It is proposed to note the following adopted measure: COM (2008) 182. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is proposed that the following measure requires no further scrutiny and should be noted: COM (2008) 126.
Scrutiny of EU Proposals.
This measure proposes the imposition of sanctions but events have overtaken it. Elections were held on the islands referred to last week.
To which proposal does the Deputy refer?
I refer to COM (2008) 126. It refers to the island of Anjouan in the Union of the Comoros. According to an e-mail I have received, elections were held on the islands last week. I do not know the outcome. However, it is strange that we are dealing with an issue which has been overtaken by events. The sanctions were associated with a demand for free elections. The former president has been found guilty of importing weapons. We should either note the proposal or ask the European Union what is the up-to-date position.
If the measure is not relevant, it will not be adopted. If it is relevant, it will be revised. I propose that it be noted. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is proposed that the following measure requires no further scrutiny and should be noted: COM (2008) 174.
This is a proposal for a Council decision establishing the position to be taken on behalf of the European Community on the interpretation of Article 14 of the Aarhus Convention which Ireland has not ratified.
Is it agreed that we discuss the matter in private session? Agreed.
The joint committee went into private session at 11.48 a.m. and resumed in public session at 11.50 a.m.
Is it agreed that COM (2008) 183, COM (2008) 217——
In regard to COM (2008) 217, again, this adjusts with effect the weightings applicable to the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants. Given what is happening in Ireland, I would like more information on this. We are talking about pay freezes for everybody, bar Ministers and the like.
We will defer that matter until next week also.
Is it agreed that COM (2008) 244, COM (2008) 247, COM (2008) 249 and COM (2008) 250 do not warrant further scrutiny? Agreed. There are no proposals to be sent to sectoral committees for their information. Is it agreed to note CFSP (2008) 368, CFSP (2008) 369 and CFSP (2008) 379? Agreed.
Next on the agenda are Title VI (TEU) and Title IV (TEC) measures. The proposal for a Council decision aims to reinforce the role and capacities of Eurojust. It provides for an emergency co-ordination cell at Eurojust, the conferring of a range of powers on Eurojust national members, a Eurojust national co-ordination system, as well as specific obligations to provide certain information for Eurojust. The principal amendments to the 2002 and 2003 decisions are as follows: to provide for a national member to be given increased powers, notably those of ordering a search and seizure, and to be appointed on a full-time basis with a fixed term of at least four years; an emergency cell for co-ordination; and access by national members to national databases.
The Government agrees that Eurojust's role needs to be strengthened. However, there are a number of elements in the proposal that may need to be amended from an Irish perspective. This is a Title VI measure under the Treaty on European Union 1992 and requires unanimity to be agreed by member states. In accordance with Article 29.4.6° of the Constitution, the Department would have to bring the final proposal to both Houses for agreement of an opt-in motion before Ireland could formally agree to take part in the measure. It is, therefore, recommended that the proposal warrants further scrutiny for the following reasons: (justice and home affairs proposals are of public concern — JHA law raises important questions about where to strike the right balance between the protection of civil liberties and effective law enforcement; scrutiny of the proposal at this stage allows the Oireachtas to consider the Minister's negotiating position and any views members may have to be reflected while the proposal is being actively considered; and the changes envisaged in the proposal are legally and politically important. It is also recommended that in order to assist the committee in its detailed examination of the proposal, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform or his officials be invited to attend before it to offer their views. Is that agreed? Agreed.
On early warning notes, is it agreed that EWN: C138/12, EWN: C226/04, EWN: L143/13, and EWN: L144/14 do not warrant further scrutiny? Agreed.
A number of notices relate to anti-dumping proposals. Perhaps we can hold a session to explain what is involved in some of them and what role we can play. It is usually proposed that they do not warrant further scrutiny.
Is the Deputy referring to enterprise and trade measures?
Yes. I refer to anti-dumping proposals which arise for scrutiny.
We can contact the Department for an opinion.
I do not suggest discussing this batch but the next. Perhaps somebody can come before the committee to explain what lies behind them. Every time we have a session there seem to be a number of anti-dumping measures or proposals for reviewing existing arrangements.
We will note the Deputy's concerns and will ask the Department to provide us with a note on the issues at the next meeting at which its officials are present.
No. 7 is related to No. 5.1, which has been proposed for further scrutiny. No. 8 is proposals proposed for forwarding to sectoral committees for observations, to be returned to the joint committee, preferably within four weeks but within six at the latest. No. 9 is proposals proposed for forwarding to sectoral committees for detailed scrutiny, of which there is none.
Sitting suspended at 11.57 a.m. and resumed at 11.59 a.m.