The draft EU proposals will be considered under a number of categories. Category 1 relates to adopted measures.
COM (2009) 285 concerns a Council regulation on restrictive measures against Iran. Given the information provided by the Department, it is proposed to note the adopted measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2009) 371 concerns a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. Given the specific proposal has no implications for Ireland, it is proposed to note the adopted measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2009) 417 - FON is a follow-on note to a Council regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain tube and pipe fittings, of iron or steel, originating in the People's Republic of China and Thailand. Given the information provided by the Department, it is proposed to note this adopted measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.
With regard to COM (2009) 425, COM (2009) 246, COM (2009) 429 and COM (2009) 430, given the information provided by the Department it is proposed to note these adopted measures. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Category 2 concerns proposals for no further scrutiny that are proposed to be noted.
With regard to COM (2009) 161 and COM (2009) 223, given the information note provided by the Department it is proposed to note these documents. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Let us now consider COM (2009) 228, COM (2009) 337 and COM (2009) 448, incorporating COM (2009) 445 and COM (2009) 827, incorporating COM (2009) 308. It is proposed to note the adopted proposals COM (2009) 228, SEC (2009) 827, incorporating COM (2009) 308 and COM (2009) 337. It is proposed that COM (2009) 448, incorporating COM (2009) 445, does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2009) 297 and COM (2009) 298 do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. It is proposed that COM (2009) 311 does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. It is proposed that COM (2009) 320 does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
With regard to COM (2009) 393, COM (2009) 395 and COM (2009) 406, given the information provided by the Department it is proposed to note these measures. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is proposed that COM (2009) 423 does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Category 3 contains proposals that do not warrant further scrutiny and which are proposed to be sent to the sectoral committees for information.
COM (2008) 817 was published originally in December 2008. Given that the proposal has completed its First Reading in the European Parliament and also progressed at Council level, it is proposed to note it at this stage and forward it to the Joint Committee on Transport. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Category 4 comprises Common Foreign and Security Policy, CFSP, measures. Given the information provided by the Department on CFSP (2009) 615, it is proposed to note the adopted measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.
There are no Title Vl, TEU, and Title IV, TEC, measures under category 5 for consideration. There are also no early warning notes under category 6 for consideration.
Under category 7, there is a proposed proposal for further scrutiny. COM (2009) 362 is a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council amending Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC on capital requirements for the trading book and re-securitisations and the supervisory review of remuneration policies. The capital requirements directive adopted in 2006 regulates the licensing and supervision of credit institutions and investment firms and introduces a more comprehensive and risk-sensitive capital framework to encourage better risk management by these institutions. The directive was transposed in Ireland by Statutory Instruments Nos. 660 and 661 of 2006. This proposal proposes changes to the directive which are designed to further strengthen the existing prudential framework for risk management in the light of the international financial crisis. Four specific areas are being targeted in the proposal: capital requirements for the trading book; capital requirements for re-securitisations; disclosure of securitisation exposures; and remuneration policies and practices within banks. It is proposed that the proposal warrants further scrutiny by the committee and that the Department of Finance be invited to make an oral presentation and discuss the matters arising in more detail at the next meeting of the committee. It is proposed also that a report be drafted by the committee and forwarded to the Minister and both Houses of the Oireachtas. Is that agreed? Agreed.
There are no proposals proposed for forwarding to sectoral committees for their observations under category 8 and no proposals proposed for referral to sectoral committees for detailed scrutiny under category 9.
COM (2009) 338 is a proposal for a Council framework decision on the right to interpretation and translation services in criminal proceedings. We are discussing the proposal with Ms Geraldine Moore, principal officer, and Mr. Billy Keane, assistant principal officer, from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform whom I welcome. Before we begin, I draw everybody's attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Ms Moore to proceed with her presentation.