Members should note that although it was agreed at the last meeting of the select committee to take Committee Stage of the National Economic and Social Development Office Bill on 2 July, that is not now possible since the Bill will be on Second Stage on that date. I propose to postpone consideration of the Bill until after the recess and to use the slots available on 2 July for a joint meeting and to invite the Department of Finance to discuss progress on the national development plan. On examination of our schedule, it was one of the easiest meetings to arrange at such short notice.
Business of Joint Committee.
Have they done anything since we met them last?
We will find that out next week. I did not want to let the slot go.
The mid-term review has just had consultants appointed to it. Therefore the meeting would be just a filler since it will be difficult to carry out any kind of evaluation of what is going on. If he wants to do something short and sharp, the chairman could invite IFSRA to talk about the banks and the cut in interest rates or invite the board of the National Pensions Reserve Fund to talk about its investment strategy. We should invite a specific agency to talk about a specific subject, which is a one-off and it is cleared out in the day. The NDP discussion could go on forever.
We had planned to have the National Pensions Reserve Fund Commission before us to wind up our meetings before the recess. The board was written to on behalf of the committee requiring more specific details of such a meeting and the items to be covered. However, in the interim, the National Treasury Management Agency and the pensions reserve fund commissioners appeared before the Committee of Public Accounts last week. I attended that meeting and met with the chairman of the National Pensions Reserve Fund Commission. I believe that because it is so recently established and does not yet have a full year's figures, it would be a waste of time meeting them since we could only duplicate what is already on the record since last week.
Will the commission have figures in September?
Yes, it is due to complete its——
It should have its second year results in July. Is that correct?
Yes, the Comptroller and Auditor General said he hoped to have it finished at the end of June.
July was the original indicator we had.
Yes, they hope to have the audit of the accounts completed at the end of June and published in July or sometime after that. We will have to wait until after that, therefore, July might be premature.
Does that mean that perhaps if we are having meetings at the end of September, that would be an appropriate time?
Yes, we could bring the representatives in at that stage. The next few weeks would be premature as they have nothing further to add. The commission was only established in 2001 and was reporting on a small level of activity to the Committee of Public Accounts.
I suggest that the committee writes to the chairman of the commission pointing out that the committee is interested in meeting him as soon as is convenient after the accounts are available and that we target that for September.
Yes.
At our last meeting, we agreed that we would seek a meeting with representatives of the various financial institutions, the banks et al. Has that been progressed in any way since our last meeting on 11 June?
Perhaps we will bring forward the discussion on our work programme, although I had intended to leave it to the end of the meeting. The chairman of the Pensions Reserve Fund Commission has indicated that he is happy to appear before the committee. There is no issue in that regard. It is merely a question of the timing of when it would be most beneficial.
The committee proposed to invite the Standards in Public Office Commission to visit us arising out of recent reports and its activities because it comes within the Vote of the Department of Finance, as we know from the Estimates last week. It had agreed to do so. However, the chairman has indicated that, in his view, it would not be prudent because of developments in recent days. If any actions are taken outside the House, much of our discussion could impinge on it. It was felt it would be imprudent of the commission to attend a Dáil committee when actions are being taken to which it may be party. In the context of the report on expenditure limits and so on, if it was invited before the committee, it would be unreal to expect us to have a discussion without getting into those areas.
The most practical meeting we could have, given that it will be one meeting without a follow-up, would be to invite the consumer director of the newly-appointed IFSRA to come before the committee and talk to us about her remit in protecting consumers. In the news at present is the issue of banks passing on the interest rates. Also lurking in that area is the issue of bank charges, which she now controls. There was some public unease, which I shared, that having a consumer director immersed in the culture of the Central Bank would not be the ideal location. This meeting would give the new consumer director a chance to show her spurs and set out her stall in public. It would be good both for the status of that office and for the committee.
With the Government advertising intensively that people should take out PRSAs in regard to pensions, there is concern at the lack of transparency about the costs to consumers of those products. I do not know whether the director sees herself as having a function in that regard. The agency is involved in the regulation of all financial institutions. Ireland will be moving into significant investments for pensions and, as with the National Pensions Reserve Fund, the transaction costs seem extremely high on the various products. As with the bank services, I would be interested to know what the costs are to consumers. If the director is to come before the committee, that should be an area for discussion.
If the Department of Finance is coming before the committee, there are issues on which we were promised some level of briefing and on which we have received nothing. We were to receive information on public-private partnerships two or three weeks ago in order that, when the officials come before the committee, we would be in a position to ask questions. We received a three page leaflet concerning everything and anything regarding public-private partnerships.
Last year we were promised further details of the deal with the religious orders. We were promised, for instance, schedules of the properties which were to be transferred from the religious orders to the State. A note was presented to me by the Clerk to the committee on 14 January about a discussion with certain officials from the Department of Finance. The official whose conversation was recorded said that the schedule etc. would be available on the anniversary of the agreement, which would be in May or June of this year. That time is nearly up and we have not received anything. Officials of the Department of Finance could give us information about a number of specific areas that might help us. We have not really been given any information other than what is available on websites and to the general public.
I understood that the Comptroller and Auditor General was preparing a report for the Committee of Public Accounts on the religious orders, their properties, and the deal that was done. I understand it will be completed shortly.
In the autumn.
That report was to form the basis of a debate in the House, perhaps at committee level. I asked about this at the last meeting of the PAC.
That is not very helpful to this committee. That report will be dealt with at the Public Accounts Committee and this committee will never have the opportunity of examining it. The note we were given last January clearly indicated that the Department of Finance, together with the Department of Education and Science, had a brief and was watching to see what properties were being transferred. At the very minimum, as a courtesy to this committee, we are entitled to hear a report on the progress made by the Department of Finance. I can produce a note I received in January if I must, but it did indicate that the report would be available.
That item is still in the work programme. It is a question of agreeing the date. Perhaps we will take a report in writing from the Department in the meantime.
In relation to the earlier proposition from Deputy Bruton, and followed on by Deputy Burton, I am anxious to emphasise that the proposition for the invitation should not be a substitute for meeting with the representatives of the financial institutions. That is something we will have to do in any event. I am a little concerned about the work programme, in which we have projected activities for months ahead although it appears at the very end to be a series of question marks. We had a shared sense of the importance and urgency of that meeting. It had a currency then and it still does now. Points were raised by the Chairman in relation to local authority concerns regarding this sector. It is important that we address these issues at the earliest opportunity. I note that meetings were projected for the period of recess in July and September. Would it be possible to bring that matter forward to one or other of those dates?
I was about to propose that we deal with that issue in July.
I support that.
I just mentioned what was happening with the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General at the Committee on Public Accounts. I support the view that we should be informed and have an opportunity of discussing the matter at a meeting of this committee. It was in that spirit that I raised the issue at a meeting of the Committee on Public Accounts. It was put off until the report was available. Because it was raised here and in that committee, we should have the details of what went on, the information about the lands in question and so on so that at least we can be informed on the issue. It is important that we can develop our own views on it as we prepare to consider the report that is on the way. That should happen sooner rather than later.
Can we address that by way of correspondence with the Department of Finance? We can ask for that information to be sent to us.
Could we set a time limit? I absolutely agree with Deputy McGuinness: we did receive an indication that we would have the report at this time. One of the reasons I did not push for a date for those examinations was that there is, understandably, a large amount of information to be considered. In January, however, it was said clearly that this would be effectively concluded by May or June, although we are still none the wiser.
Can we agree the schedule for the meetings in July? I accept what Deputy Ó Caoláin said about pencilling in a date. There is a select committee meeting scheduled for next Wednesday which will not now happen, but we have made no arrangements for IFSRA or the commercial banks to be present and I suspect that if we contact them tomorrow morning it will be too late. I do not think one weeks notice is sufficient. We can let next week's slot go; there is no obligation on us to meet.
The only phone call we can make in the meantime is to the Department of Finance to ask for a briefing on the national development plan. The mid-term review is to take place, but if the Department is any good at all it will have been preparing monthly and quarterly reports. I would like to see the most recent report because I am sure a report goes to Government every month. I am seeking the most up-to-date information available in the Department of Finance. It should be available for production by next Wednesday even though it is relatively short notice. That is the only reason I suggested the Department of Finance. If members wish to do that we will; otherwise we will let the date pass.
The Chairman has suggested a meeting for 9 July, which is the following week and in the summer recess period. It is feasible for us to focus on that date in order to meet with the representatives of the banks and financial institutions.
Will we proceed with the suggestion for an update on the national development plan for our meeting next Wednesday?
Could we bring the meeting forward to about 12 noon? The Dáil will not be sitting, so——
What is on next Wednesday?
No, Wednesday 9 July.
That should not be a problem. I do not think the committee rooms will be too busy.
What about 11 a.m.?
That should not present a problem.
We do not want the banks' representative committee in here because its representatives will just duck the question by saying they cannot speak for its members. We would like to see representatives of, for example, AIB, Bank of Ireland, perhaps a building society and perhaps one of the banks that did reduce its rates and is offering to be more competitive, such as the Bank of Scotland. It might make for a debate on their different policies on charges in competition.
It was understood that we were hoping to focus on the banks individually.
How about the consumer director from IFSRA?
Could we have the banks in first and the consumer director afterwards?
Yes. Could we meet from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.?
The other way around would be better. I would like to know what has been done by the regulator about the banks and then be able to follow up with a meeting with the representatives of the banks. Strategically, it would be a better idea.
We will start at 11 a.m. with the consumer director from IFSRA and move on to the banks at 12 noon. We may not conclude before lunch but we will conclude at a reasonable time in the afternoon with the commercial banks. We might arrange for a lunch break as I do not see the meeting being concluded by 1 p.m.
That meeting will be specifically about banks' policies on customer charges and interest rates.
Yes. We will also have the consumer director from IFSRA to speak at 11 o'clock.
Maybe at a subsequent sitting we could arrange a date in the autumn to look at the financial charges associated with the PRSAs and similar investment products.
That could be done on that day but would it be too much?
It might be too much to do it all in one day.
We will deal with the PRSAs separately. Will we also proceed on 2 July with the most recent update from the Department of Finance and progress on the National Development Plan?
Not unless the Department of Finance wants to tell us about the deal with the religious orders and how it is getting on with the properties. If the officials are willing to tell us that, yes.
They will be different officials; it will be a different topic.
We have gone through this already and I support what is being said. It is important that we get that report and that we know what is going on. I and the public would like to know the detail of the commitments entered into. It is too long to wait until the full report is produced in the autumn and we should avail of some opportunity to ask the questions that need to be asked about that deal.
We will contact the Department of Finance immediately after this meeting to see if officials will be available to attend the meeting next Wednesday.
Is there an issue about the Order of Business next Wednesday? I do not have the schedule with me but is there any legislation that would intrude on our participation in the committee?
I do not know yet.
That is a factor we have to consider. It is the eve of the summer recess and who knows what surprises the Chairman's colleagues have in store for us in the last week? Is not that the practice?
Midnight sittings, I am assured. We will try to have officials present to deal with the information on the residential redress board but we will not have the officials from the Department of Education and Science. We will meet the Department of Finance only.
Perhaps we should have that meeting early on Wednesday morning, for example, at 9 a.m. if the rest of the day is going to be busy?
Yes.
The officials from the Department of Finance should have information to present to us and we will have a series of questions to ask.
We cannot sit before 9.30 a.m. I understand none of the committees start before that time and we will be running into Leaders' Questions in the Dáil. That is why we moved our slot to the afternoon, to avoid missing the Leaders' Questions and the Order of Business because there are often votes on a Wednesday morning.
So we cannot start at 9 a.m.?
No. When the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission Bill 2002 is up and running on 1 January we will be free to make our own rules.
Is that a fact?
Yes. We cannot start at 9 a.m. We are meeting at 3 p.m. again.
Does the committee have papers on the settlement with the religious orders, for example, papers presented to the PAC? If the officials agree to attend next week, would it be possible for the Chairman to circulate papers to committee members in advance?
We will ask about that.
No papers were presented to the Public Accounts Committee on that issue. There was the promise of a report.
The Comptroller and Auditor General is going to look at the issue and present a report. Before he does that we want to hear separately from the Department of Finance, which is only a part of the equation because we recognise that the Department of Education and Science is involved.
I appreciate that but I want clarification. Am I correct in saying that we did not receive any papers to date?
That is correct. I am informed that because next Wednesday could be quite busy we may have to start either at 2 p.m. or 4 p.m. The slots next Wednesday are for two hours, 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., or 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Which slot would the committee prefer? Will we go with 2 p.m.? Agreed.
We are meeting on 2 July and 9 July. Will we wait until late September for a subsequent meeting or do members wish to meet again later in July? I am open to the views of the committee.
Does that deal with the work programme that we have laid out?
It deals with those two issues, the redress board and the commercial banks. We can deal with those on 2 July and 9 July respectively. We will leave it until the end of September.
Does this fit into a work programme, or does the committee have a view on it as regards the public service structure generally, and its efficiency or otherwise, and on benchmarking and the various reports to Government on incentivising Departments to create greater efficiency? Is that something that this committee could debate or look at?
It is on the work programme.
Will we look beyond that into the structures and practices within the public service?
Yes, because Deputy Finneran proposed that we set up a separate sub-committee to deal with the strategic management initiative across the public service and that has been referred to this committee. The committee which dealt with that topic in the last Dáil no longer exists and our committee has been given that task. In our terms of reference there is provision to set up a sub-committee of this group to deal with that.
Is that timed for September?
Yes.
Late September is too late. The world gets back to work in September after the August break and we should meet in early September. This would be a good issue to start with. We are criticised for waiting until late September and there is plenty to be done now. The next meeting takes us past mid-July and it is pointless trying to have meetings in August because the people we want to meet will be on holidays but come 1 September they will be back at work. We should meet in early September. Committees meet during September and it is a better time to do business because if the Houses are not sitting we have time to get things done. I suggest early rather than late September.
I support that. It is an important topic and that is why I raised it. I assumed that the Chairman was referring to early rather than late September. We need to do some groundwork on this issue.
I also support this because there is no reason we cannot be back in early September.
We will meet on Wednesday, 3 September.
We operate at a disadvantage. We do not have any research assistants and we do not structure anything. For instance, I and perhaps Deputy McGuinness could do some work on the questions for the residential redress board, and Deputies Ó Caoláin and Bruton might look at detailed questions for the banks although I suspect we all have plenty of questions for them. Benchmarking is important but there is not much point in having a general chat unless we focus on what information we want. I do not know if any kind of research support is available to this committee. The Public Accounts Committee can get the Comptroller and Auditor General to do studies. Is there a mechanism whereby we could be assisted collectively to focus on key questions? We did extremely well on the freedom of information debate by doing some preparation and agreeing a modus operandi.
Two meetings ago we dealt with the question of the budget for the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. Two separate committees on Members' interests in each House which worked together had examined all those issues which Deputy Burton has just raised. We had looked at what was going on near and far - as far away as New Zealand and as close as Northern Ireland. We examined what attention could be given to committees and their members. We investigated situations where a member of a committee, from whatever party, could walk into the library and research facilities of the Houses of Parliament and have produced within 24 hours a note which would be absolutely neutral - not biased for or against the Government but a research document. We are absolutely in the ha'penny place on that compared with the structures in Stormont, which is close to being state-of-the-art. Even in such places as New Zealand, where there is a very refined and reduced public service, it is absolutely superb.
I find myself resisting what Deputy Burton says, though I know that she says it with the best will in the world. Of course she is right to say that the committee could work on it, but that is not what we should be doing. Someone else should be doing that. I am not saying this out of laziness, but research people should be able to produce the documentation which members of the committee could then interpret, perhaps arguing on it on the basis of party politics if necessary. This is one of the big problems that we face. There is no doubt that all our work and all the committees have been hindered absolutely. The original budget figure suggested for the Houses of the Oireachtas was based on a certain formula of increased support for the Library and others which would enable us to provide this type of support in a much reduced fashion compared with what is available in Scotland, Northern Ireland or many other places. We have reduced it still further. I despair at it. The point that Deputy Burton has made is absolutely crucial. People of any party or none can coalesce around it and say that we must work on that basis.
I totally agree with what the Senator said. There is a lack of proper, objective research at which I am quite amazed. Deputy Burton mentioned freedom of information. Those who came to us were passionate about their objective of coming to us. The others had a different way of approaching the agenda. That whole process with the FOI groups was extraordinarily useful. I agree with the Senator that we must get at the essence, but the question is how we do that.
As I understand it, the only budget available is for rapporteurs.
I am a strong advocate of the rapporteur approach. I was on the education committee with Senator O'Toole and was party to two good reports on science and education and early school leaving and literacy. One finds that, if given that sort of responsibility to be a rapporteur, the Library facilities are extremely helpful. They may be under-resourced as Senator O'Toole says, but they are extremely helpful, as are the Departments. There are agencies falling over one another to assist one, perhaps in the community and voluntary sector as well as the official one. I would be very keen to take on one of those subjects as a rapporteur and do a piece of work on it, drawing in whatever resources we can to assist. In the short-term, given the resources we have, that is the most practical way to proceed. Let us appoint a rapporteur and have hearings as requested or suggested by him or her. Some of them can be sub-committee and some general committee hearings, depending on the committee's desire. We can proceed and make progress over the summer months so that we can return in September with people running with a subject. We would build up our reputation as a quality committee if we went that route.
I agree with the point that the committees are under-resourced. That is a fact, and it is almost bordering on farce that we should be asked to undertake the work programme that we have when the people that appear before us are better supported and equipped to deal with their side of the argument than we as public representatives. Regarding the money allocated for rapporteurs' reports, I was involved in the last Administration providing reports on information and communications technology for the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business. I know that Senator Coghlan prepared a report on the Restrictive Practices (Groceries) Order 1987 and the capping of supermarkets. I mention those reports because they were laid before the Oireachtas. They are in the Library gathering dust, and nothing is happening arising out of those reports. I support Deputy Burton, since, if one or two people could be appointed to produce a report on a specific topic - for example, public service and benchmarking, which we just raised - and it were used in an exchange with whatever officials came before us, we would be using it wisely rather than allowing it to gather dust in the Library. We would put it to work here at this committee. If a rapporteur's report is used in that way, it is far better value for money than simply writing it and parking it in the Library, where it will never be dug out. If we structure it that way, we will make the work of this committee more meaningful and be more focused regarding what we want to get out of it.
Perhaps, before the next meeting, members might examine the topics suggested on the work programme or anything else that they feel falls within the committee's remit. At the next meeting, we will try to have more information on the funding available for the rapporteur. If two or three people want to go with separate topics, that is completely in order as I understand it.
I must excuse myself, for Thessaloniki beckons.
I am therefore concluding this topic. We are meeting on 2 July, again on 9 July for the banks, and thereafter our next meeting will be 3 September. We will clear the topics at our July meeting.
What is happening is very important to the public arena.
They are paying it now.
Yes, but the return on it and what is being reinvested in the economy is important.
Is the meeting on 3 September at 11 a.m.?
Yes, there should not be a problem in September with the timing of meetings.
So we can tic-tac closer to it.
The meeting on 9 July will also be at 11 a.m. That is the timetable of work over the summer recess, and we will meet again in September, starting at 3 p.m.. At the next meeting we may set a date for our subsequent meeting in the second half of the month.