JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny) debate -
Thursday, 27 Mar 2003

Vol. 1 No. 18

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Chairman

We will deal with Nos. 1.1 to 1.4. No. 1.1 is Commission document COM(2003)67, a draft directive on pedestrian-friendly motor vehicle front designs. This technical directive proposes to change the design of bumpers, bonnets and windscreens of cars and car-derived vans. Scientific evidence has shown that altering the design of certain car and van features can reduce injury and death of pedestrians. Each year, as many as 8,000 European pedestrians and cyclists are killed and 30,000 are injured in road accidents. The effectiveness of these measures can be assessed only for collisions occurring at under 40 kph. The committee may care to note that car manufacturers have undertaken to implement anti-lock breaking systems on all new cars by 1 July 2004. They will gradually introduce information and communications technology to improve active safety and they agreed to equip all new motor vehicles with day-time running lights from October 2003. I understand that as a result of the consultation of the Council and the European Parliament and differing national laws on the use of these lights, the Commission has decided not to recommend their introduction by industry until a harmonised approach is reached at Community level. Rigid bull bars will not be installed as original equipment on new motor vehicles nor will they be sold by manufacturers as spare parts.

The National Safety Council has welcomed these proposals and as the measures proposed primarily apply to car manufacturers, of which there are none in Ireland, it is recommended that the proposal does not warrant additional scrutiny by the committee.

Deputy Mulcahy

In agreeing that the proposals need no further scrutiny, we should welcome them. We sometimes crib about undue EU interference, but this example of safety provision is something we should note. It might be useful for the committee to generate publicity around the proposals.

Deputy Carey

This is an important and welcome measure. It has been gestating for quite some time. On "AA Road Watch" this morning it was requested that people turn on their lights because of fog on the M50. It is gratifying that day-time running lights will be compulsory from 1 October this year.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

I note that the introduction of day-time running lights is to be delayed because there is a lack of harmonisation among member states. How do we stand in that regard? I realise cars are not manufactured here, but I presume we would be prepared to enforce the directive. Can we use our influence to urge that harmonisation be completed as soon as possible? I agree with colleagues that the measure is helpful. I used to drive a Volvo, which was one of the few cars that had day-time running lights. I have not seen the feature on any other marque.

Deputy Carey

People in Dublin have been asked to use their lights during the day and there has been a 15% to 20% rate of compliance with the request. It often strikes me that the public service vehicles of the Garda and others should use their lights during the day. They should lead by example.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

The Deputy is right.

Senator Daly

Will agricultural and commercial vehicles be covered by the request? Some of their features are very dangerous for the public.

Chairman

The proposed regulation only covers cars and car-derived vans.

Senator Daly

Perhaps the Chairman could ascertain from the Department if there is any intention to expand the directive to cover commercial agricultural vehicles, which are involved in a huge number of accidents. Children are killed every year.

Chairman

We will request the information and communicate the reply to the Senator.

The next item on the agenda is No. 1.2, Commission document COM(2003)106 which terminates anti-dumping procedures concerning imports of unwrought alloyed magnesium originating in the People's Republic of China. The proposal follows a review of the procedures by the Commission, which was informed that the sole producer of this product had ceased production. It is proposed that the measure does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 1.3 is Commission document COM(2003)48, which concerns industrial machinery and proposes to create an overarching directive governing the machinery at all stages of its construction and market surveillance. The proposal is highly intricate and technical. The Department has indicated that industry has been made aware of the proposal at EU and national levels and the Irish Health and Safety Authority has been involved throughout the process. The Department has sent an additional note which outlines the background to the proposal and explains that the measure is designed to help industry to understand the existing regulatory environment. IBEC has been consulted. It is proposed that this measure does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The last item under this heading is No. 1.4, Commission document COM(2003)89 addressing Australian wines which may have undergone flavouring with oak chips. We may have to send a delegation to Australia or get a case for every member of the committee.

Deputy Mulcahy

I will agree that if the Chairman wishes it.

Chairman

The EU agreement on the trade of food and wine with Australia, concluded in 1994, is being renegotiated. As a goodwill measure, the European Union has proposed a derogation to permit the importation of wines from Australia which have undergone flavouring with oak chips and sawdust to give an oak flavour. This practice is not permitted in European wine as it is not part of traditional wine making practice. It does not have adverse health implications and its safety has not been questioned by the Commission.

The Department of Agriculture and Food has explained that, in essence, the effect of wine being in contact with oak chips may be similar to wine being in contact with the walls of an oak barrel. I understand something akin to a teabag is used which ensures sawdust is not mixed with the wine. The Department has also indicated that this proposal is likely to be considered at the Council of Agriculture and Fisheries Ministers scheduled for 8 April. We should obtain a case of such wine before approving the proposal. Do members agree?

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

I am in support of the Chairman's important proposal. As a fan of Australian wine, I declare my interest in the matter. I was slightly concerned about the sawdust until the Chairman explained the process. Perhaps it is time European manufacturers took a leaf out of the Australians' book as their wines have been making enormous advances in Europe in recent years. I do not know if this is due to the role of sawdust.

Deputy Mulcahy

I take the opposite view to my colleague as I much prefer European wine. It is odd that Europe appears not to have permitted the importation of wine manufactured using this method given it has no adverse health implications. I do not understand this position.

Chairman

I understand the reason is that the wine market is regulated on the basis that where a practice is not specifically permitted, the wine in question cannot be marketed. This means goods are not produced using new processes and then retrospectively tested. To sum up, it is proposed that items 1.1 to 1.4, inclusive, do not warrant further scrutiny. Is the proposal agreed? Agreed.

The next item relates to documents, items 2.1 to 2.5, inclusive, which it is proposed to refer to sectoral committees for further scrutiny. The first of these proposals is item 2.1, Commission document COM(2003)27, which is a Green Paper on entrepreneurship in Europe launched to stimulate debate on the issues which could encourage entrepreneurship in Europe. The document is interesting in that it highlights a range of initiatives adopted by many member states to facilitate small businesses and makes specific reference on page 13 to Enterprise Ireland's strategy for developing high growth start-ups with a focused package of support geared towards increasing the number and intensity of campus based ventures.

The Green Paper asks a series of ten general questions, ranging from the key objectives for an agenda on entrepreneurship to the availability of finance to the need for specific measures in the candidate countries. The document does not put forward specific proposals, but simply identifies a series of initiatives in member states and highlights the need for a co-ordinated entrepreneurship policy among all policy makers.

It is noted that the Department is consulting widely on the matter and that any initiative that encourages entrepreneurship and motivation is welcome. It is proposed the Green Paper be circulated to the Joint Committees on Enterprise and Small Business, Finance and the Public Service and Education and Science for their consideration and report. Is that agreed?

Senator Daly

Before agreeing, the development of small businesses is impeded by the problem of finance and, more importantly, of obtaining insurance cover. The latter difficulty is seriously hampering the prospects of new small businesses and has caused many existing ones, including several in my area, to close. One timber business, which requires the operation of machinery, recently closed because insurance cover was not available. When considering the White Paper will the Department examine steps being taken across Europe in the areas of public liability insurance and accident indemnity insurance for small companies?

Chairman

The matter is outside the scope of the Green Paper. However, it may be raised at the Committee on Enterprise and Small Business.

Senator Daly

It is important there is co-ordination between the committee currently addressing this issue and action being taken at European level.

Chairman

We will take the matter up with other committees to ensure they study the report. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 2.2 is divided into parts 33.1 and 33.2 and concerns Commission document COM(2003)33, which is a proposal on the hygiene of foodstuffs, including those of animal origin. The document contains two proposals, one relating to the hygiene of foodstuffs and the other laying down the specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin. The Department of Agriculture and Food submitted additional information regarding these proposals which has been circulated to members today.

As this is in effect a consolidation measure reducing 17 directives currently in force to five regulations, all the proposals are to some degree part of current regulations. The proposals have achieved political agreement. It should be noted that the Commission, in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity, agreed the proposals for specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin will not apply to the supply of small quantities of primary products to the final consumer and the local retail trade. Furthermore, the hazard analysis critical control point process, HACCP, does not apply to farmers.

The proposal will also introduce flexibility for traditional food production, remote areas and the introduction of HACCP. These are complex regulations covering such areas as food businesses, the transport of food, food waste, processing, training, imports from third countries, the definition of meat, milk, eggs and fisheries products, conditions for slaughterhouses, conditions for cutting plants, casualty and emergency slaughter, slaughter at the farm, wild game meat and hygiene on milk production holdings. However, given the importance of food hygiene and the scope of the measure, it is proposed to refer it to the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food for further scrutiny from a food hygiene perspective and the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business for scrutiny from the small business and consumer perspectives. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 2.3 is Commission document COM(2003)18 regarding control of high activity sealed radioactive sources. This directive proposes to strengthen the 1996 basic standards directive, which lays down the basic safety standards for the protection of health of workers and the general public against dangers arising from ionising radiation. The need for this directive arises from a number of events which highlighted problems regarding the storage and inadvertent disposal of redundant radioactive sources. These have led to serious radiation injuries and in some cases, none of which occurred in the European Union, to death.

Dispersal of the contents of sealed radioactive sources or their inadvertent melting down in discarded scrap metal has also resulted in a number of cases to serious contamination of property and the need to invoke extensive clean-up procedures. For example, the clean-up costs of an incident at Irish Steel in 1990 in which a sealed source was inadvertently melted down, was, according to Irish Steel, understand to have been about £500,000. The clean-up cost of an incident in Spain in 1997 when a much larger source was melted down was in excess of €25 million. With the closure of Irish Steel, melting down of scrap steel no longer takes place here and hence the risk of such an incident no longer exists.

It is believed the current regulatory infrastructure relating to the control of radioactive materials will meet most, if not all, the requirements of the directive. However, the requirements of the directive in relation to the safe management of disused and redundant sources will, in practice, place an obligation on the State to provide an interim storage facility for such sources. It should be noted, in particular, that Ireland, along with Luxembourg and Greece, is one of three European Union member states that does not have such a facility.

In addition, the directive also places an obligation on states to ensure that equipment is installed at large scrapyards, recycling installations and nodal distribution points to monitor the movement of such sources. While some scrapyards have hand-held monitors, there are no systems or equipment in place for routinely screening all material for the presence of a radiation source. It is proposed, in the circumstances, that this document be referred to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government for further scrutiny. Is that agreed?

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

I agree with the proposal. We in this country have a record of talking big about waste disposal, while expecting other countries to look after our waste. It enables us to talk out of both sides of the mouth when addressing the one problem. This practice seems to be applicable in this instance. Apparently, we will agree to a directive that insists on all states providing storage facilities for this material, while having no notion of providing them. How is that circle to be squared, or will it be left to the joint committee to provide an answer?

Chairman

I understand that, along with Luxembourg and Greece, we will have to proceed on the basis outlined. We will have to provide a facility when the directive is agreed.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

I have full confidence that the usual objections will be overcome to enable such an objective to be achieved.

Chairman

We will see if the joint committee shares the Deputy's confidence. Proposal agreed to.

Item 2.4, Commission document COM(2003)77 deals with the statute and financing of European political parties. This proposal seeks to put in place a system of funding for European political parties and has been the subject of some discussion at working group level. I understand that a number of member states have reservations about aspects of the proposal. These relate to the level of contributions that would need to be disclosed and an apparent mismatch between the number of parties required to come together to fight European Parliament elections - that is, three parties - as a European party and the number required before they would receive financial support through this measure, which is linked with parties in one third of the member states.

This proposal raises a number of fundamental issues relating to the operation and regulation of European political parties and a number of questions remain to be answered. However, rather than deferring consideration of it to a later meeting of the sub-committee, I propose we refer it to the joint committee for consideration.

Deputy Mulcahy

This is a most serious proposal and it could have a fundamental impact on the nature of politics across Europe. It could lead to the creation of a number of super-parties and inhibit the growth of smaller parties. This could possibly have fundamental consequences. The proposal should also be referred to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Constitution, as the implication for the funding of parties in Ireland was tested in the McKenna judgment. Consideration should also be given to submitting the proposal to the registered political parties in the country. Not all of those registered in Ireland will have members on the Oireachtas committee.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

I have sympathy with my colleague regarding the difficulties faced by his party on the European stage. He refers to the dangers associated with the possible emergence of major political parties across Europe. I am not sure if the proposal reinforces his concerns. There are two major parties in the European Parliament, namely, the European People's Party, of which I am proud to be a member, and the Social Democratic Party. I appreciate that the Fianna Fáil Party is like an orphan at the parliament. If funding is to be provided, I would like to ensure that my colleague's party would not be excluded from receipt of it. We will do anything in our power to allay the Deputy's concerns.

We should give this proposal careful consideration. It would be a good idea to notify the different parties. I do not object to submitting it to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Constitution, but I do not consider that it has a remit in this regard. The McKenna judgment was concerned with funding for a campaign to change the Constitution; it was not concerned with political parties.

Chairman

The proposal does not refer to European parties but to transnational arrangements among parties, where at least three parties must come together to obtain access to funds. We should refer the matter to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Constitution. It is a European Union issue and we might consider such a move when we have concluded our deliberations on it. We should also submit it to the joint committee and write to the secretaries general of registered political parties and ask them for observations.

Senator Daly

This issue was debated for approximately two and a half years at the Council of Europe, which has 43 member states. There were wide-ranging discussions and consultations with professionals. The European Parliament has now produced this document, while the Council of Europe is dealing with a similar proposal. There has also been much debate in this country on the question of party finances. The Chairman's party leader seems to be uncertain about his position in respect of this area. There appears to be much duplication of work, but, ultimately, it is probable that nothing will be done unless member states or individual parties decide to consider it. I am not sure if we should spend too much time on it, but we should ascertain what was the conclusion of the debate at the Council of Europe.

Deputy Mulcahy

Is the Chairman proposing that we refer the proposal to the joint committee as opposed to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government? It requires a major debate.

Chairman

I agree. In the meantime, we will write to the secretaries general of the political parties and seek their views.

Deputy Mulcahy

Is it the case that certain criteria must be fulfilled by a political party if it is to be registered?

Chairman

I do not know. The registrar of political parties is the Clerk of the Dáil. He has a list of registered political parties.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

Any Member of the House can register as a political party. Deputy Mulcahy is thinking of the rules regarding group rights in the House, etc.

Chairman

We will submit the proposal to the joint committee for its observations. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 2.5, Commission document COM(2003)75, is a Green Paper on procedural safeguards for suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings in the European Union. This is part of the consultation process before the possible formulation of proposals concerning procedural safeguards for suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union. The paper outlines areas in which it suggests it may be appropriate for the Union to take legislative action. These include access to legal representation, access to interpretation or translation facilities and consular assistance to foreign detainees. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has indicated that questions remain to be answered on whether the European Union has legal competency in this area and also points out that if some of the suggestions were implemented, there could be important resource implications for Ireland. The paper has been circulated to the Office of the Attorney General, the DPP, the Garda authorities, the Courts Service, the Department of Health and Children and the Department of Foreign Affairs for their views, to be submitted by 7 April.

The Green Paper raises a number of important questions that should be brought to the attention of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for consideration and report. It is also proposed that the paper be circulated to the joint committee and the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children for information. Is that agreed?

Deputy Mulcahy

Yes. We have previously encountered this aspect in the justice area. I am glad that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is asking if it these documents are intra vires the constitutional arrangements of the European Union. On a number of previous occasions I have asked for a legal opinion from the legal adviser to the Oireachtas or the committee. Perhaps the Chairman will indicate what steps have been taken by the committee to get legal advice on this aspect. It is not acceptable that the advice should come from the Attorney General.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

My colleague has a point. It is not the Attorney General's, but the Minister's view that is relevant here. With all due respect to the Minister, I believe he masks his ideological anti-European approach in the guise of constitutional objections so that anything proposed by the European Union is to be questioned at the outset. In light of this, I strongly support the view that the committee seek independent legal advice.

Chairman

Deputy Mulcahy made a request regarding subsidiarity and we are awaiting a reply. The Deputy has now requested that the committee should have access to a legal adviser. This was originally proposed for the committee. The Attorney General advises the Government, but, if we are to scrutinise EU regulations and objectives, Deputy Mulcahy's point is well made. The committee should have independent legal advice available to it.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

What is the role of the legal adviser to the Oireachtas?

Chairman

She is the parliamentary adviser on procedures, etc., in the House. However, we need to be able to seek legal advice on documents and proposals, as was originally proposed.

Deputy Mulcahy

Was a budget allocated for that purpose?

Chairman

The only budget is the consultancy budget for the joint committee and the proposal could be considered in that context. I do not know what kind of legal advice we might get for the budget at the disposal of the joint committee.

Deputy Mulcahy

Can we raise this issue at the joint committee?

Chairman

We will pursue the matter and report back, including the status of the proposal to get a legal adviser for the committee.

Deputy Mulcahy

It is proposed to submit the EU proposal under consideration to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. I suggest that this sub-committee raise with that joint committee the question of whether this proposal is intra vires the EU's constitutional arrangements.

Chairman

We can raise the question.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

It is raised in the documents.

Deputy Mulcahy

That is correct, but we should signal our concern to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights.

Chairman

That is agreed.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

We appear to be approaching this aspect from two different directions. In case we give the wrong emphasis, I hope the view will be expressed that this proposal is acceptable under the Constitution. We should not be seeking ways to block it on that basis.

Chairman

It is proposed that Nos. 2.1 to 2.5 warrant further action and will be referred to the appropriate sectoral committees for examination. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We have completed an examination of the position of the different committees with regard to their consideration of the matters we have referred to them. We are obliged to report to the Oireachtas annually on this and we will shortly present an interim report on the status of the reports we referred to the committees.

Item 3.1, Commission document COM(2003)53, concerns the Kimberly process certification scheme. The Kimberly process was commenced to discuss the trade in so-called conflict diamonds - diamonds sold to fund conflict in Africa - at a meeting of interested parties in Kimberly, South Africa, in May 2002. It is estimated that approximately 4% of the diamonds traded were used to help fund conflict situations. The Kimberly meeting was followed by a series of meetings in Africa and beyond. The United Nations General Assembly also mandated these meetings. The process involved 30 governments, the European Union, the diamond industry and civil society and has established minimum standards for certification schemes relating to the flow of rough diamonds.

The certification of diamonds will assist in tracking a diamond origin back to a registered diamond mine. Such a certificate will be required for the import and export of diamonds across the EU's external frontier. This regulation puts in places a number of suspended articles relating to the framework for a community system of certification of import and export controls for the purpose of implementing the Kimberly process certification scheme. In particular, a period was required for the finalisation of the design and production of the certificates and of their watermarks.

It is envisaged that the certificates will be issued in London and Antwerp, the main centres of diamond trade in the European Union. I understand that it is not currently planned to issue these certificates in Ireland, given the relatively non-EU international trade in rough diamonds from this State. However, this will remain under review. I understand that the regulations should assist in attempts to reduce the funding underpinning conflict situations in Africa. It is proposed to note the regulations. Is that agreed?

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

The regulations are clear.

Chairman

Agreed.

Item 3.2, Commission document COM(2003)59, deals with measures that may be taken by the Commission in respect of the combined effect of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures with safeguard measures. This proposal sought to introduce a rectifying mechanism to enable the Council and the Commission to take action to ensure that anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguard tariff measures on the same products do not deny access to the market to the exporter.

This proposal specifically arose due to concerns that safeguard measures against American steel might distort the steel market when combined with existing anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures. Corrective action in the context of the proposal may, therefore, take the form of amending, suspending or repealing one or more of these actions against a product. This proposal was adopted very quickly and an explanatory memorandum has been supplied to the Department concerned, as requested by the sub-committee. In the circumstances it is proposed to note it. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The final document is one that has been forwarded to the sub-committee for information only. This proposal falls within title four, measures that will specifically apply to Lithuania and Poland. It relates to item 4.1, Commission document COM(2003)60, regarding specific facilitated transit documents, a facilitated rail transit document and amending the common consular instructions and the common manual. This proposal is a Council regulation and is in the context of the Schengen agreement, to which Ireland is not a party. It will allow for the issuing of visa type documents for Russian nationals travelling between Kaliningrad and the rest of Russia. The Russian Federation had expressed strong reservations about the issuing of a document entitled "a visa" for travel between two parts of its territory. The issuing of a visa type facilitated transit document or a facilitated rail transit document is the compromise arrived at in this regard.

Following the collapse of the USSR, neighbouring Lithuania and former Soviet republics gained their independence, cutting Kaliningrad off from Russia. We discussed this matter at some length with the Minister for Foreign Affairs before he attended a GAC meeting some months ago. In order for Russian nationals living there to reach Russia proper by land, and in order for Russian nationals to visit the enclave, transit through new prospective EU member states, particularly Lithuania, is necessary. I understand that approximately 400,000 people live in metropolitan Kaliningrad and a total of 1 million live in Kaliningrad Oblast, which is the Russian term for the region.

The proposal is a technical measure that will put in place a visa type system for the movement of people across the Schengen area between Kaliningrad and the rest of the Russian Federation. As a Schengen measure, it does not have a direct impact on Ireland. I am very interested in it as I have been a long-time advocate of EU travel for Irish citizens without the necessity of them having to produce a passport. The should be allowed to use a lesser document, such as a transit document or identity card. The common travel area with Britain creates difficulties in addressing this, but I hope the proposal before us might set a precedent that will allow for progress. As long as we must produce passports while travelling in the EU, we will never be considered, nor will we consider ourselves, citizens of the Union.

It is proposed to note the Schengen proposal and forward it to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's rights for information only. Is that agreed?

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

The Schengen agreement was bound to create problems in Kaliningrad. It is a part of the world that pulled the short straw after the Second World War. It was unlucky to have been part of the spoils handed over to Russia at the time.

Chairman

The proposal is agreed. That concludes the scrutiny issues.

Item 5 deals with the minutes of the previous meeting. The minutes of the meetings of 13 February and 12 March have been circulated. Are they agreed? Agreed.

The draft ninth report, which is the report of the previous meeting of the sub-committee, has been circulated. In addition, the draft tenth report has been circulated and will be amended to reflect any decisions taken today. I propose that the reports, amended as appropriate, be laid in the Oireachtas Library. Is that agreed? Agreed. Is there any other business?

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

I compliment the staff for the manner in which they make these draft reports available. They are maintaining a very good standard and deserve our thanks for their excellent work.

Chairman

Very good, hear, hear.

Item 7 is any other business. Item 8, the date of the next meeting is set for 9.30 a.m. on 10 April. That concludes the business of the meeting.

The sub-committee adjourned at 10.35 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 10 April 2003.