JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny) debate -
Tuesday, 25 Feb 2003

Vol. 1 No. 13

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Chairman

We will deal with Nos. 1.1 to 1.4, inclusive. No. 1.1 is Commission document COM 765 regarding emissions standards for certain types of non-road mobile machinery. The proposal seeks to tighten the emissions standards for compression ignition, that is, diesel engines in certain types of non-road machinery, such as that used in the construction industry. The proposal would result in significant reductions in sulphur emissions from these types of machines.

It is anticipated that agricultural and forestry tractors will be included in a subsequent proposal. I understand, however, that progress on drafting the proposal relating to agricultural and forestry machinery is being delayed due to the recent departure of the official in Brussels dealing with this area of work.

The measure under discussion will be implemented for various categories of machinery over a number of years, starting in 2005, and will bring European Union standards into line with those in the United States. The Japanese authorities have yet to decide if they will implement similar measures.

The proposal encompasses the manufacture and marketing of machinery covered by the proposal. The Department of the Environment and Local Government is consulting widely on the proposal with the other Departments listed, plus the Revenue Commissioners. It is indicated that it will also consult interested parties, such as the construction industry.

The proposal is unlikely to have significant extra cost implications since these have largely been anticipated through the flagging of this measure and by the introduction of a similar one in the United States. As the proposal is unlikely to have significant cost implications while resulting in benefits to the environment, it is recommended that it does not warrant additional scrutiny. Is that agreed?

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

Could we add a rider to it suggesting its immediate implementation in or about Carrickmines?

Chairman

The matter is agreed.

The next item is No. 1.2, Commission document 771 regarding additives for use in animal nutrition. This measure seeks to bring clarity and coherence to the authorisation procedures to be applied for food additives for animal nutrition at EU level. I am reassured that all such additives must be passed in the first instance by the European Food and Safety Authority. Ireland is represented on the board of the authority and this is a positive measure to be welcomed.

I note that four antibiotics will continue to be used until 2006 because, as of now, there are no alternatives. I understand that these relate to the control of parasites in the intestines of ruminants. Members will note that the jury is still out as to whether coccidiostats are a food additive or a veterinary drug. The European Parliament has asked for a report on this matter by January 2008. Subject to the approval of the committee, it is recommended that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 1.3 is Commission document (2003) 1 on minimum levels of training of seafarers. The aim of the proposed directive is to adopt a centralised approach within the Community to the recognition of certificates of competency of seafarers issued by third countries. The current procedures set in place under the 2001 directive have proved unsatisfactory. At present, each country is obliged to check the certificate presented by a seafarer issued by a third country to see if the required level of training has been completed. If the individual is cleared, each other member state is informed and the individual is cleared on all Community ships.

As a result of difficulties in interpretation and inconsistencies among member states in checking these qualifications, the Commission is compiling a list of qualified third country training programmes. This list will then be made available to each member state. The list of training programmes will be reviewed on an ongoing basis every five years. If an individual presents a certificate from a recognised programme, he or she is cleared.

This would appear to be a sensible approach which reduces bureaucracy and offers consistent standards of qualification. I propose that this measure does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed?

Deputy Mulcahy

This sounds like the centralisation of the recognition of maritime qualifications. Is it necessary? Will it take powers away from Irish authorities? Does it breach the principle of subsidiarity? Should we refer it to the Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources? It appears that, unless one obtains the rubber stamp from the centralised European body, one will not have an appropriate certificate. Does it amount to that?

Chairman

It does. The brief states that the current proposal takes from member states the certification responsibility and places it on the Commission. It is proposed that the European Maritime Safety Agency will in future evaluate third country systems and procedures for training to ensure that they are in compliance with the 1995 STCW convention. Only seafarers who hold certificates from a recognised training body that complies with international requirements can be employed on member state ships. There will be regular monitoring and reviews of third country training procedures.

It concludes that the revised procedures will ensure speedy approval of third country systems to a uniform standard and prevent duplication of evaluation work for Ireland. That is the conclusion of the briefing note. Subsidiarity really means taking the decision at the best level. With 25 member states and different member states approving third countries, it could have implications for standards, but the Deputy raised an interesting point.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

The point raised by Deputy Mulcahy is an interesting one and would have particular application if the proposal applied to Irish citizens. However, I understand that this proposal deals with seafarers from third countries on European Union ships. It makes sense to have a harmonised and centralised approach. It would be a nuisance to have a fragmented approach across 25 member states when dealing with third countries. The principle of subsidiarity hardly applies when dealing with people from outside.

Deputy Mulcahy

Maybe I misunderstood it. If it is only third countries, I do not have a problem with it. I presume that, if one is to go to sea on an Irish ship, one must have approval in the form of a certificate from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources.

Chairman

If Ireland approves a third country applicant, he or she has the right to work on Community ships. That is not a problem with 15 members but with 25——

Deputy Mulcahy

It is not a problem if it applies only to third countries, but I have a problem if a person approved by the Irish regulatory body must also be approved by the European regulatory body.

Chairman

It applies only to third countries.

Deputy Mulcahy

Are we sure about that?

Chairman

The document states the Commission will in future evaluate third country systems and procedures for training. Yes, that is correct. Is that all right?

Deputy Mulcahy

It is, but subject to that.

Chairman

We will check it out.

Deputy Mulcahy

We should double check that it does not involve an extra layer of certification or qualification for Irish people who qualify under our laws.

Chairman

It appears from the documentation that the application of the provisions of the directive relate to procedures for the recognition of certificates of competency of seafarers issued by third countries. We will confirm that but, subject to that, there is no need for further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 1.4, Commission document 14 of 2003, refers to the organic production of agricultural products. This regulation aims to tighten the procedure for the exchange of information on organic food production procedures between certifying organisations. The measure was deemed necessary because of the mislabelling and misrepresentation that had occurred in a number of instances. I understand that no Irish product was involved and this measure has the support of the Irish certifying organisations.

Any measure that reinforces procedures providing protection to the consumer and producer is to be welcomed. I especially welcome the protection given to the organic epithet.

In the case of organic products originating outside the EU, only those that have been certified by organisations that are supervised by national bodies will be awarded EU labelling. It is recommended that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed?

Senator Bradford

On the EU labelling question, we have had a difficulty in this country with the labelling of foodstuffs that have often wrongly indicated to people that products from outside the country were produced in Ireland. I know that the EU label and logo are designed to indicate that foodstuffs meet certain EU standards. We should be careful not to give the impression that foodstuffs from outside the EU were produced there. The EU logo is used on products imported from third countries to indicate that they meet certain standards. This is a problem we faced in this country where there has been confusion as to what constitutes Irish food. We should ensure that the labelling indicates that products meet EU standards but are not EU products.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

The purpose of the regulation will be to ensure a product is genuinely organic. It makes sense given that the proposal has the support of the three organisations in this country that certify organic food and they are alert to the dangers of tampering with organic labelling. If they support it, I would not be inclined to second guess them.

Senator Bradford

It does not surprise me that they would support the concept. I am not talking about standards. There is an EU standard indicated by a label on products but this leads the majority of citizens to believe that they are products of the Union. How would this new labelling be done? Would it state that the product was to EU standard or would there be a danger that it would give an improper indication that it was an EU product, which it would not be in some cases?

Chairman

The notes set out that the proposed regulation provides for the increased exchange of information between such organisations and competent and national authorities. It also provides for the protection of the organic epithet to remove the possibility of misinterpretation in the terms used to identify organic production, inspection of imports from third countries and the use of the EU logo on products imported from third countries that have equivalence with EU production and inspection systems. It is a tightening up and improvement on existing procedures to afford greater protection to the consumer by having a greater exchange of information. It also gives credibility to the producer. Overall it would appear to be positive.

Senator Bradford

I do not disagree that it is positive. I have a minor difficulty about allowing the consumer to believe that a product, the quality of which is not in question, is a product of the EU when it clearly is not in some cases. The use of the EU logo on non-EU products is something about which we ought to be careful. It is similar to milk or meat on sale in supermarkets that state they are packaged in Ireland but they are not Irish products.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

Senator Bradford has raised a good point. That said, from my brief reading of the document, my understanding is that the proposal deals with the certification of imported goods as organic. If we proceed as recommended, it would be useful if the point raised by Senator Bradford was drawn to the attention of the people dealing with this draft on behalf of Ireland to ensure that such a misunderstanding does not arise.

Senator Bradford

Products are certified as meeting the proper EU standard but I do not want something put in place that gives a false impression that these products are products of the EU when they may not be. Products from a third country can be certified by the EU as meeting EU standards, but we should not——

Chairman

We can draw the concerns of the committee to the attention of the Department pointing out that we would like it to be clear in the final regulation that, whereas something may carry the EU logo, it is not an EU product. Would that meet the committee's concerns? Is that agreed? Agreed. Otherwise, it does not go for further examination. In summary, Nos. 1.1 to 1.4, inclusive, do not warrant further scrutiny, subject to the riders we have added.

The next items on the agenda are the documents it is proposed to refer to sectoral committees for further scrutiny. There are two items, Nos. 2.1 and 2.2. No. 2.1 is Commission document 699 regarding tobacco advertising. This proposal seeks to tighten the rules governing the advertising of tobacco products. The tobacco industry has successfully challenged both the EU and Irish legislation on this matter. Therefore, a significant number of issues surrounding the EU proposal remain to be clarified. It is therefore recommended that this proposal be referred to the Joint Committee on Health and Children for further scrutiny. Is that agreed?

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

Is there a need for us to examine the recent court decision? It appears there was a mix-up in the Irish legislation which was declared by the High Court as contrary to the regulations. I suppose that is a matter for the Joint Committee on Health and Children to examine.

Chairman

It is a significant proposal and perhaps for that reason that committee should examine it in detail. It might be duplication for us to do so.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

Clearly it needs to be examined in some detail because the previous mix-up, according to a report in The Irish Times, will cost the taxpayer €1 million in costs. The position had not been properly examined before the regulations were put in place. I am in favour of it being scrutinised in detail.

Chairman

As a former member of the Joint Committee on Health and Children, I imagine this proposal is something in which it would be interested. We will refer it to the committee for detailed consideration. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 2.2, Commission document 73 relates to measures for the recovery of cod and hake stocks. As members will have seen from the brief, this measure will shortly - in six to eight weeks - be the subject of further amendment. This is an important measure that directly affects a number of fishing communities along our coast.

As proposals are not yet finalised, there is a window of opportunity for Deputies and Senators to become more familiar with the issues and to achieve a greater understanding of the stakeholders' perspective before matters are finalised. It will allow Oireachtas Members to contribute further to the debate. Therefore, I propose that this committee refer the document to the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

It might be brought to that committee's attention that it will have to deal with the matter expeditiously.

Chairman

We will ensure it goes to it today and we will draw attention to the time limit. In summary, it is proposed that Nos. 2.1 and 2.2 warrant further scrutiny and will be referred to the appropriate sectoral committees. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next item on the agenda is a group of proposals that were adopted prior to scrutiny. We need to get some guideline on these documents. A number will arise and we need written advice and some standard as to what we will accept as documents that have been agreed prior to scrutiny. It is easy to say they were urgent or whatever but it leaves a major gap in the legislation if that can be claimed.

We will take Nos. 3.1 to 3.5, inclusive, together. No. 3.1, Commission document (2003) 2, No. 3.2, Commission document (2003) 7, No. 3.3, Commission document (2003) 8, No. 3.4, Commission document (2003) 9, and No. 3.5, Commission document (2003) 10, are all anti-dumping measures relating to certain chemicals originating in the USA and China, two pocket lighters originating in China and Taiwan and two electrical sheets originating in Russia. These anti-dumping proposals have been adopted.

The Department has, however, since the circulation of the documentation to the committee, provided additional information on the proposals, both written and oral. This information confirms that these measures are similar to anti-dumping measures the committee has scrutinised recently. These measures differ to the extent that they deal with damaged goods. It is important that every effort is made to ensure that these damaged goods do not find their way onto the marketplace.

I therefore recommend that the committee notes these measures and offers the observation that anti-dumping measures such as these may require the widest consultation before being adopted to ensure consumers are protected to the best extent possible and that the shipment be monitored so that the damaged goods do not find their way onto the marketplace. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next item on the agenda concerns documents that are to be noted at or referred to a future meeting. These are documents Nos. 4.1 to 4.4, inclusive.

Paragraph 4.1 of CL 14712/02 refers to:

responsibility for examining an application for asylum lodged in a member state by a third country national.

This proposal for a regulation establishing criteria for determining the States, which would qualify as safe third countries, was originally drafted at the request of Austria. It is now understood that Austria does not wish the proposal pursued, following the adoption by the JHA Council of a statement on safe third countries on 28 November 2002 that included provision for the drafting of a directive relating to the designation of safe third countries.

This decision may also be seen in the context of the significant reduction in support for the far right Freedom Party in the recent Austrian general election. It is therefore proposed that the committee note the proposal, since the circulation of the draft regulation is merely a procedural formality, given the withdrawal of support of its initiator. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Mulcahy

It is noted.

Chairman

It is proposed to take Nos. 4.2 and 4.4 together. No. 4.2 is Commission document (2002) 782, the proposal for a Council regulation terminating the review of particular anti-dumping measures. No. 4.3 is Commission document (2003) 22, relating to anti-dumping and countervailing duties on farmed Atlantic salmon originating in Norway. These measures have been adopted since they were circulated to members in their briefing. I recommend that we note these measures also. Is that agreed? Agreed.

On No. 4.4, which is Commission document (2003) 24 regarding the safeguard mechanism for imports originating in China and on common rules for imports from certain third countries, the Department had been requested to provide some additional clarification on the nature of this measure. I therefore propose that the committee defer consideration of this proposal until the next meeting of the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed. The scrutiny of today's proposal is concluded and we can now move to the next item on the agenda.

I propose to defer consideration of the minutes of 13 February 2003 until the next meeting because staff have been under some pressure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The draft eighth report of the sub-committee has been circulated today. The report, as circulated, will be amended on the basis of any decisions taken at this meeting, if appropriate. I propose that the revised information notes submitted and circulated today be included in place of those circulated to members in their brief. It is proposed that this report, amended as appropriate, be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

I recollect that at the last meeting, Chairman, you were doing a trawl among the lead Departments to see how they were doing in relation to the documents being referred to them. Have you got reports back on those?

Chairman

We have reports back from almost everybody and we should be in a position to report within a week. We will consider that at our next meeting in two weeks.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

What concerns me is whether there is an indication that they are dealing with the documents being referred to them.

Chairman

I understand that is the case, but we will circulate the written reports and we will consider them.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

To a degree we have a certain co-ordinating responsibility.

Chairman

It is not just to a degree. We have a supervisory role. By law, at the end of the year, we must report to both Houses of the Oireachtas on the workings of the whole system.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

We will set you loose on any laggards, Chairman.

Chairman

Is there any other business? No. The next meeting of the sub-committee is scheduled for Thursday, 13 March at 9.30 a.m.

Deputy Mulcahy

The Dáil is not sitting on that day. It has been suggested that people might be absent due to the weekend.

Chairman

When is the House rising?

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

The House is rising on 12 March. We could have the meeting in Cheltenham.

Chairman

Are you sure we are not sitting that day?

Deputy Mulcahy

It was due to sit on the Thursday but it is not now.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

What are the sittings that week?

Deputy Carey

We are rising on 12 March.

Chairman

Maybe we could meet on the morning of 12 March at 9.30 a.m. That does not clash with anything, does it? The committee might leave the Chair a certain leeway in case it does clash with something. That concludes the business.

The sub-committee adjourned at 10.05 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 12 March 2003.