JOINT COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 10 Nov 2004

Business of Joint Committee.

Chairman

Apologies have been received from Deputy Ó Caoláin. Before proceeding to business, I introduce Breda Burke who replaces Martin Groves as clerk to the committee. Martin has been clerk for approximately a year and we have always found him to be very effective, efficient and capable in everything he has done. He is moving on to a job in the finance section in the Houses of the Oireachtas to broaden his experience. Ms Burke will take over as clerk to the committee with immediate effect. We wish both every success in their new posts.

The first item on the agenda is the minutes of the meeting of 27 October 2004. The draft minutes have been circulated. Are they agreed to? Agreed.

The next item on the agenda is correspondence, the first item of which relates to statutory instruments, a number of which have been received by the committee. Under its orders of reference, the committee has the power to consider such statutory instruments made by the Minister for Finance and laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas as it may select. The time within which the House can annul statutory instruments is often limited by statute to 21 sitting days after they have been laid before the Houses.

The committee has received a briefing note from the Department of Finance on SI 470 of 2004 which approves the partial transfer of business carried on by Citibank International in the Republic of Ireland to Citibank Ireland (Financial Services) in accordance with a 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. In September the committee deferred a decision on scrutiny of this order pending receipt of the briefing note. A 21 day review period applies in this case. I take it the committee is satisfied with the information provided and does not wish to consider the statutory instrument in further detail. Is it agreed to note the briefing report? Agreed.

The next item relates to two statutory instruments on the appointment of special advisers to the Taoiseach. The appointments were made by the Government under the Public Service Management Act 1997 and are not subject to a review period. I take it the committee does not wish to consider the statutory instruments further. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next item relates to EU scrutiny document No. 28. The Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny has sent to this committee a list of documents and proposals considered and decisions taken at its meeting on 4 November. None of the proposals has been referred to us for scrutiny.

The next item of correspondence relates to Tralee Beef and Lamb. Letters have been received from the receiver and liquidator of the company in response to the committee's requests for statements on its understanding of the issues raised by certain creditors of the company. The committee previously agreed it would hold a meeting on the issue which will be pursued as soon as practicable. In the meantime, I propose we note the letter.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Have representatives of Anglo-Irish Bank agreed to come before the committee? That is the issue. I do not want to receive any letters from the receiver. We have brought representatives of other banks before the committee as a result of lesser difficulties.

Chairman

We previously received correspondence from the bank. If members wish to review it, they can decide what to do at the next meeting. My understanding is that the bank did not wish to meet the committee. The correspondence can be recirculated.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

The Chairman is a fair and honourable person and will agree that we should have an equitable, fair and even-handed approach to the banks. We cannot bring representatives of four or five banks before us and omit the representatives of one which has caused a difficulty and hardship in a certain part of the country. I suggest we write back to Anglo-Irish Bank and request its representatives to appear before the committee.

Chairman

We will invite representatives of the bank and deal with whatever response we receive at that stage.

The next item of correspondence is a reply from IFSRA to questions put by members to the authority's chief executive when he met the committee some time ago. As there had not been enough time to deal with all the issues raised at the meeting, a letter has been sent dealing with the further points raised. I propose we note the letter. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next item is a pre-budget submission from the Combat Poverty Agency. As the committee does not usually request oral presentations on pre-budget submissions, I propose that it be noted. There will be opportunities to raise the issues involved when we consider the Finance Bill and the Estimates for next year. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next item on the agenda relates to a scheme of tax allowances, reliefs, exemptions and deductions and taxation rules with respect to residency. There is to be a discussion first with representatives of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland, following which we will hear from the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners.

Deputy R. Bruton

We should hear from the two groups simultaneously. It would be better for the workings of the committee if the two groups made a presentation and we then had a period in which questions could be put to either group.

Chairman

I understand the Deputy's point. However, representatives of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland have been invited as professional accountants to give advice to the committee. They are not on opposing sides to the Revenue Commissioners. They are here as practitioners, whereas the Revenue Commissioners have a statutory function. It would unfair to either party if I was seen to pit one against the other. I want to hear from the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland first to give us some idea of what is happening. Therefore, when we come to deal with the Revenue Commissioners members will be more informed. That is fair and reasonable. I do not want to be seen as pitting the Revenue Commissioners against the institute, the representatives of which are here voluntarily and whose attendance we appreciate. That is not the purpose of the meeting. I hope members understand and accept my bona fides.

Deputy R. Bruton

I am not pitting one against the other. However, to have a discussion which is relevant and which will not go on all day, it would be good to hear the two presentations and shed light on the subjects raised by asking the relevant parties the questions of interest to members. In this way one would have an opportunity to hear views of practitioners within and without the Revenue Commissioners on subjects of interest. I know we can do this seriatim. Perhaps our visitors do not want to do like this.

Chairman

They were not keen to do it that way. The representatives of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland will engage in a micro-examination of how things work at micro and individual level, whereas the Revenue Commissioners will give a much broader response. I would prefer not to have the two together. Perhaps we can speed up proceedings. However, I do not want a question to be put to one and the reaction put to the other. That would be unfair to our guests from the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland who are here to assist us voluntarily. I would not like the coverage of proceedings to show that one representative had said one thing to which another had reacted immediately. I am trying to keep away from that approach in cases it develops, as it could despite the best will in the world. While I understand the Deputy's point, I propose to hear from the members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland first. We will move as quickly as we can during the course of the afternoon.