Apologies have been received from Deputy Burton and Senators John Paul Phelan and Mansergh. The first item on the agenda is the draft minutes of the meeting of 14 December 2005 which have been circulated. Are they agreed?
Business of Joint Committee.
There is a typing error. The use of the word "mad" in connection with the new chairman of the decentralisation implementation body is not appropriate. If the correction is made, both he and we would be appreciative. We should get the new year off to a good start.
That is fine. I can see that little will get past us this year.
Today's business is routine. Much correspondence was received before Christmas which was postponed because we had Finbarr Flood and his associates before the joint committee. Next week we expect a delegation from IFSRA to appear before the committee to discuss endowment mortgages. Some housekeeping is, therefore, required to bring the committee up to date on correspondence and EU scrutiny items.
On correspondence, I will proceed through the detailed schedules issued to members during November and December. They may not have all of them with them today. If there is an issue with a particular piece of correspondence, we will consider the details. We have postponed dealing with some correspondence, while some may be considered past its sell-by date. We will proceed accordingly. The first batch was circulated on 8 November 2005.
Would it be possible to get a copy of the summary list? I have every other relevant document. I know where my copy is but I forgot to bring it with me.
That is fine. If any issue is queried, we can address it.
Is it agreed to note document No. 2005/0211, Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland — Quarterly Bulletin? Agreed. Is it agreed to note document No. 2005/0213, Irish Insurance Federation pre-budget submission? Agreed.
Document No. 2005/0214 is a letter to the Chairman from the Minister for Finance regarding attendance before the committee. The committee asked the Minister to attend and he agreed to do so on Committee Stage of the Finance Bill. Is it agreed to note the letter? Agreed.
Document No. 2005/0215 is a letter to the Chairman from the Minister for Finance in reply to a letter from the committee regarding the Information Commissioner. We wrote to the Minister asking him to consider the issue of fees, especially where a person is successful in appealing to the Information Commissioner. The Minister said he would take it on board. Is it agreed to note his response? Agreed.
Is it agreed to note document No. 2005/0216, a letter to the Chairman from the CORI Justice Commission enclosing policy briefings on taxation and budget choices? Agreed. Is it agreed to note document No. 2005/0217, Combat Poverty Agency Annual Report 2004? Agreed. Copies of the document are available on request, if members have not already seen it. Document No. 2005/ 0212 is a letter to the clerk from the clerk of the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny with proposals referred to the committee. The committee will deal with the matter as a separate item.
The next item of business relates to correspondence sent by the committee in regard to an individual taxpayer. Deputy Ó Caoláin asked for a copy of the file containing all the correspondence. To bring members up to date, we issued two letters on 22 December 2005 following our last meeting. They have been circulated this morning and were only cleared just before Christmas. That is our final word on the matter which is now one for the Minister for Finance. The file is available to members who want it for their own information.
Have we received any response from the Minister to the letter of 22 December 2005?
Absolutely none. However, I informed the Minister that week that it was on its way and he undertook to examine it when he received it. It is clearly an issue to be dealt with in January. As we sent the letter just before Christmas, I am sure the Minister has only now received it.
The next item is correspondence circulated on 25 November 2005. Is it agreed to note document No. 2005/0219, Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland — Financial Stability Report 2005? Agreed.
Document No. 2005/0220 is a report from the Ombudsman entitled Review of the Effectiveness and Value for Money of Publicity Methods used by the Office of the Ombudsman during the Period 2001-2003. A copy will be available to members on request. I have not had an opportunity to study it. I suggest members study the document, to which we will return at a future date. Is it agreed to note it for now? Agreed.
The next item is document No. 2005/0221, an e-mail to the clerk regarding Supplementary Estimates. It has already been dealt with by the select committee.
The next item relates to statutory instruments. Document No. 2005/0218 is SI No. 673 of 2005: Ethics in Public Office (Designated Positions in Public Bodies)(Amendment) Regulations 2005 and SI No. 672 of 2005: Ethics in Public Office (Prescribed Public Bodies, Designated Directorship of and Positions in Public Bodies) Regulations 2005. Have members had an opportunity to consider the document or should we note it and proceed? A very detailed statutory instrument has been circulated to us which adds many State bodies to the Schedule, for example, vocational education committees, the Health Service Executive and several voluntary hospitals. It is a very extensive list. It also deals with the particular individuals in those bodies who are covered by the Ethics in Public Office Act. We will be dealing with the Standards in Public Office Commission and can revisit the issue as part of our normal work programme if members believe other bodies should be added. Is it agreed to note the document for now? Agreed.
The next item relates to correspondence circulated on 13 December 2005. Is it agreed to note document No. 2005/0222, Financial Regulator Strategic Plan 2006? Agreed. Document No. 2005/0224 is an e-mail to the clerk from the Office of the Financial Regulator regarding the endowment mortgage survey. In this morning's post I received a detailed reply from the Financial Regulator on the issue of the survey but I have not had a chance to read even the opening paragraph. I will circulate the response after the meeting. As the issue is on our agenda for next Wednesday, I will circulate the response with the agenda.
At what time will the meeting take place?
At approximately 2.30 p.m., our normal slot. We are not in our usual slot today. As this will be the principal item on our agenda, we will not discuss it now.
I do not want to raise it. I want to raise a related matter, as representatives from IFSRA are coming next week. There has been much discussion during the past week about the idea of people selling off equity in their homes, which is related to endowment mortgages. Perhaps IFSRA could offer us a view on the issue, on which it has made public its views. I am not suggesting we cause problems but perhaps IFSRA could be contacted between now and next week because the question we are being asked is where it stands on the question of elderly people selling equity in their homes.
We have all heard that discussion. The formal letter of invitation to attend next week will be sent after today's meeting and we will include that point because currently it is very much an issue. The new financial ombudsman, Mr. Joe Meade, will be here as part of the delegation from IFSRA next Wednesday. There were industry ombudsmen in place up to now but since 1 April last there is a statutory position.
The next item is document No. 2005/0225, a letter to the clerk from the decentralisation implementation group regarding correspondence concerning the Government's decentralisation programme which provides an update for the committee on the programme which was discussed at our last meeting. Is it agreed to note document No. 2005/0226, a letter to the Chairman from the Irish Taxation Institute in connection with tax reliefs? Agreed.
Document No. 2005/0227, Evaluating Public Programmes, relates to seminars in Brussels. A copy is available on request to any member who wants details of it. Is it agreed to note it? Agreed. Document No. 2005/0228 is an e-mail to the clerk regarding COM (2005) 507 which the committee will deal with separately.
Document No. 2005/0229 is a letter to the Chairman from the budget committee of the European Parliament enclosing a questionnaire for national parliaments. It relates to an issue that arose last year. I short-circuited the process last year by getting a response from the Department of Finance which, I accept, did not meet with the approval of the members of the committee. Perhaps we can get information from the Department. We should, as a committee, consider the response because essentially the response from me last year was a Government response as opposed to a committee response. Is it agreed that the committee will consider the response before a reply is sent? Agreed. We will get the appropriate information from the Department of Finance which will compile the first draft. The committee will then express its views and suggest modifications before it is returned, unlike what happened last year.
Is it agreed to note document 2005/0230, Action on Poverty Today, winter edition? Agreed. Document No. 2005/0231 is the annual report of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government which has been circulated to each committee. Is it agreed to note it? Agreed.
Document No. 2005/0232 is a fax to the Chairman from an individual taxpayer regarding the Minister for Finance. It forms part of the overall correspondence with the individual taxpayer. Is it agreed that it be noted? Agreed.
Document No. 2005/0233 is an e-mail from Professor Maeve McDonagh seeking information regarding the committee. This is in the context of the Freedom of Information Act. The correspondent wrote a second time. Members will remember that last year the committee was requested to compile a report on the review of items precluded from being included under section 32 of the Freedom of Information Act 1997.
Last year we received a detailed report from each Minister. Those reports were sent directly to the Information Commissioner, Emily O'Reilly. She has now produced her report, which is before us this morning. I propose that the report be circulated to each member as quickly as possible after this meeting. Her report will be a significant item on our work programme and I would like to deal with it during the month of February. Rather than the committee having to do the nitty-gritty of checking every non-disclosure provision in every Department, Ms O'Reilly has done it for us. She has given her views and she regularly disagrees with the Department's view. When the committee reads the report, the final draft of which it received this morning, it will meet to discuss it and report to the Oireachtas. We can either agree with the Department's views, the commissioner's views or, as the case may be, mix and match. I propose that we circulate the report as quickly as possible after the meeting.
Regarding correspondence No. 233 from Professor Maeve McDonagh, I note that "To be noted. Dealt with." is stated in the notation column but we received further correspondence from Professor McDonagh dated 4 January——
What is the reference number?
Number 244. My reading of this is that she had not received a substantive response to the initial request, which relates to the same subject. From my reading of the correspondence, this dates back to a 1999 appearance before the committee. If I have to refer back to it, I can do so. However, I would have to dig it out because there is quite an amount. Am I correct in saying that it relates to a 1999 appearance before the committee?
The Deputy could be correct; I am not disagreeing with him.
Professor McDonagh is in the process of completing a book for publication and it is important that we co-operate in terms of whatever detail she requires. My question is not so much about the detail or the technicality but whether there was a disconnect between the previous committee and the new committee following the 2002 general election. I was not a member of this committee in 1999 and I would be concerned that matters fall off the table in terms of continuity. If there was an expectation that this area would be addressed by the committee prior to the 2002 general election, does the new committee, with a new membership, have continuity after the general election? That is a very important point. The committee will come to a close at some point but are there mechanisms in place to ensure that matters do not fall off the table as a result of a general election?
I thank Deputy Ó Caoláin, who has raised an important point. I want to give some background information on this issue. Senator O'Toole will be familiar with it because he was a member of the previous committee. In 1999, the previous committee, as requested, set out to compile this report under the legislation. We commenced the work in 1999. We received voluminous files from each Department on their disclosure requirements. We also received views from the Information Commissioner. The finance committee in the previous Dáil — I was not its Chairman but I was a member — set up a sub-committee which met several times over the course of one summer. We hired senior counsel to advise us on whether we should accept the view of the Information Commissioner or that of the Department but, essentially, due to the volume of work involved, the sub-committee did not complete its task. It ran aground. It had nothing to do with the election; we just got bogged down because the work was so voluminous. It could be said we did not do the job we were supposed to do.
The matter simply fell off the previous committee's agenda because nobody had the heart to devote the necessary time to deal with the amount of work involved in bringing it to a conclusion. We missed the earlier report. Time has moved on now and we have been asked again to compile a report. That is the reason for the more simplified approach on this occasion in referring all those reports, in the first instance, to the Information Commissioner. She has done much of the work the committee tried to do — and in which it became bogged down — on the previous occasion. We will now only be obliged to consider her report, which is a summary. If issues arise in this new report on which she takes a divergent view, we have the detailed files from the Department but I am trying to short-circuit the approach this time because I am conscious that the previous committee failed to complete its task. If the commissioner is saying that we were asked to do it in 1999 and did not complete it, she is correct. We did not complete it.
I appreciate the Chairman's candid response. We now know the position, of which I was not aware heretofore. I have no difficulty in addressing the most recent report presented as a means of overcoming the vacuum, so to speak. However, regarding the question I posed, a mechanism must be in place where work in hand will not be not set aside as a result of a change of personnel in committee and the invested effort and energy simply parked on the margins following a general election. This is my first experience on this committee and I hope that, irrespective of who may be here after the next general election, there will be a seamless continuance of address of the key issues the committee has identified and on which it has worked. I am particularly mindful of our report on the banking sector and the fact that it is still work in hand. This is a matter we hope to address again and I hope that future committees would also do so because it requires regular revisitation.
The Deputy is correct. Two issues arise. Sometimes the work of a committee falls when the Dáil falls. That is the reality and it is up to the new committee to continue that work. From a practical point of view, however, and without changing legislation and work of the committee, I regard our annual report as our checklist in terms of where we stand in respect of our work and what needs to be carried forward into the next year. In a previous year, we found that when we came to do our annual report, some of the EU items for scrutiny had fallen off the table, so to speak, during the course of the year and it was only when we came to our annual report that we realised we did not complete those. From a practical point of view, our annual report is our checklist of everything we started and indicates whether we completed work on certain matters or whether such work should be carried forward into the following year.
The Chairman has given a fair assessment of the position. We must remember that the Act has been changed out of all recognition from 1999, with the disgraceful amendment the Government, of which the Chairman is a member, introduced two years ago. That was part of the problem and I was a member of that sub-committee.
On a related matter, I understood we had an annual requirement and responsibility to focus on those bodies that come under the aegis of the Act. In other words, we are charged with examining whether the numbers serving on them should be increased or reduced or whether new groups should be added. I may be wrong — I am sure the clerk will correct me — but I understood that we had some sort of continual responsibility in that area to examine those and to review the position on an annual basis.
We will go into private session because the clerk wants to speak on that matter.
The joint committee went into private session at 11.29 a.m. and resumed in public session at 11.32 a.m.
Having heard the contributions and the detail of what transpired heretofore, the committee should respond openly and honestly to Professor McDonagh in the way the Chairman has advised. That is on the public record and the information should be shared with her immediately.
I concur with the Deputy. The committee can explain why the previous report was not completed. I have no problem with that.
What is being sought? All our discussions are documented and reports are issued. They are in the public domain and they are probably available on the Internet.
Deputy Ó Caoláin asked if this committee in its previous guise commenced this process during the last Dáil but did not complete a report and put it on the public record. We want to tell Professor McDonagh the process was begun and was not completed but the committee will do so now. We will give her details of the transcripts as well.
The next business is statutory instruments relating to global valuation, which the committee has addressed previously. A number of organisations, including RTE, NTL and Chorus, provide facilities to several local authorities. The Valuation Office places a value on all their commercial locations and the rates payable to local authorities where they operate are devised on a population pro rata basis rather than measuring how many kilometres of pipeline or how many signals and so on are in a local authority area. It simplifies the rates payable to local authorities so that they are not engaged in separate battles with each organisation. I propose to note these statutory instruments. This is a routine procedure, which the committee has followed previously.
The next item is No. 672, ethics in public office, prescribed public bodies, designated directorships and positions of public bodies. This is in addition to the list mentioned earlier. If a member wishes to examine them in detail, they can be raised again at a future meeting. The main issue relates to prescribing local authorities. The Minister is dealing with that.
We will deal with EU scrutiny separately.
I refer to correspondence relating to this meeting. The first item is No. 234, an e-mail to the committee sent by Hans Zomer, director of Dóchas, regarding the proposed relocation of Development Co-Operation Ireland to Limerick.
Will the committee meet him?
No, there is no proposal to do so. The committee should draft its work programme rather than meet everybody who writes to it.
Mr. Zomer raises a number of important points regarding Development Co-Operation Ireland's proposed move to Limerick. My home town of Monaghan is due to host the Combat Poverty Agency. It was designated for decentralisation to Monaghan but, as we know from a previous meeting with the agency, that has not proved a workable proposition. I must accept that and we hope an alternative will be identified so that Monaghan will benefit from the decentralisation plan.
Mr. Zomer makes strong arguments regarding the DCI proposal. He wrote to the committee twice. I refer to the letter, No. 241, which is also dated 13 December 2005. The letters are marked as separate correspondence. This is only one of two bodies under the aegis of the Department of Foreign Affairs which have been flagged for relocation. It is proposed to note the correspondence but I do not know whether it has been forwarded to the Department. The committee should ensure the salient arguments presented by Hans Zomer are brought to the attention of the Minister and the Department so that they can have the full raft of information relevant to this decision. Perhaps the correspondence has been forwarded but I have no such information. I propose the committee should refer the correspondence relevant to the DCI relocation.
I do not wish to deny Limerick the opportunity of having a section of the Department of Foreign Affairs decentralised to it but I hope, similar to the Monaghan case, that if this issue were revisited, Limerick would enjoy a compensatory relocation. The arguments presented merit serious consideration and, therefore, I disagree with the proposal merely to note the correspondence. It should be referred to the Minister and the Department and the committee should seek their views on the arguments presented. They should come back to us, as a courtesy at least, to inform us of their opinions and views of the case.
I agree the correspondence should be forwarded because that is a good idea. However, Hans Zomer concludes in his letter that the relocation to Limerick means rejecting the proposal to move the DCI out of the Department of Foreign Affairs. That is not a logical conclusion. This means rejecting the proposal to move the DCI out of the Department of Foreign Affairs. I do not believe that is logical. The DCI could be decentralised to Limerick while remaining within the remit of that Department. I merely bring this matter to the committee's attention. I am not sure whether the argument is about moving the DCI out of Dublin or from within the remit of the Department of Foreign Affairs. However, I accept and support Deputy Ó Caolain's proposal.
On Senator O'Toole's point, this is an issue the Minister and his Department can address when they have had an opportunity to properly evaluate the details presented. Obviously, the matter is not the central issue in Mr. Zomer's argument but nevertheless it is a pertinent point which needs to be addressed. I hope the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Ahern and his officials will advise the committee of its views on the matter.
The proposal is that we refer the matter to the line Minister for observation and detailed response to the committee.
Am I correct that the issue relates to DCI's wish to remain part of the Department of Foreign Affairs rather than be deemed an independent authority?
There is more to it than that. Many issues such as the cohesion and continuity that exists and so on are argued in the correspondence. Given the critical importance of overseas aid and the fact that we are, I hope, moving towards getting our act together in this area, it is important that we address issues that might upset progress in that regard.
I take it Deputy Ó Caoláin is fully committed to decentralisation.
Yes. This issue relates to what is practical and appropriate. I am not for throwing the baby out with the bath water. I would like a sensible evaluation and appraisal of each proposition. In that context, I have no doubt we should be able to support it.
It is important to note Deputy Ó Caoláin supports decentralisation.
Deputy Ned O'Keeffe might be more interested in the next item which is an invitation to attend an OECD high level parliamentary seminar on policy implications in Paris on 23 February 2006. Are any members interested in attending the seminar?
I have attended many OECD meetings on behalf of this committee and others during the past three years. They are very informative and helpful and we should not ignore them. We should send a member from each side of the House to the seminar.
We will put the proposal on the agenda for next week.
Are we operating on a tight budget?
We should not be, given this is only the first week of January. We will agree to send a delegation to the seminar and will include discussion of the cost proposals on our next agenda. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The next item is an e-mail received by the Clerk from the German Embassy regarding a visit by the German Finance Committee on 24 April. While I have not yet read the detail of the message, I presume the delegation is keen to meet this committee. We will agree the matter in principle and ask the Clerk to work out a timetable suitable to both. Is that agreed?
The date of 24 April is the anniversary of the 1916 Rising.
They are arriving the week commencing 24 April and will remain here for a couple of days. I am sure they will have other things to do.
Will we be given more firm details of the visit?
The Clerk will liaise with the embassy in regard to the delegation's other plans during the visit. The next item is a letter to the Chairman from the University of Munich Institute of Economic Research inviting the committee to the Fifth Munich Economic Summit on 4 and 5 May 2006. Are members interested in attending?
We all have an interest in attending.
That was not the position taken last year.
We did not send a delegation last year. We will request a travel proposal and should a member from each side wish to attend, we will discuss the matter.
I think we made the correct decision last year.
It is a matter for the convenors.
We will include a more detailed proposal for discussion on our next agenda. The next item is a letter from Ms Emily O'Reilly regarding section 32 of the Freedom of Information Act 1997. That issue has been dealt with and a copy of Ms O'Reilly's final update on the matter has been included in members' correspondence.
The next item is a letter to the Chairman from the financial regulator regarding endowment mortgages. While I indicated earlier that I had only received a copy of that letter, I understand a copy of it has been circulated to members. The issue covered in that letter is the main item on next week's agenda.
Perhaps the joint committee could employ an independent consultant to undertake a study of the pros and cons of endowment mortgages. Some insurance companies have had great success with endowment mortgages, in particular companies in the British Isles, a terminology I do not like to use
The Deputy should not use it.
Deputy O'Keeffe is correct. The joint committee received details of a survey of this area conducted by the financial regulator with whom we will meet next week. Members will have an opportunity to examine the results of that survey next week.
It is possible the financial regulator has examined Irish companies that have not had success with endowment mortgages and have incurred massive shortfalls. However, some of the Scottish companies have not experienced such problems.
The Deputy has made a fair point. We will raise that matter next week.
If the information in the reply is correct, it would be unfair to suggest it is much ado about nothing. The amounts involved in terms of valuation of lands and property is not an issue which has caused a national outcry. I am concerned not about whether the consumer was being ripped off but rather whether he or she was misled in the beginning. That is the issue we must consider.
We have almost completed this topic. The next item is an amended letter from the financial regulator regarding endowment mortgages, about which we have just spoken. The next item is a letter to the Chairman from Mr. Hans Zomer regarding Development Co-operation Ireland. We have agreed to refer that matter directly to the line Minister.
The next item is a letter to the Chairman from the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen.
Are the two letters regarding DCI the same?
Yes, we appear to have received two copies of the same letter.
I thought the Chairman said the second letter was an amended one.
I think the amendments were typographical. We will refer both letters to the Department.
The next item is a letter from the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, regarding proposed reforms of the budgetary and Estimates process. The Minister has invited the Opposition spokespersons and Whips to meet him and the Government Whip to discuss this matter. The letter to the joint committee is for information only.
I spoke yesterday to Ms Breda Rafter in the Minister's office who told me it is expected that opportunity will be offered post-resumption of the Houses.
Is that a matter for the select committee or the joint committee?
The letter is for information only. No committee is as yet involved in the process. The Minister proposes to meet party spokespersons and Whips and has sent us information on what is happening as a matter of courtesy.
The next item is the proposed timetable for discussion of the Finance Bill 2006. It is proposed that the Bill will be published on 2 February 2006; that Second Stage will be taken on 7 and 8 February; that Committee Stage will be taken on 21, 22 and 23 February and, that Report Stage will be taken on 4 and 5 March 2006. The Bill will be then discussed in the Seanad on 25 and 26 March. The last day for signature by the President is 7 April. This is advance information for committee members, but is subject to change.
The next item is No. 245, a letter to the committee clerk from the office of the Ceann Comhairle with regard to an EU interparliamentary debate in Brussels, entitled How to Raise Growth in the Euro Area, on 20 and 21 February 2006. Are there any observations with regard to this?
It just refers to it taking place in the European Parliament.
We note it. The next item is an e-mail to the clerk from Veronica Healy, local government project development section, regarding the setting up of an informal all-party parliamentary group on Seanad reform. Is it agreed we note that?
I have a question about this. It is described as an informal all-party parliamentary group. With regard to the role and function of this committee, what specifically is the group asking of it? Has the committee particular access or what is the make up of this so-called all-party group on Seanad reform? Has the Chairman additional information?
All I know is from the letter which seeks any view the joint committee may wish to offer on the sub-committee's recommendation. The group seeks an update on developments that have taken place generally with regard to the review of public policy. I do not know any more and have no further information.
: I am a member of the sub-committee. The issue arises from the fact that a Seanad reform committee produced a report which was published and presented to the Government some time ago. The Government considered the report and asked that it be dealt with by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The Minister, Deputy Roche, chairs an all-party parliamentary group representative of all parties and both Houses. The proposals require three levels of change. One level, constitutional change, can only be by referendum, another level is legislative and will obviously go through the normal legislative procedure and the third or first level, depending on how we look at it, are changes that can be made to the operation of both Houses through the Standing Orders of both.
This letter refers to the aspects which can be carried out by the Committees on Procedure and Privileges in both Houses. It would be a problem or disaster if the different committees took different views. Therefore, to get around that, the informal parliamentary group has asked the Whips, committees and various groups for their views. The issue has to do with various matters such as raising questions, increasing Private Members' time and how matters are dealt with. The issue raised by Deputy Ó Caoláin could be dealt with by allowing him see the minutes of the group. I see no reason the minutes should not be available.
Will each party be represented on this group?
Each party is represented, including that of Deputy Ó Caoláin.
I suggest this committee has no particular role to play and that we note the letter as information.
The reason the issue is put before the committee is so that people will not say afterwards they did not get an opportunity to contribute. It is a belt and braces job from the informal group.
Unless somebody wants to respond——
My question related to this committee's function. It is good Senator O'Toole is here and can throw additional light on the matter. Does the informal group seek views from this committee? If that is the case, are we being responsible? Has the committee a view? We have been asked a question and it surely deserves a response. We should set aside time to discuss the salient points in the report and present an opinion, even if it is split. The question deserves a response. The issue is important and we should address it.
We have been given the opportunity to respond.
There is an additional point. The idea of it coming to a committee allows the committee to say there is a certain aspect of work which could, perhaps, be dealt with by the Seanad. One issue that comes to mind in this regard is whether the Seanad would be an appropriate place to give time on one day a week to issues such as EU scrutiny. Every time we consider this issue in committee, we say it does not get enough time and wonder whether the process is good enough or whether European developments are discussed in sufficient detail. This is just one issue that might arise.
The committee is just being careful in writing to us. I do not wish to put words in anybody's mouth, but the issue I mentioned is just one that might arise from discussion along the lines I have mentioned.
There are other fora for Members of both Houses to deal with the issue of reform other than through this committee. The committee can deal with the issue if it chooses to do so, but there are other fora for Members to do it.
I will be guided by opinion, but are all other committees being written to in the same vein?
Yes.
They are, but I will make a suggestion. There is a reference here to five pages of the report. I suggest we park the discussion for now, circulate the five pages to members of the committee and see if they ring any bells as to what the committee should do. That is a simple approach and will not take much time.
I would welcome that. A group which is addressing a serious area of reform of the Houses has written to all 14 or 15 committees. I think it is a poor response if none of them reply because members have other fora in which to offer their opinions. The group has gone to the trouble to invite a response and I take the view that we should give the matter some consideration and reply. I welcome Senator O'Toole's proposition that we proceed in the manner he has suggested.
Is that agreed? Agreed. The next item is No. 247, an e-mail to the clerk regarding the European Union Austrian Presidency's economic priorities. I suggest we note that. The next item is No. 248 and relates to EU scrutiny and an update on where we are. That concludes all items of correspondence, other than EU scrutiny.
What was the item regarding Austria?
It is just a note on the economic priorities for the Austrian Presidency of the European Union.
Was that circulated?
It was.
I received a load of correspondence at my home this morning which I have brought with me. It should have been sent out earlier.
It was sent out on the normal date. There are extra copies available here because I am conscious that not everybody would have received post yesterday.
We have completed dealing with correspondence and must now deal with EU scrutiny.
I wish to raise the matter of passenger car related taxes.