As there are no proposals for further scrutiny and no Title IV measures for consideration at today's meeting, I will deal with Common Foreign and Security Policy measures, items 3.1 and 3.2.
Item 3.1 is Council Common Position 427/2005/CFSP of 6 June 2005 which updates Common Position 931/2001/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism and repeals Common Position 220/2005/CFSP. The lead Department is the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Departments of Finance and Justice, Equality and Law Reform are also involved. The common position follows the regular review of EU measure 931/2001/CFSP which implements UN Security Council Resolution 1373 of 28 September 2001. It updates the list of names annexed to the original anti-terrorism measures. It is proposed to note the measures. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 3.2 is Council Decision 428/2005/CFSP of 6 June 2005 which implements Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No. 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repeals Decision 221/2005/CFSP. The lead Department is the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Departments of Finance and Justice, Equality and Law Reform are also involved.
The amended Council decision follows the regular review of EU measure 931/2001/CFSP which implements UN Security Council Resolution 1373 of 28 September 2001 and the adoption of the common position updating the list of names annexed to the original anti-terrorism measure. The sub-committee has previously considered changes to the list and noted the amendments to the original measure. It has done so most recently at a meeting on 28 April.
With regard to the persons, groups and entities listed, I understand member states afford to each other the widest possible assistance in preventing and combating terrorist acts. Where applicable, the funds, financial assets and economic resources of those listed are to be frozen. It is proposed to note the measures. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The following is a proposal for deferral, namely, COM (2005) 194, a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91 on organic products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs. The lead Department is the Department of Agriculture and Food.
Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91 sets conditions around the importation and labelling of organic products from third countries into EU member states. As members will have noted from the documentation circulated, the underlying principle of the regulation is the equivalency of the method of agricultural production. This proposal seeks approval for the extension of a derogation that permits the relevant authorities in member states to grant authorisation for imports where the equivalent procedures have not been agreed under the terms of the regulation.
The Department has indicated that it is the relevant authority in Ireland. I understand it has also been asked for clarification on a number of other points on the operation of the derogation and the labelling of products imported under the provision. It is proposed that consideration of the proposal be deferred until the additional information is available. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is proposed that the next set of proposals, items 5.1 to 5.11, inclusive, do not warrant further scrutiny.
COM (2005) 171 is a proposal for a Council directive on Community measures for the control of avian influenza and a proposal for a Council decision amending Council Decision 90/424/EEC on expenditure in the veterinary field. The lead Department is the Department of Agriculture and Food. The Department of Health and Children is also involved.
The Commission's memorandum on the proposal outlines that avian influenza, AI, is a highly contagious disease of poultry and other birds caused by different types of viruses that may spread to other animals and humans. It sets out that the risks posed by AI viruses to animal and public health are variable and, to a large extent, unpredictable. It indicates that it is believed the risks posed by low pathogenic AI, LPAI, viruses are lower than for high pathogenic AI, HPAI, viruses. While domestic poultry populations in the European Union are free from HPAI, it is suggested there is a permanent reservoir of LPAI among certain wild birds, for example waterfowl such as ducks and geese. Therefore, the Commission argues that measures should be taken to increase the levels of surveillance on HPAI and LPAI. To date, the focus of EU measures has been on HPAI.
The adoption of the proposed measures would see the sampling of poultry and the submission to the Commission by member states of their annual surveillance programmes. The results of the sampling would be forwarded to the Commission and the outbreak of AI notified to other member states and the Commission within 24 hours. In addition, member states would be required to draw up contingency plans in the event of an outbreak.
The draft decision proposes to amend Decision 90/424/EEC to provide for financial assistance for member states for the surveillance of LPAI. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny but that the related documentation be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food, given the importance of measures to counter avian influenza.
COM (2005) 188 is a proposal for a decision by the Council on the Community position within the Association Council on the implementation of Articles 67 and 80 of the EU-Egypt Association Council agreement. The lead Department is the Department of Foreign Affairs. Other Departments as well as the Office of the Revenue Commissioners are also involved.
Following on from two provisions of the EU-Egypt Association Council agreement that entered into force on 1 June 2004, this proposal seeks approval for the creation of sub-committees and a working group to advance co-operation. The Commission's memorandum on the proposal outlines that the agreement envisages the creation of a free trade area between the European Union and Egypt by 2015-18. It is also envisaged that this free trade area would contribute towards strengthening the integration of the economic, institutional and social systems of the partner countries on the basis of approved legal instruments. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2005) 254 is a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 2505/96 opening and providing for the administration of autonomous Community tariff quotas for certain agricultural and industrial products. The lead Department is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
Council Regulation 2505/96 provides a mechanism by which European producers can seek to ensure they have a sufficient level of raw material to maintain production by applying for changes to the tariff quota regime in place for certain products. The proposal seeks to change the tariff quota regime for a range of products and follows applications through the national authorities. It is proposed that it does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SEC (2005) 758 is a preliminary draft amending budget No. 5 to the general budget for 2005, general statement of revenue. The lead Department is the Department of Finance. No other Department is involved.
The proposal is to take account of some changes on the revenue side for the 2005 budget and would result in an increase of €58 million in Ireland's contribution to the EU budget. As members will have seen, it is indicated in the Department's note that there are two principal reasons behind the increase, the first of which arises from increases in the amount of duties collected in Ireland. The second arises from an increase in Ireland's share of the European Union's GNI from 1.18% to 1.25%. In addition, the amending budget takes account of the funds that would be made available to Slovakia through the EU Solidarity Fund mechanism. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2005) 247 is a proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund. The lead Department is the Department of Finance.
The EU Solidarity Fund was created in 2002 to give financial support to member states facing particular difficulties and/or major disasters. The proposal which is linked to the other proposed amendments to the 2005 EU budget seeks approval for financial assistance through the existing EU Solidarity Fund to the amount of €5,667,578 to aid Slovakia in covering the cost of damage caused by a storm. It is proposed that it does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2005) 226 is a Council decision on the equivalence of checks on practices for the maintenance of varieties carried out in certain third countries. The lead Department is the Department of Agriculture and Food. No other Department has an interest in the matter.
Existing EU legislation provides for the recognition of equivalent checks undertaken on seeds in certain Third World countries. The proposal seeks approval for the continuation of this recognition. The Department's note indicates that the proposal would have minimal implications for Ireland as the crop varieties for which seed is propagated in Ireland are all maintained in EU member states. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2005) 253 is a proposal for a directive amending Directive 2004/39/EC on markets in financial instruments as regards certain deadlines. The lead Department is the Department of Finance. No other Department has an interest in the matter.
Directive 2004/39/EC only sets out general principles with regard to markets in financial instruments. The directive aims to give investment firms an effective "single passport", allowing them to operate throughout the European Union on the basis of authorisation in their home member state.
As members will have seen, the Department's note outlines that many of the detailed elements of the adopted measure on the market in financial instruments were for decision through secondary legislation by the Commission and that these will not be finalised until the end of 2005 or early 2006. This would, I understand, leave a very short timeframe for the transposition of the measure. In its memorandum on this proposal the Commission underlines that it is not possible to accelerate the adoption of the secondary legislation due to its complexity and the need to consult widely and build a consensus during the process. Therefore, the proposal seeks approval for a six month extension to the period for transposition of the measure. The new deadline would be 30 October 2006.
The original proposal was first considered by the sub-committee in December 2002 and referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. I understand it considered the proposal in March 2003 and reported that it was fully satisfied with the approach being taken by the Department. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny but that the documentation be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2005) 199 is a proposal for a Council decision issuing directives to the Commission for the negotiation of amendments to the convention on the physical protection of nuclear material, CPPNM. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is the lead Department. No other Department has an interest in the matter.
The CPPNM was signed in 1980 and entered into force in 1987. Its objective is to apply measures regarding the physical protection of nuclear materials during international transport. The adoption of the proposal will see the Commission negotiating at the conference in its area of competency. I understand the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has also confirmed that Ireland will attend the CPPNM conference in July, at which amendments to the convention will be discussed. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2005) 200 is a proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the agreement between the European Community and the Government of Canada on the processing of advanced passenger information, API, as well as passenger name record, PNR, data. The Department of Foreign Affairs is the lead Department, while other Departments with an interest in the matter are the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Department of Transport.
I understand that in May 2004 a committee considered a measure concerning the sharing of PNR data with the US authorities. Following the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, legislation was passed in the United States requiring airlines flying to, from or over the United States to provide the US customs service with electronic access to information on passengers held by them. Similar measures were agreed in Canada. The Department's note and the Commission's memorandum similarly outline that the Canadian authorities are phasing in the requirements for carriers to comply with their requirements. The European Union has a temporary derogation from the Canadian measures until 1 July in order to allow negotiations on an international agreement with Canada to be concluded.
The proposed measure will offer a legal base to the carriers operating routes from the European Union to Canada to comply with the existing Canadian requirements. Both parties to the European Union-Canada agreement at the centre of the proposed legislation will carry out an annual review of the implementation of the agreement. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2005) 238 is a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 3317/94 as regards the transmission of the applications for fishing licences to third countries. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources is the lead Department. No other Department has an interest in the matter.
The Commission's memorandum outlines that the period of time it can take to have a fisheries agreement with a third country made legally operational can be relatively lengthy, even where the agreement concerns a renewal of fishing opportunities for Community vessels in the waters of third countries. To speed up the allocation process, this proposal seeks approval for the Commission to commence the application process regarding fishing opportunities where the Council has not yet adopted the decision on the temporary application of a new protocol. The Department's note underlines that the proposal only concerns Ireland's renewal of fishing opportunities and that it welcomes the proposed measure. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2005) 251 is a proposal for a Council decision fixing the financial contributions to be paid by the member states contributing to the European Development Fund — the second instalment for 2005. The Department of Foreign Affairs is the lead Department.
This proposal follows the procedure for contributions to the European Development Fund and the European Investment Bank whereby the Commission proposes to the Council the level of contributions for the next period of the European Development Fund. In this case, the proposed contribution from Ireland will amount to €1.86 million towards the European Investment Bank and €6.65 million towards the European Development Fund. The Department's note underlines that the proposal is purely technical, that its adoption will have no implications for Ireland and that the Department welcomes the proposed measure. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
There were no adopted measures or early warning notes received for this meeting. The minutes of the meeting of 16 June have been circulated. Are they agreed? Agreed.
The draft 51st report of the sub-committee has been circulated. I propose that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on European Affairs for agreement that it be laid before both Houses with appendices. Is that agreed? Agreed.
At its meeting on 2 June the sub-committee considered a package of proposals, COM (2005) 161-169, inclusive, relating to genetically modified organisms. They were considered to be of such significance that they were referred for further scrutiny. I understand that subsequently a very useful joint meeting of the Joint Committee on European Affairs and the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government was held to explore the issues involved.
The package primarily concerned national bans by Austria, France, Greece, Germany and Luxembourg provisionally restricting or prohibiting the use and/or sale of certain genetically modified products which previously had been approved for use in the European Union. As members will recall, a state may undertake such action based on new information where it concerns a risk to the environment or human health. They may also recall that the sub-committee viewed the proposals as being linked to the wider debate on ways in which the principles of the Single Market might be respected while permitting a degree of subsidiarity to allow member states to regulate for genetically modified products.
The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has provided a short note for the information of members on the outcome of the recent Environment Council which met to vote on the Commission's proposals. As members will see from the note, all of the Commission's proposals to have the eight separate bans in five member states lifted were rejected by a qualified majority of the Council. The Department has confirmed that Ireland voted against the lifting of all eight bans. The note concludes by outlining that the Minister told the Council: "We should respect the position of the member states concerned and apply the principle of subsidiarity."
I propose that we note this correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I propose that the next meeting of the sub-committee be provisionally agreed for Wednesday, 27 July. Is that agreed? Agreed.
