The first proposed measure is COM(2011)522, the Internal Market information system, "the IMI regulation". The lead Department is the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. It is proposed that this proposal warrants further scrutiny and that such further scrutiny takes the form of the committee writing to the Department for (1) an indication of the expected timeframe for negotiations; (2) further updates as to the progress on all issues raised at the working group negotiations, including those raised by the Data Protection Commissioner; (3) an update on the legal advice received, if any, regarding the resources issues; (4) calls for an impact statement to be carried out and what replies, if any, are received; and (5) information on how many member states have examined the subsidiarity issue with this proposal, if any reasoned opinions were submitted and what responses, if any, were issued - initial information suggests that seven parliaments raised concerns and the UK formed a reasoned opinion. It is proposed that the Minister's opinion be sought when he attends at this committee later this month prior to the Council of Ministers meeting on 5 and 6 December 2011. Is that agreed?
Scrutiny of EU Legislative Proposals
Chairman, we should find out exactly what type of information would be shared. Obviously, we would be cautious when citizens' information is shared with other jurisdictions, over which we have no control. Also, we should find out what the cost of this will be to the State. Before the committee can agree to measures we should know the exact expenditure for which the State will be responsible.
We can put them on the list for the Minister. Is it agreed that we discuss it with the Minister at the meeting in two weeks? Agreed. We will also write to the Department.
Further action is not proposed on the following: COM(2007)509, COM(2009)446 and on COM(2009)482. In March 2010, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade allocated lead responsibility for the inland transport of dangerous goods to the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. That Department contests that decision as it believes the lead responsibility for the implementation of the EU regime on inland transport of dangerous goods would best lie with the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. As a consequence, the information notes on the four proposals were delayed until 2011. COM(2006)852, COM(2007)509, COM(2009)482 and COM(2009)446 were all related to the inland transport of dangerous goods directive. Three of them are dealt with here and the fourth is gone to the environment committee. It is proposed to take COM(2009)482, COM(2007)509 and COM(2009)446 together. It is also proposed that, as these proposals are now completed, they do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed?
Perhaps we would send a message of disappointment to the relevant individuals. We are getting these proposals as a fait accompli and have no input on them. What is the point of sending them to us if we have no impact on them?
That point was well made. I will ensure that we get them on time in future. There is a difficulty here in that as the committee was formed late, we missed some of them. This issue is different and they should have been before us. I will ensure they will be brought before the committee in future, and we will chase the Departments for advice notes. The Deputy is right, however. It should not have happened.
COM(2010)794 relates to the co-ordination of social security systems. The lead Department is the Department of Social Protection. In terms of scrutiny, the members might consider what is the best course of action on this. The Department of Social Protection has two concerns with this proposal and has raised these in negotiations at the working group level. These centre on how social security co-ordinated at EU level should apply to, first, Irish airline staff and, second, self-employed workers who live in one country and work in another. The Minister attended the Council meeting in June and intervened to express the concerns held by Ireland. However, she was on her own and got no support from Ministers from other countries. The Department has argued against these matters since they were first proposed at the administrative commission through the social questions working group, COREPER and through the Minister at the Council meeting in June. The Department feels it can do no more on this issue. It is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny or, if members prefer, we can go back to the Minister on the matter.
I propose that we write to the Minister expressing our concerns.
We will write to the Minister seeking more information and see if we can push the boundaries any further on this issue. We can then decide how far we will go with it. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM(2011)245 relates to the export and import of dangerous chemicals. The lead Department is the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation but it also affects the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. As the Department is satisfied with the objectives of this proposal and as it is satisfied that the areas of concern are being discussed in the working group, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny at this time. It is also proposed that the committee write to the Department asking that it keep members informed on progress with the negotiations as they unfold. If progress is not satisfactory, the committee might revisit the proposal in the future. Is that agreed? Agreed.
We will proceed to the next matter on the agenda. The select sub-committee on education is due to meet at 12 p.m. so we must try to complete this meeting by 11.45 a.m. That gives us more than an hour and a half, which should be sufficient. The meeting will end at 11.45 a.m. at the latest so we will have to bank questions at the end if necessary.