The Chairman has been detained at another meeting, although he may join us later. I have an urgent appointment. In the circumstances I ask for a nomination for Acting Chairman.
Business of Joint Committee.
Should the nominee not come from the Government benches?
Traditionally, that has been the convention.
I was going to ask my colleagues if they would like the experience.
Is it agreed Deputy Nolan will take the Chair?
We do not covet it.
What about Deputy Finneran? He is the Vice Chairman.
I have explained——
You are unavailable also. I beg your pardon.
Is it agreed Deputy Nolan will take the Chair? Agreed.
Deputy Nolan took the Chair.
The minutes of the meetings held on 12, 20 and 26 April have been circulated. Are they agreed? Agreed.
Regarding correspondence deferred from the previous two meetings, item 2006/0306 is a letter to the Chairman from Senator O'Toole on tolls and toll barriers on the M50. Is it agreed to defer the matter until the Senator is present? Agreed.
Item 2006/0330 is a letter to the Chairman from the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government regarding Tralee Beef and Lamb, a matter in which Deputy Ned O'Keeffe has a particular interest. As he is not present, is it agreed to defer this matter? Item 2006/0323 is another letter to the committee from an individual regarding Tralee Beef and Lamb. Is it agreed to defer this matter also? Agreed.
The Chairman has received a letter from Deputy Burton concerning decentralisation. As the Deputy is not present, is it agreed to defer the matter until our next meeting? Agreed.
I am sorry to interrupt but I cannot relate the correspondence mentioned to the schedule of correspondence circulated.
I am advised that it is correspondence which was deferred from previous meetings rather than new correspondence. As the Deputies involved are not present, we are again deferring the matters raised.
I have no difficulty with the specific proposals made but the two items referred to are not included in the circulated list.
Would the Deputy like a copy of the list?
I trust the Acting Chairman's reading of the situation.
It would have been better if the list had included the deferred items.
We will make arrangements to supply members with a list of correspondence deferred from previous meetings.
I do not need a copy because I hold onto copies circulated at previous meetings, but I would like to know whether I should bring them with me rather than requiring further photocopies to be made.
There is little correspondence involved and it may be no harm to include it in the list. We will arrange for this to happen.
Our first item of correspondence is the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland's quarterly bulletin. Is it agreed to note this correspondence? Agreed.
Is it agreed to note item 376 of 2006, in which the Chief Whip has announced the legislative programme for the next session? Agreed.
Item 377 of 2006 is a letter to the clerk to the committee from the chief executive of the Financial Regulator regarding home reversion and lifetime mortgages.
There is an anomaly. As home reversion schemes are deemed by the Financial Regulator to involve the sale of part of one's home and do not involve the taking out of loans, it does not regulate them. The chief executive knows that the level of consumer awareness of these products is low and needs to be increased. There is a gap. However, I do not know what legislative wording is necessary. If older people are giving away part of their home at a discount, they should receive the benefit of the protection provided in the Consumer Credit Act 1995. It may not be a loan, but if it quacks and walks like a duck, it is a duck as far as most people are concerned. We should do something to change the system. The Financial Regulator appeared before the committee. However, I cannot recall the point we reached in our discussion. While I cannot remember whether we issued recommendations on foot of that hearing, we should issue one to the Dáil or the Minister for Finance to rectify the situation.
Can we put it down as an item in the work programme and deal with it in that manner?
We have addressed the matter. The letter is a response to correspondence from the committee. Is including the matter again in the work programme repetitious? We have brought it to a certain point but I do not know if there is another way to expedite it.
Perhaps the committee should write to the Minister for Finance to ask whether regulations or legislation should be introduced to ensure schemes which are aimed at the same market as regulated products are included in the remit of the Financial Regulator and whether he could advise us on how this could best be done.
I formally second that proposal.
Is that agreed? Agreed. The clerk will write to the Minister for Finance.
Item 378 of 2006 is a letter to the committee from the OECD regarding OECD Forum 2006: Balancing Globalisation, to which the committee has agreed to send a representative. Is it agreed the party whips should nominate individuals? Agreed.
The committee has received a letter addressed to the Chairman from the Department of Finance regarding the preparations and consultation process for the national development plan, on which the committee has been invited to make a written submission. Are there particular views members want to express?
I do not have a significant objection to the framework the Department has offered for the national development plan. There will be chapters on capital appraisal; the monitoring, management and implementation of projects; the fiscal framework and other priorities, all of which sounds fine. The real issue is whether we should receive from the Department its ex -post evaluation of the first plan which ended this year or its monitoring committee’s resumé of how successful the first programme has been and what has been revealed in terms of an imbalance in regional development.
The first step in preparing a new corporate plan for Ireland is to carry out a review of the last one. It will be difficult for this committee to make an input until members see an evaluation of how well the first plan has worked. We can then start to shape the next one. This framework is fine but looking back on the last plan most would express disappointment in respect of a regional balance and the performance of the early projects, some of which went considerably over cost. The committee needs to see an attempt to identify the lessons to be learned.
Is the Deputy suggesting we should write to the Minister and ask for a report if one is available?
Yes, such a report would be useful. Making a submission on how we could do better in the future without first seeing an objective evaluation would be difficult. The ESRI carried out a mid-term review but it was at a high level.
We shall ask for the Minister's views.
I support that proposal. In respect of our preparation of a written submission in response to the request, is there a deadline for the receipt of same? What is the period within which the consultation process will be live? What methodology are we to employ in preparing a submission? We should make a submission in response to the invitation.
I shall check whether that information is available.
The last national development plan looked beyond 2006. I completely concur with the point made as some items are works in progress, while others have been a disappointment or have concluded. Instead of receiving an endless number of papers, can a presentation be made to members in this regard, as has been done a number of times at regional level? This can be very useful in understanding the progress made.
Does the Deputy seek a presentation?
Yes.
Very well. The joint committee will request one.
To answer Deputy Ó Caoláin's question, the Department has suggested submissions should be made no later than 30 June. Hence, a period of six weeks is available to the committee.
I thank the Acting Chairman for that information. In that case, would it not be appropriate for members to designate a special meeting at which they could address their perspectives? Perhaps this could be dovetailed with Deputy Murphy's proposition which I support. From the perspective of a Deputy from a Border county, one might hope to try to correct the imbalance in regional development under the national development plan, particularly as the Border, midlands and western region has again been severely marginalised. Members will have various perspectives which must be put together. They must agree on a presentation.
That must happen sooner rather than later. Perhaps members can set a date. Individual Deputies can then make their submissions to the clerk which can be circulated and discussed at the meeting. That might be a good idea. Is that agreed?
Does the Acting Chairman wish to indicate a deadline for the receipt of same from members?
I suggest the end of May. The committee can then arrange to hold the meeting in the first or second week of June. The clerk will write to members seeking submissions and a date will then be set for the meeting.
Item 380 of 2006 is a letter to the clerk from the Office of the Ombudsman regarding an individual requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act. Item 381 of 2006 is an e-mail to the clerk from the deputy director for committees regarding the proposals from the Committee of Public Accounts for alterations to the Estimates process. The committee was not specifically asked for its views.
Item 382 of 2006 is a letter to the Chairman from the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment regarding the review under section 32 of the Freedom of Information Act 1997.
The Minister has indicated his willingness to drop some of the restrictions he imposed, while seeking to retain others. Hence, I believe this is part of the programme of work in which the joint committee is engaged.
Hence, the committee should deal with the matter as part of its section 32 review——
Yes. The committee must report to the Dáil in this regard.
Item 384 of 2006 is a letter to the clerk from the Journal Office referring a draft regulation to the committee. Members should note that the committee must send a message to the Clerk of the Dáil no later than 24 May. A letter has been received by the clerk from the Clerk of the Seanad referring a draft regulation to the committee. The joint committee must send a message to the Clerk of the Seanad no later than 24 May.
Item 386 of 2006 is an e-mail to the clerk from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform regarding the review under section 32 of the Freedom of Information Act. This must be noted. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 387 of 2006 is a letter to the clerk from the Sub-Committee on EU Scrutiny, which is to be noted. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 388 of 2006 refers to SI 148 of 2006, SI 194 of 2006, SI 195 of 2006 and SI 198 of 2006, which are to be noted. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 389 of 2006 refers to the expenditure review of grant-in-aid to the Institute of Public Administration by the Department of Finance, which is to be noted. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item No. 390 of 2006 is an e-mail to the clerk from the Department of Transport regarding the review under section 32 of the Freedom of Information Act. Members should note that the Department now has responsibility for the maritime transport sector. It is proposed to send a letter to the Minister regarding the review.
Item 391 of 2006 is a letter to the clerk from EUROFI — Banking and Finance in Europe, inviting the committee to attend its annual conference which takes place on 6 and 7 June in Brussels. Will members agree that the committee should be represented at the conference? We will put this matter on the agenda and make arrangements with the Whips to find members to attend.
Item 392 of 2006 is a letter to the Chairman from the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs regarding the review under section 32 of the Freedom of Information Act. The committee will review this item in its work programme.
The clerk has received a letter from Deputy Burton regarding attendance at the inaugural national infrastructure summit to be held on 16 and 17 May at the IMI conference centre. A booklet is available to members on request. This is a separate item on the agenda. The Deputy is not present but she will return.
The next item refers to the work programme for 2006 which is to be considered by members. Deputies Burton and Bruton have supplied suggested items which have been circulated to members. Is it agreed to include them in the work programme? Agreed.
In respect of the work programme, members agreed previously that the schedule should include the continuing review of financial institutions. The joint committee has presented an interim rather than a final report. Hence, it is a work in progress and should continue to be reflected in the work programme. It was agreed at a previous meeting in recent months that members would provide the opportunity for a number of interest groups to present their case on foot of a written request to the committee. Hence, I want the item to continue to be reflected in the work programme. The clerk to the committee should note that members can revisit this issue on a continuous basis.
The Deputy will be accommodated in that regard. Is that agreed? Agreed. The public service and Civil Service decentralisation programme was included in the last work programme and will also be reflected in the next one.
The work programme contains many items and members must prioritise those issues with which they wish to get to grips during the relatively short period that remains in the lifetime of this Dáil. It seems clear that issues have emerged in the credit union sector and the committee has received requests from groups to hear of their difficulties with the current regulatory framework. The committee should address this finite body of work.
The process of decentralisation continues to grind forward at an extremely slow pace, given the ambitions of the programme. Moreover, it has run into serious industrial relations issues. As an Opposition member, I am unclear as to what is on offer to those who opt to remain in Dublin. This matter is the source of much frustration. While staff have been told that the process is voluntary and that they are not obliged to move, they see the foreclosure of promotional opportunities and do not see any transfer opportunities being offered to them. This is particularly true of the State bodies which lack the custom or pattern of moving on offer within the Civil Service. Members should try to get to the bottom of this issue, as it will dog the programme's progress until those who work in such organisations, many of whom have extremely valuable skills, can ascertain what is being offered to them. There is something of a slow bicycle race under way, as the deadline for implementation approaches. While there is high level political commitment, there is a great deal of unease which must be addressed.
The final matter that must be examined is pensions. It appears that once information becomes available from the Revenue Commissioners regarding the extent of the tax relief on pension contributions available to small numbers of better off people, there will be a hue and cry, rightly so, about the nature of the system of pension relief that has been allowed to develop. The Government should have taken the opportunity in this financial year to go for the one-and-one system, whereby anyone on a low income who puts a euro into a pension fund would be paid a matching euro. This is not the final word on pension reform but, at the very minimum, equity within the tax code demands that it should be done. This will, for many reasons, be a major issue. We should participate in the debate because we represent the tax side. Other aspects are dealt with by the Department of Social and Family Affairs.
Members of the joint committee miss out on some of the high powered meetings held by the select committee. The issue of mandatory pensions will give rise to a significant debate in the next two or three years. Would it be appropriate for the joint committee to debate the matter?
Item No. 15 deals with pension contributions. I proposed that we should meet pensioners who previously worked in the Prison Service and who have a particular interest in this matter. Deputy Bruton's concerns could be addressed during the debate on pension issues.
Who would we invite to discuss the possible introduction of mandatory pensions? There will be a significant public debate on this matter. I attended the Pensions Board conference last Friday and this issue will become one of major significance.
If we obtain a briefing from the Department of Finance, perhaps we could fine tune it and invite other interested groups to come before the committee to discuss the matter.
The report falls short of recommending the introduction of mandatory pensions.
The Minister appears to be hinting at that. Apparently it took 12 years to resolve the pension issue in Sweden. The new pension proposals in the UK are even more complicated than the existing mechanisms there. The challenge is to arrive at a pensions system that people can understand. People are turned off when they hear the word "pension" because they do not understand what it means.
I sent a letter to the clerk, the contents of which are not dissimilar to what was said by a number of people. I met three groups, as did other members of the committee. These included representatives from the Irish League of Credit Unions, the Retired Prison Officers Association, SIPTU and FÁS and a number of other agencies that SIPTU represents, who made representations in regard to decentralisation and industrial action. The committee must decide whether it will meet these groups who said they would be requesting to come before it.
On the issues I raised at the beginning of my letter, I am aware that there is a long programme. From the committee's point of view, the pensions issue is a continuation of the examination of the regulation of the banking and investment industry, which are inextricably linked. For example, the rate of charges on pension products in Ireland is far higher than in most European countries. This ties in with what we established in regard to bank charges.
The issue of taxation and pensions, to which Deputy Bruton referred, is important. These issues are included in our list. As with the hearings on the film industry and so on, perhaps we should specify one or two days to discuss elements of pension products and their regulation by the financial regulator, the charges for pension products, which are excessive in this country, and the taxation treatment of pension products. These matters all come within the remit of the committee. Perhaps we could have two or three day hearings on this matter in September because the Pensions Board is a creature of the pensions and funds industry. Those involved in that industry have their products to sell, a matter with which I have no difficulty. However, it is very different from the cost element for people buying the products.
As a financial adviser, should I advise a person to put his or her money into buying a house or an apartment in which he or she can live, which he or she can enjoy and on which he or she can build up some equity for the next ten or 15 years but when he or she reaches 35, he or she should definitely save towards his or her pension? I would be inclined to tell a 25 year old to put a roof over his or her head and, once he or she has done so, he or she should consider buying a pension product. Given the way our pension industry is structured, mandatory pensions would mean big bucks for the pensions industry. Effectively, this would represent additional taxation. There needs to be a clear description of what we are discussing. I am not opposed to considering the proposal.
An area the committee should re-examine is the entire business of the taxation regime and alternative energy. Given what happened in Carlow, Deputy Nolan might have a particular interest in this matter. The committee should also take the opportunity to examine what is happening in other countries. I keep hearing and reading about the wonderful things that have happened in Denmark and about the jobs being created in alternative energy. This is happening throughout Denmark, and not just in the big cities. Perhaps we should re-examine this aspect. It is interesting to see how the UK's regime for alternative energy under Mr. Gordon Brown has changed beyond recognition in the past nine years. Much of this policy is tax-driven. I would be interested in examining what is taking place in this regard. We are bogged down in this country at present — the committee is certainly bogged down — and we may need fresh insights and overviews.
Given that oil is becoming extremely expensive, what will be the impact on the economy, inflation and so on? There is one technical issue we might discuss, namely, contracts for difference. We need to be informed about this on the next occasion on which the Revenue Commissioners come before the committee. The PPPs and the role of the NTMA should be included when representatives of that organisation next appear before us.
Is the inclusion of these items agreed? Agreed. Can we consider holding a one or two-day special meeting in September or at some other stage?
Yes.
We will try to organise that. If the clerk investigates what happens in Denmark, we can examine the proposals in the autumn.
We should call it environmental taxation.
Commissioner Fischer Boel, who is Danish, dealt with the matter earlier today.
She is Danish herself.
Of course, she is.
The clerk will obtain information on the matter and we will organise a meeting in the autumn.
I concur with what has been said, particularly about the credit unions, which would be a very useful group to invite to a meeting. I found it very useful to meet their representatives on the last occasion they were here. The Irish League of Credit Unions is well regarded and if it is running into difficulties, this committee should pay a great deal of attention to the matter. Organisations such as MABS which deal with credit unions always stress their value, particularly when other credit organisations are not interested in specific cases. It is not simply the fact that the credit unions have a large number of general savers, there is also a social component to their role which is not true of the banking sector generally.
There are several elements of the decentralisation programme which require further exploration, not least the points raised regarding progression within the public service if staff opt to stay in Dublin. We also need to examine the extent of the public service. Every time I table a parliamentary question I am told there is no cap or embargo on recruitment, yet when I lobbied for the appointment of additional librarians in my town, I was told there was a restriction on employing staff for that purpose. In that context, a building that had cost several million could not be opened because of a lack of staff.
There will be a knock-on effect if staff in the public service are, as Deputy Burton described it, "white-walled". There will be staff who will not be doing the job they were originally employed to do. At the same time substantial work needs to be done in areas that are developing. They require additional staff commensurate with the level of development. It is these areas that are paying the price of the embargo and decentralisation programme. This is a major issue that must be considered in the context of the programme and how it will play out in terms of its effect on the needs of developing communities.
I support the calls for the accommodation of the various groups mentioned. I refer, in particular, to SIPTU and FÁS regarding the relocation of State agencies which raises issues vis-à-vis the wider Civil Service. The committee would do well to hear the case as presented by SIPTU and its FÁS co-ordinator on the vexed question of the proposed move, an issue we have addressed previously in discussions with the Minister for State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon. I understand the committee also sent a letter to the Minister for Finance, inviting him to come before it to discuss the importance of the voluntary nature of the decentralisation programme. In that context, linking the FÁS relocation to Birr to promotional prospects for staff runs contrary to the understanding that opting to move was voluntary. There are real issues to be addressed in this regard and the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, did not satisfactorily answer the questions posed to him by committee members. At a previous meeting we agreed to invite the Minister for Finance to attend. Will the clerk confirm that the invitation has been issued and indicate whether he has received a response from the Minister?
The Chairman has had discussions on the matter but I do not know what the response was. Perhaps when he returns——
Will the Acting Chairman confirm that the letter issued from the committee to the Minister in line with the agreement reached?
The letter has not yet been issued.
Why is that?
The Chairman intends to speak to the Minister.
With respect, we made an agreement, on a proposition I had put forward, to invite the Minister to appear before the committee to deal with this specific matter which is of broader concern than just the FÁS experience.
We will make arrangements to have the letter issued immediately.
With respect, what this prompts are questions about the circulation of correspondence. I operated on the understanding that a decision which had been taken would have been acted upon but now I must request, regrettably, that the correspondence issued by the committee as a result of decisions taken at our meetings be circulated. That is the only proposal I can make in the circumstances. I cannot continue to work in an environment where decisions are taken and one presumes action is taken on foot them and one then discovers action is deferred by the Chairman or others. I am making a reasonable request. This difficulty has been mentioned previously. I propose that correspondence decided upon by the committee be circulated to members in order that we will know what has been done, from meeting to meeting. Otherwise we will be left in limbo or a dark zone.
We will make arrangements to have correspondence issued by the clerk. The aforementioned letter will be sent to the Minister for Finance.
Deputy McGuinness inquired about the order in which——
The work programme, in terms of items Nos. 1 to 16 and the other issues agreed today, represents a heavy workload. Unless we extend the time allowed beyond June 2007, our schedule will be full, in the context of what needs to be done. I would like to see priority given to the work programme because I am trying to marry the work of the Committee of Public Accounts with the work of this committee, which is not easy.
As others have mentioned, pension provision is a serious issue, on which the debate is ongoing. The group most members have met is anxious to appear before the committee and should be facilitated in so doing.
The decentralisation programme which is progressing at a snail's pace must continue to be focused on, alongside the issue raised by Deputy Murphy — staffing levels in local government. Delivering Better Government, specifically better local government, is of enormous importance in the context of staffing and restructuring. These are two major issues which will take up a considerable amount of the committee's time.
Priority must be attached to certain items on the work programme list. Other members might like to give their opinion on what should be given priority. The question of the credit unions is also important. There are numerous wide-ranging issues on our list. We must prioritise and put them in order before we commence our work.
We must agree a work programme in order that it can be laid before the Dáil. Can we agree to this programme?
Which one? I am confused.
The one that was circulated.
The long one.
Yes, with the inclusion of two items — the public service and Civil Service decentralisation programme and——
The one on page 4.
Yes.
I agree with Deputy McGuinness. It is likely we will have six to eight meetings between now and the general election. People will come before the committee by arrangement and that will take up some of the agenda, as will the Finance Bill. At most, we can select four more options, of which I agree pensions and continuation of the financial stock should be one.
On a separate issue, I have met a number of delegations. Given a more limited timeframe, do we consider it important to allow groups to make shorter presentations?
I agree.
We agreed to that at a previous meeting.
That makes two matters. We can deal with four to six matters, with the ordinary matters with which we deal.
The issues raised by Deputy Bruton——
That is one of the issues which the committee——
I do not know whether it can be taken in the context of No. 2, Delivering Better Government, or the issues raised by Deputy Murphy. Can they be rolled into one?
Will we leave it to another day to discuss the prioritisation of our work programme? We will agree the programme today and place the prioritising of items on the agenda for the next meeting.
To help, can someone make a suggestion in line with what other Deputies stated? That would allow us to be presented with a structure at our next meeting on which we could make a decision.
We are close to a decision in that the list has 16 items and we are discussing only four of them.
There is a total of 18.
Yes, but in terms of upcoming meetings, we are discussing meeting the credit unions, having a meeting on pensions and a meeting on the decentralisation offer to staff which I assume will involve SIPTU on one side and the implementation commission on the other, although their hands are tied until they know from the Government what the offer is. We have narrowed it down to three or four issues.
On decentralisation, would it be helpful to suggest we issue an invitation to the implementation group to return in early July? At that stage we should also examine the Minister of State's property disposal programme. The representatives from FÁS should also be invited in that day.
I do not disagree with that proposal. However, we may need to do more. The matter being raised is a valid and core issue and we are reacting to it rather than examining decentralisation in the context of better government. Can we do more than this in one meeting? Can we tie decentralisation to the issue of better government? Where does it fit in with it?
I am of the view that deferring that opportunity until July is not ideal. It is not only a case of engaging with SIPTU, FÁS and the implementation group. I flag the importance of engaging with the Minister. The Government determines the nature of the make-up of the decentralisation programme. It is important that we know exactly the context of the SIPTU FÁS case which involves the voluntary nature of the entire proposal. Only the Minister can come and properly address the issue here substantively. The Minister of State was not able to satisfy members' concerns at a previous engagement on the issue. It is not about work, but the voluntary aspect. We should meet all of the collective interests involved — the Minister, the implementation body, SIPTU and FÁS. We should be able to accommodate this in a single day. We should not leave it until July. This is mid-May. Surely we should be able to include it in next month's work programme. It is an important issue and time continues to march on. Real questions must be answered and the issue requires to be accommodated at the earliest time.
On the additional items set out in the list, I want clarification. I asked at the outset of the discussion on the work programme that we continue to focus on the charges of financial institutions. We produced an interim report which should be added to the list, rather than be seen or taken to be completed work.
That is one of the additional items we have agreed.
We have agreed it will be included.
To clarify matters, is it agreed we will have one meeting in June to deal with the implementation group and that we will also invite the Minister, FÁS and SIPTU? Agreed.
I want clarification on a meeting with the lobby group for Prison Service personnel regarding rent allowance and pensions. It seems there is an inequity and injustice in this case.
It was agreed at a previous meeting to include that matter in the work programme. It is included under No. 15. They will be invited to make a submission.
How they are being treated is unjust. We should prioritise the matter. It would not take long, perhaps only 20 minutes.
The Senator will have an opportunity to discuss the issue when they appear before the committee.
When does the Acting Chairman think that might be?
We will refer back to the Senator when we have a date.
The way they are treated is very unfair.
The work programme, as amended, is agreed. Deputy Burton is no longer present. No. 4 is the proposed attendance of the Deputy——
Deputy Burton is keen to attend the national infrastructural summit. It is an interesting programme and the summit will take place in Ireland. It might be worth the committee's while for her to attend. I have just noticed the cost will be €500.
Is it agreed Deputy Burton will attend? Agreed.
The next item is documents referred by the Sub-Committee on EU Scrutiny. At a meeting on 11 January it was agreed to further scrutinise two documents. This was done on 1 and 15 February. It was agreed to seek full information on the EU proposals as circulated to members. This information was circulated. Does the committee wish to compile a report for consideration? There are four items and the information was circulated. Does the committee want to compile a report on them? Is it agreed we will defer this matter to the next meeting to give members an opportunity to examine them? Agreed.
The joint committee adjourned at 4 p.m. sine die.