Is it agreed that, in line with the recommendations of the sub-committee on EU scrutiny, these proposals do not warrant scrutiny by the committee? Agreed.
On 17 June the committee deferred a decision on the scrutiny of COM 2004/227 until members had an opportunity to review the material provided at the time by the sub-committee on EU scrutiny. The proposal concerned general arrangements for products which are subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products. This is regarded as being of major significance. Unanimous agreement is required but it is not anticipated that agreement will be reached on the proposal as it stands. The sub-committee has recommended that we scrutinise the proposal. Is it agreed that the proposal warrants scrutiny by the committee in the autumn? Agreed.
Three statutory instruments have been sent to the committee by the Department of Finance. Under our orders of reference the committee has power to consider such statutory instruments made by the Minister for Finance and laid before both Houses as it may select. The time within which the Houses can annul a statutory instrument is usually limited by statute to 21 sitting days after it is laid.
SI 407 of 2004 was laid before the Houses on 13 July. I understand that it appoints 30 June for the coming in to operation of section 52 of the Finance Act 2004 and that the order removes a requirement to present a vehicle registration certificate or other evidence at the first time of licensing a vehicle. The 21-day review period does not apply, as seems to be the norm, for commencement provisions. Is it agreed not to consider this statutory instrument? Agreed.
SI 408 of 2004 was laid before the Houses on 13 July. I understand that it appoints 30 June for the coming into effect of section 53(1)(a), paragraph 1 of the Finance Act 2004. I understand that the order removes the authority of the Revenue Commissioners to prescribe the form and contents of vehicle registration certificates. The 21-day period does not apply, as seems to be the norm in commencement provisions. Is it agreed not to consider this statutory instrument? Agreed.
SI 425 of 2004 was laid before the Houses on 9 July. I understand that it appoints 1 January 2004 for the coming into operation of section 33 of the Finance Act 2004. I understand that section 33 gives effect to the tax credit provisions for research and development. The 21-day period does not apply, as seems to be the norm for commencement provisions. Is it agreed not to consider this statutory provision? Agreed.
Regarding other items of correspondence, the South Korean embassy has asked whether the committee can facilitate a meeting with a delegation of the South Korean parliamentary committee on finance. The delegation visits Ireland on Friday, 13 August 2004. I understand that it will also visit a number of other European countries. It will be very difficult, if not impossible, to convene a formal meeting of the committee in mid-August. I would be reluctant to commit ourselves to an informal meeting unless members are in a position to confirm definitively that they will be able to attend. It would be too dicey. We could be embarrassed. The embassy has recognised the difficulties involved. The safest thing is to pass on this. It is too much of a commitment and we might embarrass the delegation by not having a group here to meet it.
A letter has been received from the chairman of AIB, Mr. Dermot Gleeson, indicating that, on the basis of the progress report on the investigations into foreign exchange and charging issues within AIB, published last Friday, AIB is now in a position to meet this committee.
