JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN SCRUTINY díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 15 Jun 2010

Scrutiny of EU Legislative Proposals

Chairman

Item 1 relates to adopted measures. The first measure is COM (2008) 778. Given that the proposal is in the course of adoption, it is proposed that it does not require further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. The next measure, COM (2010) 115, imposes an anti-dumping duty. In light of the information given it is proposed that the committee notes this adopted measure. Is that agreed? Agreed. The next measure is COM (2010) 122. It is proposed to note this adopted measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 2 relates to proposals for no further scrutiny. The first proposal is COM (2009) 546. Based on the information from the Department, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. The next proposal is COM (2010) 30. In light of the information provided by the Department for this technical measure, it is submitted that it does not require further scrutiny by this committee. Is that agreed? Agreed. The next proposal is COM (2010) 61. Given that Ireland will not be taking part in this Title V measure, it is submitted that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny by this committee. Is that agreed? Agreed. The next proposal is COM (2010) 65. Given that this is a technical proposal to update the law on maritime statistics, it is proposed that it does not require further scrutiny by this committee. Is that agreed? Agreed. The next proposal is COM (2010) 75. Based on the available information, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next proposal is COM (2010) 76. Based on the information provided it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. It is proposed that the committee would write to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government indicating that the committee welcomed this initiative as an opportunity to raise young people's awareness of their common cultural heritage and its belief that participation in the scheme, especially in the transnational context, could highlight Ireland's historic ties over nearly two centuries with its fellow member states. Is that agreed? Agreed. The next proposal is COM (2010) 132. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. The next proposal is COM (2010) 137. In light of the information given it is proposed that the committee notes this trade measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Eugene Regan

Perhaps I can refer back to COM (2010) 61 which deals with FRONTEX, the external borders agency. It reads: "Given that Ireland will not be taking part in this Title V measure....". I do not know if the committee has ever examined why we are not participating in this measure because it seems to me, in terms of controlling our external borders, particularly in regard to drug smuggling, etc., that this is the type of measure——

Chairman

We are not a member of the Schengen agreement.

Senator Eugene Regan

Is FRONTEX specific to Schengen?

Deputy Joan Burton

Apparently that is Government policy.

Senator Eugene Regan

Is not this a measure into which we can opt? Has there been any examination as to why we are not opting into this measure which is something that warrants further examination?

Chairman

We will go into private session.

The joint committee went into private session at noon and resumed in public session at 12.13 p.m.

Chairman

The next proposals, COM (2010) 146 and COM (2010) 177 are being taken together. Given the information provided by the Department, it is proposed that these proposals do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 153. It is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. The next measure is COM(2010) 154. In light of the information given by the Department, it is proposed that this measure does not require further scrutiny by this committee. Is that agreed? Agreed. In respect of COM (2010) 169, based on the information provided by the Department, it is proposed that this budgetary proposal does not warrant further scrutiny by this committee. Is that agreed? Agreed. COM (2010) 174 refers to the European Investment Bank budgetary guarantee. In light of the information provided by the Department, it is submitted that the proposal does not require further scrutiny by this committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2010) 179 is a proposal on information society services. Given that this is a technical proposal to codify existing law, it is proposed that it does not require further scrutiny by this committee. Is that agreed? Agreed. The next measure is COM (2010)182. Based on the available information, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. The next proposal is COM (2010) 215. It is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. The next measure is COM (2010) 222. Based on the available information, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. The next proposal is COM (2010) 236. It is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. The next proposal is COM (2010) 237. It is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. The next proposal is COM (2010) 239. In view of the information provided by the Department, it is proposed that the measure does not require further scrutiny by this committee.

Deputy Joe Costello

Estonia proposes to join the eurozone on 1 January 2011. Do we have any documentation to back up this proposal? What does the Department of Finance think of the matter?

Chairman

We can get the information.

Deputy Joe Costello

It states that in view of the information provided, it is proposed that the measure does not require further scrutiny. It would be interesting to know the criteria at this point in time for joining the euro?

Chairman

This information is provided in briefing note 2, page 41, on the European Commission and the European Central Bank. The submission concluded that Estonia fulfils the conditions and the proposal provides for a Council decision, which abrogates the derogation that Estonia has from participation in the euro area. When passed this decision allows Estonia to adopt the single currency with effect from 1 January 2011. Amendment of two Council regulations is also required before Slovakia can adopt the euro currency regulation No. 947, which governs the introduction of the euro into participating member states. Should the Deputy want further information we can provide it to him.

Deputy Joe Costello

No.

Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed. The next proposal is COM (2010) 240. In view of the information provided by the Department, it is proposed that this measure does not require further scrutiny by this committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next proposal is EWN: 2010/ C 64/07. 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.

The next proposal is EWN: L 111/5. Given that there are no reported difficulties for Ireland, it is proposed that the trade matter does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next proposal is EWN: L 117/64. Given that there are no reported difficulties for Ireland, it is proposed that the trade matter does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The following proposals require no further scrutiny. The first is COM (2010) 93. It is proposed to note this proposal and forward it to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for information given the probability that it will be referred to that committee by the Oireachtas in accordance with Article 29.4.7° of the Constitution if the Government decides to opt-in. Is that agreed? Agreed. The next measures are taken together COM (2010) 104 and COM (2010) 105. Given that Ireland did not opt into the original proposal in 2006 and has indicated that Ireland will not be participating in the proposed enhanced co-operation, it is proposed that these proposals do not warrant further scrutiny. However, given the significance of the fact that this is the first time that provision of the treaties on the establishment of enhanced co-operation are being invoked, it is also proposed to forward these proposals to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights and the Joint Committee on European Affairs for information. Is that agreed? Agreed. The final measure is COM (2010) 196. Based on the available information, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny by this committee. It is proposed that this proposal will be sent for information to the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Is that agreed? Agreed.