JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES debate -
Wednesday, 11 Dec 2002

Vol. 1 No. 3

Business of Joint Committee.

Chairman

We will now discuss the scrutiny of EU legislation. The Clerk has circulated to members a document on the scrutiny of EU legislation. The committee must deal with two matters: first, matters the sub-committee on EU legislation referred to this joint committee with the recommendation that no further scrutiny is required; and, second, matters the sub-committee on EU legislation referred to this joint committee with the recommendation that future scrutiny may be required.

The committee must make a formal decision to accept the recommendation of the sub-committee that no further consideration is required. In this regard, Deputy Eoin Ryan asked that EU document COM (2002) 404, a proposal for a regulation concerning monitoring of forests and environmental interaction in the Community, should be given further scrutiny by the joint committee. The proposed regulation relates to two existing regulations, one concerning forest fires and the other concerning atmospheric issues. The proposed new regulation will extend the scope of the existing regulations to cover the new element of biodiversity.

In the briefing supplied by the Department, members are advised that while the new regulation will impose further reporting and monitoring obligations on it, the Government is in favour of the regulations. In this regard, the recommendation of the EU scrutiny sub-committee is that no further scrutiny is required. Accordingly, it is for the committee to examine this matter and it is required to make a formal decision to conduct further scrutiny. If the committee decides to act on Deputy Ryan's request, it will be necessary for the Department and/or the Minister to brief the committee on the matter. I will be asking if the committee agrees to Deputy Ryan's request to consider further document COM (2002) 404.

Deputy Coveney

I would like to give Deputy Ryan an opportunity to explain why he would like to scrutinise this legislation further. I have no difficulty with it. If we are getting a briefing on other legislation, I do not see why we cannot ask for a further briefing on this legislation. We need to be careful, however, not to set a precedent that every item of European legislation about which we are concerned should come before the committee. If members have specific concerns they should be entitled to offer their views independently of the other European scrutiny sub-committee. We should not necessarily follow its recommendation entirely if we are concerned about the implications for Ireland of a specific item of EU legislation. I do not see why we cannot request a briefing on the issue as long as it does not impact in a major way on our work programme, which is already quite full.

Chairman

There is one item for further scrutiny. It is a directive of the European Parliament and the European Council concerning the alignment of measures with regard to the security of supply for petroleum products. As this matter has been referred to the committee, it will be necessary for the committee to scrutinise further the proposal. I propose we scrutinise it in January and the Clerk will make arrangements.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I do not want to hold up the committee's extensive work programme but this would be useful. I want to find out the implications for the State in terms of its management of forestry policy. I take the point that the Government agrees to this but there are particular interests and concerns I have with regard to the environmental monitoring of our forestry policy. It is difficult under the current system; if I put parliamentary questions to the Minister with regard to Coillte, the reply comes back that it is not his responsibility and that Coillte is a separate company. I have had difficulty finding out exactly what the monitoring programme is with regard to diversity and the effects on local communities.

I saw this as an opportunity to find out what implications the new directive would have in that area and I therefore had a particular interest in it. This is a new system and it is hard to know how it will work in that it is the first time new pieces of European legislation are to be scrutinised by this committee and by the Committee on European Affairs. We should take a flexible approach and that will not require huge involvement in terms of time or personnel. A possible way forward would be to bring in the relevant official and allow a brief question and answer session of perhaps ten or 15 minutes. That person could make a short presentation to outline the implications, and the committee could develop further issues if necessary. I do not see it taking a lot of time and I would like to see it pursued as I have a particular interest in it. I do not want the committee to be clogged up but I would like us to try this to see how it works.

Senator Kenneally

I had experience on three committees in the last Dáil and was concerned that the work programmes for them became too big and nothing was achieved. The letter from the Clerk in that regard was very timely and correct. If we try to do too much, we will end up doing nothing and we should focus on what we should be doing.

I do not want to stifle debate but I am concerned that we got a huge, meaty document with regard to this EU legislation. I fully agree that we should look at these matters. The Oireachtas never looked at what was happening in Europe previously and this is step forward. However, there is so much coming forward from Europe that the committee will get bogged down if we look at all of it. If a time limit can be put on this, as Deputy Ryan suggested, that is fine, but we should consider forming a sub-committee to deal with EU legislation that would then make recommendations to this committee. We only meet once a fortnight and I am concerned we will end up doing nothing but scrutinising EU legislation.

Chairman

I understand that the EU legislation must be scrutinised by the entire joint committee. We have one item to be considered in January and members have requested that this item not take too long.

Deputy Broughan

I agree generally with what Senator Kenneally says. Key matters such as item COM (2002) 488 will clearly impact greatly on Ireland. However, in this case there are 14 items that we have been advised by our officials can go through. If we were to pick one item, it might be possible for the committee to give it a brief examination. They might not expect us to look at it but it might not be any harm to throw an eye over the green ones that are already approved. Without being political, there were concerns following the budget and Deputy Coveney highlighted those regarding forestry. It would be opportune to have a brief look at this matter when we will clearly have to study the item concerning gas and oil.

Chairman

Could we formally agree that the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council concerning the alignment of measures with regard to the security of supply for petroleum products be scrutinised further? Agreed.

I formally propose that EU document COM (2002) 404 be scrutinised on the same day. We should also make a formal decision to accept the recommendations of the sub-committee regarding the other items referred to with a recommendation that no further scrutiny is required. Is that agreed? Agreed.

There will be two items at the next meeting. I understand the Clerk will make arrangements in January for a meeting when the Dáil is in recess. I hope that members will not be brought back especially but that they will make themselves available for this extra item. When we get to the work programme, we will see what is involved for the next three months. The Clerk will make the necessary arrangements to have the invitations issued to the Minister and the Departments. At our next meeting in January, we can be briefed as to the issues at play. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The committee went into private session at2.47 p.m and resumed in public session at3.35 p.m.