JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN SCRUTINY díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 21 Sep 2010

Scrutiny of EU Legislative Proposals

Chairman

We will begin with adopted measures. The first measure is COM (2010) 22. Given the available information, it is proposed to note this adopted measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 192. In light of the information provided, it is proposed that this adopted technical proposal be noted by the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 194, which relates to a framework agreement with Moldova. In light of the information provided, it is proposed that this adopted technical proposal be noted by the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measures are COM (2010) 201 and COM (2010) 278. Given the available information, it is proposed to note these adopted measures. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 227. Based on the information available, it is proposed to note this adopted proposal. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 312. It is proposed to note this adopted measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 374. It is proposed to note this adopted measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We will move on to measures for which no further scrutiny is proposed. The first of these measures is COM (2009) 197. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measures are COM (2010) 85, COM (2010) 309 and COM (2010) 315. Based on the information available, it is proposed that these proposals do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 142. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 204. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this technical proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 246. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 256. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measures are COM (2010) 263 and COM (2010) 264. Based on the information available, it is proposed that these proposals do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measures are COM (2010) 266 and COM (2010) 268. Based on the information available, it is proposed that these proposals do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 279. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 280. In light of the information provided, it is proposed that the measure does not require further scrutiny by the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 302. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 305, which relates to a VAT derogation. In light of the information available, it is proposed that this measure does not require further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 310. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 313. In light of the information available, it is proposed that this measure does not require further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 325. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 331, which relates to the minimum VAT rate. In light of the information provided, it is proposed that the measure does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 336. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 342, which relates to EU staff remuneration. In light of the information provided, it is proposed that this technical measure does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 345. In light of the information provided, it is proposed that this technical measure does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 350, which relates to the EU patent. In light of the information provided, it is proposed that this measure does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 358. In light of the fact that Ireland is not in a position to participate in this part of the Schengen acquis, it is proposed that this measure does not require further scrutiny by this committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 359. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 360. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 366. In light of the technical nature of this proposal, it is proposed that the measure does not require further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 381. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 393. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

On COM (2010) 394, based on the information available it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. On COM (2010) 405 and COM (2010) 406, based on the information available, it is proposed that these proposals do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. On COM (2010) 424, in light of the information provided, it is proposed that the measure does not require further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. On COM (2010) 425, in light of the information provided, it is proposed that the measure does not require further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. On COM(2010)426, based on the information available, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. On COM (2010) 432, based on the information available, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. On COM (2010) 455, based on the information available, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The following matters are for no further scrutiny and to be sent to sectoral committees for information. On COM (2010) 289, based on the available information and the fact that the committee has already scrutinised in detail the original legislative package which this proposal supports, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. It is further proposed that this proposal will be sent for information to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. Is that agreed? Agreed.

On COM (2010) 378, based on the analysis above, that is, the subsidiarity checklist, it is proposed to conclude that the proposal complies with the principle of subsidiarity. Therefore, it is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny by this committee in terms of subsidiarity. Given that in term of its substance the proposal is of some significance and that Oireachtas approval will be required if the Government decides to opt in to the proposal, it is proposed to forward the draft directive to the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Women's Rights for its consideration and the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Innovation for its information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

On COM (2010) 379, based on the analysis above, that is, the subsidiarity checklist, it is proposed to conclude that there are some concerns with regard to the principle of subsidiarity in relation to this proposal. Given that Article 79 of the TFEU states that the Union shall develop a common immigration policy aimed at ensuring at all stages the efficient management of migration flows and fair treatment of third country nationals residing legally in member states, that the objectives of the proposal are consistent with the overarching policy frameworks agreed by the European Council, and that the Department of Justice and Law Reform has indicated that the reasons put forward by the Commission for common action at the EU level do not appear unreasonable and has confirmed that Ireland did not object to the proposal, on the basis of subsidiarity, at the first Council working party meeting which considered the proposal on 9 September 2010, the committee agrees that the proposal appears to comply with the principles of subsidiarity and it is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny by this committee in terms of subsidiarity. Given that, in term of its substance, the proposal is of some significance and that Oireachtas approval will be required if the Government decides to opt in to the proposal, it is proposed to forward the draft directive to the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Women's Rights for its consideration and the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Innovation for its information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Paschal Mooney

It states, "if the Government decides to opt into the proposal". Is there any indication that the Government will opt in?

Chairman

The Government has not decided yet but the indications are it probably will not.

Senator Paschal Mooney

I would be concerned in light of our current economic difficulties. Notwithstanding the wonderful philosophical approach that is normally taken at European level about us all being good citizens and merging our policies on immigration, the simple facts of the matter are that if the outcome of this were that we did approve, it opens up a new channel where there are people in this country, especially young people who are of schoolgoing age, who would look to any opportunities that are available for seasonable work. I am just curious that it states, "if the Government decides to opt into the proposal". Will there be an opportunity for this matter to be debated elsewhere? What will be the process once it passes here? Forgive my ignorance.

Chairman

Ireland still has the option, if it wishes, to allow people in. It is very much up to each member state. It is the minimum standard they are setting here, but my advice is that the Government has not decided as yet on the opt-in matter. By sending this draft to the joint committee for its consideration, there will be greater debate within that committee and the justice committee.

Senator Paschal Mooney

Am I correct in stating that at present we have no right to deny any citizen of a member state from coming into the country, even though this talks about seasonal work? Surely it is a matter of the freedom of movement.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

This is about third countries. It has nothing to do with European citizens. It is to do with those outside of the European Union.

Chairman

This is about third countries.

Senator Paschal Mooney

That is what I assumed. I thank Deputy Creighton.

Chairman

This relates to those outside EU member states.

Senator Paschal Mooney

Where will it go when it goes to these committees?

Chairman

It is going to the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Women's Rights for consideration and also to the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Innovation for its information. One hopes there will be a debate within those committees on this important issue and that will help the Government.

Senator Paschal Mooney

It does not come back to us. We have more or less dealt with it under the terms of the recommendation.

Chairman

It is not an issue of the principle of subsidiarity. It is very much up to the Government if it wants to opt in or opt out. The clear indications are that it will probably not opt in. Having said that, clearly the fact that it is not in breach of the principle of subsidiarity will allow for debate on both committees. It will not come back to this committee.

Senator Paschal Mooney

That is fair enough.

Chairman

It was well debated by the Government in the September meeting last week.

Senator Paschal Mooney

I did not want to stop the Chairman because he was on a roll but I have a brief question on one directive on which it is proposed that it does not warrant further scrutiny. It is COM (2010) 426 about an agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation establishing the terms and conditions for the participation of the Swiss Confederation in the Youth in Action programme and in the action programme in the field of lifelong learning. It may be outside the remit the committee but perhaps someone present would know whether there is any benefit for Ireland in it. As the Swiss Confederation is not a member of the European Union but is increasingly integrating various aspects of its social and economic policy with that of the European Union, is there an opportunity for a bilateral arrangement between Ireland and the Swiss Confederation in light of us saying that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny? Obviously it will be activated. We are emphasising to a great extent the concept of lifelong learning. I presume it is outside this committee's remit to debate these matters and we merely forward the recommendation. I am merely looking for guidance.

Chairman

There is no need for a bilateral agreement with the Swiss on this.

Senator Paschal Mooney

My language is incorrect. I meant a bilateral programme that might benefit Irish youth rather than having to work through the central European Union. They are setting this up between the EU but I am curious to know how it will work in practice and what benefits, if any, might accrue to Ireland.

Chairman

Irish youths can participate in this on equal terms. Swiss students can participate here without any overarching commitments. It would be an agreement.

Senator Paschal Mooney

Could I ask the secretariat, if it is possible, because it is going to the Department of Health and Children, if there is any further information on this? I would be grateful.

Chairman

We can get that, by all means.

Senator Paschal Mooney

I thank the Chairman.

Chairman

Is the Senator referring to the programme?

Senator Paschal Mooney

The programme and what opportunities there might be for Ireland.

Chairman

It is a good point. Clearly, there is the opportunity for Irish youth as well. It is important that it be reciprocated and that it could be promoted as well because the scheme may not be well known publicly. We will forward it to Senator Mooney.

Senator Paschal Mooney

Forgive me, Chairman.

Chairman

Not at all. With this opportunity for young people, it is important that we debate it. It will be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Women's Rights for its consideration and the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Innovation for its information. Is that agreed? Agreed. I thank the committee secretariat for their work on this detailed report and the clear advice given here.

No. 4 lists the early warning notices. On EWN 2010/C151/04 and EWN 2010/C151/05, given that there are no reported difficulties for Ireland, it is proposed that these trade matters do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. On EWN 2010/C192/04, 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. Item 4.5 is EWN L/134/4. Given that there are no reported difficulties for Ireland, it is proposed that this measure does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 4.6 is EWN L/135/3. 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 matters proposed for further scrutiny, item 5.1 is COM (2010) 83. Given the concerns raised about the Commission's implementing powers and the comitology procedure, particularly in its respect for proper democratic accountability and the prerogatives of Parliaments, it is proposed that this proposal warrants further scrutiny. To this end, it is proposed that the committee seek further clarification from the Department of Foreign Affairs on how exactly member states will exert their control over the Commission's exercise of implementing powers and whether the Department is satisfied that the proposal respects the principle of democratic accountability. Is that agreed? Agreed

On matters to be referred to sectoral committees for detailed scrutiny, item 6.1 is COM (2010) 392. Given that this proposal is of some significance and in view of the need for Oireachtas approval if Ireland wishes to opt into the directive, it is proposed that it warrants further scrutiny. To this end, it is proposed to forward it to the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Women's Rights for its consideration. Is that agreed? Agreed.

This meeting was held outside our allocated fortnightly slot. Our next allocated slot is Tuesday, 28 September. Do members wish to meet next week? If not, we can adjourn until Tuesday, 12 October.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

We should not meet if there is no purpose to the meeting. If the business to be conducted can be transacted in one meeting on 12 October, I would rather not meet until then.

Chairman

Much work has been done at this meeting. We had to deal with a considerable backlog of directives. I compliment the secretariat on its work.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

I would rather meet once and have an extended meeting than meet twice unnecessarily.

Chairman

The backlog has been cleared. It is urgent that we deal with Mr. Honohan's letter. We could deal with it next week.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

I do not consider it to be urgent.

Chairman

We could meet in two weeks on 5 October. Is that agreed? Agreed. The joint committee adjourned at 5.25 p.m. until Tuesday, 5 October 2010.

The Joint Committee adjourned at 5.25 p.m. until Tuesday, 5 October 2010.