The following items are proposed for further scrutiny — Nos. 1.1 to 1.9, inclusive. No. 1.1 is COM (2005) 280, a proposal for a Council regulation establishing a European Union agency for fundamental rights and a Council decision empowering the European Union agency for fundamental rights to pursue its activities in areas referred to in Title VI of the Treaty on European Union. The lead Department is the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The Commission proposes that an EU agency be established to build on the work of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia to provide relevant organisations within the European Union with assistance and expertise relating to fundamental human rights. It is also proposed that the role of the agency extend to Title VI issues.
The Department outlines the view in its note that no significant implications arise for Ireland from the proposal to establish a European Union agency for fundamental human rights and to extend its remit to the Title VI area, that is, judicial and police co-operation. It is proposed that the proposal be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for further scrutiny given the importance of the issues around the proposed work of the agency. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 1.2 is COM (2005) 304, a proposal for a Council decision on Community strategic guidelines for rural development in the programming period 2007 to 2013. The lead Department is the Department of Agriculture and Food and the proposal is also of interest to the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. In September 2004 the sub-committee considered and referred for further scrutiny to the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food a proposal from the Commission — COM (2004) 490 — which concerned the establishment of a funded programme for rural development over the period 2007 to 2013. The proposal noted the particular challenges to be addressed in the economic and social life of rural areas and underlined the view that agriculture and forestry should make a positive contribution to the countryside.
The proposed measure suggested that stakeholder consultation at national level should occur with regard to the design, implementation and evaluation of national programmes. The Department in its note categorised the proposal as one of "major significance", particularly with regard to the allocation of rural development funding. It also welcomed the general approach of the proposed measure but noted that more detailed information would be required on the allocation criteria.
This proposal from the Commission follows from the earlier framework proposal and advances strategic guidelines for national plans — Article 9 of COM (2004) 490. Inter alia, the proposed Community strategic guidelines for rural development identify areas where the use of EU support for rural development would create the most value added at EU level and linkages can be made with the European Union’s Lisbon and Gothenburg strategies. The guidelines relate to improving the competitiveness of the agriculture and forestry sectors; improving the environment and countryside; improving the quality of life in rural areas and encouraging diversification; building local capacity for employment and diversification; translating priorities into national programmes; and complementarity between Community instruments.
On the basis of these strategic guidelines it is proposed that member states shall prepare their rural development strategies. Given the clear linkages with the earlier proposal, COM (2004) 490 on rural development, it is proposed that this proposal also be referred for further scrutiny to the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 1.3 is COM (2005) 317, a proposal for a Council decision on the improvement of police co-operation between member states, especially at internal borders, and amending the convention implementing the Schengen agreement. The lead Department is the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and there are no other interested Departments.
The aim of this proposed Council decision is to establish a framework for police co-operation at the internal borders of the European Union. The memorandum to the proposal outlines that the Schengen agreement limits itself in this regard to generalities and member states have, therefore, concluded bilateral agreements which can, for example, result in different practices that could thwart law enforcement and lead to "distortions in security". The draft decision lays down general rules to promote strategic and operational co-operation between the member states' law enforcement authorities. The proposal states it is for member states to determine if they will co-operate in this regard and that where they choose to co-operate, they do so on the basis of common standards. The proposed decision provides for co-operation in areas such as the harmonisation of operational planning and common situation exercises. In addition, this co-operation would be facilitated through the establishment of permanent co-operation structures and the co-operation handbook — Article 4.2E — would be informed by these structures.
The Department indicates that the adoption of the proposal may result in legislative changes in Ireland. In reply to a question raised with the Department in this regard, I understand it outlined that the extent to which new legislation might be required to give effect to the draft decision is a matter being pursued with the Office of the Attorney General. It is proposed to refer the proposal to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 1.4 is COM (2005) 334, an amended proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 77/388/EEC concerning the place of supply of services. The lead Department is the Department of Finance and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners is another interested party. The proposal concerns cross-border business to business and business to consumer services and amends Commission proposal COM (2003) 822, which dealt with business to business services only. The Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny considered the proposal in February 2004 and referred it for further scrutiny to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service.
The Department's note on the current proposal outlines that political agreement on the earlier proposal was not possible and that the Commission has now decided to advance an amended proposal that widens the scope of the proposal to include business-to-consumer services. However, in this instance, the place of taxation would be determined by the place where the supplier is established. Some exceptions are made to this principle in regard to electronically delivered services such as music, games and videos. Members will have seen that the Department underlines the opportunities this offers companies based in Ireland to supply services in other member states with lower VAT rates. This is a proposal of major significance, the adoption of which would result in a fundamental change in VAT arrangements across the European Union. It is proposed that the proposal be referred for further scrutiny to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2005) 338 is a proposal for a Council decision authorising the placing on the market of foods and food ingredients derived from genetically modified maize line MON 863 as novel foods or novel food ingredients under Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 of the European Parliament and the Council. The lead Department is the Department of Health and Children and the other interested Department is the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. This proposal from the Commission is seeking approval for the placing on the market across the member states of the European Union of a maize line and of food containing it as an ingredient. The maize line concerned has been modified to provide resistance to certain antibiotics and it was this factor that initially prompted the authorities in Germany to conclude that a further assessment of the line was required.
In accordance with the established procedure, reasoned objections were raised by a number of member states following the application with the German authorities for its placing on the Single Market. The Department's note indicates that based on scientific advice it had received, it had no objections to the proposal. The proposal did not, as has occurred in similar circumstances, receive the necessary support in the committee and is, therefore, being presented here for approval by the Council. In the event that the Council cannot come to a conclusion on this proposal, the proposed measure will return to the Commission for decision.
The committee has on a number of occasions considered proposals concerning the authorisation to place on the market GM foods and these have been referred for further scrutiny. The Department's note also updates the committee regarding a proposal — COM (2005) 163 — which it previously considered concerning approval of a product, MON 863, genetically modified for use as animal feed and in industrial processing. Ireland abstained in the vote on the proposed measure. That proposal was defeated by a simple majority of the Council, but not by a qualified majority, which would have been required if the proposal from the Commission was to be overturned. The current proposal concerns a similarly genetically modified product but in this instance the Department has supported the proposal for its use as a food ingredient. We will have to consider COM (2005) 346 in conjunction with this. It is proposed that the proposal be referred to the Joint Committee on Health and Children for further scrutiny and forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government in the context of its consideration of COM (2005) 284. It is also proposed that the report of the meeting or meetings on this issue be forwarded to the scrutiny committee for information. Is that agreed? Agreed. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government abstained in this matter and the Department of Health and Children supported it based on the same scientific advice. There is a contradiction here.
Let us consider COM (2005) 346, a proposal for a Council decision authorising the placing on the market of foods and food ingredients produced from genetically modified Roundup Ready maize line GA21. The lead Department is the Department of Health and Children and the other interested Department is the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. This proposal from the Commission is seeking approval for the placing on the market across the member states of the European Union of a maize product as an ingredient that has been genetically modified in relation to the herbicide Roundup Ready. It sounds like a breakfast cereal. In accordance with the established procedure, the application for its placing on the Single Market followed a positive assessment by the relevant authority of a member state, in this instance in the Netherlands. The application was subsequently considered by the authorities in the member states and members will have noted that the Department, based on advice from the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, had no objections to the proposal. The proposal did not, as has occurred in similar circumstances, receive the necessary support in the committee and is, therefore, being presented here for approval by the Council. The Department's note underlines that if the Council did approve the proposal it would be the first exercise by the Council of its decision-making role in respect of a proposal to authorise a GM product. In the event that the Council cannot come to a conclusion on this proposal, the proposed measure will return to the Commission for decision.
As members will recall, the committee has on a number of occasions considered proposals concerning the authorisation to place on the market GM products and these have been referred for further scrutiny, given the level of public interest in this area. The proposal is associated with COM (2005) 338. It is proposed that the proposal be referred to the Joint Committee on Health and Children for further scrutiny and for information to the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government in the context of its consideration of COM (2005) 284. It is also proposed that the report of the meeting or meetings on this issue be forwarded to the scrutiny committee for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Let us proceed to SEC (2005) 547 which concerns the preliminary draft general budget of the European Communities for the financial year 2006. The Commission is proposing a budget for 2006 of €121.3 billion in commitment appropriations and €112.6 billion in payment appropriations. It is anticipated that amendments will be made to the budget over the months ahead, particularly as this budget is seen as a bridge to the next financial perspective. The Department has again on this occasion indicated that the budget is of "major significance" for Ireland, especially in regard to ensuring that payments are not excessive. In June 2005 consideration of this proposal was deferred until after the joint meeting of the European Parliament budget committee and representatives of the national parliaments concerning the 2006 EU budget. The committee on finance was represented at that meeting. It is proposed that the proposed measure be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service for further scrutiny and the Joint Committee on European Affairs for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 7307/05 is a Council framework decision on the European enforcement order and the transfer of sentenced persons between member states of the European Union. The lead Department is the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Consideration of this proposal which is being advanced by Austria, Finland, and Sweden was deferred to allow additional time to the Department to clarify a number of points. The proposal concerns the transfer of sentenced persons between member states. The Department has now outlined that it is consulting with the Office of the Attorney General and the Department of Foreign Affairs regarding the proposal that is based on the argument that there is "a basic duty on the executing State to take charge of those of its nationals and those persons permanently legally resident in its territory who have been given a final custodial sentence or a detention order in another member state, irrespective of their consent, unless there are specific reasons for refusal". A subsequent article in the proposal indicates that its provisions would also cover persons with "other close links" with the state.
Those who would be exempt from the implications of the proposal are those with sentences that would not constitute an offence under the law of the executing state; would be statute barred according to the law of the executing state; and would under the law of the executing state not be enforceable due to age. Also included are sentences rendered in absentia. The proposal raises significant questions for penal and rehabilitation services across the European Union, but also for the individuals concerned. The Department was, therefore, asked to clarify a number of points to assist in the deliberations by members on this proposal. The Department has, therefore, also outlined that at the end of March 2005, 682 persons detained in prisons in England and Wales had declared themselves as Irish nationals and that, as of 5 July 2005, 145 persons were detained in Irish prisons from the 24 other member states of the European Union. This will have major implications for our prison services. It is proposed that the proposal be referred for further scrutiny to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women’s Rights and for information to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs for the particular attention of the Sub-Committee on Human Rights which is exploring related issues. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 1.9 is COM (2005) 91, proposal for a Council framework decision on taking account of convictions in the member states of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings. The lead Department is the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Members may recall that in April 2005 the committee deferred consideration of this proposal and requested the Department to update the committee after it had received legal advice on the proposal from the Attorney General's office. The letter received by the Department in this regard has been circulated for the information of members.
The proposal seeks to require a member state to "draw the consequences of the earlier conviction on the occasion of the new proceedings". It would be for national legislation to draw the consequences of the principle that a conviction handed down in another member state would have equivalent effects to a national conviction.
In the letter from the Department it is outlined that the Department is satisfied, following the receipt of legal advice, that "there appears to be no constitutional or ECHR implications arising from the aim of the proposal and that the proposal is within the vires of the EU treaty”. The Department does, however, indicate that it is examining if legislation regarding a national register of convictions would be required. Given that related national legislation may be required concerning this proposal, it is proposed that the proposal be referred for further scrutiny to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women’s Rights. Is that agreed? Agreed.
There were no Title IV measures received for this meeting. The following CFSP measures have been received: Nos. 3.1 to 3.7. No. 3.1 is a Council joint action on support for IAEA activities in the areas of nuclear security and verification. The lead Department is the Department of Foreign Affairs and the other interested Department is the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
The joint action aims to contribute to the achievement of the aims of the International Atomic Energy Agency with respect to monitoring declared activities and promoting actions against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed
It is proposed to take Nos. 3.2 and 3.7 together as they are related. No. 3.2 is Council Decision 2005/444/CFSP of 13 June 2005 implementing Common Position 2004/161/CFSP renewing restrictive measures against Zimbabwe. No. 3.7 is Council Decision 2005/592/CFSP of 29 July 2005 implementing Common Position 2004/161/CFSP renewing restrictive measures against Zimbabwe. The lead Department is the Department of Foreign Affairs.
The committee has on a number of occasions considered EU restrictive measures concerning Zimbabwe imposed due to "the serious violations of human rights, of freedom of opinion, of association and of peaceful assembly" in that country. Council decision 2005/444/CFSP updated the restrictive measures concerning leading participants in the regime and these were further updated by Council Decision 2005/592/CFSP to include those responsible for violations of human rights through the implementation of the regime's so-called Operation Restore Order which, the measure underlines, includes forcible demolition and internal displacement. It is proposed to note the measures. Is that agreed?
