I draw witnesses' attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. It is generally accepted that witnesses have qualified privilege but the committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. After that usual caveat, I invite Mr. White to commence.
Scrutiny of EU Legislative Proposals: Discussion with Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
Mr. Damien White
I thank the Chairman. This is my first ever visit to address this or any other committee of the Houses and I did not realise one had to get indemnification of that nature. I did not think members were such abrasive people that they would attack one in that way — all gentlemen and ladies.
I wish the committee members a good morning. At the outset, I must offer an apology. The committee invited my colleague, Mr Sean O'Flaherty, the Department's dedicated expert on the subject, to address it today. Unfortunately, Mr. O'Flaherty is unavailable and my colleagues and I have stepped in to assist the committee with its deliberations. I am accompanied by Ms Tanya Holly and Ms Deirdre Dolan. We work in the company law area of the Department. Between us, I hope we can give the committee an insight into this proposal as presented, its origins and how it is proceeding.
It is important, however, to understand that it is still early days in the evolution of the proposal. Council working group consideration only got under way in July. Inevitably, the negotiation process will throw up issues that none of us has foreseen. It may well be that the committee will have questions for which there is no answer yet. We have set up a working group involving the expertise of the Company Law Review Group to assist us as negotiations proceed. No doubt the committee will also have insights that will be of help to us, and which we would welcome.
While the Council working group phase has only just started its deliberations, the French EU Presidency is driving the group's activity at a hectic pace. It is a high priority item for them and they have scheduled in excess of ten meetings of the group over the course of their Presidency. In this context, it is useful to recall that as the proposal takes the form of a regulation, it requires unanimity in the Council.
The SPE is pitched as a new legal instrument designed primarily for small and middle-sized private enterprises, SMEs. SPE is shorthand for the Latin societas privata Europaea. This is what would appear after a company name if the proposal is adopted. The stated objective of the proposal is to make it easier for European SMEs to conduct cross-border business by providing them with the option of incorporating under this European legal form. It is based on common company law principles and adapted to the specific needs of SMEs. It should mean a reduction in the compliance costs that arise both from the creation and operation of companies and should enhance mobility and competitiveness of companies across Europe.
The SPE idea has been around for over ten years, having originated in France. It is only in recent years, however, that the European Commission decided to explore the idea. In 2004, it carried out a feasibility study and, in 2006, sought comments on the need for an SPE in a public consultation on the future of the company law and corporate governance action plan. The outcome of the study and consultation was inconclusive, with support confined mainly to Germany and France.
Subsequently, in November 2006, a committee of the European Parliament called on the Commission to bring forward a proposal for an SPE and provided the Commission with a basic template for such a proposal. In response, the Commission carried out a further consultation, including an on-line survey among companies in July 2007 in order to "get the facts" and the evidence needed for a legislative proposal.
The Commission published the results of this consultation in December 2007, having earlier announced to the European Parliament that it would bring forward a proposal for an SPE. A majority of respondents to the consultation exercise favoured having an SPE, but emphasised that it would have added value only if its statute was simple, self-contained and uniform, that is, if it relied as little as possible on national law.
The statute forms part of the Small Business Act for Europe, initiated by President Barroso in November 2007 and put forward earlier this year as part of the Single Market review. It takes the form of a regulation and contains a set of uniform company law rules that would apply to any SPE set up across the member states. Essentially, it gives entrepreneurs the option of forming an SPE instead of a private limited company under national law.
One or more founders, individuals or companies may set up an SPE. There is no restriction as regards the formation method. The SPE may be set up from scratch, created by transformation or division of an existing company or by the merger of existing companies. Notwithstanding the fact that the SPE is aimed especially at SMEs, there is no limit on the size of an SPE.
Although the stated objective of the SPE is to facilitate cross-border activity, unlike existing EU corporate forms, the proposal as currently drafted does not make the creation of an SPE subject to a cross-border requirement, such as having shareholders from different member states or providing evidence of cross-border activity.
In terms of applicable law, the SPE will be governed by the regulation and by its articles of association. The regulation sets out a range of matters deemed essential to the corporate life of the SPE, including a minimum list of matters to be covered by the articles. Freedom is allowed to the shareholders to decide how to regulate these matters, subject only to the rules of the regulation. In other words, the provisions of the articles are not subject to national law. The latter will only apply where this is specifically stated in the regulation.
However, the proposal also states, in respect of matters not covered by the regulation and the articles that national law applicable to private companies will apply. It is clear that national law, including accounting and tax law, procedures for insolvency and cessation of payments, labour and social security law, and criminal law, will govern the SPE. However, it is not clear whether this extends to national company law matters not provided for in the regulation and articles.
Under the regulation, a minimum capital allocation of €1 is set. The SPE will be allowed to have its registered office and headquarters in different member states. In other words, it can register in one member state and have its headquarters or main centre of operations in another. The SPE is allowed to transfer its registered office to another member state. In addition, the statute provides rules on worker participation to ensure workers will not lose their rights if an SPE moves to another country or takes part in a cross-border merger.
The intention is that the SPE will provide private companies with a more simplified corporate framework compared with mature national company law systems. As the SPE can be established in each member state without the need for any cross-border requirement, it can coexist in the member states alongside national company forms. At an informal Council of Ministers meeting in July in the context of the Small Business Act, the Minister of State, Deputy Kelleher, indicated that Ireland broadly welcomes the efforts to support small and medium enterprises. It was also pointed out that, based on the work of the Company Law Review Group on national company law and on the companies consolidation and reform Bill that is currently being drafted, Ireland is concerned that the SPE proposal may not embrace the same standard of protection for creditors and shareholders as provided for by Irish law.
The cornerstone of the companies consolidation and reform Bill is the private company form. This results from lengthy and painstaking work by the Company Law Review Group and switches the main emphasis of Irish company law from the public limited company to the private company. The Department's objective in negotiations is to ensure the evolving SPE incorporates all the safeguards considered necessary, consistent with national legislation in the private company area. It must be remembered that availing of the SPE form will be voluntary.
It is early days in the negotiation process on this dossier. Although there is a significant degree of propulsion on the part of the French Presidency, it may well be some time before an end game is reached.
I received the documentation for this meeting last Friday. As a result of the all-Ireland hurling final on Sunday and the more serious matter of constituency work on Friday evening and Saturday, it was difficult to find time to examine the proposal in detail. I hope we will have sufficient time to discuss it. I thank Mr. White for his presentation. I am sure he did at least as good a job as his colleague would have done.
We are told that this proposal is pitched at small to medium companies, but we are also told that no limitation is applicable to the SPE. Does Mr. White agree, therefore, that we must treat the proposal as though it were open to all, whether multinational corporations or small family businesses?
Mr. Damien White
That certainly seems to be the case.
Therefore, the proposal warrants detailed consideration.
It is particularly significant that the proposal advocates a reduction in compliance costs. The Chairman can attest that members of this committee will have no objection to that. We have been raising the issue of compliance costs for small and medium enterprises for some time. However, while I welcome a reduction in costs, I am concerned that the proposal may also facilitate a reduction in company law compliance. This particularly relates to matters such as workers' rights, for example. Taxation has been referred to but I would like to tease the subject out more. What are the implications relating to a number of the issues involved in this, such as accounting, insolvency, labour law and taxation matters? I would appreciate some comment on this.
This is meant to be simple and self-contained, which is great, but the Company Law Review Group is close to completing its work on company law reform. Nobody here has a problem with this and we look forward to the group concluding its work. We will then be able to amend legislation to make it simple, not only for business people and entrepreneurs, but for accountants, solicitors and everyone who engages in enterprise. Will this have a positive or negative impact on the review group's work?
Mr. Damien White
To take the Deputy's last point first, both are devolving at the same time. The Bill is still being drafted and the last I heard is that eight of the 14 parts have been drafted by the Attorney General's office. These things will go ahead in parallel and, to the extent that national law will continue to apply in certain areas, they will coexist. Our fear is that this measure may usurp our eventual provisions. As negotiations go on it is interesting that they have arrived at the same point in time. This gives a unique opportunity to ensure that the provisions are not usurped, if we can help it.
Regarding the question on tax laws, this will be tax neutral, which means the domestic tax regime will continue to apply to these entities. There is no fear in this regard, nor regarding employment law and protection, because national law will continue to apply. As we understand this, workers rights will continue to be protected under national legislation.
I raise a brief question relating to the ambition for a reduction in compliance costs. Can Mr. White indicate how it is envisaged that this will pan out in terms of reducing costs?
Mr. Damien White
Apart from the simplicity of the form and the ease with which one can set up such an entity, I have no details as to how this will work as it has not been calculated. The Commission has carried out an impact assessment on how this may pan out. It will be achieved mainly through standardisation across member states.
Would it be possible for the Department, through Mr. White or one of his colleagues, to seek additional information on the Council's ambition to bring forward this aspect the matter?
Mr. Damien White
I can do that and I will also seek additional figures.
As a committee of scrutiny we must ask questions seeking further information, when required.
Mr. Damien White
The fact that domestic changes are coinciding with this presents a unique opportunity to the committee and the Department.
I thank Mr. White and his colleagues for the presentation. This seems to be a very positive project and I know that the vast majority of companies in Europe are SMEs. I understand that around 8% of those SMEs engage in cross-border activity. It may be too early to tell, but is it felt that many Irish companies will seek to take up this SPE regulation company formation? Will there be a big take-up or a strong interest in it and will it make a difference to companies? The devil is in the detail and that is still being worked out. If the broad idea of it was implemented, would there be many companies who would take up on it? A reduction in regulation and red tape is attractive to SMEs who complain about it regularly. This would seem to be a good project. I am interested to hear views in terms of companies taking up the opportunity to be an SPE.
Mr. Damien White
There is a good chance they will. I agree the devil is in the detail. There is a long way to go in the negotiation if the European company statute of recent memory is anything to go by. It took 30 years to negotiate. They are hoping this will happen much more quickly, and European companies deserve nothing better than the best we can achieve for them.
Is there an appetite for Irish companies to avail of this opportunity or are they even aware of it?
Mr. Damien White
I am not aware there is. The legal profession and the CLRG people we have spoken to so far have no sense that there is. They need some kind of certainty and we have established jurisprudence.
Ms Deirdre Dolan
In the consultation there were not many replies from Irish companies so there was not much from an Irish perspective. That may not indicate anything. Much of it was from Germany, Italy and France and they are the main ones that were pushing it.
Did the small business representative groups like the SFI or ISME have any input into submissions?
Were they even consulted?
Ms Deirdre Dolan
Once any information is released by the Commission it is sent to the various interested bodies. To be honest, not much response comes back.
Ms Tanya Holly
They all have an input in to the CLRG and they have been consulted. There is a group going with them in constant consultation on it. They are involved there. We have received comments but the response has not been huge. People have not switched on to it yet.
Mr. Damien White
Conceptually, everybody would say "let us reduce costs, let us have a form that has the least possible trammelling effect", but at the same time other interests will say, "we cannot lose the protections that have grown up over the years and have served us so well". It is also fair to say regarding costs generally, that it is not so clear that it is only company law — while it is part of the overall burden — and there are other areas that are considerably more complex and more onerous in terms of reporting duties.
This proposal seems to have a long way to go yet and I wonder if we should have another input into it at a later stage.
I intend that some of the issues raised today will be brought back by Mr. White and his colleagues to ascertain the position more definitively in three or six months time.
Before the decisions are made.
Yes. I agree with Deputy Andrews. This will be a very long-winded process.
Mr. Damien White
It will have to be adopted ultimately and unanimously because it is a regulation.
Would a directive be more appropriate?
Mr. Damien White
They are terrified that they would never get a directive off the ground. They are looking for uniformity across Europe and I understand this is why they are going for the regulation option.
On a point of clarification, did we approach any of the small firms associations or representative bodies to advise them of this instrument and to seek their views? Without us making contact, have they made contact with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment on this issue to make any views known? People operating in this area may not be aware of a mechanism having content.
Mr. Damien White
I know.
Equally they may not be aware of this until they are informed that the instrument is in place and they have to adhere to it. At that stage they will contact people around this table to say certain things should be done but then it is too late.
Mr. Damien White
It is worth mentioning that it will be optional. This is not mandatory by any means. The mechanism will be set down in regulation ultimately but it can co-exist with any other form they want to engage in. Groups that come together to set up something like this will have the option to do it, it will not be mandatory.
I thank Mr. White and his colleagues for the presentation. This is an interesting concept. As other speakers have pointed out this committee, and particularly the Chairman, have been crusading for some time in regard to a reduction in bureaucracy and red tape regarding doing business and setting up a business. Obviously there is a need for more detail on what exactly the implications are for small and medium-sized enterprises in Ireland and the possible consequences for consumers in the case of insolvency or bankruptcy. What are the implications for existing small and medium enterprises? I understand the concept of having the option to opt in or opt out but if somebody opts out what are the implications in terms of competition with other enterprises? Is there a particular reason the French are pushing this instrument? Do they have issues with their own regulation and law in this area or is it of particular benefit to France? I understand it requires unanimity and obviously that takes time. What is the timeframe for implementation? I notice in one of the scrutiny notes a specific date of 2010.
Mr. Damien White
On the question of insolvency, there is a level of protection for consumers but national law will apply.
Ms Deirdre Dolan
None of that has changed.
National law will apply.
The Deputy raised an important point. Why are the French so eager to advocate the measure?
Mr. Damien White
That is a mystery to us. We suspect the committee is right that they are already tied into certain rules and may want to break free.
It may be worth investigating that issue further to see whether there are any particular issues.
Mr. Damien White
Yes, it is one we will check for the committee.
Does Senator Cassidy wish to say anything?
No, I am happy.
What input has the Department had into the measure? Obviously the Department has concerns in regard to aspects of it. It will require unanimity. The Minister of State, Deputy Kelleher, initially welcomed the broad thrust of lessening the cost of compliance, the reduction in bureaucracy and regulation and making it easier for small businesses to have a major input. However, we would be concerned if it means we will facilitate small businesses coming here and taking on our small businesses at the coalface and ultimately leading to displacement, because of some comparative advantage. There is a long way to go but we will convey our concerns to the scrutiny committee, which asked us to examine this. The reason the officials are here is to elaborate and elucidate for us something that is extremely complex. We have concerns. The committee's principal objectives are to ensure the lessening of bureaucratic and unnecessary regulation, although, as Deputy Morgan said, not at the expense of workers' rights. Such regulation has grown to be almost an industry and makes business very difficult by creating obstacles and hurdles.
While this proposal appears to be aimed at lessening that and ensuring cross-border trade without inhibition, I am, like my colleagues, curious as to why the Department did not contact the interest groups. The Company Law Review Group is doing a different job; it is working on the consolidation of company law Acts dating from 1963, which involves up to 18 legislative measures. It is trying to combine them into an understandable corpus of law for the general public as well as the users of the legislation. That is a different project. As Mr. White said, it is a coincidence that both processes are taking place in parallel.
Nevertheless, that is at a different level and small businesses are often not at that level. Corporate law might be more applicable to the top people in business. While they are important for keeping the country ticking, we foresee the small business community having a major role in the next 18 to 36 months in pulling us through the dip, shall we say, rather than recession. Nothing should be introduced that would hamper or inhibit that, although anything that makes it easier for small businesses to survive and prosper would be welcome.
Why does the Department not consult ISME, which represents thousands of small businesses, the Small Firms Association and IBEC? Why has there not been direct contact with them, rather than depending on comments that might emanate from them at the Company Law Review Group? Those comments might be germane to the concept of consolidating the legislation but are tangential to this discussion. The committee would advocate direct contact by the Department with the people who will be directly affected by this proposal, rather than depending on tangential comments. We could make comments here which you might judge to be off the point, and that is fair enough. Nevertheless, we believe it is important that you make direct contact with the business organisations and groups that will be directly affected by this and outline what is involved, as you have done to this committee.
As Deputy Morgan said, we are not experts but we have tried to grapple with and grasp the meaning of this in the time available to us. The business organisations would have legal experts available to them who could go through the proposal with the officials. It appears the Department is not happy with some of what is proposed and is seeking further clarification on some issues. Why not complement that degree of healthy and intense scrutiny by taking on board the issues that are germane to the small business community? The Department should pursue it from that perspective. We must report to the scrutiny committee and obviously we will report the assistance we received from the Department. We would like the issues to be explored in that way. I am not trying to summarise my colleagues' views or inhibit them but I believe I have encapsulated the broad view of the committee and the concerns underlying that view. We are all in favour of minimising bureaucracy. Obviously, there must be some bureaucracy but we do not want to give carte blanche. Deputy Cyprian Brady said this needs unanimity. I have a healthy scepticism when I see one country chase after something with great vigour. One always wonders why.
A review group is working in the Department to try to gain a 25% reduction in this regard. We are working at this level to try to achieve that. We do not want that baby thrown out with the bath water if we find we are achieving a 25% reduction or, hopefully, more than that. This committee would like to see a one third reduction immediately. If something comes in which seems to level the playing pitch and could lead to displacement and something else, that would be of concern to us. Perhaps Ms Dolan might comment on that or maybe I have misread the situation.
Ms Deirdre Dolan
I wish to advise that at present the only real concrete document we have is the proposal which has been put on our website. We also have contact personnel in ISME and IBEC and we sent an e-mail with the proposal attached when it arrived. Literally only last week Brussels decided to proceed with the negotiations by way of various chapters. It is looking at chapters two and three and is sending out questions in regard to each article. It wants a response from each of the member states. It has also agreed to forward all the responses of the various member states in regard to each of the articles. This only happened last Thursday.
The Department has decided to forward all the questions and responses from the member states to the various interested parties. There will be much documentation and if the scrutiny committee members would like a copy of the questions on the articles and the responses from the various member states, we will be more than willing to supply them. When one sends out reams of information, it is very difficult to get feedback from people because they are busy. It is not that we have not been sending out information. The proposal has been sent. If the committee would like a copy of the various questions and the replies, there will be no problem providing them.
We would appreciate them being forwarded to us.
Will we have someone to advise us? That would be desirable.
I agree.
This is only the start of——
This is the start of a process.
We had a consultant the last time.
The Department knows our views, some of which, hopefully, are focused on the issues at hand. Will the Department come back to us well in advance of 2010, as Deputy Cyprian Brady asked — perhaps in February or March of next year — to give us an update on how things are going? In the interim, the Department might contact ISME, IBEC and so on to ascertain their views. Today's presentation simplifies a notoriously complex document which is only an opening salvo. It was very useful. At least we could absorb the information.
Ms Deirdre Dolan
We have contacted ISME and IBEC and have given them the proposal. We will provide them with the questions and the information in regard to all the member states.
It should be provided to the Small Firms Association as well.
Ms Deirdre Dolan
Okay.
I do not wish to burden the clerk to the committee and his assistants but given that the Department has done its business in terms of sending out the notification to the relevant business and enterprise organisations, perhaps if the clerk to, or the Chairman of, the committee sent a letter to those organisations asking them to send a view to us if they so wish, it would be one way to tweak their interest a little bit more and to stimulate their interest in the issue.
In fairness, the clerk has never turned down a proposal we have tried to pursue.
There is a suggestion in the circular of the proposed regulation that it may have the potential to impact on or perhaps even undermine national law in a member state. I hope I am not putting Ms Holly on the spot. I wonder from a legal perspective whether there has been an opportunity at this stage, as the proposal stands currently, to reflect upon the potential for that to occur.
Ms Tanya Holly
It is just that the SPE will be seen as in competition with our private companies here. For Irish companies who want to operate in France or in Germany, the SPE gives a European brand whereas the Irish private company form does not necessarily. The SPE will be known in France and in Germany. People will know what they are dealing with so from that perspective, there is possibly a competition issue between the Irish private company and the SPE.
A second possible aspect would be that the SPE is seen as a much simpler form. There is freedom given to the company to organise itself as it wishes. The Companies Acts set out how a company should be organised and they are given a certain amount of freedom. They put a certain amount of detail in their articles of association but, by and large, they are controlled by the Acts. The SPE would be slightly different in that one is dealing with the regulation itself and then what the company puts in its own articles of association. Therefore, they are given much more freedom. As a result, there is a concern that Irish private company law might be undermined because there may be an alternative out there.
If a company registered in the State wishes to do business in the North or in Britain and wishes for that purpose to set up a bank account in that jurisdiction, it needs the permission of the Central Bank here in order to do so.
Ms Tanya Holly
I was not aware of that.
I do not mean to be unfair here by dragging Ms Holly into territory at which she may not have had an opportunity to look and perhaps she can come back to us on it. Is the SPE likely to eliminate that requirement so that a company registered and operating here could set up an SPE in Newry or a few miles up the road in Crossmaglen,——
Ms Tanya Holly
It can in the UK. It could set up a subsidiary.
——but without the permission of the Central Bank here? If so, that undermines the authority of the Central Bank in terms of the financial transactions of a company incorporated here.
Ms Tanya Holly
I have no idea what an Irish company needs to do as far as the Central Bank is concerned to set up a bank account in Newry. That is not my area. That said, the idea of the SPE is that people in France and Germany will know exactly what sort of company they are dealing with. It just gives them that amount of comfort. If a French company is doing business with an Irish company and both are SPEs, they know roughly what sort of regulation exists, the level of creditor protection and shareholder protection — what they are dealing with. That is the beauty of it.
I cited one simple example of a fiscal requirement which would have a significant impact, whether in the North or Britain, or in Germany or France.
Ms Tanya Holly
On whether one will still encounter that obstacle, I think one probably will.
There is quite a bit to be teased out here yet and I look forward to hearing from the Department officials. Certainly, I would welcome a copy of those questions and answers. Perhaps each of us who would like that could indicate to the clerk. It might be the more efficient way of dealing with it.
Okay.
First, apologies for being late. Travelling up the nation's roads this morning, I am a victim of the bad weather. I am delighted that the Department's representatives are here this morning.
At risk of overstating something that might have been said before, I note the language used here — a simplified corporate framework compared to well established company law systems. Many of us who have come from a business background would appreciate what is being attempted here. I also note the reference to flexibility and simplicity for small business. People in small and medium-sized firms will be delighted with that. It is a matter of teasing out not just the nitty-gritty but a massive shift in how we deal with company law in terms of this SPE proposal.
Having spent many years in small businesses, I like the reference to the lighter regulatory touch because we have been so overburdened in the past with red tape and form filling, for example, for the census, Department issues or trade issues, etc. I would support anything that would simplify regulation for business to let them get on with the business of making money or whatever they are trying to do. However, I think we need some help. I love the use of language, "significant degree of propulsion" which in semantics suggests there is a certain amount of pressure coming from the French Presidency. We need to take our time to tease out the issues and ensure the people who will be implicated in the changes with an SPE will be fully briefed. I would appreciate hearing what other countries are doing and getting feedback from those who have lived and done business abroad. It would be very interesting to get that feedback before we sign on the dotted line and agree we must all be in this together. At risk of stating the obvious, I want my views recorded in the minutes.
Are there proposals we wish to forward to the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny? The clerk may summarise some of the issues about which we have concerns, such as the pace of the advocacy on the matter and the impact it will have on businesses here. We are eager for more contact to be made with the relevant business groups on the issue and for the question and answer process set up within the Department to ascertain information to be pursued vigorously. We want the 25% to 33% reduction initiated within our Department to continue without impact from this proposed regulation. We also suggest that we hasten slowly on this and have further time to consider it. We suggest a further meeting on the matter in approximately six months, February or March, to update us on progress on it and allow us a further input. The view of the committee is that while we support the idea of decreasing regulation and allowing more flexibility, we want to temper that and ensure more information is provided with regard to how the regulation will dovetail with our current legal requirements on the operation of small businesses. That is the broad thrust of the observations emanating from this committee's discussion.
I agree, but would like to make a suggestion. It would be worthwhile to send a note to the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny to thank it for forwarding this to us and notify it that we have a strong interest in the issue and would appreciate receiving any other material it receives at the earliest opportunity so that we have more time to scrutinise it.
I thank Ms Dolan, Ms Holly and Mr. White for their assistance in our deliberations today. While elucidating and expanding upon the topic they managed to reduce the necessary information from the almost 100 pages in the original proposal to four or five pages. We are thankful for that. We are not one-page people and want to ascertain and divine the real intentions of the proposal. The delegation has been patient and has given us a detailed progress report on the legislation and the reasons for it and I hope it has taken on board our deep concerns on the matter. This committee must ensure that it will not be accused down the road by some business group of not having bothered to raise the issues when such matters came before it. It is to pre-empt the possible accusation of failure to exercise our parliamentary role as scrutineers of legislation that we summon people such as yourselves before the committee. I thank the delegation for coming to the committee and expect we will invite them back. They will all be welcome. We were glad to meet Mr. White. Today was his first time before a committee of this nature and we hope it will not be the last. We are not as bad as people paint us to be.
Mr. Damien White
No ogres on site.
I apologise for being late. As Deputy White has said the traffic was outrageous. I phoned the Chairman's office at 9.20 a.m. I would like to talk about a matter in private session if possible.
The joint committee went into private session at 11 a.m. and adjourned at 11.20 a.m. sine die.