JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny) debate -
Thursday, 2 Jun 2005

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Chairman

Nos. 1.1 to 1.13 on today's agenda are proposed for referral to sectoral committees for further scrutiny. COM (2005) 115 is a proposal for a decision establishing a programme of Community action in the field of health and consumer protection for 2007-13. The lead Department is the Department of Health and Children and the other Department involved is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The Commission, in an accompanying communication, entitled "Healthier, safer, more confident citizens: a Health and Consumer Protection Strategy", contends that there are certain health and consumer policy challenges that only EU level action can tackle.

The Commission, while acknowledging that health is a policy area of shared competency with the member states, would also appear to be reorienting the focus on to what might be seen as the benefits of healthy citizens for "growth and competitiveness". The Commission is proposing, inter alia, that cross-border health care be promoted. It is also proposing the creation of EU health information centres. With regard to consumer protection, the Commission, inter alia, is proposing to complete a review of European law in this area and particularly to focus on the cross-border market in services.

The adoption of the proposal would see the development of the European dimension in the area of health matters in the member states and requires further exploration. It is, therefore, proposed that the proposal be referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Health and Children. It is also proposed that the proposal be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business with regard to the elements of it which relate to consumer protection. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2005) 116 is a proposal for a decision establishing, for the period 2007-13, the programme "Citizens for Europe" to promote active European citizenship. It also deals with twinning between towns and cities. Members will have noted that it is acknowledged in the Commission's memorandum to this proposal that, despite the successes and achievements of the EU since its creation, citizens seem to have developed a certain distance towards the European institutions and "to have difficulties in identifying themselves within the process of European integration", which is an understatement. It is suggested that an example of this is a low level of participation in the most recent elections for the European Parliament.

The Commission outlines its three pronged approach to attempts to address this disjuncture: better information for citizens on the EU institutions; making citizens fully aware of their European rights; and instilling a sense of belonging and of a European identity. The aim of the programme proposed by the Commission relates to the third element of this strategy and the actions that would be undertaken with the support of the programme would include activities around the twinning of towns, support for European public policy research organisations or think tanks and related activities by what the proposal describes as "civil society organisations". The programme would also support what are characterised as "high visibility events" that would "strike a chord with the peoples of Europe".

The Commission contends that the proposal for this programme is in conformity with the principle of subsidiarity as, inter alia, the issues of mobility and co-operation relating to the twinning of towns across the EU are “not (being) systematically addressed at the Member States level”. This is a proposal that seeks to assist in addressing a perceived disjuncture between the people of Europe and the EU through direct EU support for a variety of activities.

Aspects of the programme would fall across a number of committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is, therefore, proposed that the proposal be forwarded for information to the Joint Committees on European Affairs, Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs and Education on Science and that it be referred for further scrutiny by Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government, particularly with regard to plans for town twinnings. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Dardis

Too little, too late.

Chairman

Yes, unfortunately for us.

Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

I attended a meeting of my political group in the last couple of days in Tallinn. Commissioner Wallström addressed it and she also believes that what is currently being proposed is too little although not necessarily too late. Hope springs eternal. She is of the view that communication needs to be deepened rather than just providing a superficial level of information. I am sure there will be some type of addendum. She will certainly argue within the Commission that her remit should be extended to ensure that a political debate is encouraged.

As politicians, we are aware that we can provide information until the cows come home but it is only when there is a political debate about specific issues that one begins to get clarity about the pros and cons of a proposal. In Ireland, we need to examine how to incorporate the notion of European citizenship into a citizenship education module not just in secondary schools but also in primary schools so that people will begin to develop this notion of a European identity and get to grips with what the political issues are such as, for example, the different ideas about what kind of Europe we want.

That is beginning to become clear in the debate on the European constitution in France, the Netherlands and in Britain, that is, if Britain ever gets around to having a debate on it although it does not appear to want such a debate. There must be a debate on the notion of whether we will have a loosely co-ordinated European Union of co-operating states, which has no political or social ambitions and is simply a market with, perhaps, economic co-ordination, or an integrated Europe, which actually gives power to the citizen on decisions. Unfortunately, it is being overshadowed by a range of other issues in the various member states that are holding referenda.

It is a mistake to think that those so-called domestic issues are not also related to European issues. One cannot make the clear distinction that one matter is a European issue and another is a national issue. All issues are, in a sense, European issues just as all issues, regardless of whether they are European, are local issues. It is a question of getting a holistic view of how Europe can and cannot impact on certain issues. One of the advantages of the constitution is that it clearly differentiates where European power lies. It does not, for example, have any say on abortion or euthanasia, although the Dutch were persuaded that it does. That is simply not the case. Such matters need to be clarified and that can only be done through political debate, not just through information.

Senator Dardis

There was an example of what Proinsias De Rossa mentioned at the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. People came to that committee to talk about the family. They said it would be changed by the European constitution because the Irish Constitution would be subordinate. We had to point out that it was not within the competence of the European Union to decide such matters. There is a huge amount of confusion. The remarks made by Proinsias De Rossa should, if possible, be attached to the document when it is forwarded to the committees.

Chairman

The problem with the constitution is that it deals with so many issues and, as a result, red herrings can be introduced into the debate. Perhaps the approach should be take the new provisions of the constitution and put them singly to the people. Perhaps they are being asked to take on too much at the same time.

Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

There are 447 articles in the constitution but only 55 of them are new. The notion that we are being asked to create a new construction is not true.

Chairman

In a way, it is like a consolidation Bill which consolidates the provisions of previous legislation.

Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

Yes.

Deputy Sexton

Obviously, however, citizens do not believe us. That is the challenge.

Chairman

COM (2005) 117 is a proposal for a Council regulation establishing community financial measures for the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy and in the area of the law of the sea. The lead Department is the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and no other Departments have an interest here.

At the meeting on 30 September 2004, the scrutiny committee referred COM (2004) 497, concerning a proposed European fisheries fund, to the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources for further scrutiny. This is a parallel proposal and seeks to fund a number of areas not covered in COM (2004) 497. These relate to control, enforcement and conservation measures, data collection and scientific advice, governance of the CFP and international fisheries relations. Given that this proposal would build on the associated COM (2004) 497 that the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources has agreed to scrutinise, it is proposed that this proposal also be referred for further scrutiny by that committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2005) 119 is a proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the seventh framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities for the years 2007 to 2013 — Building the Europe of Knowledge. The lead Department is the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The other Department with an interest is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The Competitiveness Council will ultimately deal with the proposal.

At the previous meeting of the scrutiny committee, this proposal was considered following the receipt of the related information note from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The associated note from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government was received following the meeting. For legal reasons, the Commission has indicated that it is required to present this proposal in two parts because the EURATOM treaty requires research programmes concerning the nuclear sector to be drawn up for a period of not more than five years.

The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government outlines in the additional note that Ireland does not support or engage in nuclear energy generation as it is not considered that this energy form provides a safe, sustainable or viable energy source. The Department, therefore, indicates that its main task with regard to such EU research activities is to maximise expenditure in the area of safety and controls.

The committee determined at the previous meeting to refer the proposal concerning non-nuclear elements of the proposed package for further scrutiny to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business. It is proposed that the parallel proposal be referred to the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government for further scrutiny with regard to how the proposed measure would meet the goals set by the Department. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Sexton

I have one question. What other countries of the 25 hold the same view as Ireland?

Chairman

We can ask the Department for that information.

Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

I think Germany holds the same view as us.

Chairman

We will request a note on it. Items 1.5 to 1.12 are proposals COM (2005) 161,162 and 164 to 169, inclusive. These relate to the lifting of bans and are proposals concerning Council decisions that would be decided by QMV that certain member states repeal their bans on the use and sale of certain genetically modified products. The lead Department is the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Departments of Agriculture and Food and Health and Children also have an interest.

Members will have seen from the materials circulated that Austria, France, Greece, Germany and Luxembourg have, under Directive 2001/18/EC, provisionally restricted or prohibited the use and/or sale of certain GM products that have previously been approved for use in the European Union. I understand that a state may undertake such action based on new information available to it, where that information concerns a risk to the environment or human health. Under Article 23 of the directive, the state concerned is required to inform the Commission of its actions and outline the scientific advice informing the action. The Union's scientific committee than considers the provisional measures and determines by QMV whether they should remain in place. If the committee cannot agree by QMV, as is the case here, the proposal to remove the provisional measure is referred to the Council for decision.

The Department correctly outlines in its information note that the adoption of these measures would primarily impact on the member states concerned. However, these proposals are linked to the wider debate on the approval for the use within the European Union of GM products and their adoption may have implications for any debate on how the principles of the Single Market might be respected while permitting a degree of subsidiarity to allow member states to regulate for GM products.

There is also a related proposal to these measures, COM (2005) 163. It is, therefore, proposed that the proposals be referred to the Joint Committee on European Affairs for further scrutiny and, given the cross-cutting nature of this issue, that the committee consider inviting the Joint Committee on Environment, Heritage and Local Government to hold a joint meeting to scrutinise the issues around the package of proposals on GM foods. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Dardis

I do not understand how the subsidiarity issue does not arise because these are proposals for each individual member state. Surely it is up to each member state to decide.

Chairman

The counter-argument is that these products should be allowed circulate within the member states.

Senator Dardis

I am aware of that. It just seems curious.

Chairman

We can explore that further at the joint meeting.

COM (2005) 163 relates to new products and is a proposal for a Council decision concerning the placing on the market, in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of a maize product — Zea mays L., line MON 863 — genetically modified for resistance to corn rootworm. The lead Department is the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Departments of Agriculture and Food and Health and Children also have an interest.

This proposal from the Commission seeks approval for the placing on the market across the member states of the European Union of a maize product that has been genetically modified for resistance to corn rootworm. It is proposed that this proposal be referred to the Joint Committee on European Affairs for further scrutiny, along with the other GM related proposals considered today. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We have no Title IV or CFSP measures to cover at this meeting. With regard to deferred documents, we have already taken item 4.1 as item 5.20. Item 4.2 is proposed for deferral.

Item 4.2 SEC (2005) 547 is a preliminary draft general budget of the European communities for the financial year 2006. As the 2006 budget will be one of the main subjects of discussion at a meeting of representative of the European Parliament and of the national parliaments of the 25 member states in June in Brussels, it is proposed that consideration of this proposal be deferred until a report is available of the discussions during a joint meeting of representatives of the European Parliament and of national parliaments in Brussels on 16 June. Inter alia, the rapporteur on the 2006 budget in the European Parliament will give a presentation at this meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next set of proposals on our agenda — items 5.1 to 5.20 — are those which, it is proposed, do not warrant further scrutiny. Item 5.1, COM (2005) 106, is a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation EC/297/95 on fees payable to the European Medicines Agency. The lead Department is the Department of Health and Children and the Department of Agriculture and Food also has an interest. Consideration of this proposal was deferred from the previous meeting of the scrutiny committee to allow additional time to the Department to provide some supplementary information.

The Department's supplementary information that follows from a series of questions posed with regard to the proposed measure indicates that it supports the fee structure proposed by the Commission. It welcomes the flexibility on payments by SMEs under the proposal. It has also confirmed that it consulted with the Irish Medicines Board, the Department of Agriculture and Food, and the Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association with respect to this proposal. The results of these consultations are covered in detail in the letter from the Department, which, I understand, has been circulated to members.

It is proposed, in the light of the additional information now provided by the Department, that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

I wish to raise a point which perhaps should be raised at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs with regard to how this board operates. It is supposed to be a European agency, which protects European citizens from the distribution of drugs that might put their lives at risk. I am not sure it has sufficient clout vis-à-vis the pharmaceutical industry as to how it does its work and what it depends on in terms of information on how drugs may or may not be of value to it.

Chairman

Is the Member of the European Parliament talking about the European Medicines Agency?

Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

Yes. While I know this question does not come under discussion of the fees structure, whether it has sufficient resources to do its job should be of concern.

Chairman

We will send it for information to the Joint Committee on Health and Children and attach the views of the Member of the European Parliament.

Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

I am not suggesting that we should delay the decision on this matter. We should consider whether the agency is effective because concerns have been expressed about it.

Chairman

Is it agreed to send it for information to the Joint Committee on Health and Children with the additional comments of Proinsias De Rossa, MEP, attached? Agreed.

COM (2005) 131 is a proposal for decisions on the signing and conclusion of a protocol to the agreement between the Community, the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the Dublin II regulation and the Eurodac regulation. The lead Department is the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and no other Department has an interest. I understand that in November the scrutiny committee considered an earlier proposal relating to the participation of Switzerland in these measures. This proposal seeks to make the measures applicable to relations between Denmark, Norway and Iceland. The Department's note outlines that it views the adoption of the measure as having no implications for Ireland because it only affects asylum applicants moving between these states. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed

COM (2005) 136 is a proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 77/388/EEC on the common system of value added tax, with regard to the length of time during which the minimum standard rate is to be applied. The lead Department is the Department of Finance and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners is also affected. This proposal seeks approval for the continuation for a further four-year period, up to 2010, of the measure that permits the member states to set their VAT rates within a certain band. As the Department's note outlines, this affords each member state the opportunity to apply the rate it believes to be most appropriate for its economy. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Dardis

Can we ask for it to be amended to cover a ten-year period?

Chairman

I take it that is not a serious question. COM (2005) 148 is a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 27/2005, as concerns fishing opportunities in Greenland, Faeroese and Icelandic waters and fishing for cod in the North Sea, and amending Regulation (EC) No. 2270/2004, as concerns fishing opportunities for deep sea sharks and round-nose grenadier. The lead Department is the Department of Communications Marine and Natural Resources. The total allowable catch of the pre-2004 member states is adjusted upwards for the species concerned by this proposed, as the earlier figures for the new member states were set too high. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2005) 151 is a proposal for a Council directive on the control of potato cyst nematodes. The lead Department is the Department of Agriculture and Food. The aim of the proposal is to amend Council Directive 69/465/EEC that concerns the control of the potato cyst eelworm. The Department's note indicates that the current controls have not been effective in preventing the spread of the eelworm and the Department sets out its belief that the Commission is "now proposing a more comprehensive response". These actions would include an official investigation by the member states to ensure that no potato cyst eelworms are present in the fields intended for the production of seed potatoes and the centralisation of sampling records. The Department had been requested to provide some additional information on the anticipated costs of centralising the records and in changes to the system of control outlined in the proposal. The Department has indicated that it has anticipated many of the elements in the proposal and that, therefore, the adoption of the proposal would have minimal future impact on Ireland. It has outlined the background to this in an additional note that I understand has been circulated to members. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Sexton

Do we have any indication of the prevalence of this in Ireland?

Senator Dardis

We have a high health standard for seed potatoes. I believe we are already doing enough not to need to worry about this directive. However, it is an important economic issue for seed potato producers.

Chairman

I can safely eat my lunch.

Senator Dardis

The Chairman will not — at least I hope he will not — be eating the seed potatoes.

Chairman

COM (2005) 154 is a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 1466/97 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and co-ordination of economic policies. COM (2005) 155 is a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 1467/97 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure. In March 2005 the Council looked at the operation of the Stability and Growth Pact and considered ways to enhance the governance and national ownership of the fiscal framework. Members will be aware that the Presidency conclusions of 22 and 23 March 2005 invited the Commission to make proposals to amend the regulations. The Joint Committee on European Affairs recently explored with officials from the Department of Finance the background to the changes to the pact agreed by the Council and advanced here by the Commission. It is proposed that the proposal does not, therefore, warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

This is probably one of the most important decisions made in recent times on economic co-ordination and budgetary control. While I am not sure how it would be done in this context, the proposal gives rise to hopes, on the one hand, that governments will be able to invest in more infrastructure by way of education and training. On the other hand, there are fears that some members states will run up budget deficits that will make their economic position worse. Surveillance is extremely important to make sure the amended pact is used in the way it is intended, which is to improve the way in which we can create an economy of excellence in terms of quality education, jobs, etc.

Senator Dardis

Given that the Joint Committee on European Affairs is considering the financial perspectives and the Stability and Growth Pact, perhaps that committee should include this proposal in its considerations. While it may not need to adjudicate on the matter, it should be brought to its attention.

Chairman

We will forward a copy of the proposal to the Joint Committee on European Affairs for its information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2005) 177 is a Green Paper on Financial Services Policy 2005 to 2010. The lead Department is the Department of Finance and the other Department affected is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. This paper presents the Commission's preliminary views for its financial services policy priorities for the next five years. The Commission is seeking views on its initial ideas by 1 August 2005. The paper opens with a summary of recent initiatives by the Union concerning the financial services sector. The Commission indicates that advances in this position should be guided by the economic benefits they would yield and their impact on stability in the sector. The Department's note indicates that it is working with IFSRA in its examination of the paper. It is proposed that the paper, which concerns a sector of considerable importance to the economy, be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service for information and consideration? Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2005) 158 is a proposal for a Council decision on the signature, provisional application and conclusion of the agreement between the European Union and Bulgaria on certain aspects of air services. COM (2005) 159 is a proposal for a Council decision on the signature, provisional application and conclusion of the agreement between the European Union and Croatia on certain aspects of air services. In recent months, the committee has considered a number of related proposals on the liberalisation of air services agreements with third countries. The proposals follow a ruling of the European Court of Justice that national restrictions on air services were contrary to EU law. On all previous occasions, the committee determined that the Commission's subsequent proposals did not warrant further scrutiny.

The Commission's proposals seek approval for the signature, provisional application and conclusion of agreements between the EU and Bulgaria and the EU and Croatia to replace certain provisions in existing bilateral air services agreements with member states. The agreement includes a Union clause which permits Union carriers to benefit equally in such areas as taxation of fuel and the right of establishment in Bulgaria and Croatia. The Department's note outlines its view that the adoption of the proposal has no significant implications for Ireland. I am told we had an additional note which stated the proposal did not relate to standards in air safety. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2005) 182 is a proposal for a Council regulation to amend Regulation (EC) No. 133/2004 which concerns certain restrictive measures in respect of Sudan. The lead Department is the Department of Foreign Affairs and there are no other interested Departments. The proposed measure takes account of an additional provision on certain exemptions to the measures, including matériel for African Union crisis management operations. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2005) 185 is a proposal for Council decisions on the signing and conclusion of the agreement amending the partnership agreement signed in Cotonou with ACP states. The lead Department is the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Department's note indicates that it views the proposals as purely technical with no implications for Ireland. However, the specific references to developments internationally since 2000 and the ongoing work of institutions such as the International Criminal Court as well as proposals to improve the operation of the agreement suggest they will result in a positive contribution to relations with ACP states. It is proposed to forward the proposal for information to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs with a view to it being brought to the attention of the development sub-committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2005) 191 is a proposal for Council decisions for the signature and conclusion of the additional protocol to the agreement establishing the association between the European Economic Community and Turkey following EU enlargement. The lead Department is the Department of Foreign Affairs. It is proposed the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2005) 193 is a proposal to extend the anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps originating in the People's Republic of China to imports consigned from Vietnam, Pakistan and the Philippines. The lead Department is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The Department's note indicates that no difficulties were reported on the proposed measures during its consultation process. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

SEC (2005) 650 is a preliminary draft amending budget No. 4 to the general budget for 2005, general statement of revenue. The lead Department is the Department of Finance. I understand the EU must run a surplus in its budget every year to ensure that there is no deficit. The amendment to the budget takes account of the surplus left over from 2004. The Department expects, therefore, that the proposal will not be a matter of contention at the Council of Europe. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2005) 176 is a proposal for a Council decision on a Community position within the EC-Faeroe Islands joint committee on amendments to Decision No. 1 of 2001 on the approval of the Faeroese contingency plans for fish diseases and the inclusion of the Faeroe Islands in the animal disease notification system. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources is the lead Department. The Department's note indicates that the technical experts support the proposed measures. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2005) 186 and COM (2005) 187 involve proposals for Council decisions on the provisional application and definitive conclusion of a protocol on fishing opportunities with the Islamic Federal Republic of the Comoros. The lead Department is the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. The protocol provides for an annual financial contribution to the Comoros of €390,000 between 2005 and 2010 in return for continued access to surrounding waters by certain Union vessels. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Mulcahy

Is the republic a member of the UN?

Chairman

I understand it is.

Deputy Mulcahy

I have never heard of it.

Senator Dardis

The committee should visit it on a study tour.

Chairman

I am told the republic is a former French colony. I have learned something. Perhaps, it has not heard of us either.

COM (2005) 205 is a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 658 of 2002 and Regulation (EC) No. 132 of 2001, imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia and the Ukraine. The lead Department is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The proposal follows a review by the Commission of the ammonium nitrate market and associated product innovations. The Commission's review found that new products should be covered by the anti-dumping duties which applied previously. It is proposed the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We have already considered COM (2005) 32. Based on the additional information provided by the Department, it is proposed that while proposal does not warrant further scrutiny, it should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Transport for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No adopted measures or early warning notes were received for this meeting. Are the minutes of the meeting of 11 May 2005 agreed?

Senator Dardis

I do not know if we are considering the matter at the right time but a communication on BSE has been received from Tom O'Donnell of the Department of Agriculture and Food. It is a significant and helpful update.

Chairman

Are the minutes of the previous meeting agreed? Agreed.

The draft 50th report to the sub-committee was circulated. I propose that the report, as circulated, be laid before both Houses. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is proposed to note items of correspondence, including correspondence received from the Department of Agriculture and Food updating COM (2004) 775, consideration of which was deferred at our 44th meeting pending further information from the Department. Is this the correspondence to which Senator Dardis referred?

Senator Dardis

Yes. Mr. O'Donnell's communication is quite helpful. It is obvious that there is an urgent need to renew the regulation because it must come into effect by 1 July. A sensible approach has been adopted to it in that it has been split in two. The matters that need to be addressed immediately are currently being dealt with and the other matters are being put aside for consideration. This is a good way of proceeding. It is important that the transitional measures be extended because they have serious implications for our agriculture industry. I thank the secretariat and the officials from Department of Agriculture and Food for their assistance.

Chairman

What are the implications of this?

Senator Dardis

The provisions will ensure that the current arrangements and protections continue to obtain. Countries that would not reach the required standard would be identified. It is important that the current system remain in place but there are other aspects to be considered. More time will be required to consider them, which is appropriate.

Chairman

No. 2 is correspondence received from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform supplying additional information following its presentation on 28 April. The articles referred to in the correspondence were circulated during the presentation. If any member requires a copy, he or she should contact the secretariat.

I understand that additional correspondence was received this morning from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment regarding the imposition of tariffs on goods imported from China. It is proposed to note that correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

At the recent meeting of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, the question of the European Defence Agency arose. Apparently it had not been discussed at the committee but it was suggested that it had been discussed at this committee. There was to be a request sent to this committee for information on what it decided. The issue is important politically. Is there any information available on the matter which this committee can give me?

I have two other issues to raise. The working time directive has been given a First Reading by the European Parliament. It will return to Parliament for a Second Reading, assuming that the Council does not accept all of our amendments. I am quite sure it will not do so. Will this be debated in the Dáil? It is clearly important for a range of reasons.

Chairman

It has been sent to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business.

Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

The other matter concerns the services directive. It has not come before the Parliament for its First Reading but has been considered by the parliamentary committee. It has major implications for Ireland.

Chairman

That is also to be dealt with by the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business.

Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

I thank the Chairman.

Chairman

I thank the committee for its attention and co-operation.

The sub-committee adjourned at 10.25 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 16 June 2005.