Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny) debate -
Thursday, 30 Nov 2006

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Items 1.1 and 1.2 on today's agenda are proposed for further scrutiny. Item 1.1 is COM (2006) 570, a proposal on the retrofitting of mirrors to heavy goods vehicles registered in the Community. This proposed directive seeks to improve the safety of the Community's vulnerable road users, in particular pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists, by extending a requirement that applies to new vehicles to have enhanced mirrors fitted to improve the driver's indirect lateral vision eliminating side blind spots. This directive would see this requirement extended to the existing fleet of heavy goods vehicles.

The Department in its information note welcomes the proposal and indicates that since the proposal is aimed at preventing road deaths it can be fully supported by Ireland. The Department also notes that it is estimated that six to eight fatalities occur each year in Ireland due to blind spot accidents.

I understand the secretariat has received clarification regarding this matter and the Department has indicated that it will seek to negotiate an enhancement of this proposal, a position supported by the UK, to include the retrofitting of cyclops mirrors which would eliminate the blind spot in front of heavy goods vehicles.

The Department has also indicated that the Road Safety Authority is in the process of drafting regulations in this area and it will take note of the progress of this proposed directive. It is proposed that this proposal be referred to the Joint Committee on Transport for scrutiny and to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business in the context of implications for the Irish haulage industry. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 1.2 is a proposal amending Directive 97/67/EC concerning the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services. I understand this proposal from the Commission has the potential to have significant implications for the future of postal services in Ireland and across the rest of the European Union. The arguments advanced by the Commission in the proposed measure for opening the postal market to competition include reduced costs to businesses and employment creation. The obligation to provide a universal service would, however, also remain under the proposal.

Once implemented, the Department confirms, the proposed measure will result in An Post no longer having a legal monopoly on certain postal services. The proposed measure also provides a number of options for member states to fund the universal service obligation.

It is important to recall here that this proposal is one of those that delegations agreed would require particular scrutiny in relation to the principle of subsidiarity at the Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union, COSAC, under the Austrian Presidency. The Department has therefore been requested to also offer its view on this aspect of the issue. The Department has, in addition, been requested to indicate what consultations have taken place with interested parties regarding the proposed measure.

It is proposed that this significant proposal should be referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. It is also proposed that the proposal be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on European Affairs. In addition, it is proposed that the Department be requested to provide the information being sought in relation to consultations and respect for the principle of subsidiarity. I would also like to know what services will be removed as a result of the loss of monopoly.

That was one of the questions I was going to ask. Our decision to refer it for further scrutiny is correct as this is one of the most significant proposals to come before the committee and it relates to an issue that affects every household in the country and in the EU. There comes a time when the matter of competition and deregulation should make us pause for reflection and this appears to be that time. Subsidiarity is an issue relating to the postal service and we must ensure this proposal is examined in detail because of its possible profound impact on our traditional postal service, particularly in small villages in rural Ireland.

It is fine to talk about deregulation but in a country with a population equal to Manchester there are ups and downs and we have seen how deregulation can work against the consumer by adding costs to operators. I am glad we have agreed to refer this significant proposal to a number of committees. Is that agreed? Agreed.

There are no Title IV measures for this meeting.

Item 3.1 is a Common Foreign and Security, CFSP, measure on today's agenda. CFSP (2006) 773 is a joint action on establishing a European Union border assistance mission for the Rafah crossing point. As members may recall, the committee previously considered the issue of the Rafah crossing point in January when it was agreed to note the related Council measure. The aim of the border assistance mission is to monitor the performance of the Palestinian Authority, PA, on security related matters, contribute to the building of the PA's capacity on management of the crossing point and contribute to the liaison activities of the three authorities concerned. The current measure extends the mission until May 2007 and follows the reiteration by the Council of its continued commitment to the mission. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

There are no proposals proposed for deferral. We continue to proposals proposed for no further scrutiny. Proposal No. 5.1, COM (2006) 618, is a Commission Green Paper on improving the efficiency of judgments in the European Union — the attachment of bank accounts. As members will have noted, the term "attachment" in this Green Paper denotes a procedure that attaches or freezes a debtor's moveable property which is in the hands of a third party and prevents the third party from giving up possession of the property. The Commission indicates in the memorandum to the Green Paper that the enforcement of law has often been termed the Achilles heel of the European civil judicial area. In particular, it suggests that the current fragmentation of national rules on enforcement severely hampers cross-border debt collection.

The Green Paper advances a number of suggestions that might address the issues the Commission contends are at issue regarding attachments. It outlines a number of questions concerning how the attachment process might proceed. The Commission is seeking views on the issues raised in the Green Paper by 31 March 2007. Therefore, it is proposed that the Green Paper be forwarded for information and consideration by the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business, and the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proposal No. 5.2, COM (2006) 373, is a proposal establishing a framework for Community action to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides. According to the Commission, shortcomings in the existing legislative framework and new and emerging scientific findings mean that a new legislative framework is required for pesticides. This proposal aims to build on the existing measures and, inter alia, would require member states to establish national action plans to set objectives to reduce hazards, risks and dependence on chemical control for plant protection. The adoption of the measure would also result in almost a total prohibition on aerial spraying. The proposed measure allows for some scope for national approaches to reducing the adverse effects of pesticides. The national approach to how this measure would be introduced might therefore, I understand, require monitoring by the sectoral committee.

It is proposed that the proposed measure does not currently warrant further scrutiny. It is also proposed that the proposed measure be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food in the context of the requirement for member states to develop national action plans on the sustainable use of pesticides. This is a matter on which that committee may wish to keep itself informed of as it evolves. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proposal No. 5.3, COM (2006) 564, is a proposal concerning Community financial contributions to the International Fund for Ireland for the period 2007 to 2010. In October the committee considered a draft amendment to the 2007 budget. In that document, the Commission proposed a number of budgetary amendments concerning, inter alia, the International Fund for Ireland, IFI, and the €15 million in appropriations per annum. The objectives of the IFI, which was established in 1986, are to promote economic and social advance and to encourage contact, dialogue and reconciliation between Nationalists and Unionists throughout Ireland. I understand that the EC began contributing to the fund in 1989. In the period 2007 to 2010, the additional Community funding would be used as follows: to build bridges for contact between divided communities; building the foundations for reconciliation in the most marginalised communities; moving towards a more integrated society; and leaving a legacy in the longer term.

As members will have seen, the Department of Foreign Affairs has indicated in its note concerning the proposed measure that delays or amendments within the European Parliament, while unlikely, would result in difficulties for the IFI's programmes, including those for young people. It is proposed that the proposed measure that would assist in the work of the International Fund for Ireland does not warrant further scrutiny. It is also proposed that the committee indicate to the Department that it supports the earliest adoption of the proposed measure so that the IFI will be in a position to plan ahead in a timely fashion. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Who would be likely to delay the adoption of the regulation before 2007?

There are discussions ongoing in the European Parliament about restrictions on how the money can be spent and in what areas it can be spent.

While it is not in our brief, perhaps we could circulate this to our MEPs to draw their attention to this.

I have a private meeting later today with the President of the European Parliament and I will mention it to him.

I would also like Irish MEPs to be made aware of this.

Proposal No. 5.4, COM (2006) 572, is a proposal regarding the agreement with Argentina concerning adjustments to tariff quotas due to the accession of ten new member states in May 2004. The current proposal concerns increased quotas for products such as beef, maize, wine and fruit juices. It also clarifies the definition of the beef covered by the arrangements.

It is proposed that the proposed measure 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 in the context of proposed measures forward to that committee at recent meetings that concerned changes to the definitions relating to beef imports. Is that agreed? Agreed.

If members do not mind, I propose to take items Nos. 5.5 and 5.7 together since they are related. I will then return to item No. 5.6. Proposal No. 5.5, COM (2006) 578, is a proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the agreement for co-operation between the European Atomic Energy Community, EAEC, and the Government of the Republic of Korea in the field of fusion energy research. This proposal seeks approval for the conclusion of the agreement between the EAEC and the Republic of Korea on co-operation on fusion energy research. The objective of the agreement is to intensify co-operation between the EU and the Republic of Korea in the areas of their respective fusion research programmes and to promote collaboration in fusion research programmes to complement the international fusion energy project to which both the EU and South Korea are parties.

The Department has indicated that this proposal has no implications for Ireland and that the Government would accept the likely benefits of fusion energy. However, given the long haul nature of the research and the significant expenditure involved, funding for such activities needs careful monitoring. It is proposed to forward this proposal to the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government for information in the context of related proposals already referred. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proposal No. 5.7, COM (2006) 586, is a proposal seeking approval for the conclusion of the agreement between the European Atomic Energy Community and the Government of Japan for co-operation in the field of fusion energy research. The objective of the agreement is to intensify co-operation between the EU and Japan in the areas of their respective fusion research programmes. This agreement is closely related to the implementation of the ITER project and the broader approach activities are as follows: engineering validation and engineering design of the international fusion materials irradiation facility, the International Fusion Energy Research Centre, and the satellite Tokomak programme. The agreement provides that the forms of co-operation would be compatible with the objectives set out in the sixth and seventh framework programmes.

The Department has indicated that this proposal has no implications for Ireland and that the Government would accept the likely benefits of fusion energy. However, given the long haul nature of the research and the significant expenditure involved, funding for such activities needs careful monitoring. It is proposed to forward this proposal to the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government for information in the context of that committee's consideration of related proposals already referred. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proposal No. 5.6, COM (2006) 581, is a proposal for a decision concerning the conclusion of the agreement between the European Community and the USA on co-ordination of the energy-efficiency labelling programme for office equipment. It was determined by the committee that consideration of this proposal be deferred until the Department had provided further clarification on the implications of the adoption of the proposed measure. The Department has now forwarded an amended information note for the consideration of the committee.

In the revised note the Department has confirmed that the proposed scheme would be voluntary and that it would assist in trade in office equipment between the USA and EU member states. It is proposed that the proposed measure does not warrant further scrutiny. It is also proposed that the proposed measure be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proposal No. 5.8, COM (2006) 600, is a proposal for a decision fixing the financial contributions to be paid by the member states contributing to the European Development Fund's, EDF, first instalment for 2007. On a number of previous occasions, the sub-committee has considered related proposals concerning the fixing of the financial contributions by member states to the European Development Fund and it did so most recently at its previous meeting, when it determined to note the adopted measure. On this occasion, the agreed contribution in respect of Ireland is €9.3 million to the EDF and €434,000 to the European Investment Bank. It is proposed that the measure does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed

No. 5.9, COM (2006) 605, is a proposal for a Council directive on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures. This proposal aims to codify a 1976 directive on assistance between member states in the recovery of tax claims such as agricultural levies and customs duties owed to national treasuries. This directive was substantially amended several times to include co-operation in the recovery of VAT, direct taxes on income, capital and insurance premiums, and to include excise duties on alcohol and tobacco. It is proposed that this codifying measure does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I propose to take Nos. 5.10 and 5.11 together. No. 5.10, COM (2006) 606, is a proposal for an amendment to the regulation on the addition of vitamins, minerals and certain other substances to foods. No. 5.11, COM (2006) 607, is a proposal for an amendment to the regulation on nutrition and health claims made on foods. These proposed regulations aim to amend existing regulations on the addition of vitamins and minerals and certain other substances to food, and nutrition and health claims made on foods to align them with the recent Council Decision 2006/512/EC. This decision introduced a new comitology procedure called the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, which provides for scrutiny by the European Parliament. This puts the European Parliament on an equal footing with the Council regarding scrutiny of the manner in which the Commission exercises its implementing powers.

These regulations aim to ensure effective functioning of the Internal Market regarding the addition of vitamins and minerals to foods, as well as health claims made on foods, while providing a high level of consumer protection. As they refer to comitology procedures, they must be amended to take into account the new regulatory procedure with scrutiny. It is proposed that these measures do not warrant any further scrutiny. However, it is proposed to ask the Department of Foreign Affairs for an update on the amendment to the comitology procedures. Is that agreed?

I am afraid I do not understand this. What exactly is the proposal? It was before the sub-committee in 2003. Is the purpose of this proposal to monitor the vitamins and minerals that are being put into food?

It is a procedure to take into account the changes in the comitology procedures. Earlier, I asked what comitology was.

It has been explained to members previously.

I have forgotten again. Perhaps members could be provided with an explanation. While this proposal is welcome, I do not fully grasp what it will do.

I asked a similar question before the meeting. I propose to take Nos. 5.12 and 5.13 together. No. 5.12, COM (2006) 613, is a proposal for a Council decision to conclude a protocol to the partnership and co-operation agreement with the Republic of Azerbaijan and No. 5.13, COM (2006) 615, is a proposal for a Council decision to conclude a protocol to the partnership and co-operation agreement with the Republic of Kazakhstan.

The aim of these proposals is to conclude protocols to extend the provisions of the partnership and co-operation agreements with the aforementioned countries to bilateral trade in textiles. The current partnership and co-operation agreements entered into force in July 1999 and did not include agreement on trade in textile products.

Separate bilateral agreement concerning trade in textiles with these countries lapsed at the end of 2004. Negotiations to extend those principles which apply to trade in other goods to trade in textiles have concluded and these proposals simply seek formal agreement of the protocols to amend the partnership and co-operation agreements accordingly. It is proposed that these technical measures do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.14, COM (2006) 621, is a proposal for a decision on Community participation in the capital increase of the European Investment Fund. It is set out in the Commission's memorandum to the proposal that increased resources are required for the bank's operations, especially concerning small and medium enterprises, SMEs. Under the proposal, the Commission, on behalf of the Community, would subscribe new capital of €100 million. According to the memorandum, under the Financial Framework 2007-2013 a sum of €100 million will be allocated in the general budget for this purpose. The Department has confirmed that the adoption of the proposed measure would have no implications for Ireland. It is proposed that the measure does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I propose to take Nos. 5.15 to 5.17, inclusive, together. No. 5.15, COM (2006) 622, is a proposal for a Council regulation on trade in certain steel products between the Community and Ukraine. No. 5.16, COM (2006) 624, is a proposal for a Council regulation on trade in certain steel products between the Community and the Republic of Kazakhstan. No. 5.17, COM (2006) 630, is a proposal for a Council regulation on trade in certain steel products between the Community and the Russian Federation.

The EU has partnership and co-operation agreements with the Russian Federation, the Republic of Kazakhstan and Ukraine that provide that trade in certain steel products must be the subject of specific agreement on quantitative limits between the parties. The current agreements on trade in steel are due to expire on 31 December and although new bilateral agreements are in development, they will not be in place by 1 January 2007. These proposed directives aim to put in place measures to continue the current agreements until new agreements can be concluded. It is proposed that these purely technical measures do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The following two measures are also proposals to amend existing regulations to take into account the recently amended comitology procedures. The first is No. 5.18, COM (2006) 645, a proposal to amend the regulation on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation. As with related proposals on the agenda, this proposal seeks to amend the existing regulation on civil aviation to take into account the recent revision to the comitology procedures which introduced the new procedure called the regulatory procedure with scrutiny. It is proposed that this measure does not warrant further scrutiny pending receipt of clarification on point 14 of the information note. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.19, COM (2006) 646, is a proposal to amend the directive laying down technical requirements for inland waterway vessels. The original proposal for this directive predates Oireachtas scrutiny and originated as a proposal in 1997. It aims to establish a single scheme of technical requirements for the navigation of the Community's inland waterway network and facilitates changes to take into account future technical progress by way of a comitology procedure.

In this case it is proposed that regulatory procedures with scrutiny would involve undue delay in adapting the directive in pace with technological progress and consequently the emergency procedure provided for should apply. This is when in exceptional circumstances, the time limits as set out can be curtailed. The Department has indicated that the directive on inland waterways will not be implemented in Ireland and therefore the directive and the proposed amendment have no implications. It is proposed that this measure does not warrant further scrutiny.

Does the sub-committee know why this measure will not have an implication for Ireland or why Ireland will not implement it? As this also refers to comitology procedures, the Chairman could circulate an explanation to members in this respect. I accept this has no implication for Ireland.

We do not have the same level of traffic on our inland waterways as do other European countries. This is designed for rivers like the Rhine, which experience high levels of traffic.

It has heavy traffic levels.

Such rivers are like international highways.

That is fine.

No. 5.20, COM (2006) 652, is a directive concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work. As part of the European Commission's initiative to simplify and clarify Community law, this proposal aims to codify a 1989 directive and amending directives concerning work equipment. The Department considers the directive to be purely technical and confirms that the directives being codified have already been transposed. It is proposed that this measure does not warrant any further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.21, COM (2006) 657, is a proposal for a directive on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer. This measure aims to codify a 1980 directive on the approximation of the laws of member states relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer. The directive and its amendments set out minimum requirements for the protection of entitlements in the case of insolvency, the provisions of which extend to part-time workers and workers on a fixed-term contract. The Department considers the proposed codifying directive to be purely technical and confirms that the original directive and its amendments have already been transposed into Irish law. It is proposed that this measure does not warrant any further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proposal No. 5.22, COM (2006) 664, is a proposal for a directive on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos at work. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment in its information note also confirms that the directive and its amendments have already been transposed into Irish law and that the adoption of this proposed measure will have no implications for Ireland. It is proposed that this codifying measure does not warrant any further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proposal No. 5.23, SEC (2006) 1378, is amending letter No. 3 to the preliminary draft budget for 2007. The Commission may amend its preliminary draft budget in the light of changed circumstances and new information. In this measure, the Commission proposed a number of budgetary amendments mainly concerning agriculture spending. The Commission considers that the total appropriations for agricultural expenditure are lower than expected, resulting from a downward revision of needs for direct aids and interventions on agricultural markets. The Department of Agriculture and Food indicates that the adoption of the measure would result in an €11.93 million decrease in Ireland's contribution to the EU budget in 2007. The Department's information note also states that it is not expected that the proposed reductions will have an impact on Ireland's receipts for agriculture and that assurance has been received from the Commission that the situation will be kept under review and amended if required. It is proposed that this proposal be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food for information in the context of the Department's comments on Ireland's receipts for agriculture. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proposal No. 5.24, SEC (2006) 1410, is preliminary draft amending budget No. 6 to the general budget for 2006. The changes proposed here to the 2006 budget concern both changes to revenue and expenditure. Proposed changes to revenue totalling €2.47 billion arise from balancing payments due from member states for 2005 and previous years provisionally estimated at €1.65 billion, repayment of unused Community aid of €220 million and an increase in amounts initially forecast for interest on late payments and fines, borrowing and lending operations and miscellaneous revenue amounting to €510.5 million. Changes on the expenditure side forecast decreases as follows: an €852 million reduction in agricultural expenditure; and a €2.5 billion reduction in structural funds. The Department of Finance has indicated that the net reduction in Ireland's contribution as a result of the factors set out will be about €68 million. It is proposed that this proposal does not warrant any further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proposals Nos. 5.25 to 5.27 are adopted. Proposal No. 5.25, COM (2006) 623, is a proposal for a Council decision on the partnership and co-operation agreement between the European Communities and their member states, of the one part, and Georgia, of the other part, to adopt a recommendation on the implementation of the EU-Georgia action plan. Proposal No. 5.26, COM (2006) 627, is a proposal for a Council decision on the partnership and co-operation agreement between the European Communities and their member states, of the one part, and Armenia, of the other part, to adopt a recommendation on the implementation of the EU-Armenia action plan. Proposal No. 5.27, COM (2006) 637, is a proposal for a Council decision on the partnership and cooperation agreement between the European Communities and their member states, of the one part, and Azerbaijan, of the other part, to adopt a recommendation on the implementation of the EU-Azerbaijan action plan. In 2002, the European Council recognised the need to bring forward relations with countries bordering the enlarged European Union. In 2005, the Council welcomed moves to develop action plans that would give more structure and focus to relations with these states. In particular, the action plan is designed to act as a broad tool for economic and political co-operation, carrying to a further stage commitments and objectives in partnership and co-operation agreements. These measures concern approval for the Community to agree to the implementation of the plans by the relevant co-operation councils established by existing partnership and co-operation agreements. The plans provide, inter alia, for participation in certain EU programmes and priority actions to deepen the rule of law through, for example, public service reform. The Department of Foreign Affairs has now confirmed that the measures have been adopted and will forward an additional note outlining the background to the adoption of the measures in advance of their consideration by the scrutiny committee. It is proposed to note the adopted measures. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proposal No. 5.28, COM (2006) 650, is a proposal for a Council regulation on the implementation of the tenth European Development Fund. It is proposed that the proposed measure does not warrant further scrutiny. It is also proposed that this proposal which would be significant for the future of development co-operation with the ACP states be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs for the particular information of its sub-committee on development matters. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proposal No. 5.29, COM (2006) 683, is a proposal for a Council regulation imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in India. It is proposed that the proposed measure does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We now turn to adopted measures — Nos. 6.1 to 6.5. Measure No. 6.1, COM (2006) 532, is an adaptation of foodstuffs directives to cater for the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania. The aim of this proposal is to amend European Union legislation following the conclusion of the act of accession of Bulgaria and Romania. This is to make the technical amendments to the foodstuffs Directives 89/108/EEC and 2000/13/EC necessitated by the accession of these countries. The directives relate to quick-frozen foodstuffs for human consumption and labelling presentation and advertising of foodstuffs. It is proposed to note this adopted measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proposal No. 6.2, COM (2006) 554, is a proposal for a Council regulation fixing for 2007 and 2008 the fishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish supplies. This proposal for a regulation fixing for 2007 and 2008 the fishing opportunities for certain deep-sea fish stocks was agreed at the meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 21 November. This proposal sought to address concerns that current fishing levels of certain deep-sea stocks are unsustainable and took into account strong scientific advice received in June from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. The proposal reduces immediately and significantly the total allowable catches, TACs. This reduction has included some species targeted by Irish vessels.

Aside from the reduction of the TACs, the Commission is also currently preparing a review of the overall regime for deep-sea species and intends to present a separate proposal regarding future effort management. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources had indicated that this proposal is of major significance for Ireland and has provided an update for the committee of the discussions at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council which agreed the measure. The additional information received from the Department has been circulated and I note that Ireland's quota for 2007 has been reduced from the 1,416 tonnes available in 2006 to 902 tonnes, a reduction of approximately 36%. The Department is of the opinion that this represents a good balance between the need to strengthen conservation for these stocks and deliver reasonable opportunities for those vessels which have specialised in deep sea fishing. It is proposed to note this adopted measure and to forward to the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources for further information, particularly in light of the Commission's plans to further legislate in this area. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proposal No. 6.3, COM (2006) 608, is a proposal for a decision on Decision No. 1/2006 of the joint veterinary committee set up by the agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products. This proposal for a Council decision was approved by the Transport Council on 23 November. It is described by the Department of Agriculture and Food as a technical proposal with no implications for Ireland and is due to be implemented on 1 January 2007. The proposal concerns the adoption by the Community of a position on a decision of the joint veterinary committee set up under the agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products. The decision of the veterinary committee seeks to amend the appendices of the agreement to take into account changes in EC and Swiss legislation. It is proposed to note this adopted measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proposal No. 6.4, COM (2006) 598, is a proposal for a regulation on the import of certain steel products originating in Ukraine. This proposal for a regulation on the import of certain steel products originating in Ukraine was approved on 23 November at the meeting of the Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment states that this purely technical proposal, which has no reported difficulties for Ireland and for which no implementation measures are required, sets quantitative limits on the importation into the Community of certain steel products, such as coils and beams. It is proposed to note this adopted measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proposal No. 6.5, COM (2006) 659, is a proposal for a decision concerning the accession of Vietnam to the World Trading Organisation. It is proposed to note the measure. It is also proposed that the measure be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business in the context of the enhanced market opportunities in Vietnam. Is that agreed? Agreed.

There are no early warning notes for this meeting. The draft 74th report has been circulated. 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.

Top
Share