I will check the position on that matter for the Deputy.
The next item is No. 3, CFSP, measures. Two measures will be considered by the committee today — items 3.1 and 3.2. Item 3.1 is CFSP (2005) 220, Council Common Position of 14 March 2005 which updates Common Position CFSP (2001) 931 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism and repeals Common Position CFSP (2004) 500. The Department of Foreign Affairs is the lead Department, while the Departments of Finance and Justice, Equality and Law Reform would also have an interest.
This common position follows the regular review of the EU measure, CFSP (2001) 931, implementing the UN Security Council Resolution 1373 of 28 September 2001. The common position updates the list of names annexed to the original anti-terrorist measure. The sub-committee has previously considered changes to the list and has noted the amendments to the original measure. With regard to the persons, groups and entities listed, the member states afford to each other the widest possible assistance in preventing and combating terrorist acts. The change on this occasion concerns the addition of Al-Aqsa eV to the list of groups-entities. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 3.2 is CFSP (2005) 221 of 14 March 2005 which implements Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No. 2580/2001 on specific restrictive practices directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repeals Decision 2004/306/EC. The Department of Foreign Affairs is the lead Department, while the Department of Finance and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform would have an interest.
This council decision was adopted on the same day as the related Common Position CFSP (2005) 220 and gives effect to Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No. 2580/2001 through, inter alia, the imposition of certain financial restrictions on an updated list of named persons and entities linked or related to third countries. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.
There are no proposals for deferral at this meeting. The next set of proposals on our agenda are those which do not warrant further scrutiny, namely, items 5.1 to 5.18. Item 5.1 is COM (2005) 56, a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules on local border traffic at the external land borders of the member states and amending the Schengen Convention and the common consular instructions. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is the lead Department and there are no other Departments involved.
This proposal combines earlier proposals relating to the Schengen space, in which Ireland does not participate, and follows the European Council decision in the Hague to extend the areas covered by the co-decision procedure from 1 January 2005. Previously, the proposed regulation concerning general local border traffic would have been subject to consultation with the European Parliament. It is suggested that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. Item 5.2 will be taken as item 6.1, an adopted measure.
Item 5.3 is COM (2005) 71, Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 3605/93 as regards the quality of statistical data in the context of the excessive deficit procedure. The Central Statistics Office is the lead agency, while the part of the CSO which comes under the aegis of the Department of the Taoiseach will also be involved. As members will have noted from the documentation previously circulated, this proposal prompted the submission of a series of questions to the Central Statistics Office which sought clarification on a number of significant points. The in-depth replies in the format of an e-mail have also been circulated for the information of members. For the most part, these appear to address the initial concerns around the nature of the proposal.
The Commission is seeking through this proposal that the national statistical offices supplying data to EUROSTAT would be more answerable for the data provided. In particular, the adoption of the proposal would permit European officials to go beyond so-called "dialogue visits" and move to a situation where they could examine in detail the background to the figures provided with regard to, for example, government debt. The new regulation would also provide a legal base for the visits by Eurostat. In the Central Statistics Office's additional note, it is indicated that the likely duration of these in-depth visits would be three days.
The CSO has confirmed that the alternative route of non-binding rules governing the provision of additional information found little support within the working group and that, while the Commission's impact assessment does not encompass the member states, the impact of the adoption of the proposed measure would most likely be prominent at the initial stages of the process. However, the CSO indicates that many of the proposed improvements may have been developments undertaken by the CSO in any event.
The CSO has also outlined that a number of recent improvements to the draft have been advanced, including clarification on the confidentiality of the data to be provided and confirmation that follow up visits would only occur where specific weaknesses are identified. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny but that the CSO be requested to update the committee on significant developments in respect of the proposal, which touches on some significant areas. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 5.4 is COM (2005) 81, a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European institute for gender equality. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is the lead Department and no other Departments are involved. In recent years, there have been a number of initiatives that have sought to advance the creation of a European institute for gender equality. Under the Irish Presidency in June 2004, the European Council invited the Commission to advance a proposal in this regard. The current treaty contains a number of provisions on equality and Article 13 empowers the Council to take measures to combat discrimination in a range of areas.
This Commission proposal seeks approval for the establishment of the aforementioned institute. The Commission argues that the institute is required, inter alia, to address the increasing complexity of discrimination issues and the need for comparable and reliable data and information by national and European authorities in their efforts to ensure progress and effective implementation of the Union’s policies. The proposal also points out that agencies have been established for specific fundamental rights, such as the environment and health and safety in the workplace.
The main functions of the institute, in addition to the collection, analysis and dissemination of information on gender equality, would involve conducting surveys on the situation, the development of methods to improve the comparability and objectivity of relevant data and the establishment of a documentation resource accessible to the public. The Commission also contends that the institute is required in regard to the subsidiarity principle because member states alone would not be in a position to achieve a genuinely European dimension to the development of a Union-wide system for the collection, analysis and dissemination of information on aspects of gender equality.
The structure of the proposed institute's operations would be similar to other agencies created by the Union and its actions must be co-ordinated closely with these to ensure its goals are effectively achieved with a minimum level of duplication of effort. The Department's note indicates that it views the creation of the institute as having no major implications for Ireland beyond its stated goals. The proposed budget for the period 2007 to 2013 is €52.5 million. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny but that it be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 5.5 is COM (2005) 88, a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on community statistics on the structure and activity of foreign affiliates. The CSO is the lead body and no Departments are involved. The CSO indicates that it does not see the provision of the data that would be required under the proposed measure as an additional significant burden and that it intends to consult widely on the matter to help ensure that all stakeholders, including enterprises, would derive the maximum benefit from the exercise.
Since its inception, the sub-committee has considered a number of proposed measures relating to the provision of statistics to European agencies such as EUROSTAT. A number of the more significant of these have been forwarded to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business for information in the context of the apparently increasing burden on business with respect to the provision of data. The imposed burden would not be significant but a clearer picture would emerge following the CSO's consultation process.
It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business for information and that the CSO be requested to outline the outcome of its consultation process to the committee when it is completed. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 5.6 is COM (2005) 89, a proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 77/388/EEC as regards certain measures to simplify the procedure for charging value added tax and to assist in countering tax evasion and avoidance and repealing certain decisions granting derogations. The Department of Finance is the lead Department and is joined by the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. The Commission is proposing that since the authorities in member states face similar challenges concerning tax evasion and avoidance, a member state should have the opportunity to choose to adopt an approved special measure in this regard when it is required. The Commission also seeks to widen the range of options for member states concerning special measures. The Department indicates that it broadly welcomes the proposal as a measure that would result in a significant improvement in the operation of an area of the Sixth VAT Directive. It is proposed that the proposal does not require further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 5.7 is COM (2005) 92, a proposal for a Council decision on the position to be taken by the European Union regarding improvements in the trade arrangements between it and Bulgaria for processed agricultural products. The Department of Agriculture and Food is the lead Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs is also involved. As set out in the Department of Agriculture and Food's note, this proposal follows the implementation by both parties of the autonomous trade measures and seeks approval for a positive position by the EU in the Association Council for the formal adoption of the measures on a bilateral basis. As with the earlier note, the Department outlines that trade in agricultural products between Ireland and Bulgaria is not significant and is unlikely to increase as a result of the formal adoption of the tariff concession already in operation. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 5.8 is COM (2005) 130, a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No. 2728/94 establishing a guarantee fund for external actions. The lead Department is the Department of Finance and the Department of Foreign Affairs is also involved. The Department of Finance and the Commission outline that over-provisioning has occurred concerning the fund established to shield the Union budget against shocks that might arise from defaults on loans provided or guaranteed by the Union. The regulations governing the fund have also resulted in several unnecessary transfers into and out of the fund during the year.
To overcome the perceived shortcomings of the regulations, the Commission is proposing that the target rate be calculated from the actual net transfers rather than on estimates of future net transfers. A threshold to the fund amounting to €100 million would ensure that it does operate as a default shield. The Department's note confirms 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 5.9 is 7835/05, FIN 115, CES 30, a proposal for a Council decision on the adaptation of indemnities for the members of the Economic and Social Committee. The lead Department is the Department of Finance. This proposed measure concerns a submission from the Economic and Social Committee for a revision of the allowances payable to its members. The increases would, inter alia, take account of inflation in a number of sectors. The ESC has underlined in its documentation that this last occurred in April 2001. In addition, the Department’s note contends that the adoption of the measure would have no implications for Ireland. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 5.10 is SEC (2005) 421, a preliminary draft amending budget No. 2 to the budget for 2005. The lead Department is the Department of Finance. The scrutiny committee has to date considered a number of proposals centred on the so-called methode for the calculation of the salaries of Union officials. This is based on a basket of increases in the member states. Union salaries are then adjusted to reflect inflationary pressures across the member states.
The Commission outlines that in April 2004 it was established that the increases in Union salaries would be in the order of 2.6% and this figure was reflected in the 2005 Union budget. However, the actual increase for the year decided in December 2004 was 0.7%. This was after the Budget Council. This proposal seeks to amend the 2005 budget to take account of altered position and incorporates some minor budget-neutral changes proposed through the Committee of the Regions and the Court of Auditors to reflect changes in the grades of staff. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 5.11 is COM (2005) 82, a Green Paper on applicable law and jurisdiction in divorce matters. The lead Department is the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I refer members to an article in The Irish Times which is related to this matter and which they may wish to read this at some stage. The Commission’s Green Paper outlines that there are currently no Union provisions on applicable law in divorce and contends that this is a shortcoming in respect of the existing arrangements for recognition in matrimonial matters. In November 2004 the Council invited the Commission to present a Green Paper in this area as part of the ongoing work to make life simpler for the citizens.
The paper sets out that once a divorce proceeding is brought before the courts of a member state, the applicable law is determined pursuant to the national rules of that state and indicates that this gives rise to a number of difficulties in respect of international divorces. It is also contended that this situation gives rise to a lack of legal certainty. Various scenarios are outlined in the paper, including that of a Finnish-Swedish couple living in Ireland and seeking a divorce. It is suggested that such a couple would be surprised to find the legal situation in respect of divorce had changed so dramatically following their move to Ireland. The paper contends that the couple would have expected the divorce proceedings to be rather simple and swift, as would be the case under Finnish or Swedish law.
The paper poses 20 questions, such as what the connecting factors should be to establish whether a case can be transferred to another member state and if the harmonised rules should include a public policy clause enabling courts to refuse to apply a foreign law in certain circumstances. One solution is that couples be given the option of choosing the applicable law and that this might be governed by certain rules to avoid the application of exotic laws. The rules, it is suggested, could make reference to nationality or common habitual residence. The Commission is seeking views on this paper, which is likely to be of some public interest, given the important public policy area it explores. These views must be submitted by 30 September 2005.
It is proposed that the Green Paper be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Law Reform for information and consideration. In the regard, said committee may also wish to make reference to a measure, COM (2002) 222 — Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 — which predated the current scrutiny arrangements and which concerns the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters. It is also proposed that the paper be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 5.12 is COM (2005) 95, a Council decision establishing the position to be adopted on behalf of the Union at the International Grains Council and the Food Aid Committee. The lead Department is the Department of Agriculture and Food and the Department of Foreign Affairs is also involved. In its memorandum to the proposal, the Commission states that amendments to food aid conventions will be discussed in the coming years. The Commission is, therefore, proposing that support for the current arrangements be maintained. The objectives of these are to encourage international co-operation and the exchange of statistical information and to guarantee a minimum level of food aid to developing countries.
The Department's note indicates that the proposal is purely technical in nature and that the continuation of the conventions for a further two years would have no implications for Ireland. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 5.13 is COM (2005) 110, a proposal for a Council regulation imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain broad spectrum antibiotics originating in India. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 5.14 is COM (2005) 126, a proposal for a Council regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports furfuraldehyde originating in the People's Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 384/96. The lead Department is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
We will take items 5.15 and 5.16 together as they are related. Item 5.15, COM (2005) 128, is a proposal for a Council regulation on administering certain restrictions on imports of certain steel products from the Russian Federation. Item 5.16, COM (2005)129, is a proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of an agreement between the European Union and the Russian Federation on trade in certain steel products. The lead Department for both items is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and no other Department is involved.
These proposals seek approval for the conclusion of a trade agreement with the Russian Federation regarding certain steel products and for a legislative base in respect of the Union's partnership and co-operation agreement with the federation in order to establish quantitative limits on the importation of certain steel products from it. The Department's notes indicate that its consultation process to date has resulted in it concluding that the adoption of the measures would give rise to no difficulties for Ireland. It is proposed that the proposals do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 5.17 is COM (2005) 144, a proposal to impose an anti-dumping duty on a new exporter of electronic weighing scales from China. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
