Items Nos. 1 and 2 are the minutes of the meeting of 21 June 2012 and any matters arising them. Are they agreed? Agreed. Item No. 3 is correspondence received since our meeting of Thursday 28 June 2012. Item No. 3A entails replies from the Accounting Officers. Item No. 3A.1 is correspondence dated 8 June 2012 from the Secretary General of the Department of Foreign Affairs. That was deferred from our meetings on 21 June and 28 June 2012. It was regarding the Irish Technology Leadership Group and Emigration Support programme previously noted, published and raised by Deputy Nolan.
Business of Committee
I thank the Chairman for deferring it again last week in my absence. I have noted the response from the Department. I shall not say that it is inaccurate but I have researched the group again and there seems to be a large private industry element attached to it and, it seems to me, to be entwined with a for profit element. I would like us to get some clarity on it. I am not asking the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General to carry out an investigation but to examine the matter and ensure that our public funds are not cross-subsidising a private entity. Perhaps it could see if the group is serving the appropriate function. The group has received $0.75 million from us. Perhaps the Office of the Comptroller an Auditor and General could do some scoping and contact our other organisations in California such as Enterprise Ireland to see if the group is performing a function that is valuable and worth supporting.
I shall ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to respond to the Deputy's suggestion.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
Certainly there are many situations where public funding is given to legitimate private sector businesses. I would be anxious not to cut across the role of the Department in making a decision to issue grants for particular purposes. Our concern would be that if payments are made that the service that is required or expected is delivered. I would wish to be a bit careful about getting involved in the space where the Department makes a decision. It is its role to make that decision. We can have a look at it in the context of the audit and have a discussion with the Department around it.
Thank you.
I happen to be aware of this group as a result of my interest in the digital sector in general. I have no intention of diminishing the import of Deputy Nolan's question but I am hopeful that if the relevant evidence is furnished to him, his concerns will be allayed. The group to which the question relates does a great deal of vital work in promoting Irish businesses in a very competitive environment abroad. I hope that any information supplied by the group to the Deputy in respect of its work will be to his satisfaction.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
Our focus would have to be with the Department because it is the latter which we audit. To go beyond that and make direct contact with a grantee would be to also go beyond the legitimate scope of the office's work. However, we will certainly make some inquiries.
No. 3A.2 is correspondence dated 26 June 2012 from the Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform forwarding the minute of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform in response to the Committee of Public Accounts report on the Irish Red Cross. This is to be noted and published. I ask the clerk to place this matter on the agenda for next week's meeting in order that we might have time to consider and discuss it further.
No. 3B is correspondence alleging waste of public funds. No. 3B.1 is correspondence, dated 21 June 2012, from Secretary General, Department of Education and Skills re correspondence from an anonymous source regarding Cork VEC which was previously forwarded by the committee. This is to be noted. The matter is currently sub judice.
No. 3B.2 is correspondence, dated 25 June 2012, from the assistant national director of parliamentary and regulatory affairs of the Health Service Executive related to correspondence from an anonymous source regarding Delta Centre, Carlow, which was previously forwarded by the committee. This is to be noted.
No. 3B.3 is correspondence, dated 28 June 2012, from Mr. John Kinsella, re Fáilte Ireland. This is to be noted. I do not see any point in pursuing this matter further.
No. 3B.4 is correspondence, received 29 June 2012, from Claffey Gannon & Company Solicitors re property at 49 South William Street, Dublin 2. This is to be noted. We cannot get involved in individual cases being managed by NAMA. Members will have an opportunity to raise the broad issue of managing debtor relationships when representatives from NAMA come before the committee.
No. 3C relates to individual complaints. No. 3C.1 is correspondence, dated 14 June 2012, from Mr. Paddy Rochford re New Ross Town Council. This is to be noted. The matter in question is not one for the committee, so we will pass it on to the Local Government Audit Service.
No. 3C.2 is correspondence, dated 21 June 2012, from Mr. Garry Coughlan re Copthorne Hotels. This is to be noted. Aer Lingus is outside our terms of reference, so I propose that the issue be referred to the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications.
No. 3C.3 is correspondence, dated 27 June 2012, from the Secretary General of the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport regarding correspondence from Mr. F. J. Gleasure concerning Killarney Sports and Leisure Centre which was previously forwarded by the committee. This is to be noted and a copy will be forwarded to the original complainant.
No. 3C.4 is correspondence, dated 28 June 2012, from the Minister of State with responsibility for trade and development, Deputy Joe Costello, re proposed visit to Ethiopia. This is to be noted. Arising from the Minister of State's request, we will examine the issue and the clerk will revert to the committee at its next meeting.
No. 3C.5 is correspondence, dated 28 June 2012, from the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform re proposed banking inquiry. This is to be noted and published.
Was that correspondence e-mailed to members?
Clerk to the Committee
A copy was e-mailed to the committee yesterday.
I have not seen it yet.
Would it be possible for the Chairman to give us the opportunity to digest the contents of the letter?
We can arrange for hard copies to be circulated to members.
Would it be possible to do that? I may have inadvertently overlooked the relevant e-mail in my in-box.
What is the position in respect of this matter?
I would prefer it if members read the letter and made their own minds up in respect of what it contains.
That is fine.
We will circulate hard copies of the letter to members now and return to this matter at the end of our deliberations on correspondence received.
That would be good.
Perhaps the clerk would also arrange for a copy of the reply to be circulated to members.
Clerk to the Committee
I will do that now.
No. 3C.6 is correspondence, dated 3 July 2012, from Professor Niamh Brennan re Dublin Docklands Development Authority, DDDA. This is to be noted. Given the developments on the examination of the DDDA, the issues being raised by Professor Brennan may be superseded. However, the committee will allay her concerns when it writes back to her.
No. 3D is documents relating to today's meeting. No. 3D.1 is correspondence, received 4 July 2012, from Mr. Brendan McDonagh, the chief executive of the National Asset Management Agency re his opening statement. No. 3D.2 is correspondence, also received on 4 July 2012 from Mr. Brendan McDonagh, re information slide pack on matters to be considered at this meeting. These are to be noted and published.
I ask that the letter from the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, in respect of the DDDA be considered alongside the other correspondence relating to the DDDA.
No. 4 is reports, statements and accounts received since our meeting on 28 June 2012. No. 4.1 is the report and financial statements of the Family Support Agency for the year ended 31 December 2010, No. 4.2 is the annual report of the Medical Council for 2011, No. 4.3 is IDA Ireland's annual report and accounts for 2011 and 4.4 is the annual report and accounts for Forfás for 2011. These are to be noted. We may consider including IDA Ireland in our schedule of work for the autumn.
No. 5 is our work programme. As members are aware, the meeting due to take place on 12 July next with representatives from the DDDA will now not proceed. This is a result of the legalities involved and the letter from the Minister to which I referred earlier.
Are we going to discuss that letter now?
Yes, if the Deputy so wishes. Given that our meeting for 12 July has been cancelled, we will not meet again until Thursday, 19 July, in private session, in order to discuss our work programme. The clerk will be in contact with members in respect of this matter. Do any members wish to comment on either the work programme or the correspondence received from the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan?
We have not received copies of the Minister's letter.
It was circulated last week.
Is that the one that was handed out on Tuesday?
Clerk to the Committee
Yes. If members look at their screens, they can see it.
What is the gist of the letter?
It clearly states that in accordance with Standing Order 163(7)(a) of Dáil Éireann, the Minister is requesting the committee to refrain from any further examination of the DDDA until the court case relating to it has concluded.
I wish to make one observation in respect of the letter. One only tends to become aware of certain standing orders when they become relevant. The letter refers to Standing Order 163(7)(a). It has nothing to do with legal proceedings. A Minister can direct the Committee of Public Accounts to cease examining an issue. If that is standing orders, so be it. It is disappointing that a letter arrives in respect of something about which the Comptroller and Auditor General has prepared a special report, as he has done here. He spent months on it, it went to Government and was released after three months of Government consideration. It was laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The report has gone to the Cabinet and has been laid before the Dáil and will be examined, in due course, by this committee. However, a Minister can come in at this stage and use a standing order to say that we cannot discuss the matter at this time.
I would be happier if the committee can seek, through the Dáil, a change in the standing orders of the committee, which may involve a change in our terms of reference. I understand why the power is necessary but it would be better if it was done by a motion in the Dáil. The motion could request that the matter before the Committee of Public Accounts not be considered further. I do not like a letter behind-the-scenes telling us to stop work. The Chairman has chosen to publish the letter although there was no obligation to do so. We tend to do that as good practice. The public does not know what has happened to the special report approved by the Government, laid before the Dáil when, all of a sudden, a letter arrives from the Minister saying that we must not discuss it. In the interests of the integrity of this committee and the Dáil, the mechanism for doing this should be the motion in the Dáil. I will accept it without argument if the Dáil feels we should not discuss the matter in public. I suggest we ask to see whether the terms of reference can be modified. My understanding is that this has never been invoked before so we are in new territory. I have never heard the Minister stopping the Committee of Public Accounts in its tracks from examining a special report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which has been approved by the Government. It would be better if this was done by way of a motion of the Dáil.
It is very disappointing that we are at this point because our initial hearing with the witnesses from the Dublin Docklands Development Authority indicated some important work the committee could have done. The chain of events that happened after the hearing make the intervention of the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, understandable. As I said when the correspondence arrived from Mr. Tierney, if we find ourselves in a situation where we have continued our work but caused difficulty to the State in defending itself against legal action for a value reported to be between €60 million and €100 million, that would be a bad outcome for the Committee of Public Accounts. Our work could end up undermining the State's defence in respect of a large amount of taxpayers' money. It is a real pity that this happened because the committee could have done important work in the area. If and when the court case is completed, I hope we can continue our work.
Now that the matter has been raised by members for discussion, we should reflect on what happened. We had a hearing, followed by a number of items of correspondence that indicated that those central to it were unavailable for all sorts of reasons. Finally, we received a letter from Mr. John Tierney. Mr. Tierney spelled out the position and explained the difficulty to us. In its wisdom, the committee decided to seek legal advice but there was a clear understanding, in discussing the matter with members, that we would have to abandon the hearing until the court case was finished. At that point, perhaps we could return to it. If the Committee of Public Accounts had been allowed to conclude its business on the matter, the outcome would have been to abandon the hearings. That was the opinion of members. I cannot understand why Minister would use the standing order at a point when the committee had not finished its consideration of the issue arising from Mr. Tierney's letter. Our consideration would probably have led to the same outcome. It casts doubt on the committee and its intention. This is the first time Standing Order 163 has been used in this way and it is regrettable that it has happened and that the Minister decided it had to be done at this time. The decision has now been made even though it is one we would probably have reached anyway. It was unnecessary. The matter should be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to examine the aspect raised by Deputy Sean Fleming in respect of our work on this committee. We have parked the investigation of the DDDA and we must consider our agenda for next week, the 19th, when the Secretary General of the Department was to appear before the committee.
Representatives of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government were scheduled to be here next Thursday. As they have cleared their diaries for next Thursday, I propose bringing them in to finish some outstanding business concerning the Department's Vote but specifically excluding the particular issue we must not discuss. It would be a shame for the committee to collapse and not meet next week because one item was removed from the agenda. I propose substituting unfinished business for the meeting next Thursday. The Department has only a small involvement in the Poolbeg incinerator. A few other issues could be tidied up in the Department's Vote. It may be a short meeting but we should not let next week pass without proceeding with some business in a useful manner.
We dealt with the Vote at the last meeting but other matters may be scheduled for this meeting.
I suggest two matters and other members may contact the secretariat to assist the Department before it appears before the committee. The Poolbeg issue has been raised and although what the Department can say may be limited, it will let us sign off on where we are on the issue. Another major issue is ghost estates, which is a key initiative for the Department. It would be useful for the Secretary General to bring us up to date on this matter. The Minister of State was on the radio this morning. The issue affects every county. I suggest these two items and I understand we cannot have a broad-ranging discussion across the Department. We can use the opportunity to tidy up a number of issues that are of public interest.
Is that agreed? Agreed. Members have copies of the correspondence. Does anyone have a comment to make on it?
Does the Chairman mean on his exchange with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin?
Yes.
It seems to me that we are in a serious situation in general with the Committee of Public Accounts. It is being downgraded. Members should please excuse my voice as it is going. We have already discussed the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, DDDA, situation which was something of a slap in the face for the committee in its efforts to make inquiries into what was happening in a semi-State body. I regard the excuse given as totally unsatisfactory. I see no problem whatsoever in inquiring about it.
Reading between the lines of the letter, it is obvious that there is a political inclination to remove the investigation from the remit of the Committee of Public Accounts, which is the obvious committee to inquire into it. It is extremely disturbing that we have a couple of instances of that happening, in particular on the banking inquiry where it appears that the Minister wants to downgrade it in some way and, as a result, the work of the Committee of Public Accounts is being disregarded and might in effect be obstructed. The Committee of Public Accounts should examine the position in which we now find ourselves where we have sought to take on two extremely constructive initiatives and we are being stymied in both of them.
We must respond strongly. The Chairman has circulated a letter. Has he sent the letter?
I sent the letter.
We have been dealing with the Department for approximately six months. It came in prior to the constitutional amendment and we spoke to the officials. What kind of communication has the Chairman had? Let us go through this systematically in terms of the correspondence and the kind of contact we have had with the Department up to this point. Could the Chairman remind us of how this has progressed? This is just the latest communication we have had with the Department.
I do not wish to escalate the matter into something extraordinary.
It would be useful to examine how we got to this point. Everyone in the country has known for months that we were considering a banking inquiry. They know that a sub-committee is meeting and that serious work is being done, including the publication of a 290 page document. We have now received this letter. Could the Chairman remind the committee of the contacts we have had with the Department for the past six months?
There was no correspondence before we received this letter.
Was there nothing?
The letter is dated by hand 28 June 2012.
Okay.
I gave it to the clerk yesterday when I received it. There is no lead-up to the letter. This is not an exchange in any way with the Department.
That is fair enough but I had an exchange about six or seven months ago – people did not like the words I used at the time – with the Department in which I effectively accused it of trying to emasculate the Committee of Public Accounts. That is, in effect, what it is doing. I am interested in finding out what communication there has been since then.
There has been no communication on this issue.
None. Okay.
The letter of 28 June just came to the Chairman out of the blue.
Yes. It is addressed to me as Chairman.
It was not in response to anything sent by the committee.
It was not a response to anything. Deputy Ross can see the letter for himself. The paragraph to note states that any committee either existing or specifically established can be mandated to undertake an inquiry based on an inquire, record and report model of inquiry. The latter approach might more suitably involve the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform. It was clearly known that we were concluding a report along the lines we set out. The report was sent out to Members last Thursday and this letter dated 28 June arrived and seems to set out the position of the Department before the report is even considered.
It is basically a letter to stop us in our tracks before we took the next step.
Of course it is.
I was a member of the sub-committee and I am anxious for the Committee of Public Accounts to carry out this inquiry. From my reading of the letter the Minister is outlining to us his legal advice. He says there are two options. One is an inquire, record and report type of inquiry, which would be familiar to members and the second type of inquiry is one that would look at legislative changes. He said any committee could do the inquire, record and report model of inquiry. He also said the latter model of inquiry into legislative measures might be more suitable to the finance committee. That is not saying that the Committee of Public Accounts will not get to carry out the inquiry. There has been much exaggeration. The use of words, as some Deputies have done, such as "downgrade", "disregarded" and "obstructed" is over the top.
I want the committee to carry out the inquiry. As we know from our legal advice, the inquiry will have to be disciplined, tightly controlled and will have to be done without looking for media headlines. Seeing the report published in the newspapers last Sunday was a cause of concern for me. It would give anyone in the public domain the right to question whether this committee has the ability to do it if the progress and report is being leaked to the Sunday newspapers. Let us be frank. If that type of discipline is going to apply to the committee on the banking inquiry, I would not be surprised that people would be concerned about it. I fully support replying to the Minister to state that we wish the committee to fulfil the work, that we are perfectly capable, ready and have all the ammunition to carry out an inquire, record and report model on inquiry. I would be most supportive of that stance.
I wish to give my two cent worth of opinion on what Deputy Nolan said. On his first point about the legal points made, one could agree to the basis of them. We have picked those points out ourselves in terms of the legal weaknesses. My personal opinion is that there is a reason for everything in politics. There is a reason for timing also. In fairness, there is a reason the letter has come within recent days. As far as the leaks are concerned, as I said a week ago, one must drive through leaks because they will happen no matter what. I agree with Deputy Nolan's sentiments. We all do. I have come to the conclusion that one must just get on with it, and forget about it because it will happen. There is no mystery as to why that happens. There was no mystery from day one when the Department set out its original plans on what it perceived as the best way to deal with such an inquiry. It was not the way we propose to do it. The Department made that clear. This is just the latest instalment. There is no mystery as to why the letter came when it did.
I agree. I would have preferred if the report was not on the front page of a national newspaper last Sunday. I do not know about anyone else but this is the first time I have seen the letter from the Minister, Deputy Howlin. The paragraph to which Deputy Nolan referred was ambiguous. I presume the reference to "the latter" is about the previous paragraph, but that is not clear. I had to read it two or three times before I saw that. Has the letter we have been given by the Chairman already been sent to the Minister?
Yes. I issued it yesterday.
When did we receive the letter from the Minister, Deputy Howlin.
On Wednesday.
We had it at the special meeting on Tuesday. I am sorry, that was a letter from the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan.
I suppose it is difficult when we receive correspondence-----
We must deal with the letters from the Minister, Deputy Hogan, and the Minister, Deputy Howlin, in isolation.
I am simply referring to the backlog.
I understand Deputy Ross's point, but we need to separate them.
We are receiving correspondence. The sub-committee and the Committee of Public Accounts have done a significant amount of work and the report is good and considerable. It refers to instituting a framework for conducting a banking inquiry. The key issue is that we should launch our document this afternoon with a full account of what is in the report. Both it and the work of the committee stand on their own merits.
We will note and publish both letters.
Another item of correspondence relates to today's hearing. A letter has been received from DAC Beachcroft Dublin Solicitors regarding its client, Treasury Holdings, relevant to the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA. Have we circulated the letter?
Clerk to the Committee
Yes.
Treasury Holdings and its associated companies are allowing a discussion on issues related to them and are withdrawing their right of confidentiality. The letter has just been received and it is best to make members aware of it before calling on the witnesses. We can ask the officials from NAMA about their position on this letter, but I want to clarify matters before we start.
Has NAMA been given a copy of the letter?
Clerk to the Committee
It seems to be a letter to NAMA.
Yes, and we have been given a copy.
Tying this issue to the letter from the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, DDDA, NAMA is before the High Court, commercial courts, foreign courts and several other courts dealing with various people who owe it money. Last week, a letter from a Minister asked us not to proceed with our examination of the DDDA because court cases were pending. Can we be assured that our discussions with NAMA will not be stopped on the same basis? It is probably involved in more substantial legal cases with its debtors than the DDDA is. Although the prospect of stopping has been raised, doing so would be wrong. This matter relates to today's discussion. Several court cases are pending. If we receive another letter, can we be told not to discuss NAMA?
Under Standing Order 163(7)(a), a “Department or office, or of a body which is subject to audit” can prevent us from continuing with our inquiry.
I reiterate my point. We must amend that Standing Order. Could a vocational education committee, VEC, invoke that Standing Order to stop us from inquiring into it? If the Standing Order can be used against the committee by anyone, we have no powers.
Perhaps the Comptroller and Auditor General knows whether there is a precedent.
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
Not as far as I am aware. The restriction is on inquiring into a matter in public session and publishing. This is key. Although it is only my impression, I imagine there might be certain matters in the course of a hearing that would not be for mention in public, in which event the committee could enter private session to discuss them. As I read the Standing Order, it relates to inquiring into a matter in public session.
Can we invite the Department to attend next week as planned and hold our meeting in private session? I would not recommend it, but it is an option. I am unfamiliar with the Standing Orders, but the only restriction seems to be on inquiring in public session. Next Thursday's meeting would be in private.
The answer to Deputy Sean Fleming's first question is "Yes", in that any body that can be audited can invoke this Standing Order. The answer to his second question is that the restriction does not apply in private session. Is this the ruling?
Maybe I was not clear. We are discussing public session hearings. The letter from the Minister, Deputy Hogan, asks us to refrain from inquiring further in public session into matters connected with the special report. From this, one can presume that we can conduct the hearings in private session if we so wish.
This is a serious issue. We need complete clarity. We should get legal advice from Ms Melissa English regarding the structure in which this committee works in terms of public versus private. It is important that we be able to conduct our work in a systematic way. Taking a "this might work or that might work" approach is not sufficient. We need full clarity. The committee's legal adviser, Ms English, should provide her opinion and, if necessary, we should seek counsel's opinion. This issue is so central to the committee's workings that we need absolute clarity on it. Perhaps the Comptroller and Auditor General might feed into the overview.
Arising from the letter from Mr. Tierney, we sought legal advice, which will be provided in due course. We can also ask for specific advice regarding the Minister's letter, which refers to public session, and whether we can continue our hearings in private session. For the information of committee members, we should at least know what we can and cannot do. To get clarity, we will ask for the various items of correspondence to be given to our legal adviser. Otherwise, the Standing Order could be loosely interpreted and any agency could prevent us from continuing our work. Since that is how it reads, we need clarification.
Is it quite true that anyone could prevent the committee from doing its work?
It is under Standing Order-----
There must be a specific set of circumstances.
Clerk to the Committee
Yes.
What are they?
Clerk to the Committee
The Standing Order reads: "confidential information regarding the activities and plans of a Government Department" or a body.
I am referring to the reasons for which the Minister, Deputy Hogan, triggered his intervention and the Standing Order underpinning it. In what circumstances can that Standing Order be triggered?
In that specific instance, it was a court case.
We are having a discussion on whether any body being investigated by us can trigger a mechanism to stop us from investigating, but that is not true.
No. If there is a court case, and only in public session.
Only in the event of a court case.
The Standing Order is more loosely written than that.
Clerk to the Committee
We are mixing apples and oranges. There are Standing Orders relating to court cases.
Clerk to the Committee
It is called the sub judice rule. Those Standing Orders have been relaxed quite a bit. This instance fell into two parts, in that a court case was ongoing and the Minister believed that we would start inquiring into a body’s confidential information. In the normal course, what the Comptroller and Auditor General said is correct and we could come to a stage where a Deputy is asking a question of a witness from a body and that witness may refuse to answer because of confidentiality. The two choices in that case are to stop the meeting and go into private session or park the issue and go to another topic. The examination may not have to come to a dead end but there may be certain circumstances where very confidential information relating to a body or Department cannot be relayed in public session.
I just wanted that clarified because this is all in public session. There have been different discussions taking place.
Clerk to the Committee
Given what has arisen, it is important to get a note from the legal people to say what we can do. I presume we could have gone into private session to deal with the matter, having thought it through.
Could we clarify that aspect with regard to the Dublin Docklands Development Authority? That is the case in hand and we need specific legal advice around that.
Standing Order 163(7)(a) is very loosely constructed, stating the committee shall refrain “from enquiring into in public session, or publishing, confidential information regarding the activities and plans of a Government Department or office, or of a body which is subject to audit, examination or inspection by the Comptroller and Auditor General, if so requested”. The backup to that is legal precedent. If a body quoted from this Standing Order, would there be a case of the matter being sub judice?
Mr. Seamus McCarthy
I imagine if a public body was engaged in a tender process or privatisation, there would be commercially sensitive information. Specifically, there is reference to "confidential information regarding the activities and plans of a Government Department or office". There may be a parallel concern about disclosing information specific to an individual.
If a body writes to the committee and the committee decides not to take on board the comments of the body, what are the consequences for the committee?
We are discussing this but there are a number of very serious items; it is a serious issue for the Committee of Public Accounts. I propose that we refer the different pieces of correspondence to our legal adviser and have a meeting next Tuesday in private session to discuss these matters and get some direction. At least then we would know exactly what we can do. In the meantime we will schedule representatives from the Department to come in, as arranged, next Thursday.
Is that the original arrangement?
It depends on the legal advice.
Members can decide on the topic on Tuesday.
Is that agreed? Agreed. The work programme for 19 July is agreed. If there is no other business I remind committee members that we have agreed to launch the report at 4 p.m. today in the audio-visual room. I ask all members to make themselves available for the launch, as it is important for the committee.