Item No. 1 on the agenda is the minutes of the meeting of 18 September. The minutes of that meeting have been circulated for agreement. Are the minutes agreed?
Business of Joint Committee.
On the minutes, Chairman, I note on the presentation by the Irish Payments Services Organisation, that - unusually - it refers to, "A question and answer session ensued and the following members contributed" - and it names them. I recall indicating to you that I had to leave early and sought the opportunity to speak first, which you availed of yourself, leaving me no option but to proceed. I have no problem with that notation so long as it is part of the recording of the contributions of members as a matter of course, which it is not. I was back for the afternoon session. There are no references as to who engaged in the question and answer session with the representatives of the Department of Finance on the carbon energy tax or any of the other issues. I find it unacceptable that a number of contributions on one specific issue are recorded but members participating in others are ignored. That should not be the case in this or any other minute. If it is to apply it should be across the board and in each instance. Go raibh maith agat.
I note your point, Deputy, and I propose to amend the minutes to say, "Question and answer session ensued." I am deleting the reference to members and we will ask that that be amended for the next meeting. If the Deputy will bear with me, due to not having our permanent Clerk, we have had different staff at various times over the past meeting or two and they may have a different way of recording.
I do not have any difficulty with recording who spoke. That is not the issue, Chairman. You will remember a particular problem, as I explained to you, prior to my having to leave. The point is members were back for the afternoon session, but there is no recording of who participated in that. The interesting point in a number of these recent meetings is that a very small number of Deputies were present and participated, but that is not recorded. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, I am sure the Chairman will agree.
Will the Deputy accept the amendment to the effect that a question and answer session ensued?
That is one formula. Personally I would prefer that they would all be recorded.
Just to keep it consistent with the other half of the meeting we will amend the record and bring the revised minutes back for the next meeting. I take your point, Deputy. We will operate on a consistent basis in respect of the minutes. I move on to the next item on the agenda that is correspondence.
I would like to propose, Chairman that we should accede to the request from the Combat Poverty Agency to appear before the committee with its proposals in advance of budget 2004.
I will come to that in just one moment. I have a couple of items of correspondence on the schedule and that is the second on my list. Under correspondence the list of decisions made by the sub-committee on EU scrutiny at the meeting of 9 September is referred to. The documentation, COM (2003) 371, was referred to this committee for further scrutiny and at our last meeting it was agreed we would scrutinise that document today. Is that noted? Noted.
A letter from the Combat Poverty Agency seeking a pre-budget meeting with the committee: as I know from being a member of the committee for a few years, we tend to receive dozens of requests from a large number of organisations, from the motor industry to the voluntary organisations. In the past it was the practice of the committee not to accept submissions from agencies on the basis that it would be of more benefit to them to be directed to the Department of Finance. We could spend from now until budget day dealing with submissions and it might count for zero at the end of the day. It would be more useful for them to engage directly with the Department of Finance between now and then. We will send it on but I would caution there may be up to 20 similar requests, and I do not think it is possible to have 20 meetings to cover every request for a pre-budget meeting. That is the way we have operated in the past but I will throw it open for debate.
I wish to comment on that, Chairman. I should like the proposal I have made in relation to this request to stand, on the basis that there has been an ever-widening gap between the well-to-do and the least well off in Irish society over the past succession of budgets. The Combat Poverty Agency has a particular focus and one that needs to be taken on board, not only by the Minister and the Department of Finance, but also by members of this committee. We are, after all, conduits - on behalf not only of our constituents, but representative groups within society - to Government thinking. I would hope that while we might not be able to accommodate all requests that at least we can deal with one from each of the different sectoral interests. I have no doubt that the Combat Poverty Agency is an important and crucial one to be heard at this juncture, because very much remains to be done in terms of redressing the serious imbalance in Irish society today.
I certainly understand and support the thinking behind what Deputy ÓCaoláin has just said. However, I think it is impractical and I would not support it. I think, though, he is absolutely correct in saying - and I hope he will accept this - that Combat Poverty has not just a legitimate, but an important point to make about how public spending might, in fact, be adding towards the divide in society. I would not be in favour of taking pre-budget submissions, precisely because I do not believe we are a conduit. I wish we were, and then I certainly would, but I know we would be wasting everyone's time. We would be raising hope for these people, when they can contact the Minister and the Department directly - and they do.
It would be wasting their time and ours, but I think we should invite them to speak to us, not pre-budget, but after the budget, to give their views on how public spending is adding to the difficulties they are trying to deal with. I absolutely agree that we should not get into the business of taking pre-budget submissions. - I think I proposed that at the previous meeting. It just raises people's hopes. I know how excited they get about it and how they feel we are a conduit to the Minister, when in fact we will not have an input at that level. It is better to hear their views in a much more relaxed way where they assess and analyse where public spending is going and do a post-budget assessment. That would be far more helpful to Members of the Houses. I suggest we invite them to come before the committee, but not pre-budget.
In my time on the committee it has not been the practice to take pre-budget submissions from groups. If this was the case it would take up all of the committee's time between now and budget day. Then we would have to ask ourselves what role we had. I am not so sure we have any great role in that area. As Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas we can support submissions made to the Minister, as these groups can, directly - to the Minister and his officials. Also, we have been neglecting areas that are within our remit. Over 12 months we have not yet held a meeting on an important subject such as the SMI investigations, an important subject that does fall within our remit. We should focus on what we are actually here to do and not move into areas not in our remit and perhaps give people false hopes, as has been said. We can if we wish support submissions on an individual basis. As regards Senator O'Toole's suggestion, I would support that. I think it is appropriate that we would get the views, either written or verbal, from the agency, at another time, because it has an important viewpoint.
May I put it to the meeting that it is suggested we invite Combat Poverty to come before the committee in due course, but not in the context of a pre-budget submission? In the meantime it should be encouraged to make direct contact with the Department of Finance, which I expect it will be doing, in any event? May I take it that is agreed?
That seems to be the consensus.
It seems to be.
Nobody else has spoken in favour of the proposition, so I can only conclude that I have no other support.
All right, we will deal with the issue on that basis. The next item of correspondence is the draft agenda for the forthcoming meeting of the Ecofin Council on 7 October, which I am attending on behalf of the committee. Is that noted? Noted.
The next item is a letter from the office of tobacco controls, including an invitation to a seminar - 'The economics of tobacco control: cost and productivity of the impact of tobacco use' - to take place on Thursday, 2 October. Is that noted? Noted.
An additional item was circulated at the start of the meeting. This is a brochure on a half-day conference on public private partnerships taking place tomorrow. Deputy Burton has indicated her wish to attend. The registration fee is €296.45 per person. Do the members agree this committee should be represented and does any other member wish to attend?
It is very late in the day for notification for a conference, tomorrow. It is a pity we had not more advance notice because members will have a range of other commitments, both in the Houses and allied to work here.
I think the circumstances are that Deputy Burton saw an advertisement for the conference and indicated her wish to attend. As a result we did not - as in the normal course of events - receive a specific invitation. She is asking to attend as a member of the committee.
I am not opposed to Deputy Burton or any other member attending. May I ask what time it commences? Maybe it is in the brochure? Is it 8 a.m.?
It commences at 8 a.m. tomorrow and concludes at lunchtime.
I think it is a remarkably one-sided and heavily weighted biased conference. I really think it is appalling. It will do damage to the concept of public private partnership. I heard the Minister this morning, or yesterday - and I am not sure if it was Deputy ÓCaoláin - trying to explain the position on PPPs. That conference tomorrow is going to make it more difficult to get ordinary Irish workers to understand the concept. We have developed here a concept of public private partnership that is completely different to that in the UK and the rest of Europe, which respects the role of workers and the community as well as the role of public service and still makes progress. Those people who all come from the one side of the argument do not reflect this in any way. One can see who is organising it, of course. Let us be absolutely clear what this is. This is just pure propaganda and it is the kind of difficulty that those in the social partnership area have always worried about. A one-sided approach like this gives people the idea we are going in a certain direction. The only person who knows anything about what is going on at that conference tomorrow is the Minister, with respect. The other people know an awful lot about what is going on in Europe and they know all about the failed efforts in the UK at public private partnerships, which have created a total mess. We are trying to avoid those mistakes here, and I would just prefer if someone gave the Irish view. The discussions in here are far more important. I do not have any objection——
Public private partnership is an item we will deal with in the immediate future. The comments of the Senator are noted. It is a matter for the organisers to arrange a conference. Deputy Burton indicated she would like to attend, so I think we will agree to that.
I am moving on to the next item on the agenda, the scrutiny of EU document reference No. COM (2003) 371. This is a proposal for a declaration system for the movement of cash across the external EU borders.