JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny) debate -
Thursday, 2 Mar 2006

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Acting Chairman (Senator Bradford)

Item Nos. 1.1 to 1.9 are proposals warranting further scrutiny. Item No. 1.1, COM (2005) 661, is a proposal for a regulation to make origin markings on certain products from third countries compulsory. While many trading partners already impose regulations in this regard, there is currently no European legislation on "made in" labels. The memorandum contends that this puts EU producers at a disadvantage and that the Community should not miss an opportunity to enhance consumer information.

The proposed legislation on origin is framed in broad terms and, if adopted, would leave considerable scope to the committee process to address such matters as the nature of the label and the range of products that would be subject to the requirements. Under the current draft the requirement to indicate origin would apply to textile and footwear. I understand that this is an area of trade regulation that is relatively untested in WTO terms and there is an understanding that markings would be permitted so long as the marking requirement does not seriously damage the imported products, materially reduce their value or unreasonably increase their cost.

The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment's note indicates that member states are divided on the merits of the proposal and that it remains to be convinced of the utility of the proposed measure. While the availability of additional information to consumers on, for example, employment issues and other social concerns can contribute to an informed decision on a purchase, this consideration needs to be weighed against the additional administrative burden and cost of the introduction of the proposed measure. Estimates of the cost of country of origin marking schemes range from 1% to 2% of ex-works prices, depending on the associated requirements.

Significant issues raised by this proposal would require additional scrutiny by the sectoral committee. It is proposed that the proposal be referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I propose to take items Nos. 1.2 and 1.3 together. Item No. 1.2 is COM (2006) 7, a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 on the co-ordination of social security systems, and determining the context of Annex XI. Item No. 1.3 is COM (2006) 16, a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 on the co-ordination of social security systems.

These proposals concern procedures that should be followed in processing social security claims for persons moving across member states. The Department believes that the greater use of electronic exchange of data between administrations should facilitate the processing of entitlements. The Department states that Ireland does not anticipate any difficulties during the negotiations of this proposal and consequently the proposal is of low significance for Ireland.

Clarification has been sought from the Department on a number of aspects of the proposal, such as the implications of the inclusion of two entries regarding COM (2006) 7. Would the adoption of the proposal result in a change to current social welfare practices? If so, what would be the changes? Would the use of electronic data exchange result in administrative or direct benefits in processing migrants' claims? Would either proposal have any implications for migrants coming to Ireland?

The Department's highlighting of the potential benefits of the adoption of the proposal would merit further scrutiny to assist in determining the impact of the adoption of the measure for all people who move between member states and who interact with the social security systems. It is proposed that the proposed measures be referred for further scrutiny to the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs, with a view to the conclusions of that committee being brought to the attention of the Joint Committee on European Affairs in the context of its consideration of migration issues. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 1.4 is COM (2005) 671, a proposal concerning organic production and the labelling of organic products. In July 2005 the sub-committee considered COM (2005) 194, which sought to extend the period of operation of Regulation No. 2092/91. This regulation sets conditions on the importation and labelling of organic products from third countries into the member states. The underlying principle of that regulation is the equivalency of the method of agricultural production. The proposal sought approval for the extension of a derogation, Article 11.6, until December 2006 that permits the relevant authorities in the member states to grant the authorisation for the importation of products, where there is not yet agreement on the required equivalent procedures.

Under the derogation the national authorities may grant the authorisation for the importation of organic products where the importer provides sufficient evidence that the imported products meet the requirements to be designated organic. At the time of the July meeting the Department had also confirmed that products imported under the derogation may be labelled as organic in the usual manner. The European Commission had argued that the extension was required to allow additional time for it to advance a proposal to replace the current derogation with a system of evaluations by bodies assigned by the Commission.

The current proposal aims to provide a framework for rules on organic production and labelling of organic products for all unprocessed and processed agricultural products intended for human consumption. The Department is of the view that the proposed measure would be simpler and more transparent than the current regime. The proposed measure would become operational in 2009 and the Commission therefore also proposes the extension of the current regime until that date. Under the proposed measure the derogation facility would be removed and replaced by what the Commission contends would be more uniformly flexible rules.

The flexibility under the proposed regulation arises from taking into account local factors such as climate and specific production conditions. Detailed rules would be established under the committee system. The EU logo would continue to be available for all products that comply with the regulation, including all imported products. It would be for member states to establish national control bodies. The proposal is of significance to the organic producing sector and how the proposed measure may operate in practice merits further exploration by the sectoral committee.

It is proposed that the proposal be referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food. It is also proposed that the proposed measure is forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources regarding the proposal to include aquaculture in the scope of the organic regulation for the first time. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Dardis

I wonder how they prove they are organic. It is easy to put a label on them.

Acting Chairman

I note the line, "The EU logo would continue to be available for all products that comply with the regulation, including all imported products". Labelling of products to make them seem to be EU products is one of the issues which concerns us and consumers. We should get clarification on that. Blocking does not concern me, I am concerned about stamping the EU logo on non-EU products. We request that the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food discuss the matter further.

Item 1.5 is COM (2005) 685. It is a proposal for a directive on the exercise of voting rights by shareholders of companies having their registered office in a member state and whose shares are admitted to trading on a regulated market. Aiming to provide for minimum standards to ensure that company shareholders have timely access to complete information on general meetings of the company and have simplified ways of voting without attending the general meeting, this proposal inter alia provides for voting by proxy and that notification of relevant meetings is provided not less than 30 days before the meeting.

The Department's note indicates that the Department will undertake a consultation process on this proposal with interested parties, such as the Irish Association of Investment Managers and the Irish Stock Exchange. The Department also indicates that it is exploring the possible legislative requirements on participation in meetings by electronic means. Given the significance of the proposal for investors holding certain shares in listed companies in another member state and the outstanding issues in the proposal, it is proposed that the proposal be referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 1.6 is COM (2005) 695. It is a proposal for a Council decision on the transmission of information resulting from the activities of security and intelligence services with respect to terrorist offences. The proposed measure concerns the establishment of contact points within the security and intelligence services of each member state with respect to the transmission of relevant data to their counterparts. The contact points would also transmit relevant information to Europol. Relevant information concerns intelligence with respect to terrorist offences. The aim of the proposal is to assist in the preventing and combating terrorism.

As members have seen from the material circulated, the Department's note indicates that the designated contact point for Ireland would be based within the Garda Síochána and that the adoption of the measure may not have implications for national legislation. The Commission's memorandum sets out that an essential element in efforts to prevent and combat terrorism is the sharing of relevant information by member states. The memorandum also indicates that the transmission of this information would be undertaken in accordance with national law and European principles on the protection of personal data. Given the significance of the aims of this proposal and the likelihood that implementing national legislation would not be required, it is proposed that the proposal be referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 1.7 is COM (2006) 15. It is a proposal for a directive on the assessment and management of floods.The Commission's memorandum sets out that between 1998 and 2004 Europe suffered more than 100 major floods causing fatalities, economic losses and the displacement of persons. The memorandum also notes two trends. These are that the scale and frequency of floods are likely to increase as a result of climate change, inappropriate river management and construction on flood areas and that there has been a marked increase in vulnerability due to the number of people and economic assets located in flood risk areas.

This proposal from the Commission seeks approval for putting in place a regulatory framework for measures at national level to address concern about flooding. This would, inter alia, involve national risk assessments and reporting to the Commission with respect to this risk. Additional aspects of European legislation would be determined in the committee system.

The Department's note highlights that the adoption of the proposed measure would have implications in Ireland for the existing organisational, governance and reporting structures in place for flooding. The adoption of the measure would, according to the Department, result in a statutory status being afforded to flood management plans. The OPW has been asked to outline some additional information for the benefit of members and to forward a copy of the report of the flood policy review group. In particular, the OPW has been requested to outline the potential disadvantages of the adoption of the measure regarding organisational, governance and reporting structures and to indicate the extent to which these would impact on Ireland.

Given the number of flood related situations in Ireland in recent years and the prospect that the proposed measure would have some significance for the future management of similar situations, this proposal requires additional scrutiny by a sectoral committee. It is proposed that the proposal be referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Environment, Heritage and Local Government and that the proposal be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service and the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 1.8 is COM (2006) 29. It is a proposal for a Council decision establishing a community civil protection mechanism. The Department outlines in its note that it understands the adoption of the proposed measure would have no substantive implications for Ireland. However, the proposal seeks to recast legislation concerning an area of some significance, namely the facilitation of the mobilisation and co-ordination of civil protection assistance in the event of emergencies occurring inside and outside the European Union. The recasting of existing legislation is also undertaken in the context of a series of declarations by the European Council and the European Parliament, setting out policy orientations for the further development of European civil protection co-operation.

The concept of member states' modules is a central plank of this proposal. It appears that modules of expertise could be centred in one member state or across member states. However, while the current draft makes numerous references to "modules", it does not define them. Furthermore, the recast proposal would open new areas for financial assistance in civil protection matters, but does not quantify the amount that would available. The Department's note also highlights four areas where the proposal to recast the existing measures introduces areas of intensified co-operation, namely the pooling of transport resources where Community financial support would be available; a European rapid reaction capability through the development of economies of scale; synergising early warning mechanisms for disasters and co-ordination of interventions in third countries.

It is proposed that this significant proposal be referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Environment, Heritage and Local Government. It is also proposed that the proposed measure be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs for the particular attention of the sub-committee on development co-operation, in the context of the areas of the proposal concerning interventions in third countries. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Dardis

Which item are we discussing now?

Acting Chairman

We are on item 1.9 on the protection of groundwater.

Senator Dardis

We are lost.

Acting Chairman

It is in the additional documentation.

Item 1.9 is COM (2005) 282. It is a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of groundwater against pollution. How appropriate, Senator.

Consideration of this proposal was deferred by the scrutiny committee in July 2005, pending the provision of additional information on the proposed measure. This proposal contains a number of amendments advanced by the European Parliament and accepted by the Commission on setting standards for groundwater quality. The original proposal, COM (2003) 550, was referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government in November 2003. That committee subsequently decided not to scrutinise the proposal.

The Department's earlier note on this proposal underlined the main changes proposed in the amendments and the Department indicated that it believed the adoption of the proposal should not have significant additional implications for Ireland. In July 2005 the committee requested the Department to provide a note outlining in some more detail the implications of the adoption of the amended proposal for Ireland. As members will have seen, the Department has now forwarded an amended information note with additions to it. In particular, the new note highlights the efforts underway to meet improved water quality standards in Ireland. The note also sets out that the framework of the current proposal should facilitate more accurate readings of pollution data by, inter alia, taking account of naturally occurring substances.

The Department's note contends that the full implementation of the proposed directive should result in cleaner groundwater throughout Ireland and as members will be aware, the quality of water in Ireland has been a subject of some debate in recent times. It is proposed that the proposal be referred to the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government for further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No Title IV measures were received for this meeting. We will now deal with CFSP (2006) 49, the Council Joint Action 2006/49/CFSP of 30 January 2006 appointing the European Union special representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is proposed to note the proposal. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next item is CFSP (2006) 50, the Council common position concerning restrictive measures against extremists in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The EU special representative is Mr. Erwan Fouere, an Irish national. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

With regard to CFSP (2006) 51, the Council Common Position 2006/51/CFSP of 30 January——

Senator Dardis

Did we deal with No. 122?

Acting Chairman

We have not got there yet. That is additional. We are dealing with CFSP (2006) 51, the Council Common Position 2006/51/CFSP of 30 January renewing restrictive measures against Zimbabwe. The common position extends the operation of the EU restrictive measures already in place for a further 12 months, until 20 February 2007. The Department of Foreign Affair's note sets out that the extension of the measures is required as the situation in Zimbabwe has not materially improved. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

With regard to CFSP (2006) 118, this is the Council Joint Action extending the mandate of the European Union special representative for central Asia and amending Joint Action 2005/588/CFSP. It is proposed to note the measure. Next is CFSP (2006) 120, the Council joint action extending the mandate of the European Union special representative for Moldova. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

With regard to CFSP (2006) 121, this is the Council joint action appointing an EU special representative for the south Caucasus and again, it is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Dardis

What would happen if we said "No", we do not want this person to be appointed?

Acting Chairman

I am advised we could make our views known, which sounds like a powerful intervention indeed. In fact, the sub-committee Chairman is briefed in advance of these appointments and gives them his imprimatur. Deputy Allen has spent hours going through the curricula vitae of the appointees.

Senator Dardis

I am sure he has done it thoroughly and very well. We have the utmost confidence in him.

Acting Chairman

Once he is happy, we are happy. CFSP 119/2006 is a new proposal, a Council Joint Action 2006/119/CFSP of 20 February 2006 extending the mandate of the European Union special representative for the Middle East peace process. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Another new measure is CFSP 2006/122, a Council Joint Action 2006/122/CFSP of 20 February 2006 amending and extending the mandate of the special representative of the European Union for the African great lakes region. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

CFSP 2006/123 is a Council Joint Action 2006/123/CFSP of 20 February 2006 extending and amending the mandate of the European Union special representative in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

There are no proposals proposed for deferral today. There are a number of proposals that are proposed for no further scrutiny. The first is 5.1 COM (2005) 683, which is a proposal for a regulation on type-approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions and on access to vehicle repair information. The proposal provides for the prohibition by member states of the registration, sale and entry into service of new vehicles unless they comply with type-approval requirements by way of a certificate of conformity. The Department of Transport's note sets out that the Commission's proposed requirements would lead to significant improvements in the environmental performance of vehicles. In particular, the requirements cover improved vehicle emission limits. The Department's note also indicates that it welcomes the thrust of the proposal, which is likely to become operational in 2008.

The Department has been asked to clarify if any estimate has been provided of the anticipated financial costs for the consumer of the adoption of this proposal and if the adoption of this proposal would have negative implications for classic motor vehicles, for example with regard to the importation and replacement of parts. It is proposed that the proposal does not currently warrant further scrutiny, but that the Department be requested to provide the additional information required. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2005) 694 is a proposal for a Council regulation on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed. This proposal aims to simplify and clarify European provisions relating to the protection of traditional food names. The specific character of these products and foodstuffs is linked to their production method, but not their geographical origin. The proposed measure provides for the national authorities of the member states to scrutinise each application for registration in accordance with common rules, including a procedure for raising objections at the national level. The Commission would scrutinise the processes to ensure the uniform application of rules.

The proposal is centred around a number of definitions such as "traditional", which is defined as "proven usage on the Community market for a period at least equal to that generally ascribed to a human generation". In reply to a number of questions raised with the Department of Agriculture and Food subsequent to the submission of its original note, the Department has indicated that the debate is continuing in a working group in relation to the required length of time a product should be on the Community market before it may be described as "traditional". Some have suggested approximately 25 years, while other member States are suggesting "traditional" be defined as pre-Second World War. The understanding is also that the so-called "Community market" would cover national markets unless it was some speciality that, for control reasons, had very limited distribution.

The Department has also confirmed that the adoption of the proposal would result in no new implications for hygiene rules in Ireland. It is proposed that the proposal does not currently warrant further scrutiny, but that the proposed measure be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food for information because of the additional issues raised by the Department. It is also proposed that the Department be requested to keep the sub-committee informed of developments in relation to its consultations with interested parties. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Dardis

As a Cork man, the Acting Chairman will be worried about the future of drisheen.

Acting Chairman

Tripe and drisheen. Deputy Allen, the northside deputy will take the blame.

COM (2005) 698 is a proposal for a Council regulation on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs. The proposed measure follows from a WTO ruling and opens up the procedures currently in place relating to the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs to producers in third countries. The Department of Agriculture and Food has confirmed that the adoption of the proposed measure would have no negative implications for Irish products registered under the scheme, such as Clare Island salmon, Imokilly Regato cheese, and Timoleague brown pudding. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. It is also proposed that the proposed measure be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Dardis

Perhaps the secretariat can be of assistance with a query regarding something like Appellation Controllé, that is, the identification of a food as being from a particular region. As I understand it, one cannot put “Ireland” on a product because that involves a national label, but one can describe an item as, for example “Limerick beef”. Am I correct in that?

Acting Chairman

I am advised the Department is, for example, attempting to have "Irish soda bread" registered. I am not quite clear on the point being made by Senator Dardis.

Senator Dardis

Much has been made at European agricultural marketing level of identifying the origin of a product like, for example, Clonakilty black pudding, but that is a specific product. A generic product, such as, Limousin beef, can be promoted under a regional banner but we cannot do likewise with the label "Irish beef" because national aid is involved.

Acting Chairman

The Senator is correct. An exception only applies where a particular recipe or production process is involved. Soda bread is an example of this.

Senator Dardis

Some countries appear adept at exploiting regional production to the extent that national brands can be at a disadvantage.

Acting Chairman

I am advised that one of the challenges the Department is attempting to address is to persuade local producers to work together, rather than as individuals. Such co-operation may allow a degree of regional protection. While we recommend no further scrutiny, we will submit the directive to the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food and ask the Department to keep us informed of any developments. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.4, COM (2005) 717, is a proposal for a decision on a community position within the EU-Chile Association Council on the consolidation of the tariff preferences granted to Chile by the Community. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.5, COM (2006) 4, is a proposal for a regulation laying down special measures to encourage silkworm rearing.

Senator Dardis

How do they come with these things?

Acting Chairman

We may be seeking alternative farming enterprises but I do not think we will easily sell this proposal. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.6, COM (2006) 5, is an amended proposal for a Council regulation establishing a cohesion fund. The proposal is of little significance to Ireland, as Ireland no longer qualifies for cohesion assistance due to per capita GNI being greater than 90% of the Community average. Some assistance continues from the earlier manifestation of the fund and details in this regard have been circulated. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny, but that the proposal be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. It is also proposed that the proposal be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on European Affairs Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.7, COM (2006) 12, is a proposal for a directive on the exemption from taxes of imports of small consignments of goods of a non-commercial character from third countries. It is proposed that the proposal to codify related EU legislation does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.8, COM (2006) 32, is a proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of member states. The proposal seeks approval for a further year of the European Council guidelines for the employment policies of member states. The guidelines are advanced in the context of the achieving the goals of the Lisbon strategy. The guidelines, inter alia, set out the need to develop the skills needed in knowledge based economies. It is proposed that the proposal does not currently warrant further scrutiny but that the proposed measure be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.9, COM (2006) 54, is a proposal for a regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 1676/2001, withdrawing undertakings and maintaining anti-dumping measures. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Dardis

I hoped that they would be named.

Acting Chairman

It is not in my note. No. 5.10, COM (2006) 55, is a proposal for a regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 1676, imposing anti-dumping measures on exports of polyethylene terephthalate, PET, from India. Perhaps Senator Dardis can advise on PET, based on the full notes. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment's note indicates that its consultation process has, to date, resulted in no difficulties being reported to it and it is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.11, COM (2006) 56, is a proposal for a regulation on maintaining the anti-dumping measures in place concerning exports of PET from India. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.12, COM (2006) 60, is a proposal for a Council regulation repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1461/93, concerning access to public contracts for tenderers from the United States of America. US trade sanctions were imposed in 1993, following the adoption of European measures that were seen in the US as excluding their companies from the tendering process for telecom companies in Europe. With the liberalisation of the European telecom sector and new procurement rules, there mutual agreement was reached to repeal the sanctions. This measure approves the removal of the relevant EU legislation. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.13, COM (2006) 61, is a proposal for a regulation implementing the agreement on duty free treatment of semi-conducters and multi-chip integrated circuits, MCPs. At its meeting in February, the sub-committee considered COM (2005) 538 on the conclusion and adoption of the agreement on duty free treatment of MCPs. The sub-committee determined that the proposal did not warrant further scrutiny but that it be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business. This proposal seeks approval for the legal framework for the operation of the agreement that was the subject of the earlier proposal for the conclusion of the agreement. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment's note outlines that it fully supports this initiative and indicates that IBEC also look forward to its early implementation. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. It is also proposed that the proposal be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The following matters are adopted measures. No. 6.1, COM (2005) 660, is a decision regarding the conclusion an agreement with Chile on trade in wines. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Dardis

May we investigate that matter in person?

Acting Chairman

We will put it on our travel list. No. 6.2, COM (2005) 682, is a decision on the conclusion of an agreement with Chile concerning the trade in spirit drinks and aromatised drinks. The measure was adopted by the Council on 14 February. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 6.3, COM (2006) 24, is a proposal for a decision extending the period of the application of measures against Zimbabwe in reference to the ACP-EC partnership agreement. The note of the Department of Foreign Affairs underlines that the measure does not impact on contributions to operations of a humanitarian nature or projects in direct support of the local population. It is proposed to note the measure and that it be forwarded to the Committee on Foreign Affairs for the particular information of the Sub-Committee on Development Co-operation. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 6.4, COM (2004) 638, is a proposal to amend for the 29th time Directive 761769/EEC on the approximation of regulations for restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to reproduction. Consideration of this proposal was deferred in November 2004, pending the provision of additional information by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment on its consultation process on the proposal. Following the initial decision to defer consideration, the Department was contacted to provide an update and has now indicated that the proposed measure was adopted on 18 January 2006.

The proposed measure sought to reclassify certain substances as dangerous to health. The reclassification means that restrictions would be placed on their marketing and use. The Department in its information note indicated that it was not yet in a position to determine the full implications of the adoption of the proposal until its consultation process with the chemical industry was completed. In a follow up to the initial note provided by the Department, the Health and Safety Authority indicated that the proposal had been circulated through Pharmaceutical Ireland, a subdivision of IBEC. The update from the Department also indicates that the stakeholder consultations carried out by the Health and Safety Authority during the negotiations indicate that it is unlikely to have a significant economic impact in Ireland. It is proposed to note the adopted measure. It is furthermore proposed that the Department be requested to outline in more detail the economic impact of the adopted measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 7 deals with early warning notes, and No. 7.1 is EWN 2005/C325/10, anti-dumping measures on exports of polyester staple fibres from the People's Republic of China, Saudi Arabia, Belarus, Australia, Indonesia, Thailand, the Republic of Korea and India. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny.

No. 7.2 is EWN 2006/C5/02, anti-dumping measures in regard to exports of bicycles from the People's Republic of China. It is proposed that the proposal does not currently warrant further scrutiny. No. 7.3 is EWN 2006/C18/02, anti-dumping measures on exports of ammonium nitrate from the Ukraine. It is proposed that the proposal does not currently warrant further scrutiny.

No. 7.4 is EWN 2005/C89/03, anti-dumping measures on exports of potassium chloride from Belarus and the Russian Federation. It is proposed that the proposal does not currently warrant further scrutiny. No. 7.5 is EWN 2005/C89/04, anti-dumping measures on exports of potassium chloride from Belarus. It is proposed that the proposal does not currently warrant further scrutiny.

No. 7.6 is EWN 2005/C174/05, anti-dumping measures on exports of synthetic staple fibres of polyester from Australia, Indonesia and Thailand. It is proposed that the proposal does not currently warrant further scrutiny.

No. 7.7 is EWN 2005/C183/05, anti-dumping measures on exports of ethanolamines from the United States of America. It is proposed that the proposal does not currently warrant further scrutiny. No. 7.8 is EWN 2005/C239/05, anti-dumping measures on exports of television camera systems and parts thereof from Japan. It is proposed that the proposal does not currently warrant further scrutiny.

Are the proposals in respect of Nos. 7.1 to 7.8, inclusive, agreed? Agreed.

No. 8 is the minutes of the previous meeting on 9 February, which have been circulated to members. Are they agreed? Agreed. No. 9 is the reports of the sub-committee. The draft 62nd report has been circulated to members. I propose that the report be forwarded to the Joint Committee on European Affairs for agreement to lay before both Houses with appendices. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 10 is correspondence received. Further information was requested from the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government on COM (2005) 667, a proposal which was referred to the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government for further scrutiny. I propose to send this information concerning the direct implications of the proposed framework directive on waste measures for the waste oils regeneration business to that committee to assist with its further scrutiny of COM (2005) 667. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 11 is the date and time of the next meeting. I propose that the next meeting of the sub-committee take place on Thursday, 23 March 2006 at 9.30 a.m. Is that agreed? Agreed. I thank members for their co-operation.

The sub-committee adjourned at 10.15 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 23 March 2006.