JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENTERPRISE AND SMALL BUSINESS díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 9 Apr 2003

Vol. 1 No. 9

EU Green Paper: Presentation.

Chairman

I propose we take the items in the order set out on the agenda, starting with the European Commission's Green Paper on a European order for payment procedure and on measures to simplify and speed up small claims. Members are reminded of the parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside of the House, or of an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her indentifiable. Members who wish to make a declaration in respect of any matter being discussed may do so now or at the beginning of their contributions.

I welcome Ms Regina Terry and Ms Mary Joy from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Their briefing papers have been circulated to members and I invite the delegation to make a short contribution before I invite questions from members. I draw witnesses' attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege, but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. While it is generally accepted that witnesses would have qualified privilege, the committee is not in a position to guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it.

I thank the delegation for attending the meeting. We will now receive its submission.

Ms Regina Terry

I thank the Chairman for his introduction. We are pleased to be here and thank the Chairman for the invitation extended to us.

I propose to briefly put the Green Paper in context in terms of what is happening within the wider European Union and then give a short overview of its content. If there are any issues the members wish to raise we will do our best to deal with them. I utter a cautionary note in the sense that this is the early stage of a very open consultation process. It is only when the formal instruments emerge from the consultation process that we will be in a position to finally and definitively assess the appropriateness of the issues involved and their merits. Any measures that arise from this Green Paper consultation are ones that will be subject to the protocol to the Amsterdam treaty which we share with the United Kingdom. If we are to opt into these decisions our opt-in would be subject to a resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas so there would be an opportunity for further scrutiny if and when proposals come forward. In relation to the specific proposals, we understand from the Commission that it is likely to be prioritising the proposal relating to the simplified procedures and that may well be on the table for our presidency which is quite a challenge and it will be interesting for us to deal with it.

In the wider context, in a way we begin with the Treaty of Amsterdam because in that treaty for the first time we have a legal basis within the first pillar for judicial measures in the area of civil law. Building on that the European Council which met in Tampere in Finland in 1999 basically came to the view that if there was to be a genuine area of justice within the European Union it was important that individuals and companies should not be discouraged from exercising their rights in terms of litigation because of incompatibilities within our legal system, complexities or the enhanced costs associated with cross-border litigation. In the context of calling for greater access to justice it mandated the Council to seek to develop common procedures which would help to simplify and accelerate uncontested claims and small claims. That is the genesis of what is in the Green Paper before us.

Equally, in the context of looking to greater mutual recognition of judgments in the civil area, the European Council in Tampere again exhorted the Council to look at ways in which that recognition process might be further simplified and where necessary to accompany that process with minimum standards. One can see how the ideas that are canvassed in the Green Paper could grow out of that.

In relation to the specifics of the content of the Green Paper, there are two separate issues even though they are dealt with within the same text. There are probably different considerations which may apply in respect of both of the proposals.

I will begin with the order for payment procedure because that is one that relates to a proposal which concerns a type of instrument which is not familiar to our legal system. It is basically a mechanism whereby somebody can use a procedure where they have an uncontested claim. They get a decision which can then be enforced using whatever local enforcement mechanisms are available. Probably the equivalent within our legal system is where one gets a judgment in default of appearance or where one uses the summary proceedings for obtaining judgment that would be available at all the levels of court. Ireland is one of only four member states that does not have a procedure of this kind in place. Broadly, the way it tends to work is that somebody with an uncontested claim, or what they regard as an uncontested claim, would go to his or her local court. The procedure itself is done on an ex parte basis, that is, it is without notice to the defendant. A judgment is then given which is notified within a particular period of time to the debtor. The debtor then has a choice to make - he or she may either choose to abide by the decision that the court gives or contest the claim in which case it transfers to ordinary proceedings. If he or she does nothing, and this is probably the novel aspect, the judgment effectively becomes enforceable and one can proceed to use the enforcement mechanisms that are available.

One might well ask why this proposal is coming and what are the benefits to which it might give rise. Where the Commission is essentially coming from is that it sees the recovery of outstanding debt as an important tool that is available to small and medium-sized enterprises which is important to their survival in terms of maintaining cash flow. In a cross-border context the difficulties of recovering an outstanding debt can, perhaps, act as a constraint to expansion because one may be reluctant to do business in another jurisdiction if there is a default and then one has difficulties and costs associated with recovering the debt. In a very simplified way that is essentially where the Commission is coming from in regard to this issue.

Members will have seen from the Green Paper that there is a series of over 30 questions. As I have said, it is a very open process. The questions vary in degree of complexity. Some of them are very straightforward, such as if there should be standard forms, the role of IT in terms of facilitating court tracking mechanisms and so on. Others are more complex and obviously there are ones which we are still thinking about at this stage which relate to the scope of the instrument, for example, whether it should just relate to simple money judgments or if it should be broader and what the ceiling should be in relation to the uncontested claims that would be the subject of the procedure. The ceiling is currently quite divergent within member states, ranging from €2,000 up to €30,000. There are also questions relating to whether one should exclude certain types of claim from the process or whether one should have a single jurisdiction rule in terms of where one would sue. These are complex issues for which we do not yet have complete answers. We have done a fairly wide-ranging consultation and hope that we will get some insight into how those who would be most affected by the instrument view its potential shape.

In the context of small claims, Ireland is one of the six member states that does have a formal small claims procedure, which is the opposite to the payments procedure. Again, the main premise of the Commission is that quite often in the case of a small claim the actual cost of recovering the money that might be owed to a person on foot of damaged goods or whatever is greater than the actual loss itself. It is looking at ways in which people might be encouraged to avail of such small claim systems as currently exist within some member states and to encourage those member states that do not have a small claims system to set one up. The type of claim one would typically be talking about here would be where somebody is on holidays and he or she buys goods that on return are found to be faulty and he or she essentially has no redress. Equally, in a business context somebody may be faced with the situation where a check is bounced and they are left with an unpaid debt. Again, it is a small claim but the cost of recovery can be greater than the amount that is due and owing which is a disincentive to pursue the claim.

The issues the Commission raised are not dissimilar to those which it raised in the context of the payment procedure. It is interested in getting information from those of us who have a system in place as to the difficulties that may be foreseen in regard to the introduction of such a system. It is also interested in getting information on the likely threshold that should apply. Within the member states the thresholds currently vary from between €600 in places to €8,000 in the UK. Equally, it would be interested in getting information on the scope of the instrument, as to whether it should cover the broad range of civil and commercial judgments or whether it should be more limited. It would also be interested in getting feedback on the types of procedure that should apply, how simple this should be and whether it is appropriate in all cases that, for example, one should have legal representation.

Chairman

I thank Ms Terry. This has certainly given us much food for thought. What is the impact on the Treaty of Nice on measures such as those before us? On what is the treaty based for this Green Paper? How will proposals made reconcile with the principle of subsidiarity? What are the implications for enterprises and small businesses of measures taken under this programme?

Ms Terry

I will try to deal with those questions in sequence. There are certain implications regarding the Treaty of Nice in that there are changes in the decision-making process. Under the Amsterdam treaty, measures such as this would have been subject to a unanimous vote within Council and the European Parliament would have had a consultative role. This has changed with the implementation of the Treaty of Nice and measures of this sort are now subject to qualified majority voting and the Parliament's role is considerably enhanced in that the co-decision procedure applies. These changes apply to all civil law measures possible under the treaty, with the important exception of family law measures. The latter are regarded as particularly sensitive and remain subject to unanimity.

With regard to the treaty basis, it will be the measures themselves that will need to be scrutinised against the relevant treaty base. The two relevant articles are Article 61(c) and 65 of the Amsterdam treaty. Article 61(c) allows the Council to take measures that will facilitate judicial co-operation in the civil area. Article 65 allows it to take particular measures where the relevant ones are those aimed at mutual recognition of judgment, eliminating obstacles to the good functioning of the Internal Market and enhancing the compatibility of legal systems. However, this is subject to two limitations. The measures proposed must have cross-border implications and be necessary for the proper functioning of the Internal Market.

The subsidiarity point is somewhat tricky. Until one sees the text, it is difficult to know about this thorny issue. In broad terms, particularly regarding the small claims proposal, it is self-evident that there are genuine difficulties in litigating in another country. There is at least an arguable case that when it comes to this type of litigation, it is, perhaps, an appropriate area for the Union to legislate on a broader area rather than leaving it to the member states. There may be different considerations regarding the payments order. It is arguable that if good systems are in place, even if they are different from that canvassed by the Commission, the result, rather than the process, is important. For the time being, we have an open mind on this.

Given the remit of this committee, it is particularly interested in the implications for enterprise and small business. Essentially, we are looking at ways of ensuring that small businesses can avail of legal mechanisms in other jurisdictions without having to encounter too much red tape or high costs for legal or translations services. The basic premise is that to the extent to which cross-border litigation can be simplified in terms of procedure and enforcement, it will inevitably have a spin-off in the benefits that will accrue to business. This is a rather straightforward statement and there may well be other issues to be raised. Coming from a Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform background, we may not be best positioned to be aware of the enterprise angle. Lower costs are the key thing we are looking at.

Deputy Hogan

This is an important issue in the context of the completion of the Internal Market. I would be critical of the fact that member states have failed to devise a policy that would help companies trade with each other across borders. We have been members of the European Union since 1973 and have seen various treaties over the years. I cannot understand the tardiness of the Union and member states, which has resulted in the Commission's Green Paper being introduced only now. The only way we can have competition in this jurisdiction is through the completion of the Internal Market. There is a lack of competition in many sectors, particularly the insurance sector that this committee is examining.

That the legal issues of enforcement and redress do not properly exist for products purchased in other jurisdictions is a major barrier to cross-border trading. Why has this taken so long? I hope the ambitious deadline identified, the end of 2004, is met, even though we will have European Parliament elections and a new Commission in the meantime.

Has Ireland reached agreement with Britain regarding our all-island status in respect of the protocols we already have with it and the impact of this directive? What changes will be required to allow companies from the Republic of Ireland to continue trading in Northern Ireland on a satisfactory legal basis?

Deputy Howlin

Ms Terry's presentation has been superb, clear and absorbable. While some of my questions may be more relevant to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, I hope the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, as the lead Department, may be able to shed some light on the issues I raise.

Do I understand that this is an initiative under the first protocol of the Amsterdam treaty and not a fourth protocol issue? How will this be transposed into Irish law? Will it be done under the procedure of the fourth protocol, where it could require a simple resolution, or will it require domestic legislation? Has there been domestic analysis of the potential impact of this proposal in terms of the number of companies or individuals who are frustrated from receiving payment for goods or services because of the unavailability of simple or affordable procedures? Do we have any notion of its scope? What is meant by the term "uncontested"?

There are two elements to the proposal, one is uncontested claims and the other is a simplified procedure for small claims. Ms Terry said the term "small claims" is yet to be defined, but is there a common view of what uncontested means in legal terms? When Ms Terry says there would be an enforcement procedure in the event of there being no response from the person being sued, prosecuted or followed for payment, how and where will enforcement take place? My understanding is that enforcement would be followed up in the country where the goods and services were provided and that there is no prospect of proceedings being initiated in the country where the person owed money is resident, which would be simpler for themselves.

It would be ironic if we had simpler procedures for debtors abroad than we do for domestic debtors. We have straightforward payment requirements, under law, for State companies. There is a legal requirement for health boards and so on to pay their debts within a defined timeframe but that does not apply across the economy. Are there implications for the domestic approach to the paying of debts allied to these sets of proposals?

Ms Terry

I will try to deal with all of those questions and if I forget one please remind me.

Deputy Hogan asked why this had taken so long. The problem was that, until the Treaty of Amsterdam, there was no legal basis upon which proposals could be advanced in this area. Co-operation tended to be intergovernmental which is inevitably much slower. However, there are some instruments, one of which has been adopted and another of which is under negotiation, which will and do facilitate small businesses. The Brussels Convention, which deals with recognition and enforcement of judgments, has been in force here since March 2001 and provides a simplified way for someone to take an application before a court and get an order against a company or individual where there is a judgment debt outstanding. Under negotiation at the moment is an instrument called a European enforcement order, which is designed to simplify even further the idea that when one gets a judgment, it would be accompanied by a certificate, which is like a passport and which can be taken to another jurisdiction. Therefore, with the minimum of formalities, it can be used to enforce the judgment. Those negotiations are ongoing. Therefore, there is some movement, although not as much as one would like to see.

When specific proposals are advanced in relation to the UK, given the similarities of our legal systems in this areas, we tend to co-operate with them closely. We will explore the issues the Deputy raised regarding Northern Ireland and relative protocols.

Deputy Howlin raised the issue of our protocol. I know he will be familiar with it in the context of the various debates we have had about opt-ins. If the Commission produces a proposal, it will be one that will be subject to the fourth protocol, so there will be a decision for us to take as to whether we opt in or not. Traditionally, we tend to opt into these instruments because we do not have to accept what is finally agreed. However, if we do not opt in, our ability to influence and shape policy is limited. There is much to be said for being at the negotiating table. The Commission canvassed the view that it might use a regulation or a directive. If it is a directive, we will be looking to some form of primary legislation, because it is likely certain options would be built into the mechanism. However, if it is a regulation, it will directly feed into the legal system but changes in procedure would be necessary, so we would be looking at an SI under the European Communities regulations for implementation.

I will have to kick to touch on Deputy Howlin's question about the analysis of the domestic impact because, as the Deputy correctly surmised, we are hoping we will be able to get some information from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, IBEC and ISME as to whether this presumes to have the benefits the Commission claims it does.

We would be amazed at how long the debate in a Brussels working group would take in relation to the meaning of "un-contested". From our own comparatively straightforward point of view, it arises in two contexts - where there is a debt and the existence of the debt is acknowledged and where someone goes to court and there is no appearance, the presumption being that the debt is not contested.

The basic premise underlying the proposal is that one would normally enforce in the jurisdiction where the debtor is resident, but it could arise that there are assets in another jurisdiction or within one's own and one of the issues that may have to be addressed is whether in that context one could move against the convenient assets that are locally based. It is a question to which there are numerous answers.

Equally so is the question of where one sues. Under the existing Brussels regulations, if one is looking at a contract situation, which is often when these debts would arise, one can sue in the place where the business or debtor is resident. Alternatively, one can also sue in the place where the contract is to be performed. In many cases that would be in the context of a delivery of goods, so there is the potential in a local court in Ireland to sue someone who is resident in France or Germany.

As I said in answer to Deputy Cassidy's question, some of the issues that will have to be examined are domestic, including cross-border implications. The procedure must be examined to see if we will create competitive disadvantage in that cross-border context. We may think about importing it into our domestic system. Whether that would be mandated under the instrument or whether we might chose to do so ourselves is an open issue. However, there is a potential for it to effect a change in our domestic procedures.

Senator Hanafin

Is there an analysis of the current cost attributed to un-contested claims and what benefits can the consumer expect? Are the small claims, that are referred to here, distinct from the micro-claims that are dealt with in this jurisdiction through another court which is working effectively? Will the new small claims suggestion simplify the process and make it more cost effective?

Deputy Callanan

Such legislation is necessary due to our cross-border trade and the fact we regularly travel to and from other countries. There are two types of debtors - the cowboys who decide to buy something and who do not care whether they will ever be able to pay for it and the genuine people who get into debt. I have no problem with prosecuting the first category as far as the law allows, but the other type, who get into debt through no fault of their own, should not be pursued in the same way. With regard to the latter, all avenues should be explored instead and some type of restructuring of the debt should be allowed in the legislation. People can find themselves in such situations through no fault of their own and it is very difficult to get out of them. Is there any way this can be addressed in this legislation?

Ms Terry

On the question on quantification of the costs of uncontested claims, I suspect that there is very little data. There is little statistical information available within the courts system. We hoped that there might be some anecdotal evidence, but I do not think that anything is likely to emerge.

It will be very structured. With regard to the type of small claim about which we are talking, it is the type that is dealt with within the Small Claims Court, the jurisdiction of which extends to claims of just under €1,300. There are certain types of claim that are excluded, including basic debts. In the context of what the Commission is proposing, this may need to be changed. The types of claims that are dealt with include return of deposit in a landlord and tenant context or claims for faulty goods, which is where the benefit to the consumer comes in because, quite often in a consumer context, if one buys faulty goods, it is more trouble than it is worth to seek to enforce the claim. This will provide a simple and cheap way in which consumers can vindicate their rights.

The need to address the problems of those who are genuinely in difficulty is not likely to be dealt with within this instrument, but I know that work is ongoing within my Department to explore ways, other than imprisonment, of dealing with those who are in debt through no fault of their own. Equally, there is work going on in the Department of Social and Family Affairs on the strategy for dealing with poverty - the NAPS programme - which will look at ways in which people can be encouraged to restructure or to enter into negotiations with the institutions or with their creditors at an early stage to avert the problem. It is not likely that this instrument will be the solution to the difficulties to which Senator Callanan referred. There are other proposals domestically that may be of some assistance.

Chairman

I thank Ms Terry on behalf of the committee for her excellent presentation. We are very impressed, and I look forward to seeing the delegation before the committee many times over the next four and a half years.

We will move on to the second item, document COM (2002) 0701, regarding amended proposals for a directive of the European Parliament and Council on working conditions for temporary workers. We recently had presentations on this topic from IBEC and the ICTU. A draft report has been circulated and, unless any members wish to table amendments, I propose that the draft report be adopted.

Deputy Howlin

I do not want to reopen the debate, but the draft report, which is just over a page long, says that the joint committee undertook a detailed examination of the proposals. Judging by the page itself, one would not come to that conclusion. The net issue referred to is the very last sentence on the first page, which simply says that many members expressed their support for the extension of the six-week period to a period of up to 12 months, while other members noted the concerns raised by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions with regard to the level of protection from discrimination for temporary workers and to the extension of the waiting period beyond six weeks. There are no conclusions. Perhaps we should not reach conclusions, but that is the only net issue to which reference is made. The remainder of the report simply says that we looked at it.

As a general principle - this relates to the discussion we are going to have with our support staff - I am concerned that in the future, when organisations such as the ICTU and IBEC, which have very detailed research departments and make very complicated presentations to us, read conclusions such as these, we will not appear in a very good light. This is a genuine concern.

Chairman

Does the Deputy wish to propose an amendment?

Deputy Howlin

I have a view in respect of this matter. I do not agree with the expressed support for an extension of up to 12 months, but that is a personal perspective. However, we did not really have a proper debate on that matter, nor did we debate any other issue. There will be many other reports coming before the committee, which will contain strong views expressed by very powerful organisations that are very well resourced, and it is not fair that we are expected to almost make up policy on the hoof. Our reports are adopted as parliamentary reports.

I do not know how we are to overcome this without getting proper resources to carry out serious back-up research. If I was a member of a group that had made a submission on this critical issue on which we had been working for years and I read this one-page report which only states that the committee undertook a detailed examination of the issue, I would not have high regard for the committee.

Chairman

That is fair enough. I agree with most of what the Deputy has said, but I have had a lot of experience on the employer's side and I think 12 months is a reasonable time, particularly in respect of employing staff in the long-term. It takes a calendar year to uncover a person's abilities and so on before they can be put on the payroll in a permanent capacity and given their various rights. I am open to proposals for an amendment and I have an open mind regarding the points raised by Senator Howlin.

Deputy Howlin

I have been demoted.

Chairman

I apologise, Deputy Howlin. I agree with everything he said. However, the issue of the six weeks is very contentious. It is not workable and I do not think the committee can go along with it in any shape or form. From listening to the contributions that were made, forcefully, by those on all sides when we discussed this issue, I do not think anyone is really serious about the six weeks.

Deputy Hogan

Deputy Howlin asserted that we should have some definitive view in our final report.

Deputy Howlin

I did not assert that.

Deputy Hogan

If we are compiling a report and we have heard people's views on the matter, we should come down one way or the other; we should, as a committee, express a view. Was that not the point Deputy Howlin was making?

Chairman

I am in members' hands.

Deputy Howlin

The committee was divided on the issue and the minutes reflect that accurately.

Chairman

However, the committee can agree that six weeks is not acceptable.

Deputy Howlin

We can have a vote on that basis, but I do not know whether we should divide on these issues on principle. It is a matter for debate.

Deputy Lynch

It is incorrect that the report should go out saying that people were concerned about the extension to 12 months. To ask anyone to work for a 12-month period without any protection is bordering on the criminal. I see it from the employee's point of view. No matter how long one has employed someone, one can still be wrong in assessing his or her ability or honesty or any of the other things that make a good employee. If one cannot assess that capability within a six week period, one will probably never be able to get it right.

Taking up what Deputy Howlin said, we cannot allow this report to go out on such an important issue without really saying anything. We are basically not saying anything at all. We are saying that we are concerned but we could be talking about an increase of a penny on a loaf of bread. This is a very serious issue. We should not allow this report to go out as it is. I am not certain either that it is as simple as just proposing an amendment today. It is far more complicated and serious. For instance, it would be scandalous if the period in which temporary workers would have no protection was extended to 12 months.

I can accept that IBEC and employers would dance for joy at this, and I suppose, technically, everybody around this table is an employer in terms of secretarial staff and so on. However, it is incredible that if our entire workforce was to find itself seeking new employment it would have no protection for a 12 month period, particularly after putting in place the protections we have fought for over many years. It is a scandal and we should not allow it to happen. I cannot sign off on this.

Chairman

I draw the attention of committee members to the two lines stating that a record of the joint committee's debate on this proposal can be found on the Oireachtas joint committee Internet website of the 29th Dáil. That is——

Deputy Lynch

That will be a great comfort to people who are nine months into employment, only for their employer to decide that they are to be let go the following day.

Chairman

What you are stating, Deputy Lynch, is the extreme. What was stated here when I was chairing the committee was not what you are stating here. I am pointing out to committee members that they can refresh their memories as to what did take place on the day by looking up the website.

Deputy Lynch

Chair——

Chairman

I do not think any member is stating this morning that there should be no protection for a worker for 12 months.

Deputy Lynch

That is what our report is saying. That is the difficulty.

Chairman

My understanding of what is being said, realistically, is that certain safeguards can be put in along the way but the final decision certainly cannot be made after six weeks. It is left open and it is a difficult and sensitive area.

Deputy Lynch

We are not sitting around this table to decide if what is on the website is accurate. That is not our function. Our function is this report, and I cannot sign off on it. It is not balanced and does not take in both sides of the argument. The extreme is that it comes down completely on the side of the employer. God knows we have all had experiences of the extreme. We should spend a little more time on this and maybe should have an opinion.

Chairman

What we are saying is written down here and it states, "Many members of the joint committee express their support for an extension of the six-week period to a period of up to 12 months." It does not state "12 months" but "up to 12 months". It adds: "Other members noted the concerns raised by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions with regard to the level of protection from discrimination for temporary workers and to the waiting period being extended beyond six weeks." That is an inconclusive assessment but gives all sides of the factual contributions of members and of those people who came in to represent the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the small business community.

Deputy Lynch

That simply states the position. It is not an opinion. Maybe we will not end up staying with the six week period and maybe we will not end up with a 12 month period, but we should surely have some opinion on it even if it does end up somewhere in between. We are publishing what we claim is a report but it is actually no more than a record of what happened at the meeting. We probably would be better off publishing the minutes.

Deputy Callanan

I accept that what is written there is inconclusive. My understanding is that we listened to three sides that day - the employers, employees and the Department - and more or less came down on the side of the Department, whereby leeway would be given but not within the six week period. It would be given for a period between six weeks and 12 months. The main concern for many of us was that we would not put something into legislation that would stop employers from employing people. That was one very strong point that came across that day. If we do want to set down a specified period, six months might be appropriate. A six week period is definitely too short and 12 months is probably too long. What we did that day was more or less leave it to the Department to come up with a date.

Deputy Lynch

Surely people would like to know what we think.

Deputy Callanan

We just did not give a definite view that day.

Deputy Hogan

After hearing the debate, I think most people, realistically, accept that six weeks may be a bit short but maybe it is the 12 month period that is causing the problem. This could be solved, perhaps, if we did not set any upper limit and just stated the lower limit beyond which the members of the committee would support an extension of the six week period. That gives enormous flexibility in terms of where we end up.

Chairman

That is exactly what is being said.

Deputy Hogan

Yes, but the 12 month period is being mentioned as well——

Chairman

That is exactly what is being said, namely extending it beyond six weeks.

Deputy Lynch

We have the alternative views on the previous page.

Senator Hanafin

We heard three views as Deputy Callanan mentioned, and we did not come down specifically on any one side. What is expressed in the report is a fair reflection of what happened. There was no agreement either way but the report reflects exactly what happened.

Chairman

If members are not happy I can leave this until the next meeting. I think it is a very factual report of what happened on the day.

Deputy Howlin

I said at the outset that it is an accurate reflection of what happened. The problem I have goes beyond this net issue because the directive goes beyond this issue. A complicated set of proposals was put to us by people who have a research department to examine them. I have strong views on this net issue and I am obviously on the side of giving the maximum possible protection to workers but——

Chairman

In fairness I think we would all like to see that happen but we have got to be realistic.

Deputy Howlin

If I could finish the point I am making, Chairman. You admonish others for cutting in. What I am saying goes beyond even this draft directive, and it concerns how we are going to deal with issues where people are going to have very strong views. The ICTU and IBEC have spent months conducting preparations, debating and staying in touch with Brussels in relation to these matters. They then come and make a presentation to us but we are not prepared to deal with this promptly. We do not have time. Listening to two sides of an argument, as if we were a District Court and were making many judgments, is not a good way to do business. This links into the bigger picture I want to discuss.

This report is a record of this committee's work, and it concerns important legislation that impacts on the rights of workers into the future. We have received pages of detailed submissions, yet it has all been boiled down to this report. This is the extent of the deliberation. It basically comprises an introduction, which sets out the contents, and observations on one issue. It will make us vulnerable in the future. I would like, if possible, to amend that paragraph by, perhaps inserting something along the lines of Deputy Hogan's proposal.

Chairman

Would the Deputy like to leave it until next week?

Deputy Howlin

I would like to leave it until the next meeting——

Chairman

Let us all reflect on what we have discussed this morning.

Deputy Howlin

——and expand the issue to the other net points so that people will know that at least the committee tried to grasp the totality of the submissions given to us.

Chairman

Members will know that we are receiving various items of correspondence by the half stone——

Deputy Howlin

By the half stone.

Chairman

——as was said before. In an effort not to have an enormous extra amount of paper coming before the committee, the Clerk of the Committee and I decided to bring in the summary and then refer members, or anyone else, to the Internet website. If members want us to bring in another half stone on the next occasion we will do so. I am in the hands of the members regarding a direction to be taken. Perhaps we will think about that on the next occasion.

Members will have noticed in recent months that we have received a number of notices of documents to be noted without further scrutiny. We have to report to the scrutiny sub-committee that we have done so. Can I have the agreement of members that all such documents received without a request for specific consideration be deemed to have been noted and that the scrutiny sub-committee be advised accordingly? Is that agreed?

Deputy Howlin

I have great difficulty in noting documents that I have not seen. If that is the procedure, however——

Chairman

The Clerk to the Committee may wish to offer a point of view on this matter.

The joint committee went into private session at 10.32 a.m. and adjourned at 10.35 a.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 16 April 2003.