JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny) debate -
Thursday, 22 May 2003

Vol. 1 No. 27

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Chairman

The first item on today's agenda was circulated to members yesterday. It is to be considered today as it is due to be adopted before the end of May. It is item 2(1), COM (2003) 233 concerning the importation and exportation of certain processed agricultural products to and from Slovenia. The proposal allows for the implementation of the trade agreement made between Slovenia and the European Union, to commence on 1 June 2003. Slovenia voted in its recent referendum to join the European Union. Under the new trade arrangements, the EU will introduce the complete liberalisation of trade in certain processed agricultural products and duty-free quotas for others. The EU measures are granted subject to the adoption of reciprocal measures. Trade between Ireland and Slovenia in agricultural products is not significant and is unlikely to increase as a result of the tariff concessions involved.

It should be noted that there will be a series of such enabling measures in the near future reflecting the various trade agreements reached between the EU and the ten applicant countries. Those agreements may vary in detail reflecting national priorities and the development or otherwise of agriculture in the various countries. The central thrust of those agreements is to liberalise trade, while the formal signing of the Europe agreement by Slovenia will not take place in time to give effect to the new trade arrangements. This regulation allows for its implementation on 1 June. Is it agreed that this measure does not warrant further scrutiny? Agreed.

It is proposed to consider agenda items 2(1) to 2(4) for further scrutiny. We now come to item 2(1) of COM (2003) 17, the Green Paper on European Space Policy. The Green Paper was prepared at the request of the European Parliament and is intended to form the basis of discussion on the future of space policy in the European Union. That comes against the backdrop of discussion of space-related issues in the context of the Convention on the Future of Europe. During its first 27 years, the ESA has raised Europe's profile in the area of space technology. In 1986, for example, the ESA's Giotto spacecraft, built by Europe's industry, carrying the instruments of Europe's scientists and launched by Europe's rocket, paid a visit to Halley's comet.

Members may have seen the article in The Irish Independent on Tuesday which highlighted the important role played by Irish industry in developing the programme for the ESA's Mars Express, which is scheduled to take off in June for a Mars exploration mission. The ESA indicates that more than 20 Irish companies are involved in the space industry. Irish firms are currently entitled to bid for contracts for those ESA projects in which Ireland participates. Those currently include the launcher programmes, the general technology support programme, the satellite communications programme, the Galileo satellite navigations programme, the life and physical sciences programme and the science and technology research programme. Given the growing importance of the space industry to Ireland and time constraints relating to the end of the consultation period, 30 May 2003, this Green Paper was forwarded in advance to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business. In any event, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business did not have sufficient time to examine this proposal as planned and it is proposed that this measure be now formally referred to that committee for further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 2(2), Commission document COM (2003) 180, relates to requirements for feed hygiene. This is a proposal for regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the requirements for feed hygiene. This directive addresses an ambiguity in the existing regulation 95/1969 which limits the requirements for registration or approval of animal feed establishments to those operators trading or using certain types of feed additives. As a result, a number of operators are not regulated, that is, traders in seed materials and compound feed. Even those operators would have a considerable role in ensuring feed safety and ability to trace.

This proposal is the final component of the legislative programme on animal feed which was proposed in the Commission's White Paper on Food Safety Action. It complements the proposed directive on controls of feed and food, COM (2002) 52, which was scheduled for scrutiny yesterday by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food and which this committee recommended warranted further scrutiny. Having regard to the relationship of this proposal to COM (2002) 52, which was about to be scrutinised, and the fact that the agriculture committee had a meeting on this subject yesterday, it was decided to forward this proposal to the agriculture committee in advance to allow it the opportunity to consider both measures together. This measure warrants scrutiny in its own right. I do not have a report on whether the committee examined it yesterday but we referred to the matter. It is proposed now that we note the formal reference of this proposal to the agriculture committee.

Deputy Harkin

I have some concerns about the statement in the document that certain flexibility will be allowed in the case of small firms, especially those situated in regions suffering from special geographical constraints. A small operator can cause as much damage in the food chain as a large operator. What does the Commission mean by certain flexibility and who will define what are the special geographical constraints? If we are talking about traceability, it does not make sense to leave out one piece of the jigsaw. I would have serious concerns about that. It is like saying that we will ban smoking in pubs in parts of north Donegal but people can smoke in the pubs in Bangor Erris. It does not appear to make sense. We either have traceability from the start of the food chain to the time it is on the plate or we do not. I am concerned that some traders would be outside that loop. I cannot see that it makes sense.

Chairman

That is a valid point. Any other comments on this aspect?

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

As I understand it, we are talking about the animal feed sector. I came across a case a few weeks ago that raised my eyebrows. It was a small mill which was also engaged in selling dog feed. The dog feed came in bags from another company which were kept in a store in the yard. This was a supplementary income for the mill. The owners were visited by somebody from the Department who said they can no longer do this because dog feed could affect other animal feed. One needs to take some care before these regulations are automatically adopted. In the case I quoted, the dog feed came in closed bags, was sold in the same closed bags and could not affect in any way the animal feed being compounded in the mill. If that dog feed was bought from a premises next door it would be inter-mixed because the farmer would have to put it in the back of his trailer. Care must be taken with the introduction of regulations which may lead to ludicrous outcomes. At the same time I am cognisant of the point raised by Deputy Harkin that we have to do everything we reasonably can to keep the food chain safe. My point is that we should not accept these proposals willy-nilly.

Deputy Carey

Was this dealt with by the agriculture committee?

Chairman

There are some concerns about it. I think it was probably addressed by the agriculture committee yesterday but we are not sure because it only met yesterday evening.

Deputy Mulcahy

I support the last two speakers who mirror a serious internal problem in the European Union. On the one hand we are adopting regulations of general application, for example on food safety, which are vitally important, but the effect of those may be to drive out small operators and centralise production in different areas - not just food - in the hands of a small number of producers, which is the globalisation and centralisation argument. We have two competing interests here, first, the general standard of a product and, second, diversity in terms of small operators, local crafts, local food producers and so on. I agree with the last two speakers because their arguments are consistent. This is a fundamentally important issue and part of our business, as a scrutiny committee, is to examine the opposite dialectic of these two directions. It will come to the stage where small operators, say in food or manufacturing, will require huge amounts of capital to bring their product up to the required technical standard. They will not have that capital, however, and they will be driven out of the marketplace, and we will have only a few producers in that sector. This is a serious matter. I accept we do not want to open up a full debate on this area alone but we cannot continuously let it slip because there is an internal problem in the EU.

Chairman

It would be useful for the debate on future directives if the clerk to the committee sent the transcript of the contributions to the Department of Agriculture and Food. This matter is being considered by the committee but it would be no harm to draw the concerns raised to the attention of the Department. It is a question of balance but food safety has to take precedence. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Commission document COM (2003) 119 concerns exploitation of public sector documents, which the committee considered on 31 October last and recommended that it warranted further scrutiny by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. Attached to the papers is the original advice note to the committee at that time. Members may note that "clarification of many elements would be desirable before a view could be taken on the value of the proposal." This proposal has since been scrutinised by the committee which is of the view that public bodies should benefit commercially from the exploitation of public documents. The report is being finalised by the committee.

The current proposal reflects the EU Parliament's views on the 2002 draft. In essence, the principal elements are, first, to broaden the scope of the directive to refer to information in place of documents throughout the text; second, to provide for applicants to request a review of charges imposed for reuse of documents; third, to broaden the scope of directives to include the practical modalities of facilitating reuse; fourth, to require public bodies to collect and provide documents in a format that is not dependent on any specific software; and, fifth, to require rather than encourage public bodies to make available on-line lists of their main information assets, together with conditions for their reuse.

These amendments were, in the main, rejected by the Council as they were either already adequately dealt with in the directive or were outside the scope of the directive. These amendments, with those of the Council are now the subject of negotiation between the Parliament, the Presidency and the Commission. It is expected that these negotiations will not be concluded until October. It appears that the European Parliament's amendments have given rise to considerable debate. It is recommended that this measure be again brought to the attention of the joint committee because the amendments and discussion are substantive. It is therefore proposed that the measure be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service and that the Department of Finance be asked to keep that committee apprised of developments as they arise. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next item is item 2(4), Council Document 8295/1/03, a draft agreement with the United States on extradition and mutual legal assistance. This is a proposal seeking approval for the conclusion of an extradition and mutual assistance agreement between the European Union and the United States. The drafts of the twin agreement set out the procedures to be followed in implementing extradition and mutual co-operation on such matters as joint investigation teams and video conferencing. Article 13 of the proposal makes clear that extradition may be granted on the condition that the death penalty shall not be imposed on the person sought or on the condition that the death penalty, if imposed, shall not be carried out. The proposal also makes clear that the agreement should not affect the obligations of states parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, nor affect the rights of non-states parties with regard to the International Criminal Court. In other words, if the crime is more serious, it will be a matter for a criminal court warrant rather than an extradition warrant. The US is not party to the International Criminal Court.

It is anticipated that the Presidency will include this proposal in the agenda for the JHA Council of 5-6 June 2003. However, France has raised a number of points in relation to the proposal that may result in a delay to the conclusion of the agreement. For example, France is questioning whether a US warrant should await a lesser warrant from an EU member state - that an EU warrant would take precedence, even for a lesser crime. That is the sort of concern France is raising. It is understood that legal advice has been sought by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform from the Office of the Attorney General on ratification requirements. While this proposal is for the most part technical and has addressed two areas that might be considered of special interest, it relates to important judicial issues and it is therefore proposed that it be forwarded to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for further scrutiny.

Deputy Mulcahy

Have persons involved in the administration of justice in Ireland been consulted on this?

Chairman

Yes, in the normal course of events. Does the Deputy mean outside the Department?

Deputy Mulcahy

Yes.

Chairman

I do not know who the Department consulted apart from the Attorney General.

Deputy Mulcahy

I have a few suggestions. It should perhaps be sent to the Bar Council and the Incorporated Law Society for comment and, if relevant, the committee on the Constitution.

Chairman

It would be no harm to draw the attention of the Bar Council and the Law Society to this, and perhaps civil liberties bodies. We have referred it to the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights and people should be aware of the proposals. Any submission should be made to that committee.

Deputy Mulcahy

The Bar Council, the Law Society and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties.

Chairman

Anyone else? I do not know if we should bring it to the attention of the Human Rights Commission.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

That would be the one.

Chairman

We are not going to invite comments but we will bring to people's attention that we have referred this to the justice committee.

Deputy Mulcahy

Submissions can be made to that committee.

Chairman

If people wish.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

We do not want to make too big a deal out of this. We already have a bilateral agreement with the US. These are technical rather than substantive issues but they touch on some major judicial areas. I agree with this, chairman.

Chairman

It is not so much the issue as the process. If this were a Bill before the House people would have to be made aware of it. It is our job to make sure that happens so that is agreed. To sum up, it is proposed that items 2(1) to 2(4) warrant further action and will be referred to the appropriate sectoral committee.

Next are items which were adopted prior to scrutiny, at the Council meeting on Tuesday. Item 3(1) COM (2003) 167, relates to aid for poverty and diseases in developing countries. This is a measure to replace Council Regulation (EC) No. 550/97 regarding HIV-AIDS-related operations in developing countries with one that provides for a more comprehensive package covering all three major communicable diseases: malaria and tuberculosis as well as HIV-AIDS. This package would have a budget of €351 million. Community financing under this regulation would be by way of grants. It is envisaged that these would entail co-financing of projects with member states and NGOs based in the community.

Decisions on the awarding of support would be made by the Commission assisted by the geographically determined committee competent for development, whether it is Asia, the Caribbean, Africa or the Mediterranean. The proposed regulation was considered at the Council of EU Development Co-operation Ministers on 20 May when political agreement was reached on this proposal. It had earlier passed its first reading in the European Parliament.

The regulation would result in the awarding of grants for technical and scientific support for actions against the three diseases; the development of high quality local production of off-patent and-or licensed key pharmaceuticals; encourage more private investment in new products designed to fight the major communicable diseases; and support social studies relating to health issues. It is proposed that the measure be forwarded to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs and the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs for information. Is that agreed? Agreed

Next is Item 3(2) COM (2003) 168, regarding aid for policies and actions on reproductive and sexual health and rights in developing countries. This proposal for a regulation replaces Council Regulation (EC) 1484/97 on aid for population programmes, which expired on 31 December 2002. It was considered at the Council of EU Development Co-operation Ministers on 20 May when political agreement was reached on this proposal. It had earlier passed its first reading in the European Parliament. It is anticipated that projects funded through this regulation would be in tandem with "broad-based investments in the social sector, covering education, community action, (and) equity and gender awareness".

The regulation would not sanction "incentives to encourage sterilisation or abortion as a means of family planning nor to the improper testing of contraception methods in developing countries." The proposal would allow for the awarding of "financial assistance and appropriate expertise with a view to promoting the recognition of reproductive and sexual rights, safe motherhood and universal access to a comprehensive range of safe and reliable reproductive and sexual health services." Financial support to the amount of €73.95 million over the period 2003-06 is envisaged and this financing would take the form of grants to NGOs or community-based organisations. For the most part, grants would be awarded to organisations based in the Union. Decisions on the awarding of grants will be made by the Commission, assisted by the geographically determined committee competent for development. I understand these committees cover Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and the Mediterranean regions.

I have concerns about this document. It has not received proper scrutiny and I do not understand why this decision went to the Council without the appropriate committee at least having the opportunity to scrutinise it. I believe there are constitutional or legal issues which need to be clarified. It appears that it provides for funding for direct abortion. The document states that the proposal supports the Cairo programme of action by giving all couples and individuals the basic right and opportunity to fully protect their reproductive and sexual health in particular against unsafe abortion. When I asked if that meant that there could be funding for safe abortion, I was informed that it probably could mean that. The document also states that Ireland's position in the Council negotiation of both the previous and the draft regulation has been that they must be in strict conformity with the Cairo agreement which provides that abortion is not to be promoted as a method of family planning and that regulations regarding abortion are solely for individual countries to decide. Clearly, it is not proposing abortion as a method of family planning, nor does it exclude abortion for other reasons.

There are four issues involved: scrutiny; the legal issue; the circumstances of the funding of direct abortion; and the greater good. I do not know whether the greater good is provided for but I certainly do not think that it should go without explanation. There should be some explanation of this. The Council received this information last Tuesday and it has already appeared. I do not think that is a proper process of scrutiny.

Deputy Carey

Chairman, I welcome the articulation of your concerns and many of us share those concerns. What is open to the committee to do at this stage?

Chairman

I think we should ask the officials involved in this to come to the committee and explain the scrutiny of those four concerns, the legal issues and the circumstances in which direct abortion could be funded and where the greater good lies. Some judgment should be made. I propose to invite the officials to this committee to discuss the matter.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

I agree with you, Chairman. We must raise more than our eyebrows in relation to this proposal. I see that at EU level there does not even appear to have been a full debate. It seems that it was a proposal to be adopted as an "A" point in Council which would mean automatic adoption without debate. There are both legal and constitutional aspects that need to be examined.

Chairman

As well as examination from the point of view of scrutiny. We are supposed to scrutinise and we must put our foot down and say that some committee of the Oireachtas should examine them. This is an issue that needs examination.

Deputy Sexton

I agree fully. Our committee is supposed to scrutinise this and it will fall into our lap when this becomes an EU regulation. I have other concerns about the NGOs and the community-based organisations in that the money that has been given to it has increased from that proposed by the Commission. How much was there before the amended regulation was proposed? Will the fund be doubled?

Chairman

We need to know all about this before we decide what to do about it. I propose that we invite the officials from the Department to examine it with the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Carey

I suggest there is an urgency about this matter. It is something that is of serious concern to us all.

Chairman

We can call a special meeting next week.

Deputy Sexton

Is the committee not to meet next week?

Chairman

We will deal with it at the next meeting. Is that agreed?

Deputy Sexton

When is it proposed that meeting take place?

Chairman

It is proposed for 5 June.

Deputy Sexton

Is that the non-sitting week? I propose we meet next week.

Chairman

We could take a break in the week of 5 June and have a meeting next week.

Deputy Carey

I will be in Brussels on 5 June.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

Is there a question of a meeting on Monday?

Deputy Sexton

Yes, Monday at 11 a.m.

Chairman

There will be no meeting on Monday. You should have received a notice of the cancellation of that meeting. Commissioner Monti was to be in Dublin on Monday and he has since changed his plans. The French Minister for European Affairs will be here on Tuesday at 2.30 p.m. for a plenary session of the committee. We could fit in a meeting of the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny at 9.30 a.m. next Thursday and not meet the following week during the recess.

Deputy Sexton

When were we notified about Mr. Monti's change of plans?

Chairman

It is a matter for the parent committee but a notice was sent out and I hope the Deputy received it.

The next item for consideration is Title IV measures, to be forwarded to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. The document 4(1) section 255 relates to an agreement with Sri Lanka on the readmission of persons. This proposal would allow for the conclusion of a fully reciprocal agreement between the participating member states of the Union and Sri Lanka for the readmission of persons residing without authorisation. The agreement also encompasses such circumstances where own nationals, third country nationals and stateless persons stay beyond the agreed limits in the receiving state. Both sides will participate in a readmission committee that will monitor the operation of the agreement and the agreement does not remove obligations arising from international law.

This agreement will be a mutual one and would result in the return of persons with a right of residence in the receiving state who were residing without authorisation in the other state or states which is or are a party to the agreement. It would also cover cases where a person entered illegally a member state via Sri Lanka. The proposed agreement is one of a number currently being concluded. The Commission has been mandated by the Council to also negotiate agreements with Morocco, the Macao Special Administrative Region, Pakistan, Russia, the Ukraine, Albania, Algeria, China and Turkey. This is a Title IV proposal and therefore does not automatically apply to Ireland. As members will be aware, approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas will be required to participate in this proposed regulation. The Department has indicated that it is likely that Ireland will opt into this measure in due course. It is proposed to forward this proposal to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for its information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 4(2) is Commission document 2003/151, the agreement with Macao regarding the readmission of persons. The proposal will allow for the conclusion of a fully reciprocal agreement between the participating member states of the Union and the Macao SAR for the readmission of persons residing without authorisation. The Department has indicated that it is likely that Ireland will opt into this measure. Is it agreed to forward this measure to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights? Agreed.

Item 4(3) is Council document CL 7179/03, which is a procedure for amending the SIRENE manual. This proposal relates to amendments to the rules governing the procedure for the exchange of information in the context of the Schengen information system. This proposal would allow for amendments to the rules without the need for a legislative instrument. A manual sets out how this information is exchanged. At present I understand there is a rule book containing this information. However, as this rule book is now about ten years old, practice has gone beyond the rule book. The rule book has not been updated because it is done on a legislative basis. It is proposed to no longer do so on a legislative basis and carry it out administratively. Having asked the staff whether this includes, for example, private information on persons, I am advised that it does not - it is a manual of good practice.

Ireland has an option to participate in provisions of the system and it is anticipated that it will do so and that an office operated by the Garda Síochána for the exchange of relevant information will be operational within the next year. Information is made available via a database and would cover missing persons, extradition cases and traceable goods such as valuable paintings.

This is a Title IV proposal and therefore does not automatically apply to Ireland. Approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas will be required to participate in this proposed regulation. I understand the Department has indicated that it is likely that Ireland will participate in this measure. It is proposed to refer it to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for consideration and information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Are the minutes of the previous meeting agreed? Agreed. The draft 12th report of the sub-committee was circulated today. It is proposed that this be laid before the House and copies placed in the Oireachtas Library. Is that agreed? Agreed. I propose to defer consideration of the draft 13th report - the report of today's meeting - to the next meeting of the sub-committee.

The sub-committee adjourned at 10.25 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 29 May 2003.