JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny) debate -
Thursday, 24 Mar 2005

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Chairman

We will turn now to the first set of proposals for consideration today, which are documents that should be referred to sectoral committees for further scrutiny. Item 1.1 is COM (2005) 47, which is a proposal of the European Parliament and the Council concerning the rights of persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air. This mainly concerns the Department of Transport.

The provision of assistance at airports for those with reduced mobility has been an issue of some discussion in recent times, particularly regarding low-cost providers of air services. The Commission's memorandum to the proposal also outlines the significance of the twinned matters of air liberalisation and the importance of air travel for all, including those in society with reduced mobility. The Commission contends that the extra cost of providing additional services should be spread over passengers in general. It also contends that the failure to agree on whether the obligation to provide these services should fall to the airlines or the airports has resulted in this proposal. The adoption of the proposal would result in an obligation being placed on airlines operating from the EU to accept the reservations or embarkation of passengers with reduced mobility. In exceptional circumstances an airline would be permitted to refuse carriage, but the grounds for this refusal would have to be set out in writing to the passenger. The Commission suggests that at least 10% of the population need some assistance and that this figure is likely to increase as the numbers of aged people in Europe increases. The proposal is of some significance to a large body of the population and the implementation of the measure would have cost implications for all passengers as the proposal would permit the airports to levy the airlines for the extra services provided. It is proposed that the proposal be referred to the Joint Committee on Transport for further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Sexton

That is very welcome.

Senator Dardis

There is a cost implication for everything, such as putting disabled spaces in car parks, but that does not mean that the right should not be there.

Chairman

Item 1.2 is 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. This proposal concerns the Department of Finance. It was deferred for consideration until further significant developments occurred. The Department of Finance has indicated that there have been a number of working group meetings on the proposal and that a number of member states have signalled some opposition to the proposal, especially elements that concern VAT. When this proposal was originally considered by the committee, it was indicated that a number of member states, including Ireland, disagreed with the Commission's proposed legal base for the proposal, Article 280, which operates under QMV rather than unanimity. However, the Department has also indicated that the Council legal service recently issued an opinion that supported the legal base proposed by the Commission.

The Department has also outlined that the Presidency has not scheduled meetings of the working group on combating fraud and that the issue will probably continue into the UK Presidency and perhaps beyond. The Department's original note indicated that it had little difficulty with much of the proposal, but that it questioned 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. At its meeting on 30 September, the sub-committee considered a proposal on a general strengthening of money laundering measures, raising questions as to why the Commission is seeking to establish money laundering rules specifically for EU fraud. The Department had also questioned the proposed use of QMV to decide on a proposal concerning taxation. Furthermore, Commission access of VAT records raises issues of taxpayer confidentiality. It is proposed that the proposal be referred to the Select Committee on Finance and the Public Service for further scrutiny as consideration may be required by that committee after substantive discussions have commenced. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No Title IV or CFSP measures have been received and no deferred document items are proposed for this meeting. The next set of proposals under No. 5 on our agenda are those where it is proposed they do not warrant further scrutiny, Nos. 5.1 to 5.5, inclusive. No. 5.1 is COM (2004) 864, which is a proposal for a Council decision to amend the EU-China maritime transport agreement to provide for the necessary and linguistic adaptations of the agreement that ensues from the accession of ten new member states as contracting parties. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources is the lead Department. It is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.2 is COM (2005) 66, which is a proposal to amend Council Regulation EEC No. 2454/93 to extend the use of the new computerised transit system, NCTS, to all customs traders from 1 July 2005. The Department of Finance and the Revenue Commissioners are leading this. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.3 is COM (2005) 36, which is a proposal for a Council regulation to amend regulation EC No. 2792/99 regarding a specific action for the transfer of vessels to countries struck by the tsunami in 2004. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources is the lead Department. At the previous meeting of the committee, while it was determined that this proposal did not warrant further scrutiny, it was agreed that additional information was required on one central aspect. The Department has been asked to provide this concerning the agreement on countries that would be eligible to benefit from the proposed measure. It subsequently outlined that it is intended that the measure will be carefully co-ordinated with other rebuilding efforts and will be implemented exclusively on the Third World's explicit request and on condition that the assessment currently being carried out by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation in these areas shows that a transfer of fishing vessels could contribute to the rebuilding of local fleets. It is proposed to note the additional information.

Deputy Sexton

I thought we had dealt with this matter two meetings ago and asked for extra information. To give me an idea of the process, what has happened?

Chairman

It is outlined here that we were unsure who would qualify under this proposal. The last paragraph describes how this proposal is dependent upon the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation's assessment in these areas and whether its study shows that a transfer of fishing vessels would contribute to the rebuilding of affected local fleets.

Senator Dardis

I note the Department does not expect any vessels of less than 12 metres in length to be decommissioned in 2005 or 2006. May we take it that there is no proposal to ban salmon drift netting?

Chairman

Yes. Is No. 5.3 agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.4 will be addressed as No. 6.1, an adopted measure. No. 5.5 is COM (2005) 48. It proposes a European Parliament and Council regulation on the information of air transport passengers of the identity of the operating carrier and on the communication of safety information by member states. The Department of Transport is the lead Department.

The Commission's memorandum to this proposal underlines that air transport accidents have become extremely rare in Europe but suggests that the stringent application of international standards and the enforcement of quality criteria are not currently guaranteed equally across the world. In this regard, the memorandum recalls that the European Parliament and the Council recently adopted a measure concerning a system for the harmonised inspection of third country aircraft using European airports. This proposal follows from a crash in the Egyptian resort of Sharm-El-Sheik and seeks to make it an obligation that passengers be informed of the identity of the carrier operating their flights. It would also establish an obligation for the exchange of safety information between member states with regard to traffic restrictions.

It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny but that it be forwarded to the Select Committee on Transport for information, particularly in the context of a somewhat associated proposal, COM (2005) 47, that also seeks to increase consumers' rights.

Deputy Sexton

Can we send a rider with it that, as there is no requirement in the regulation for the member states to nominate a body to enforce the obligation, such a body could be included in the regulation? There is no point in having a rule if no one is present to police it or ensure it is enforced. Perhaps this is not our role.

Chairman

Where does it say this?

Deputy Sexton

In the second paragraph dealing with the implications for Ireland, on the last page. There is no requirement in the regulation for member states to nominate a body to enforce the obligation. It is a note on the document. This issue should be examined.

Senator Dardis

We could ask for someone to examine the matter.

Chairman

That is a good point. We will ask the Department to clarify the matter.

Senator Dardis

It is to draw the committee's attention to this point.

Deputy Sexton

I agree. We do not require an update but the committee could examine it.

Chairman

A note from the Department will help the Select Committee on Transport and we could request one. This is a very good proposal as I sometimes feel uneasy, especially on charter flights. Aircraft without markings are encountered at times, leaving one wondering where they come from. Is the Irish Aviation Authority inspecting all these or does someone monitor the arrival and departure of these flights at our airports? If a holiday carrier brings in an aircraft from outside the European Union at short notice due to difficulties, is there someone at the airports to ensure the aircraft is compliant with regulations before it takes off with 200 passengers on board?

Senator Dardis

There have been plenty of cases in shipping where vessels were not allowed to turn around after arriving in Ireland. It happens with livestock, for instance. If it applies in those cases it should certainly apply far more in the case of aviation.

Chairman

We can take the airports at Farranfore, Cork or Dublin as examples. An aeroplane operated by a travel carrier might arrive unannounced at short notice.

Senator Dardis

Perhaps we should ask the Select Committee on Transport to clarify this matter.

Chairman

I agree. Is No. 5.5 agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.6 is COM (2005) 41 and is a proposal for a Council decision on a Community position of the EC-Croatia Stabilisation and Association Council on its rules of procedure. The lead Department is the Department of Foreign Affairs. The stabilisation and association agreement with the Republic of Croatia provides for the establishment of a stabilisation and association council to examine major issues in respect of the implementation of the agreement. This proposal seeks approval for the rules of procedure that will guide the operations of the council. The rules cover such areas as the chairmanship and the minutes of the meetings. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 6 relates to adopted measures and there is one adopted measure for this meeting in the form of No. 6.1. Please note this was originally No. 5.4. COM (2005) 67 is a proposal for a Council regulation terminating the partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain tube or pipe fittings of iron or steel, originating from Thailand, among other places. The lead Department is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. It is proposed to note the measure which was adopted by the Council on 16 March 2005. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We have received two early warning notes, 7.1 and 7.2. No. 7.1 relates to Commission Regulation 145/2005. The lead Department is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. It is proposed that the early warning note does not warrant further scrutiny at this stage. In accordance with arrangements in place the Department has undertaken to inform the committee of significant developments arising from its consultation process with interested parties regarding this measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Next is an early warning note regarding Commission Regulation 128/2005. The lead Department is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. It is proposed that the early warning note does not warrant further scrutiny at this stage. In accordance with arrangements in place, the Department has undertaken to inform the committee of significant developments arising from its consultation process with interested parties regarding this measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.