We will deal with Nos. 1.1 to 1.4. No. 1.1 is Commission document 2002/770, dealing with products that could be used for torture. The proposed regulation seeks to ban the trade outside the Community in certain items that could only be used for torture, degrading treatment and in the execution of the death penalty and to regulate the trade in certain items that could be used for torture, degrading treatment and in the execution of the death penalty. The measure would not impact on equipment traditionally used for self-defence such as shields but would cover tear gasses and riot control agents. As the proposal was recently assigned, it may not advance for some time. The Department has made clear that no other equipment covered by the proposal is manufactured in Ireland and it envisages little or no difficulty with the advancement of the proposal. It is proposed that this measure does not warrant additional scrutiny. Is that agreed?
Scrutiny of EU Proposals.
Chairman, you stated the proposal was recently assigned. What does that mean?
A number of different Departments were involved and there was a dispute over which committee would deal with it. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is the relevant Department and the commercial questions working group will deal with it.
The question was which Department will deal with the proposal?
That will also determine which committee will consider it. It does not warrant further scrutiny at this stage.
Will it include equipment that might be exported to the United States of America for the purposes of capital punishment?
It refers to carrying out the death penalty outside the Community. It suggests that. It does not apply to Ireland. The only cruel and degrading torture in Ireland is committees of the Oireachtas.
This committee in particular.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
The next item on the agenda is No. 1.2 - Commission Document 2003/38 - Financial Aid in the Field of Trans-European Networks. This proposal has been in discussion since 1998 and has not achieved agreement as a number of the member states, Germany, the UK and France, in particular, are opposed to increasing the maximum level of trans-European networks funding from 10% to 20%. It is estimated that this proposal would increase funding of the networks by €100 million in the period 2000-6. The projects concerned are, by and large, cross-border rail projects requiring construction of infrastructure such as large cross-border tunnels in the Alps and Pyrénées or bridges of significant lengths. Owing to these geographical constraints, the financial viability of such projects is low. Until such time as agreement is reached on the substance of the proposal, that is, to increase the level of funding from 10% to 20%, it is anticipated that there will be no progress on this measure.
The Essen European Council identified 14 priority transport networks of which Ireland benefits from the funding of two to the sum of €41 million in the 2000-6 round of funding. These are Ireland-UK-Benelux links and the Cork-Dublin-Larne-Stranraer rail link. There is a detailed list attached of the 14 priority projects. It is proposed that the measure does not warrant further scrutiny at this time but the Department of Finance is being asked to keep the committee informed of progress when it occurs in order that the measure may be re-evaluated on the basis of that progress.
Are we getting €41 million out of the €4.7 billion? If so, it seems an incredibly low proportion for an island nation.
It is.
That is just 0.1% of the funding, which seems extraordinarily low.
I will speak to the Minister for Finance.
I presume it is related to the nature of the projects. We are talking about significant cross-border tunnels, bridges of significant lengths and so on. Realistically, not many of the projects apply to us, even though we might like to have a tunnel or bridge between here and Wales.
How do we claim money under this regulation, because we do not have cross-border tunnels?
We have the Jack Lynch tunnel and the Dublin Port tunnel is half completed.
I admit the Jack Lynch tunnel links my part of Cork to the other parts of Cork, but I am not sure it would be classified as a border tunnel. Is it in connection with the Dublin-Belfast rail line? How do we qualify under the regulation?
There is also a list of 14 priorities in the brief. I am advised that we have been very imaginative in this regard. We have been able to attach Cork to Stranraer.
I am pleased that Cork has gained from a cross-border funding regulation.
It is a major piece of engineering.
We will let it through without further comment.
The funding seems very low.
We will note that. I am advised that we have been very imaginative in drawing down these funds because of what they are meant to be used for.
Item 1.3 is Commission Document 2003/103 regarding the extension of the period for transitional arrangements for the control of BSE. This regulation relates to the continuation of existing BSE control measures that proposes to extend the current transitional regulations which expire on 1 July 2003 up to 1 July 2005. These transitional arrangements were an integral feature of regulation 999 of 2001. The need for the extension arises from the assessment of dossiers of member states and third countries which made it clear that some modification of the assessment criteria adopted was necessary to achieve an appropriate categorisation reflecting the BSE risk.
A number of separate issues have arisen. There is a need to agree with the international animal health code of the world organisation for animal health, OIE, a common categorisation criteria. The OIE will not come forward with a list of BSE-free countries in the near future and the scientific risk assessments of all countries have not been concluded. The scientific committee has only adopted a final opinion for one third of the countries requesting the termination of BSE status. The extension of the transitional arrangement is to allow for the above issues to be resolved and to conclude its scientific assessments. The measure does not propose to alter any existing measures put in place to eradicate BSE. It should be noted that Ireland has one of the most diligent programmes for inspection and eradication in the Community and exceeds the requirements of the transitional arrangements. Is the proposal agreed? Agreed.
The last item under this heading is item 1.4 - Commission Document 2003/107 regarding fishing agreements with the Republic of Guinea. This is a proposal to extend for one year a standard fishing agreement between the Community and the People's Republic of Guinea. The existing protocol expired on 31 December 2001 and was extended for one year, that is, from January to December 2002, to allow for a scientific trawl of resources prior to negotiating the next protocol. However, the trawl did not begin unto 2003 and this regulation proposes to extend again for one year, January 2003 to December 2003, the existing protocol which allows for the fishing of shrimp, demersal species, species living at the bottom of the sea or lake, and tuna, by Community ship owners. The main beneficiaries are France, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain. Despite efforts by the Department to interest Irish ship owners, it has not been successful. In order to fish in these waters one would need a dedicated deep sea freezing capacity, which is currently available on just one Irish vessel. Is the proposal agreed? Agreed.
It is proposed that items 1.1 to 1.4, inclusive, do not warrant further scrutiny.
The next item on today's agenda is the document which it is proposed to refer for further scrutiny, items 2.1 to 2.4. The first of these proposals is item 2.1 - Commission Document 2003/46 regarding intellectual property rights in the European Union. This proposal seeks to harmonise national laws and the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the European Union. A further objective of the proposal is to establish a general framework for the exchange of information between the responsible national authorities. Members will notice that the explanatory memorandum suggests that recent advances in measures protecting intellectual property needs to be underpinned by a harmonisation of enforcement measures across the Union.
I also understand some concern is expressed by the industry that this measure is required in advance of the next enlargement of the Union. Members will recall that Commission material circulated to the committee on the origin of counterfeiting suggested that some accession states were the origin of products falling under this category. The proposal is in its early stages of discussion in Brussels as the Department has indicated and has not yet been assigned to a working group. It is, however, likely that it will be assigned to the one dealing with the internal market rather than justice and home affairs.
The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is, therefore, in the process of initiating the formation of an interdepartmental committee that might further tease out the implications for Ireland of the current proposals. I also understand the Department is awaiting legal advice on possible difficulties with the legal basis of aspects of the proposal, in particular those parts dealing with mandatory sanctions for the infringement of the directive arising from the first pillar. Where natural persons are concerned, member states shall provide for criminal sanctions including imprisonment, according to Article 20.2. Where natural and legal persons are concerned the proposal indicates that the sanctions shall include judicial winding up.
This provides for mandatory sentencing. In Irish law, under the Copyright Act 2000 and the Trademark Act 1996, there can be a sentence of up to six months or a fine of €1,270 or, in certain cases, a sentence of up to five years and a fine of €127,000. However, they are not mandatory at present so that is a significant change. It is proposed, therefore, that this document be referred to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business for further scrutiny and that it also be circulated, for information, to the Joint Committees on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, Agriculture and Food and Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs in respect of aspects of the proposal concerning the music industry.
This is not intra vires the treaty at all. In the area of the enforcement of civil judgments across the EU, there is something called the Brussels convention. One can seek to have a judgment of an Irish court enforced in any court in Europe, but the convention never said how that judgment is to be enforced in a foreign court. Once one goes down the road of telling national courts how they are to enforce matters, one is going beyond the limit of a treaty and one is interfering in internal judicial systems. On the civil side, this proposal is entering into that territory. Accordingly, I propose that this committee yellow flag this in terms of being ultra vires the treaty.
I suggest that we ask the Department to keep the committee informed of its legal advice. The committee itself is seeking legal advice on the legal basis of aspects of the proposal.
Can our concern be noted on the file?
We will communicate with the Department that these concerns have been raised by the sub-committee and ask the officials to keep us informed of the legal advice they receive. We will refer the proposal as agreed and as noted. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 2.2 is Commission document 2003/52. It is a proposal for a regulation on compliance with national and Community food and feed law. This is a complex measure that sets out the rules to be respected by the competent authorities responsible for carrying out official controls of food and feed outlets and the tasks of the EU Commission with regard to the organisation of those controls. The regulation has been drafted on the principle that food safety policy must be based on a comprehensive integrated approach. It states that the Commission's control services will concentrate on evaluating the competent authority's capacity and training to deliver national surveillance and control systems through audit and inspections by the Commission's food and veterinary office. In addition, the regulation states that Ireland, along with every other member state, is to have a national reference laboratory.
The regulation also deals with imports of food and feed and stipulates that such products can only be imported when the Commission has been informed by the exporting country that it has in place a control plan similar or of an equivalence to that in operation within the Community and that that plan is freely accessible for inspection by the Commission upon request. The regulation also provides for the designation of a single liaison body.
From a consumer perspective any measure that seeks to improve qualitative controls and inspection measures on food and feed at local, regional, national and Community level would appear to be welcome. However, the obligations in this directive requiring a need for an over-arching plan which will detail the integrated national approach for the supervision, monitoring and inspection of hygiene controls for food and feed within a Community framework raises the question of to which Department or agency will the lead be given.
This measure is being signalled to the House by the Department of Agriculture and Food but it equally could fall within the remit of the Department of Health and Children and the Food Safety Authority. Who, for example, will be the national liaison body? That question has to be answered. It is anticipated that the proposed implementation date will be 1 January 2005. It is, therefore, proposed to refer this document to the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food for further scrutiny with a recommendation that the Food Safety Authority be consulted. It is further proposed to forward the document to the Joint Committee on Health and Children for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 2.3 is Commission document 2003/78, which refers to administrative co-operation in the field of indirect taxation as regards travel services. This regulation was proposed by the Commission in order to provide a support and administrative mechanism for a special scheme for non-EU travel service providers, which is the subject of a proposed directive, Commission document 2002/64, a copy of which was circulated to members and was proposed by the European Commission in February 2002. If the proposed directive is agreed, existing national derogations for Ireland and Denmark, where there is no VAT on travel service providers' margins, would disappear. Therefore, any provider of travel services in the State would become liable on taxable services they provide and some or all of their business would be subject to the same scheme. VAT would be chargeable in all cases at the standard rate of 21%. If an existing derogation ceases it is possible that there could be a small increase in prices as it is likely that the impact of the VAT change would be passed on to the final consumer. It is understood that the travel industry has indicated that an increase of up to 2% or 3% is possible.
While the proposed directive, Community document 2002/64, was initiated before the formal scrutiny process began last July, it is, nonetheless, recommended that it be examined by the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service, together with the draft regulation, because of its connection with the latter. It is proposed, therefore, that this document, along with Commission document 2002/64, be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service for further scrutiny. In addition, it is proposed that these documents be circulated to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 2.4, Commission document 2003/117 refers to pesticides in product of plant and animal origin. This is a consolidation measure which proposes to replace the four Council directives relating to the fixing of maximum residue levels - MRLs - for pesticides in food of plant and animal origin. This is part of a process by the Commission in general to replace and simplify a number of directives while adopting a harmonised approach across the Community. The directives in question are Nos. 895 of 1976, 362 and 363 of 1986 and 642 of 1990. Of these, it is widely accepted that the 1976 directive is outdated and flawed. That directive allowed member states to set alternative higher MRLs for certain pesticides included in the 1976 directive. This meant that different standards applied in different member states. In the case of the three remaining directives, a harmonised approach has been adopted.
The current regulation defines the role of the European Food Safety Authority - EFSA - and the Commission in the process of setting MRLs. The Commission will propose MRLs, whose suitability is assessed by the EFSA. The Commission will be responsible for any risk assessment decisions required to limit the exposure of consumers to pesticide residues in food.
On a general point, we are beginning to see a number of initiatives such as this involving the transfer from the Commission of a number of its powers over to the European Food Safety Authority. The Department, I understand, welcomes this proposal but wishes to come to a more detailed understanding of certain elements of the measure. These elements, I understand, relate to language interpretation.
This process will commence in May, when the Greek Presidency has signalled its intention to have two working groups meet to discuss the proposals. It is anticipated that the negotiating period could take two years. It is proposed that this document be referred to the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food for further scrutiny and that a copy of the document be sent to the Joint Committee on Health and Children for information. Is that agreed?
Ms Patricia McKenna, MEP
The lead committee here on the control of pesticides and the reduction of pesticide levels is the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food. The lead committee in the European Parliament is the environment committee. I wonder why the environment committee is not mentioned here. There would appear to be a conflict of interest in referring this issue to the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food. The environment committee should be also involved.
I understand a more detailed draft regulation on pesticides and water will go to the environment committee. Nonetheless, it is right we should refer this matter to it also. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is proposed that items 2.1 to 2.4 warrant further action and will be referred to the appropriate sectoral committees. Is that agreed? Agreed.
A number of Framework Documents have come before us for the first time. The next document is slightly different in that it is a draft framework decision. The original note I received stated it was for information only but we need to do something more with it. Item 3.1, Council Document 7246/03, is a framework decision on the application of the ne bis in idem principle or double jeopardy. This draft Framework Document on the application of the principle of double jeopardy was presented on the initiative of Greece. The principle relates to the notion that a person should not face the double jeopardy of being judged for the same crime more than once. In this instance it relates to efforts to avoid a perhaps highly theoretical situation where a person could be judged in two member states for the same crime.
The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has indicated that it does not foresee any difficulty with acceptance of the fundamental principle that would appear to underpin the proposal and, as its information note makes clear, the Minister will bring any related measure arising from the proposal to the Oireachtas for its consideration at a later date. Any potential difficulties with the advancement of the proposal are likely to relate to the search for a common understanding of legal judgments across the Union and different legal systems. It is therefore proposed to note this item and the draft framework decision will be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for consideration.
I welcome this initiative. It is a change that has an acceptable general application across the Union without interfering in the internal laws of member states. I understand this principle applies internally in most member states and so it makes complete sense that it apply across the European Union as long as it does not dictate how it is to be applied.
Is the proposal agreed? Agreed.
This is the first time we have CFSP measures before us. They are measures which were, prior to adoption, working documents and proposals classified as confidential. I mentioned that earlier in private session.
The sub-committee will note that a number of the measures relate to the appointment of EU special representatives around the globe while others are common positions that are effectively the basis for subsequent legislative proposals. A number of subsequent legislative proposals have been already scrutinised by the sub-committee in previous meetings.
The document in relation to confidentiality on these drafts is about three quarters of an inch thick. They are taken very seriously by the European Union. The method of notifying us therefore is a little different. We will take items 4.1 and 4.9 together as they are amendments to the same document. Item 4.1, CFSP Document (2002) 847 is a Council common position of 28 October 2002 updating common position 2001/931, CFSP, on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism and repealing common positions 2002/462, CFSP. The common position updates the list of names annexed to the common position of 2001 as part of the EU action plan on terrorism and in implementation of UN Security Council Regulation 1373. The common position provides for the drawing up of a list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts and for the regular review of that list. Item 4.9, CFSP document 2002/976 is the Council common position of 12 December 2002 updating a common position of 2001/931 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism and repealing common position 2002/847. This common position updates the list of names annexed to the common position 2001/931 adopted in 2001 as part of the EU action plan on terrorism and in implementation of UN Security Council Regulation 1373. The common position provides for the drawing up of a list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts and for the regular review of that list.
Members have been supplied with the list. There are a number of Irish organisations on the list such as the Real IRA.
Is this list confidential?
No. It was confidential in the earlier stages. The ones which refer to Ireland are Nos. 16, 19, 24, 25 and 32; the Loyalist Volunteer Force, the Orange Volunteers, the Real IRA, the Red Hand Defenders and the Ulster Defence Association/Ulster Freedom Fighters. Those organisations are specifically named in group 2, list 33.
Ms McKenna, MEP
I have a major problem with this principle that relates to groups and entities involved in terrorist acts. Someone accused of being involved in a terrorist act deserves the due process of law. This has been debated in the European Parliament and various different political groups. Many people are concerned about this where, on the advice of the Americans, one places the names of people or organisations on lists. There is no clear evidence in many cases as to why the names should be on the list.
Swedish members of the European Parliament lobbied on behalf of people in Sweden against whom there was no evidence yet their assets were frozen. What happens when such people's names are put on lists by mistake? Such people will be tarnished forever. I have a major concern with the drawing up of lists containing people's names. It is one thing putting an organisation's name on a list but that leads people to inquire as to its members. In some cases it is open to the public to know the members of the organisations listed. There is a serious infringement of people's basic human rights in that one is entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Has the Government discussed this from a human rights and civil liberties point of view?
This is the first occasion we have had an opportunity to look at issues like this. That is the purpose of scrutiny. I do not think anybody could say the Irish organisations referred to should not be listed. They should and the list complies with Security Council Regulation 1373 which is the body responsible for international law.
In regard to the point made by Ms McKenna, at our last meeting we had a draft regulation which would allow the Central Bank, on the application of a bank here, to release funds where there was hardship or injustice. The Central Bank would notify that to a UN committee. There are funds held in Ireland which are also frozen because they are on an al-Qaeda related list. If the people in Ireland who held that account felt there was hardship and they needed money from that account, they could ask their bank to apply to the Central Bank. If the Central Bank felt that there was hardship or injustice it could notify the sub-committee in the Security Council and the funds could be released. There has been some modification of the regulation which takes into account the concerns expressed.
Ms McKenna, MEP
There is another problem for people in this situation. The cases I have heard of were not in Ireland but in other European countries. People are put on the list or they are associated with or accused of being associated with an organisation. Eventually it becomes clear that their name should not be on the list but how will those people ever get visas to go to countries such as the US? They are marked for life. Their freedoms have been seriously affected by the fact that they have been included on the list. Is it not fair that a person should get due process of law before being put arbitrarily on a list because the Americans, in many cases, say it should be so? We know from discussions we have had in the European Parliament that many of the people on these lists were put on them from lists drawn up by the United States.
There is one other matter regarding item 6. The Continuity IRA is on the list also. It must also feel there has been an injustice done.
We are discussing documents as a scrutiny committee. Ms McKenna's points are valid but I am not sure we are in a position to do much other than what we are instructed to do. This is probably something which should be taken up by the main committee. If not, it should be taken up by the sub-committee on human rights of the foreign affairs committee. There is no doubt that it warrants some exploration.
I take a different view. If anyone in any of these organisations feels an injustice has been done to him or her then in natural law he or she can go to the courts and vindicate their rights. The law and legislators have the right to draw the line somewhere. Nobody could say we should be unduly concerned with the infringement of the rights of the Continuity IRA, the Loyalist Volunteer Force, the Orange Volunteers, the Real IRA, the Red Hand Defenders and the UDA/UFF. They have access to——
Ms McKenna, MEP
I am talking about individuals. We do not know them because we are far removed from the lists, but real people are put on them. There were cases in Sweden where the assets of people on the list were frozen. They could not get at their assets and had to go begging for money to survive yet their names should never have been on the lists.
That particular regulation has been amended. There is now an appeal procedure to a national authority under the regulation we approved last week.
The Chairman has almost answered my question. Am I right to presume that this list has been unanimously agreed to by all the member states sitting in Council?
It is a CFSP measure so it must be.
Whatever about national jurisdiction, is there jurisdiction within the European Court of Justice where any of the individuals or an organisation can apply to be removed from the list?
Subject to advice to the contrary I do not think CFSP matters are justiciable before the European Court of Justice. Has anybody any counter advice in that regard? We can clarify that point.
In fairness, the point made by Ms McKenna is valid given that the list is made by the Council and, therefore, it would be difficult to pursue an alteration of the list through a national court. If there is no jurisdiction in the European Court of Justice to remove the name of a person erroneously put on the list, it seems that person would not have a remedy.
The remedy would seem to be to go to the national court. These lists were compiled from nominations by national governments and discussed at official level before they ever reached Council level. They go through a process.
Ms McKenna, MEP
How can somebody in Algeria go to the national court? Consider the situation there. If a person is already targeted by the government, he or she would keep his or her head low rather than report it. In some of these countries the situation is desperate. What means have such people got at their disposal to get their names removed from the list?
They can apply to the courts. If, for example, there is money in an account here allegedly related to al-Qaeda, people do not have to go to the court. They can ask their bank to apply to the Central Bank for the money to be unfrozen. If the Central Bank feels there is hardship it can do that and advise the UN sub-committee. There is a point, but there is also the point that states have the right to protect themselves. The law must draw the line somewhere. The question was if there is a remedy. There is a remedy now because the regulation has been passed which will unfreeze assets and a person's good name can be defended through the courts. I think the regulation is reasonable.
Has an Irishman ever been on this list?
I do not know.
I mean on the individual list.
If not we should be asking why not. I can think of a few people who should be on it.
I find it interesting that we appear to be a member state that does not have anyone on the list. I do not know where we are headed with this.
These are regulations that have been notified to us. In future, in a confidential way, they will be signalled in advance to the Chair. The documents are confidential and only come to us in the event of concern. If we express concerns about this along the lines mentioned by Ms McKenna it is up to us, at a future date, to say to the Minister that we think the regulations should be dealt with in a different manner. It seems to me that the way they are dealt with now is reasonable.
I have no problem with that but I would like my question about the European Court of Justice answered.
We will get a note for the committee and will circulate it. The matter is noted.
Item 4.2, CFSP 2002/921, is regarding the Council joint action of 25 November, extending the mandate of the EU monitoring mission. This joint action extends until 31 December 2003 the EU's monitoring mission in former Yugoslavia and Albania. The objective of the mission is to contribute through information gathering and analysis, in line with directions from the Council, to the effective formulation of Union policy towards the western Balkans. To that end the mission monitors political and security developments, inter-ethnic issues and refugee return. I propose to note it. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 4.3 is CFSP document 2002/960 regarding a common position concerning restrictive measures against Somalia. This common position is the basis of proposal Commission Document 2002/745 which was reviewed by the sub-committee in January. That proposal builds on adopted UN Security Council resolutions concerning efforts to further stabilise the situation in Somalia. I understand that there continues to be some tension between the two regions that came together to create Somalia in 1960, one the British protectorate, the other an Italian colony. The measure prohibits financial assistance, including grants, loans and export credit insurance, for any sale, supply, transport or transfer or export of arms or related materials to any entity in Somalia where there has been internal strife for a number of years. The regulation also encompasses technical advice and assistance.
UN Security Council regulations such as the ones that led to the common position in question tend to be brought into effect in this manner to ensure that they are implemented in a uniform way across the Union and are binding on citizens as well as states. Statutory Instrument 67/2003 of 20 February 2003 has been subsequently enacted to give effect to Council Regulation 147 of 2003. It is proposed that the committee note this item.
Item 4.4 is the Council joint action of 10 December 2002, amending and extending the mandate of the Special Representative of the European Union in Afghanistan. It is proposed that the committee note this item.
In the light of Iraq we all wonder what has happened to Afghanistan. I confess I did not know there was a European Union representative in Afghanistan and I do not know the identity of the person. He has never given me a report.
His name is Mr. Francesc Vendrell.
Could we invite him to appear before the Joint Committee on European Affairs and report on his work in Afghanistan?
We can ask him.
That is a serious question. Part of the process in Afghanistan was supposed to be the setting up of a democracy. We are now paying somebody to be there so I would like to know what is happening.
He has reported to the European Council and I understand he is concerned about developments there. This would extend his remit to 30 June 2003 and I presume that it would be extended further at that stage. His mandate is to convey the European Union's views on the political process while drawing on the key principles agreed between the Afghan parties and the international community to establish and maintain contact with the Afghan transitional authority and relevant international and regional organisations and to advise the EU on progress in what is called the Bonn process. We will inquire if he is available to visit us or else we could send the Deputy to Afghanistan at some dangerous opportunity.
Item 4.5, Commission Document 2002/962 is the Council joint action of 10 December 2002, amending and extending the mandate of the EU Special Representative for the African Great Lakes. Mr. Aldo Ajello has been in office for some time. It is proposed that this be noted by the committee.
Have we got a photograph in this case?
Item 4.6 is Council joint action regarding the mandate of the Special Representative of the EU in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The joint action extended the mandate of Mr. Alexis Brouhns. The objective of the EU Special Representative in FYROM is to contribute to the consolidation of the peaceful political process and the full implementation of the framework agreement. The Special Representative is also charged with supporting the work of the High Representative in the region. This proposal is noted by the committee.
Item 4.7, CSSP Document 2002/964, is a Council joint action of 10 December 2002, amending and extending the mandate of the Special Representative of the European Union to act as special co-ordinator of the stability pact for south-eastern Europe. This Council joint action extends the mandate of Mr. Erhard Busek as the Special Representative of the European Union to act as special co-ordinator of the stability pact for the region from 1 January 2003 until 30 June 2003. The stability pact was established in 1999 in response to events in the region and aims through an original approach to establish long-term stabilisation, security, a process of democratisation and economic reconstruction and development. It is proposed that this be noted by the committee.
Item 4.8 is CSSP document 2002/965, Council joint action of 10 December 2002 concerning the mandate for the European Union Special Representative for the Middle East, Mr. Miguel Moratinos, until 30 June 2003. The mandate of the Special Representative is based on the policy objectives of the European Union regarding the Middle East peace process which is clearly a very important item on the agenda today. This is noted by the committee.
Item 4.9 has been noted with item 4.1. Item 4.10 is CSSP Document 2002/991, concerning restrictive measures against UNITA. This common position is the basis for Council Regulation EC 146 of 2003, repealing regulations agreed to in 1997-98. The amending regulation was considered by the sub-committee at its meeting on 13 February and followed from an amending UN Security Council regulation on Angola in December 2002.
In response to the positive political developments in Angola and further to an amending UN resolution in December 2002, the regulation repealed EC Regulation 2229 of 1997 and imposed the sanctions against UNITA. In Ireland the consequence of this action would be the lifting of the asset freeze imposed on UNITA officials in this country - there is one official here. Is that agreed?
Has this been frozen?
It has been unfrozen. He has been heated up.
Item 4.11, CSSP Document 2003/92, is a Council joint action of 27 January 2003 on EU force in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. This Council joint action confirms the EU's readiness to conduct a military stabilisation and monitoring operation in Macedonia. The joint action also forms the basis for preparations for the takeover of this operation. It also provides for the EU operation to have recourse to NATO assets and capabilities. Participation in the operation is a matter for each member state. Ireland will not be participating following legal advice from the Attorney General. I understand that the legal advice was grounded in the fact that the operation while carrying UN support was not established by the UN. There is a triple lock.
This arose when the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, was here on the last occasion. Many members expressed surprise that we were not able to participate because it seemed to be a good undertaking. Will that matter be taken any further?
This was discussed with the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, prior to a General Affairs Council meeting this week. We asked if the Government had any plans to amend the Defence Acts which is where the restriction arises. The Minister of State indicated that there were no such plans at this stage. I understand it would require an amendment to the Defence Acts to allow for Irish troops to be involved on a case by case basis in EU peacekeeping not specifically established by UN mandate. Even though this has UN support and is replacing a NATO programme, it was not established by the UN so that is the difficulty as advised by the Attorney General. I would like to see an amendment of the Defence Acts to give the Government the freedom to become involved on a case by case basis with the approval of the Dáil.
Ms McKenna, MEP
It seems a bit ironic that the Attorney General's advice is that we cannot become involved because there is no UN mandate and at the same time the Government had no problem getting involved in the invasion of Iraq which had no UN mandate and which was clearly an act of aggression. There seems to be a complete contradiction in relation to the Government's position. The international community must be extremely baffled at this stage that the Government can on the one hand back the invasion of Iraq by providing facilities at Shannon Airport and on the other hand say that we are not to be involved because there is no UN mandate. The Government needs to get its story straight on its position.
Is there any point in referring this issue to another Oireachtas committee?
No. The item is noted.
I propose to take item 4.12, which is the common position, and 4.13, which is the subsequent legislative proposal, together. Item 4.12, CFSP 2003/115 and item 4.13, COM 2003/74, concern restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe. The proposal based on a common position sought to extend certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe. Council regulation EC 2003/313 came about as a result of a further deterioration in the situation in Zimbabwe where serious violation of human rights and freedom of opinion, association and peaceful assembly continue to occur.
The regulation extends for a further 12 months certain restrictive measures that include a travel ban, the freezing of funds and the prohibition on the sale, supply, export or shipping of equipment for use for internal oppression as well as the provision of technical training or assistance relating to provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of arms and related materials of all types.
I understand that independent reports have indicated that 58 people were killed in politically motivated violence in 2003 in Zimbabwe, the majority of whom were declared opposition members, mainly supporters of the Movement for Democratic Change. These issues have a certain basis and I propose that we note it. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 4.14 is CFSP 2003/140 which refers to a common position concerning exceptions to restrictive measures in respect of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The exceptions to the restrictive measures outlined by common position CFSP 2002/402 are detailed in the related Council regulation, EC 2003/561, which was scrutinised by the sub-committee earlier this year. I referred to that earlier.
The measure specifically relates to certain exemptions based on humanitarian considerations to the restrictive measures against persons and entities associated with the Taliban, the al-Qaeda network and Osama bin Laden. These exemptions will permit, for example, a person to apply to the national regulatory authority - the Central Bank in Ireland's case - to draw down funds from a frozen bank account for humanitarian reasons. We have already considered and agreed to the Commission document. This is the Council regulation. I understand there are six accounts in Ireland with a total value of €127,000. Is it agreed to note this matter? Agreed.
Item 4.15, CFSP 2003/141 relates to a Council joint action amending joint action CFSP 2002/210 on the European Union police mission. An EU advisory and support mission has been under way in Bosnia-Herzegovina since 1 January 2003 in succession to the outgoing UN police mission whose mandate expired on 31 December 2002. For technical administrative reasons, it did not prove possible to finalise an invitation for tender for certain equipment before the previously set deadline for drawing down of the designated budget. This joint action makes a technical adjustment to permit the relevant moneys be charged to the budget for 2003. Is that agreed? Agreed. It would be a good idea if at some stage the Joint Committee on European Affairs got a report from the Garda management and perhaps from some of the gardaí involved in these missions on how this is working. Is it agreed to put that on the agenda? Agreed.
Item 4.16 is CFSP 2003/188 which is a Council joint action amending joint action CFSP 2002/210 on the European Union police mission. This is a technical measure that permits the exchange of classified information with third countries participating in the EU police mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina established on 1 January 2003. This mission is tasked with training senior police officers in the local police. Is it agreed to note this matter? Agreed.
I propose to take item 4.17, CFSP 2002/992, and 4.18, COM 2002/753, together. These refer to a Council common position and a regulation concerning a prohibition on imports of rough diamonds from Sierra Leone, which is an issue we addressed previously. Although a country rich in diamonds, Sierra Leone's development has been blighted by acute political instability since shortly after independence in 1961. As effectively an interim measure pending the introduction of the Kimberly certification scheme for conflict diamonds, also considered by the sub-committee earlier this year, and further to a UN Security Council resolution, the Council adopted a common position and regulation renewing the prohibition on imports of rough diamonds from Sierra Leone.
There had been widespread concern that diamonds originating in Sierra Leone were being traded to fund conflict in the region. This measure was also seen as essential to permit the authorities in Sierra Leone to trade diamonds under a certification scheme to further assist stabilisation and reconstruction in the country. Following a period of severe civil strife after British and UN intervention, Sierra Leone is now seen as one of the success stories of the region despite continuing unrest in neighbouring Liberia. It is proposed to note this item and to note items 4.11 to 4.18, inclusive. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 5.1, COM 2003/63, refers to the establishment of the European Network and Information Security Agency. I propose that we defer this because we need further information which is not yet available to us. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The minutes from the meeting on 27 March have been circulated. Are the minutes agreed? Agreed. We will defer consideration of the 11th report of the sub-committee to the next meeting because it is not to hand.
Under any other business, I remind members of the committee that we decided not to invite representatives of the Department of Agriculture and Food because of information they gave us. This was agreed in private session and I now confirm this in public session for the record.
A further briefing was received from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and circulated to members regarding anti-dumping proposals. The note was provided for the further information of Members and I propose to note it.
Commission document 746 was discussed at our meeting of 12 March 2003. A note was received from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform regarding an issue raised by members on Commission document 2002/746 which is a European Commission Green Paper on a European order for payment procedure and on measures to simplify and speed up small claims litigation. A number of points of clarification were sought regarding this Green Paper, in particular on the principle of subsidiarity. The sub-committee agreed to contact the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to seek clarification on whether the proposals suggested in this Green Paper come under the treaty and whether they breach the principle of subsidiarity. The reply was circulated to Members with a brief. I propose to note this reply and to forward a copy to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
If this committee asks a Department for legal opinion, we get the legal opinion from a Department that may be involved in a project and is advising the Government.
We are getting their legal opinion.
We must draw a distinction between Government and Oireachtas when we ask for such opinions in future.
We agreed at the last meeting to take up this with the parliamentary legal adviser. That has not been done, but it will be done now.
On this occasion I believe we agreed to ask the Department. I am not being critical of anyone, but we need to assert the independence of the Oireachtas by getting our own legal opinion on these topics.
Yes. We are also investigating funding and we can put it as an item on the agenda for the next meeting on 8 May. We can decide whether it needs to be pursued after we have received a report on it.