The other item with which I want to deal is the pre-scrutiny of EU legislative proposals. At our last meeting we managed to complete scrutiny of a number of legislative proposals referred to us by the sub-committee on EU scrutiny. On 8 May the sub-committee met to consider a range of proposals, one of which was referred to this committee for information only, not for scrutiny, as the lead Department on this proposal is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The proposal concerns EU Com (2003) 138 regarding a directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the harmonisation of transparency requirements with regard to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market and amending Directive 2001/34/EC. An information note from the Department of Finance on this proposal was sent to members of the committee. Is it agreed to note the proposal as recommended by the sub-committee on EU scrutiny? Agreed.
On 22 May the sub-committee on EU scrutiny met again to consider a further range of proposals. On this occasion it referred for further scrutiny EU Com (2003) 119, an amended proposal for a directive on the reuse for commercial exploitation of public sector documents and further that the committee request the Department of Finance to keep it apprised of developments as they arise. The Department was contacted and has undertaken to issue an updated note as soon as there are any developments on the issue. It has indicated it has nothing new to add to the previous briefing given to the committee in February, on foot of which the committee has agreed to lay a report before the Houses on the matter. This report will be laid next week.
We have discussed the issue of the commercial exploitation of public sector documents and agreed the public sector should be allowed to participate in this process. The Department of Finance is aware of our view. I understand a meeting will take place at official level on Friday at which the Department will represent our views. Among the considerable amount of material we received from it, I noted that the Commission has also produced a similar amendment to the document in question, effectively noting that some public sector bodies in some countries are already gaining commercial advantage from the reuse of documents, a matter which needs to be addressed. The Commission's view appears to be in line with ours on this issue. According to the document I received, however, the Council of Ministers does not appear to share this view. We will lay the report before the Houses. We will also be briefed by the Department as matters arise.
Members should also note that, even where the sub-committee on EU scrutiny does not recommend scrutinising a particular legislative proposal, the committee may still decide to do so. In our case, there are a number of proposals on which the sub-committee has recommended that no further scrutiny is necessary. These are contained in the documentation circulated. If the committee agrees with the recommendation that no further scrutiny is necessary, we can confirm this to the sub-committee. Is it agreed that it is not necessary to scrutinise the proposals in question? Agreed.