JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN SCRUTINY debate -
Tuesday, 12 Jan 2010

Scrutiny of EU Legislative Proposals: Discussion.

Chairman

The first adopted measure is COM (2009) 522. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this measure does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. COM (2009) 613 - based on information available, it is submitted that this adopted proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. COM (2009) 625 - based on the information note, this does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. COM (2009) 650 - based on the information note, it is proposed this does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. COM (2009) 663 - it is proposed to note this adopted measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move on to measures requiring no further scrutiny. COMS (2009) 605 and 606 - based on the information note, it is proposed these do not need further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. COMS (2009) 659 and 559 - based on the information note it is proposed these do not need further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move on now to measures for no further scrutiny sent to sectoral committees. COM (2009) 655 - given there were no reported difficulties for Ireland and that it is likely that the Council will have adopted this proposal, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. However, due to the fact that Ireland has expressed concerns with regard to maintaining these anti-dumping measures and that the Department has been contacted by retail interests in Ireland who are also concerned by this proposal, it is also proposed to forward this proposal to the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

On Title IV and Title VI measures, No. 16075/1/09 - based on the information available and given that it is likely that an opt-in motion with regard to this proposal will be dealt with by Dáil and Seanad Éireann during the week commencing 18 January 2010, it is proposed that this proposal will not be scrutinised any further by this committee. It is proposed that it will be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I will now deal with early warning notices. EWN C270/10 - based on the information available, it is proposed that this early warning note does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. EWN C284/10 - based on the information available, it is proposed that this early warning note does not warrant further scrutiny at this stage. Is that agreed? Agreed. EWN C270/10 - based on the information note, it is proposed that this early warning note does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I propose we hold our next meeting on Tuesday, 26 January 2010. Among the items for consideration will be the joint committee's work programme for 2010 and a draft outline of the committee's annual report for 2009.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

We did not agree to accept COM (2009) 559.

Chairman

We can look at the proposal again, which is No. 2.4 in the schedule.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

We should not accept this proposal. Under the EuroMed agreement the European Union and Israel have specified the products which can be traded between them but the agreement is subject to conditions. Various committees and the Dáil have held debates on what occurred a year ago in Gaza. The situation remains the same as prior to the onslaught last year. The citizens of Palestine cannot go about their normal business or be involved in production or the type of industrial development we associate with a normal society. The agreement is contrary to good practice and human rights law because those citizens cannot involve themselves in production of the pharmaceutical and medical products mentioned in the proposal. They cannot buy them because they cannot get them into Gaza and they cannot produce them to trade with the rest of the European Union or the State of Israel.

The European Union needs to send out a message that it is opposed to any additional benefits accruing to Israel by means of additions to the existing agreement. The agreement should be suspended pending Israel's recognition of breaches of human rights law and, in the interim, there should be no advance on the existing position taken by the European Union towards Israel.

Deputy Joe Costello

It is a matter that we certainly should explore to decide upon what our position should be. Part 5 of the reply concerns the broader issue of trade relations with Israel. It notes that the proposed upgrade of EU-Israel relations focused especially on political links and not so much on trade links. It states that the proposed upgrade was put on hold at the beginning of 2009, following Israel's military operation in Gaza, and that the suspension of the upgrade did not affect the normal development of practical co-operation and trade under the current EU-Israel agreement.

What was the nature of the upgrade if it did not affect normal co-operation in trade and other areas? What does the suspension of the upgrade mean? I am not clear as to how the upgrade of European Union-Israel relations was suspended after the Gaza intervention if it did not affect political matters or the normal development of practical co-operation and trade. It seems a meaningless formula and no more than verbiage. I would like clarification on what the EU decided. The European Union recently terminated a trade relationship it had with the Republic of Guinea on the basis of its human rights record. I do not know if it was this committee or the Joint Committee on European Affairs which tabled a motion on this subject but the motion must be proceeded with.

Chairman

We will go into private session to deal with the briefing note.

The joint committee went into private session at 12.55 p.m. and adjourned at 1.15 p.m. until Tuesday, 26 January 2010.