Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Wednesday, 31 May 2017

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality

EU Regulations: Motions

9:00 am

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask people to follow my example and ensure that they switch off their telephones please. Apologies have been received from Deputy Jim O'Callaghan and Senator Lorraine Clifford-Lee. The purpose of this part of the meeting is to consider two Government motions to exercise the right to opt-in, pursuant to Protocol 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, to two measures in the civil justice area. The first is the so-called adaptation regulation to delegate powers to the Commission in certain areas. The second is a technical update to the insolvency regulation. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Stanton, and his officials. I invite the Minister of State to address the two motions in question.

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the committee for its willingness to deal with this matter today. I appreciate that the issues before us do not, at first glance, seem to be the most interesting or significant by contrast with those the committee normally deals with. As members know, the scrutiny of these proposals by the committee is a necessary step in facilitating the moving of the motions in both Houses of the Oireachtas, which will enable the opt-in to both measures to be exercised.

Members are familiar with the legal basis of the proposals before us. That legal basis is to be found in Title V of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, otherwise known as the Lisbon treaty. The application of Title V to Ireland is subject to the provisions of Protocol 21, which provides that Ireland shall not take part in the adoption and application by the Council of proposed measures under Title V unless it notifies its wish to do so in accordance with Article 3 of the protocol within three months after the proposal is presented to the Council. Under the same protocol, Ireland may, at any time after the adoption of a measure by the Council under Title V, notify the Council and the Commission, in accordance with Article 4 of the protocol, that it wishes to accept that measure.

Article 4a of the same protocol provides that the opt-in provisions of the protocol also apply to any measure, proposed or adopted under Title V, which amends an Act into which Ireland has already opted. In this regard, Article 4a applies to both measures we are examining today. Thus, while on the face of it, the matters before the committee are purely technical in nature, the examination which it is undertaking is an important element in maintaining the integrity of Protocol 21 to the Lisbon treaty. That protocol is, of course, one which we share with the United Kingdom.

Turning to the measures themselves, I propose to deal with the proposal for a regulation adapting a number of legal acts in the area of justice providing for the use of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny to Article 290 of the Lisbon treaty. For the sake of brevity, I will henceforth refer to this as the adaptation regulation.

Article 3 of the protocol applies to this proposal and the relevant three-month period will expire on 13 June. The proposed adaptation regulation relates to three legislative acts in the justice area. The justice instruments affected by the proposal concern the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters, the European enforcement order for uncontested claims and the service of judicial and extra-judicial documents in civil and commercial matters. These are the only justice instruments in the civil area currently in force where an adaptation is required.

The adaptation regulation parallels a large omnibus proposal that seeks to adapt approximately 170 legislative acts across a broad range of sectors. Separate proposals have been made for legislative acts in the justice sector because, by virtue of the special rules that apply in the justice area, the instruments in question do not bind all member states. Denmark, for example, is only bound by the regulation concerning the service of judicial and extra-judicial documents in civil or commercial matters. The background to the adaptation regulation is the need to give effect to the new system set out in Article 290 of the Lisbon treaty, which substantially modifies the framework for powers to be conferred on the Commission by the Council and the European Parliament.

Prior to the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty, there was a committee procedure in place whereby acts of the Commission which were of general application and which sought to amend or supplement certain non-essential elements of legal instruments were subject to what was known as "the regulatory procedure with scrutiny". What this meant in practice was there was a mechanism available to deal with necessary adjustments of a technical nature without having to go through the ordinary legislative procedure in every case. Representatives of the member states had the task of acting as a committee and scrutinising any proposals which the Commission might bring forward and adopting a formal opinion on them. The kind of proposal allowed for included amendments to various forms where corrections or additions of a minor nature might be required, for example, where a member state adopted the euro as its currency or if some basic information such as a requirement for a postcode had inadvertently been omitted from the original form. This committee procedure has been superseded by Article 290 of the Lisbon treaty, which provides for a system of delegated acts. However, the scope of that article is almost identical in terms of the Commission acts which it covers to the acts covered by the old system. Following protracted negotiations between the EU institutions, agreement was eventually reached in 2016 as to how the system of delegated acts would work in practice. This is reflected both in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making, dated 13 April 2016, and in the Common Understanding on Delegated Acts, which is annexed to that agreement.

Taken together, these documents specify the extent to which the Commission is required to consult experts from the member states - this had been a particularly contentious matter - and the timescales within which various actions are to be taken. A right of objection to a delegated act is also vested in both the European Parliament and the Council, and certain standard clauses for inclusion in delegated acts have also been agreed. Negotiations on both the omnibus proposal and the adaptation regulation commenced recently. Although it is too soon to say how long the negotiating process will take, the justice proposal is due to be discussed some time in June. The delegation of power to the Commission envisaged by that proposal relates solely to modifying the forms annexed to the three relevant instruments. In the circumstances, it is desirable that Ireland exercises its right to opt in to this proposal at the outset to ensure we can engage actively in the negotiating process. As I stated, the three-month period in which we can do so expires on 13 June. At this time, it is not anticipated that the negotiations relating to the justice proposal will present any particular difficulties for Ireland.

I will turn now to the other measure before us, which is Regulation (EU) 2017/353, replacing annexes A and B to Regulation (EU) 2015/848 on insolvency proceedings. Again, in shorthand terms, we might refer to this for convenience as the insolvency annexes regulation. Article 4 of the protocol applies to the insolvency annexes regulation, that is, this regulation has already been adopted by the Council on 15 February this year. It was not possible, for reasons of timing, for Ireland to opt in to this proposal under Article 3 of the protocol, prior to its adoption, and we therefore wish to accept it post adoption, in accordance with the Article 4 of the protocol. It would be highly desirable that we opt in to the annexes regulation before 26 June 2017 for reasons I will now explain.

The insolvency annexes regulation is a technical update. It amends the recast insolvency regulation, formally known as Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (recast), whose scope and effect I will set out shortly. Ireland already opted in to the adoption and application of the recast insolvency regulation, in accordance with Article 3 of Protocol 21, following approval by the Dáil and Seanad on 28 March 2013. The recast regulation duly entered into force on 26 June 2015 and will apply in member states, including Ireland, from 26 June 2017, except for some provisions relating to national insolvency registers, which will apply in member states on later dates.

Looking first at the scope of the recast regulation, as its name suggests, this measure consolidated earlier EU law going back to 2000. It is limited to providing an agreed legal framework between EU member states for mutual recognition and enforcement of national insolvency procedures in insolvency cases with a cross-border dimension, such as where an insolvent company or individual has branches or assets in more than one member state. It sets out agreed common EU rules on which member states' courts will have jurisdiction to deal with the insolvency, which member states' national law will apply, and ensuring court judgments made under the above rules, including appointment of a liquidator, will be recognised in all other member states.

The recast regulation also updates EU law in this area to strengthen recognition of pre-insolvency procedures and debt restructuring. It sets out new strengthened rules on insolvency proceedings that involve groups of companies based in different member states. Furthermore, it clarifies and extends the rules on so-called secondary proceedings, where the main insolvency proceedings are before a court in one member state but the company or individual also has a base, with assets or obligations, in a different member state. The recast regulation is regarded as highly compatible with existing law and practice in Ireland. Annexes A and B to the recast regulation set out definitive lists for each member state of, respectively, the different types of insolvency proceedings and the different types of insolvency practitioner, such as liquidators, that are accepted by the European Commission and recognised by other member states for recognition under the recast regulation.

As regards the scope of the annexes regulation, it is limited to updating the lists of Polish insolvency procedures and practitioners contained in those annexes to the recast regulation, following a substantial change to Polish insolvency law. In December 2015, Poland notified the Commission that these changes would take effect at national level on 1 January 2016 and requested that the lists in Annexes A and B to the recast regulation be updated accordingly. The changes are straightforward and simply reflect the reform of Polish national law. The annexes regulation was duly presented by the Commission to the Council on 1 June 2016 and was adopted on 15 February 2017. As I have already said, for reasons of timing it did not prove possible for Ireland to opt in to the adoption of the annexes regulation within three months of 1 June 2016, as required by Article 3. Recital 4 of the annexes regulation indicates that Ireland is not taking part in its adoption. This was not inserted due to any difficulties with the content of the measure but simply to reflect the procedural situation that existed. Accordingly, it is desirable that Ireland should exercise its right to opt in to the annexes regulation post adoption in accordance with Article 4 of the protocol. It is also important we should do so, if possible, in a timeframe that allows the annexes regulation to take effect in Ireland on 26 June 2017. That would enable the recast insolvency regulation to enter into force in Ireland this summer in a way that reflects the up-to-date national law in all member states, including Poland.

I thank the committee for making the time available to deal with these matters today. I look forward to comments and I will be happy to address any questions which the committee may have.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will open the discussion to any member who wishes to ask a question or make an observation. Would Deputy Jack Chambers like to kick off?

Photo of Jack ChambersJack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Out of interest - it may be beside the point - was there very little consultation before the Lisbon treaty? What is the quality of the consultative process now going between the Commission and Parliament? The principle under which the Lisbon treaty was ratified by member states meant there was more of a democratic component. Is this more lip service as a means of providing democratic legitimacy or do member states have an active input in the consultation process around the adaptation regulation?

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I suppose the Lisbon treaty ensures all three institutions are involved as well as member states. I remember when I chaired this committee that we dealt with quite a number of motions dealing with the European Commission as well. At one stage we sent a reasoned opinion. There was involvement and it is up to committees and parliaments to decide how much involvement and scrutiny they want. The Lisbon treaty changed matters and now member states, such as that encompassed by our Houses, have involvement and input into what happens. The proposed changes must be sent to committees and parliaments across Europe to be debated and discussed. That gives them the opportunity to have an input before any decision is made.

Photo of Mick WallaceMick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I had not seen the Minister of State's script and at the speed he read it, I found it difficult to keep up. The background to the adaptation regulation is the need to give effect to the new system set out in Article 290 of the Lisbon treaty, which substantially modifies the framework for powers to be conferred on the Commission by the Council and the European Parliament. Are we giving more power to the Commission than it already has or am I picking this up wrong?

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps the Minister of State needs a slightly lower gear for Deputy Wallace.

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are not giving more power to the Commission and it can be revoked at any time anyway.

Photo of Mick WallaceMick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Minister of State say that again?

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This does not give any more powers to the Commission.

Photo of Mick WallaceMick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Than it already has?

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, and it can be revoked at any time in any event.

Photo of Mick WallaceMick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not agree with the Lisbon treaty in the first place. I opposed it at the time, the main reason for which was that it was a dream ticket for investment funds. States were not allowed to spend money on infrastructure without breaking the 3% rule. The Nice treaty was connected with that and I disagreed very strongly with it.

On the last point, what exactly has changed around insolvency? It is an area I am very interested in, obviously, being personally bankrupt at the moment. It sounds like it is going to improve co-operation between member states, but at the moment, if I had an asset in Italy or France, an Irish bank would be able to take it from me anyway. What exactly is changing there?

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This whole thing is limited to providing an agreed legal framework between EU member states for mutual recognition and enforcement of national insolvency procedures in insolvency cases with a cross-border dimension. The Deputy is correct in what he is saying there. This would be where a insolvent company or individual has branches or assets in more than one member state. It sets out agreed common EU rules as to which member state's courts will have jurisdiction to deal with the insolvency and which member state's national law will apply and ensure court judgments made under the above rules, including the appointment of a liquidator, will be recognised in all other member states. The recast regulation also updates EU law in this area to strengthen recognition of pre-insolvency procedures and debt restructuring and sets out new strengthened rules on insolvency proceedings which involve groups of companies based in different member states. It clarifies and extends the rules on secondary proceedings where the main insolvency proceeding is before a court in one member state but the company or individual has a base with assets or obligations in a different member state. The recast regulation is regarded as highly compatible with existing law and practice in Ireland, as the Deputy has said.

Photo of Mick WallaceMick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Am I right in thinking that the law of the national state in which the insolvency process is implemented overrides the insolvency arrangements in other EU countries? I presume that wherever the insolvency action takes place, those are the rules which dominate even in relation to assets in other jurisdictions. I am not sure what is changing.

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The proposal before the committee relates solely to the fact that Poland has changed its insolvency laws. That is what it is all about. We are just acknowledging that. I am recording it, recognising it and buying into it. That is all that is involved here, nothing else. No other change is being made.

Photo of Mick WallaceMick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The EU does not have a broad ruling which is imposed on every country in this area. Is that true? Each jurisdiction has its own specific rules and regulations around it.

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ireland opted into the adoption and application of the recast regulation in accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol following approval by the Dáil and Seanad on 26 May 2013. All we are doing today and all this is about is recognising the fact that Poland has changed and updated its laws. Once a change is made in whatever member state, we have to go through this procedure in all member states. That is all we are doing. We are not changing anything else. It is purely technical in nature.

Photo of Mick WallaceMick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. I thank the Minister of State.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We do not expect it will have adverse impacts-----

Photo of Mick WallaceMick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the Chairman or me.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----on any of Deputy Wallace's concerns.

Photo of Mick WallaceMick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the Chairman or me.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hope not. As the Minister of State noted in his address to the committee, Protocol 21 of the Lisbon treaty is one we share with our neighbours on the neighbouring island. Are there other member state interests in Protocol 21? If so, or if not, if that be the case, does the advent of Brexit have of itself any particular bearing on Protocol 21 of the Lisbon treaty?

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The matters before us today are purely technical and, as the Chairman says, the examination we are undertaking today is an important element in the integrity of Protocol 21. That is one we share with the United Kingdom. Denmark is not involved here. Denmark is only bound by the regulation concerning the service of judicial and extra-judicial documents in civil or commercial matters. That is the only involvement here. The instruments in question do not bind all member states, Denmark being one example.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Very good. Are there any other questions? I do not think so.

Photo of Jack ChambersJack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a separate matter, is there any update on the gambling control Bill?

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a completely separate matter, but we expect heads of the legislation will be sent to the committee in a matter of weeks. It will update certain provisions but will not include the establishment of a regulator as such. It will update a great deal of the 1956 legislation which is completely unfit for purpose and out of date. The heads of the Bill will be published in a matter of weeks, although I was hoping it would be done by now. It is imminent. It is a large Bill and it deals with many issues, gambling being the main part of it.

Photo of Jack ChambersJack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will there be a regulator Bill by the end of the year?

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I said previously, I am interested in establishing an interim regulator's office. We suggested in the committee a while ago that we would set that up because, having looked at regulation internationally, it is extremely complex and changing by the day with the online stuff that is going on. There is a huge amount of work to be done there. I have been working to establish an interim regulator's office first. It could scope out the work and be ready to move when the legislation is finally passed. That is what I would like to see happening.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Wallace wants to ask a supplementary.

Photo of Mick WallaceMick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Now that the Minister of State is taking questions on promised legislation-----

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Chambers has opened a floodgate here.

Photo of Mick WallaceMick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

God knows what job the Minister of State will have in a couple of weeks' time.

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

God is not saying.

Photo of Mick WallaceMick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Bill on craft beer in our court at the moment?

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is Deputy Alan Kelly's Bill.

Photo of Mick WallaceMick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it for the committee to move on that next rather than the Department?

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It requires a money message, but it is within our scope to address it in terms of pre-Committee Stage. There are 13 Bills in the queue.

Photo of Mick WallaceMick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand that and I am not looking to jump the queue. Is it likely the money message will be a problem on the Bill?

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The pre-legislative scrutiny must be done first, as the Chairman, has said.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, it is pre-Committee Stage scrutiny.

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Well, pre-Committee scrutiny.

Photo of Mick WallaceMick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there a feeling in Government that the money message will be facilitated?

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was agreed in Government to move it on and not to oppose it.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It passed Second Stage.

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Photo of Mick WallaceMick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Other Bills which passed that Stage were stopped by the money message issue.

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Dáil reform committee is meeting this morning to discuss all those matters.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of information on that Bill, I am advised that we have already made the decision that it does not require pre-Committee Stage scrutiny. That was our decision here and we were of one mind on it. That is where it is at this point. We await the money message to be able to commence Committee Stage, as we do with quite a number of Bills. The Minister of State will know from his own period as Chairman of this committee that it is important to be able to build the programme of work. Uncertainty is presenting and I have more question marks over the Bills for the next period. We just do not know. There is a significant falling down on the part of the Department in progressing legislation in order that it is fit for purpose and ready to address on Committee Stage.

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I said, the Dáil reform committee is meeting within the hour to discuss this very matter.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Very good. I thank the Minister of State and his officials for attending and getting through the business in a business-like way.

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Indeed. I thank the Chairman.