JOINT COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 10 Dec 2003

Vol. 1 No. 21

Business of Joint Committee.

Chairman

Apologies have been received from Deputy Finneran and Senator O'Toole who are representing the committee at the World Summit on the Information Society in Geneva. The first item on the agenda is the minutes of the meetings of 12 and 26 November 2003. The draft minutes of these meetings of the joint committee have been circulated. Are the minutes of the meeting of 12 November agreed? Agreed. Are the minutes of the meeting of 26 November agreed? Agreed.

I want to deal with one item arising from the minutes of 12 November. The clerk examined a reply from the Ombudsman as regards a person who was dissatisfied with the result of his dealings with the Revenue Commissioners and the Ombudsman. A reply had, in fact, been received some time ago and the committee had agreed to write to the person concerned enclosing the reply from both parties and indicating that the committee had concluded its consideration of the matter. As the committee had no permanent clerk at that time it seems the matter was overlooked and the reply was not issued. The clerk has now issued a reply in the manner indicated by the committee. Is there anything further arising from this?

Senator Mansergh

We should all express satisfaction that the budget paid attention to the views of members of the committee, among others, as regards the film relief.

Chairman

We would agree to concur——

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I share the Senator's view as regards expressing welcome and satisfaction with the work of the committee in helping to highlight further the case for the retention of section 481. It was one of the few elements in the recent budget for 2004 that I was happy to welcome. Let us hope the decision to extend the limitations in 2005 and proceed on to 2008 will be met by equally generous decisions in the future and its extension even beyond that time.

Deputy R. Bruton

I am delighted the extension was given, but still hold the view that the Government should be undertaking a strategic review of the way in which the film industry is developed in Ireland. It is unhealthy that it should be so reliant on a tax break of this nature for its long-term future. While it would have been wrong to remove it, the time given by the extension should be used to develop a strategy for the industry to see if this is possible without it being reliant solely on this tax based instrument. It might be possible to do some of the things the industry representatives who appeared before the committee recommended. They have a strategic view and that is the way to go rather than relying on a tax based approach.

Chairman

The committee is concluding the minutes of the meetings for 12 and 26 November and will move on to correspondence as the next item on the agenda.

Deputy Burton

I would like to say a few words on that arising from comments made by some of the Fianna Fáil members. I believe it was my proposal originally, backed by Senator Mansergh - he has gone now - to have the hearing. The hearing was a successful piece of work on the part of the committee. It established, correctly, the pros and cons as regards tax breaks. An argument can be made for strategic tax breaks for a period of time. I would like the committee to continue in that vein and in particular to undertake a similar examination in the new year. For instance, the arguments for and against the Minister's decision in the budget to extend tax breaks to property based reliefs should be looked at, in particular for seaside cottages and multi-storey car parks. The committee did a service to Irish democracy by having the argument out in the open as to what the benefits of section 481 were, the people involved in the industry, the considerations involved and the downsides in terms of the Revenue Commissioners' identification of people who were abusing the scheme. I would put that proposal to the committee.

I am glad that the Minister has extended the scheme as I said in my budget speech. However, the committee should find time in the new year to examine the Minister's decision to extend some of the property based incentives. He extended the R & D reliefs, the BES and seed capital schemes. If I was Minister for Finance I would have looked favourably on that as well but I have a major concern on the issue of seaside cottages and car parks. In the case of the car parks, for instance, nine partnerships are responsible for most of that investment. The average relief per taxpayer as shown by the high level study was €100,000 per annum or three times the average rate on which single people go into the upper rate of tax. I am glad the Minister did what he did, but I think this committee played a good role in examining the economic case for and against section 481. It could do that in a constructive way as regards the Minister's decision on tax breaks in other areas.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

It was an excellent budget. I would often be critical of the budget, but I am impressed. It is even-handed and fair on the part of the Government and the Minister for Finance. Although I am often critical, what the Minister for Finance has done is impressive. The Labour Party spokesperson has quibbled with the seaside cottage relief, which takes me aback as we are trying to develop the tourism industry in the most cost effective way. I do not often disagree with Deputy Burton, but she is being petty in focusing on car park and seaside cottage reliefs.

The Minister has introduced tax breaks for intellectual property rights. This is to be welcomed as it will lead to job creation in patents and so on. Ireland is now a high cost country and future employment will be generated by research and development and BES schemes.

The decentralisation programme is the icing on the cake and I am taken aback that the Opposition has not mentioned it.

Deputy R. Bruton

I too am concerned about Punchestown and the way it was pushed through on the back of the budget, with no proper scrutiny or cost benefit analysis and here was a decision thrown out by a Minister like confetti at a wake.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I will be at Leopardstown on St. Stephen's day.

Deputy C. Lenihan

They are chasing all our success stories again.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I second Deputy Burton's proposal to examine in detail the available tax breaks. The opportunity to have an open and objective discussion and evaluation of the effects of tax breaks is important. In recent cases the Minister was unable to quantify the real effect of some of these tax breaks. It is unbelievable that the Minister and his associates are unable to tell us what the net saving would be for those availing of these schemes. In spite of the signposting that up to 12 or 13 of the 20 current tax breaks were up for review and possible axing, nothing happened. Perhaps the committee will follow on its good work on section 481 and I welcome the opportunity to discuss each and every relief.

Deputy Twomey

I wholly support the decentralisation programme and I cannot wait for it to happen in the south-east. Some months ago the committee met to discuss decentralisation, and at that stage the Civil Service was not in a position to tell us what would happen. We queried the problems encountered in previous decentralisation programmes. We wanted to know if it was difficult to attract people to certain areas, if it had problems with promotion with a view to seeing whether the cluster or regionalisation system worked better. The Department assured the committee it would respond with a list of problems and this would be the basis for our deliberations on decentralisation. Did the committee receive it? I do not recall it.

Chairman

We will respond shortly.

Deputy Nolan

I concur with the members who commended the Minister on the budget. It was first class and the decentralisation programme will be great for every county.

If we are to be an investigative committee - Deputy Ó Caoláin wants to investigate areas of the economy - let us look at racketeering and the revenue lost as a result. Let us broaden it to including everything.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Absolutely, it would be very interesting.

Deputy Nolan

I know it would have the total support of all members.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

It would be interesting to get to the truth. It would be most interesting to examine the construction industry relationship with the Government parties.

Deputy Nolan

Absolutely.

Deputy C. Lenihan

It would be interesting to take a look through the back door at the industry in the Border counties——

Deputy Nolan

- especially subversives in the Border region, with the millions being lost to the Revenue.

Chairman

I am concluding the discussion on the minutes as we have to deal with correspondence and other items. Members' comments on the budget have been noted. The suggestions made can be considered for the work programme for 2004, and it is up to members to agree or otherwise with it.

The full week Committee Stage debate on the Finance Bill in the spring gives members the opportunity to discuss tax reliefs as every single tax incentive in the Bill will be up for discussion.

I request the committee to forward an invitation to Mr. Phil Flynn, chairman of the implementation committee, to come before the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service at the earliest possible date to discuss decentralisation. As the committee charged with responsibility for finance in the public service we should keep a watching brief and monitor the issues involved in decentralisation. Is it agreed that we invite Mr. Flynn to appear before the committee?

Deputy Twomey

May we get the information well before that?

Chairman

No further information was submitted to the committee. The Committee of Public Accounts has dealt with some of these issues, for example, when sections are decentralised, very few staff from the original section transferred with a consequent loss of knowledge and in some cases that led to a deterioration in the service delivered to the public. We will be raising this and other practical issues when Mr. Flynn appears before the committee. I think the high powered implementation committee set up by the Government should report to this committee also.

Deputy R. Bruton

The Chairman has ruled out of order a request by a member to include an item on the work programme but is suggesting that his item be included. If we as an investigative committee are to consider decentralisation, we have an obligation to look at the views advanced on the serious effects it has on Government coherence. If we are to take on an investigation of decentralisation, we need to consider who should come before the committee. For example, will those who feel the spatial strategy has been undermined have an input? If the Chairman takes the view the programme for 2004 should be decided by the committee on the basis of a list of options, including those of Mr. Flynn, we should leave it at that and let it be an option. I think we should have a chance to consider all the options before deciding on the work programme for 2004.

Deputy Burton

I wish to put the proposal that there be an examination of tax breaks irrespective of the discussion in the course of the Committee Stage debate of the Finance Bill. I am not asking the Chairman to indicate an exact time now. I am sure Deputy Ó Caoláin will continue to support my proposal. I have no difficulty with Deputy Nolan's proposal. The business of the committee is to find out how the economy works and ensure if we are paying lower taxes, that everybody pays a fair whack. That is my fundamental philosophy and I have no difficulty with Deputy Nolan's proposal.

As regards the proposal on decentralization, I was Minister of State in the Department of Social Welfare when there was decentralisation to Letterkenny, Longford and to Sligo, partly initiated by the then Taoiseach, Deputy Albert Reynolds. A pool of experience exists as regards the problems and the pros and cons involved. Ultimately this initiative was successful, but slow in that initially the take-up of people not associated with a particular region and who wished to go there was relatively small. It was expensive. Many additional people had to be hired while staff remained in Dublin who had to find things to do. The Legal Aid Board to this day has two full offices in Dublin because of the overhang of people who were not prepared to leave the capital.

An element of the decentralisation proposal seriously concerns me, namely, that many relatively small organisations of 70 to 80 people are to be moved. Combat Poverty is to go to Monaghan, Comhairle na nOspidéal to Carrickmacross, the Arts Council to Kilkenny and so on. If this committee is to seriously tackle the job of doing this in an orderly way without excessive costs to the public, it is entitled to put a framework on any examination or discussion of the initiative. As a Dubliner I have no problem with the principle of decentralisation but I do not want it to cost excessive amounts of money and to be the type of gombeen initiative that the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, who has just left the committee, projected. It has obviously gone to his head. I do not think he is behaving as a Minister of State in a Government ought, when a decision has to be made in the public interest. He is meant to act overall in the public interest. I can understand that he feels he has pulled a stroke but we should draw this up seriously.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I am disappointed with the behaviour of the Opposition on the decentralisation issue. This was pioneered in Cavan a number of years ago and was found to be a major success. Since then it has been part of Government policy. The Minister first announced it in a major way four years ago and now this is being repeated. If the Opposition parties would support the measure rather than challenging it they would be seen to be more proactive. They are coming across as anti-progressive. On the area of the budget, not much is to be feared from discussing the issues referred to by the Labour spokesperson such as the tax breaks for seaside properties and car parks. There is a payback in all these issues and historically this has been seen to be successful for Governments in the past. If there is an issue in the budget that the Opposition is not happy with, of course the Government would be prepared to discuss it.

Chairman

The next item on the agenda is correspondence. A number of items are to be considered. The chairman of the European Parliament's Committee on Budgets has sent a report on the meeting in October with representatives of national parliaments which I attended on behalf of the committee. He has emphasised that the European Parliament gives a high priority to exchanging views with national parliaments and asks for suggestions on the format and date of a follow-up event. I suggest the committee replies to the effect that it welcomes the opening up of the channel of communication, that it is happy with the format of the meeting of 7 October and would be receptive to a further meeting at a similar time next year. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The Sub-committee on EU Scrutiny has sent this committee a list of the documents and proposals considered and the decisions taken at its meeting of 20 November. The sub-committee has not referred any proposals to this committee for further scrutiny. However, two proposals COM(2003)659 and COM(2003)661 have been forwarded to the committee for information. The Departments of Finance and Enterprise, Trade and Employment have been asked to keep the committee informed as to major developments. Is it agreed that further scrutiny by this committee is not necessary and that members note the proposals as listed? Agreed.

Deputy Burton has forwarded a letter she received from the ASTI regarding certain recommendations in the report of the Commission on Public Service Pensions. I believe most of the members have received the same letter. Deputy Burton had asked in her letter whether the matter was within the committee's remit, which it is. I take the view that the report as commissioned was published by the Minister for Finance and we are free to examine the issues arising from it. I am conscious, however, that it is a remit that relates to the public service in general and would suggest that the embracing of issues of this kind, as proposed by Deputy Burton, should not be confined to any particular sectoral committee such as education. Furthermore, the committee should be careful not to stray into the work areas of other committees. As a first step the committee could seek a written briefing from the Department of Finance on the implementation of the report. It can then be decided to report on the matter. The committee could follow that up with a meeting with the Minister of Finance, the chairman of the commission and other relevant people. Members' views would be welcome, but I suggest we first get a written report from the Department of Finance.

Deputy Burton

The major change in policy in the 2004 budget was the Minister's indication of a change as regards pension eligibility entitlements in the public service. Effectively there was an indication for future entrance to the public services of a significant raising of retirement ages. This issue is important. When all the hullabaloo about decentralisation, etc., has died down this issue will stand. I believe it will become more important as the years go by.

Chairman

Is there agreement that the committee seeks a written briefing from the Department of Finance in the first instance on the report of the Commission on Public Service Pensions, referred to in the letter? It will not be debated until the committee has that briefing.

Deputy Burton

I do not want to debate it now. I wrote this letter before the budget. There were enormously significant changes in the budget which were technical as regards the pension eligibility of future entrants to all elements of the public service. The specific query sent to me came from one of the teachers' unions. We need to get detailed information on the changes announced by the Minister as regards the pension entitlements of future entrants to the public service. In the long run that will turn out to be the biggest announcement in the budget.

Deputy R. Bruton

If the committee is to have an examination of decentralisation and the way it rolls out, it has to be done in a proper way so that other sides of the argument are heard. If the committee is to add value it must hear from those who believe that the national spatial strategy has been damaged by this.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

That is not an issue for this committee.

Deputy R. Bruton

If the committee is just going to have the Deputy's selection and not consider all the other items or members' views on how these should be dealt with——

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

That is not the issue. Tomorrow is another day and we are going backwards. I am surprised at the Deputy's attitude.

Deputy R. Bruton

I do not want this committee to be tied up in discussions on an issue without having considered the views in opposition to it, just because it suits Fianna Fáil today to have something on the agenda. If there is to be a discussion - and the committee is to hold a series of meetings about decentralisation - I for one want to make sure that the views of those who believe it is damaging to the spatial strategy are heard. Many well respected people who have studied this take that view. Otherwise the committee is just engaging in a pointless exercise. The Government has taken a decision, it is going to happen anyhow, and what value is the committee adding? Either we take it off the agenda on the grounds that the Government has taken a decision and there is no case for the committee to scrutinise it or it examines it as a serious issue, hears both sides and tries to advise the Government how it would like to see it done. Given that members agree decentralisation is a good thing, the committee might want to recommend one course of action rather than another. The Minister for Finance indicated today he is not for turning on this issue and I do not want——

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I would be shocked if he had done otherwise.

Deputy R. Bruton

Exactly, so why should we have hearings on it?

Deputy C. Lenihan

I think we should have one hearing on the implementation of it. Deputy Bruton is right in what he said at the end of his contribution. There is no point talking about it. The decision is made. Locations have been identified. The committee must ensure that if it is going ahead, it is doing so on a proper basis and that the jobs involved will be moved within the timeframe and we can speed it up if possible.

Deputy Twomey

That is fair enough.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

It is important that the Chairman of the most recently established committee would have an input into what he is doing and that is our role here.

Deputy Twomey

That is why we are asking for information on the problems that have arisen in the past. Everybody here supports decentralisation but we saw what happened with the Hanly report when there was inadequate consultation.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I did not quite say that.

Deputy Twomey

We saw what happened.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

We will drive on with this business.

Deputy Twomey

That is why we need to get all of the information on what problems may have been encountered in the past so that we can discuss this and move it forward. I cannot wait to see those 15,000 jobs——

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I think——

Deputy R. Bruton

If we are to proceed with this, we ought to bring in the trade unions which have a very different view of this as they are worried about the damage this may do to the coherence of some Departments. We should hear the views of those who are experts in spatial strategy and have openly expressed their concern as to whether we can nuance the way in which this proceeds.

If we are to go down this road, I will not be party to just bringing Mr. Phil Flynn in to tell us how he plans to proceed. I want to have a serious opportunity to influence policy and to change some of these matters that I believe are wrong in the present proposal. If we decide to invest a lot of our time in this project, we need to ensure that there is something worthwhile at the end of it, so that the time we have put in will yield something of value.

If we exclude many of those who are unhappy and object to some of the features, yet who would like to see changes, we are engaging in a pointless exercise. If we are to have serious hearings on this, we need some indication that the Government is interested in responding to the recommendations we make. I do not want the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, to stand up and say that he does not give a damn about what the committee thinks or recommends but that he will proceed in his own way and that his way is best.

Deputy C. Lenihan

The problem is that he has made a decision. This is what I find a bit odd. Deputy Bruton is trying to change the decision that was made.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Through the Chair——

Deputy C. Lenihan

All that we can look at is the process of implementation and whether we have the wherewithal in place to implement this.

Chairman

Deputy Ó Caoláin has the floor.

Deputy Ó Caolain

There are a number of elements that need to be addressed. The point about the national spatial strategy is worthy of our attention in the context of the decentralisation programme now proposed and the fact that many hub towns have been excluded from the selected list.

Another aspect which has been completely ignored, and which I raised with the Minister for Finance today across the floor of the House, is the matter of ancillary staff within the Departments now earmarked for decentralisation. There are several hundred people involved as all of the ancillary staff here in support of the Houses of the Oireachtas will be able to affirm. These are people whose positions are replicated in different Departments at all levels, such as cleaners, who are not members of either the civil or public service.

I wish to know the proposals of the Minister for Finance in detail, despite his assurances today that he will ensure they will all be swallowed up within the Departments that will remain in Dublin. It is not proposed that those people, several hundred in number, would be relocated to the provinces. What has the Minister for Finance put on paper for the futures and guarantees of employment for those people? That is important.

Is there detailed knowledge about the reignited hope and expectation of many to be relocated within a catchment area close to their place of origin, their county of birth or of choice? There will be a significant increase in the expressed wish for interdepartmental transfer in order to accommodate a long standing ambition to be relocated within a given region.

In the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism, which will be relocated to Killarney, there may be people in that Department currently in Dublin who are from the northern part of the country. The idea of moving to Killarney is something which further removes them from access to their home, their family and friends. They may wish to relocate to another Department, for instance, the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources in Cavan. Will there be accommodation of the wishes of such people? Are the Minister for Finance and the Department of Finance prepared to accommodate the expected increased number of such requests? What proposals have the Minister and the Department in place to accommodate those requests?

Deputy Burton

This committee could be facilitated if we could draw up an agreed schedule for examining this issue. It is not a question of Mr. Phil Flynn rushing in here to give his presentation. This committee has worked best on the discussions on the Freedom of Information Bill and on section 481 when we have heard a range of views about the topics. There are enormous positive elements to decentralisation. There are also some very difficult elements to it. There is no point in pretending that there are not positive and negative features to this. We had best do our work as a committee by seeking to address both elements of the proposal.

Senator Mansergh has joined us. People who served in the diplomatic service - they may well be delighted to do so - may now have to transfer abroad approximately every five years. Within Ireland, they will probably also have to transfer between Dublin and Limerick on a regular basis, given that the ODA section is now the largest section of the Department.

There are also human issues. Where both partners of a couple are working in different offices, it is incumbent on us as a committee to examine the pros and cons of the issue. As a committee, we have done best when we took that approach.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I am rather surprised at what I have heard. I am appalled. The committee must have been on vacation since the budget. I have a long list of applications from people who wish to come to three Departments in Cork.

Deputy Burton

These proposals apply to the Civil Service Commission. Why are people in the Civil Service applying to Deputy O'Keeffe? This is what people fear about decentralisation. They fear that applications will not be sent to the Civil Service Commission but to Deputy O'Keeffe.

(Interruptions).

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I have the floor.

Chairman

I am ringing this bell.

Deputy Burton

We have had an independent, non-corrupt Civil Service and we should keep it.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

That is beneath the Chairman.

Deputy Twomey

Deputy Burton must know very little about the life of a rural deputy if she would even pose that question.

Deputy Burton

We have had a relatively uncorrupted public service——

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

We still have.

Deputy Burton

——and it is an important value that we should seek to maintain and uphold.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I do not wish to interrupt Deputy Burton but I stand over what I said. I have a long list of people looking for transfers to the various new decentralised offices in Cork who want to transfer from various offices in Dublin and other parts of the country back to Cork, Mallow, Youghal and Mitchelstown. These people have come to me as their public representative. They are interested in having the Government put the decentralisation process speedily in place.

I am shocked that some of my colleagues here, who are public representatives, are so out of touch.

Deputy Twomey

I hope you can accommodate all of them in the three years.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

This is something that those of us on the Opposition benches have to address. It is not a question of being out of touch. The reality is that some of the members here are not listening to what we have said.

When the idea of Mr. Phil Flynn coming before the committee was first mooted, I stated that I had no difficulty with it and welcomed it. This has been developed by other members, including Deputy Bruton. It is a sensible approach in the sense of having the opportunity to hear the full range of views. It is strange that other members would not agree to that.

There is no hostility towards the proposition for decentralisation. The strongest advocates and proponents of this policy have been the Opposition voices in the House over the past number of years and long before 1999 when the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, first announced his intentions.

Senator J. Higgins

As somebody who has been champing at the Minister's heels since 1979, indeed since 1999, I am delighted to hear this excellent announcement. Naturally areas being assigned public office jobs are ecstatic about it. There are four or five issues that need to be resolved, one of which is the spatial strategy. Simply, the two do not marry. We need to get somebody in to answer that question. There is also the practicality and the timeframe. This is a massive operation in terms of buildings and staff transfers. To try to work that into a logistical framework will be difficult and we need an indication how it will happen.

The third issue, promotional opportunities, will be crucial in relation to the attitude of the unions. We have had decentralisation to different places - Cavan, Letterkenny, Sligo, Castlebar and Galway - but it happened on a phased basis. It was easy to do it because it was done on a one by one, incremental basis. This massive splurge at the same time will be extremely difficulty to achieve. Promotional opportunities will be vital. There was a ten week strike last year at the Department of Agriculture and Food in Castlebar which literally paralysed the agriculturel sector, and particularly the beef sector, for a considerable period. Staff will not be willing to transfer unless they get an assurance that promotional opportunities will be the same as if they were based in Agriculture House, D'Olier House or elsewhere. We are not being politically opportunistic about this. We want it to happen and in the fastest possible timeframe but we want it done on a structured basis where there will be no upheaval.

Senator Mansergh

To be fair to everyone, the principle of decentralisation, with a few exceptions, has all party support. I have a statement on my desk from the local Fine Gael Deputy claiming a large share of the credit that 200 jobs in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform are going to Tipperary town. I spoke with the Secretary General of a Department this afternoon - I will not specify the name because it would not be fair to the person involved - from which a significant number of jobs is being decentralised to the country. His view and the view of his management committee was that this was a Government decision and that they were there to make it work, not to obstruct it and they would do their best to implement it. They would not need to be continually prodded by the Minister of State's, Deputy Tom Parlons, committee to get on with it.

There is not much point in picking over the decisions and locations that have already been decided on. I am quite clear, having listened to the Taoiseach and Ministers over a number of months before any specific details were available, that their understanding of a national spatial strategy was not that decentralisation should go exclusively to hubs and gateways. In many cases, the towns concerned were fairly prosperous, had much industry and so on and it would be of far more benefit to medium sized towns. Hubs and gateways benefit from some of the decentralisation proposals. It will make a real difference to towns and Tipperary is one example, but there are many others. Responsibility for co-ordination of the implementation has been given to the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon. If we accept there are some loose ends, for example, offices that are not allocated to any particular place - IT was mentioned - there is an ongoing Government policy statement which provides that if any new office is to be established the implementation committee will try to find somewhere out of Dublin rather than in Dublin to locate it. Perhaps the Minister of State could be invited to come before the joint committee in the new year. Obviously there will be a multiplicity of practical considerations. The joint committee may be in a position to make a constructive input. I would see our role as being that rather than trying to unpick ab initio the decisions that have been made. I would not see that as going anywhere.

Chairman

I am concluding the discussion on this matter for the moment. It is an issue to which the joint committee will return. I wish to correct the Senator on one mistake he repeated three times. The Government has established an implementation committee chaired by Phil Flynn to report to a Cabinet sub-committee - the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, Minister for Finance and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government - and not to a Minister of State. The Minister for Finance made clear in the Dáil today that it was a Cabinet decision and that no Minister of State had any input whatever into the matter.

Senator Mansergh

I did not say anything to that effect.

Chairman

The Senator gave the impression that a particular Minister of State was in some way responsible or involved in this more than other Ministers. It is a Cabinet sub-committee.

Senator Mansergh

I share the constituency chair.

Chairman

The joint committee will return to this topic at the next meeting and discuss it further as part of our work programme. I am moving on. We are still under the heading of correspondence. I understand there will be a vote in the House in 15 minutes and I wish to conclude business. We have to completea few items of work before the Christmasrecess.

The next item is a letter from the Department of Finance which has been circulated. It provides information which was sought by the joint committee when we met the departmental officials on 18 September to discuss the EU VAT directive. I propose the letter be noted. Is it agreed that the letter be noted? Agreed.

A letter from the chief executive of the Bank of Scotland has been circulated. The bank suggests a date for the briefing of members on issues which arose in our discussion with it in July. The bank proposes a presentation in Dublin on Thursday, 29 January, from approximately 12 noon to 4 p.m. The bank has told the clerk it will also invite business journalists, the Competition Authority and the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority to attend. The clerk has drawn my attention to an inaccuracy in the letter. The bank was not advised that members had a preference for the presentation to be in Dublin; rather the clerk asked that the bank consider whether visitors would in any way enhance the value of the briefing for members and whether, in the absence of any added value, the balance of convenience for members lay in the bank bringing the officials to Dublin. Does the joint committee wish to advise the bank that the date proposed is suitable? I want a ''yes" or "no answer as we are not discussing the bank. The only issue to be dealt with here——

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

This is very important. Why is this bank getting preference over other banks?

Chairman

It should not.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

The bank gave us an option of going to Edinburgh and I offeredto go. It was going to fly us Ryanair, the least expensive airline it could get. Who changed the decision?

Chairman

The bank did because it is inviting a number of journalists, business correspondents and others. I see the agreement as to whether members of the joint committee——

Deputy Burton

Is that part of a PR exercise?

Chairman

Yes, that is all it is. If a member of the joint committee chooses to go he or she is free to do so. As Chairman, I will not be going to represent the joint committee whether in Dublin or Edinburgh.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Is it coming here now?

Chairman

No.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Where is it taking us?

Chairman

To its office on St. Stephen's Green.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

That is fair enough.

Chairman

We will advise the bank that the date proposed is suitable and it is up to individual members of the committee to decide whether to attend.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Will tea and toast be available?

Chairman

Members of the joint committee are free to attend if they so choose. The next item concerns EU scrutiny - consideration of present position re proposals COM.2003 397 and 446. The joint committee agreed on 13 October to scrutinise EU proposals COM.2003 397 and 446 which dealt, respectively, with rates of VAT and mutual assistance in the field of direct and indirect taxation. The proposals were referred to the joint committee on 14 October. It had been intended to scrutinise the proposals at this meeting with the assistance of officials from the Department of Finance. The Department of Finance has advised us that document 446 was agreed by ECOFIN on 10 November and that 397 is no longer under active discussion and will be replaced by a new proposal. A briefing note from the Department has been circulated.

It appears the committee has two options. We can scrutinise the proposals and report to the House in the usual way or, alternatively, we can revoke the decision to scrutinise the proposals and inform the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny. We can then draw the attention of the sub-committee to the difficulties which have arisen and ask whether it can review procedures to ensure that unforeseen developments are notified to the committee to which proposals have been referred. I suggest we adopt the latter course of action because it is a pointless exercise proceeding to scrutinise these documents when they are no longer relevant to us, and we should inform the committee accordingly. I do not want a major discussion but we should inform the committee.

Deputy Burton

It is a procedural point.

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy Burton

We are getting tons of this regulatory material. I do not know if other members are reading it in detail but I do not have an opportunity to do that. We should be getting, as is the case with other committees, an executive summary of what is contained in the proposals, not prepared by the officials for the Minister but for us as a committee because in many cases we have no idea what we are signing off on. On this specific one I have a query. I would like to get a briefing on the discussion in the European Union about VAT on personal and labour intensive services such as restaurants and - I declare a personal interest here - hairdressing, which has got very expensive. A number of EU countries have lower VAT rates for labour intensive and tourism industries like restaurants and personal services, such as hairdressing and so on. I would like a briefing on our position and the position the EU has arrived at in that regard because what happened in France in terms of restaurant services was extremely positive for its tourism industry, and we could take a leaf out of its book.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I support Deputy Burton. We are constantly signing off on documents without knowing what is in them or having some idea of what we are doing. We should get some expertise in that regard. Could we employ someone who could advise us on those documents?

Chairman

The document circulated has a briefing——

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

My question is very simple. Could we employ a consultant who would read those documents and advise us on them?

Chairman

We are free to do that.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

That is the type of expertise we want, although I do not know whether members agree.

Chairman

We are free to decide to do that. Until now we have chosen to invite officials from the Department to give us a briefing. That has been our course of action but we are free to take an alternative course of action if we so choose. For now, can we agree to write to the EU scrutiny sub-committee telling it of our decision not to scrutinise these proposals because of the circumstances we have outlined? Agreed. We will consider how we should scrutinise these documents as part of our work programme for next year.

The next item on our agenda is the main item but we will briefly comment on it. It deals with the consideration of the draft report on the policy of commercial banks regarding customer charges and interest rates. Members will recall the hearings held during the summer and an aide-mémoire has been circulated to members which summarised some of the key points raised in our discussion. It does not seek to comment on the positive or negative aspects but lists a number of the points that were made. The clerk has prepared a draft of a report we might choose to lay before the House and it is in the format of the section 481 report. It has an introduction, an overview, recommendations, a summary of the submissions from the ten groups we invited in and a list of appendices. I am sure members will agree that the format of the report is correct. I would like to finalise the consideration of that report before the Christmas recess in view of the fact that we had hearings with ten organisations, some of them prior to the summer and others immediately afterwards. It would be remiss of us if we did not issue a report before Christmas because it will be a pointless exercise coming back next year——

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Next week is loaded in terms of work. Why can we not defer it to January when there will be more time available?

Chairman

For the very good reason that people have spoken about the effectiveness of this committee in terms of freedom of information and section 481. We were so effective because when we did our business we issueda report promptly. The concept of havinghearings last June and issuing a report next February does not sit well with me as Chairman. We will draft the report. All members have to do is agree with it or amend it accordingly next week.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I would like to speak on the report.

Chairman

We will have a meeting next week.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

It will be a very busy week; it is the party week also. Why can we not come back the first week in January?

Deputy R. Bruton

We will not get much publicity for a report launched in the mouth of Christmas. Deputy O'Keeffe's suggestion is——

Ms Burton

I suggest the second week of January.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I agree with 2 January.

Deputy Burton

The second week of January, not 2 January.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Why not 2 January?

Deputy R. Bruton

Will the Deputy not be in Leopardstown then?

Chairman

I suggest a morning session on Wednesday, 14 January.

The joint committee adjourned at 7 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 14 January 2004.