JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND TRADE díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 19 Oct 2011

Scrutiny of EU Legislative Proposals

Chairman

The purpose of this meeting is to consider EU proposals on a wide variety of matters that have been referred to the committee for consideration. The proposals refer to issues in the Balkan states, north Africa, the Middle East, eastern Europe, Asia and the south Pacific as well as other more general matters. We have discussed the intricacies of the proposals in private session and will proceed to deal with them individually.

No. 1 is CFSP (2011) 110127 and COM (2011) Montenegro on the establishment of a framework for Montenegro to participate in EU crisis management operations. COM (2011) 230 sets up two consultative committees as part of the stabilisation and association agreement between the EU and Montenegro, which has been in force since 1 May 2010. COM (2010) 720 concerns the participation of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as an observer in the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. It is proposed that COM (2010) 720 does not warrant further scrutiny and that the other proposals concerning Montenegro, which have been adopted, be noted. Is that agreed?

Senator Jim Walsh

No. A decision we made in private session means we will not consider these proposals. There is no point in our not considering them in private session only to move into public session and note them. What we adopted in private session should be our minute for this meeting and we should proceed no further.

Chairman

Can we note the proposals that-----

Senator Jim Walsh

No.

Chairman

We can scrutinise the other proposals at a future meeting.

Senator Jim Walsh

If that is the case, I propose that we go back into private session and consider each proposal individually. We can do one or the other. All we are noting is the fact that they have been dealt with and been disposed of, but the committee did not consider them. If this is the minute of our private session discussion, for the sake of consistency it should also be the minute of our public session discussion.

Chairman

I made it clear at the beginning of the meeting that, if members had concerns, we would go back into private session. We will do so now.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

The Chairman's suggestion will not work in practice. It will be like Lanigan's ball - we will be in private session one minute and out the next.

Chairman

We will deal with all of the proposals, so we will not be in and out.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I know. Where the proposals have been adopted by the institutions without the committee's consideration, we should note them with the addendum that we are only doing so in that context.

Chairman

I propose that we return to private session.

Deputy Dan Neville

I understand where everyone is coming from and I agree with their concerns, but I am confused by our role. Why are we sitting here? We can discuss other issues and do a great deal of good work for the country.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

That is right.

Deputy Dan Neville

What is our role? I want to have an influence. I can read these proposals and be fully informed without needing to attend this meeting.

Chairman

They must be agreed in public session.

Deputy Dan Neville

We just stated that we would not agree them.

Senator Jim Walsh

Yes.

Chairman

That has been noted. We will go into private session to scrutinise the proposals. Otherwise, we will not get anything done. I propose that we go into private session. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The joint committee went into private session at 4.25 p.m. and adjourned at 5.35 p.m. until 3.15 p.m. on Wednesday 23 November 2011.