JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny) debate -
Thursday, 13 Feb 2003

Vol. 1 No. 11

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Chairman

I refer to documents Nos. 1.1 to 1.6. No. 1.1 is Commission document 692 on fishing within the Kiribati fishing zone. The Council mandated the Commission in June 2001 to negotiate bilateral fishery agreements in the Pacific region. This proposal is a consequence of the outcome of negotiations held in 2002 with the Republic of Kiribati, an independent state in the Pacific that gained its independence from Britain in 1979. Spain, France and Portugal have a particular interest in the tuna fish opportunities in the region around Kiribati. The proposal reflects the agreement with Kiribati and allocates fishing rights to a limited number of vessels from the EU. These rights will be divided among the three states mentioned. The agreement also includes provision of financial assistance to Kiribati of approximately €500,000 for each of the next three years. It also stipulates that the EU vessels fishing in Kiribati's waters as a result of this agreement will be required to embark with two Kiribati seamen per vessel. Given that the proposal relates to obtaining approval for the conclusion of a new EU-Kirabati fishery agreement and the Department has indicated the Irish fishing industry has minimum involvement in the area, I recommend that the proposal does not require further scrutiny by the sectoral committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Document 1.2 is Commission document 706 on the importation of agricultural products originating in Poland. The aim of the proposed regulation is to adopt an autonomous and interim measure in respect of the importation into the European Union of processed agricultural products from Poland. It is envisaged that all tariffs will be abolished on 1 May 2004. Consequently, there is a need to progressively move towards this position to avoid major changes in the tariff regime overnight. Since finalisation of a broader bilateral EU-Poland agreement, a number of related issues remain to be concluded. This is an autonomous measure on the part of the Community which is being introduced on the understanding Poland will reciprocate.

Given that there have been mixed signals coming from Poland on the question of reciprocity and on the possibility of wider agreement, the information note from the Department of Agriculture and Food has been delayed while clarification of these issues is sought. Poland is now in a position to reciprocate the measures which will be backdated to 1 February 2002. Given that the measures proposed are technical and part of efforts to ensure a smooth transition to membership of the European Union, it is proposed that this document does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Document 1.3 is Commission document 750 regarding the limitation of emissions of volatile compounds due to the use of solvents in paints and varnishes. This proposed directive aims to limit the amount of volatile organic compounds, VOCs, air pollutants detrimental to human health. Major sources of VOCs are organic solvents used industrially, commercially and domestically. The proposal requires the limitation of the amount of VOCs in certain paints and varnishes used both professionally and as part of DIY activities. These reductions would assist Ireland in reaching its national emission targets for VOCs as set out in Directive 201/81/EC.

As the measure and the proposal are product-specific rather than targeted at the end user, the effects of the proposals will not fall disproportionately on small enterprises such as painting contractors. The proposals could, however, result in some firms having to invest in new equipment but it is estimated that these costs would add no more than between 1% and 1.5% to the costs of a manufacturer. Furthermore, they can be spread over a number of years as the timetable for compliance extends to 2010. Since these minimal extra costs would be uniform across the European Union, the competitiveness of Irish contractors should not be affected.

The proposed measures would oblige member states to ensure products falling within the scope of the directive - for the most part decorative paints - can be marketed only if they comply with the technical specifications of the proposal. A labelling requirement has been included to ensure potential consumers are fully informed about the contents of a product. It is recommended that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed?

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

Has there been discussion with the industry on this? Is it aware of the directive?

Chairman

There has been discussion. The industry used to be quite large but is now much smaller and those involved tend to import products.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

Is it considered to be entirely marginal by the industry?

Chairman

It is marginal.

Deputy Carey

Will the directive mean the disposal of paints, etc., might be less hazardous?

Chairman

The primary effect of the directive would be to reduce the vapours coming from paints but I presume this would also make them safer for disposal. Is the recommendation agreed? Agreed.

Document 1.4 will be dealt with later because it has implications for the Jack Lynch tunnel. Document 1.5 is Commission document 775 regarding the interruption of certain economic relations with Angola in connection with UNITA. Since independence from Portugal in 1975 there has been an almost constant state of civil war in Angola. It is estimated that almost 1.5 million have lost their lives during the conflict. As part of the effort to end the conflict, certain sanctions were imposed by the United Nations against UNITA, the main rebel group fighting the Angolan Government. The Irish ambassador to the United Nations chaired the sanctions monitoring committee from 2001 until its recent dissolution. The death of UNITA leader, Jonas Savimbi, on 22 February 2002 paved the way for a ceasefire between the Government of Angola and a weakened UNITA. Both parties signed a memorandum of understanding in April 2002 which provides for the quartering of UNITA troops and the destruction of their weapons, an amnesty for all crimes committed during the conflict and the demobilisation of UNITA.

In response to the positive political developments in Angola and further to an amending resolution of the United Nations in December 2002, Resolution 1448 of 2002, the proposed regulation aims to repeal regulation EC/229/97 which imposed the measures against UNITA within the European Union. The primary objective of the sanctions was to cut off UNITA's sources of funding which was mostly derived from trading in diamonds and oil under its control. The primary consequence of this amendment in Ireland would be the lifting of the asset freeze imposed by the Central Bank via financial institutions on UNITA officials here. Given that the proposed regulation is further to a UN resolution and part of efforts to underpin the peace process in Angola, it is recommended that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny by a sectoral committee. I understand it has implications for only one person in Ireland but there could be others. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Document 1.6 is Commission document 780 regarding the phasing in of double hull or equivalent design requirements for single hull oil tankers. This proposed amendment to existing measures governing transport of fuels is a response to the oil spill caused by the tanker, Prestige, and includes the following measures: a provision that only double hull tankers shall carry heavy grades of oil; a revision to accelerate the phasing out of single hull tankers; and a broader application of assessment of the structural soundness of tankers. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources has indicated the oil industry does not envisage the measures proposed resulting in additional costs since it has largely anticipated them. Ten inspectors were recruited in recent months for ships. Similarly, the more stringent inspection regime from 2005 will not have significant cost implications for Ireland, the Department has also indicated. It is proposed, therefore, that the measure does not warrant additional scrutiny.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

I agree with the proposal, in principle, but many tankers dock in Irish ports, particularly in my area in the south west. Should more information be obtained about the background to this proposal? How many single hull tankers enter our waters? We should encourage the measure to ensure only double hull tankers enter our waters. There was an emergency involving an oil tanker off the coast of County Donegal recently. Should we delve further into this proposal and obtain more information so that at least we are aware of the potential problems for Ireland while single hull tankers still operate in its waters?

Senator Daly

A list of these vessels was published. I am concerned about the enforcement of the regulation and how it can be made to work because it is not working currently. Some single hull tankers are a menace. How can we ensure the regulation will be enforced so that oil spills are prevented? The cost of the removal of oil following the incident in Donegal will be sizeable. Can this be recouped through the regulation? Is funding provided under the new arrangements to enable member states to seek compensation for oil spills? The removal of oil following the Kowloon Bridge accident off the west coast was costly and it took years for the Department to recoup the cost from the insurers and the various people who were legally responsible. I am not sure if the cost was fully recouped and perhaps it would be possible to ascertain whether the total cost of the operation was paid by the insurers. The State would have been left with an extensive tab otherwise.

Deputy Carey

I have nothing whatsoever against the committee seeking clarification on this measure. At least this is one area in which the European Community has acted reasonably quickly and decisively by introducing this measure within a matter of months. Whatever about the implications for the industry, the danger of an environmental catastrophe similar to that which occurred in Galicia cannot be countenanced in Ireland. While I have no problem with pursuing clarification of the implications of this measure, it should be welcomed and given as much of an airing as possible.

Chairman

I propose that we note the measure but do not refer it to a joint committee and seek a note from the Department clarifying the issues raised by the Senator and the Deputy, which can be circulated to members. If members want to discuss this measure again at the next meeting in two weeks' time, we will do so.

Senator Daly

Could a departmental official be invited to appear before the sub-committee? I compliment the Department on the way it has handled the incident in Donegal, which is under control. I am worried about the potential cost to the Exchequer of dealing with such incidents, which are the business of insurers and ship owners. However, it is often difficult to pin down who they are and the State goes in and cleans up the mess at enormous cost. The insurers put up various obstacles to avoid paying. It is fine to introduce regulations and directives but there is a problem if they cannot be enforced. As Deputy Carey stated, the Community has acted quickly but this problem did not emerge today or yesterday. The Community has spent at least 20 years getting its act together to address the problems associated with single hull vessels. Perhaps a departmental official could enlighten us in this regard.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

I do not intend to delay the introduction of the proposal because I favour the acceleration of the phasing out of single hull tankers and also the carrying of heavy grades of oil by double hull tankers only. However, according to the document before us, it is not proposed to implement the measure before June. That gives us an opportunity to delve into the background a little more. I do not propose to impede the proposal but to strengthen it and speed up the phasing out process. More general information is needed and it would be useful if the potential impact of the measure on Ireland could be clarified. In this regard, we need to establish to what extent Ireland is subject to the dangers of single hull tankers.

Chairman

The committee normally accepts proposals that do not require further scrutiny or which are referred to the relevant committee if scrutiny is required, which in this case is the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. If that is done, the process may be delayed.

Deputy Carey

I support your proposal, Chairman.

Chairman

If a member wishes to discuss the measure again at the next sub-committee meeting, we can do so and perhaps we can pursue Senator Daly's suggestion then. Is that agreed?

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

Yes.

Chairman

It will not be on the agenda again unless a member makes a request to that effect and we will obtain a note in the interim. It is proposed that items 1.1 to 1.3, inclusive, and 1.5 do not require further scrutiny and item 1.6 does not require scrutiny unless a member makes a request. Item 1.4 will be dealt with later. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next issue is the group of measures it is proposed to refer to sectoral committees for further scrutiny, that is, items 2.1 to 2.6, inclusive, and item 1.4 regarding the Jack Lynch tunnel. Item 2.1 is Commission document 559 regarding genetically modified food and feed. This measure is designed to provide the foundations for the insurance of a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health, the environment and consumer interests in relation to genetically modified food and feed while ensuring the effective function of the internal market. To this end, the proposal seeks to harmonise and improve the assessment procedure for the authorisation of genetically modified food and feed and the labelling requirements for GM food and feed. This is an important and topical issue, which is of concern to many. Although political agreement has been reached on the matter, a final decision has not been taken and, therefore, I propose that the measure should be referred to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food for detailed consideration. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 2.2 is Commission document 642 regarding the usage and export of halons and products containing CFCs. This proposal seeks to improve existing European measures that aim to reduce the depletion of the ozone layer. The proposed amendments include a provision that establishes timeframes for reducing the use of halons for critical uses, which are those uses for which there is no technically or economically feasible alternative. All non-critical installations of halon must be decommissioned by 31 December 2003. The date 2002 was inadvertently included in a previous note.

The second amendment commits to the export of equipment that includes some halon. This has the twin aim of encouraging the recovery rather than the venting of halon and of discouraging its manufacture outside the EU. The third aim of the amended regulation would also permit the export of equipment blown with CFCs. This measure could be a positive development for airline companies based within the EU with an aged fleet. As it stands, aircraft containing CFCs in the foam installation cannot be exported. The amendment would also cover ships and rail transport wagons. The intention of the original regulation, 2037/2000, was to restrict the export trade in air conditioning and refrigeration equipment.

The fourth amendment would bring the level of control applying to bromo chloro methane up to the same level as other substances. This proposed regulation would appear to have taken on board the concerns of industry about a number of existing measures. However, a number of questions remain unanswered on the proposal in relation to the environmental impact of the export of equipment to non-EU countries. It is, therefore, proposed that we refer this document to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government for further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 2.3, Commission document 672, refers to the conservation of fisheries resources, to the protection of juveniles of marine organisms. This is a measure relating to efforts to conserve fish stock and incorporate the number of existing regulations within this new proposal. The Department has indicated that Ireland has taken a lead on calls for such regulation and it is currently consulting with the representatives of the fishing industry in Ireland on the measures proposed to gain the greater appreciation of the importance of the proposal.

The proposed regulation encompasses the definition of mesh sizes and other aspects of the structure of fishing gears, time periods and geographical areas within which certain types of fishing are prohibited or restricted. Article 35 of the proposal outlines fishing regulations with regard to the 12 mile zone around Great Britain and Ireland. Given the importance of the proposal to the fishing industry in Ireland, I propose that this document be forwarded to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources for additional scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 2.4, Commission document 736, regarding control of foot and mouth disease, is a proposed directive which seeks to bring forward the use of emergency vaccination as a measure to deal with an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. This directive would move emergency vaccination to the forefront of control measures rather than as a last resort. As members will note from their brief, Ireland's consistent position on emergency vaccination has been that while it may be a legitimate tool against foot and mouth disease, the decision to use it should, other than in extreme circumstances, subject to consultation with the Commission and other member states, rest with the affected member state. Although there are benefits in the protection this might offer against a member state taking inadequate precautions against the spread of disease, the proposal may have a direct impact on Irish farmers in the event that the Commission dictates when vaccination should be used. It could, for example, affect the quality and, therefore, the price of Irish meat. I propose, therefore, that this document be referred to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food for further scrutiny. Is that agreed?

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

This proposal involves a major change in the control of foot and mouth disease and it has enormous implications for Ireland. I favour the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food examining it, but I would like it to be referred back to the Committee on European Affairs so that, following the advice of the agriculture committee, we can further consider the matter. We would perhaps need to examine the technical and political implications of the proposal before we give it approval.

Deputy Carey

This proposal has far-reaching implications. The proposed implementation date is 1 July and secondary legislation may be required. It also has budgetary implications of €245.6 million annually. Is there a mechanism for seeking the advice of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland or could we recommend that the committee engage with the authority on the issue?

Chairman

We could send it to the agriculture and food committee with the recommendation that it might consult with the authority, among others. We have added such riders on previous occasions. We could also agree, if the committee wishes, to consider the report of the agriculture and food committee when it has completed its examination. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Scrutiny of the proposal on item 2.5, Commission document 767, regarding the Community trademark, was deferred at the last meeting to obtain further information. The proposal seeks to introduce a number of amendments which related to the Community trademark registration office, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, and national patent offices. In particular, it would result in ending the facility whereby it is possible to request a search of existing patents across most of the European Union via an office in Alicante.

Under the existing system, national trademark offices undertake a search on existing trademarks in that state on behalf of the Community's office in Alicante. Three member states - Germany, France and Italy - do not participate in the searches. An applicant pays the trademark office in Alicante a fee of €975 for a search in the 12 participating member states. Each of the agencies in these states receives €27 for the search from the office in Alicante and the Irish Patents Office received €1.1 million in 2001 for undertaking such searches.

The Commission argues that the searches are partial due to the non-participation of Germany, Italy and France, and that with the accession of ten new member states, there may be a need to pay up to ten extra trademark offices €27 from the existing fee. Alternatively, the fee may have to rise. At working group meetings, the Commission has indicated that 75% of firms contacted by it have indicated that the national searches are of little or no value. However, when pressed by national officials at working group, the Commission indicated that the firms contacted by it tended to be larger enterprises. A large number of states have also noted at working group that they would like to see searches continuing under the present regime. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has indicated that it will consult representative of SMEs in Ireland to evaluate the usefulness of the existing service. If the service is not of use, it is strange the income from searches is rising each year. It is an extraordinary dichotomy.

Given that several questions relating to this proposal remain unanswered, I recommend that this document be referred to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business for further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Carey

I am curious to know why in this case the voting method used is by unanimity whereas most of the others have been by QMV. The likelihood of the proposal being adopted is, therefore, remote.

Chairman

We will contact you in writing on that. It may come under commercial provisions of the treaty, some of which are not subject to joint decision and are not subject to QMV. They are reserved for unanimous decision at the Council of Ministers.

Document 2.6 refers to the mid-term review agenda for 2002. This is of major significance, as has been outlined in the Department's revised information note circulated today. The Minister for Agriculture and Food has signalled Ireland's opposition to the proposal which, if implemented, could lead to large reductions in the national beef herd and sheep flock. The proposals are also of importance to the consumer because of the price increases implied from these reductions. They also have an important environmental dimension. It should be noted that not all the agricultural organisations are opposing these proposals, as can be seen from the advice note before Members, which signals to me that there are divergent views on the matter which need to be understood and examined.

In summary, the proposals include: decoupling certain direct payments from production, that is, changing the nature of direct payments from a payment per unit of production per animal or per tonne to a payment per hectare of land; modulating, that is, reducing all direct payments progressively from 2006 to 2013; mandatory farm advisory systems as part of the cross-compliant requirements for farmers receiving more than €15,000 in direct payments; extending the range of measures that may receive support under rural development programmes; a final reduction of 5% in the intervention price for cereals; a 50% reduction in the intervention price for rice; direct support to growers of dried fodder; Agenda 2000 charges for the milk sector to be brought forward by one year; a further 10% cut in intervention prices, with increases in the dairy cow premium over two years, starting in 2007 and 2008; a total intervention price cut of 25% to be achieved by differential cuts for butter and skim milk powder of 35% and 17.5%, respectively; a butter intervention ceiling of 30,000 tonnes; the quota regime to be extended until 2014-15; and an additional 1% each year to be added to each member state's milk quota in 2007 and 2008, with the dairy regime extended until 2014-15.

This is a major proposal. The advice note indicates that according to an analysis by FAPRI Ireland, the effect of the proposal on decoupling will have the following impact on agriculture in Ireland: beef production - a change of 12% on current levels; cattle prices - up 8%; lamb production - down 12%; lamb prices - up 20%; value of cereals output - down 4%; farm incomes - up 11%; greenhouse emissions - down 13%; and GNP - down 0.8%. The implications are not confined to farmers, but are across the board. I, therefore, propose that the document be referred to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food and that it be forwarded to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government to consider the environmental aspect and to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business to consider consumer and related matters.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

I favour that approach. This will have enormous, and largely negative, consequences for Ireland, although there will be some advantages. The Commission estimates that there will be savings on its budget of over €2.5 billion per annum from 2010 onwards. As a major beneficiary of the CAP, Ireland will take its share of that cut. I would like the Joint Committee on European Affairs to monitor the proposal and consider it further when the other committees have dealt with it.

Chairman

That is a good idea. It is time this issue was considered from the point of view of the consumer as well as the environmental aspect. It cannot be confined to the agriculture sector. When we receive a report from the three committees we will notify the Joint Committee on European Affairs.

Deputy Carey

The interests of the consumer should be reflected, whether it be through the Consumers' Association of Ireland Limited or the Director of Consumer Affairs.

Chairman

We will ask the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business to specifically consider the consumer aspects of the proposal, the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government to specifically consider the environmental implications and the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food to consider the document generally. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 1.4, Commission document 769, refers to the minimum safety requirements for tunnels in a trans-European road network. The proposal to harmonise minimum safety standards for users of the trans-European transport network was drafted following the fires in the Mont Blanc tunnel in 1999 and the Gothard Tunnel in 2001. The technical provisions of the directive regarding, for example, ventilation, extraction devices, shelters and escape galleries are being examined by the Department of Transport, with a view to determining their impact on the Jack Lynch and Dublin Port tunnels. I understand the Department expects that the design of the tunnels encompass most provisions of the directive.

The provisions of the directive will permit local authorities, the NRA and an outside consultancy firm to remain the regulatory authorities for trans-European network tunnels over 500 metres long in Ireland. Following contact with the Department of Transport, further information, which indicated that the NRA has asked engineers responsible for the design and construction of the two tunnels to examine in detail the proposed directive as they apply to each tunnel, was processed. I understand their findings will be made available within six to eight weeks. However, I also understand that the NRA considers it unlikely that the two tunnels will require significant modification since they were built to British and international standards. Since a number of matters relating to the likely impact of this proposal remains unclear, it is recommended that it be forwarded to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport for further scrutiny.

Deputy Carey

I agree with the proposal. The following sentence in the advisory note is chilling: "The Department expects that the design of the tunnels encompass most provisions of the directive." I would expect all of the provisions to be complied with. I am particularly concerned with the Dublin Port tunnel, which is under construction. While the height of the tunnel is attracting much comment, most of it unwarranted, I am more concerned with getting clarification on other safety aspects, including the ventilation issue, which has always been a concern of residents along the line of the tunnel, and the safety galleries. I am assured the tunnel complies with the best safety practices for users and residents. However, I am uneasy with the Department's advice that most of the provisions of the directive are complied with. I would expect all of them to be complied with to the letter.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

I agree that this draft directive needs to be fully examined and I support the view that we should ensue that in so far as it has application in Ireland, we fully comply with the proposed safety requirements. I have an obvious interest in the Jack Lynch tunnel and am somewhat reassured by the report that it has been designed to best practice in European tunnel design. The Dublin Port tunnel is still under construction. Our job as legislators is to ensure that those who have concerns have the opportunity to express them. This directive will provide such an opportunity. I agree that it be considered by the Joint Committee on Transport and I suggest that the committee hold public hearings to give the opportunity to those with concerns to voice them. By involving members of the public a number of objectives would be achieved. First, it would present an opportunity to allay concerns that have not been vented. Second, it would provide an opportunity to show that the European Union performs a useful role in this area and insists on minimum standards. The draft directive needs to be fully examined and I would like it to be referred back to the Joint Committee on European Affairs.

Senator Minihan

I agree with the views expressed. It would be outrageous if, having completed construction of the Dublin Port tunnel, further work would be required to implement new standards. The advisory note indicates that if remedial measures are required a ten year timeframe will be allowed to implement them. This appears to be a long period of time and I hope that any new safety standards would be immediately implemented.

The implementation of the directive will require new or amending secondary legislation in the areas of vehicle standards, road signage and NRA functions. I understand why there might be a need for this in terms of road signage and NRA functions, especially in view of the engineering implications for the tunnels. However, how extensive will be the vehicle standards? Will they mean that cars of a certain standard will be barred from using tunnels in the absence of having a filtering system in place? This needs to be looked at and acted on very quickly.

Chairman

The Jack Lynch tunnel is the only completed tunnel that would be affected by this directive, while the Dublin Port tunnel is still under construction. It would not be a huge imposition on the Exchequer to ensure that all the safety implications of the directive are complied with. It should be possible to implement them in the Dublin Port tunnel from the outset and if work is required on the Jack Lynch tunnel it should be done. I propose to refer this to the Joint Committee on Transport with the specific request that it examine why all the safety proposals are not being provided for.

Deputy Carey

The advice of the Health and Safety Authority should be sought.

Chairman

I agree with that. If we seek to have the matter returned to the Joint Committee on European Affairs we will end up policing issues of this kind and will become inundated with work. We should refer the matter to the Joint Committee on Transport and give it a direction, after which it becomes the responsibility of that committee.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

I will accept the Chairman's view that the Joint Committee on European Affairs may become overburdened; nevertheless, we should keep an eye on this.

Chairman

I am fearful that at some future date where a dispute arises about the monitoring of a given directive and we have insisted on overseeing the work of other committees, we could be held accountable, whereas if we refer the issue to the relevant committee it becomes responsible. As it is, we take responsibility for approximately three quarters of relevant legislation. In view of this, we must get the other committees to take responsibility. If, for example, a further directive were to ban the importation of bananas, the relevant committee and not this one must be responsible for dealing with its implications.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

I accept your suggestions, Chairman, although I reserve the right to make further inquiries in due course.

Deputy Carey

It was suggested on an earlier occasion that perhaps every six months the committee should be brought up to date on progress made by the other committees.

Chairman

That will be necessary because of the requirement on us to produce an annual report to the Houses of the Oireachtas on the implementation of these requirements. We will work towards a mid-term review of this. To summarise, it is proposed that items 2.1 to 2.6, inclusive, and item 1.4 warrant further scrutiny and will be referred to the appropriate sectoral committees with the riders that have been agreed. Is that agreed? Agreed.

With regard to proposals that have been adopted prior to scrutiny, item 3.1, that is, Commission document 766 and 776, deals with compensation for Spanish fisheries affected by the oil spills from the Prestige. The briefing note indicates that this proposal was quickly agreed. The oil spills from the tanker have greatly impacted on the fishing industry in the north of Spain and are likely to do so for the foreseeable future. As an exceptional measure, the regulation permits moneys allocated to Spain, through the financial instruments of fisheries guidance to the amount of €80 million and €30 million from the fund for the conversion of fishing vessels previously used to fish along the Moroccan coast, to be used to compensate the fishing industry in northern Spain.

I understand that France recently asked for a similar mechanism to be put in place for the fishing industry affected by the oil spill to the south west of France. The devastating impact of the oil spills meant that this regulation was agreed within a very short timeframe. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources has provided an explanatory note regarding this which was circulated to members. Is it agreed to note this? Agreed.

Item 4.1, Commission document 770, deals with trade in equipment and products which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. This proposed Council regulation seeks to ban the trade outside the Community of certain items that could be used for torture, degrading treatment and in the execution of the death penalty. I understand that the current Presidency is continuing its efforts to assign this important proposal to a working group in Brussels but that its cross-cutting nature means that agreement on this question has to date proved elusive. While it is, on the surface, primarily a trade issue, the proposal also encompasses human rights, justice, health and enterprise issues. Some of the restraining equipment may be used, for example, in health institutions and the components in the chemicals listed may also be put to legitimate uses.

Given that the working group to which the matter is assigned generally determines the Department in Ireland that will service this group and, therefore, take a lead role in this proposal, the question of which Department takes a lead remains to be resolved. The proposal may not advance for some time and given the importance of the issues involved, I propose that this item should not be referred for further scrutiny at present but that the committee simply note it and request that the co-ordinating Department, the Department of Foreign Affairs, keep us advised of developments. The matter may then be referred to the appropriate committee for further scrutiny if necessary. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 4.2, Commission document 654, deals with the Commission Green Paper on the conversion of the Rome Convention of 1980 into a Community instrument and proposes its modernisation. The Commission has taken the view that the 1980 Rome Convention on Contractual Obligations should be reviewed in the light of the emergence of e-commerce and the expansion of the Community in the near future. While it has no fixed views as of yet, it is asking 20 questions, each of which is accompanied by a detailed commentary or proposal on the question posed.

It is intended to transpose the convention into European law if there is a consensus to do so. The Green Paper, which is the first one to come to the attention of this sub-committee, represents the start of a consultative process with member states which may or may not lead to agreement. The Department has initiated a wide consultancy process to gather opinion on the matter, as it is obliged to do under the scrutiny Act. The Commission has set September as the deadline for replies from member states. It is proposed that this document be referred to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights and the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business for their consideration. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The scrutiny of today's proposal is concluded. The minutes of the previous meeting have been circulated. Are they agreed? Agreed. The draft seventh report of the sub-committee was circulated to members today. It will be amended on the basis of decisions taken at this meeting, as appropriate. It is proposed that the report, amended if appropriate, be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Is that agreed? Agreed. I note that such reports do not appear on the Order Paper. Is there a reason for that?

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

They probably appear on the schedule as having been laid in the Oireachtas Library.

Chairman

We will check that. The scrutiny process started in October, which means that we are due a review, perhaps in our April meeting, of how the sectoral committees have been dealing with the matters that have been referred to them. Perhaps this review should be added to the calendar of events. The next meeting of this sub-committee will be held on 25 February, which is a little earlier than usual because of staff considerations.

The sub-committee adjourned at 10.35 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Tuesday, 25 February 2003.