We can exclude that proposal from the agreement and include it in the file dealing with genetically modified products.
It is proposed that COM (2007) 838 does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The next item is No. 3 where no further scrutiny is proposed. It will be sent to committees for information.
It is recommended that COM (2007) 37 does not warrant further scrutiny but that it should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment for information and that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment should keep the committee informed of any developments on the cost of the national administrations. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is recommended that COM (2007) 194 and COM (2007) 292 do not warrant further scrutiny but should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2007) 303 does not warrant further scrutiny but in view of the anticipated benefits to the Irish consumer of the proposed directive and the need to revoke or amend the secondary legislation, it is recommended that the proposal be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment for information and that the Department be asked to keep the committee informed of all important developments. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is recommended that COM (2007) 340 does not warrant further scrutiny, but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is recommended that COM (2007) 510 does not warrant further scrutiny but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is proposed to note the adopted measures and note that COM (2007) 560 does not warrant further scrutiny but given the objective of improving the level of safety for all vulnerable road users, this proposal should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Transport for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is proposed that COM (2007) 560 does not warrant further scrutiny, but in view of the significance of these measures and the likelihood that new legislation would be required to transpose this framework decision into domestic law, it is recommended that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is proposed to note the adopted measure COM (2007) 710, but given the Department's concerns about the cost for producers, it is recommended that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is proposed that COM (2007) 748 does not warrant further scrutiny but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is recommended that COM (2007) 751 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.
It is proposed to note the adopted measure COM (2007) 759 and to forward it to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Given that the decision on COM (2007) 786 has already been adopted, it is proposed that it does not warrant further scrutiny. However, given the implications of this decision for the Exchequer, it is also proposed to forward it to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is recommended that COM (2007) 787, COM (2007) 788, COM (2007) 789, COM (2007) 790, COM (2007) 792, COM (2007) 793 and COM (2007) 797 do not warrant further scrutiny but that they be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is recommended that COM (2007) 857 does not warrant further scrutiny but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The next item is No. 4, CFSP measures. It is proposed to note CFSP (2007) 720, CFSP (2007) 749, CFSP (2007) 750, CFSP (2007) 760, CFSP (2007) 788, CFSP (2007) 805 and CFSP (2007) 806, CFSP (2007) 807, CFSP (2007) 809, CFSP (2007) 871, CFSP (2007) 887 and CFSP (2007) 38. Is that agreed? Agreed. There are no Title IV measures.
It is proposed that the early warning measures, EWN: L 312/12, EWN: L 320/23, EWN: 2006 C 67/05, EWN: 2007 C 308/07, EWN: 2007 C 192/12, EWN: L 337/42, EWN: 2008 C4/08 and EWN: 2008 C7/12 do not currently warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The next item is No. 7, which I must read into the record. COM (2007) 637 is a proposal for a directive of the Council on the conditions of entry and residence of third country nationals for the purpose of highly qualified employment. COM (2007) 638 is a proposal for a Council directive on a single application procedure for a single permit for third country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a members state and a common set of rights for third country workers legally residing in a member state. These proposals are regarded as a major initiative launched by the Commission on 23 October 2007 as part of EU efforts to develop a comprehensive emigration policy. These are properly known as the EU blue card system. The ultimate aim of the proposals is to make the EU an attractive labour market for highly-qualified workers from third countries who, at the moment, prefer to emigrate to locations such as Canada and the USA.
The proposed directive COM (2007) 637 would establish a fast-track procedure for the admission of highly-qualified, third-country workers, based on a common definition and criteria, namely, work contract, professional qualifications and a salary above a minimum level set at national level. Workers admitted will be issued a residence permit — the EU blue card — allowing them to work. This permit will endow on them and their families a series of rights, including favourable conditions for family reunification. The proposal also includes the possibility for an EU blue card holder to move to a second member state for work under certain conditions and after two years of legal residence in the first member state. Control on the numbers who are admitted will remain at the discretion of the member state.
The proposed directive COM (2007) 638 provides for a single application procedure for third-country nationals seeking to enter a member state. If granted, the permit to stay and work should be issued in a single act. There is a general obligation on member states to provide for a one-stop-shop system and to comply with certain safeguards and standards when handling an application. The proposal would also grant rights to third-country nationals legally working in a member state by defining particular employment-related fields where equal treatment should be provided in the case of own nationals. Equal treatment with own nationals would, in principle, apply to all third-country workers legally residing and not yet holding long-term resident status.
With regard to the proposed directive COM (2007) 637 on the EU blue card, the Department indicates that Ireland already has a national policy and schemes for attracting highly-skilled workers from outside the EU, tailored to the particular characteristics and conditions of the Irish economy. However, while the proposal aims to supplement national measures, it envisages granting rights which are not currently available to migrant workers residing in Ireland.
On the proposed directive COM (2007) 638, the Department indicates that Ireland currently operates on the basis of separate permits for residence — Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform — and access to employment — Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Moving to a single process, or one-stop-shop system, and a single permit both for residence and employment as envisaged in the proposal, would require a different approach in Ireland. This suggests that the system proposed by the draft directive would result in a major reform of Ireland's residence-work permit system for migrant workers. In addition, the Department indicates that while some of the common rights for third-country workers envisaged in the proposal are already in place in Ireland, in other instances the proposed rights are greater than those currently afforded by Ireland to third-country workers. These proposed directives fall under Title IV of the treaty establishing the European Community, TEC. Therefore, Ireland's opt-in protocol applies meaning that Ireland retains the right to opt-in or opt-out of these directives.
It is also worth noting that a draft directive proposed by the Commission in 2001, on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of paid employment and self-employment economic activities, was withdrawn in 2006 as it was not possible to find agreement on it within the European Council. Ireland was one of the member states to oppose this draft directive. ICTU has been critical of the Government's position, along with a number of other member states, in blocking EU measures aimed at improving employment rights and conditions of migrant workers in Ireland. On the other hand, IBEC is in favour of retaining a more flexible approach to labour market policy on migrant workers.
Given that this EU initiative could have major implications for how Ireland manages its labour market as regards migrant workers from third countries, and given the concerns raised by the Department and the views of some social partners, it is recommended that these proposals, taken together, warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.