JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny) debate -
Thursday, 25 Nov 2004

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Chairman

We will first deal with proposals warranting further scrutiny. It is proposed to refer items Nos. 1.1 to 1.14, inclusive, to sectoral committees for further scrutiny. Members should note that item No. 1.4 was originally No. 4.2.

Item No. 1, COM (2004) 599, is a proposal for a regulation on medical products for paediatric use amending Regulation (EEC) No. 1768/92; Directive 2001183/EC and Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004. Members will have learned from the materials circulated that both the Department and the Commission share the view that, "the paediatric population is a vulnerable group with developmental, physiological and psychological differences from adults, which makes age and development related research of medicines particularly important". In addition, both outline in their supporting documentation that, "in contrast to the situation in adults, more than 50% of the medicines used to treat children" have not been tested for use in children.

The Commission contends in its memorandum to the proposal that while the authorisation of medicines for children is a Europe-wide issue, member states will have an important role to play in the fulfilment of the objectives of the proposal. I understand that central to the Commission's proposal to address this issue would be the proposed paediatric committee, which would have responsibility for the assessment and agreement of paediatric investigation plans and requests for waivers and deferrals regarding authorisation. Members will also have noted the suggestion that the committee would, in its deliberations, take into consideration two overarching principles, namely, the potential therapeutic benefit to children and the requirement that studies on children not delay the authorisation of medicines for other populations.

Under the proposed measure, medicines granted the proposed paediatric use marketing authorisation, PUMA, could use the existing brand name for a product, plus the letter "P", to aid recognition and prescribing. The central basis of this proposal appears to be clearly laid out by the Commission and supported by the Department. However, this is a significant proposal and the manner in which the proposed measure might operate in practice is dependent on a committee system and the functioning of existing regulations regarding drugs. I am advised these are among the issues being explored by the working group in the Council dealing with this proposal. It is proposed, therefore, that the proposal be referred to the Committee on Health and Children for further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 1.2, COM (2004) 621, is a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the financial instrument for the environment, known as the LIFE plus programme. The Commission's LIFE programme has three elements, namely, environment, nature and third countries. The current LIFE regulation will expire at the end of 2006 and through this proposal the Commission is proposing its extension into the new financial perspective — 2007 to 2013 — with some amendment. The aims of the programme would be, inter alia, to assist in combating climate change and ensuring the sustainable use and management of resources.

The proposed budget for the new programme is €300 million. However, its financing appears to be particularly complex, with elements being funded from the budget for external action. Members will have noted that the budget for the proposed programme would be divided along the lines that 75% to 80% of it would facilitate networking and the exchange of best practice, while the remainder would, according to the Commission, "actively promote EU environmental policies by means of information, communication, awareness-raising and dialogue".

The Department classifies this proposal as being of no major significance and outlines that it is not anticipated that Ireland would not be disadvantaged by the proposed changes to the current programme. The sub-committee has, however, referred all previous proposals related to the financial perspectives for further scrutiny on the basis that the budgets were significant and that, as negotiations are ongoing, it seems inevitable that the programmes will be amended. In addition, the commencement or recommencement of significant EU programmes is an opportunity for relevant sectoral committees in the Oireachtas to consider their operation to date and offer views to Departments on how they might be improved.

The reports from the sectoral committees on the proposals relating to the next financial perspective, from 2007 to 2013, should greatly assist the Joint Committee on European Affairs when it considers the financial perspectives as a package. It is proposed that the proposal be referred to the Committee on the Environment, and Local Government for further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 1.3, COM (2004) 654, is a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on market access to port services. An earlier draft proposal relating to the opening up of services supplied in ports to more competitive activities was defeated in the European Parliament on 20 November 2003. The vote of 229 against and 209 in favour of the conciliation proposal followed a series of amendments to the original proposal which was presented in 2001. It is likely that this proposal will also be the subject of some debate. I also understand that the proposed measure would be of particular interest to those providing and receiving services in and around major ports across Ireland and the European Union.

In a follow-up to the initial note it provided, the Department has supplied a list of the ports it understands would be impacted upon by the adoption of the measure. The ports concerned would, according to the Department, be Cork, Dublin, Dún Laoghaire, Rosslare, Waterford and possibly Shannon Foynes. The Department has also confirmed that it is undertaking a consultation process with interested parties, including the Irish Ports Association, and is co-operating with the Department of Transport on the matter.

The Commission in its memorandum to the proposal contends that the aim of the proposal, the liberalisation of the provision of port services, is part of achieving the Lisbon Agenda, which has been debated at length in various committees and was the subject of debate at the recent COSAC conference in The Hague. The adoption of the proposal would result in the establishment of a Community legal framework for the provision of port services. According to the Commission, the markets for the provision of services are characterised by the complexity and variety of applicable national and other rules, the heterogeneous nature of the port services and the diversity of the ports. The proposal essentially concerns the opening up of competition for the provision of services such as pilotage, towing and mooring, all cargo handling operations, including loading and unloading, and passenger services, including embarkation and disembarkation. I understand that the Community's state aid guidelines in regard to the financing of port infrastructure would also apply.

In a possible reply to earlier concerns over employment and safety, the Commission contends that the adoption of the proposal would stimulate greater use of the ports and would, therefore, encourage employment. In addition, the existing rules governing health and safety would apply.

Members will have seen that under the proposal, all providers of services in ports would operate on the basis of authorisations provided by a competent authority and these would, in general, be provided for periods of between eight and ten years. Interested parties would also be invited, through the official journal, to apply for a permit to provide the service.

The proposal is of particular significance for island member states dependent on sea transport for commercial traffic. It is also being presented by the Commission at a time when the Department has indicated that the Government will be looking at adopting a national policy statement on ports. It is proposed that the proposal be referred to the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources for further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 1.4, Commission document COM (2004) 606, was originally item No. 4.2. It is a proposal for a Council decision amending Decision 2002/95/EC for the purposes of establishing the maximum concentration values for certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. Council Directive 2002/95/EC provides that from 15 July 2006, new electrical and electronic equipment put on the market may not contain, inter alia, mercury and lead. Article 5(1) provides that maximum values will be set for the presence of the substances concerned. Accordingly, the Commission submitted a proposal to the relevant comitology committee. However, the proposal did not achieve a majority and the Department has outlined, in additional information received after the circulation of advice, that a number of member states have argued that there should be a total ban on the use of certain substances in electronic equipment.

The Department indicates in its note that it views the proposal as purely technical and that the adoption of the proposal would provide clarity to the industry. I also understand that the Department supports the Commission proposal because it does not consider that a total ban would be practical. Nonetheless, consumers as well as manufacturers require clarity and confidence in the regulations in place. It is therefore proposed that the proposal should be referred to the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government for further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Sexton

Will the Chairman remind me why we now end up dealing with the matter in this way?

Chairman

We are awaiting further information to be supplied by the Department.

Deputy Sexton

That is all right. I thank the Chairman.

Chairman

We will move on to item No. 2.1, Commission document COM (2004) 718. This is a proposal for a directive on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters. This proposal follows from a Commission Green Paper early in 2002 and seeks to encourage the use of mediation services, or alternative dispute resolution, ADR, services, through establishing common rules on a number of key aspects of civil procedure. It also aims at providing tools for the courts of the member states to actively promote the use of mediation.

The Commission argues that mediation is a quicker, simpler and more cost-efficient way to solve disputes. It also contends that by taking into account a wider range of interests of the parties, mediation has a greater chance of reaching an agreement which will be voluntarily respected and which preserves an amicable and sustainable relationship between parties. One of the main advantages of mediation is that it can offload pressure on the court system and the Commission has, I understand, in addition to this proposal, established a European code of conduct for ADR practitioners.

The Commission has defined ADR as: "where two or more parties to a dispute are assisted by a third party to reach an agreement on the settlement of the dispute". Article 3 of the proposal sets out that a court: "may, when appropriate and having regard to all circumstances of the case, invite the parties to use mediation". Other areas of the proposal encourage member states to promote and encourage the training of mediators and provide that member states ensure, upon request of the parties, that the agreement is enforceable.

The Department has indicated that this proposal, if it were adopted and if Ireland participated in it, would have particular implications for bodies such as the Private Residential Tenancies Board, PRTB, and private organisations and companies offering mediation services. It is proposed that the title IV proposal be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for information in advance of any decision to seek the approval of the Oireachtas to opt in to the proposed measure. Is that agreed?

Deputy Mulcahy

I consider this to be more meddling in our judicial system. It appears that they are not just telling us what they want to achieve but also how to do it. It is very intrusive. I would like to hear a legal opinion on this. I agree it should be sent to the committee for scrutiny but there is a major question mark as to whether this level of interference should be allowed. The Brussels Convention exists in the area of civil law whereby judgments in one jurisdiction are recognised and enforceable in other EU jurisdictions. However, there is nothing which tells us how to organise our judicial system but this is coming very close on the mediation side. I would put a question mark over this in terms of subsidiarity.

Chairman

Does the Deputy have any difficulty in referring the matter to the joint committee?

Deputy Mulcahy

No, but I——

Chairman

If it is deliberated on by the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights and agreed at that committee that it could be taken on board — I cannot second guess what the committee will do — it could only be done by a decision of the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Deputy Sexton

I would not hold such strong views as Deputy Mulcahy but the fact that it requires the approval of both Houses is a safeguard.

Chairman

It will allow Members to ventilate their views.

Deputy Mulcahy

How does it work? Is it just agreed during the Order of Business?

Chairman

The Minister would come to the House and I presume there would be an opportunity for debate.

Deputy Mulcahy

I agree to sending it on but I would like the committee to consider if it is legal, if it is going too far or if it is in breach of the principle of subsidiarity.

Chairman

In submitting the proposal to the committee, we can put in a note outlining this committee's concerns and questions in that regard.

Item No. 2.2 is a draft Council decision, 14497/04, providing for certain areas covered by title IV of the treaty to be governed by the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the treaty. Article 251 sets out the procedure for the adoption of measures and provides for the adoption of additional measures by qualified majority voting, QMV. This proposal, which the Department's note indicates is a priority for the Dutch Presidency, relates to a range of visa and immigration matters. I also understand that since the materials were circulated, it was agreed that the proposed measure would be forwarded to the Justice and Home Affairs Council next week for consideration and agreement.

The Department has indicated that the proposal raises significant issues in regard to voting rights but that under the existing protocol, the approval of the Oireachtas would be required before Ireland could participate in the proposed changes. It is proposed that the matter be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for information in advance of any decision to seek the approval of the Oireachtas to opt in to the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 3 is common foreign and security policy, CFSP, measures but no CFSP measures were received by the secretariat for this meeting. Item No. 4 relates to deferred documents. It is proposed to defer items Nos. 4.1 to 4.4, inclusive. Item No. 4.1 is Commission document COM (2004) 509 which is a proposal for a regulation on mutual assistance for the protection of the financial interests of the Community against fraud and any other illegal activities.

The European Community's financial interests are, according to the Commission's memorandum to this proposal, exposed to various forms of fraud and illegal activities that damage the Community's budgetary income and expenditure. This fraud often arises from activities spread across several member states. The Commission also contends that in a market of 25 member states, tackling this fraud will be increasingly difficult without support and co-ordination at European level. The fraud concerned would, I understand, relate to VAT, Structural Funds, and the laundering of the proceeds of EU-related fraud.

The Commission proposes that it be granted a co-ordinating role in the fight against fraud. It suggests that this co-ordinating role would be limited to administrative matters and that it is not seeking additional powers for the European Anti-Fraud Office, OLAF. Article 5 of the proposed legislation would, however, require member states to provide information on request that is relevant for the prevention and detection of irregularities. The Commission would also, under Article 11, be granted access to the VAT records of the member states. The comitology procedure would determine the detailed rules for the proposed measure.

The Department's note indicates that it has little difficulty with much of the proposal, but it questions the need for additional measures on VAT so soon after the adoption of an EU regulation setting out requirements for compliance with the VAT rules. In addition, the sub-committee, at its meeting on 30 September, considered a proposal concerning a general strengthening of anti-money laundering measures, raising questions as to why the Commission is seeking to establish money laundering rules specifically for EU fraud. The Department has also questioned the proposed use of QMV to decide on a proposal concerning taxation. Furthermore, the Commission's accessing VAT records raises issues relating to taxpayers' confidentiality.

The Dutch Presidency has not yet assigned this proposal to a working group for discussion and it is for this reason that many of the questions raised have remained unanswered to date. It is proposed that consideration of the proposal be deferred until working group discussions have commenced on this proposal. It is therefore also proposed to request that the Department keep the sub-committee informed of significant developments on this proposal. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 4.2 has been taken as item No. 1.4. Item No. 4.3, COM (2004) 638, concerns the proposal to amend for the 29th time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of regulations relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain substances and preparations — substances classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic — that are dangerous to reproduction. This proposal seeks to reclassify certain substances as dangerous to health. The reclassification would mean that restrictions would be placed on their marketing and use. The Department in its information note indicates that it is not yet in a position to determine the full implications of the adoption of the proposal until its consultation process with the chemical industry is completed.

In a follow-up to the initial note provided by the Department, the Health and Safety Authority has indicated that the proposal has been circulated through Pharmaceutical Ireland. I understand that the Health and Safety Authority has not received representations on the issue to date. The proposal will be circulated to industry through the dangerous substances advisory committee of the Health and Safety Authority to industry, Departments and other interested bodies. It is proposed that we defer consideration of the proposal until the Department has advised the secretariat of the outcome of its consultation process with interested parties. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 4.4, COM (2004) 650, is a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 95/2/EC on food additives other than colours and sweeteners and Directive 94/35/EC on sweeteners for use in foodstuffs. Directive 92/2/EC sets out the list of authorised food additives. The measure has been amended on five occasions to date and this proposal seeks to amend it again to take account of recent developments. I understand that the Department has replied in substance to the issues raised by the policy adviser and underlined in the circulated materials.

The Department's note outlines that, at the request of Ireland and Britain, the rules on the permitted levels of nitrite or nitrates will remain unchanged and that therefore the adoption of the proposal should not impact on industry to a great extent in Ireland. In particular, the members will note that the current draft would, according to the Department, ensure that traditional methods of curing meats could continue to be practised in Ireland.

The Commission's memorandum to the proposal, however, raises questions regarding the criteria that should be used in determining the safe levels of nitrite or nitrates in foodstuffs and appears to suggest that the rules should be changed to take account of input rather than residual levels. The Department has also clarified that the issue regarding erythritol relates to possible difficulties that might arise for diabetics. It is proposed that this matter be referred to the Committee on Health and Children for its consideration and further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We now consider proposals which it is recommended require no further scrutiny, namely, items Nos. 5.1 to 5.36, inclusive. It is proposed that items Nos. 5.1 to 5.8, inclusive, and Nos. 5.12 to 5.36, inclusive do not warrant further scrutiny and that these proposals would not be the subject of very detailed deliberations unless any member has particular concerns about a proposal. Is that agreed? Agreed. I draw members' attention to items Nos. 5.9, 5.10 and 5.11 which concern the EU peace programme.

Item No. 5.1, COM (2004) 609, is a proposal for a Council decision on the position to be adopted by the Community within the ACP-EC Council of Ministers on the amendment of Decision No. 1/2003 of the ACP-EC Council of Ministers of 16 May 2003 regarding the accession of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste to the ACP-EC partnership agreement. COM (2004) 610 is a proposal for a Council decision adjusting the financial resources of the 9th European Development Fund further to the accession of the Democratic of Timor-Leste to the ACP-EC partnership agreement. It is proposed that the proposals do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 5.2, COM (2004) 615, is a proposal for a decision on the position to be taken in the Association Council concerning the improvements of the trade arrangements for processed agricultural products provided for in Protocol No. 3 of the Europe Agreement with Romania. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2004) 617 is a proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the agreement for the period 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2007 concerning the provisional application of the protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided in the agreement between the EC and the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2004) 619 is a proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the agreement for the period 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2007 setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided in the agreement between the EC and the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.5, COM (2004) 618, is a proposal for a Council decision amending decision 439/2000/EC of 29 June 2000 on a financial contribution from the Community towards the expenditure incurred by certain member states in collecting data and for financing studies and pilot projects for carrying out the Common Fisheries Policy. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 5.6, COM (2004) 622, is a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 88/98 as regards the extension of the trawling ban to Polish waters. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.7, COM (2004) 640, is a proposal for a Council regulation establishing a rebuilding plan for Greenland halibut in the framework of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 5.8, COM (2004) 643, is a proposal for signature and conclusion of the agreement between the European Community and the Republic of San Marino providing for the taxation of savings income, and the approval and signature of the accompanying memorandum of understanding. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 5.9, COM (2004) 666, is a proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the revision of the Financial Perspective in Annex 1 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure.

Item 5.10 is COM (2004) 631, amending Regulation (EC) 1260 of 1999, laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds concerning the extension of the duration of the PEACE programme and the granting of new commitment appropriations. Item 5.11 is SEC (2004)1235, amending letter No. 1 to the preliminary draft budget for the 2005 general statement of revenue. I am advised that the work undertaken as a result of the support given under the PEACE programme was the subject of a recent meeting of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, at which some members will have been present, including Deputy Mulcahy. The Commission seeks to extend the PEACE II programme for a further two years between 2005 and 2006. Since 1995, the PEACE programme has had a strategic aim to reinforce progress towards a peaceful and stable society and promoting reconciliation.

Members will have seen that in June 2004, the European Council took note of the difficulties in the peace process in Northern Ireland and confirmed its support for the efforts of the two governments in seeking to re-establish the devolved institutions. Through COM (2004) 666 the Commission proposes, inter alia, that the current financial perspective be amended to transfer certain funds from one heading to another to facilitate the funding of the extension of the programme for a further two years. It also proposes that the Commission should have the authority to similarly alter the budget allocations on an annual basis to reflect the previously agreed transfer of funding from direct payments and market measures to the rural development heading.

SEC (2004) 1235 aims to amend the preliminary draft budget for 2005 in the light of changed circumstances and new information in respect of a number of EU policy areas. The Commission is proposing that €60 million be allocated to the PEACE programme for 2005 and €59 million for 2006. It also proposes some amendments in regard to support of €105 million for Croatia and for financial actions encouraging the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community amounting to €114 million. This was a proposal which the sub-committee considered at its meeting on 9 September 2004. In respect of Croatia, the increase in support would amount to €40 million.

The Department estimates that the overall additional contribution from Ireland as a result of the adoption of these measures would be €400,000. However, this could be weighed against the benefits to Ireland as a whole from the prolongation of the work supported by the PEACE programme. It is proposed that the proposals do not warrant further scrutiny, but that they be forwarded to the Joint Committee on European Affairs for information. In addition, it is proposed that the Department be requested to inform the committee of any additional developments in respect of the proposed measures. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 5.12 is COM (2004) 733, a proposal for a Council decision concerning the signature and conclusion of the agreement between the European Community and the Principality of Monaco, providing for the taxation of savings income. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service for information in regard to the memorandum of understanding. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 5.13 is COM (2004) 685, a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) 2340/2002 and Regulation (EC) 2347/2002, concerning fishing opportunities for deep sea species for the member states which acceded in 2004. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Items 5.14 to items 5.17 will be taken as adopted items when we get to part 6 of the meeting. Item 5.18 is COM (2004) 710, a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) 1782/2003 concerning the common rules for direct support schemes under the Common Agricultural Policy. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 5.19 is SEC (2004) 1234. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. Item 5.20 is SEC (2004) 1324 and it is again proposed that it does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. Item 5.21 is SEC (2004) 1346, an amending letter to the preliminary draft budget for the 2005 general statement of revenue, which I propose does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 5.22 is COM (2004) 632, a proposal for a Council regulation concerning Community financial contributions to the international fund for Ireland, 2005-06. While it is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny, it is proposed that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on European Affairs for information in the context of the EU's support and of the committee's stated interest in the associated PEACE programme. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 5.23 is COM (2004 652, a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 9257 of 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, EAGGF. The Department concluded in its note that the adoption of the proposal would have no implications for Ireland. Therefore it is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 5.24 is COM (2004) 689, a proposal for a Council decision fixing the financial contributions to be paid by the member states contributing to the European Development Fund. It is proposed that the proposal does not-warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 5.25 is COM (2004) 741, a proposal for a Council regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain ring binder mechanisms originating in the People's Republic of China. The Department's note indicates that its consultation process has led it to conclude that the adoption of the proposed measure would result in no difficulties for Ireland. Therefore it is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 5.26 is COM (2004) 671, a proposal for a Council regulation adopting autonomous and transitional measures to open a Community tariff quota for certain agricultural products originating in Switzerland. The Department has indicated in its note to the Oireachtas that the adoption of the measure would have no implications for Ireland. It is therefore proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 5.27 is COM (2004) 677, a proposal for a Council decision to establish a joint consultative committee comprising local and regional authorities from Romania and the EU. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny, but that the it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 5.28 is COM (2004) 729, a proposal for Council decisions concerning the signing of framework agreements on the general principles for the participation in Community programmes by the following countries: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, FYROM, and Serbia and Montenegro. The Department's note indicates that the adoption of the measure would have no particular implications for Ireland. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 5.29 is COM (2004) 634, a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the establishment of a European pollutant release and transfer register and amending Council Directives 91 689/EEC and 96161/EC. Item 5.30 is COM (2004) 635, a proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the UN-ECE protocol on pollutant release and transfer registers. I suggest that this does not warrant further scrutiny but that it should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 5.31 is COM (2004) 665 which will be taken as item 6.6 as it has already been adopted. Item 5.32 is COM (2004) 680, a proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of an agreement between the EC and the PLO for the benefit of the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip on the liberalisation of trade in agriculture products. It is proposed that it does not warrant further scrutiny but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on European Affairs for information in the context of the EuroMed agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 5.33 is COM (2004) 743, a proposal for a Council regulation adjusting from 1 July 2004 the rate of contribution to the pension scheme of officials and other servants of the European Community and, from 1 January 2005, the interest rate used for transfer between the Community scheme and national schemes. The Department has classified the proposal as technical and as having no direct implications for Ireland. Therefore, I propose it does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. COM (2004) 717 is a proposal for a Council decision on trade in certain steel products between the European Community and the Republic of Kazakhstan. The Department's notes indicates that the results of its consultation process has led it to conclude that the adoption of the proposed measure would not have any implications for Ireland. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2004) 720 is a proposal for a Council decision on trade in certain steel products between the European Community and Ukraine. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny, but that the Department be requested to inform the sub-committee of developments with this proposal in the context of recent developments in the Ukraine. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2004) 722 is a proposal for a Council decision on trade in certain steel products between the European Community and the Russian Federation. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

There are seven adopted measures for this meeting. COM (2004) 596 is a proposal for the signature and conclusion of a protocol to the agreement between the European Community and its member states and the Swiss Confederation on the free movement of persons. The Department supplied a post adoption note on this measure which has been circulated to members. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2004) 688 is a proposal to extend the anti-dumping measures imposed in respect of imports of tube or pipe-fittings originating in the People's Republic of China to imports consigned from Indonesia. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2004) 691 is a proposal to extend the anti-dumping measures imposed in respect of imports of tube or pipe-fittings originating in the People's Republic of China to imports consigned from Sri Lanka. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2004) 703 is a proposal to extend anti-dumping measures in respect of imports of PET film originating in, among other places, India to imports consigned from Brazil or Israel. The Department's note indicates that its consultation process has led it to conclude that adoption of the proposed measure would result in no difficulties for Ireland. The measure was adopted by the Council on 16 November. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2004) 704 is a proposal to extend anti-subsidy measures in respect of imports of PET film originating in, among other places, India to imports consigned from Brazil or Israel. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I must advise members that polyethylene terephthalate is a plastic resin used, among other things, to make beverage, food and other liquid containers. It is also one of the most important raw material for man-made fibres. Its main virtue is that it is fully recyclable.

COM (2004) 665 is a proposal for a Council decision establishing the Community position with respect to the prolongation of the International Agreement on Olive Oil and Table Olives 1986. It was adopted by Council on 23 November. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2004) 714 is a proposal for a Council decision establishing the Community position on amendments to the veterinary legislation aspects of the Agreement between Switzerland and the EU. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.