I would welcome questions or comments. We are here to deal with two legislative measures. The first is COM (2003)167, which is an amended proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and Council on aid for poverty diseases - HIV-AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis - in developing countries. The other is COM (2003)168, an amended proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and Council on aid for policies and actions on reproductive and sexual health and rights in developing countries. Procedures for the review of draft EU legislative proposals were introduced in July 2002, with the agreement of the Oireachtas, and were placed on a statutory footing in the European Union (Scrutiny) Act 2002. Since the introduction of the new arrangements, Ministers have submitted more than 200 proposals to the Oireachtas for review.
The Government has demonstrated its commitment to promoting dialogue with Oireachtas committees on European affairs by submitting explanatory information notes on draft legislative proposals to the Oireachtas and by briefing committees prior to Council meetings when invited to do so. Pursuing this policy of dialogue, I will brief members of this committee on proposals 167 and 168, which were adopted at the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 20 May 2003. Due to the nature of the EU legislative process, it may not always prove possible to conclude the scrutiny of measures prior to adoption - this is reflected in sections 2(3) and (4) of the European Union (Scrutiny) Act. I will return to that in a few moments.
I understand that the Department of Foreign Affairs has provided the members of the sub-committee with background notes on both of these regulations and I do not think it is necessary for me to go over that ground again. I recall that the Irish members of the European Parliament were briefed by my Department when this legislation was being debated in the plenary session of the Parliament earlier this year. These two regulations have as their objective the pursuit of two of the eight millennium development goals, that is, to improve maternal health and to combat HIV and AIDS, malaria and other diseases.
The targets are to reduce by three quarters between 1990 and 2015 the maternal mortality rates and to have halted and begun to reverse by 2015 the spread of HIV and AIDS and the instance of malaria and other major diseases, with the following indicators: HIV prevalence among 15 to 24 year old pregnant women; contraception prevalence rates; numbers of children orphaned by AIDS; death rates associated with malaria; risks; areas using effective malaria prevention and treatment measures; prevalence and death rates associated with tuberculosis; and proportions of TB cases detected and cured.
The three communicable diseases covered by the regulation on poverty disease are HIV-AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, which account for more than 5.5 million deaths per year in developing countries. The regulation, whose purpose is to implement measures to combat the three communicable diseases mentioned, replaces a 1997 regulation on HIV-AIDS-related operations, which forms the present framework for the EU's activities in this field. The new regulation provides for a comprehensive package which targets simultaneously measures related to development co-operation, trade relations and research on new pharmaceutical products for the three major communicable diseases. The aim is to optimise the impact of existing interventions, services and commodities targeted at the three communicable diseases affecting the poorest populations, to increase the affordability of key pharmaceuticals and to enhance the research and development of vaccines and innovative treatment for these diseases.
A further regulation deals with the issue of the provision of cheaper drugs for the communicable diseases I have mentioned. This further regulation will deal with the concerns of pharmaceutical companies, which fear that products sold at heavily discounted prices to developing countries will be sold back to developed countries, thereby undermining their most lucrative markets. In brief, this further regulation will address these concerns by prohibiting the re-importation of drugs from 76 countries, mainly the least developed countries in Africa. The total amount available under the new regulation is €351 million for the period from 2003 to 2006 and the amount requested by the European Parliament and the budgetary authority will determine the amount to be spent annually.
Moving on to the regulation on reproductive and sexual health and rights in developing countries, I recall that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, answered a parliamentary question on this matter tabled by the Chairman of this committee on 5 March 2003. In March 2002, the European Commission submitted a proposal to the Council and the European Parliament for a new regulation on reproductive and sexual health and rights in developing countries. The previous regulation expired on 21 December 2002, having been in force since July 1997. The purpose of both the previous regulation and its replacement is to allow the Commission to continue to support programmes in developing countries in the area of reproductive and sexual health and rights. The Commission's role in relation to development co-operation is laid down in Articles 177 to 181 of the treaty establishing the European Community. The previous regulation and its proposed replacement form an important part of the EC's development policy. In particular, the legislation addresses the specific UN millennium development goal relating to maternal health, which calls for the reduction of maternal mortality by three quarters over the period from 1990 to 2015.
Throughout the developing world and especially in the poorest countries, hundreds of thousands of women continue to die in childbirth, as the Chairman pointed out, because health systems cannot afford proper medical care and appropriate services. The new regulation, like the previous 1997-2002 instrument, is based on the programme of action agreed at the Cairo international conference on population and development of 1994 and the Cairo Plus Five follow-up conference in 1999. Ireland's position in the Council negotiations on both the draft regulation and its predecessor has been that they must be in strict conformity with the Cairo programme of action, which provides that abortion is not to be promoted as a family planning method and that regulations regarding abortion are solely for individual countries to decide. I am satisfied that the new regulations meet this requirement and that it represents a substantial contribution by the EU towards implementation of the millennium development goals to which the international community is committed. Ireland's negotiating achievement in relation to this regulation was to ensure its strict conformity with the principles of the Cairo programme of action in relation to abortion. It seems that this was a far superior outcome than to have allowed ourselves to become isolated and to have been defeated in a possible vote.
I would like to say a brief word on funding, given that the amount proposed by the European Parliament exceeded what the Commission initially proposed. The Commission was invited to inform the legislative authority, in this case the Council and European Parliament, in co-decision, whether the amount proposed by the European Parliament would be compatible with the revised programme for heading 4 of the community budget and within the ceiling set out in the financial perspective for that heading. In line with the review of the priorities for further expenditure identified under the annual policy strategy decision of 5 March 2003, the Commission has been able to provide the legislative authority with the necessary assurance. Funding is provided from the community budget. As the committee knows, Ireland makes a global contribution of about 1.3% of the total community budget funding. There is no provision to alter funding for individual legislative measures or to withhold funding from any individual legislative measure. No cherry-picking is possible.
The Chairman raised a number of issues, including the emphasis on the HIV pandemic, as he rightly describes it. As the Chairman will be aware, I was Minister with responsibility for development in a previous Government in the early 1990s and I made the point time and again that the most dramatic change in the landscape since then has been the development of the HIV-AIDS pandemic. Recently, the American administration committed a substantial figure to try to deal with this issue. The former American President, Bill Clinton, is another person who is actively involved in trying to encourage other countries, including this one, to get involved in tackling the issue - as the Chairman pointed out, this pandemic has not been dealt with adequately or properly. I know he supports our Government's approach to this. We have committed substantial funding towards alleviating the problem and the Taoiseach is very committed to ensuring that it is tackled. He and I launched our own strategy in Johannesburg at the summit on sustainable development. The reality is that this is the latest war on people in the developing world. I have seen for myself that some of our programme countries such as Zambia are suffering hugely. The international community has not dealt with the situation adequately and it is important that the EU plays its part.
I accept that there was a problem with procedure. This proposal should have come before the committee before it went to the Council. I regret this did not happen in the proper fashion. I made the point in my contribution that the legislation allows for this to happen, but I do not think it is satisfactory that it happens in this way. The chronological order of events was that in March 2002 the Commission tabled a proposal and the European Union (Scrutiny) Act was passed in the Oireachtas last October. I could argue that technically this process started before this legislation came into being, but it would not work. Ideally, I would like to see these matters discussed in the same fashion as other issues prior to Council meetings.
The proposal then went from the European Parliament to the Council. The Council secretariat circulated the proposal on 4 April. Normally that takes four weeks, but in our case the proposals went to other Departments, such as the Department of Health and Children. It was forwarded to this committee on 14 May. The one development we had not predicted was that the Greek Presidency tabled this as an A point for the GAC meeting of 19 and 20 May, for agreement, with no discussion. I accept the Chairman's point on procedure; we should ideally be discussing these issues as we discussed the other issues prior to the last GAC meeting, but we have that opportunity now.
