The draft minutes of the meeting of 14 January have been circulated. Are they agreed? Agreed. Are there any questions arising from the minutes?
Business of Joint Committee.
Has our document been submitted to the Competition Authority?
We have not completed the report.
Is the Chairman taking submissions from us today?
We did that at last week's meeting.
Will the report only include what was said here?
We agreed at the last meeting that as we had in front of us a summary of all the presentations, the clerk would make a first draft of a report of the recommendation from what was said and one or two members from each group would meet informally to put it together for a future meeting. We have not got that done yet.
I would like to be involved.
Agreed.
When will we get around to it?
It probably will be at least a week before we have our first detailed discussion on that draft report.
We have a number of items of correspondence to consider. A letter has been received from the Ceann Comhairle in his capacity as chairperson of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. Enclosed with the letter is a protocol governing interaction by the commission with committees. I suggest we note the correspondence and reply to that effect. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Two further letters have been received from a correspondent who is dissatisfied with the outcome of a settlement with the Revenue Commissioners and with the role of the Ombudsman in his case. The committee has previously sought information from both sides. We have passed them on for detailed replies to the person in question. I would like to make two points. First, it is not a function of the committee to investigate individual cases with the Revenue Commissioners. Second, it is not a function of the committee to initiate investigations of individual cases which have already been dealt with by the Ombudsman. Do any members wish to comment on the correspondence?
I accept what the Chairman has said about the role of the committee. When I raised this issue with the Revenue Commissioners at a meeting of this committee, I was under the impression that a number of people were in this category, not just one person. I read the correspondence because the man has written to the committee on a number of occasions.
It seems that the Ombudsman said that this man had a case. The relevant amount was approximately €600,000. Rather than settling the case, however, the Revenue Commissioners questioned the authority of the Office of the Ombudsman and decided to engage in a horse-deal on the matter. This resulted in a reduction of the commitment of the Revenue Commissioners from €600,000 to €300,000. I think the man in question has made a valid point. What is the authority of the Office of the Ombudsman in its dealings with the Revenue Commissioners? I do not wish to re-open one man's case, but it is an issue. It has transpired that an individual, whose case was supported by the Office of the Ombudsman and whose affairs were supposed to be settled for €600,000, will have to settle for half that amount.
Does it appear to the Deputy that the Ombudsman agreed to the settlement figure on behalf of the individual taxpayer without him giving authority for it?
My judgment, which is based on the correspondence, is that this appears to be the case. We may not have a role in the matter, but I think it is an extraordinary case in so far as the two aspects of it are concerned. We should raise the matter with the Revenue Commissioners or the Office of the Ombudsman. Something has gone amiss. The Office of the Ombudsman requested a settlement of €600,000 for the man, but he actually got €300,000. He has referred to the McGrath-type settlements. The man's case is the only one of its type. It seems unusual. If I owe the Revenue Commissioners €600,000, they will look for it, plus interest. I would not have an opportunity to do a deal with them or to have discussions with them. It seems irregular that the Revenue Commissioners can decide not to recognise what the Ombudsman says and, consequently, offer €300,000.
I concur with what Deputy McGuinness has said. While I am familiar with the name of the man involved in this case — I am aware that this case has previously presented — I do not have a detailed recall of the historical data. The letter from Mr. Kearns implies that the Ombudsman felt compelled to accept for fear that he would end up with nothing for the plaintiff. That is an incredible situation. The letter clearly states that figures of €100,000, €200,000 and €300,000 were originally offered. It merits and requires a form of inquiry on our part. The matter has been directed to the Chair in the interests of justice.
I am approaching this in an objective way. I have said that I do not recall any of the detail previously furnished. Given that many questions are posed by the letter to the committee, we should update ourselves with the detail from the Office of the Ombudsman and the Revenue Commissioners. We should recommend, through whatever means, that justice be seen to be done in this case. I appreciate that we have heard from just one side of the argument, but if only half of the evidence we have been given is correct and will stand up to closer scrutiny, it is certain that an injustice has been done and has yet to be resolved.
I concur with Deputy McGuinness. I urge that we should not just set it aside, note it or ignore it. It merits and requires some form of inquiry. The committee should decide how it will recommend a course of action.
I will have to leave shortly for another engagement and I apologise for that. I concur with the comments of the previous speakers.
I wish to discuss the future work of the committee, which is the other item on the agenda. I have noted a number of issues, such as the cost of tax breaks, which I have raised previously. I would like to mention them again, with the permission of the Chair. I am interested in the changes in the budget in respect of public service pensions, particularly as they relate to the conditions and terms of employment of teachers.
The strategic management initiative was raised by Deputy Finneran on a number of occasions. I have raised my discussions with the Deputy with the Chairman. I would like the committee to find time during the year to discuss with the Revenue Commissioners the non-residency rules in respect of taxation. I have prepared a brief note on the matter. I would also like to mention the issue of income inequality in the context of budgetary and financial strategy. I would like to give my note to the committee's officials. I apologise for leaving.
I do not want the committee to have a full public discussion on the case of the individual from whom we have received correspondence. Perhaps it would be suitable for the clerk and me to meet Mr. Kearns on behalf of the committee.
I would like to comment.
Perhaps I would be able to get a full understanding of the issue if I spoke to him face to face. I could then report back to the committee. His case has been with the Ombudsman, who is satisfied that Mr. Kearns indicated acceptance of the offer. We have received correspondence to that effect from the Ombudsman.
I am not sure what we are discussing.
I am reading from the letter sent by the Office of the Ombudsman to this committee last August. It advised the gentleman in question of developments when officials met him on 22 January 2003. He indicated shortly afterwards that he was willing to accept the offer and payment issued to him. The Ombudsman has put that on the public record in a letter to this committee.
I am aware of the case, which has been considered by this committee and its predecessor for more than two years. I understand the reticence in respect of getting involved in a major inquiry. I am not sure that the committee should be doing that. There is an issue here. It is very hard for us to walk away——
Yes.
——from an individual who has a clearly stated case. There does seem to be a sense of injustice. I have thought about it. As far as I am concerned, the thing broke down after it left the Ombudsman the first time. I know the Chairman has made the point that the man in question accepted the money, but it is a kind of moral blackmail, or "whitemail", in a sense, to say to somebody that they may get nothing and should grab what is available before moving on for the rest. I would not worry too much about that. I am worried about another situation, however. We all accept the Ombudsman's results, whether we like them or not.
The Ombudsman normally makes compromises. They are never necessarily——
I know. I am speaking about the Ombudsman's decisions. The legislation is clear enough. If they do not like the outcome of the Ombudsman's deliberations, they can bring back the matter to the Houses. This committee, or the last committee, brought in the Revenue Commissioners and the previous Ombudsman to discuss an issue. The Ombudsman had written to us to say that the Revenue Commissioners had not imposed his recommendations. When we discussed the matter at this forum, the Revenue Commissioners conceded on the issue. I feel that is the way it should happen. If there is a point of appeal, or a point of compromise as Deputy McGuinness referred to it, after the Ombudsman has made a ruling, there is something wrong — it is not working. If the case is that the Ombudsman got it right, that should be the end of the matter and the decision should be implemented. It should not be the case that one can start bargaining at that point. That is not acceptable, unless there is something I do not understand, which is why I am being so circumspect.
If there is some issue, it should be explained to us by the Ombudsman. If the Ombudsman's decision was not going to be implemented by the Revenue Commissioners, why did the Ombudsman make it? Is it commonly the case that the outcome from the Ombudsman is simply a starting point for negotiations? It is not good for any of us. If it happened in this case, it can happen in every other case. The next time round, it will be a person who is not happy with the Ombudsman's outcome who will ask us to second guess the Ombudsman.
In this case, I would like the position of the joint committee to be that it supports the Ombudsman's finding and wishes to know why it has not been implemented in full. That is the point being raised by Deputy McGuinness and that is where our concern should be. The rights and the wrongs of the case have been assessed by everybody involved. It is not our job to do that. We accept the Ombudsman's outcome and we need to know why it was not implemented.
We had difficulties with the Revenue Commissioners involving repayments some time back. It was unsatisfactory. We should look at the workings of Revenue. I recognise the difficulty of collecting money, but our organisation has regulators and an independent Ombudsman. We should examine the overall workings of Revenue because this is only one of what are probably several cases. There should be a way for a person to get around an irregularity or an injustice like the one there may be in this case. As Senator O'Toole says, this case has been around for the last two or three years. I thought we had closed the book on it, but we are opening it again this evening. We should bring Revenue in to ask them about the situation.
We are not opening the book on this case. I will not go into detail, but I looked up the arguments around this. The Ombudsman agreed the amount which should be settled for and informed Revenue. Revenue then entered into horse trading and the figure went way down. The Ombudsman said at a meeting here that he settled because he might have got nothing. That is not the position which should exist. Deputy Ó Caoláin is perfectly right in what he said. We cannot allow this to be the case.
If the committee is to meet Revenue, its members must look over the reports from some of the other meetings we have had to understand what the Ombudsman was saying at that time. My understanding is that the Ombudsman said the man in question was entitled to €600,000 and should get it. That is my view unless there is something odd which we are missing.
I do not know.
I do not want to prolong but on the last occasion we received a recommendation from the Ombudsman on disadvantaged widows. The nub of the issue was that he was offering nominal compensation for money which was taken from them years ago. The real value of what they lost was substantially more. In that case, substantial change to the Finance Act was eventually required to allow the concession to be made by the Revenue Commissioners. There is a certain degree of urgency if substantive changes to relevant Acts will be needed in respect of this case. A Finance Act will be before the Houses in February and we must be in a position to identify the source of the problem. Is there a defect in law which is resulting in the Revenue approach?
For the Ombudsman to say that the person involved was affected by the improper, unfair and unsound actions of the Revenue Commissioners is fairly strong meat. It deserves clarification as to why the Revenue Commissioners find themselves in the position of refusing. We must seek to find whether we must recommend legal or procedural changes in accordance with our responsibilities.
I agree with what has been said. The difference with the previous case was that the Ombudsman chose to prepare a specific special report to lay before the Oireachtas which we followed up on. The Ombudsman has not chosen to take that action in this case. In an effort to move things on, I suggest that rather than bringing the individual taxpayer here in public session, which would not necessarily be the right thing to do, the Chairman, the clerk and a member from each group should meet the man formally, but not in a full session of the committee. At that point we will decide whether to talk to the Ombudsman or the Revenue Commissioners and report back to the joint committee.
I do not think that is the way we should deal with the matter. While it is a very fair offer, the effect would be to reopen the case. We would have to come to some conclusion on it, which I do not wish us to have to do. The matter has already been ruled on by the Ombudsman. I wish to know if the Ombudsman will have to produce a special report every time he or she wishes to get something done. That would be a huge burden. I do not know about other committee members, but I would be happier if the Chairman met with the Ombudsman to discover his views about the implementation of his decision. Why was a stronger stand not taken or should it have been?
The man's case is clear. He was right and the Revenue Commissioners were wrong. We do not need to open that matter again. The amount of money involved was clear, but he did not get it. He did not get it because after the Ombudsman came to a conclusion, the Revenue Commissioners decided to second guess it and to begin what Deputy McGuinness described as horse trading. That is where the problem is. If it is allowed to happen once, members know the Revenue Commissioners will do it every time.
In response to the question of whether the Ombudsman had brought to a conclusion the process as set out in section 6 of the Ombudsman Act in dealing with Revenue's response to its recommendation, the Ombudsman's office corresponded with this committee last August to the effect that it has closed the book. The gentleman in question is not satisfied that the Ombudsman has closed the book. What does the committee recommend?
Perhaps in that case we need to meet both parties.
It is an exceptional case. It is the only one of its kind and we will not set a precedent. A refund was recommended. Does the committee agree that a representative of each group, the clerk and I should meet the Ombudsman?
Should we not get the parliamentary law officer's view on what has been arrived at? There is a legal issue involved. If this man is claiming "x", is there not a legal issue?
We might have to do that, but we will not do it yet.
The Ombudsman has operated fairly and independently to produce excellent reports, as we saw in relation to the two instances of redress. We should be trying to ascertain in consultation with the Ombudsman whether there is a need to beef up the 1980 Act to oblige the Revenue Commissioners or whoever else to enforce a recommendation from the Ombudsman's office.
Was there not a case involving the Revenue Commissioners and the Ombudsman which concerned payments to widows? After some toing and froing and embarrassment, moneys were repaid. Am I right about that?
In that case, the Ombudsman chose to lay a special report before the Oireachtas which we examined. The Ombudsman has not chosen to take that action in this instance but says rather that the case is closed.
However, the Ombudsman will mention the matter in the annual report which will come before the Houses of the Oireachtas anyway.
Not necessarily. The Ombudsman believes this case is closed. Maybe we will meet the Ombudsman first and we will take the correspondence.
Could we get further correspondence on the basis of their agreement of the figures? Can we get a grip of how the figure went from €600,000 to €300,000?
It was the result of horse trading. That is all.
There must be some basis for it. That is my point.
There is not.
Does the Chairman have a letter from the Revenue Commissioners on the matter?
Yes. We circulated it some time ago. I believe it is here from 1 July. I do not know where to start with this letter.
There is an issue.
The Revenue Commissioners say that in the event the discussions yielded a compromise solution which resulted in the payment of €300,000 by them to the gentleman in question in full and final settlement.
That is the issue, Chairman. In the correspondence from the Office of the Ombudsman, very serious remarks about the Revenue Commissioners were made. It was stated that the man was entitled to €600,000 but the Ombudsman decided to accept €300,000 without consulting him, out of fear of losing everything. It is wrong that the Ombudsman should have to enter into horse trading with anybody after reaching a very strong conclusion on behalf of a person who made a submission to his office. For the Revenue Commissioners to use their muscle to turf out the €600,000 demand and offer €300,000 is not good enough.
I wish to bring this discussion to a conclusion.
On that point, why are we meeting the Ombudsman, who acted as a kind of conduit between the Revenue Commissioners and the person in question, when we should be meeting the Revenue Commissioners to ask the reason they did not pay up?
There is an important point here. The Ombudsman recommended a payment of €600,000. We need to find out why and how that figure was arrived at because figures are not plucked from the air.
We cannot do the Ombudsman's work again. The figure of €600,000, which was never paid, was recommended by the Ombudsman. If this were to become practice, the role of the Ombudsman would lose its value.
This is how the Ombudsman works every day in respect of cases where a choice has to be made between an individual and a State body. The Ombudsman regularly makes recommendations which State bodies refuse to accept because they regard them as over the top. The essence of the role of the Ombudsman is to try to find a compromise between a person who feels he or she has been treated unfairly and the relevant State institution. Every case dealt with by the Ombudsman's office involves trying to satisfy both parties. The Ombudsman and the Revenue believed the matter was closed whereas the individual concerned was not satisfied. That is the difference.
With the greatest respect, the Ombudsman is not a tangler.
She is and has to be every day of the week.
She cannot pluck figures out of the air but must base her recommendations, in this case of a payment of €600,000, on hard, substantial facts. We need to get to the nub of the question as to how a figure can be halved.
The Chairman and one member from each of the groups should meet to discuss the matter, without prejudice, before reporting back to the joint committee.
Yes, I do not want to have a full debate on this issue now. Should we meet the gentleman concerned?
Yes, provided the Chairman has informed himself of all the salient details.
I need to refresh my knowledge of the issue. I suggest we meet the Ombudsman in the first instance to find out her view on the outcome before reporting back to the joint committee. The clerk will arrange for a member of each of the groups to be present, if they so wish. While I would be happy to proceed alone, we could have a representative of each of the groups at the informal meeting with the Ombudsman.
The next item on the agenda is the annual report, a substantial document which has been circulated to members in recent days. I hope we are in a position to reach agreement and approve the report today as it contains nothing contentious.
The draft covering the period from the establishment of the joint committee at the end of 2003 to date has been circulated. Standing Orders require that an annual report be produced detailing the work carried out by the committee and work in progress. They also require the committee to report to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges at least once a year on its role and procedures generally, to prepare a work programme which must be laid before the Houses, and to lay our minutes before the Houses. Standing Orders permit, but do not require, the committee to include the matters in the annual report. The structure of the report is broadly in line with the template used by all committees. I suggest we consider the report section by section, making amendments as we proceed.
Section 1 describes the content and format of the report. Is it agreed that a review of procedures and minutes of the proceedings be included in the report?
I propose the adoption of the report and commend the officials for their work in compiling it.
I ask that we formally agree the report. Is section 1 agreed? Agreed. Is section 2, which describes the functions and powers of the committee, agreed? Agreed. Is section 3, which records information on the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, conveners and members, agreed? Agreed. Is section 4, which deals with the broadcasting and reporting of meetings and indicates where copies of the reports may be obtained, agreed? Agreed. Is section 5, which records the number and total duration of meetings, agreed? Agreed. Is section 6, which sets out factually the work done by the committee during the period covered by the report, agreed?
On section 6, we should include in our annual report the list of recommendations made by the committee in the course of a year and the progress, if any, made in implementing them. We have, for example, made significant recommendations on tax matters, section 481 and the Ombudsman and the payment of revenue, all of which should be recorded. In addition, we should obtain a comment from the relevant institution on our recommendation, whether it has been implemented and, if not, the reason. This would be useful.
Section 4 refers to four reports. The first, the Ombudsman's special report on redress for taxpayers, was dealt with in the Finance Act. As regards the second, the hearings relating to the high level review group on the Freedom of Information Act 1997, report to the Government and related matters, the legislation was passed with some, though not all, of the requested amendments. The draft Civil Service code of standards and behaviour was accepted without amendment by the committee. With regard to section 481 tax relief for the film industry, the amendments as requested in the Finance Act were announced in the budget. The annual report, therefore, records our successes.
We should ensure that each of the reports to which the Chairman refers is systematically included in the annual report in a table. In the event that a recommendation is not accepted, we should call in the relevant body, for instance, the Revenue Commissioners, to explain the reason.
I agree. These matters will be covered in future reports. Is section 6.2, which lists matters considered by the select committee, agreed? Agreed.
Section 7, which deals with work in progress, refers to the carry-over of the report on bank charges and interest rates, a matter to which the committee will return in 2004. Is the section agreed? Agreed. Is section 8, which records how the joint committee's budgetary allocation for official travel was spent here and abroad, agreed? Agreed.
Section 9 deals with the requirements to report to the CPP and both Houses on general procedures and rules. The section reports that the committee is satisfied with the current procedures and rules. It should be noted that the committee can report at any time to the CPP on this issue and does not have to wait for an annual report. Is the section agreed? Agreed.
Is appendix 1, which features the committee's orders of reference, agreed? Agreed. Is appendix 2, which records the members of the joint committee, agreed? Agreed. Is appendix 3, which lists the meetings of the joint committee during the period under review and the main topics considered, agreed? Agreed.
I refer the Chairman to the meeting of 1 October 2003 at which we received a presentation by the Department of Finance on decentralisation. This meeting took place nearly three months ago and we are still waiting for——
An announcement was made on budget day on decentralisation.
Members of this committee have still not received a response to questions we asked concerning the problems encountered to date in the decentralisation process.
We will consider the matter as part of our 2004 work programme.
Information was supposed to be relayed from the Department of Finance to the committee. When we asked about decentralisation, we were informed by the Department that the matter could not be discussed because it was being discussed at Cabinet level. We were also told the Department would inform us of any problems encountered in the decentralisation of 4,000 other posts, which took place prior to the forthcoming round of decentralisation.
We will clarify the matter and report back. If this information was due to be supplied to the committee, we will ensure the matter is followed up. We have a record of the matter in the minutes and can initiate queries from today.
Is appendix 4, which details the meetings of the select committee in the period under review, agreed? Agreed. Appendix 5 contains the minutes of the proceedings of the joint committee, as agreed, except for the following changes: wherever the name of a correspondent who was dissatisfied with the outcome of a settlement with the Revenue Commissioners has been deleted, a note indicating that fact has been inserted; and in the minutes of 26 November 2003 details of a matter considered in private session have been deleted. Is appendix 5 agreed? Agreed.
Is it agreed that the draft annual report, as amended, be adopted as the annual report of the committee? Agreed. In accordance with Standing Orders, the report will now be laid before both Houses. That concludes our consideration of the annual report.
The other main item on our agenda today is the work programme for 2004 which was circulated to members today. We will have an opening discussion on the programme today.
One of the things we ought to do is pick a number of agencies that are under our remit and indicate to them that we intend to invite them before the committee to account for their stewardship. These agencies include the National Treasury Management Agency, An Post National Lottery Company, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Chief State Solicitor, the Civil Service Commission and the Office of the Ombudsman.
A strong case exists for us to commence a systematic process for looking at bodies within our remit, their strategic statements and the extent to which they are fulfilling their objectives efficiently and effectively. The Central Bank is also included.
This has not been a feature of our work to date. We should agree a schedule for them to appear before us. We should notify them well in advance of their appearance before the committee of the type of submission we require from them and supply them with the format of the type of examination we will undertake. We have a role in regard to the accountability of these bodies and we should take it more seriously.
Decentralisation has a strong political dimension but there are also implications in regard to effectiveness, efficiency and so on. Without turning this into a political debate, under the SMI we have responsibility for this. The accounting officer of each Department is responsible for carrying out a risk assessment of the impact of any major change such as decentralisation on the operation of the Department. As the committee responsible for strategic management we should examine how Departments will manage the risks that are clearly inherent in decentralisation which could damage the throughput of work, quality of service to customers and so on.
This is not to get into the rights or wrongs of the Government decision; it is rather to examine how we are going to manage it. To do that we need to recognise what the threats are and how Government and the public service accounting officers are going to manage the risks. This is an important issue and there will not be another forum other than a committee like this where Members of the Oireachtas can properly assess the working through of decentralisation. Regardless of what political party we belong to, we have a role in the scrutiny of this area.
I welcome Deputy Bruton's suggestion that we invite the National Treasury Management Agency to give an account of its stewardship. I think that was the phrase the Deputy used. It is with a little smile that I refer to the minutes of this discussion last year when that was the second of three proposals I made but Deputy Bruton did not support me in that proposition. The minute of 16 April 2003 will bear this out.
The Deputy is persuasive.
The Deputy is very welcome to that view. I fully concur. It is certainly something that should happen.
In regard to the list of issues we have for examination, I wish to focus on two of them. In addition to the NTMA, the National Pension Reserve Fund is also something that should be addressed.
The National Pension Reserve Fund will be in next week.
That is something I welcome very much. Are we getting any documentation in advance in regard to its work and current position?
We will see to that immediately.
That will be very helpful in terms of preparing for a useful and, I hope, constructive engagement with the representatives.
The other matter on the list on which I wish to focus is the review of the national development plan. Last year I suggested that we should do this on an annual basis and not just as a once-off event. We did not get around to doing it at all and it would be a most worthwhile exercise.
Proposals that I made last year form part of the programme for address in the current year. I hope it will prove to be the case. I ask the committee to consider two further areas which would be both useful and helpful and have a lot of public interest, namely the effect of the two currency reality on the island of Ireland. It is an historical echo of the punt and sterling after we gained an independent currency. The euro currency is not accepted in member states which are not within the eurozone. This is having a detrimental effect on the potential of the euro in economic life on the island of Ireland. It is just one example of where we have borders with non-eurozone jurisdictions and the consequential economic obstacle this proves to be. This obstacle does not go only one way; it prevents good, harmonious engagement in each direction. It would be helpful and useful to promote the idea of the adoption of the euro across EU member states, whatever the decision of the respective members states in terms of their own interest.
I live four miles from the Border and it is a major problem. One has to have a pocket with sterling and a pocket with euro. It kinks and distorts not only the economic but also the social and other dimensions of life for people, particularly in the northern area of our island, but it also has echoes in other situations within the European Union.
It would be helpful if we were to seek submissions from a variety of people involved in business, chambers of commerce and other players within the wider economic life of our people. It would be a useful address which I hope we could employ in urging or encouraging a re-evaluation of a dual currency reality in the north of Ireland, in Britain and other non-eurozone countries within the European Union.
The second of the proposals I asked the committee to consider in its work programme is an examination of the battery of tax reliefs. Members will recall that during the course of 2003, the Minister indicated that some 12 special designated tax reliefs were likely to fall in the course of budget 2004. This did not happen. We quite rightly argued for the retention of section 481 relief in terms of the Irish film industry, but there are many others. A proper evaluation of their real effect is necessary. We should examine the net benefit to Exchequer. I accept that we cannot undertake to examine all of them but a selection of two or three would be within the compass of the committee. We could do an evaluation of the pros and cons of their continuation. A number of them is due to fall at the end of this year. This committee is the appropriate body and could do valuable work in carrying out such an evaluation.
There are some great suggestions in the work programme. Reference has been made to decentralisation. The Government has established a committee to deal with this issue and we should invite it to meet with us to hear what progress it has made. Decentralisation was an important part of the budget and we are entitled to have an update from the committee.
There is some concern about the state of An Post and the possible impact on its saving schemes. I do not know what responsibility the NTMA has for this. We should invite An Post to meet with us so that we might discuss the impact of its financial status on the savings scheme. I do not know what strategy is in place to deal with any crisis that may arise. Semi-State bodies, such as Irish Shipping, have been liquidated in the past. I hope that we might be able to alleviate anxiety among investors.
We should also examine the area of electronic payments. Ireland is probably the worst country in Europe for electronic payments. I understand consultants prepared a report for the Department of the Taoiseach that showed a substantial sum — it may have been €500 million — could be saved by greater use of electronic payments. Finland and Holland are leading countries in the use of electronic payments. We should meet with the payments services organisation as it has a role to play. We should urge the Government to give leadership in this area. Only 30% of social welfare payments are made electronically. I do not know what percentage of Members' salaries is paid electronically. This committee can give leadership in this area. While the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business could discuss this issue, we should not let the ground be taken from us.
I agree with the issues raised by Deputies Richard Bruton and Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin.
I support the idea of meeting with agencies so that we might scrutinise their work and hold them to account. I would like a list of those agencies and groups. I support what Deputy O'Keeffe said about An Post. How far can we go with the scrutiny? The PAC can meet with the accounting officers and examine the accounts of agencies. Do we have the same function for the agencies that are answerable to us? This area should be examined and we should give priority to it in our work programme.
Deputy O'Keeffe referred to the area of ICT. I understand a committee within the Department of the Taoiseach deals with this. Much reference is made to ICT, e-procurement and e-government and we have a role to play in dealing with this. Can we meet with the banks, or the Central Bank, to discuss credit cards?
This committee also scrutinises legislation and five or six Bills are currently awaiting our scrutiny. These must be given priority, as I would not like the committee to be seen as falling behind in dealing with these Bills. After these are dealt with, we should prioritise the issues raised by Members.
I support the members that have called for an examination of the manner in which Departments make payments. There is an annual levy on ATM cards. There are a number of areas where savings can be made for the consumer and this committee should take a lead in examining this.
We might derive benefit from having a number of annual meetings with representatives from the Department of Finance to inform them of the feelings and policy commitments of this committee. The committee should also have an annual meeting with the Irish Bankers' Federation and other financial institutions, such as the insurance federation. This committee is now in its second year and we should set down some structures.
This committee would be termed the economic committee in other parliaments. We need to have formal sessions with the Minister for Finance that do not relate explicitly to legislation, but also to general issues of financial and economic management. This is important as the Department of Finance drives so many decisions and we are the primary financial and economic committee. While we meet the Minister to discuss the Estimates and the budget, we need two further sessions where we discuss the economy. This would formalise our primacy in the area of economic and financial policy.
The money transmission system is another issue that is being widely raised. Can we meet with the banks to get an explanation of how this system operates?
We met with the payments service organisation last autumn.
There is a perception that money transmission is not being fairly operated and banks are being excluded etc. This arises from the IFSRA and the Bank of Scotland. While this perception may not be justified, it exists nonetheless.
I appreciate that. The report we are carrying out on the policies of the commercial banks concerns customer charges and interest rates with which we will be dealing with in the coming weeks. We will specifically deal with and report on that issue at an early stage.
Are we dealing with it in terms of travel plans also?
No, we have not dealt with that. We will have to do so separately.
The role of the European Central Bank should also be a focus of inquiry for this committee, given its huge importance.
Yes.
This could be achieved either through a visit or a report we could issue. Perhaps it would be best served by a visit.
We have had a good discussion on the draft work programme before us and all the other items which have been suggested by members of the committee. Deputy Bruton mentioned a number of agencies which come under the remit of this committee, given that we clear their Estimates, which we did not have last year nor was it the case for previous Oireachtas finance committees. Lest they forget we exist it is important we invite those agencies because they have never had the opportunity to account for their activities in front of a Dáil committee. It would be useful.
Is there any other business for discussion? We will come back to the work programme when we assemble all the points from the discussion. The next meeting of the committee will be with the Latvian delegation and is scheduled for 10.30 a.m. next Tuesday, 27 January. A note on the issue of the delegation will be circulated before the weekend. The committee will also meet Mr. Donal Geaney, chairman of the Irish Pension Reserve Board at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 28 January, which is our main meeting next week. We will ask the board for information in advance of that meeting.
For the information of members of the select committee, the Department of Finance has indicated that the Minister of State at the Department, Deputy Parlon, will be available all day Thursday, 19 February for Committee Stage of the Public Service (Management, Recruitment and Appointments) Bill. The Department expects Second Stage to finish before 2 February and the day proposed falls in the clear week between Second Stage and Committee Stage of the Finance Bill.
I will not be here for the Latvian delegation on Tuesday and I was anxious to be. However, I will not be available and I would like my apology to be noted.
We will do so.
The joint committee adjourned at 5.35 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 27 January 2004.