 21 February.
Will it be published then?
No, that is when we are to meet. We were represented at the meeting of committee Chairmen by Deputy Martin Mansergh on 4 December and it was decided that the travel allocation for this committee for 2008 would be €30,000. Have the members other specific issues to raise?
When will the Finance Bill be published?
I do not have the date but I presume it will be in advance of the dates I outlined.
Will we receive a regular one-page summation on the state of the economy and the outlook therefor?
The stability report is probably the best indicator with which we can provide the Deputy.
When will it become available?
Perhaps a parliamentary question could be tabled to the Minister.
It might be the best way.
The secretariat can circulate it to the Deputy tomorrow. That is the most up-to-date account we have. I wish all the members a very happy Christmas and good health for 2008. I thank the secretariat and the clerk of the committee for their help, support and courtesy. We look forward to seeing them well and in good spirits in 2008.
On behalf of the Fine Gael group and as a new member, I thank the Chairman. Senator Quinn's suggestion is excellent and if it can be developed it will give a practical dimension to the committee. I thank the staff and wish them well for Christmas.
I agree with Deputy O'Donnell. I thank the staff for their support. They are very helpful and always available to answer questions. I also thank the Chairman and offer best wishes to all for 2008.
On behalf of the Independent members I also thank the staff and Chairman very much indeed. We look forward to burdening them with much more work in the coming year.
We will be nice to them now because we will put them under a great deal of pressure in the new year.
I will see everyone at 7.30 p.m.
The joint committee adjourned at 3.05 p.m. until 11.15 a.m. on Thursday, 24 January 2008.