It is proposed that items 1.1 to 1.7 should be referred for further scrutiny. Item 1.1 is COM (2005) 375 — a proposed regulation on Community statistics on migration and international protection. In its memorandum to this proposal, the Commission states that the development of policies and legislation in the area of migration and asylum seeking has highlighted the need for comprehensive and comparable European statistics on a range of migration-related issues. The memorandum also underlines that the 2004 enlargement of the European Union has brought an added geographical and political dimension to the scale of the phenomena associated with migration. The objective of this proposal is to establish a common framework for the collection and compilation of Community migration statistics and to reduce the impact of definitional and data-source differences across the member states. The proposed legislation would oblige member states to make the best use of available data to produce statistics that meet harmonised definitions as closely as possible. It is proposed that this item be referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on European Affairs in the context of the committee's ongoing consideration of migration issues and that it be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights with regard to the aspects of the proposal concerning statistics relating to asylum issues. Is that agreed?
Scrutiny of EU Proposals.
The implications for Ireland necessitate substantial change in the way in which these statistics are gathered. It is important to inform the relevant agencies of the necessary changes in order that we do not lag behind.
To what agencies is Deputy Sexton referring?
I am referring to the Central Statistics Office in particular. It will be forced to change the way it produces its questionnaires. It should be informed of these changes in order that it can implement them in a timely fashion.
As a note has been provided with the assistance of the Central Statistics Office, it is aware of the changes. The ongoing work carried out by the Committee on European Affairs and the report it is drawing up on this and other issues will bring about an informed debate.
I congratulate our vigilant staff.
Item 1.2 is COM (2005) 469 — a proposed Council decision authorising the placing on the market of food containing genetically modified maize line 1507. This proposal from the Commission seeks approval for the placing on the market across EU member states of food containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified line 1507. The maize line concerned has been modified to provide for resistance to certain pests and the herbicide glufosinate-ammonium. The Department of Health and Children's note indicates that, based on scientific advice, it had no objections to the proposal and supported it in the committee. This committee has considered proposals concerning the authorisation to place on the market genetically modified foods on a number of occasions and these have been referred for further scrutiny, given the level of public interest in this area. As members will have seen from the documentation circulated, the Department’s note also informs the committee that the Minister for Agriculture and Food abstained in a vote on approving genetically modified maize as animal feed at the meeting of the Agriculture Council in September. It is proposed that the proposal be referred to the Joint Committee on Health and Children for further scrutiny and it is also proposed that the report of the meeting or meetings on this issue be forwarded to the scrutiny committee for information.
Could we also send the proposal to the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government because it has also discussed the issue?
We can send the proposal to that committee for information purposes. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 1.3 is COM (2005) 472 — a proposed regulation establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel. This proposal follows on from advice that the stock of eel is highly depleted and proposes that member states draw up national plans that would be tailored to local conditions. The key objective of the proposal, which the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources indicates is of major significance, is to allow a 40% escapement of adult eel from the rivers to the sea to allow for spawning under the national plans. In addition to national plans, the Commission is proposing that there would be a prohibition on fishing for eel for the first 15 days of each month. The Department's note indicates that it accepts that stocks are depleted in Ireland but contends that evidence suggests that stocks in Ireland have not, to date, deteriorated as dramatically as elsewhere. The Department also indicates in its note that a number of issues relating to the proposal remain unclear and that clarification will be required from the Commission in these matters. The Commission has also set a target date of the end of 2006 for the presentation of the national plans and this seems especially ambitious, given that the Department estimates that the proposal will be the subject of some debate over the next six months. It is proposed that the proposal be referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, given the issues highlighted in the Department's note. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 1.4 is SEC (2005) 1269 — amending letter No. 1 to the preliminary draft budget for 2006. As members may recall, the committee has on a number of occasions in recent months considered proposals relating to reform of the European sugar market. The purpose of this amending letter is to add €40 million in commitment appropriations and €21.2 million to payments relating to external actions to support African Caribbean Pacific, ACP, countries that would be affected by the sugar reform, should it go through. Certain ACP countries benefit from access to the European sugar market under the existing regime under a 1975 preferential access scheme. I understand that the financial support proposed in SEC/2005/1269 would be targeted at the particular needs of the countries concerned. It is proposed that the proposal be referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food in the context of its scrutiny of reform of the sugar market — COM (2005) 263. It is also proposed that the proposal be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs for the particular attention of its development sub-committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.
We will discuss items 1.5 and 1.6 together. Item 1.5 is COM (2005) 444 — a proposed Council decision concerning the specific programme implementing the seventh framework programme, 2007-11, of the European Atomic Energy Community, EURATOM, for nuclear research and training activities. Item 1.6 is COM (2005) 445 — a proposed Council decision concerning the specific programme implementing the seventh framework programme, 2007-11, for nuclear research and training activities in the area of nuclear fusion and radiation protection. These two proposals concern the detailed breakdown of the proposed research programme that would fall under the EURATOM Treaty.
In advance of the 2 June meeting of the sub-committee, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government forwarded a note setting out that Ireland does not support or engage in nuclear energy generation because it is not considered that this provides a safe, sustainable or viable energy source. The Department, therefore, indicates that its main task in respect of such EU research activities is to maximise the expenditure in the area of safety and controls. The Department also indicates that, while the Government does not object to continuing EU research in this area, it questions the continuing commitment to nuclear fusion research, which, despite being in train for many years, does not appear any closer to becoming a reality. The proposed expenditure under the fusion programme is €2.159 billion, which is a significant increase on the figure of €750 million agreed for the sixth programme. It is proposed that the proposals be referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government in the context of its consideration of COM (2005) 119, which was referred in June by this committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 1.7 is COM (2005) 483, a modified proposal for a directive on credit agreements for consumers amending Council Directive 93/13/EC. In November 2002, the sub-committee considered an earlier proposal from the Commission in this area, namely, COM (2002) 443. Following the opinion of the European Parliament, the Commission has amended its credit proposal by restricting its scope principally to pre-contractual and contractual information requirements and removing elements already covered in existing legislation.
The Department indicates that it welcomes the light approach by the Commission but highlights some possible negative implications from the adoption of the amended proposal. It suggests that the adoption of the measure could have cost implications for consumers and may result in reduced access for others to credit. The Commission, on the other hand, contends that the proposed measures in respect of the provision of additional information concerning loans and the checking of consumers' credit worthiness corresponds to good banking practice.
The proposal includes provision that credit institutions provide the fullest possible transparency and comparability of offers, such as the annual percentage rate of charge. The consumer would also be informed of compulsory charges. In addition, the advantages and disadvantages of the credit offered should be explained in a personalised manner. The Department has suggested that the development of the proposal in a working group would benefit from the input of consumer and industry stakeholders.It is proposed that the proposal be referred to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business for further scrutiny. Is that agreed?
I refer the Chair to page 67 of the annexe at the rear of the document.
The pink section.
It reads "Error" on the bottom of the page.
The term "Unknown document" is on all of them.
Would the Acting Chairman explain that mathematical equation to the committee?
That would be a matter for the policy adviser.
It is important that we understand the equation before we finish with this document.
We could ask for a note from the Department.
Gobbledygook has been put into these documents and we are expected to process them.
It would be better to say, "Error. Unknown document property name".
Is further clarification being requested?
I draw the committee's attention to this matter.
It is stated in the document that the credit agreement shall "include in a clear and concise manner".
These sections are no longer parts of the proposed documentation before us.
With that reassurance, we can proceed.
Therefore, it is agreed.
Having jumped that hurdle, we will move on to No. 2, Title IV measures. The following Title IV measures have been received for consideration, namely, Nos. 2.1 and 2.2. The former is COM (2005) 391, a proposed directive on common standards and procedures in member states for returning illegally staying third country nationals. This proposal does not automatically apply to Ireland. Some of the more significant provisions of the proposal relate to prioritising voluntary return by encouraging a two-step approach to returns, namely, notification of a return decision followed by a removal order, the right to an effective judicial remedy against return decisions, the regular review by a judicial authority of the reasons for maintaining a person in temporary custody and giving a European dimension to the effects of national return measures by establishing a re-entry ban valid throughout the EU.
The Department has indicated, in a follow-up to the original information note, that most of the proposed procedures are already operated in Ireland under current legislation, except for the proposal to impose an EU-wide re-entry ban for up to five years. It is proposed that the Title IV proposal be forwarded for information and consideration in advance of any decision in respect of Ireland's participate in this measure. The approval of both Houses would be required for Ireland's participation. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 2.2, COM (2005) 480, is a proposed Council decision on the establishment of a mutual information procedure concerning member states' measures in the area of asylum and immigration. The proposal seeks approval for the establishment of a web-based mutual information procedure-network through which member states can share information on asylum and migration issues in advance of national decisions. It is proposed that the Title IV proposal be forwarded for information and consideration in advance of any decision regarding Ireland's participation in this measure. The approval of both Houses would be required for Ireland's participation. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 3 is CFSP measures, of which none has been received for this meeting. No. 4 is deferred documents. No. 4.1 is COM (2005) 499, a proposed Council regulation repealing Regulation (EC) No. 3690/93 establishing a Community system laying down rules for the minimum information to be contained in fishing licences. The aim of this proposal is to repeal Regulation (EC) No. 3690/93 in order that the provisions contained therein are consistent with decisions made under Regulation 2371/2002 in respect of the information contained in fishing licences. The Department's note indicates that the new provisions for licences vary only slightly from existing rules and agents' names would henceforth be included. The Department goes on to set out that it anticipates that the adoption of the measure would have little impact in Ireland.
I understand, however, that the Department has been asked for clarification in respect of point No. 14 of the note which states that it could be considered that we already meet the requirements of the amendment. The Department has been requested to indicate whether the committee understands that new licences would only be required for licences owned by companies. The Department has also been asked to indicate if the adoption of this measure would result in extra costs for the Department and/or licence holders in Ireland. It is proposed to defer consideration of the proposal until the information required from the Department is provided. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 5 is proposals for which no further scrutiny is proposed, including documents 5.1 to 5.16. No. 5.1 is COM (2005) 366, a proposed regulation on statistics of goods transport by inland waterways. The Commission, in its memorandum to this proposal, contends that the directive under which statistics on inland waterways are collected, Directive 80/1119/EEC, has some shortcomings. It is suggested, inter alia, that this situation arises because there is no provision for adoption of the directive via a committee procedure and that the existing measure only covers certain transport.
The adoption of the proposed amendments to address the perceived shortcomings in the existing measure would, according to the CSO, have no implications for Ireland. In respect of this point the CSO, Waterways Ireland and the Department have confirmed that there is no commercial goods traffic on the inland waterways of Ireland. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
We will take No. 5.2, COM (2005) 453, a proposed decision on the position of the European Union regarding the draft regulation of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe on wheels for passengers and their trailers, and 5.3, COM (2005) 454, a proposed decision on the position of the European Union regarding the draft regulation of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe on front-lighting systems, together. The European Union is a party to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, UNECE. Members will have seen from the documentation circulated that the Commission is seeking approval through these two proposals for the Commission representative to approve UNECE draft regulations that seek to harmonise technical specifications for wheels for passenger cars and their trailers, COM (2005) 453, and front lighting systems, COM (2005) 454, for motor vehicles. The aim of UNECE regulations is to raise the standards in these two areas to improve road safety and it is with this in mind that the Department has indicated that it supports the proposal.
I understand following the submission of the information note, the Department was requested to indicate the anticipated costs of the two proposals and I also understand it has replied that it does not currently have this information. It is proposed that the proposals do not currently warrant further scrutiny, but that the Department should be requested to provide additional information on the anticipated costs to consumers of the adoption of the measures. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 5.4, COM (2005) 464, is a proposed decision on a Community position within the EU-Chile Association Council concerning the liberalisation of the treatment of wines, spirit drinks and aromatised drinks. It is proposed that it does not warrant further scrutiny but that it should be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business.
Item 5.5 is COM (2005) 467. As agreed, we will deal with this proposal as item 6.1.
Item 5.6, COM (2005) 481, is a proposed decision fixing the financial contributions to be paid by the member states contributing to the European Development Fund, the third instalment for 2005. This proposal follows the procedure for contributions to the European Development Fund, EDF, the European Investment Bank, EIB, whereby the Commission proposes to the Council the level of contributions for the next period of the EDF. The proposal concerns the final instalment for 2005 and in this case the proposed contribution from Ireland would amount to €1.488 million towards the EDF. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 5.7, COM (2005) 502, is a proposed Council regulation concerning the conclusion of the partnership agreement between the European Community and the Federated States of Micronesia. In common with a number of similar proposals previously considered by the scrutiny committee, this proposal seeks approval for the conclusion of an agreement concerning fishing opportunities for community fishing vessels in the waters of a third country. In this instance the agreement concerns Micronesia. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny.
Why is it that fishermen from Spain, France and Portugal fish there and Irish boats do not?
That was traditionally the situation. What was the historical position of these islands?
This matter should be brought to the attention of the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, informing members that this area is available to fishermen.
The islands are adjacent to some French territories. Perhaps there was a traditional link in this regard.
If it is worthwhile for French and Portuguese boats to travel there, why is it not worthwhile for Irish boats to travel there?
We can certainly send the Deputy's suggestion to the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. Apart from the Deputy's suggestion, we propose the broader proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. At least this proposal caused committee members to look up Micronesia on the map. I am advised that if vessels from the three countries concerned do not take up licences, other member states can apply for such licences.
We should send Deputy Mulcahy to Micronesia to investigate.
The Chairman of the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel O'Flynn, has been known to investigate such matters.
I am sure he would love to go there.
Deputy Kelleher might love to send him there as well. Item 5.8, SEC (2005) 1379, is an amending letter No. 2 to the preliminary draft budget for 2006. Due to a number of factors the Commission is indicating that the expenditure required for commitments under the CAP during 2006 will be lower than previously anticipated. The net result of these factors is that the draft budget for 2006 is overstated by €362 million. Some of the factors resulting in this situation are changes in exchange rates and favourable market conditions. The reduction in the amount required to finance the CAP will, according to the Department, reduce Ireland's EU contribution by €5 million.
It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny, but that the proposal be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 5.9, COM (2005) 478, is a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 27/2005, concerning herring, Greenland halibut and octopus. The Commission proposes that the existing regulation concerning the TAC for certain species of fish be amended. The Department indicates in its note that the adoption of the proposal would have no implications for Ireland. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 5.10, COM (2005) 427, is a proposed directive amending Directive 69/169/EEC regarding beer imports into Finland. Particular arrangements regarding beer imports into Finland were put in place in 2000 that could limit personal imports of beer by individuals from countries other than member states to less than six litres. The Commission's memorandum to this proposal indicates that Finland applied the derogation only to a limited extent and restricted imports to less than 16 litres. The proposal here is that the derogation agreed in 2000 be amended to reflect this reality and that imports be restricted to less than 16 litres. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 5.11, COM (2005) 399, is a proposed regulation on the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, recast. In June 2004 the scrutiny committee considered an earlier proposal from the Commission, COM (2003) 808, seeking approval to boost the centre's role. That proposal was referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Health and Children. Members will have seen the current proposal widens the scope of the work of the centre to include emerging trends in drug use, including the combined use of licit and illicit substances. The proposal would make provision for the appointment of suitably qualified individuals from the member states on the scientific committee. It also provides for the appointment of two independent experts particularly knowledgeable in the field of drugs to the board of the centre by the European Parliament. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny, but that the proposal be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Health and Children and the Joint Committee on European Affairs. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 5.12, COM (2005) 347, is a proposed decision amending Decision No. 2256/2003/EC in view of the extension of the programme in 2006 for the dissemination of good practices and monitoring lCT take-up. In common with a number of EU programmes the Commission is proposing that the programme that provides community financial support to monitor the information society be extended for a further year, 2006. This is to ensure that the community's efforts in this area continue up to the start of the next financial perspective and the commencement of a replacement programme in 2007.
The Department has indicated that it supports this initiative and that Ireland has benefited from the community programme through financial support for conferences in such areas as e-health and e-government in 2004. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 5.13, COM (2005) 402, is a proposed regulation determining the community scale for the classification of carcasses of adult bovine animals. The adopted measure will supersede the various acts being codified and hence, according to the Commission, does no more than bring them together with only such formal amendments as are required by the codification exercise itself. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 5.14, COM (2005) 437, is a proposal that seeks to extend permission for a further year the offering for sale of wines from Argentina that may have had malic acid added to them. It is contended that adding malic acid sharpens the taste of the wine. This issue has, I understand, arisen in the context of ongoing trade negotiations between Argentina and the EU. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 5.15, COM (2005) 350, is a proposal for a decision on the signing of the co-operation agreement on a civil global navigation satellite system with the Ukraine. This proposal seeks approval for the signature of an agreement concerning the participation of the Ukraine in a number of areas relating to the system, including regional ground systems and research and training. Both the Commission's memorandum and the Department's note indicate that the Ukrainian space industry appears among the world's leader in the design and production of launchers and critical components. The amount and arrangements of Ukrainian contribution to the programme will be the subject of a separate agreement. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 5.16, COM (2005) 519, is a proposed decision on the conclusion of an agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Community and the United States of America on matters related to trade in wine. The aim of this proposal is to help ensure that the trade in wine in not disturbed during the period it will take the USA to implement elements of the US-EU wine agreement through national legislation. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 6.1, COM (2005) 467, is a proposed decision concerning the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue in 2008. The Commission argues in the memorandum to the proposal that it is advancing the proposal to designate 2008 as the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue in the context of the importance of inspiring people living in the Union to actively get in touch with other cultures, be it at home or abroad, and thus to contribute to tolerance and mutual respect. I understand the proposal has been adopted by the council following circulation of the supporting documentation to members. It is proposed to note this measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is an important measure hopefully leading to——
It will not get far on €10 million.
It is a beginning. The concept of inspiring people to get in touch with other cultures and contributing to tolerance and mutual respect is good. We can start on the island at home.
Item 6.2, COM (2005) 524, is a proposed council regulation imposing certain restrictive measures in respect of Uzbekistan. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 7 is early warning notes. No such notes were received for today's meeting. Item 8 is the minutes of a previous meeting held on 27 October 2005, which have been circulated. Are they agreed? Agreed. Item 9 is the reports of the 56th and 57th meetings. It is proposed that the draft report on the 56th meeting as circulated be laid before both Houses. Is that agreed? Agreed. It is proposed to defer consideration of the 57th report to the next meeting of the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I propose that the next meeting of the sub-committee will take place on Thursday, 1 December 2005 at 9.30 a.m., which will be in two weeks' time. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The joint committee adjourned at 10.15 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 1 December 2005.