Apologies have been received from Deputy Michael McGrath. We will begin with the minutes and the items of correspondence before inviting Mr. Hurley and his colleagues to make their statements. Item No. 1 is the minutes of the meeting of 2 July 2008. Draft minutes have been circulated. Are they agreed? Agreed.
Business of Joint Committee.
I thought the last meeting with the banks was very unsatisfactory. With the permission of the Chairman we should consider inviting them in again. This time we should ask that the CEOs appear. This is a major issue and there is much fear out there. This is a forum to ease the minds of people. The last day they went through the exercise, stating there was no problem and that everything was fine. In the meantime bank shares have been going down, there are concerns and rumours, there are disasters in the US and nobody knows when this will end. I ask the Chair to consider writing to the chief executives to ask them to appear before this committee.
When?
In September. I hope nothing happens in the meantime. I have never seen anything like this. It is important that we are seen to provide a forum to people to give assurances.
I second that. Perhaps we could write to Mr. Pat Farrell of the Irish Bankers Federation. The Irish Bankers Federation provided figures about mortgages that seemed to be holding up well. These figures went to last March and it is my understanding that it was since then that it collapsed. Figures for the second quarter show the banks are not quite as open for business as they were telling us. Perhaps we could write to ask for the figures for the second quarter of 2008. We have them for the first quarter but I would be interested in the second quarter.
I support what Deputy Barrett said. The committee could write to the group chief executives of the four banks requesting their appearance here. There was perhaps a small element of misunderstanding last time.
The timing made it difficult the last time. We could give them plenty of notice now in order that we could get them to appear before the committee in September.
We want the bosses of the banks, the group chief executives. We should write directly to them individually, requesting that they accommodate us with an appearance.
I confess I am not a member of the committee and am substituting for Senator Marc MacSharry. I watched the debate with the banks with great interest. From watching it on the monitor in my office, I got the impression there was no credit crunch and that everything was rosy in the garden. That is far from the truth.
In my area, a GAA club bought a field, subject to planning. The deposit was paid and the club raised funds, hoping that planning permission would be granted. The club was then told that the goalposts had shifted and that it had to come up with one third of the money. It was hoping to borrow up to 90% and fund-raise for the rest. It is imperative that the past three months of change be dealt with. The Chairman is proposing that we deal with this in September but is there any possibility, subject to Deputy Barrett's proposal, that we could get them to provide data for the second and third quarters, because the third quarter ends in September? There seems to be an escalating problem and, while I do not want to talk down the economy and wish to see some positivity in that regard, the facts as outlined here on the last occasion do not seem to reflect the facts on the ground. People appeared to be in denial mode. I support the call that the chief executives be invited in to face the music and to determine if anything--
We will do that, Senator. We will write to the chief executives and seek the most up-to-date information.
The next item on the agenda is correspondence. There is a proposal for a Council decision on the adoption by Slovakia of the single currency, which it is proposed to note.
Item No. 120 is an information note which gives a summary of the five priority areas in the European Commission's annual policy strategy. It is proposed to note same.
Item No. 21 is a special report by the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny on the enhanced role of national parliaments in the Lisbon reform treaty. The report is available on www.oireachtas.ie, which is noted.
I propose to deal with items Nos. 122, 126 and 129 together as they are related to the same matter, namely, levies on maintenance payments to separated spouses. The committee agreed at its meeting on 18 June to further consider this matter when the Department's response is received. Item No. 126 is a further letter from the individual concerned asking if he is entitled to request to address the committee on its remit. Item No. 129 is the Department's response. I propose that we summarise the statutory position and the issue of confidentiality and forward a copy of the Department's response to the individual concerned for his information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item No. 123 is an invitation to the Chairman to attend a EUROFI 2008 annual conference to be held in Nice on 11 and 12 of September 2008. A draft programme for the conference, including the estimated costs, has been circulated. I need formal approval for the Chairman and an official to attend the meeting, at an estimated cost of €1,600 and €1,500, respectively? Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item No. 124 is a document giving responses to questions raised at the Finance Vote group of Estimates meeting of 28 May, 2008. It is proposed to note same. Item No. 125 is a request to the committee to meet The Honourable Greg Pearce on Wednesday 9 July 2008. The matter was dealt with at our meeting of 2 July and we met Mr. Pearce, with whom we had a long discussion. It is proposed to note this correspondence.
Item No. 126 is a request from an individual regarding the payment of the 2% health levy. The matter has been dealt with already. Item No. 127 is a response from the Department of Finance informing the committee that it will keep us updated with regard to significant developments concerning COM (2008) 78, namely, the Commission proposal for a directive on excise duty. It is proposed to note same.
Item No. 128 is a memo summarising the European Commission proposal for reduced rates of VAT and the Commission document COM (2008) 428. Is it agreed to note same? Agreed. Item No. 129 is a reply from the Department of Finance regarding payment of the 2% health levy by the individual paying maintenance to his wife, which we have dealt with already. Item No. 130 is a reply from the Department of Finance regarding taxation and the salmon hardship fund. In light of the information, the committee may wish to meet a delegation from the Irish Salmon Netmen's Association. We propose to forward the reply from the Department and to write to the association, drawing its attention to the fact that fishermen can spread the payment based on the average net income for salmon over three years, thereby possibly minimising exposure to a higher tax rate. If the association then seeks further--
That was a suggestion made by the salmon fishermen themselves and is sensible. It is basically a redundancy package for some of them and the fact that is phased in over three years means they will have to pay less tax. Most of the fishermen to whom I have spoken seem to be fairly happy with that arrangement. I welcome the initiative.
The Commission proposals on rates of VAT include some interesting aspects. It would be useful if we put the matter on the agenda for one of our meetings.
It is being discussed in the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny.
Surely it should come before this committee.
This committee can discuss the matter if the Deputy so wishes.
Certainly, because it is important. The proposals would affect the catering and pharmaceutical sectors, as well as labour intensive services. These are interesting matters.
We can put the matter on the committee's agenda.
No. 131 is a letter from the Department of Finance regarding the National Development Plan 2007-2013. Copies of the annual report have been circulated to members. Does the committee wish to schedule consideration of this report at a meeting in the new session?
I understand we were to receive reports of the monitoring committee. The annual report is a published document. The Minister for Finance undertook to provide the committee with the monitoring committee's reports, which are produced on a more frequent basis. Do we remain on the circulation list? Even though we are quite a way into the plan, we have not yet seen a report by the monitoring committee.
It is not a matter about which I am familiar because, as the Deputy is aware, I have only recently taken over as Chairman. I will investigate the matter immediately. We will await further information before deciding whether to discuss the monitoring committee's report rather than the NDP itself.
My inquiry concerns how often the committee has met and the reason we are not receiving reports of its proceedings.
No. 132 is a letter from an individual regarding personal details on a vehicle registration form. I propose that we note the letter, send a copy of the information leaflet on vehicle registration certificates and advise that all vehicles must be registered with ownership details and that queries on this matter should be sent to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
No. 133 is an e-mail from an individual regarding the Freedom of Information Act 1997 and asking the committee to call on the Data Protection Commissioner and the Information Commissioner to explain alleged inconsistencies in the application of the definition of "personal information." I propose that we refer the correspondence to the Information Commissioner and to the Data Protection Commissioner for their observations. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 134 is an e-mail from Senator Quinn suggesting that the committee should follow up remarks made by Mr. Richie Boucher of the Bank of Ireland at our last meeting.
I listened carefully to Mr. Boucher but missed the insinuation or suggestion that he appeared to have made. I realised on Sunday, when the American Government made its decision, that he appeared to hint that the Government should perhaps support the banks in their time of trouble, based on the situation in Germany and the United States. He did not go quite that far but he went close, and I wonder whether we should ask him what he meant. Perhaps we should pursue the question with the Governor of the Central Bank today. If that is what Mr. Boucher was insinuating, we should get an answer from him. He does not necessarily have to meet us again in person but he should reply to a letter.
That proposal seems to have been doing the rounds. The CIF has backed it and the Minister for Finance has given an indication that he would listen to any proposal that emerges. Given that it seems to be in the ether, it would be interesting to hear the Central Bank's view.
I put a parliamentary question to the Minister subsequent to raising this matter at our last meeting. The committee should be alert to this and discuss it. The likes of Tom Parlon, who never wanted to help anyone when he was a Member of these Houses, now seems to want the banks bailed out. Perhaps this is more relevant to the construction industry.
I ask the Deputy to withdraw her remark as Mr. Parlon is not here to defend himself.
I know what he has been quoted as saying and I have heard him interviewed so I think we should be alerted. Perhaps we could raise this with the Governor of the Central Bank today as I presume he would be party to such discussions.
Very well, we shall give that honour to Senator Quinn.
I thank the Chairman.
We shall move on to No. 135, a letter from Deputy O'Donnell relating to the attendance of the Governor of the Central Bank at today's meeting.
I had discussions with the Chairman and I am delighted he took up the suggestion as it is a natural progression. We have met the banks and the CEOs should come before us again. I take on board what Senator O'Donovan has said but the main issue that came up was liquidity. Some of the banks mentioned liquidity and it is the key to today's discussions on how robust the banking system is. Along with this, the fall in share prices and the access of banks to funds, which is not burnout, must be teased out with the Governor of the Central Bank today.
The explanatory memorandum and Statutory Instruments Nos. 172, 215, 216, 236 and 237 of 2008 have been circulated. As indicated, if any member wishes to receive a copy of the statutory instruments please contact the secretariat.
Decisions taken by the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny on 17 June and 1 July are noted for information.
The draft report of the meeting of the European Parliament committee on economic and monetary affairs, which the former Chairman attended in Brussels on 22 and 23 January 2008, is before the committee for consideration. Is it agreed that the report is approved? Agreed.
Mr. John Hurley and his colleagues from the Central Bank, Mr. Tony Grimes and Mr. Tom O'Connell, will now join us.