The joint committee has a number of EU proposals before it for consideration. There are no adopted measures. There are a number of proposals which it is proposed require no further scrutiny but which it is proposed to note: COM (2008) 100, COM (2008) 132, COM (2008) 154, COM (2008) 157 and COM (2008) 170.
Scrutiny of EU Proposals.
I wish to comment on COM (2008) 157 which the Chairman is proposing should not be discussed. COM (2008) 157 is a proposal for a Council decision on the signing and conclusion by the European Community of the international coffee agreement 2007. Is there priority for Fairtrade coffee purchases or do such purchases form part and parcel of the agreement?
The purpose of the proposal is to authorise the European Commission to sign and, therefore, conclude the international coffee agreement on behalf of the European Community.
It should be laid down that Fairtrade criteria should be met when it comes to signing an agreement on coffee purchases.
The international coffee agreement is the legal instrument which provides a basis for the International Coffee Organisation. The international coffee agreement 2001 expires in September and the Council mandated the Commission in January 2007 to negotiate on behalf of the Community a new agreement with the International Coffee Organisation. The new agreement, the international coffee agreement 2007, was agreed in September 2007 and reflects the mandate given to the Commission by the Council. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food indicates that the proposal is of a technical nature and has no implications for Ireland.
It does because a number of counties have signed up to the Fairtrade arrangement. Ireland should deal only with Fairtrade coffee producers and not buy coffee produced with the use of child labour or under unethical standards.
I respect what the Senator says and fully support him but the issue of fair trade will be discussed within the organisation dealing with it. It is a huge issue. I see Fairtrade coffee stands everywhere.
Including in Leinster House.
Very much so, on which I compliment the Houses of the Oireachtas.
I would like to bring the issue to the attention of the Department.
We can express the Senator's concerns in a letter.
We want to ensure the issue is treated as a priority. If we negotiate on behalf of the European Union, we should insist on proper production procedures.
The agreement is in place for the whole organisation; free trade forms part of it.
Priority should be given to fair trade production procedures.
The Minister will be conscious of the concerns of the committee; we can express them in a letter, a copy of which will be provided for the Senator.
The next proposals are COM (2008) 170, COM (2008) 172 and COM (2008) 178.
In connection with COM (2008) 178, the Minister travelled to Brussels to discuss a proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of an agreement between the European Community and the state of Israel on certain aspects of air services. Before he went, I told him during a short meeting of the committee that in any negotiations with Israel the situation in the Gaza Strip and the wider Palestinian issue must be taken into account. Israel negotiates deals with the European Union but ignores its responsibilities under a UN charter in its treatment of 1.5 million Palestinians who are in an open prison in the Gaza Strip. Power has been cut off and there have been human rights violations by both sides. Hamas has also launched bombs into Israel. We should make any negotiations subject to Israel's co-operation with the international community on the Palestinian issue. These issues should not be ignored in the negotiations. Did the Department or the Minister raise them with the Israeli authorities? We are entitled to know what discussions took place before the agreement was signed.
The proposal is in respect of a Council decision on the implications of the agreement. Agreements are being negotiated between the European Community and various third countries. The purpose of this agreement is to change existing bilateral air service agreements between member states and third countries to, in effect, allow any EU carrier to operate services from those member states to the third countries concerned. The Department's information note states the proposal does not hold significant implications for Ireland. However, the Senator's point on the other issues raised is very important.
Israel has special trade agreements with the European Union, of which we are a member. We have not used those agreements to put pressure on the Israelis over the treatment of the Palestinians in their own country. We must take every possible opportunity when negotiating with the Israelis. They think and talk about business and I would like to remind them of their abuse of human rights as laid down in a UN charter. Their treatment of the Palestinians is appalling and in the negotiations they should be reminded of their international responsibilities.
I note the Senator's sentiments and views on this controversial issue but this is a technical agreement. There are many other trading arrangements with Israel. We can send a note to the Minister on the concerns expressed, pointing out that we are conscious of the bigger picture.
The Minister was here before the agreement was finalised. The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Roche, was here.
That was a different agreement but——
The Minister was here at one stage to discuss an agreement between Israel and the European Union related to air traffic and air services.
We can send a note to the Minister clearly indicating——
I apologise. It may have been a meeting of the Joint Committee on European Affairs.
This is a technical agreement. Obviously, there are other agreements that would have a bigger impact, on which negotiations would be more critical. We can send a note on the concerns expressed.
On that basis, we should send a note to the Minister on all the EU aid that goes to Palestine and demand that action be taken against Palestinian suicide bombers who attack innocent civilians in Israel. There are two sides to every story. Senator Leyden raises this issue at every opportunity when there is a discussion on Israel. It is not a one-sided human rights issue.
I do not disagree with the Deputy and would have no difficulty in doing what she suggests.
We do not scrutinise anything related to aid. We give money to Palestine and trade with Israel.
We would trade with the Palestinians if they had an opportunity to export their goods from the Gaza Strip. Trade is restricted because all of its borders are cut off. It is very hard to trade with a country that cannot export.
That is a side issue. Clearly, this issue is remiss but we can send an expression of concern. When a member has a concern on a particular issue and that member has no known affiliation or expression of support for same, I have no difficulty in doing so.
It is recommended that COM (2008) 202 and COM (2008) 212 do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is proposed that COM (2008) 201, COM (2008) 200 and COM (2008) 203 do not warrant further scrutiny but that they be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service for its information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is proposed to note CFSP (2008) 299, CFSP (2008) 304 and CFSP (2008) 348. Is that agreed? Agreed.
There are no Title IV measures and no early warning notes. There are no proposals proposed for further scrutiny.
Item No. 8 concerns proposals to be forwarded to sectoral committees for their observations to be returned to the committee preferably within four weeks but within six at the latest. COM (2008) 162 is proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 423/2004 on the recovery of cod stocks, as well as Regulation (EEC) No. 2847/93. The purpose of the proposal is to amending existing measures designed to promote the recovery of cod stocks in the waters of the European Union. Council Regulation 423/2004 established measures, the purpose of which was to promote the recovery of cod stocks in the north-east Atlantic. These measures included setting total allowable catches, TACs, limiting fishing effort, namely, days of fishing allowed, restricting mesh sizes and closing fishing areas. A scientific assessment from the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, STECF, based on advice of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, has shown, however, that after four years of the application of these measures only one stock out of four has shown signs of recovery. The proposal brings forward a number of changes which include the option of member states managing a fishery within the overall effort established for such a fishery. The amendments being proposed also include the inclusion of a new stock area, the Celtic Sea, that was not included in the 2004 plan, as it was thought at the time to be in a better biological state than the other areas included. The proposed amendments also involve the inclusion of a new stock area, the Celtic Sea. This was not in the 2004 plan as it was then thought to be in a better biological state than other areas.
The Department notes in the case that the inclusion of the Irish Sea in this plan is likely to have major implications for the Irish fishing industry as there will be an effort restriction regime in this area for the first time. Given the importance of fishing to Ireland and the inclusion for the first time in this proposal of a new area, the Celtic Sea, which is likely to have major implications for the Irish fishing industry, it is recommended that this proposal be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for written observations to be returned to this committee, preferably within four weeks of the date of this meeting and within six weeks at the latest.
This is very important. If necessary we could have a hearing on this issue because it has serious implications. I would nearly recommend, with the committee's agreement, that we get a report back and, if necessary, bring the Irish fishing bodies before this committee.
I propose we do that.
Let us see what the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is prepared to do first. If it does not follow it up correctly——
In light of the fact that we have been given a summary document, it could be important. Given the 200 mile range of Irish territorial waters, the impact of the proposal on small fishing communities, the important Cawley report and current restructuring, this will have a major impact in the long term. We will note the importance of this proposal. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 9 is a proposal for forwarding to a sectoral committee. There are no other proposals for forwarding to sectoral committees for detailed scrutiny.
Under section 3 there was talk about the fine collected from Microsoft. The fine was high and resulted in a large amount of money for the EU. Can we get a breakdown of fines collected by the EU? What percentages does it collect and how much has it made over the years?
Which fine does Deputy English refer to?
It was a fine levied on Microsoft for abuse of its power or position. That is irrelevant to the point I am making. In general, I would like to know what the EU collects in fines and what percentage is collected.
I would like to know if it is ring-fenced and how it is spent. It would be interesting to find out where it goes in the budget.
Yes, that is a very good point. We can get that information.
The EU says it will reduce the contributions from member states because of the money coming in. That is good and we all benefit from it but it needs to be publicised and debated. It is increasingly obvious that people, including many politicians, do not know how the EU works. Any chance we get to highlight something like that should be publicised more. It is useful information.
The fishing document is the first referral to the sectoral committees. In light of the seriousness of the previous recommendation on the fishing industry and its impact on Ireland, should we carry out that scrutiny ourselves? I was just reading that document today——
Does the Chairman suggest we do not forward it to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? We have to do so. That committee will have to have some input.
We can discuss it with the Chairman of that committee first.
Can we scrutinise it simultaneously? If we refer it to a sectoral committee can we still have hearings here in the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny? Could we have a joint hearing with the agriculture committee?
We will go into private session to discuss this matter.
The joint committee went into private session at 12.05 p.m. and resumed in public session at 12.10 p.m.
We will meet again at 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 17 June. I hope that in the aftermath of the referendum on the Lisbon treaty we will all be very happy.
The joint committee adjourned at 12.11 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 17 June 2008.