As we said, there has been a request for three, four or five items to be included on the work programme. I suggest we set dates for it at our next meeting, not today.
I hope we will conclude all our business regarding correspondence, travel proposals, statutory instruments and EU scrutiny by approximately 3.30 p.m., at which time we will be able to meet the visitors from AIB.
The first item of correspondence, which has been circulated, is No. 10 of 2004. The committee has received a letter of thanks from a correspondent in London who had written some time ago alleging that AIB had sought money to which it was not entitled from the administrator of her late husband's estate. We had agreed to take the correspondent's experience into account in the context of a meeting with representatives of AIB. I suggest we note the letter. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item No. 12 concerns a circular from Niall Murphy on behalf of AIB shareholders committed to the restoration of honest and integrity throughout AIB. I suggest we note the letter. Is that agreed? Agreed.
A letter from the chairman of AIB has been circulated, in which Mr. Gleeson indicates a number of constraints that will limit the extent to which he and Mr. Buckley can comment on certain topics. The committee will appreciate Mr. Gleeson's concerns and therefore I suggest we note the letter. Is that agreed? Agreed.
On document No. 11, a number of statutory instruments have been sent to the committee by the Department of Finance. Under our orders of reference we have the power to consider such statutory instruments made by the Minister for Finance and laid before the Houses as the committee may select. The time within which the House can annul a statutory instrument is often limited by statute to 21 days after it has been made. SI 427 of 2004 appoints 1 January as the date of coming into operation of section 19 of the Finance Act. Can I take it that the committee does not wish to consider this statutory instrument? Agreed.
SI 543 of 2004 makes regulations to extend the period following the issue of a life assurance policy within which a policyholder may cancel the policy. Can I take it the committee does not wish to consider the statutory instrument? Agreed.
SI 551 of 2004 appoints 2 February 2004 as the date for coming into operation of sections 31 and 42 of the Finance Act. Can I take it the committee does not wish to consider the statutory instrument? Agreed.
SI 570 of 2004 provides for the nomination of two persons for appointment as directors of Investor Compensation Company Limited. The people involved are nominated as they appear to the Minister to represent the interest of clients of investment firms. The 21-day review period applies in this case. Can I take it the committee does not need to consider this statutory instrument in any further detail? Agreed.
SI 574 of 2004 allows operators of touring coaches of a lower height than was hitherto allowed to qualify for the full repayment of VAT. The 21-day regulation applies. Can I take it the committee does not need to consider this statutory instrument in any further detail? Agreed.
Document No. 7 of 2004 was referred to on our last meeting. On 17 June the committee's attention was drawn to this proposal but the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny did not recommend that we scrutinise it. The proposal involves a preliminary draft budget to budget the surplus resulting from the implementation of the 2003 EU budget. The committee had sought a briefing note from the Department of Finance and, having reviewed the note it provided on 14 July, requested a further detailed breakdown of any funds that were unspent and not drawn down by Ireland in 2003. The note explains the circumstances in some detail and in particular states that it is not possible to identify from EU budget data the country composition of any underspending in respect of the Structural and Cohesion Funds. The letter does not fully answer the questions we were asking. It states essentially that the information is not available from the European Union but I am doubtful about this. I do not believe countries do not know the level of underspend. Therefore, I propose we defer consideration of the letter rather than having a detailed discussion today. We will return to the matter at the next meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Sub-committee on European Scrutiny has sent to this committee a list of documents and proposals considered and the decisions taken at its meeting on 30 September. It has drawn our attention to four proposals, in particular, but has not recommended that we scrutinise them. They are documents COM (2004) 486, 487, 494 and 495. Is it agreed that none of the proposals considered by the sub-committee warrant scrutiny by this committee? Agreed.
The Sub-committee on European Scrutiny has also sent this committee a note on documents considered and decisions taken at its meeting on 7 October. The single proposal involved has not been referred to this committee for scrutiny. It is proposed, therefore, that it does not require scrutiny by the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.
On correspondence, item No. 17 refers to endowment mortgage holders. A letter from Deputy Bruton concerning the manner in which endowment mortgages have been sold has been circulated. Deputy Bruton proposes that the consumer director of IFSRA and officials from the Department of Finance be urgently invited to address the committee on the issue. Does the Deputy wish to make a comment?