JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN SCRUTINY díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 12 Oct 2010

Scrutiny of EU Legislative Proposals

Chairman

We will begin with adopted measures. The first measure is COM (2010) 2010. In light of the rapid adoption of measures in May 2010 it is proposed that this measure does not require further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 304. It is proposed that this adopted measure does not require further scrutiny by this committee. Is that agreed? Agreed. The next measure is COM (2010) 363. It is proposed that this adopted measure does not require further scrutiny by this committee. Is that agreed? Agreed. The next measure is COM (2010) 435. Based on the information available, it is proposed to note this adopted measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Terry Leyden

There appears to be some concern in regard to the dumping of ironing boards.

Chairman

We will now deal with measures requiring no further scrutiny.

The first measure is COM (2010) 308. 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) 083. The Joint Committee on European Scrutiny agreed at its meeting of 21 September 2010 that this proposal warrants further scrutiny and to 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.

Based on the clarification received from the Department of Foreign Affairs, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny at this stage. However, it is also proposed to ask the Department to keep the committee informed of the ongoing negotiations on this proposal between the Council and the European Parliament and of any significant amendments to the proposal. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 145. In light 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 measure is COM (2010) 184. 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) 273. In light 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 measure is COM (2010) 293. It is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. The next measure is COM (2010) 372. 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) 376. In light of the non-application of these measures to Ireland, it is proposed that they do not require further scrutiny by this committee. Is that agreed? Agreed. The next measure is COM (2010) 377. In light of the non-application of these measures to Ireland, it is proposed that they do not require further scrutiny by this committee. Is that agreed? Agreed. The next measure is COM (2010) 383. Based on the information provided by the Department, it is proposed that this budgetary proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 388. In light of the technical nature of this codification measure, it is proposed that it does not require further scrutiny by this committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 391. It is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. The next measure is COM (2010) 395. It is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. The next measure is COM (2010) 403. In light of the information provided and the technical nature of this proposal, it is submitted that it does not require further scrutiny by this committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 409. It is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. The next measure is COM (2010) 410. It is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. The next measure is COM (2010) 419. 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) 420. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Paschal Mooney

On the proposals between Brazil and the EU, are these effectively providing that a visa waiver system will now operate across the European Union? I understand this first started with the diplomatic corps.

Chairman

Certain derogations are given for free trade. Many of the tariffs are being removed.

Senator Paschal Mooney

COM (2010) 419 is a proposal re a Council decision on the signature of the agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of ordinary passports. Am I correct, therefore, that the tourist industry might benefit to some degree or does this Council decision relate exclusively to trade?

Chairman

Perhaps we should go into private session.

Senator Paschal Mooney

There is no necessity to do that. I do not wish to hold up the committee. I will inquire about the matter later.

Chairman

It is all part of the Schengen Agreement.

Senator Paschal Mooney

Fair enough. I did not notice the reference to Schengen.

Chairman

The next measure is COM (2010) 442. In light of the information provided by the Department, it is proposed that this trade measure does not require further scrutiny by this committee. Is that agreed? Agreed. The next measure is COM (2010) 444. In light of the information provided by the Department, it is proposed that this technical measure does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. The next measure is COM (2010) 445. It is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. The next measure is COM (2010) 459. In light of the information provided by the Department, it is proposed that this measure does not require further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is EWN 2009/C237/05. 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.

We will deal now with measures requiring no further scrutiny but to be sent to sectoral committee for information.

The next measure is COM (2010) 443. In view of the information provided by the Department, in particular that this is primarily a technical measure to amend existing directives, it is proposed that the measure does not warrant further scrutiny by this committee. It is proposed, however, that the measure be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service in light of its overall policy remit in this area. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 439. As this is not a legislative proposal, it is proposed that the communication does not warrant further scrutiny by this committee. Based on the information available, it is also proposed that the draft Council decision does not warrant further scrutiny. However, given that the Joint Committee on European Affairs has considered the loan facility for Greece as part of its work and that the communication may be of interest to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service, it is proposed to forward the document to those committees for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is COM (2010) 440. As this is not a legislative proposal, it is proposed that the communication does not warrant further scrutiny by this committee. Based on the information available, it is also proposed that the draft Council decision does not warrant further scrutiny. However, given that the Joint Committee on European Affairs has considered the loan facility for Greece as part of its work and that the communication may be of interest to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service, it is proposed to forward the documents to those committees for information.

Senator Paschal Mooney

The last two measures apply to Greece and relate to reinforcing and deepening fiscal surveillance. Is this open-ended? Could a similar communication apply to Ireland, Spain or Portugal? The answer is in the negative. Thank you, Chairman.

Chairman

Given the significance of COM (2010) 119, a proposal for the democratic development of the European Union which is seen as one of the major achievements of the Lisbon treaty, it is proposed that it warrants further scrutiny. In particular, it is important that the administrative arrangements for implementation of the citizens' initiative in Ireland are put in place in a timely and effective manner. Therefore, it is proposed to seek further details from the relevant Departments on the administrative arrangements for implementation of the initiative in Ireland and the timescale for their introduction. In addition, given that primary legislation may be required to provide for the use of the electoral register to validate statements of support under particular initiatives, it is also proposed to forward the proposal to the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for its information. Is that agreed?

Senator Paschal Mooney

Does the Chairman have a view on the matter, other than recommending the proposal?

Chairman

Is the Senator suggesting it warrants further scrutiny?

Senator Paschal Mooney

This deals with the public petitions process under the Lisbon treaty. Essentially, it is an important citizens' initiative which, among all the legalese, allows for a public petitions process. I do not know if members share my view, but anything that could be done to advance the proposal by having it incorporated into the legislative framework would be welcomed.

Senator Alex White

I certainly agree. We are acting as a clearing house in sending it to the other committee.

Chairman

This is a very important proposal which, in the light of its importance, will be scrutinised by this committee. It will have a wide ranging impact on thel’autre vie, the right of the citizen. Vested interests will be invited to a public hearing to discuss the proposal and the final report on it will be debated in the Dáil and Seanad.

Senator Paschal Mooney

Will it be placed on the agenda to be discussed in the near future?

Chairman

The review will be conducted within four weeks.

Senator Terry Leyden

I am glad Senator Mooney raised this issue which comes within the scope of the Lisbon treaty. I cannot understand the reason for the delay in the process. Why is there a need to engage in more consultation? There is a petitions scheme in place. One has to collect a specified number of signatures which is far too high. This will be referred back to the committee and from one Department to another. This issue has been discussed and we voted on it. Why, therefore, is there a need for a hearing?

Chairman

The proposal is for a regulation to be transposed and put into operation. The committee can determine the level of investigation required.

Senator Terry Leyden

I suggest the Chairman place a time limit on consideration of the proposal. The committee would like to see action in this regard. In fact, people voted for the Lisbon treaty because it provided for the petitions system. I think it will take five years for the citizens' initiative to become a reality.

Senator Paschal Mooney

I support Senator Leyden in this regard. What prompted my earlier intervention was that it was stated primary legislation might be required.

Chairman

I am advised that the proposal has been agreed to by the Council of Ministers and the question being asked is how will the system be operated in Ireland. It will be in operation by 1 December 2010.

Senator Paschal Mooney

Is it envisaged that primary legislation will be introduced in both Houses before 1 December?

Chairman

It will. Senator Leyden has highlighted the fact that there is urgency attached to the proposal.

Senator Terry Leyden

Let us, therefore, urge the Government to introduce legislation.

Senator Paschal Mooney

That is what I was coming to when I asked if the committee had a role to play.

Chairman

We have a critical role to play. We can kick-start the debate. From the advice I have received and having listened to members express their concerns, we must prioritise consideration of the proposal which we will invite vested interests to discuss. There were high expectations the initiative would be up and running. It is important that there is transposition into Irish law.

Senator Alex White

Can one country move without the others acting on it?

Chairman

It has been agreed to.

Senator Alex White

Can it be implemented when a country is ready to do so?

Senator Paschal Mooney

Considering that a section of the population believes all of our affairs should be conducted from the European Union, perhaps this would be welcomed in some quarters.

Chairman

The proposal can be implemented simultaneously in all countries on the one date. Given the timescale involved, we will move quickly on the issue and have it debated in order that the Government is brought up to full speed on the concerns expressed. Once the committee reports, the matter can be debated in Seanad Éireann .

Senator Paschal Mooney

That will be very popular.

Senator Terry Leyden

The Chairman refers to the Government, but an individual Minister has to push the proposal.

Senator Eugene Regan

There is collegiate responsibility. The constraint is on the Government in not acting on the proposal and being ready to implement it. Perhaps the Chairman might pass on that message.

Chairman

I have further information in my notes. It is proposed to seek further details from the relevant Departments on the administrative arrangements for implementation of the initiative in Ireland and the timescale for their introduction. Following this meeting we will contact the Secretaries General to highlight the urgency of the matter.

Senator Terry Leyden

It would be a wonderful way of using the e-voting machines. If they were positioned around the country, one could register and vote for a particular citizens' initiative.

Chairman

I do not think that would meets the needs of subsidiarity. The machines might have other uses.

Senator Terry Leyden

One would only be collecting signatures.

Chairman

It would be good if they could be used for something.

Senator Paschal Mooney

The Chairman's proposal is welcome. I suggest he use his initiative to push the citizens' initiative. Members who are in a position to do so should do the same.

Chairman

The fact that members have highlighted the proposal provides a clearer mandate for the secretariat to move on it.

Given the significance of COM (2010) 368 and the likely requirement for primary legislation, it is proposed that it be scrutinised in detail by the committee. To assist in its consideration, it is proposed that the Minister for Finance and the Governor of the Central Bank be invited to make an oral presentation to the committee and take questions. The committee may also invite other relevant stakeholders in the banking and credit union sectors. Is that agreed?

Senator Paschal Mooney

On the proposed method for dealing with COM (2010) 368, I suggest the Chairman should go further in considering the previous proposal in order to motivate those involved in the relevant Departments who should be invited to appear before the committee to indicate a specific timescale and tell us what they propose to do. I acknowledge that the Chairman proposes to write to the Secretaries General, but a letter can take a long time to pass through the system.

Chairman

I have been advised that once the information requested has been received, we can determine which Secretaries General should be invited to appear before the committee.

Senator Paschal Mooney

The key point is that we need to receive the information required as soon as possible.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.10 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 19 October 2010.