The first proposal for further scrutiny is COM (2005) 380, the amended proposal for a directive on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation. As members may recall, the committee considered in July 2004 the original proposal relating to the implementation of the principle of equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation. This proposal is an amended version of that earlier proposal, COM (2004) 279.
The amended proposal was presented by the Commission in August 2005 and relates to the recasting of existing directives. The stated objective of the proposal is to simplify, modernise and improve the existing community law in the area of equal treatment between men and women by putting together, in a single text, provisions of directives linked by their subject in order to make community legislation clearer and more effective for the benefit of all citizens. The Department contends that the proposal is largely a consolidation exercise of gender directives and would incorporate European Court of Justice case law on equal pay and public service pensions.
There are essentially four broad parts to this matter in EU law: equal pay; equal treatment in access to employment, vocational training and promotion and working conditions; occupational social security systems; and the burden of proof in cases of alleged sexual discrimination. I understand that each of the relevant directives has been amended. The issues dealt with by these pieces of legislation are of great significance and the original draft has raised issues related to the cost of employment that the Department has now indicated have been clarified.
In July 2005 the European Parliament adopted 98 amendments to the Commission's proposal. The Commission accepted a number of these amendments. Others were rejected, as it is argued that these would have placed additional burdens on employers. The amendments advanced by the European Parliament and considered by the Commission in the memorandum to this proposal raise a number of significant matters and underline the complex nature of equality legislation.
Given the significance of the equality legislation, 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.
The next item is Commission Regulation (EC) No. 553/2006, imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam. The Commission's proceedings on this matter followed a complaint from the European Confederation of the Footwear Industry. This measure concerns the provisional application of an anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear from the People's Republic of China, PRC, and Vietnam. The Commission had concluded that the products were being dumped on the European market and that a duty should therefore be imposed.
This proposal has been the subject of some discussion across the European Union, but particularly in member states where the producer interest is low, such as in Ireland, and where the most direct impact of the imposition of such a duty would generally be an increase in the retail price of the product concerned. As members will have seen, the Commission has decided to impose a duty of 19.4% in the case of the People's Republic of China and 16.8% with regard to Vietnam. The duties will be applied progressively. The Department indicates that the proposal for a definitive imposition of duty will be for decision by the Council of Ministers.
The Department's note indicates that the representations have been received on the proposal from IBEC, where two federations — Fashion & Footwear and Retail Ireland — have indicated that they are strongly opposed to measures being imposed on shoes from China and Vietnam. The Department has been requested to indicate what views it had offered to the Commission on this subject within the anti-dumping committee and this will be circulated when it is received.
It is proposed that this significant matter be referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The next item on the agenda is Title IV measures. COM (2006) 191 is a proposal for a decision concerning the signature and conclusion of an agreement between the European Community and the Russian Federation on readmission. In the common EU strategy of 4 June 1999 on Russia, the conclusion of a readmission agreement with this country was one of the measures proposed. Since that time, the Commission's memorandum to the proposal sets out that progress has been made in this area. The initialling of visa facilitation and readmission agreements took place in Moscow in April 2006.
Under the agreement, the obligation to readmit own nationals — Articles 2 and 4 — includes former own nationals who have renounced their nationality without acquiring the nationality or a residence authorisation of another state. In return for the Russian Federation agreeing to the fulfil obligations regarding readmissions of third country and stateless persons, the European Community accepted the Russian request to delay for three years after the entry into force of the agreement the applicability of these obligations.
In order to execute this agreement in practice, Article 20 obliges the Russian Federation to conclude bilateral implementing protocols with all member states. The Department indicates that it is in favour of Community readmission agreements as they facilitate the safe and efficient repatriation of third country nationals who are found to be illegally present on Irish territory. It also suggests that the agreement should act as a deterrent to illegal immigrants from the Russian Federation intending to travel to Ireland.
This is a proposal of some significance and the approval of the Houses of the Oireachtas will be required for Ireland to opt into the measure. It is proposed that the proposal be forwarded for information and consideration by the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights in advance of any consideration by the Oireachtas on whether to opt into the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The next item relates to CFSP measures. The item is CFSP (2006) 362, Council Common Position 2006/362/CFSP of 18 May 2006 amending Common Position 2006/276/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus. At the previous meeting the committee considered COM (2006) 190 concerning this matter. This measure is the associated CFSP common position and provides for the widening of the scope of the restrictive measures in place regarding certain officials in Belarus to include, among others, President Lukashenko. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.
We will take item 3.2 with item 5.1 as they are related. Item 3.2 is the Council common position of 27 April 2006 renewing restrictive measures against Burma or Myanmar and item 5.1 is a proposal for a regulation renewing restrictive measures with regard to Burma and repealing Regulation (EC) 798/2004. The measures relate, inter alia, to a visa ban on named persons associated with the Burmese regime and the freezing of certain assets. There is also a prohibition on EU-registered companies making financial loans and credits to named Burmese state-owned enterprises.
It is proposed to note the common position and that the proposed regulation does not require further scrutiny. Is that agreed?
