RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS/FIN/M/27
23 August 2000
(00-3361)
Committee on Trade in Financial Services
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 13 JULY 2000
Note by the Secretariat
1. The twenty-eight meeting of the Committee on Trade in Financial Services was chaired by Mr.
Lotfy Abdel-Hamid of Egypt.  The discussion foll owed the agenda contained in airgram WTO/AIR/1349.
Under Other Business the Chairman added the report to be made by Chairpersons of the subsidiarybodies to the CTS Special Session.
Item A: Acceptance of the Fifth Protocol to the General Agreement on Trade in Services
Embodying the Results of the Financial Services Negotiations
2. The Chairman informed the Committee that Ghana had accepted the Fifth Protocol to the GATS
on 26 May, lowering to 9 the number of Members still conducting domestic processes to enable
acceptance.  He recalled that at the previous meeting the Committee had heard information on the status
of domestic ratification processes from Bolivia, Brazil, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Kenya, Nigeria,
the Philippines, and Uruguay.  He invited the Members that were yet to accept the Protocol to provide
any further information and give some indication as to when they expected to be able to conclude their
acceptance.
3. The representative of Brazil informed that another substantive commission of the House of
Deputies had approved the Protocol.  Subsequently, it had to be considered by the plenary of the House
of Deputies and the plenary of the Senate in order to be accepted by the Parliament.  Once approved by
Parliament, it would go through the ratification procedure by the Executive.
4. The representative of Poland said that some legislative changes were necessary in order to
accelerate the process of acceptance.  Those changes were contained in the draft amendment to the law
on public turnover in securities, which would allow all WTO Members to establish a branch in Poland
with a view to perform brokerage activities.  In the existing legislation that was only possible in the case
of OECD Members states.  The said amendment would be approved by the Government in the course of
that month and then submitted to the Parliament.  The amendment was expected to enter into force during
the year paving the way for the ratification of the Fifth Protocol, which was expected to be finalizedbefore the end of the year 2000.
5. The representative of Uruguay indicated that since the previous meeting no new developments
had occurred.  He stated that the ratification process continued its normal course and reiterated that the
Uruguayan commitments reflected in the Fifth Protocol were contained already in domestic legislation,
and therefore in force for sometime.
6. The Chairman thanked delegations for the information provided.  He encouraged those that had
not been in a position to update the Committee on the state of ratification or acceptance procedures to do
so as soon as possible.
7. The Chairman said that it would be very unfortunate if undertakings already given could not be
put into affect due to procedural constraints, thus undermining confidence in the multilateral system.  He
felt it extremely important to have completed the acceptance of the Fifth Protocol before initiating theS/FIN/M/27
Page 2
exchange of specific commitments in the sector later in the current negotiations.  He recalled that, in
closing the discussion in May, he had suggested that the Committee could consider ways to expedite the
process of acceptance by all Members concerned.  Having heard from them that, in most cases, the delays
had been caused by the heavy agendas of parliaments, perhaps providing those in capitals with a tool that
might help them to achieve the necessary priority for the ratification of the Protocol would contribute toexpedite the process.  His predecessor had sent 2 letters stressing the importance of the full acceptance of
the protocol to the missions of the Members concerned in Geneva.  Perhaps the following step should be
a similar communication from the Director General to the Ministers concerned in Capitals.  That kind of
intervention by the DG was not new.  In a similar situation regarding the acceptance of the Fourth
Protocol, the Director General had addressed a co mmunication to Members in an effort to expedite
domestic processes and achieve acceptance of the Fourth Protocol by the deadline.  He felt that a similar
letter could be helpful to renew a sense of urgency in relation to the acceptance of the Fifth Protocol inthe absence of a deadline.
8. The representative of Brazil questioned the usefulness of such a letter in the case of her country
since the parliamentary process was going smoothly.  In her view sending a letter to Congress could be
counterproductive, so her delegation would refrain from doing that.
9. The Chairman replied that, as explained before, the aim of the letter was to add a sense of priority
and expedite the process, which seemed to be necessary.  Given that a long time had passed since the
deadline for acceptance, the fact that sectoral negotiations would begin the following year and it was
uncertain when the Members concerned would finalize domestic processes, he felt that such a letter
would be helpful to those in Capital trying to expedite the process.
10. The representative of Brazil clarified that her delegation was not opposing such action.  She was
only commenting that in the case of Brazil a letter from the DG would not be helpful.
11. The representative of the United States supported the Chairman's effort to maintain emphasis on
the need for the nine countries that had not complete d the ratification to do so as soon as possible.  A
letter from the Director General to those governments could be helpful in that respect.  Her delegation
took note of Brazil's point that it had considerable efforts under way.  She urged the Chairman to be moregeneral in terms of the timeframe under which countries should complete those efforts; countries should
be encouraged to complete acceptance expeditiously but without reference to the need to complete that
before the initiation of the exchange of commitment in the sector.
12. The representative of the European Communities also supported the Chairman's proposal as it
could be useful to expedite the process.  Such a letter should not suggest that the acceptance of the Fifth
Protocol would be a pre-condition for starting the exchange of specific commitments.
13. In relation to the message to be sent to those countries that had not concluded acceptance, the
representative of Mauritius said that a more optimistic approach would be to convey that their accepting
the Protocol would reinforce the multilateral system.
14. The Chairman clarified that the Members concerned would be encouraged to finalize their
acceptance as soon as possible, without a linkage between the acceptance of the Protocol and the
exchange of specific commitments.
Item B: Technical Issues
15. The Chairman  recalled that under this item the Committee had had a lengthy discussion on how to
proceed in relation to the two issues identified so far, namely, the Distinction between Modes 1 and 2 and
the Sectoral Classification of  Financial Services.S/FIN/M/27
Page 3
16. In relation to the Distinction between Modes 1 and 2, he said that the general view had been that
discussions should be driven by inputs from Members, however, thus far delegations had offered no
input.  He invited comments or examples of specific problems in this regard.
17. No delegation spoke.
18. In view of the lack of interventions and the points made in previous meetings, particularly the need
for the discussion to be guided by Members' specific problems and submissions, the Chairman proposed
to set the issue aside for the time being and reintroduce it in the Committee's agenda at the request of anydelegation.
19. The representative of Japan indicated that in various international fora related to financial
regulation and supervision there had been ongoing discussions on how to regulate, or how to cope with
regulation of, electronic commerce of financial services, in particular those on a cross-border basis.  That
discussion taking place in fora such as the Basle Committee, IOSCO and IAIS, would probably lead to a
review of existing regulations in countries pertaining to electronic commerce of financial services on
cross-border basis.  Even though delegations did not seem to have a strong intention to discuss the
distinction between modes 1 and 2 immediately, his delegation would like to have the possibility to come
up with regulatory issues related to the matter when necessary.
20. The Chairman confirmed that his proposal was in line with Japan's position given that the issue
could be reintroduced in the Committee's agenda at the request of any delegation at any time.  The
Committee agreed to the Chairman's proposal.
21.  Regarding the Sectoral Classification of Financial Services, the Chairman  recalled that the
delegation of Japan had shared with the Committee the difficulties it had encountered with the
classification of banking and securities activities in the context of accession negotiations.  Japan felt thatthe classification contained in the Annex on Financial Services better reflected the characteristics of the
sector and proposed to discuss its use for the purpose of the scheduling commitments in the current
negotiations.  In supporting that proposal, one delegation had pointed out the need to enhance
comparability of specific commitments, taking into  account the specificities of countries' financial
industry.  Other delegations felt that it was necessary to decide whether the use of the Annex was atechnical issue or a matter for future work.  A proposal for looking at the Annex on Financial Services
and its coverage of activities that had emerged in the sector since the conclusion of the Uruguay Round
was also voiced.  Other delegations called for submissions by Members to define the scope of such
discussions.  He invited delegations comments or reactions.
22. No discussion took place.
23. The Chairman reiterated what some delegations had already said, namely that it was essential that
Members set the tone and pace of the discussions through their contributions.  So far the lack of inputs
had prevented the Committee from engaging in a substantive exchange of views on the two issues that
had been on the agenda for three meetings.  The Committee had two more meetings before the end of the
year; if work were to be done the Committee needed to have contributions on the issues as soon as
possible.  He urged delegations to make their best efforts to provide contributions on the issues of their
interest.
Item C: Other Issues for Future Discussion
24. The Chairman recalled that at the previous meeting the Committee had had a good discussion on
the proposal from Australia regarding work on “Prudential Measures”.  At that meeting views ranging
from objection to support had been expressed.  Most delegations that had spoken found it unrealistic to
aim at reaching an actual definition of prudential measures.  Some delegations had felt that the issuecould be taken up in the interest of transparency and to enhance mutual understanding.  Others had felt itS/FIN/M/27
Page 4
premature to initiate discussion without having more clarification of the elements of the proposal, and
requested more elaboration from Australia. One delegation had opposed work on prudential measures at
all; while others were still considering the proposal.  He invited reactions to the ideas put forward in the
Australian proposal and in the discussion at the previous meetings.
25. The representative of Japan observed that his dele gation's positions was clearly stated in the report
of the previous meeting (S/FIN/M/26, paragraph 22).  His delegation had suggested that the Committee
could collect information on prudential regulation from the various international financial organizations
working on the subject.  He said that the proposal put before delegations only involved asking those
organizations to make a presentation in the Committee for informational purposes on the current state of
their work, future work program, and any implementation problems that might have been recognized.
That would be without prejudice to any position that delegations might have on what constituted
prudential regulation.  It would seem difficult or undesirable to agree on a definition of prudentialmeasure given that, particularly in emerging market countries, there was a need to overhaul existing
prudential regulations, and international codes and standards were in the course of being developed in the
area.  However, it would be useful for the Committee to at least discuss the subject, so that regulators
would be more comfortable in being involved in futu re negotiations of  specific commitments even as
they review and overhaul prudential regulations.
26. The representative of the Czech Republic welcomed a discussion of prudential regulation but
called for prudence when discussing whether to develop a definition.  After 10 years of experience, the
Czech Republic was aware that regulation of financial services was important; on the other hand, such
measures should not be of a protectionist nature.  The financial authorities and Central Bank of his
country were seriously studying that issue.  For the time being, his delegation was not in favour of a hastydecision on the issue of finding a definition.  The prudential regulation issue was likely to be put on the
table in the negotiations of specific commitments, be they at bilateral, plurilateral or multilateral level.
27.  The representative of the European Communities felt it difficult or not realistic to define what
prudential regulation was under the prudential carve-out; however, it would be useful to tackle regulatory
issues in the Committee.  The WTO was not to replace or engage in the work of international regulatoryorganizations, but at the same time it was necessary to ensure that prudential regulation was not misused
for protectionist purposes.  It was necessary to gain a better understanding of the work underway in other
fora, and based upon that define a role concerning regulatory issues for the WTO.  He supported Japan's
proposal on asking the international regulatory organizations to give a presentation to the Committee.  It
would be useful to gain understanding and establ ish the initial links with those organizations.
28. The representative of Malaysia said that it was not necessary to reiterate his delegation's position,
since it was clearly reflected in the report of the previous meeting (S/FIN/M/26, paragraph 26), except to
indicate that Malaysia had fundamental difficulties with moving along the lines originally proposed by
Australia.  He observed that Australia had indicated in the previous meeting that  it would not impose the
issue on delegations that had difficulties.  With that in mind and given that there was a general feeling
among delegations that had spoken that defining prudential regulation was difficult and too ambitious, his
delegation would take issue if the proposal continued to be discussed despite the lack of consensus.
29. The representative of Hong Kong, China reiterated  his request for clarification as to the specific
problem that those delegations suggesting to take up the issue perceived in relation to prudential
regulation.  He wondered what matters were dealt with in the international organizations that had been
suggested which might be considered relevant to the work done in the Committee.
30. The representative of Australia thanked delegations for the comments given on the questions that
her delegation had circulated.  Her delegation supported Japan's suggestion to seek further information on
the issue and to continue discussions.  Her delegation would be doing further work over the coming
months and would be pleased to receive more comments over that period.S/FIN/M/27
Page 5
31. The representative of Brazil said that the financ ial authorities of her country had received the
Australian proposal with a considerable amount of caution due to the importance and implications of the
matter on the stability of the financial system.  Although her delegation saw some merit in seeking further
information on the issue, and could agree to the Japanese proposal, Brazil would not support an initiative
representing the drafting of prudential regulation by the Committee.
32.  The representative of the Philippines supported the statements made by Malaysia at the previous
and present meeting.  Looking at the provision contained in the Annex on financial services, his
delegation found no need to define what measures for prudential reasons meant.  A definition would be
required if the phrase sought to be defined was so ambiguous or vague as to require interpretation from
Members.  However, the language contained in paragraph 2(a) of the Annex was quite clear.  The
grounds cited in that provision might be broad and comprehensive but it did not at all  mean that they
were ambiguous.  Following the international law on interpretation of provisions in treaty language,where a phrase was not vague or ambiguous, Members should not endeavour to put in their own
interpretation.  The fact that the grounds cited in the mentioned provision were general and
comprehensive did not translate into vagueness or ambiguity.  Even if there was a wide discretion granted
to Members in invoking that provision, his delegation believed that it was intentional.  In fact that
provision sought to allow Members that discretion in case of certain contingencies, like those experiencedby Asian countries in the past two years.  Therefore, his delegation would not want to see deliberations
on the proposal taken forward, and hence supported the removal of the proposal from the agenda of
subsequent meetings.
33. The representative of Korea said that since the Working Party on Domestic Regulation (WPDR)
was in the process of developing disciplines in that area, it would be more appropriate to discuss the
matter after that work was completed.
34. The representative of the United States said that her delegation's views on the need to further
define the prudential carve-out were contained in paragraph 29 of the previous meeting.  Her delegation
was cautious in considering the need for further work on the definition of that provision as there was no
compelling evidence that excessive prudential regulation had undermined commitments.  However, sheechoed the request by Hong Kong, China for Members to provide any relevant examples. Her delegation
supported the idea that certain international financial regulatory organizations might be contacted to give
the WTO membership reports on the work they had underway, without prejudging how the information
might be used by the WTO.  Perhaps those organizations might be encouraged to report on issues beyond
prudential regulation, for example, work on general transparency issues.  She suggested that the
Chairman consult with delegations on the possible topics on which information could be sought from
those organizations.  On the organizations to be co nsulted, she suggested to add the OECD, particularly
the pensions fund committee which was conducting work on certain regulatory issues.  She indicated that
her delegations was working on a general paper on domestic regulatory issues, following up on ideas
expressed during the April meeting and picking up on the work underway in the WPDR.  Any result from
the work in the WPDR, for example with regard to transparency, should apply to the financial sector.
However, given the specific nature of financial services regulation delegations might decide on furtherelaboration of some of those concepts.  Such an examination could take place while giving deference to
the existing provisions on domestic regulation in the Financial Services Annex.  Her delegation expected
to be able to circulate the aforementioned paper in advance of the October formal meeting of the
Committee to allow for informal discussions.
35. The representative of Thailand thanked Australia for the proposal.  His delegation identified no
problem with the definition of prudential measures as contained in the Financial Services Annex.  There
were reasons justifying the manner in which the provision was drafted.  She supported Malaysia and the
Philippines in having the proposal removed from discussions.
36. The representative of Japan understood the concerns expressed by some delegations as it would
certainly be premature to embark on an exercise to agree on a definition of prudential measures.  HeS/FIN/M/27
Page 6
clarified that the Committee could have an agenda item, for instance regulatory issues in financial
services, under which international organizations doing relevant work could be invited to provide
information about developments in regulatory issues.  That would be helpful as there was a large
information gap between the sectoral regulators and the discussions at the WTO regarding liberalization
of financial services.  It would be very important to bridge that gap as delegations engaged in theimprovement of specific commitments.
37. The representative of Switzerland understood the concerns expressed by many delegations as
prudential issues were highly sensitive but at the same time so important to the functioning of the
financial system.  Therefore, his delegation suppo rted the proposal by Japan which could help the
Committee to better understand a very technical issue in order to decide whether there was a need to
discuss it further.  He also expressed support for the U.S. initiative.
38. The representative of Canada supported having a presentation in the Committee by international
regulatory organizations.  There was a distinction to be made between the prudential carve-out and
domestic regulation more generally.  The latter was so important to the actual conditions of operation
faced by financial institutions in gaining access in foreign markets that it was appropriate for the
Committee to explore those issues in greater detail.  It was necessary to define clearly the questions to be
put to those bodies to maximize the utility of their presentation.
39. The Chairman observed that some delegations opposed to continue discussing the Australian
proposal.  Other delegations supported the proposal of requesting information from international
organizations dealing with financial regulatory issues, while others would like clarification as to the
relevance of the work conducted in those organizations.  He suggested to conduct informal consultations
as to how to proceed on the issue.
40. The representative of Japan favoured having informal consultations on the matter organized by the
Chairman.  In reference to Korea's intervention, his delegation understood the reasons for the sequencing
of work suggested, but it had always been the understanding that the Committee should discuss issues
relevant to the sector in parallel with horizontal work going on in other fora.  His delegation would favour
starting work on financial services' domestic regulation in the Committee without waiting for the resultsof the work in WPDR.
41. The representative of the European Communities echoed Japan's comment as his delegation felt
that there were specificities regarding financial se rvices that should be dealt with by the Committee.
Collecting information would be a start to increase understanding of what was going on in other fora.
42. The representative of Brazil stated that the WPDR had a very narrow scope of work, namely,
domestic regulation on qualifications and licensing requirements and procedures, as well as standards.
She would not see the mandate of the WPDR goin g beyond that, for example, to cover prudential
regulation.
43. The representative of Mauritius supported conducting informal consultations.
44. The Chairman stated that the Committee would hold informal consultations before the next
meeting in order to determine how to proceed on this matter.
Item D: Recent Developments in Financial Services Trade
As customary under this agenda item, the Chairman requested any updates on regulatory or economic
developments in countries that affected financial services trade.  He announced that a communication
from the delegation of Japan had been received regarding the establishment of the Financial Services
Agency, circulated as document S/FIN/W/15 of 11 July 2000.  He invited Japan to introduce the
communication.S/FIN/M/27
Page 7
45. The representative of Japan said that the Financial Services Agency (FSA) had been established
on 1 July 2000.  The intention was to implement the six basic policy principles of the new agency,
indicated in the communication, as regulation was formulated and applied in individual cases.  The
agency had been created with the integration of the Financial Supervisory Agency and the Financial
System Planning Bureau of the Ministry of Finance.  The agency was an integrated regulator responsiblefor all aspects of financial regulation, from the designing of the financial system and regulations, to the
inspection and surveillance of financial activities.  Its mission was to make the financial system reliable
and vigorous, and the financial markets fair and efficient.  The FSA would  perform its regulatory
functions relying upon market discipline and the principle of self-responsibility, and endeavoured to
protect all the users of the financial system.  The agency was committed to enhancing transparency and
being accountable at all stages of its activities.
46. The representative of Canada advised the Committee that the Canadian Government had tabled a
legislative package to reform its domestic financial sector policy framework on 13 June.  There was a
comprehensive document available on the Departme nt of Finance website (www.fin.gc.ca).  The
legislative package implemented the policy paper released last June by the Ministry of Finance.  Its
reforms focused on four overlapping areas: promotin g efficiency and growth of the sector, fostering
greater domestic competition, empowering and protecting consumers, and strengthening the regulatoryenvironment.  The measures related to areas such as ownership rules, permitted business activities,
holding companies structures, access to the payment system, creation of a financial consumer agency,
among others.  Those measures would apply on a national treatment basis and therefore were relevant to
foreign financial institutions.  As a result of the package, the regulatory burdens facing all institutions
would be somewhat lightened, and domestic and foreign institutions in Canada would gain moreflexibility to compete abroad.
47. The representative of Mauritius welcomed the information provided by Japan as his country
authorities were contemplating at that stage the setting up of a financial services agency.
48. The Chairman thanked delegations for the information provided.  As it was customary, this item
would be kept on the agenda for subsequent meetings.
Item E: Request for Observer Status- International Association of Insurance Supervisors
49. The Chairman recalled that at the previous meeting, the Committee had had a second exchange of
views on a communication from the International Asso ciation of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS), dated 27
March 2000, requesting observer status in the Committee.  Some delegations had voiced their strong
support for granting this observership based on the relevance of the requesting entity's work to the
Committee's discussions; others had favoured setting the request aside until the matter regarding
observership was settled by the General Council.  He noted that under the previous item delegations hadconsidered a proposal for requesting information from the IAIS, and said that if the Committee were to
engage in any discussions on regulatory issues, it would be useful to count on the inputs that the IAIS
could provide in the area of insurance.  He invited delegations views on whether to grant the
observership.
50. The representative of Canada reiterated the support of his delegation for the granting of the
observership.  It would be consistent with the discussion on improving the interaction with financial
regulatory international organizations.  The representative of the European Communities added its
support for the observership.  The representative of Japan voiced strong support granting observer status
to the IAIS, be it permanent or on ad hoc  basis.  That organization had a universal membership and
conducted very important work on the regulation of insurance services
51. The representative of Malaysia favoured postponing the decision on the request until the General
Council resolved the matter.  The representative of  Egypt said that decisions regarding requests forS/FIN/M/27
Page 8
observer status, including those on ad hoc  basis, would continue to be pending until the conclusion of the
debate on the issue in the General Council.
52. The representative of Mauritius indicated that it served no purpose having to consider requests
for observership while having a decision by General Council pending on the matter.  The subsidiary
bodies should decide that the policy to follow on observership would be the one adopted by the GeneralCouncil, and refrain from having to consider any request until such a time when that policy was decided.
53. The representative of Australia referred to th e report of the previous meeting (S/FIN/M/26,
paragraph 44).  The Secretariat had clarified that the General Council was discussing the issue of
observership in relation to the treatment of regional organizations, and that in subordinate councils
requests from regional organizations had been put aside pending a decision by the General Council.
There was no mentioning of universal organizations.  The Secretariat had also confirmed that the
Committee had complete freedom and authority to give observer status to whomever it wished.  The IAIShad more than one hundred Members, including probably most WTO Members.  Therefore, her
delegation believed that the IAIS had a good claim to observer status.  Its work was in line with some of
the issues that her delegation was looking at, and insurance issues would become increasingly important
to the Committee in the context of the negotiations.  Australia strongly supported an early decision
granting observer status, permanent or on ad hoc basis, to the IAIS.
54. The representative of Hong Kong, China asked about the relationship between the IAIS and the
Bank for International Settlements.  In response, the representative of Japan said that those two
organization were independent as they only shared a building and certain parts of their Secretariats, for
historical reasons.  The IAIS had an independent membership and its decisions were made independently.
55. The representative of Uruguay observed that while there was a process underway in the General
Council, some committees and other subsidiary bodies of the WTO had taken decisions granting observer
status to certain organizations on ad hoc basis.  Delegations should be consistent, in one way or another.
He called for flexibility on the part of all delegations and for a resolution on the matter at the following
meeting to avoid having to postpone once again.
56. The representative of Chile said that the work being done by the General Council would not have
an impact on the type of decision that the Committee had to make.  It would be desirable to have a basic
criteria to enable the Committee to decide when to grant observer status.  Having such criteria would
increase the degree of objectivity in taking such a decision, so that in the future that type of request could
be solved more expeditiously.
57. A representative of the Secretariat said that it was a prerogative of the Committee to grant
observer status to one organization or another.  With respect to the criteria, it was useful to take into
account the terms of reference of the Committee as contained in a decision adopted by the Council forTrade in Services in early 1995.  That decision basically had empowered the Committee to cooperate
with other international organizations which were active in the financial services sector.  That mandate
gave the Committee the flexibility of adopting a pragmatic approach when considering requests like the
one from the IAIS.  The criteria would relate to the functioning of the Committee and whether the
observer status of an organization would assist delegations in fulfilling their responsibilities in theCommittee.
58. The representative of Australia and Japan
 suggested that the Chairman conduct informal
consultations on this matter to assess whether the Committee could reach a decision at the following
meeting, instead of postponing a decision for indefinite period of time.  In supporting the suggestion
made by the two previous speakers, the representative of Canada added that it would be unfortunate if the
ability of the Committee to do its work was hindered by issues dealt with in other fora;  the financial
services Committee should take responsibility for decisions that benefited its work.S/FIN/M/27
Page 9
59. The Chairman said that given the lack of consensus and the proposal on having informal
consultations on the issue, he would include the matter in the informal consultations to be held before the
October meeting, unless delegations had any objections.  No objections were voiced.
Item F: Date of the Next Meeting
60. The Chairman proposed to hold the following meeting of the Committee on 5 October 2000, as a
tentative date.  It was so agreed.
Item G: Other Business
61. The Chairman indicated that he would be presenting an oral report to the next Special Session of
the Council for Trade in Services, together with other chairpersons of the subsidiary bodies. The report
would cover the discussions held that day.  He would make the report on his own authority, unless
Members had any objections.  It was so agreed.
__________