We will deal with the first brief circulated to members on Tuesday. It is proposed to note the following adopted measures: COM (2007) 15; COM (2007) 16; COM (2007) 428; COM (2007) 429; COM (2007) 84; COM (2007) 85; COM (2007) 89; COM (2007) 109; COM (2007) 137 — FON; COM (2007) 149; COM (2007) 156 — FON; COM (2007) 166 — FON; COM (2007) 179; COM (2007) 204; COM (2007) 254; COM (2007) 256; SEC (2007) 836; COM (2007) 259; SEC (2007) 837; COM (2007) 309; COM (2007) 318; COM (2007) 321; COM (2007) 342; COM (2007) 369; COM (2007) 463; COM (2007) 481 — FON; COM (2007) 490 — FON; COM (2007) 634; COM (2007) 683 — FON; and SEC (2006) 1776. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is recommended that the following proposals do not warrant further scrutiny: COM (2007) 98; COM (2007) 105; COM (2007) 110; COM (2007) 113; COM (2007) 114; COM (2007) 115; COM (2007) 117; COM (2007) 133; COM (2007) 141; COM (2007) 143; and COM (2007) 93. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is proposed to note the following adopted measures: COM (2007) 180 and COM (2007) 181. It is also proposed that these measures do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is recommended that the following proposals do not warrant further scrutiny: COM (2007) 203; COM (2007) 236; COM (2007) 239; COM (2007) 272 — FON; COM (2007) 290; COM (2007) 365; COM (2007) 368; COM (2007) 410; COM (2007) 415; COM (2007) 600 — final/2; COM (2007) 427; COM (2007) 430; COM (2007) 436; COM (2007) 437; COM (2007) 443; COM (2007) 465; COM (2007) 472; COM (2007) 473; COM (2007) 477; COM (2007) 492; COM (2007) 495; COM (2007) 559; COM (2007) 576; COM (2007) 579; COM (2007) 580; COM (2007) 588; COM (2007) 594; COM (2007) 595; COM (2007) 596; COM (2007) 610; COM (2007) 612; COM (2007) 626; COM (2007) 629; COM (2007) 633; COM (2007) 648; COM (2007) 652; COM (2007) 655; COM (2007) 682; COM (2007) 688; COM (2007) 701; COM (2007) 702 — FON; COM (2007) 706 — FON; COM (2007) 730; SEC (2007) 483; SEC (2007) 1013; and SEC (2007) 1454. Is that agreed? Agreed. It is proposed they should be forwarded to the relevant sectoral committees for information.
It is recommended that COM (2007) 46 does not warrant further scrutiny at this stage but should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service for information, which may wish to request the CSO to keep it informed on developments in the negotiations and, in particular, on the likely implications for Ireland. It is further recommended that it be forwarded to the Joint Committees on Health and Children and Enterprise, Trade and Employment for information, in view of the potential implications for the Department of Health and Children and the Health and Safety Authority. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is recommended that COM (2007) 52 does not warrant further scrutiny, but that it should be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Services for information, in view of the Departments concerns regarding the element of harmonisation involved. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is proposed to note the adopted measure, COM (2007) 74 and that the proposed measure, COM (2007) 169 does not warrant further scrutiny but it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is recommended that COM (2007) 196 does not warrant further scrutiny at this stage, but should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for information, in view of the Department's assessment of the collection of reliable data as of critical importance. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is also recommended that COM (2007) 227 does not warrant further scrutiny, but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for information. Is that agreed? Agreed. Given that the measure is adopted, it is proposed that COM (2007) 289 does not warrant further scrutiny. However, given concerns about the regulation as regards its effect on the Irish fisheries industry, it is also proposed to forward it for information to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is proposed to note the adopted measure in COM (2007) 350 and that the proposed measure does not warrant further scrutiny but it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is recommended that COM (2007) 372 does not warrant further scrutiny, but that it should be referred to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is proposed that COM (2007) 431 does not warrant further scrutiny but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Women's Rights for information in advance of consideration of the opt-in motion by the Oireachtas. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is also proposed that COM (2007) 455 does not warrant further scrutiny, but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2007) 470 does not warrant further scrutiny but it is proposed that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is recommended that COM (2007) 515 does not warrant further scrutiny but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2007) 572 does not warrant further scrutiny but should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for information, in view of the fact that the Department had sought the extension. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is proposed that COM (2007) 602 does not warrant further scrutiny but, given the concerns raised during the Commission's consultations, it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is recommended that COM (2007) 603 does not warrant further scrutiny at this stage, but should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment for information, in view of the implications both for worker mobility and costs to employers. It is further recommended that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee for Finance and the Public Service for information in view of the cost implications and to the Joint Committee for Social and Family Affairs for information in view of the legislative implications. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is proposed that COM (2007) 605 does not warrant further scrutiny but that it be forwarded, given its potential but minimal impact on Irish fishing vessels, to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2007) 611 does not warrant further scrutiny but it is proposed that it be forwarded to the Joint Committees on Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Health and Children for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is recommended that COM (2007) 614 and COM (2007) 615 do not warrant further scrutiny at this stage, but should be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2007) 669 does not warrant further scrutiny but it is proposed that it be forwarded to the Joint Committees on Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Health and Children for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is proposed that COM (2007) 687 and COMBUD 271/07 do not warrant further scrutiny but should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I refer to CFSP measures. It is proposed to note CFSP (2007) 468, CFSP (2007) 469 and CFSP (2007) 517. Is that agreed? Agreed. It is also proposed to note CFSP (2007) 677 and to forward it for information to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. Is that agreed? Agreed. It is further proposed to note CFSP (2007) 705, CFSP (2007) 732, CFSP (2007) 733, CFSP (2007) 734, CFSP (2007) 744, CFSP (2007) 748, CFSP (2007) 753, CFSP (2007) 761 and CFSP (2007) 762. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I refer to Title IV measures. It is recommended that COM (2007) 306 does not warrant further scrutiny but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for information, in the context of discussion on the Schengen information system and that the Department be requested to keep that committee fully informed of all significant developments. Is that agreed? Agreed. COM (2007) 311 does not warrant further scrutiny, but it is proposed that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for information, in the context of discussion on the Schengen information system, and that the Department be requested to keep that committee fully informed of all significant developments. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is recommended that COM (2007) 425 does not warrant further scrutiny, but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for its information in advance of any motion referring to participation. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is proposed that COM (2007) 432 does not warrant further scrutiny, but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for its information in advance of consideration of the opt-in motion by the Oireachtas. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is proposed that COM (2007) 438 does not warrant further scrutiny, but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for its information in advance of consideration of the opt-in motion by the Oireachtas. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is proposed that COM (2007) 504 does not warrant further scrutiny, but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for its information in advance of consideration of the opt-in motion by the Oireachtas. Is that agreed? Agreed.
On early warning notes, it is recommended that EWN: 2007/C66/06; EWN: 2007/212/12; EWN: 2007/C210/04; EWN: L234/3; and EWN:244/3 do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is recommended that EWN: 2007/C202/04 does not warrant further scrutiny, but that the Department keep the committee informed of the significant developments with regard to the implications for an Irish producer and users of this product. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is proposed that EWN: 2007/C230/06, EWN: 2007/C230/07, EWN: C314/02, EWN: 2007/C240/05 and EWN: 2006/311/10 do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 7 concerns proposals for further scrutiny. COM (2007) 90 is a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council amending Regulation No. 11 concerning the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions in implementation of Article 79(3) of the treaty establishing the European Economic Community and Regulation (EC) No. 852/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council on the hygiene of foodstuffs. The lead Department is the Department of Health and Children with various others. The proposal forms part of the Commission's action programme for reducing administrative burdens in the European Union. The main objective is to contribute to the Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs. The proposal has two distinct elements, the first of which is transport and involves the abolition of outdated obligations on road transport operators to carry documentation on routes, distances, rates and other conditions and to allow instead the use of existing consignment notes to provide information on the remaining requirements related to the current transport document; while the second is food hygiene and involves the exemption of micro-enterprises, with an annual turnover not exceeding €2 million and employing fewer than ten people, from the hazard analysis critical control points, HACCP, requirements of Regulation (EC) No. 852/2004 on food hygiene. It should be noted that the proposal indicates that the fact that both elements have the common aim of a reduction of administrative burdens makes it appropriate to combine the amendments in a common regulation. However, the Department's note indicates that it may be necessary to split the elements into two separate proposals because of their differing legal bases. This issue has not yet been resolved.
The Department of Transport is supportive of the transport aspect of the proposal and sees the amendment of the regulation as benefiting the road transport sector. The Department of Health and Children has concerns about the food aspect of the proposal. It states Regulation (EC) No. 852/2004 includes HACCP flexibility provisions for smaller businesses since January 2006 and believes the proposal to be premature. The position of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is unclear at this stage. It is recommended that the transport aspect of the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. However, in view of the concerns about excessive regulation expressed by small food producers and in the light of the Department of Health and Children's reservations about the proposed exemption of micro-enterprises from the HACCP requirements, it is recommended that this aspect of the proposal be scrutinised in further detail. Is that agreed?