No. 1. is proposals warranting further scrutiny. The following proposals are proposed for further scrutiny, Nos. 1.1 to 1.6. No. 1.1 is COM (2005) 646, a proposal for a directive amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the co-ordination of certain national broadcasting activities. The lead Department is the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and it also concerns the Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Arts, Sport and Tourism.
The objective of this proposal is to ensure that on-demand audiovisual media service providers within member states can fully benefit from the Internal Market through regulation by the country of origin principle. The implication of this is that once a channel has been licensed in one member state, it may be received in any other member state without being subject to additional regulation. The existing regulations contain certain restrictions on content and on what is permitted to be broadcast, for example, in regard to tobacco advertising.
The existing European legislation and COM (2005) 646, as drafted, do not take account of the concerns within states such as Ireland where the market for broadcasting is open to the services of providers based outside the state. I understand this means that under such a European legal framework national regulations have a limited impact on the services received. The Department's note underlines that the negotiations on this proposal will have implications for the framing of national regulations on advertising codes concerning children and also the rules on subtitling. It is proposed that this significant proposal be referred to the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources for further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 1.2 is COM (2005) 667, is a proposal for a framework directive on waste. The lead Department is the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment also has an interest. The implementation of the waste framework directive has impacted in recent times on waste management plans across the EU. This proposal seeks to amend the existing legislation in a significant number of areas. The Department's note outlines its view that the absence of targets and an emphasis on the member states carrying out the actions required is a positive development in the current draft. It also highlights that the adoption of the proposed measure would have negative implications for companies involved in the waste oils regeneration business and the direct implication for Ireland of this aspect of the proposed measure has been sought from the Department.
The proposal offers greater clarity regarding definitions related to waste and offers a reduction in the administrative burden in instances where materials are used as a secondary raw material. This proposal has been discussed by the Council and clarification from the Department has been sought on how far it has advanced. I understand it has not advanced very far and, therefore, it is proposed that this significant proposal should be referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government and that the Department should be requested to outline the direct implications of the adoption of the proposed measure for the waste oils regeneration business. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 1.3 is not on the agenda. No. 1.4 is COM (2005) 681, a proposal for a directive amending certain existing European legislation and a review of the medical devices directives. The lead Department is the Department of Health and Children. The existing European legislation concerning medical devices was the subject of a review by the Commission and a subsequent communication. This review suggested, inter alia, there was a need for increased transparency in the approval of devices and that the existing legislation should be more aligned to avoid ambiguity and uncertainty. The Commission’s memorandum to the proposal indicates that industry had criticised the apparent unharmonised interpretation and implementation of directives in this area.
The proposed amendments to the legislation seek to provide additional legal clarity by outlining definitions on medical devices. The Commission also indicates that developments in thinking on devices are linked with the development of a Community framework on human tissue engineered products. The legislation, inter alia, concerns marketing authorisation of the products and the work of the Community committee that oversees its operation. While the Department’s note indicates that it views the adoption of the proposal as having no significant economic impact, the highlighted need for greater openness in this area and the apparent unsatisfactory operation of existing European legislation across the EU suggests the proposed measure requires further scrutiny by the sectoral committee. It is proposed, therefore, that the proposal be referred for further scrutiny to the Joint Committee on Health and Children. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 1.5 is COM (2005) 705. It is a proposal for a regulation laying down the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in actions under the Seventh Framework Programme and for the dissemination of research results between 2007 and 2013. The lead Department is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and there is an interest across a wide range of Departments.
The scrutiny committee has on a number of occasions considered proposals relating to the Commission's initiatives with respect to the Seventh Framework Programme for European research-related activities. I understand that the Irish position paper on the Seventh Framework Programme underlines that the EU programmes have contributed to the creation of a well qualified, technologically aware workforce, capable of attracting leading edge technology-based companies to Ireland. The Department has also indicated in regard to the research proposals that its priority is to maximise the spend in these areas.
The Department's note sets out that its overall aim in regard to this part of the Seventh Framework Programme is to ensure that the rules governing participation are such as to facilitate the maximum level of Irish participation in the programme. The note also indicates that it has submitted initial observations on the guidelines for participation and the Department has been requested to outline the significant points in this regard for the benefit of the scrutiny committee. I understand that the Department subsequently indicated that it has some concerns in regard to the proposed guidelines, particularly on how they might impact on universities that may not be in a position to provide the proposed level of details concerning the indirect costs of a research project.
It is proposed that the proposal be referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business in the context of its consideration of proposals related to the Seventh Framework Programme and for information to the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government in the context of its consideration of the nuclear elements of the Seventh Research Programme. It is also proposed that the proposal be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Education and Science in regard to the concerns expressed with respect to universities. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 1.6 is COM (2005) 589. It is a proposal for a directive establishing a community vessel traffic monitoring and information system. The lead Department is the Department of Transport.
The Commission's memorandum outlines that for more than ten years the EU has been pursuing a proactive maritime safety policy aimed at improving ship safety, safeguarding human life at sea and protecting the marine environment. The Commission contends that EU Directive 2002/59/EC needs amending to take account of operational and technical advances. In particular, it states that there needs to be more cohesion between national policies, for example, on plans for accommodating ships in distress in places of refuge.
The Department's note sets out that, while it supports the broad thrust of the proposal, it has concerns in regard to the designation of a competent authority as the body directly responsible for ensuring the implementation of the plans for accommodating ships in distress in places of refuge and for other elements of the directive such as the processing of information. The Department indicates that the Minister is the designated authority in Ireland and that there is a need to ensure consistency with other regulations.
The Department also highlights the proposed requirement for fishing vessels of 15 meters or longer to be fitted with automatic identification systems and that the estimated cost of the systems is €2,000.
It is proposed that the proposal be referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and that it be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Transport. Is that agreed? Agreed.
There are no Title IV measures received for this meeting. Under CFSP measures, we will now deal with measures received — items 3.1 and 3.2. Item 3.1 is CFSP (2006) 30. It is a Council common position renewing and supplementing restrictive measures imposed against Cote d'Ivoire, The Ivory Coast. The lead Department is the Department of Foreign Affairs. It is proposed to note the measures. It that agreed? Agreed.
Item 3.2 is CFSP (2006) 31. It is a Council common position renewing restrictive measures against Liberia. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.
On deferred documents, I propose to defer consideration of the following proposal. Item 4.1 is COM (2005) 398. It is a proposal for a Council regulation concerning balancing mechanisms applicable to imports from certain countries who are not members of the European Community. The lead Department is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
This proposal dates back to August 2005. The Department has indicated in a short note that the Commission is not proceeding with advancing the proposal, following the accession of Saudi Arabia to the WTO.
I understand the Department has been requested to provide additional background to the proposal to assist members of the scrutiny committee in their deliberations on the matter. It is proposed to defer consideration on this proposal and to request the Department to provide additional information concerning the Commission's actions in regard to the proposal. I am advised that further information was received by the Department a short time ago, therefore, it would be better to defer consideration of the matter so that we can consider it.
Item 5 is proposals for no further scrutiny. It is proposed that the next set of proposals do not warrant further scrutiny. These include items 5.1 to 5.13.
Item 5.1 is COM (2005) 672. It is a Green Paper on damages actions for breach of EC anti-trust rules. The Green Paper contends that an examination of this area of law in the 25 member states presents a picture of total underdevelopment and that Community guidelines are, therefore, required. The Department's note indicates that it views the lack of rules in regard to private enforcement of EC competition law as creating serious procedural obstacles for bringing damages actions. As members will have seen, the Commission is seeking the views of interested parties by 21 April 2006.
It is proposed that the paper be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business and the Joint Committee On Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 5.2 is COM (2005) 677. It is a proposal for a regulation denouncing the agreement between the Community and Angola. The lead Department is the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. The Department's note indicates that Irish fishing vessels are not concerned by this proposal to effectively discontinue the previous arrangements with the Angolan authorities in regard to fishing opportunities for vessels from the European Community.
It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
