The sub-committee will today deal with scrutiny of legislative proposals. Item 1 relates to proposals warranting further scrutiny. The first set of proposals, items 1.1 to 1.2, are documents which it is proposed be referred to sectoral committees for further scrutiny. Item 1.1 is COM (2005) 2, a proposal for a Council regulation amending Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No. 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, the lead Department for which is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The Department note indicates that the issue is related to classification matters dealt with by the Revenue Commissioners.
It is suggested that the proposal, particularly given the importance of the IT sector, warrants further scrutiny by the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Enterprise and Small Business. It is also proposed that the time-line relating to the indicated possible adoption of the measure be brought to the specific attention of that committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 1.2 is COM (2004) 774, a proposal for a Council decision amending decisions 2001/507/EC and 2001/509/EC with a view to making UN/ECE Regulations 109 and 108 on retreaded tyres compulsory, the lead Department for which is the Department of Transport. Currently, compliance with the UN/ECE regulations governing the approval of the production of retreaded tyres is optional. National requirements, according to the Department, do, however, apply.
The proposal seeks to make the UN/ECE Regulations 109 and 108 on retreaded tyres mandatory across the EU and follows the EC's accession to the related agreement. If adopted, member states would be required to make approval in accordance with the relevant regulations a necessary condition for placing retreaded tyres on the market. That the proposal follows from an agreement to which the EC has acceded means there is little or no room for amendment of the proposal.
Under the proposal production units would be required to seek approval for production in conformity with a range of technical specifications. Members may have noted that the Department's note acknowledges that the adoption of the proposed measure implies additional expense for production units and for companies using commercial vehicles. I understand the Department has been posed a number of questions on the proposal and has replied to many of them.
The Department has confirmed it did not take part in any domestic consultation on the proposal. It has also outlined, in response to one of the issues raised, that it is not in a position to say that retreading standards other than those proposed would not constitute a road traffic hazard. It is proposed to refer the proposal for further scrutiny to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Transport in relation to the possible implications for transport companies of the adoption of the proposed measure. It is also proposed that the proposal be forwarded to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Enterprise and Small Business for information. Is that Agreed? Agreed.
No Title IV measures were received for this meeting. The next item is CFSP measures, items 3.1 to 3.3. Item 3.1 is CFSP/5726/05, Council Common Position amending Common Position 2004/423/CFSP renewing restrictive measures against Burma/Myanmar, the lead Department for which is the Department of Foreign Affairs. Other interested parties are the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Central Bank. It is proposed to note the technical amendment. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 3.2 is CFSP (2005) 147, Council Common Position 2005/147/CFSP updating Common Position 2004/179/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transdniestria region of the Moldovan Republic, the lead Department for which is the Department of Foreign Affairs. The other interested Department is the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 3.3 is CFSP (2005) 161, Council Common Position renewing Common Position 2004/161/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe, the lead Department for which is the Department of Foreign Affairs. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that Agreed? Agreed.
Under the heading "Deferred Documents", item 4.1, COM (2004) 716, is a proposal for a Council directive on the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel. The lead Department is the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. No other Department is involved. The proposal seeks to replace an earlier directive relating to the rules governing the transportation of radioactive waste and spent fuel. According to the Department, that earlier directive, 92/3, is open to an inconsistent approach to radioactive waste and materials designated for reprocessing. The current proposal, inter alia, attempts to rectify this by applying the same controls in both cases.
In June 2003 the sub-committee considered COM (2003) 32 relating to the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. That proposal highlighted that there were disused nuclear sources stored at different locations in Ireland. The Department has, therefore, been requested to offer its view on whether the adoption of COM (2004) 716 would have implications for the transportation of these radioactive sources within, or without, Ireland and, if this were the case, in what respect the adoption of the proposed directive should be welcomed. It is proposed to defer consideration of this proposal until clarification has been provided by the Department on the points raised. It is also proposed that the Department be requested to provide the required information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 4.2 will be taken as item 1.2, a proposal that warrants further scrutiny. Item 4.3 will be taken as item 5.8, a proposal that it is suggested warrants no further scrutiny.
The next set of proposals on the agenda are ones which it is proposed do not warrant further scrutiny — items 5.1 to 5.10. Item 5.1, COM (2004) 811, is a Green Paper on the European Union approach to managing economic migration. The lead Department is the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The other Department involved is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
The Green Paper concerns admission procedures for the economic migration of third-country nationals. Members will have seen that the Commission's introductory memorandum outlines some of the background to this issue. It is suggested, for example, that between 2010 and 2030, at current immigration flows, the decline in the EU 25's working-age population will entail a fall in the number of employed persons of some 20 million. The Green Paper also underlines that immigration is not the solution to the demographic ageing problem. It adds that it is not its goal to describe policies in the EU 25, nor to compare them to policies in other regions.
The stated goals of the Green Paper are to identify the issues at stake and suggest possible options. It outlines a number of possible approaches to legislation: the adoption of a horizontal approach, with conditions set for employment, residence, etc. across the economic sectors; the adoption of a sectoral approach, with separate regulations for economic sectors; and the adoption of a common fast-track procedure to admit migrants to fill specific labour and skills gaps. Other areas examined include the question of whether admission should be linked to a specific job offer and whether the European Union should have common rules for the admission of third-country nationals. I recall that at the recent meeting of COSAC the Luxembourg Minister responsible for immigration, Mr. Nicolas Schmit, specifically highlighted his view that the Green Paper was very significant in advancing towards an integrated EU immigration policy.
I understand Ireland has an option to opt into many of the policy areas covered by the Green Paper and that, therefore, any proposals emerging from it would not necessarily apply in Ireland. The issues raised are, however, common to member states and the Green Paper has the potential to feed into any debate on immigration matters across the European Union.
It is proposed that the Green Paper be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for its information and consideration. The Green Paper may be of particular significance in the context of plans to amend the existing immigration system in Ireland. It is also proposed that the Green Paper be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business for its information. Is that agreed? Agreed
