Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny) debate -
Wednesday, 19 Jul 2006

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Item No. 1 on the agenda is proposals proposed for further scrutiny — item Nos. 1.1 to 1.17, inclusive. Item No. 1.1, COM (2006) 213, is a proposal for an amended regulation concerning the financial regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities. It is an amended text of a proposal first presented by the Commission in May 2005. The amended regulation which sets out the legal foundations of financial management aims to increase transparency, particularly in relation to the beneficiaries of Community funds. The regulation and its amendment appear to be grounded in best practice and influenced by the European Union principle of proportionality. However, the impact of the proposed measure would require additional elaboration. The departmental note is somewhat short on the specifics with respect to the Department's opinion on the impact of the adoption of the proposed measure, stating the proposed changes "may have greater or lesser impact for Ireland" because of the nature of the type of EU expenditure that benefits Ireland. It is proposed that the proposal be referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service, particularly with respect to how the proposed changes would impact on the oversight of spending of European Union funds. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 1.2, COM (2006) 169, is a proposal for a decision concerning the air transport agreement with the United States of America. This significant Commission proposal concerns an air transport agreement between the Community and its member states and the United States of America and should lead to the establishment of a new Community level framework for EU-US air services. This proposal could hold significant positive implications for Ireland, as I understand Irish airlines, as set out in the departmental note, are currently restricted to five US cities under the existing bilateral agreement with the United States. The Department, for example, contends that the expansion of air services with the United States would result in significant economic growth. It is proposed that the proposal be referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Transport. It is also proposed that it be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Transport and the Joint Committee for Enterprise and Small Business. Is that agreed? Agreed.

This proposal will have major implications for the Shannon region, the detail of which I will not go into as this is not the appropriate place to do so. A document will be launched next Monday in Shannon Airport on the open skies policy and the plans that will be put in place to ensure that the economic development of the Shannon region is looked after. I emphasise that while nationally the Department is correct in its assessment that the overall impact of this proposal will be positive, there is a danger that the Shannon and western regions may lose out as a result of this proposal, unless the necessary structures and resources are put in place at national level to ensure we can benefit from the open skies policy.

The Deputy's comment could be flagged to the Joint Committee on Transport.

Will this proposal impact on the ongoing complexities of the security issues surrounding EU citizens accessing the United States?

No. Arising from the recent decision by the European Court of Justice, negotiations are in progress or may have only commenced on a new agreement in that respect. The appropriate Commissioner is advancing a new proposal.

I thought the United States might drag its feet on the implementation of this agreement in the light of that decision.

Any new agreements on security should be two way in that the United States should make its information available to the European authorities.

Item No. 1.3, COM (2006) 236, is a proposal for a decision establishing an action programme in the field of lifelong learning. This proposal is an amended text of an earlier draft proposal from the Commission concerning an action programme in the area of lifelong learning. As members may recall, the earlier proposal was considered by the committee in September 2004 and referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Education and Science. This amended proposal follows from the agreement on the next financial perspective and the proposed budget for EU action in the area of lifelong learning in this new proposal has been substantially reduced by the Commission. The proposed budget under the current text is €6,970 million, approximately half the figure originally proposed by the Commission. The proposed downward adjustment in the budget of the programme, as the Department sets out, will result in funding for existing and related education schemes, remaining for the most part unchanged over the period of the next financial perspective, 2007 to 2013. There will, however, be increased resources for certain adult education activities. Another significant amendment is the inclusion of the European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education under the funding of the proposed programme.

While the proposed change to the budget of the programme for lifelong learning is a consequence of agreement on the next financial perspective, I understand adoption of the currently amended proposal would impact negatively on the European Union's ability to deliver concrete results in the highly visible area of cross-border educational projects, compared to that which would have been possible under COM (2004) 474. Allied to this, it is proposed that the proposed measure be referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Education and Science. Is that agreed?

Would it be possible for the secretariat to provide some specific details based on the comment that it will impact negatively on the European Union's ability? Is there any extra information that could be obtained? I would certainly like to have it.

Compared to what was proposed under COM (2004) 474, it is half the budget. Therefore, something has to give. It is incredible.

How could I find out under what headings we will suffer?

The appropriate committee, the Joint Committee on Education and Science, should have the detailed information available on the impact on current programmes.

The detail specifically refers to the fact that current schemes will remain unchanged, for the most part, over a six-year period. In other words, according to this, there will be no improvement for six years.

That is right.

This should be highlighted. It is unacceptable.

It is. Given that the Commission also talks about special needs education, something has to give if the budget is halved. Given that so much of the development of the European economy is based on progress in education, it seems incredible that this proposed budget is being halved.

Something has to give and I am concerned about it — specifically the special needs area which should be developed as quickly as possible.

I naively assumed that the budget was yearly or multi-annual——

No, it is not.

——but it is actually over six years. That makes it all the more significant.

Item No. 1.4, COM (2006) 240, is a proposal for a decision concerning the International Fusion Energy Organisation for the implementation of the INTER project. INTER is a nuclear fusion research project concerning seven parties: the People's Republic of China, Russia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, USA, India and the European Union. EU assistance for this project has been long-standing and would continue under the framework programme of EURATOM. The related Commission proposal was referred in November 2005 for further scrutiny to the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government, partly owing to this proposed assistance. This proposal seeks approval for the conclusion of the agreement for the establishment of an organisation to govern the work of INTER. Once again, the Department correctly identifies that funding for such activities needs careful monitoring, particularly given the long-term perspective for the development of safer nuclear energy. It is proposed that the proposed measure be referred for further scrutiny, perhaps with COM (2005) 445, by the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 1.5, COM (2006) 338, is a proposal for a decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, regarding access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters. The Commission's memorandum to the proposal outlines that negotiations took place following the adoption of the Arhus Convention as to how to give effect to the provision concerning GMOs. This resulted in an amendment to the convention that the Commission is here seeking to have implemented through a decision. In particular, the proposed measure would provide for each party to "provide for early and effective information and public participation prior to making decisions on whether to permit the deliberate release into the environment and placing on the market of genetically modified organisms". Given the public debate on GMOs and the previous consideration by the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government of related issues, it is proposed that the proposal be referred for further scrutiny by that committee and also forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on European Affairs. Is that agreed? Agreed.

On the implications for Ireland and consequences for national legislation, I note that the document states there is none. It is already consistent with the proposed amendment to the Aarhus Convention. Have we ratified the convention?

Given that we have not done so, what will be the impact of this legislation? While I realise we are in the process of ratifying it, according to the Minister, and we are implementing other legislation that will finally allow us put the Aarhus Convention in place, what will be the impact of this in the context of the Aarhus Convention not being in place? Perhaps these are separate matters.

It is one of the issues at which the relevant committees will be looking. They must tease those issues out.

The Chairman mentioned newsworthy issues. That is the kind of issue which might catch public attention, especially given what happened in the GMO trials in County Meath. It certainly allows for public participation in decision making. It is quite specific on that issue.

We can discuss that issue with our adviser at the end of the meeting, but the nuts and bolts of this must be explored by the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government and the Joint Committee on European Affairs.

COM (2006) 93 is a proposal for an amending directive on the control of the acquisition and possession of weapons. The Commission's memorandum to this proposal outlines that the Commission has, on behalf of the European Community, signed the United Nations protocol to "promote, facilitate and strengthen co-operation among States Parties in order to prevent combat and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, their parts and components and ammunition".

The Commission goes on to argue that this protocol requires some technical amendments to Directive 91/477 adopted to regulate the acquisition and possession of firearms within the European Community and which introduced a Community licensing system for the import and export of firearms. The stated aim of this proposal is, therefore, to amend the 1991 directive along the following lines: to extend the scope of the directive to cover "illicit manufacturing"; to create a requirement to mark firearms at the time of manufacture or transfer from government stocks; to make it a criminal offence to illicitly manufacture firearms, illicitly traffic firearms and falsify or obliterate firearms markings; and additionally require that such offences should be punishable by a confiscation order.

The proposal, while seeking to address legitimate concerns on the manufacture and trade in weapons, does appear to have been drafted in such a way as to raise again the issue of the correct legal basis for matters such as criminal sanctions. The Department is of the view that the criminal sanctions proposed can not be included in a proposal such as this one. I understand further clarity on the matter of competence to propose specific criminal sanctions across EU policies is unlikely in advance of additional guidance from the European Court of Justice.

It is proposed that the proposal be referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. It is also proposed that it be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on European Affairs. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We will take items No. 1.7, COM (2006) 290, to 1.14, COM (2006) 297, inclusive, together. These are proposals for directives concerning active substances included in plant protection products. As members will have seen, this is a technical proposal that has the potential to have a far-reaching impact on growers. Under Council Directive 91/414/EEC, active substances used as plant protection products are assessed and authorised at Community level. These proposals to the Council arise owing to the failure at the specialist committee to agree proposals from the Commission concerning restrictions on a range of active substances. The departmental notes indicate that restrictions on the products concerned would negatively impact on the range of products available to users, particularly in the horticulture sector. It is proposed that this package of proposals be referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I hope we are not poisoning ourselves.

We will leave it to the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food which is responsible.

Item No. 1.15 is COM (2006) 168, an amended proposal for a directive on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights. The Commission's memorandum sets out that counterfeiting, piracy and infringement of intellectual property rights in general are a constantly growing phenomenon which nowadays has an international dimension. In October 2005 the committee agreed to defer consideration of COM (2005) 276, pending clarification from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform on issues relating to the basis for the Commission proposing criminal sanctions with regard to the enforcement of intellectual property rights. This proposal is an amended text of COM (2005) 276 and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform would have had an input into the note.

Following the decision of the European Court of Justice in Case C-176/03, the Commission has presented an amended proposal for a directive under Article 95 of the treaty requiring the imposition of criminal penalties. Fines would range from €100,000 to €300,000 and under the proposal provision is made for custodial sentences of at least four years. The Department's note indicates that consultation with interested parties has led to the conclusion that the proposal is too extensive and that it is "considered inappropriate to include patents" in the measure. In addition, the view is expressed in the note that the Commission's interpretation of the decision of the European Court of Justice in Case C-176/03 is too broad. The Commission appears to be taking a maximalist view of the court's decision that effective, proportionate and assuasive criminal penalties are required in combating environmental offences. It is proposed that this very significant proposal be referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. It is also proposed that it be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business and the Joint Committee on European Affairs. Is that agreed?

This will be discussed in detail by the Department. However, does the note to the Department indicate that we are against punitive measures to outlaw piracy?

No, it means the Commission is, perhaps, getting too big for its boots and penalties are a matter for the national government.

Is that what the note effectively states? It seems to suggest the Department is taking a minimalist view as against the Commission's maximalist view of the court's decision.

I am advised that previously the Commission proposed that national governments would put penalties in place. Here it indicates the level of penalty that should be put in place.

I suggest this matter be referred to in a press statement because it is one in which our entertainment industry in general is proactively involved.

We have mentioned, in the context of items Nos. 1.15 and 1.16, that we will do something in that regard.

The judgment of the European Court of Justice dealt with sanctions for environmental offences. In one country a particular offence might merit a fine of €200 and €20,000 in another. The differences were that great and the court was trying to introduce some kind of uniformity. That is good, but it must be watched carefully. I agree with the Department that the Commission is trying to broaden the judgment to include many other areas and that we should move very slowly in that regard.

As the Chairman knows, counterfeiting and piracy here, particularly of DVDs and CDs, mainly benefit and fund subversive organisations. That is why the judgment is of particular interest to us.

Item No. 1.16, COM (2006) 175, is a proposal for a decision concerning the acceptance on behalf of the European Community of the protocol amending the WTO agreement on trade related aspects of intellectual property rights. This proposal was presented by the Commission in April 2006. The procedure for the acceptance of the WTO measure continues to be the subject of some discussion at the relevant committee. The issue is whether member states make the decision individually or acting through the European Community. The decision would permit WTO members to export patented medicines to third countries with no manufacturing capacity in the pharmaceutical sector by making use of licences. It is proposed that the proposal does not currently warrant further scrutiny but that the Department has been requested to keep the committee informed of developments in respect of the adoption procedure. It is also proposed that the proposed measure be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business and the Joint Committee on Health and Children. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2006) 117 is an amended proposal for decisions concerning the seventh framework programme for research, FP7, of the European Community, 2007-13. The committee has previously considered a number of proposals relating to the seventh framework programme and referred them for further scrutiny. The proposed programme is hugely significant for the future direction of research in the European Union.

The committee has previously highlighted a number of concerns in the following areas: universities' access to funding; the funding of certain nuclear energy projects, as well as possible ethical issues, for example, concerning the type of projects that might be funded. This amended proposal follows agreement on the next financial perspective and would see related research being allocated a budget of €53 billion. The proposed measure also contains amendments by the European Parliament that have been accepted by the Commission. The Department has indicated in its note that, "Ireland is satisfied with the structure, content and budgetary allocations of the amended programme". The proposed measure is to be discussed by the Council again on 24 July. This is a complex proposal, the adoption of which will have a long term impact on research for the period 2007 to 2013. It is proposed that the proposals also be referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business and for information to the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government and the Joint Committee on Education and Science. Is that agreed? Agreed.

There are no Title IV measures to be considered. On CFSP measures, items 3.1 to 3.4, inclusive, item No. 3.1, CFSP (2006) 418, refers to Council joint action on the support for IAEA activities in the areas of nuclear security and verification and in the framework of the implementation of the European Union strategy against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In concrete terms the European Union under this measure would provide financial assistance for four IAEA projects that aim to assist states in strengthening the physical protection of nuclear materials; assist states in strengthening the security of radioactive materials; strengthen states' capabilities for detection and response to illicit trafficking; assist states in the drafting of related necessary legislation. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 3.2, CFSP (2006) 419, is a Council joint action in support of the implementation of the United States Security Council Resolution 1540/2004 and in the framework of implementation of the EU strategy relating to the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It is proposed to note this measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 3.3, CFSP (2006) 439, is a Council joint action regarding a future contribution of the European Union to the conflict settlement process in Georgia-South Ossetia. It is proposed to note this measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 3.4, CFSP (2006) 468,is a Council joint action renewing and revising the mandate of the special representative of the European Union for Sudan. It is proposed to note this measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

There are no proposals proposed for deferral. Items Nos. 5.1 to 5.29, inclusive, require no further scrutiny. These are proposals for decisions concerning the signature, provisional application and conclusion of the Euro-Mediterranean aviation agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco. The stated objective of this agreement that seeks to build on the aims of the Euro-Mediterranean agreement to integrate the relevant transport markets is the "seamless integration of the Moroccan air transport market into the single European market". This objective would be achieved through: regulatory convergence; targeted technical assistance; and the highest possible degree of market opening. The Department in its note is optimistic that the adoption of the measures would see "greater opportunities for Irish airlines". It is proposed that the proposals do not warrant further scrutiny. It is also proposed that the proposals be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Transport in the context of the possible positive implications for the development of air links between Morocco and Ireland. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2006) 262 is a proposal for an amended directive on the stands for two-wheel motor vehicles. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2006) 265 is an amended proposal for a directive on hand-holds on two-wheel motor vehicles. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2006) 271 is a proposal for a regulation introducing, on the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, special temporary measures for recruitment of officials of the European Communities. As members will have seen from the documentation circulated, similar arrangements to those proposed here were put in place in advance of the accession of the ten new member states in May 2004. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed?

It is agreed. However, it shows remarkable confidence on the part of the Commission that both countries will achieve the deadline as set out. Certainly with Bulgaria I wonder about the individuals that will be recruited in advance who may need to put their jobs on hold. It seems to be unbounded optimism on their part.

I was in both countries two weeks ago and believe they are making steady and sure progress. I hope the parameters set out by the Commissioner for Enlargement will be met by September and a decision will be made in October. They are making very determined efforts to meet the parameters.

COM (2006) 274 is a proposal for decisions concerning the signature and conclusion of an agreement between Canada and the European Community establishing a framework for co-operation in the fields of higher education, training and youth. The operational objectives of the new agreement are, inter alia, as follows: promote mutual understanding in the areas of language, cultures and institutions; contribute to cross-Atlantic mobility; and support collaboration between organisations active in the field of higher education. The proposed budget for the programme is €17.4 million over the period of the agreement. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. It is also proposed that the proposal be forwarded for information to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Science. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2006) 205 is a proposal for a directive on the quality required of shellfish waters. It is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. It is also proposed that it is forwarded to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2006) 286 is a proposal for a directive on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms. This proposal concerns the codification of existing measures concerning research and development of GMOs. The Department has confirmed that the measures do not concern their release into the environment. Codifications take place to assist in making Community law clearer and more transparent. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. It is also proposed that the codification proposal be forwarded for information to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government. Is that agreed? Agreed. If, having received it for information, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government were to decide the proposal required further scrutiny, I am told it has every right to do so.

SEC (2006) 762 is amending letter No. 7 to the preliminary budget for 2007. It is proposed that the proposed measure does not warrant further scrutiny. It is also proposed that it be forwarded for information to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. Is that agreed? Agreed.

SEC (2006) 760 is a preliminary draft amending budget No. 4 to the general budget for 2006. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. It is also proposed that it be forwarded for information to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The effect of the last two proposals will mean that Ireland's contribution will be increased in one case by €25 million and in the other case by €70 million. In general terms I know how this comes about. However, I was not aware it was happening.

I am told they are based on VAT receipts and the size of the economy.

In other words, we are doing well.

The better we do, the more we have to pay up.

We cannot complain about that.

Item No. 5.10 is a proposal for amended regulations concerning the introduction of the euro and the conversion rates between the euro and the currencies of the member states adopting the euro. As it has been agreed that Slovenia fulfils the necessary conditions for the adoption of the euro, technical amendments to the regulations governing the euro are required. These two proposals, inter alia, add Slovenia to the list of countries with the euro as its currency. The euro will be introduced in Slovenia on 1 January next. It is proposed that the proposals do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We will take items Nos. 5.11 and 5.12 together. They are proposals for decisions concerning the European Community and Switzerland air transport committee and the related 2002 air transport agreement. It is proposed that the proposals do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 5.13 is a proposal for decisions on the signature, provisional application and conclusion of the agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Paraguay on certain aspects of air services. It is proposed that the proposals do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We will take items Nos. 5.14 and 5.15 together. They are proposals for amendments to the regulations concerning the placing on the market of persistent organic pollutants, or POPs, which are chemical substances which persist in the environment and are seen to pose a risk to human health and the environment. Regulation No. 850/2004, which aims to regulate the use of POPs, established a committee to assist the Commission in this regard. In January the committee failed to agree on the Commission's proposed measures to restrict the use of POPs further. The Department's note indicates that it supports the proposals "on the grounds that the evaluation criteria were, in general, relevant and the proposals provided a reasonable basis for effective implementation of the regulation". It is proposed that the proposals do not warrant further scrutiny. It is also proposed that the Department should be requested to outline in more detail the practical implications for industry of the adoption of the proposed measure and the reasoning behind the opposition of other member states to the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We will take items Nos. 5.16 to 5.18, inclusive, together. They are proposals for decisions concerning the conclusion of agreements with Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania about their participation in the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. The three Commission proposals in question seek approval for the conclusion of agreements between the European Community and the three countries in question to allow each of them to participate in the work of the monitoring centre before any future accession. It is proposed that the proposals do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 5.19 is a proposal for a regulation amending the common consular instructions on visas for diplomatic missions and consular posts in relation to biometrics. The proposal relates to the Schengen acquis and would not apply to Ireland. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 5.20 is a proposal for a regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of potassium chloride originating in Belarus and Russia. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 5.21 is a proposal for a regulation relating to an anti-dumping duty on imports of lever arch mechanisms originating in the People's Republic of China. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. I would like to know what lever arch mechanisms are. I understand they are used in folders.

Item No. 5.22 is an amended proposal for a decision establishing funding for a project known as Fight Against Violence: Daphne. It also relates to an amended proposal for a decision establishing funding for a drugs prevention and information project. The committee considered a package of justice and home affairs proposals, with a proposed budget of €531.9 million, at its meeting on 16 June 2005. One of the proposals was COM (2005) 122, which related to the justice framework programmes. In common with a number of other proposals financed under the next financial perspective, COM (2005) 122 needs to be revisited in the context of the final agreement on the financial perspective.

The Commission has decided, on foot of concerns about the perceptions that might arise if the two matters were linked, to present COM (2005) 122 again in two parts, one of which relates to the fight against violence and the other of which relates to a programme on drugs prevention. The earlier proposal, COM (2005) 122, was referred to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for further scrutiny. Having considered the issues relating to the proposal at its meeting on 25 October 2005, the joint committee reported that it "had no recommendations to make" at that time. It is proposed that the amended proposal be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, given the importance of the fight against violence and drugs and as a follow-up to its earlier scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Will the programme relating to criminal justice which is supporting the development and implementation of a European computerised system of exchange of information and criminal records, require domestic legislation to implement it? Is it at that stage yet, or are we already in that programme?

That proposal has been examined and sent to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for further scrutiny.

Has it not actually been realised yet?

No. To paraphrase that famous song, "Who the hell is Daphne?"

I thought she was a hurricane.

"Daphne" is the name of the programme for violence against women which has been in place for some time. The two proposals have now been separated although it was previously decided that they would be joined together.

There was a perception that the two issues were linked when, in fact, they were not and they have now been separated.

Item No. 5.23, COM (2006) 306, is a proposal for a Council decision on the signing, on behalf of the European Community, of the southern Indian Ocean fisheries agreement. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We will take the next two proposals, items Nos. 5.24 and 5.25, together. No. 5.24, COM (2006) 261, is a proposal for an amended regulation concerning the structures for the management of the European satellite radio-navigation programmes. Item No. 5.25, COM (2006) 351, is a proposal for an amending regulation concerning the statutes of the Galileo joint undertaking. The aim of the Galileo programme is to put in place the first global satellite radio-navigation and positioning infrastructure specifically designed for civilian purposes. The Commission has argued that the regulations governing the management of the programme require amendment to ensure the proper structures are in place for the advancement of the project. The adoption of the proposals would see the current temporary management structure for the establishment phase of the programme being fully replaced earlier than anticipated by the more permanent supervisory authority, which has been in existence since summer 2005. It is proposed that the proposals do not warrant further scrutiny. It is also proposed that the proposed measures be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business in the context of its earlier consideration of issues around the Galileo programme. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 5.26, COM (2006) 282, is a proposal for a decision concerning the adoption of the EU-Egypt action plan in the context of the Euro-Mediterranean agreement. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 5.27, COM (2006) 241, is a proposal for a regulation concerning the rules for certain direct payments under the Common Agricultural Policy. Following agreement at the European Council in December 2005, this proposal sets out the basis for member states to voluntarily reduce the direct payments to farmers under the CAP up to a maximum of 20% and to use these sums to further finance rural development. The departmental note indicates that it is not the intention of the Department to avail of the measure, if adopted. However, I am of the opinion that this proposed measure should be flagged for the information of the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food in order that it is in a position to keep this matter under observation. 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.

I agree but think that is another issue that could be flagged because it is important. I was not aware that the Commission had made proposals to allow states to voluntarily reduce direct payments. The fact that the Government has taken a decision not to adopt that measure is significant. It might be of some comfort to hard-pressed farmers.

It is a significant issue for farmers, some of whom would be aware of this but many would not be. This is a newsworthy issue.

Item No. 5.28, COM (2006) 303, is a proposal for a decision concerning the agreement between the European Community, the ACP states and India on guaranteed prices for imports of cane sugar. Following the recent changes to the European Union's sugar regime and the consequent implications for certain states that had special access to the EU sugar market, this proposal seeks approval for the decision setting out relevant prices for sugar imports from ACP states and India. 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 Agriculture and Food. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next proposal was circulated as an additional one this morning. COM (2006) 305 is a proposal for a decision on the first instalment of the third Community contribution to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development for the Chernobyl shelter fund. The Commission's memorandum sets out that the shelter enclosing the remains of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, unit 4, was constructed under exceedingly hazardous conditions shortly after the accident on 26 April 1986. The memorandum states, "the shelter is increasingly unstable, it has deteriorated ... [and] there is a risk of collapse due to seismic disturbance, extreme weather or further deterioration of the structure". The European Commission has already contributed US$100 million in 1998-99 and €100 million in 2001-04 to efforts to transform the structure, and the Community has pledged a further €49.1 million. This proposal concerns approval of the first segment of that latest pledge, amounting to €14.4 million. A number of states also contribute bilaterally to the efforts and the departmental note sets out that Ireland has made two contributions of US$2.9 million and pledged a further €2.565 million. Tasks to be executed in regard to the Chernobyl project include the building of a new confinement shelter; increasing nuclear safety; and removing unstable parts of the present shelter. 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 Environment and Local Government, perhaps in the context of considering the wider nuclear energy issue. Is that agreed? Agreed

There is one adopted measure, COM (2006) 298. It is a Council decision concerning the fixing of the financial contributions by member states to the European development fund — second instalment for 2006. The Department has provided an additional letter outlining the circumstances of the adoption of the measure prior to its consideration by the scrutiny committee. I understand the proposal was presented and adopted within a relatively short period. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

There are no early warning notes for this meeting. The minutes of the meeting of 29 June 2006 have been circulated. Are they agreed? Agreed.

The draft 69th report of the sub-committee has been circulated and I propose that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on European Affairs for agreement to lay it before both Houses with appendices. Is that agreed? Agreed.

A letter has been received from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment outlining the possible use of the written procedure to adopt EU legislation in the absence of Council meetings between 25 July and 13 September. The letter indicates that seven proposals that have been the subject of early warning notes may be adopted under this procedure. I propose to thank the Department for this letter and further propose to forward it to the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment in regard to Regulation No. 355, with the early warning note, and Regulation No. 553.

There are two letters from Department of Transport concerning cost implications in respect of COM (2005) 453 and COM (2005) 454. I propose to note these two letters, thank the Department for the replies and write to it to ask it to include cost implications in future similar proposals. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Under what procedure would it be adopted?

Under the written procedure.

I propose to write a letter to the scrutiny co-ordinators in the Departments to thank them for their co-operation during the past year and ask them to ensure all proposals are submitted within the four-week timeline by end of August for our next meeting in September. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I thank members for their attention and co-operation.

The sub-committee went into private session at 1.05 p.m. and adjourned at 1.10 p.m. sine die.

Top
Share