The first set of proposals are not for reference if the committee agrees. The first item for scrutiny is Commission Document (2003) 147 concerning the stands for two-wheeled motor vehicles. This is a technical measure involving codification of existing measures. Is thatagreed?
Scrutiny of EU Proposals.
No, why is the EU getting involved in stands for two-wheeled motor vehicles?
I asked the same question. They are used to ensure that individual national specifications are not used as a barrier to trade within the Internal Market. In other words, nobody can say that a bike does not qualify because it does not have the proper stand. That is the technical reason for it.
I have heard this argument before. Is the EU now telling us how a bike should be designed?
No, these are existing measures that are being codified. They exist to prevent problems. For example, there are many cases where people have been prevented from importing a motorbike into Asia because it did not have the right stand. Measures already exist to cover this matter but this commission document codifies them. Its aim is to prevent trade barriers in the Internal Market. When we received this brief I asked the same question.
I have heard this argument before and it has a certain degree of legitimacy. This is an issue if it is used as the rationale to impose EU standards and obligations in every sphere of our lives. I want these measures properly explained. By introducing these standards the EU is saying that even if this proposal works in a different way we shall not allow anyone to build a stand that way.
We could get a note for circulation and, if the committee wishes, examine the issue further.
We have come across this issue before. The EU says it wants to introduce a proposal to promote free trade. I understand that but the downside is that we would lose our national autonomy to do things in a different way.
This proposal codifies existing practices, prevents barriers to trade and allows for the comparison of like with like. I agree that there is a danger that EU proposals will reach into every part of our lives and we must guard against that. In this case we are dealing with a codification of existing measures. Is it proposed to note this proposal? Agreed.
Commission Document (2003) 516 relates to a compensation scheme for the additional costs incurred in the marketing of certain fishery products from the Azores, Madeira, the Canary Islands and the French departments of Guyana and Reunion. The proposal sets out the amounts that will be paid on a per tonne basis. Community rules on conservation and management of fish stock must continue to be observed by the regions concerned. I do not think this proposal has any implications for Ireland. Is it noted? Agreed.
Commission Document (2003) 556 seeks approval, since 1990, for the fifth of a series of fishing agreements between the European Community and the Ivory Coast. The proposal is similar to previous fishery agreements considered by the sub-committee. The Department has indicated that Irish vessels do not fish in the waters concerned. Is it noted? Agreed.
Turning to Commission Document (2003) 581, Members will recall that after the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie and UTA flight 772 over Niger a number of UN resolutions were adopted to impose restrictions on trade with Libya. Following a number of positive developments aspects of these sanctions were suspended in 1999. Earlier this year a financial settlement was reached with Libya on the bombing over Lockerbie and discussions are continuing over additional financial compensation on the UTA bombing.
The proposal follows on from UN Security Council Resolution 1506 and seeks to repeal the regulation putting in place the EU's economic sanctions of 1993 that were suspended in 1999. I understand that the current proposal does not impact on the EU's existing embargo on the supply of military equipment to Libya. It is proposed that this measure does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Commission Document (2003) 594 deals with the organisation of a labour force sample survey in the Community to adapt the list of survey characteristics. It is a proposed amendment to an earlier proposal considered by the sub-committee. At our meeting on 8 May we found that that particular proposal did not warrant further scrutiny. The main objective of the earlier proposal, Commission Document 109, was to introduce six new variables into the labour market survey and, therefore, assist in the formulation of policy responses to achieve the aims of the Lisbon process. This technical amendment would permit Spain, Finland and Great Britain to continue their existing processes for the collection of the relevant data until the end of 2007. It would allow these member states more time to adapt their survey procedures to those outlined in the original proposal. It is proposed that this measure does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Commission Document (2003) 598 deals with product specific safeguard mechanisms for imports originating in China and on common rules for imports from certain third countries. The current proposal seeks to set increased post-enlargement quotas for these products from China to take account of the enlarged market. It is proposed that this measure does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed?
Annex 1 at the end ofthe proposal seems to indicate a schedule thatI do not understand. Will someone explain it to me?
The proposal follows an earlier resolution that implemented the phasing out of proposals on footwear, tableware and ceramic tableware products from China. These new arrangements were required to take account of the Peoples Republic of China's accession to the WTO. We already agreed to note this proposal. The current proposal simply seeks to set increased post-enlargement quotas. EU enlargement means China would have a bigger quota.
Let us examine the figures on footwear for the period January to December. Were 47 million pairs of shoes allowed into the EU this year?
Yes, the figure refers to pairs of shoes.
Does that mean that China can export 47 million pairs of shoes, of a certain category, to the EU this year?
Yes.
Will 18 million pairs of shoes be imported in the next quarter?
Yes.
Is it 58 million pairs of shoes in the next quarter?
Yes.
Will China be completely free to export those items after that?
Yes, after their accession to the WTO.
Does that means there will be no customs duty to be paid?
No. We will have access to the Chinese market. It will be a two way process.
Has this proposal been circulated to Irish shoe manufacturers? If implemented it will have a big impact on their business.
The WTO rules stipulate that there will be more open trading between the European Union and China. It will not be just one way trading.
I appreciate that but many people have said Chinese industrial output may completely undercut industry in Europe. Shoes can be produced a lot cheaper in China than anywhere else. If it has unlimited access to our market, as and from 2005, then we should know about it.
The note from the Department says that there are no implications envisaged from Ireland
I find that very hard to believe.
I presume the existing arrangements already deal with that sort of trade.
China will be able to flood the market with footwear.
We can flood them with Avonmore milk in return.
Is that it?
Yes. We are talking about access to both markets.
I am concerned about this issue. The proposal will result in very big changes.
The Deputy raised a valid point. I did not notice this element of the proposal until it was brought to our attention. The phraseology used in the note referred to increasing post-enlargement quotas. Is the quota increase set or is it open-ended after the Chinese decided to join the WTO?
The increase was set. The figures are set and from 2005 onwards quotas will not apply to footwear, tableware and ceramic tableware products from China because of the WTO free trade agreement.
Are we satisfied that all relevant vested interests have been made aware of this proposal? It will have huge implications for anybody involved in those three industries. It would not be a waste of time to send a copy of the proposal to the Dáil's industry committee to ensure that it is aware of the commission document.
We can send it to that committee if members want.
I take your point. I have read Annex 1 and we have been told about the situation post-2005 when tariffs and quotas will be removed. However, the proposal still seems open-ended.
We will send it to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business for its information. Is the proposal agreed? Agreed.
I propose that items 1.1 to 1.6 do not warrant further scrutiny and that item 1.6 shall be sent to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is proposed to refer items 2.1 to 2.6 to sectoral committees for further scrutiny. Item 2.1 refers to Commission Document (2003) 91 which deals with air transport between the Community and third countries. The proposal is part of a package of measures that deals with the regulation of the air transport industry.
Members will recall that at a previous meeting of the sub-committee Commission Document (2003) 94 on the negotiation of air routes was scrutinised. The proposal follows a Court of Justice judgment. I understand the Court of Justice recognised that the EU Treaty's anti-competitive measures are directly applicable. I will clarify the regulatory position on air transport between the member states of the Community and third countries. The proposal would amend the existing regulation governing flights between member states, including flights to third countries. The Commission argues it should be in a position to enforce competition rules by fact-finding and to require undertakings to end infringements with regard to air transport and third countries.
The measure could have major implications for the air transport industry. It could be referred to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport for further scrutiny. The sub-committee should also note the correspondence received regarding the late submission of the proposal. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 2.2 COM (2003) 473 deals with a system of harmonised rules for restrictions on heavy goods vehicles involved in international transport on designated roads. The stated aim of this proposal is to give greater clarity on the legal status of driving bans on heavy goods vehicles which operate in a number of member states on public holidays and Sundays on designated roads. Member states would continue to have exclusive competence to choose these national holidays.
A European road information system will also be established under the aegis of the Commission to process and disseminate relevant data for the information of road users. As many of the public holidays in the member states concerned are religious holidays the dates on which they fall change from year to year. Therefore, access to the database should clarify the situation for haulage companies.
The Department has indicated that a number of aspects of the proposal remain to be clarified but that, as currently drafted, it should benefit Ireland as all road haulage operators and professional drivers could access the information system.
Members will notice that the information note from the Department indicates that the proposal has proven "to be very controversial". I understand this relates to a debate that has surrounded the extent to which member states should be free to impose driving restrictions on designated days. It is, therefore, proposed that this proposal be referred to the Joint Committee on Transport for further scrutiny. Is that agreed?
Is this just about the exchange of information or does it also say that if a member state has a public holiday not only must it tell the Commission that there is to be a public holiday but also that heavy goods vehicles will be banned on that holiday?
Yes. The kernel of the proposal is that professional drivers would have access to the information through a database.
If Ireland decides to have a public holiday must we, by law, ban HGVs on that holiday?
We need not ban them but if we decide to ban them we must make the information available.
Is it only that information?
Yes.
Thank you.
Professional drivers would have access to the information.
I half understood the document to impose a rule that HGVs must be banned on all public holidays, whether a member state wished to or not.
No. There was some doubt whether member states had the right to ban HGVs on public holidays. This document clarifies that they have that right.
They have a right to do what?
They have a right to ban HGVs on public holidays but they are not compelled to do so. If they choose to do so they must notify this database, to which professional drivers have access.
That is fair enough. Had it been otherwise it would have breached subsidiarity.
It is proposed to refer the document to the Joint Committee on Transport for further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Commission document COM (2003) 490 deals with the harmonisation of certain social legislation. The stated aim of this proposal is to update the existing Regulation No. (EEC) 3820/1985 to better reflect developments, particularly technological ones, in the road transport sector over the past 17 years. It also seeks to clarify a number of points in relation to exemptions to the rules. A new dimension to the proposed amended regulation is the provision to allow a member state impose a sanction for an infringement of the regulation detected in its territory, even where that infringement has been committed in the territory of another member state. The infringement concerned here would relate to designated rest periods, for example.
The Department has indicated that consultation has taken place with interested parties through the Department's steering group for haulage and that the proposal, as currently drafted, has been broadly welcomed. It is proposed that this proposal be referred to the Joint Committee on Transport for further scrutiny along with COM (2000) 473 and forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Women's Rights for information purposes.
The essence of this provision is that if, for example, a truck going from a place in Germany to a destination in Germany cut through France and the rest period had not been observed, the French authorities could prosecute. Similarly, if a truck was going, for example, from Dover to Northern Ireland through the Republic the provision would also apply. I also understand that in future not only will it apply to the tachograph in vehicles but that individual drivers will have a card which they will take from truck to truck. Therefore, there will be greater possibility for monitoring breaches of the rest rules and thereby endanger others.
Is it agreed that this proposal be referred? Agreed.
Commission document COM (2003) 350 relates to the protection of ground water against pollution. Article 17 of the water framework directive requires that the Commission advance a proposal for the protection of ground water. The current proposal seeks to set general guidelines for the monitoring and prevention of the pollution of ground water. The guidelines are 50 milligrammes per litre for nitrates and 0.1 microgrammes per litre for pesticidal active ingredients. Member states will be required to establish threshold values for pollutants not already covered by EU water legislation. Member states would also be required to inform the Commission of these limits. Member states would additionally be required to take corrective action against increasing levels of pollution of ground water.
I understand that the Department has indicated that a cross-Border INTERREG project may be established to address areas of mutual interest in relation to conforming to the aims of the draft directive on the island of Ireland. It is therefore proposed that the proposal, which is of some significance, should be referred to the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government for further scrutiny and forwarded to the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food for information. Is that agreed?
I welcome the advent of this directive. Almost alone among our European neighbours we continue to enjoy a fine quality of ground water. Unfortunately, studies and reports have indicated that the situation has deteriorated somewhat as a result of industrial and agricultural pollution and other difficulties. The Departments of the Environment and Local Government and Agriculture and Food are taking a tough and proper attitude to this question and any further necessary measures which come from Europe or elsewhere must be welcomed. We have a fine natural resource and we must ensure that it is fully protected.
It is, unfortunately, not merely a matter of protecting the resource. Remedial measures are necessary. The directive will take into account the fact that money will have to be set aside for taking the necessary steps to improve situations where problems have occurred.
Is it agreed to refer? Agreed.
Commission document COM (2003) 596 deals with the co-ordination of social security systems. This proposal is the latest in a series of proposals considered by the sub-committee on the co-ordination of social security systems in the European Union. The amendment under consideration relates to the Commission's 1998 proposals for greater co-ordination and simplification of the existing framework EC document No. 1408 of 1971.
One of the amendments likely to impact most directly on Ireland is the provision giving retired frontier workers the right to choose between receiving health care in their member state of residence or where they were last employed. Another amendment relates to changes in the rules governing the payment of unemployed benefit to frontier workers and their registration with a national employment agency of their choice.
Members will have been circulated with the additional information note regarding these points from the Department of Social and Family Affairs. It is proposed to refer this significant proposal to the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs for further scrutiny and to forward it to the Joint Committee on Health and Children for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Commission document COM (2003) 403 is a highly technical proposal that seeks to put in place a system for the exchange of gas emission allowances through two flexible mechanisms - joint implementation, JI, and the clean development mechanism, CDM. The proposal is an amendment to the existing scheme for the trading of allowances and part of a wider package of measures by the EU to put in place a mechanism for implementing obligations arising from the Kyoto Protocol.
When the full mechanism is in place for the trading of allowances it should be possible for a company based in Ireland, for example, to invest in a CDM project in the developing world that would reduce emissions there. This reduction in emissions in the developing world could then be taken into account in calculating the overall reduction of emissions by the Ireland based company. In this way the company could avoid incurring fines for exceeding its emission targets. It would also be possible to invest in JI projects in developed countries or countries in transition, such as the Russian Federation. The ability of investing companies to repatriate the measurable benefits of reduced emissions as a result of their investments is more limited than in the CDM projects. The Department has indicated that there is an understanding among member states that only 50% of companies' calculated reduced emission levels should be derived from this mechanism.
It is, therefore, proposed that the proposal be referred to the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government for further scrutiny and forwarded to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business for information. Is that agreed?
Is this not a rather cynical measure? Was it always in the Kyoto Protocol? It appears that a company which is not going to live within the parameters of the Kyoto Protocol in an EU country can invest in a project elsewhere and get credit for the emissions it saves in that other country. Surely we are either committed to reducing gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol or we are not. This will add to people's cynicism about politicians and politics. What can this sub-committee do about it?
This is an implementing obligation which arises under the Kyoto Protocol. It would reduce world emissions. The joint implementation proposal is intended almost exclusively to give the Russian Federation an incentive to sign up for the protocol. If someone were to invest in Russia the Russians would get the benefit of the investment, the investing company would get the benefit of being able to count reduced emissions in Russia as part of its overall reduction and Russia would also be meeting part of its obligation to reduce emissions. The proposal will have an overall benefit. It is allowed for in the protocol and implements its effects.
I do not disagree about the overall beneficial effect but it seems to be a cynical move.
The write-off level is maximised at 50%, which means a company must also take action at home.
The European Investment Bank could take the investment and a number of companies could buy shares in that investment. Because the developing world does not have market economies, the risk of loss is higher there and a number of vehicles are being used to promote this sort of investment.
Is it agreed that the proposal be referred? Agreed.
Commission document COM (2003) 597 is an anti-dumping measure that follows from an investigation by the Commission into the market for furfural alcohol in the Community. This measure was adopted within a relatively short period due to the need to put in place the measures in the proposal that would make it more difficult to bypass the anti-dumping rules. This will mean that customs officials will need to be presented with a valid commercial invoice for this product. This measure was adopted prior to scrutiny and it is proposed to note it. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 6.26 is also a measure which was adopted prior to scrutiny. It is a common foreign security policy measure and follows on from a measure considered by the sub-committee at its meeting on 16 October 2003. The regulation allows for the provision of training and equipment to the UN mission in Liberia and is in response to UN Security Council Resolution 1509.
An explanatory note from the Department, which members will have received along with the other circulated materials, has outlined that the measure was adopted within a very limited period of five days in order to facilitate the operations of the United Nations mission. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The following proposal is a Title 4 measure. This proposal arises under Title 4 of the treaty and, therefore, does not automatically apply to Ireland. The approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas would be required for Ireland's participation. Members will have seen the outline in greater detail of the legal position in relation to Title 4 measures, such as this one in the note provided with the material circulated.
The proposal seeks to amend the current regulations laying down a uniform format for visas and residence permits for third country nationals. Ireland has opted into the existing Regulation (EC) 1683/95, laying down the uniform layout for visas. Ireland has not opted into Regulation (EC) 1030/2002. The current amendment would give a legal basis for including biometric identifiers, that is, fingerprint information and high definition photographs, on visas and residence cards. The Commission's memorandum to the proposal notes that the proposal arose in the wake of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 and requests to the Commission from member states to initiate action to improve document security.
It is proposed to note these twin Title 4 proposals, to forward them to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for information and to note that this is in advance of a decision to seek approval from the Oireachtas. This should afford the joint committee ample time to examine these proposals. Are there any comments on this proposal? As there are none, the proposal is noted.
The following common foreign security policy measure is to be noted by the sub-committee. As Chairman of the sub-committee I have received a confidential brief in advance of the adoption of this measure under the arrangements in place. CFSP No. 735 is a common position on Iraq. The common position here is associated to the regulation concerning Iraq which was considered by the sub-committee at its previous meeting. It amends existing EU restrictive measures on Iraq and is derived from the UN Security Council Resolution 1483. The common position and Regulation (EC) 1210/2003 allow for greater clarification on the existing EU measures. The measures, therefore, advance two points of clarification regarding existing measures. The restrictive measures in place concern the assets of the previous Government which were outside Iraq on 22 May 2003, the date of the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1483, or left Iraq after this date. Member states should also cause the transfer of frozen assets to the development fund for Iraq unless they are the subject of prior judicial or legal judgments. It is proposed to note this measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.
That concludes the scrutiny of proposals for this meeting.
The minutes of the meeting of 16 October were circulated. Are the minutes agreed? Agreed.
The draft 19th report and draft and part 2 of the draft 20th report were circulated to members in advance of the meeting. It is proposed that these reports be placed in the Oireachtas Library. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The draft 21st report has also been circulated. This report is in a revised format. I propose that the revised format be laid before both Houses and that this format be used in future scrutiny reports. The revised format addresses the report to the Oireachtas and places the list of members in the front of the report. It does not change the content. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The sub-committee adjourned at 10.10 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 20 November 2003.