The following proposals warrant further scrutiny: items Nos. 1.1 to 1.10. No. 1 is COM (2005) 625. This is a proposal for a regulation concerning the production and development of statistics on education and lifelong learning. The Lisbon strategy was relaunched by the European Council in spring 2005. The Commission's memorandum to the proposal contends that comparable statistics and indicators on education, training and lifelong learning are of increasing importance for the European Union to support advancing related goals in the area of education and training. This proposal is seeking approval for a legal base for collecting data relating to and monitoring progress towards the Lisbon objectives. The data would be collected in three areas, namely, an education and training system, participation in lifelong learning and other statistics on education and lifelong learning.
The CSO's note indicates that the adoption of the proposal would primarily result in a requirement to develop a new survey dedicated to adult education. This would be a significant development in regard to opening up further insights into this area of educational requirements. It is proposed that the proposal be forwarded for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Education and Science. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 1.2 is a proposal for a regulation repealing Regulation (EEC) No. 4056/86 and amending Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 in regard to maritime transport. As members may recall, in January 2005 the committee considered the Commission's White Paper on the maritime sector. The Commission, in introducing the White Paper, suggested that it would be a vehicle for the way forward in the maritime transport sector. Existing EC rules in regard to this sector make provision for certain exemptions from competition rules. The Commission contended that the introduction of common enforcement rules for competition through Council Regulation 1/2003 means that the issue of shipping exemptions must be revisited.
The current proposal follows from the earlier White Paper and seeks approval for repealing certain exemptions from competition by the European maritime sector that provides scheduled container services. Under these exemptions maritime companies set rates for the transportation of goods on certain routes. The proposal also seeks to bring coastal maritime services and certain non-scheduled services under the Community's common competition rules.
The Department's note indicates that it would view the adoption of the proposal as having positive price implications for consumers but that its consultation process has resulted in Irish ship operators making it known that they consider there is no need to change the existing situation. I understand the Department has been asked to outline the observations made on behalf of the ship operators during its consultation process and these will be circulated when they are received. It is proposed that this significant proposal about which the industry has expressed reservations be referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I propose to take Nos. 1.3 and 1.4 together. No. 1.3 is COM (2005) 475. This is a proposal for a Council framework decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. No. 1.4, COM (2005) 490 is a Council framework decision on the exchange of information under the principle of availability. In December 2004 the committee considered a Swedish initiative in regard to the sharing of certain information. That proposal followed from the March 2004 declaration on combating terrorism and aimed to respond to the practical difficulties in regard to the timely exchange of information with respect to serious crime. The required information across the spectrum of crime-fighting areas would be communicated through a number of channels, including those established in the context of the Europol Convention.
The current proposal — COM/2005/490 — seeks to establish a framework for the exchange of information and intelligence between the law enforcement authorities of the member states in regard to six specific areas, namely, DNA profiles, fingerprints, ballistics, vehicle registration, telephone-telecommunications data and the required data to identify persons that are contained in civil registers. The current proposal, COM (2005) 490, seeks to establish a framework for the exchange of information and intelligence between the law enforcement authorities of the member states regarding six specific areas: DNA profiles; fingerprints; ballistics; vehicle registration; telephone-telecommunications data; and the required data to identify persons that are contained in civil registers. The information could, in certain circumstances, be refused by an authority. The proposed measure, where necessary, also makes provision for a 12-hour timeframe for a reply to a request to access information.
The Department has set out that it understands that the proposal, if adopted, would initially concern DNA profiles and that the other aspects would become operational at a later date due to technical requirements. Once again, the Department indicates that the proposal would have broad support but that technical issues, in particular, will need to be teased out by the working group.
The Department has also been asked to clarify whether the 12-hour rule will apply in Ireland and if the technical facilities are in place in Ireland to make this proposal operational. It has also been asked to estimate the costs, if any, of making it operational. While the proposed measure does include provisions regarding the protection of certain information, in certain circumstances, particular consideration may need to given to what databases would be made available and whether the 12-hour time delay is sufficient. Clarification may also be required regarding what civil registers would be covered by any adopted measure.
A directly linked proposal, COM (2005) 475, seeks to provide a framework for protecting personal data and specific safeguards during the processing of data arising from the adoption of COM (2005) 490, for example. The Department's note indicates that it believes a balance needs to be found between protecting personal data and providing information to assist in combating crime.
The draft measure,inter alia, contains requirements regarding updating databases, member states providing for a clear distinction between data relating to criminal activity and other actions, and for the minimal use of personal data. The proposed measure also sets out procedures for sharing information with third countries. Once again, the committee procedure would be used to build on any adopted measure. The proposed measure also provides that member states adopt criminal sanctions regarding breaches of the adopted measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I propose to consider COM (2005) 587 and COM (2005) 588 together. The former is a proposal for a directive on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations. The latter is a proposal for a directive on port state control. The aim of COM (2005) 587 is to improve the quality of the work of so-called recognised organisations that are authorised to carry out inspections of ships. These organisations issue certificates of conformity with international conventions on behalf of the flag state.
ln a follow-up to a number of questions posed to the Department following the presentation of its initial note, the Department indicated that under Article 6 of Council Directive 94/57 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations, as amended by Directive 2001/105/EC, contracts have been drawn up between Ireland and eight recognised organisations. The Department had also been asked for its views regarding the need to strengthen the existing measures in place concerning the inspections. These will be circulated when they arrive.
The Commission's memorandum contends that changes are needed in the existing regime to address concerns that recognised societies are subjected to pressure from major shipyards which can influence the market and the implementation of technical regulations. The Commission is therefore proposing that the recognised organisations establish a joint body for quality system assessment and certification. This system would be based,inter alia, on the financial independence of the organisations and the use of dedicated inspectors.
COM (2005) 588 is a related proposal that concerns inspections by the member states of foreign flagged ships. These would verify the condition of the ship and compliance with regulations such as those relating to safety. The proposed measure puts great stress on the putting in place through the comitology procedure of the details of the revised inspection regime. The Department has correctly identified that this leads to uncertainty as to the final shape of the measure. The proposal does, however, clearly aim to extend the scope of the inspection regime and this should have a positive impact on security and safety matters.
The Department indicates, however, that the widened scope of the measure would have resource implications for Ireland. Particularly given the recent debate on the implications of changing the flag of commercial ships entering Irish ports, the proposal concerning the inspection by a member state of a foreign flagged ship merits further scrutiny by the sectoral committee. The proposal regarding technical ship inspections is closely related to the wider standards and would merit further scrutiny by the sectoral committee. Is that agreed? Agreed. It is proposed that these significant proposals be referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2006) 42 is a proposal for a Council regulation — EURATOM — laying down the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in actions under the seventh framework programme of the European Atomic Energy Community and for the dissemination of research results in respect of the period 2007 to 2011. In February, the committee considered an associated proposal concerning the non-EURATOM elements of the proposed seventh research programme relating to the rules of participation by certain entities. That proposal was referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business and was forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Education and Science regarding certain issues that might impact on the effective participation of Irish universities in the process.
The Department has indicated regarding the EURATOM aspects of the seventh programme for research that its priority is to maximise the spend in areas concerning safety and radiological protection. The current proposal seeks approval for a set of guidelines regarding the programme and the Commission indicates that it has endeavoured to make these guidelines as simple and flexible as possible.
The overall aim regarding this part of the seventh framework programme is to ensure that the rules governing participation are such as to facilitate maximum Irish participation in the relevant areas programme. The note also indicates that the proposed level of European support for certain nuclear research is likely to be reduced compared to earlier draft proposals considered by the committee and referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government.
It is proposed that the proposal be referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government in the context of its consideration of related proposals referred earlier for scrutiny, that is, COM (2005) 119, COM (2005) 444 and COM (2005) 445. It is also proposed that the proposal be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Education and Science for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2004) 526 is an amended proposal for a directive — EURATOM — laying down the basic obligations and general principles on the safety of nuclear installations, and an amended proposal for a directive — EURATOM — on the safe management of the spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. I understand that the committee considered an earlier draft of this proposal, that is, COM (2003) 32, in June 2003, which proposal was referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government.
As members will be aware, a number of the states that became members of the Union in 2004 have operating nuclear power stations. The 2003 proposal sought to put in place a number of measures to raise safety standards in the management of safety at nuclear installations and in the management of spent nuclear fuel in advance of the next enlargement.
The amended proposal again appears to be grounded in the belief that nuclear installations can be made relatively safe. The adopted proposal would require member states to establish and maintain a body of regulations governing the safety of nuclear installations, including in respect of safety plans. The proposed measure would apply to installations during and after their operating life. The proposed measure would allow for peer review of safety measures in operation in member states by other member states and the Commission. It would also see the establishment of safety authorities in member states. The most significant amendment to the proposed measure is the removal of an operational timeframe regarding waste disposal facilities. The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland regulates radioactive waste activities in Ireland. In 2003 it was indicated that low level waste from hospitals and colleges was being stored. The Department's note indicates that in the main the proposed measures for the storage and management of such waste are already in operation. The Department has been asked to indicate the areas where the proposed measures would introduce a requirement for additional national action on the storage and management of such waste. It has outlined the background to the presentation of an information note on this 2004 proposal. It is proposed that the amended proposal be referred for further scrutiny by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government in the context of its consideration of the earlier proposal. I have asked our expert whether the proposal would give Ireland right of access to, for example, the plant at Sellafield for safety inspection purposes and I am told it would do so directly. It is setting standards.
