Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN SCRUTINY díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 30 Jun 2009

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

There are no adopted measures. The following are proposals proposed for no further scrutiny but proposed to be noted: COM (2009) 227. It deals with animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in and imports from third countries of poultry and eggs for hatching — codified version. Given that the codification proposal is technical and has no implications for Ireland, it is proposed that it does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2009) 232, amends a regulation re administration of autonomous Community tariff quotas for certain agricultural and industrial products. It is proposed that this technical measure does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. COM (2009) 235 makes reference to pure bred breeding animals of the bovine species — codified version. Given that the proposed directive is only a technical codification of existing legislation and that there are only minor implications for Ireland, it is proposed that it does not warrant further scrutiny by this committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 3 covers proposals which require no further scrutiny but should be sent to the sectoral committees for information. COM (2008) 816 is a proposal concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterways and amending regulation on co-operation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws. The proposal was published originally in December 2008. Given that the proposal has now completed its First Reading in the European Parliament, and is expected to be amended at a Second Reading, it is too late for the committee to seek to influence the original text. It is proposed to note the draft measure and send it to the Joint Committee on Transport for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP

I presume that we received the proposal in time. I also wonder if the Second Reading will take place in the old European Parliament before it finishes in the middle of July. This measure may well be carried over into the next Parliament. What is the timing for that proposal?

In order for a clerk to the committee to respond we must go into private session. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The joint committee went into private session at 12.30 p.m. and resumed in public session at 12.35 p.m.

Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP

There is a very important point to be made here. Any time that something like this happens the Secretary General of the Department must be hauled over the coals. One cannot have anybody having an option to send a proposal to a standing committee of the Oireachtas and then not doing it. There is a requirement that these proposed laws come before Parliament. That is what Parliament is here for. This is not a residents' association, a committee or a trade union; this is Parliament. Anybody who does not refer these proposals in time for this committee is creating a serious offence and any time one lets that go, it takes from the standing of Parliament. There should be a formal approach to the Secretary General to find out why the Department did not refer this to this committee in time for it and the House to fulfil its legislative oversight role.

This is unlike some of the other regulations in that it has implications for Ireland. That is the difference. Much material that comes before us does not. In the briefing note there is a cost implication where concerns have been raised about this. It is a great pity that we have missed the boat on this opportunity.

If there is any possibility that this is not dealt with before the existing Parliament and there is a stay on it until the new Parliament, we should take that opportunity to try to influence it in any which way to ensure the addressing of the questions raised about additional costs for maritime passengers and operators, and also the need for the State to put together a designated body responsible for the enforcement of this regulation. The latter will have implications. It will be another quango, as some call them, but it is a body and there will be one in every other member state. Can the Commission for Aviation Regulation in Ireland, which carries this out for airline passengers, be changed or must we set up a new body?

It would be worth finding out if there is any possibility at all at this stage of influencing it. If not, and if it is going before the European Parliament, Mr. Mitchell, MEP, and other MEPs recently elected should be sent the briefing note so that they are aware of the concerns that have been raised about this regulation if it is coming before the Parliament.

I agree with what has been said. It should not happen. It is a matter of consumer protection law that concerns something very relevant to a great many people travelling by sea in this case. When there was a directive on air travel not so long ago, we invited all of the stakeholders before the committee because of the various concerned elements.

Of course Ireland is an island and, quite clearly, the rights of passengers travelling by sea is of considerable relevance to us. I do not know whether the European Parliament operates the same way as the national parliament where legislation falls once a new parliament comes into existence and they start from scratch. If that was the case and this was not processed in the next couple of weeks, I would welcome this coming before this committee again so that we could deal with it in a proper manner.

It is the Minister for Foreign Affairs who normally attends. Considering that we speak of subsidiarity and an enhanced role with the European Parliament, we probably need a tighter relationship between the other Departments as well in terms of their responsibility to this committee. The Minister, Deputy Martin, raised this at the previous meeting he attended. Perhaps we should issue a circular to all of the Departments on the importance of getting early information on anything coming before them that might have any bearing on this country to ensure that something like this would not happen again.

It is important that we, or at least the Joint Committee on Transport, would have an opportunity of discussing an issue such as this. This has serious implications for inland waterways and as an island nation we need to debate the issue. The public will believe we should have had the opportunity to debate it before it was debated in the European Parliament and the failure to do so gives Europe a bad reputation.

Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP, is present and might be able to tell us whether there is much liaison between the Minister and MEPs on issues such as this. When he was Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs there was not much liaison with MEPs, for whatever reason. There seemed to be a barrier between the ministerial side and the representative side but I hope we can improve the situation. The Minister should hold a discussion with Irish MEPs on our national interest in regard to this issue. Our role has been diminished by not having had the chance to discuss it.

I thank members for their contributions. I propose we write a formal letter to each of the Secretaries General outlining the importance of the committee and reminding them that they have a commitment under the Act to notify Parliament in good time on all proposals which come from Europe. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2009) 21 relates to a common system of value added tax as regards the rules on invoicing. The committee notes that the proposal is highly technical and complex and that the Department is involved in consultations to ensure that Ireland's negotiating position is fully informed and developed. The committee has also recently prepared a scrutiny report on a related proposal, the 24th report on the draft directive to amend the 2006 VAT directive as regards tax evasion linked to imports. It is proposed that this individual measure does not require further scrutiny by this committee but that it be sent to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service for its information. Is that agreed?

We discussed this in detail in the context of the relationship between the Republic and Northern Ireland as regards VAT. I received information on major abuses of the invoicing requirements, which I brought to the attention of this committee and the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. People purporting to be builders went from this country to hardware stores in Northern Ireland, produced a VAT number to purchase goods VAT-free and took them back into the State to sell below market price. The same happened with purchases of large crates of alcoholic drinks which distorted trade between North and South and damaged our job creation plans. The whole area is fraught with fraud and the Revenue Commissioners, Customs and Excise and the Garda Síochána should be more vigilant. We are the losers from the VAT evasion which takes place on the purchase of goods going from North to South and there needs to be a major clampdown. We need to highlight the practice to the Revenue Commissioners and I hope they listen to what this committee has to say on the matter.

I propose that we amend the proposal to include a recommendation that it be sent to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service for its information and consideration. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2009) 136 is about preventing and combatting trafficking in human beings and protecting victims. It is recommended that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. It is recommended that it be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights in advance of the consideration of any opt-in motion, should such a motion be found to be necessary.

Did we discuss this earlier?

I thought the EU introduced a measure to deal with trafficking in human beings, which was ratified by 11 member states and signed by another 14, including Ireland.

We will send a letter urging the Department to move forward on this matter. The Senator raised this issue earlier.

Item No. 3.4 pertains to COM (2009) 189 on establishing a multi-annual plan for the western stock of Atlantic horse mackerel. The joint committee notes that the proposal is highly important to Irish fishing Interests and that the Department is involved in consultations to ensure Ireland's negotiating position is fully informed and developed. The committee recently has prepared two scrutiny reports on the potential impact of other EU proposals for Irish fishing interests, namely, the 19th scrutiny report of 8 October 2008 on draft legislation for a cod recovery plan and the 22nd scrutiny report of 15 April 2009 on a draft regulation to amend the control and enforcement system for the Common Fisheries Policy. In the light of the committee's two previous reports cited above which have highlighted the need to protect the interests of the Irish fishing industry, it is proposed to note this measure and request the Department to update the committee on the progress made in the negotiations. The proposal will also be sent to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for its information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I hope we will have more success than we had in respect of the question of eel fishing in Ireland. The imposition of a 90-year ban on eel fishing is disappointing and disastrous. It is unbelievable and I cannot understand why the eel fishermen have been so quiet on the issue since this happened.

I assure the Senator they are not quiet. I come from the south east and can confirm the men and ladies on the Waterford Estuary are extremely upset about the ban. I hope we can do something to amend it.

And so they should be.

Absolutely.

There are no CFSP measures. As for Title VI, TEU, and Title IV, TEC, measures, COM (2009) 135 final/2 is a proposal on combating sexual abuse, the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. While the proposal is of some significance and could have implications for Irish law, as it can be referred to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights in advance of any opt-in motion, it is proposed that it does not warrant further scrutiny by this committee. Instead, it is proposed to forward the proposal to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for its observations.

Perhaps we should delete the section stating the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny by this committee. If the committee receives observations from the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, obviously we will be obliged to reconsider it. Perhaps we should delete that clause.

We will amend the decision to that effect. Did Deputy Ó Snodaigh wish to comment?

No, I simply wished to support Deputy Costello's proposal.

There are no early warning notes and no proposals proposed for further scrutiny. There are no proposals proposed for forwarding to the sectoral committees for observations, apart from the previous proposal, namely, COM (2009) 135. There are no proposals proposed for forwarding to the sectoral committees for detailed scrutiny.

The joint committee adjourned at 12.50 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Tuesday, 14 July 2009.
Barr
Roinn