JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN SCRUTINY debate -
Tuesday, 15 Dec 2009

Scrutiny of EU Legislative Proposals: Discussion.

Chairman

On COM (2007) 484, given the information note from the Department, it is proposed to note the proposal. Is that agreed? Agreed. It is proposed to note adoptive measure COM (2008) 521 and COM (2008) 522. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We now come to documents requiring no further scrutiny. Regarding COM (2008) 857 and COM (2008) 858, based on the information available it is proposed these proposals do not require further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. Based on the information available, it is proposed that COM (2009) 280 does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Regarding COM (2009) 353, given the information provided, it is proposed to note the proposal. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Re COM (2009) 510, it is proposed, based on the information available from the Department, that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. Based on the information note available from the Department in regard to COM (2009) 523, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. Based on the information note available from the Department it is proposed that COM (2009) 524 and COM (2009) 525 do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. Re COM (2009) 537, it is proposed to note this adopted proposal. Is that agreed? Agreed. We now come to COM (2009) 559.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Regarding COM (2009) 559, I presume this is the proposal which was put on hold last year when the Israelis attacked Gaza?

Chairman

We will deal with this proposal in private session.

The joint committee went into private session at 12.26 p.m. and resumed in public session at 12.28 p.m.

Chairman

Re COM (2009) 564, it is proposed, given the information note, that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. In regard to COM (2009) 565, and COM (2009) 566, given the available information it is proposed these proposals do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. On COM (2009) 576, based on the information available and the fact that the joint committee has already scrutinised in detail the original legislative package which this proposal supports, it is proposed this matter does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

On COM (2009) 580, based on the information available from the Department it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. Re COM (2009) 587, based on the information note available, it is proposed this matter does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. Based on the information available from the Department on COM (2009) 596, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. On COM (2009) 604, it is proposed based on the information available from the Department, that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. On COM (2009) 637 — FON, based on the information available it is proposed that this measure does not require further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. On COM (2009) 638, based on the information available it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We now come to documents requiring no further scrutiny and to be sent to sectorial committees for information. It is proposed to note COM (2009) 556, which is an adopted proposal. It is also proposed to forward this proposal for information to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Is that agreed? Agreed. Re SEC (2009) 1462, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. However, it is also proposed to forward this proposal for information to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. Is that agreed? Agreed.

On SEC (2009) 1464, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. It is also proposed to forward this proposal for information to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We now come to CFSP measures. It is proposed to note CFSP 15189-09, CFSP (2009) 769, CFSP (2009) 788, CFSP (2009) 795, CFSP (2009) 841, CFSP (2009) 842.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

On CFSP (2009) 842, the lead Department is the Department of Foreign Affairs and other Departments of interest include the Department of Defence. I presume the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform should also be included in this respect given that this proposal deals with a Europol matter.

Chairman

The Department has been notified. If the Deputy wishes we can forward the note for information to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. Is it agreed to note the proposals? Agreed.

On Title IV and Title VI measures, 11119-09, it is proposed to note this lapsed but significant proposal. It is also proposed it should be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights in advance of its likely replacement by a new proposal presented by the Commission with similar or same content under the new framework of the Treaty of Lisbon. Is that agreed? Agreed.

On 15887/09, it is proposed to note this adoptive measure. Is that agreed? Agreed. On COM (2009) 551 final/2 and COM (2009) 554, given the significance of these proposals and the potential impact on our asylum procedures it is proposed that these proposals warrant further scrutiny. To this end and, given that the Oireachtas may at some stage have to consider an opt-in motion in respect of these proposals, it is also proposed to refer them to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for detailed scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We now come to early warning notes. On EWN C194-04, given that there are no reported difficulties for Ireland it is proposed that this measure does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. On EWN C251-12, given that the reviews have been concluded it is proposed to note this measure. Is that agreed? Agreed. On EWN L199-09, given that there are no reported difficulties for Ireland it is proposed that this trade matter does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

On COM (2009) 363, given the significance of this proposal, it is proposed to forward it to the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources for further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is proposed that the next meeting of the joint committee will be Tuesday, 12 January 2010. Is that agreed? Agreed. Before we finish, I thank members for attending and take this opportunity to wish them all a very happy Christmas and prosperous New Year. I also thank the secretariat for their outstanding back-up and the wonderful job they do. Thank you.

The joint committee adjourned at 12.35 p.m. until Tuesday, 12 January 2010.