I am advised that depending on the nature of the agreement, if the regulations are actually required to be turned into a directive, then they are dealt with in this way through the legislative procedure. If not, they can come into effect through administrative function.
We will now deal with CFSP measures, Common Foreign and Security Policy measures, which are to be noted by the sub-committee. Members will be aware that the Chair had been briefed of these agreements in advance, under the procedures for handling confidential measures. I was briefed before they were decided upon, in a written form.
CFSP (2003) 402 relates to the application of specific measures to combat terrorism. This updating measure is based on an earlier one scrutinised by the sub-committee. It lists individuals and groups concerning the application of specific measures to combat terrorism. It is proposed to note. Is that agreed? Agreed.
CFSP (2003) 423 relates to joint action on the European Union military operation in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Operation Artemis is the deployment of an EU-led stabilisation force in the north-east of the Congo and is authorised by this CFSP joint action. The joint action is also based on a UN mandate through resolution 1484. This authorises the deployment until 1 September 2003 of an interim emergency force in Bunia. France, as the major contribution to the force, is the framework nation for the operation and as members will be aware, Ireland is currently contributing four military personnel to it. The operation is mandated to contribute to the stabilisation of the security situation in the Bunia region, which had seen renewed conflict in recent months. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.
CFSP (2003) 444 relates to the common position on the International Criminal Court. This common position is effectively a reaffirmation of the EU's position of support for the International Criminal Court, based in The Hague. It could also be seen as a means to encourage associated countries to give their maximum support to the operation of the court. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The following joint actions relate to the further extension of the mandates of special representatives of the European Union in a number of troubled parts of the world. The sub-committee, at an earlier meeting, had examined each of these appointments of special representatives. I will take them together. They are simply extending mandates and we have already examined them.
Council document 10376/03, with regard to the Council joint action, extends the mandate of EU special representative to the Middle East, Mr. Miguel Moratinos.
CFSP (2003) 446 is a Council joint action, which extends the mandate of Mr. Alexis Brouhns as the special representative in FYROM until 31 December 2003.
CFSP (2003) 447 is a Council joint action, which extends the mandate of Mr. AldoAjello as the EU special representative to the African Great Lakes region, until 31 December 2003.
CFSP (2003) 448 is a Council joint action, which extends the mandate of Mr. Francesc Vendrell as the EU special representative in Afghanistan, until 31 December 2003.
CFSP (2003) 449 is a Council joint action, which extends the mandate of Mr. ErhardBusek as the special representative of theEuropean Union, to act as special co-ordinatorof the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europeuntil 31 December 2003. All of those areextending measures. Are there any commentsor can we note them all? Is that agreed?Agreed.
The last item on the scrutiny agenda to day is No. 51, which is a Title IV measure. This is Council document 9870/03 on the creation of an immigration liaison officers network. I understand that the legal basis for this proposal has been the subject of some discussion,with both Great Britain and the Republicof Ireland pointing out that they do notbelieve they are automatically party to this Schengen-related proposal. I also understand that both member states point out that compliance with this proposal does not arise from their existing information-sharing commitment within the Schengen context. The Department has also indicated that a number of member states which do not question the legal basisof the proposal, do however query the needfor it.
The proposed measure seeks to establish a formalised structure for co-operation between liaison officers from member states. Member states that argue against the need for such a formalised structure, I understand, point out that such co-operation is successfully achieved currently through existing informal arrangements. The Department has indicated that its proposal is likely to be amended to take account of Irish and British concerns over its legal basis and that therefore the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas will be required for this Title IV measure. It is proposed to forward this measure to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for further consideration and that the Department be asked to keep that committee informed of developments concerning the debate on the legal basis of the proposal. Is that agreed? .Agreed.
The minutes of the meeting of 26 June 2003 have been circulated. Are the minutes agreed? Agreed.