There is a related regulation later on, but I am advised that they were adopted at the same time. There are no deferred documents for consideration at this meeting. The next set of proposals on the agenda are those which it is proposed do not warrant further scrutiny. These are items Nos. 5.1 to 5.17, inclusive. Members should note that item No. 5.8 is a title IV measure and was taken as item No. 2.3. Item No. 5.2 has been adopted and will now be dealt with as item No. 6.6, an adopted measure. Similarly, item No. 5.9 has been adopted and will be dealt with as item No. 6.7, an adopted measure.
Item No. 5.1, Commission document COM (2004) 560, is a proposal for a Council decision approving the conclusion of the Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident and the Convention on Assistance in the case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency. To date, the EU has been a party to the conventions on assistance and notification in the event of nuclear or radiological accidents with respect only to its research facilities. Under the conventions, a party to them is obliged to notify other parties about the release of radioactive materials and to provide them with relevant information. The Commission argues in its memorandum that the measures adopted in 1987 do not reflect its competence in this area and that it should become a full party to the conventions.
I understand the Department has indicated that it supports the proposal as it would underpin the provision of information on situations related to the release of radioactive materials. There would, for example, be an additional party requesting and receiving information and the Department contends that the greater flow of information in this area is to be welcomed. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny, but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item No. 5.2, Commission document COM (2004) 60, has been dealt with as item No. 6.6 as it has been adopted. Item No. 5.3, Commission document COM (2004) 604, is a proposal for a Council decision amending Council Decision 2002/883/EC providing further macro-financial assistance to Bosnia-Herzegovina. In November 2002, the Council decided to provide Bosnia-Herzegovina with macro-financial assistance of up to €60 million. The assistance was provided in the form of a loan facility of €20 million and the remainder was administered by way of a grant facility. The objective of the assistance has been to support the balance of payments situation and to help ease the country's external financial requirements in the post-conflict period.
The provision of assistance under the 2002 decision was dependent on a satisfactory track record on the economy. However, I understand that due to procedural requirements and delays in implementing the required economic reforms, it was not possible to provide all the assistance within the timeframe envisaged in the original decision. The proposal seeks to amend the current arrangement to permit the final payments be made up to 30 June 2005. The original decision had a cut-off date of November 2004.
The Commission's memorandum to the proposal outlines that Bosnia-Herzegovina, BiH, needs to make progress in a number of economic areas before it can recommend the opening of negotiations on a stabilisation and association agreement with BiH. Nonetheless, the Commission notes that progress in structural reforms has continued and that, on this basis, it is proposing an extension in the timeframe for provision of this assistance. The Department of Finance has confirmed that the adoption of the proposal would have no direct implications for Ireland. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item No. 5.4, Commission document COM (2004) 605, is a proposal for a Council decision amending Council Decision 2002/882/EC, providing further macro-financial assistance to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In November 2002, the Council decided to provide up to €130 million up to November 2004 to underpin economic reforms in the country. However, in recent times the pace of economic advance has slowed down, due to, among other things, a difficult political situation. I understand that €25 million of the original amount of assistance remains to be provided and this proposal seeks to extend the period by which this assistance might be provided. The adoption of the proposal would see the provision of this macro-financial assistance to Serbia and Montenegro being provided up to 30 June 2006.
The provision of the remaining financial assistance is linked to progress in economic and structural reforms and the Department has confirmed that the adoption of the proposal would have no direct implications for Ireland. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item No. 5.5, Commission document COM (2004) 644, is a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 527/2003 on the importation of wines from Argentina to include an extension of the derogation for wines that may contain malic acid. I understand the sub-committee previously considered this matter in October 2003 when it determined that the related proposal did not warrant further scrutiny. This proposal seeks to extend permission for a further year the offering for sale of wines imported from Argentina, which have had acid derived from apples added to them. Members have seen from the materials circulated that it is contended that this is in order to sharpen the taste of the wine. Did Deputy Carey check this?
