JOINT COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 15 Sep 2004

Business of Joint Committee.

Chairman

Apologies have been received from Deputies Burton and Paul McGrath and Senators Higgins and Mansergh.

The draft minutes of the last three meetings of the joint committee have been circulated. Are the meetings of the two meetings of 28 July agreed? Agreed. Are the minutes of the meeting of 29 July agreed? Agreed. Arising from these minutes it was intended to meet the chairman and other representatives of AIB today. However, AIB had scheduling difficulties but indicated that the chairman and chief executive would be available to meet the committee on Tuesday, 19 October. I suggest a meeting at 3 p.m. on that date, subject to confirmation of the Dáil schedule and other such considerations. I suggest we agree that date.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

That date is a month away. Can the Chairman explain to the committee the scheduling difficulties of the representatives of AIB in terms of meeting it at an earlier opportunity?

Chairman

We tried to arrange for them to appear before the meeting today but AIB indicated its representatives were not available today because some of them would be abroad. I understand several members of the committee will be away next week. The Dáil will resume on 29 September. Normally we would schedule a committee meeting on that date but we will have to wait and see what will happen in the Dáil on that day and maybe we will be able to have a meeting. AIB indicated that the two gentlemen concerned would be abroad today.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

I welcome the firming up of a date for such a meeting, but it is unfortunate that it is a month from today. That is regrettable because arranging such a meeting has been strung out over several months.

Chairman

That point is noted.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

That all the clients of AIB who were overcharged have been reimbursed is a welcome development.

Chairman

We will not get into a discussion on that. We will save that for when the gentlemen concerned appear before the committee when the Deputy can suitably congratulate them.

Are there any other matters arising? I take it there are no other matters arising. Before we move on to deal with correspondence, I suggest we observe the following timetable for today's discussions. Following dealing with correspondence, we will meet representatives of the Association of Chief Executives of State Agencies in approximately half-an-hour's time until about 11.45 a.m. I suggest we then take a break of 15 minutes and then we will meet representatives of Dóchas and the Debt and Development Coalition from approximately 12 o'clock until 1.15 p.m. We should take a short break following the discussion with the Association of Chief Executives of State Agencies. Is that agreed? Agreed.

There is a large number of items to be considered under correspondence. I suggest we move through them as quickly as possible to avoid delay in hearing from the delegations.

The first item is a letter from the Debt and Development Coalition. A letter from Jean Somers, co-ordinator of the Debt and Development Coalition Ireland, has been circulated. Ms Somers requested an opportunity to address the committee before the IMF and the World Bank AGM at the beginning of October. As the committee would not have had the opportunity to consider that request until today and we had already agreed to meet delegates of Dóchas to discuss this matter, I anticipated the committee's approval and invited delegates from the coalition to today's meeting. I take it that is agreeable to members because they did not have a prior opportunity to agree that.

With regard to Maynooth College chapel, the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, sent a reply on foot of the committee's request for details of all grants in aid administered by the Office of Public Works since 1997 that were not the subject of generally applicable formal applications and approval procedures. Are members satisfied with the response from the Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works in connection with Maynooth College chapel? Additional information has been given, therefore we will note it at this stage. If members want to raise this matter, I am sure they will find other ways to do so. It has been raised here on a number of occasions.

On 28 July the committee agreed to seek further written information on the situation of farmer creditors of Tralee Beef and Lamb. Mr. Philip Healy responded substantively in respect of the creditors. The chief executive of Anglo Irish Bank also responded substantively and suggested that the receiver and liquidator might assist the committee in gaining a more comprehensive understanding of all the issues relating to the company. I suggest we seek information in writing from the receiver and liquidator. Is that agreed? Agreed.

A letter from Bank of Ireland Mortgages to one of its customers in which the bank apologised for the delay in crediting payments to the customer's mortgage account has been circulated. The bank informed the clerk that this letter was copied to me as Chairman and to IFSRA at the customer's request. As IFSRA already appears to be aware of the matter, I propose that the letter be simply noted. It was sent to us for our information.

Some 16 statutory instruments have been sent to the committee by the Department of Finance. Under our orders of reference the committee has the power to consider such statutory instruments made by the Minister for Finance and laid before the Houses as it may select. The time within which the Houses can annul a statutory instrument is usually limited to 21 sitting days after it has been laid before the Houses. All of the instruments were laid before the Houses on 29 July. Statutory Instrument 454 of 2004 of 1 August provides for the coming into operation of sections 28 and 33 of the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland Act. Can I take it the committee does not wish to consider this instrument? As it is only a commencement notice, I suggest we pass it.

Statutory Instrument 455 of 2004 commences the main provision of the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland Act 2004. Can I take it the committee does not wish to consider it, as it is only giving notice of a commencement date? Agreed.

Statutory Instruments 456 to 467 of 2004 are counter terrorism provisions which prohibit certain financial transfers and provide for penalties for breach of certain financial sanctions. The prohibitions concern Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the Taliban of Afghanistan and certain persons and entities associated with Iraq, Zimbabwe, Liberia, Burma/Myanmar and other persons, groups and entities specified in certain EU Council decisions and regulations. Does the committee wish to consider these statutory instruments?

The general gist of these statutory instruments is welcome. This is an Europe-wide measure whereby provisions are to be put into law for sanctions on financial institutions concerning the transfers of funds to certain terrorist organisations, as listed in certain EU Council decisions. However, the only issue I have is that the amount of the fine which can be imposed on financial institutions as a result of this financial instrument is a maximum of €3,000. In straightforward English that is a joke and a farce. I have checked the matter with the Department of Finance and members might want to get a briefing note on that. I understand these instruments were brought in under the EU Commission Act 1972. Under that Act, we can create an indictable offence or have a fine of no more than €3,000. However, we are expected to have the legislation in place and the banks are expected to comply regardless of the level of the fine.

The Criminal Justice Bill is at Second Stage in the Dáil and a section of it will empower the Minister of Finance to make regulations for breaches of EU regulations, including sanctions regarding terrorism. That legislation provides for fines of up to €10 million or 20 years in jail for offending parties. Are members agreeable to passing the statutory instrument on the basis that more substantial legislation is on Second Stage in the Dáil? Agreed.

Deputy R. Bruton

Many countries are listed.

Chairman

There are several.

Deputy R. Bruton

Burma is included. I presume some vetting has taken place as to why this is being done in respect of these countries. I do not know anything about the Burmese situation in terms of why these regulations are to be introduced. I presume there was——

Chairman

The list of countries involved was approved by a decision of the EU Council. I presume this measure is being considered across other member states of the Union. We are restricted regarding the fine proposed in the measure until the Criminal Justice (No. 2) Bill goes through the Dáil. The fines provided for in the meantime are only token fines. The list is not an Irish one but a European one. Is that measure agreed? Agreed?

Statutory Instrument 469 of 2004 amends the Disabled Drivers' and Disabled Passengers' Tax Concession Regulations 1994. As there is no explanatory note attached, I propose the Department be asked to provide a short briefing note before we decide to consider the matter further. I suggest that we obtain this, circulate it and discuss it in detail.

Deputy R. Bruton

We should go further. The Minister commissioned a study on this, which he has never published and its contents have never been revealed. In the course of the debate on the Finance Act he indicated some of the difficulties he envisages with extending eligibility. It is most unsatisfactory that this is not discoverable under the Freedom of Information Act. It is clearly an abuse of the deliberative process defence to claim that there are continuing discussions on this matter. Statutory instruments are being brought forward but the basic document which raises all the policy issues is still denied to interested Members of the Oireachtas and members of the public.

There is a widespread belief that the terms of this scheme are extraordinarily restrictive. One must be without the use of two limbs to qualify for anything. I accept that extending the scheme poses difficulties but we ought to have an honest debate about it to see if we can identify ways of advancing the coverage of this scheme in a way that is cost effective and fair to the people involved. That report should also be requested from the Department because this clearly indicates that the deliberative process is coming to an end. Maintaining the pretence that the report will not be revealed because a great deal of consideration is taking place in the Department is an abuse of the protections given to the deliberative process in the Freedom of Information Act.

Chairman

Is the Deputy referring to the report that was prepared for the Minister?

Deputy R. Bruton

The report prepared for the Minister on the possibility of extending the coverage of this scheme.

Deputy Finneran

This scheme is vital for people who are disabled and need assistance but it is not working. It is not helpful to people. In most cases, it is impossible to benefit from it. Even the appeals system takes up to two years. There appears to be no co-ordination between the health boards. In some cases they will make a favourable decision while in others they will not. The scheme needs to be streamlined. I have dealt with numerous cases in recent years and I have found the scheme to be the most unsatisfactory of those administered by Departments. It needs a radical overhaul. It does not address the problems people with disabilities have in acquiring support when purchasing a car or securing a tax concession under the scheme. The sooner we have the report the better, so we can make an input to it, either in this committee or elsewhere. However, if the opportunity arises in this committee, I would welcome the chance to make a more comprehensive contribution on this issue.

Chairman

Is it agreed that we seek the detailed report and briefing note on the report? When it is received, it will be circulated to members and can be discussed at the next meeting.

Deputy McGuinness

Is there not an interdepartmental report on that scheme?

Chairman

Yes, that is the report to which Deputy Bruton referred. Deputy Bruton indicated that it has not been made available under a freedom of information request, which is news to me.

Deputy McGuinness

Yes, that is true. I was trying to do the same thing.

Chairman

We will seek the full report. Is that agreed? Agreed. We will return to the matter at the next meeting.

Statutory Instrument No. 470 of 2004 approved the partial transfer of the business carried on by Citibank International in the Republic of Ireland to Citibank (Ireland) Financial Services, in accordance with the transfer scheme submitted to the Minister for Finance. The effect of the order is to apply certain provisions of the Central Bank Act 1971 to the transfer. We probably do not need to consider that order.

Deputy R. Bruton

Did the Department indicate why an order is necessary in respect of this matter?

Chairman

No. We just received the statutory instrument.

Deputy R. Bruton

We should seek an explanation of why this order is necessary. It sounds as if the Minister is obliged to arrange, on an individual basis, that the Central Bank Act would apply in these cases. That might indicate a defect in the legislation.

Chairman

We will obtain the briefing note and circulate it to members when it is received.

The next item of correspondence relates to decentralisation. Deputy Twomey has proposed that the committee invite the Taoiseach to make a presentation to the committee on the way in which the plan for the decentralisation of civil and public service Departments and offices was formulated. The committee agreed previously that it would invite both the Minister for Finance and the Minister of State at the Department of Finance to meet the committee in view of the fact that the matter properly falls within the remit of that Department. Deputy Twomey's letter has been circulated.

Deputy Twomey

An implementation committee was established within the Cabinet. The members of the committee were the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, and the Taoiseach. The Minister, Deputy McCreevy, will probably not be in a position to come before the committee to discuss how the implementation group worked and what information it used to draw up the initial 53 locations that were selected. The Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, came before the committee and the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, said subsequently that the Minister of State had nothing to do with the initial ground work on decentralisation.

In the course of the committee's meetings in July we heard about the huge opposition on the part of members of the public service and the Civil Service to decentralisation. A member of the original group, such as the Taoiseach or the Tánaiste, should come before the committee to give the members detailed background information on the grounds for selecting these 53 locations. Having listened to the committee's debates on this matter, there appeared to be outright opposition to decentralisation. Some of it appears to have been badly thought out from the beginning. The committee members are entitled to know the background information.

Chairman

I wish to clear up a misconception on this issue which is mentioned in the Deputy's letter. It is the idea that a Cabinet sub-committee dealt with the 53 locations before the budget. Deputy Bruton mentioned it at a previous meeting but I let the comment pass. The Cabinet sub-committee to oversee implementation was established the day after the announcement in the budget, not in advance of it. I have confirmed with the Taoiseach that no such sub-committee met prior to the budget announcement. It was always my understanding that the establishment of the sub-committee on implementation only occurred after the budget announcement. It was not in existence prior to that. The gist of the letter indicated that this group discussed the venues prior to the budget announcement but that is not the case.

Deputy Twomey

Somebody drew up the report for the budget.

Chairman

Yes, the Department of Finance and the Minister for Finance.

Deputy Twomey

We should hear from the authors of that report, whoever they are. We seem to be working backwards with regard to decentralisation. We should start with that point, who formulated the first report and what information they used.

Chairman

That was the Minister for Finance.

Deputy Finneran

The debate that took place in the committee in July makes for interesting reading now, particularly the contributions made by Opposition members of the committee. A number of them stated that there was no interest in the scheme, that the Civil Service did not want to relocate and that it would not and could not take place. That has been contradicted in the past few days. Over 9,000 civil servants have put their names forward for relocation. It just shows how out of touch politicians can sometimes be with the thinking of the people.

I welcome the support for the Government's initiative on this matter. The Government should proceed with the implementation of this welcome budget decision. That is what the people want and it is also what more than 9,000 civil servants want.

Deputy R. Bruton

I am glad to hear that Deputy Finneran is privy to information that has not yet been published. Two different reports were published in the newspapers. The central point Deputy Finneran might forget is that, in respect of the State agencies, 98% of the people proposed for transfer do not wish to do so. They have not indicated a willingness to transfer. In respect of Civil Service bodies proposed for transfer, 92.5% have indicated they do not wish to transfer. The difficulty in delivering coherent public service is that it is very hard to rebuild public agencies around 2% of the existing staff or, in the case of the Civil Service, to rebuild around 7.5% of the existing staff.

The coherence of the programme is the core point Deputy Twomey raises. The issue is not whether decentralisation is a good thing but whether the selection of locations of agencies to move and the pre-planning has been adequate to make this work successfully in order that it does not become a political football which does not deliver value in terms of regional development, improved quality of public services or the factors people expect to see from a successful decentralisation.

I strongly support Deputy Twomey's move to request the presence of the Taoiseach at these discussions. Did the Chairman ask the Taoiseach about this? Was a Government memorandum presented on this that set out why individual agencies were being selected? What were the costs and the benefits of the selections being made? What were the risk factors and how was it proposed to mitigate those risks in the selections that were being made? These are the core issues and the Taoiseach cannot just sit on his hands and say that responsibility for this has now gone off to Brussels with the Minister for Finance and that is the last we will know of it.

We had hearings in advance with the Department of Finance and it was not able to offer any indications as to the way in which the selections were going. This is an important issue. I know Deputy Finneran will defend his political past. He is entitled to do so.

Deputy Finneran

What is the Fine Gael position on it? In the country it is in favour of it, but in Dublin it is against it. The Deputy should clear the air on that.

Deputy R. Bruton

I spellt it out very clearly. We want a decentralisation programme that works. We do not want an ill-thought out, non-viable system. We do not want to see agencies in which 98% of the people being told they must move wish to stay where they are. We will ask the agencies what will happen to, say, specialists who have been brought into the Ordnance Survey or Enterprise Ireland and recruited for specific skills if they wish to stay. Will they become administrators in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform? These are people who are skilled in mapping. One cannot run a show like that.

Deputy Finneran

What happens when they retire?

Deputy R. Bruton

One must recruit and that is done over 40 years. People work for 40 years and there is a chance to plan. It is proposed that this should be done in three years. It is all very well to politicise this just for headlines, but on behalf of the taxpayer, public servants and those working in the public service this committee is charged to make sure that this is well founded and will work when implemented.

As Deputy Twomey said, we should invite the key people who were central to this decision so that we can understand the process. If there are flaws in it, let us identify them now and not wait for several years until there is a collapse in public services or when agencies malfunction because the work was not put in. We should take our job much more seriously than taking ill-informed headlines out of Sunday newspapers and pretending they are the answers to this and saying "Ah-ha now we have trapped you. What are you going to say about this? Are you for it or against it?" We are all here to make sure decentralisation works if it goes ahead. We are not here for cheap political football.

We need the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, or the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, to come in here. We need to see a proper scrutiny of this policy. Deputy McCreevy has departed the scene, so the Taoiseach should step up to the mark and take responsibility for it.

Senator O’Toole

It is crucially important that we monitor what is going on, apart from looking back on how this came about. I support the idea of decentralisation but having listened to the presentations made to us in July, it cannot work. We were given example after example of the 28 out of the 30 people who opted to move to wherever the probation service is to be located and who were agricultural advisers or something else. One cannot do that. Whatever the figures, statistics will prove anything on both sides of the argument.

The clock started to tick on this on the last Wednesday of January 2004. That is when it began. There is a three-year countdown. The easiest way to convince the public that this is serious and is happening is that each month we will take a report on how much decentralisation has taken place in the previous month and then cumulatively since last January. I would like to begin that at our next meeting. I would like to know how many sections have been decentralised, how many people are involved and that we keep a record of it as we go along. That answers all the arguments.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

It would appear, on the basis of Senator O'Toole's proposition, that the only report we have is that the Minister who made the announcement in budget 2004 is the only person who has been relocated since the announcement was made. Amen to that, may I add?

Senator O’Toole

It is a hardly decentralisation; it is more centralisation.

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Does the Senator think so? We will have to wait and see.

I support the proposal for decentralisation. I recognise it offers real opportunity for the provinces in terms of development; opportunity for development of the public service; and I hope that, critically, it will also offer opportunity for people working within the public service. We must be cognisant of that throughout. It is to that end that I welcome this further opportunity this morning.

Clearly, there was not the prior preparation or consultation necessary to move ahead with a coherent plan. There is no coherence in the plan announced last December in respect of the 10,300 jobs. We must see the detail of all of this. This committee is entitled to a full and frank outline of all of the consideration that was given to the proposition before it was announced. Let us remember that it was in 1999 that the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, made the first announcement of the Government's intention to implement an unprecedented level of decentralisation. It took until budget 2004 in December 2003 before we actually heard the detail of what was intended. We are entitled to know what happened between 1999 and December 2003 in terms of preparation, consultation and all that entails. I hope we will get some insight into that this morning and that the further and substantive opportunity will be accommodated by the Taoiseach coming before the committee and giving frank answers to clear, straight and sensible questions on this issue and all intended to ensure full public disclosure.

I hope we can collect behind a programme that will meet all the different needs of the sectors involved, that is, the Departments, the host communities and the individual members of the public service for whom there are great concerns on a professional and personal level in terms of their potential relocation. Amen to the Minister.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

There have been many precedents of successful decentralisation over the past ten years. Many people were very happy to transfer. This committee seems to have tried to put an impediment to the budgetary decision of last year. That is a pity. Every day all we hear is whinging.

As a public representative and backbench Deputy, I have a substantial number of letters in my possession from people who have sought transfers from Dublin to various parts of the country, especially in the Cork region. I am surprised Opposition members have not been getting similar letters from their constituents because they seem to be very busy people doing a great deal of research.

Senator O’Toole

Are there Bus Éireann employees among those to whom the Deputy refers?

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

No. I have no bus drivers.

Senator O’Toole

Have many Bus Éireann employees moved to Mitchelstown up to now?

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

No. We have a very good bus service through the town. This has been further improved by the advent of the new blue buses. One is welcome to step on and off these vehicles.

If the Opposition has an issue with decentralisation, it should put its cards on the table and state that it is opposed to it. Members of the Opposition should not continually whinge about it. I am shocked that Deputy Richard Bruton, who is an excellent debater, raises issues about this subject on each occasion the committee meets.

Decentralisation has been costed by the Government and the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, has been put in charge of overseeing it. The Minister of State has come before the committee and if we want to discuss the matter further, we should invite him to do so again. Decentralisation falls outside the remit of the Taoiseach and he has given responsibility for it to the Minister of State. The Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, is heading to Brussels and I am delighted that he has been appointed to such a high position there. I know he will be very successful. It is time we put this matter to bed and stopped creating frustration among civil and public servants in respect of it.

Chairman

Mr. Phil Flynn, the chairman of the implementation committee, is due to issue a report at the end of the week. He had agreed to come before the committee at the first available opportunity thereafter. Mr. Flynn has the most information about this matter at present. Our next scheduled meeting is for the week beginning 27 September when the Dáil resumes. Some members will be away next week. We stated in July that we would bring in Mr. Flynn and representatives of the central applications facility at that stage and also that we would invite the Minister for Finance and the relevant Minister of State immediately thereafter.

The Taoiseach has never previously answered to this committee for budget day announcements and it is not within our terms of reference to ask him to do so now. Under those terms of reference, it is the Minister for Finance who is obliged to answer to the committee. The identity of the Minister is not the issue as regards announcements made on budget day.

Perhaps we will hold over discussion on the points raised by Deputy Twomey in his letter until after the subsequent meeting. The next step upon which we have agreed is to bring in Mr. Phil Flynn and representatives of the central applications facility. There would be no point, having started a series of hearings, with an agreed programme in July, trying to change that approach. If we are to issue a report at the end of our hearings, we must do so in a logical way. We had agreed on the approach we would take.

Our next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, 29 September, the day on which the Dáil reconvenes. People may be monitoring many other matters, from a political point on view, on that day and perhaps we should hold the meeting on the day before or the day after.

Senator O’Toole

Does the Chairman expect to be here on that day?

Chairman

I do. There is no reason to suspect otherwise. My constituency colleague might be coming before the committee as Minister for Finance before I know it.

I do not propose to have a debate on decentralisation at this stage because we dealt with it on two occasions in July. Representatives of the State agencies are due to appear before us today. Some of the points that have been made are more appropriate to the next item on our agenda, namely, the presentation in respect of the State agencies.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

It is somewhat unfair to ask the Minister for Finance to come before the committee between now and Christmas. There will be a new Minister for Finance who is going to have many matters with which to deal. In light of the size of the surplus he will have to distribute, he will have quite a job on his hands.

Senator O’Toole

I raised an issue which I want dealt with by means of written communication. This issue does not cut across the next item with which we are due to deal. I would like the committee to formally contact either the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, or the Department in the interests of obtaining an update, a schedule and a timeline for what is going to happen. We would then be in a position to see whether decentralisation is happening or whether it is all a bottle of smoke. We must be given an update with regard to what is happening.

We have just been told that the Government had a Minister in charge of costing decentralisation. That was news to me. Items of information are leaking out. A figure of 10,000 was mentioned, which was also news to me. We need to be told what is happening, formally and on an official basis, so that we will be in a position to acknowledge what is being done.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Senator O'Toole is a well-known reader of The Irish Times.

Senator O’Toole

That is an appalling thing to say

Chairman

I propose to hold Deputy Twomey's letter before the committee but not to make a final decision in respect of it. Our next action in respect of this topic after today will be to invite Mr. Phil Flynn and representatives of the central applications facility to come before us. We will proceed on the logical basis we agreed during the summer. Would members prefer to meet on Wednesday, 29 September or the previous day?

Deputy Ó Caoláin

Wednesday, 29 September is probably not an appropriate day.

Chairman

It is not. Do members wish to defer the meeting for a week or do they wish to meet on 28 September? We cannot meet next week because several members are due to visit Washington.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Why not meet on Tuesday, 28 September? Members will be extremely busy on the Wednesday and Thursday of the week in question.

Chairman

Is it agreed that we should meet on the afternoon of Tuesday, 28 September? We could postpone and meet the following week. I am conscious that Wednesday, 29 September would not be the most opportune date on which to hold a meeting of this committee.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I propose that we meet at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, 28 September.

Chairman

I propose that we meet at 2.30 p.m. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next item on the agenda is a travel proposal. An invitation has been sent to me to participate in a conference entitled, Reinventing Retirement: Strategies for an Ageing World. I do not know if someone is trying to give me a hint. The conference is to take place in London between 17 and 19 November and is being hosted by an American organisation which represents people aged 50 and over in association with the Financial Times. The invitation is not transferable but the organisers will issue a further invitation to a person to attend in my place. An estimate of the cost of the visit has been circulated. Do members believe that the committee should be represented at this conference?

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I propose that if the Chairman cannot go, the Vice-Chairman should attend.

Chairman

I am not in a position to attend.

Senator O’Toole

I am not in a position to attend either. However, I propose that we send somebody. The person who attends should give particular consideration to proposals relating to the changing of legislation in order to bring some flexibility into pension arrangements in this country. This would mean that people will not, as is the case at present, be in the position of being in full-time work one day and in full-time retirement the next. People should be able to work part-time and draw a percentage of their pension if they so wish. Legislation to facilitate this has been introduced in the United States and elsewhere and it is crucial that it should also be introduced in this country because people are going to live and work longer. There should be an in-between position.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Senator O'Toole is somewhat of an expert in this area and I agree with some of the things he said.

Chairman

It has been proposed that the Vice-Chairman, Deputy Finneran, should attend the conference on our behalf.

As everyone is aware, under the rules of the House, there are matters to be considered by the committee in respect of travel proposals. The rules that govern committee travel expenditure require that any proposal for travel by a committee must be directly and explicitly linked to the area of work in which the committee has decided to become involved, pursuant to its orders of reference and in the context of its work programme. We are also required to state the reasons for which the travel is considered necessary. I consider that the way in which proper provision is made for public service and private sector pensions is a matter which falls within the remit of the committee. The committee has already decided to become involved in this area and it agreed some time ago to meet the Irish Insurance Federation in respect of this topic. Is it, therefore, agreed that the conference is properly linked to the work of the committee? Agreed.

The committee must also state the reason for which the travel is considered necessary. I suggest that it is necessary for the committee in the interest of sharing ideas with other policy-makers in terms of helping us to form our own view of matters within our remit. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Travel rules provide that economy class should generally be used, where practical and reasonable. Is it the view of the committee that, given the short distance involved, economy class is practical and reasonable for the visit, subject to the fares being fully refundable?

Senator O’Toole

Which airline is charging €198 euro for an economy class return ticket to London at six weeks notice?

Chairman

There is a cheaper fare available but there is no option of this being refundable. It might be necessary to change arrangements at short notice.

Senator O’Toole

I take the Chairman's point.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

We should travel business class as it is more flexible.

Chairman

There is only a difference of €25 between the two and there is more flexibility in business class.

Senator O’Toole

There is no business class anymore.

Chairman

There is now.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

We will give Michael O'Leary the business.

Chairman

Is it agreed that an allocation of €1,400 from the travel budget should be sought from the working group of committee chairmen? Agreed.

An invitation circulated this morning has also been received from the OECD to attend a half day parliamentary seminar in Paris on Thursday, 7 October. The conference will discuss the question of raising corporate governance standards. Should the committee be represented at this conference?

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I am interested. Have we money?

Chairman

Given that several committee members are travelling to the US next week, we should skip this seminar.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I do not agree. Corporate governance is an important issue.

Senator O’Toole

This from a member of a Government party which weakened on the responsibility of directors to sign off on their annual reports. It would be good if the entire committee attended. I am not available to attend but I would be pleased if the discussion at the conference permeated through.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

A deputation from the committee should attend.

Chairman

I must observe the rules relating to the travel budget. The matter is linked to the committee's work programme and we have prioritised the banking sector and corporate governance as a matter for examination. In light of our discussions regarding AIB, this issue is properly linked to the committee's work. Is it agreed the conference is linked to our work? Agreed. The committee must also state the reason the travel is considered necessary. It is necessary so that we can interact and share ideas with people from other countries regarding the committee's work. Is that agreed? Agreed. Travel rules provide that economy class should generally be used where it is practicable and reasonable. Is it the view of the committee that, given the short notice and distance involved, economy class travel is practicable and reasonable for the visit, subject to the fares being fully refundable? We do not have details because the invitation was only received last night.

Senator O’Toole

I refer to the travel issue. During the summer, members of another committee delegation received unfair publicity. They were shadowed by representatives of media outlets in Australia. There is an easy way around this. There are two issues of crucial importance here. When financial services legislation was going through the Oireachtas, all the business journalists covered the need for corporate governance. For example, there was a major debate following the Enron scandal and this issue also affected Elan in Athlone. Invitations should be issued to the media to accompany committee members on these trips so that they can see what is going on. It would be useful if people sat in on the debates as well as following members to the Moulin Rouge or wherever they go at night. However, this general issue needs to be examined. Delegations have nothing to hide. All delegations of which I have been a member have a busy agenda and people get through their work and do their business. It would be helpful if they received more coverage.

Chairman

I agree.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

This is an important issue. Corporate governance is a central element of company law.

Chairman

Due to time constraints, the cost of the trip has not been worked out but it is expected to be approximately €1,400. The committee can decide the number of members who should attend.

Deputy Twomey

Great expense could be incurred on a three hour seminar.

Chairman

A night's accommodation and the daily subsistence allowance will also be provided.

Deputy Twomey

It should be taken into account that this is a brief seminar.

Chairman

People are reasonably entitled to travel the previous night if the seminar is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m.

Deputy Twomey

Is the expense justified?

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Could a package be put together for the next meeting?

Chairman

That will be too late.

Senator O’Toole

One or two members should attend.

Chairman

Should it be one Government member and one Opposition member?

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Two from each side.

Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed. I will ask the convenors to liaise with members before notifying the clerk about who is travelling. A request will be made to the working group of committee chairman for an allocation of approximately €5,500 to cover the costs of four members travelling.