JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN SCRUTINY debate -
Tuesday, 24 Mar 2009

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Chairman

It is recommended that the adopted proposal COM (2008) 211 be noted. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is recommended that COM (2008) 210, COM (2008) 796, COM (2008) 892, COM (2008) 910, COM (2009) 3, COM (2009) 12, COM (2009) 24, COM (2009) 41 and COM (2009) 45 do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is recommended that COM (2008) 754 does not warrant further scrutiny but as the proposed decision is of some significance, it is proposed that it be forwarded to sectoral committees for their information. The general issue of GMO products has been comprehensively considered by the the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny and given that the product in question carries a relatively low risk to human and animal health and the environment, it is proposed to refer the proposal to the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is proposed that while COM (2008) 869 does not warrant further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny given that there is no policy or legislative change envisaged, it should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment for its information and consideration in the context of its possible work in the area of job creation and competitiveness. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is proposed that COM (2009) 14 does not warrant further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny. However, it is also proposed that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service for its information and that the attention of that committee be drawn to the consultation on the improvement of supervision in the financial services sector launched by the European Commission on 10 March. Is that agreed? Agreed.

There are no CFSP measures to be considered. It is recommended that Title IV (TEC) measures COM (2008) 893 and COM (2008) 894 do not warrant further scrutiny by this committee. Is that agreed? Agreed. It is also recommended that Title VI (TEU) measure 5208/09 does not warrant further scrutiny by the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed. There are no early warning notes.

It is recommended that COM (2008) 650, a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council amending Directive 2002/15/EC on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile transport activities, be scrutinised further. The scope of the directive only covers mobile workers employed by transport undertakings established in a member state participating in certain mobile road transport activities. These include goods carrying vehicles, where the permissible mass of the vehicle, including any trailer or semi-trailer, is greater than 3.5 tonnes, and passenger carrying vehicles built or adapted to carry more than nine persons, including the driver. Mobile workers who are not self-employed and not within the scope of the directive are covered by Directive 93/104/EC which was transposed in Ireland as the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. Self-employed drivers are not covered by the transport working time directive or the Organisation of Working Time Act. However, self-employed drivers who drive vehicles covered by Regulation (EEC) No. 3820/85, since replaced by Regulation (EC) No. 561/2006, or the AETR European agreement do come within the scope of that regulation.

The proposal brings forward amendments in four main areas. Among the issues that may be of concern are the change in the definition of night work, as it appears this could potentially mean that a driver could have a night-time rest period of only two hours. The exclusion of genuine self-employed mobile workers from the directive could lead to health and road safety concerns. What is the interplay between Directive 2002/15/EC and Regulation (EC) No. 561/2006 and the AETR agreement? What additional protections are afforded under Directive 2002/15/EC as opposed to Regulation (EC) No. 561/2006 and the AETR agreement? Another issue relates to self-employed drivers who are not covered by this proposal, the general working time directive, Regulation (EC) No. 561/2006, the AETR agreement or any health or safety concerns that may arise from this. It is recommended that the proposal be scrutinised further but that, in the first instance, the Department of Transport and the Road Safety Authority should be asked to provide additional written information addressing the concerns mentioned. Is that agreed?

Senator Terry Leyden

This is obviously one for the Department of Transport and the Road Safety Authority. It is not within our competence to deal with it in detail. It is important it is forwarded to them as quickly as possible because the proposal is vitally important in terms of road safety.

Chairman

The next item is proposals forwarded to sectoral committees for observations, to be returned to the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny, preferably within four weeks but within six at the latest. The purposes of COM (2008) 809 and COM (2008) 810 are to revise and clarify existing legislative acts laying down rules in respect of the waste management of electrical goods and equipment. COM (2008) 809 aims to clarify Directive 2002/95/EC restricting the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. The Department's note indicates that COM (2008) 809 is purely technical and has no significant implications for Ireland as no new substances are proposed to be banned. However, there are some concerns in respect of the related proposal dealing with the waste management of electrical goods and equipment, that is, COM (2008) 810.

COM (2008) 810 seeks to revise Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment, WEEE, in the light of the experience of the first years of implementation. The extensive analysis carried out by the Commission as part of the WEEE review process highlighted a number of problems regarding the application of the WEEE directive. These include a lack of clarity on the products covered by the current WEEE directive and their categorisation, with different interpretations by different member states and stakeholders. In addition, approximately 65% of electrical and electronic equipment, EEE, placed on the market is collected separately, but less than half is treated and reported according to the requirements of the directive. The remainder potentially leaks out to substandard treatment and is illegally exported to third countries, including non-OECD countries. This leads to losses of valuable secondary raw materials and increases the risk of release of hazardous substances into the environment.

Another concern is the current collection rate of 4 kg per inhabitant per year of WEEE from private households. It is on a one-size-fits-all basis and does not reflect the economies of individual member states, leading to sub-optimal targets for some countries and excessively ambitious targets for others. Currently, there are no targets for the reuse of whole appliances in the directive, nor detailed enforcement requirements, which results in lack of enforcement in member states. There are also diverging producer registration requirements in member states.

The objectives of the proposed revision of the WEEE directive include reduced administrative costs through the removal of all unnecessary administrative burdens, without lowering the level of environmental protection, improved effectiveness and implementation of the directive through increased compliance and reduced free-riding, and reduced impacts on the environment from the collection, treatment and recovery of WEEE at the levels where the greatest net benefit to society results.

The Department's note indicates that the proposal is of some significance and highlights some concerns in respect of it. The Department is concerned the proposal to change the "producer" definition could facilitate the placing of electrical goods and equipment on the market in Ireland by free-riding producers based outside the State. It also considers the proposed harmonisation of national registration and reporting systems may be too ambitious and disproportional.

While one proposal, COM (2008) 809, is purely technical and does not warrant further scrutiny, the other, COM (2008) 810, in the important area of waste management of electrical equipment, does raise some concerns for Ireland and does warrant further scrutiny. It is proposed, therefore, to forward the proposals to the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for written observations. It will return to this committee within four weeks of the date of this meeting, or six weeks at the latest. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next items are COM (2009) 28 and COM (2009) 29. The purpose of these proposals is to strengthen co-operation between member states in assessing and collecting taxes and in turn, combating tax fraud and tax evasion. Whereas the new administrative co-operation directive, COM (2009) 29, concerns the rules under which member states agree to co-operate to enable them assess taxes correctly and prevent tax evasion, the mutual assistance directive, COM (2009) 28, concerns the rules under which member states agree to provide each other with assistance in the collection of taxes. The overarching objective is to achieve better functioning of the internal market and more effective administrative co-operation.

The Department's note indicates that while the proposals are mainly technical in nature, they have some significance. In principle, the Department supports the proposals, particularly in terms of the provisions aimed at facilitating better exchange of information and assistance between member states in assessing and collecting taxes. However, it also states that some of the proposed provisions in both draft directives need careful assessment in terms of their workability and the resources required to implement them.

Given the importance of the proposed directives in respect of preventing tax evasion, especially in the light of the country's fiscal position, and also the concerns regarding the proposals' workability and resource implications, it is proposed that these proposals require further scrutiny. To this end, it is proposed to forward the proposed directives to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service for written observations to be returned to this committee, preferably within four weeks of the date of this meeting and within six weeks at the latest. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Terry Leyden

We should look into this matter further. We are haemorrhaging massive tax to the United Kingdom at present. As far as I am aware there is no scrutiny or control on the Border. It is completely open territory. It is like the wild west. One can import what one likes. Crates of whiskey and vodka can be taken into the State although one is permitted to import only a certain amount from another jurisdiction. Whether we like it or not, the North of Ireland is another jurisdiction. I also hear that builders are now abusing VAT numbers registered to other builders. These VAT numbers are being quoted to suppliers in the North of Ireland and the building supplies are being brought into the State. This means a total loss of revenue to the State and is adding to our current difficulties.

The Revenue Commissioners are not doing their job with regard to the North of Ireland. They are turning a blind eye to the amount of alcohol being imported illegally and to this abuse of VAT numbers. It is time to clamp down. That is why COM (2009) 29 is vitally important and why we should take particular interest in it.

I request that we invite the Revenue Commissioners to discuss this matter with the committee.

Chairman

We had a discussion with representatives of the Revenue Commissioners two weeks ago. They were very decisive with regard to the issue you raise, Senator.

Senator Terry Leyden

I understand that crates of whiskey, vodka, gin, brandy——

Chairman

That is not contained in this directive.

Senator Terry Leyden

I know that, but it relates to tax evasion.

Chairman

I agree that is critically important.

Senator Terry Leyden

The State is short €700 million in taxes. There is a free for all and something must be done about it. If this committee does not take action nothing will be done. I hope the Revenue Commissioners are listening to what we are saying.

Chairman

Senator Leyden, you allude to the VAT Directive, which is different from the one under discussion. When the report comes back it may encompass part of your concerns. The report will be made to the committee within four weeks. If further scrutiny is warranted we will carry it out.

Senator Terry Leyden

Have officers of the Revenue stopped any vehicle carrying crates of alcohol across the Border?

Chairman

That is not a matter for the committee.

Senator Terry Leyden

A wholesaler told me he can buy a bottle of Jameson whiskey for €22——

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

This is a matter for Government legislation and regulation.

Senator Terry Leyden

It is not. It is a matter for us. It is in this directive. It relates to tax evasion.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

It is a matter for regulation by the Government. Senator Leyden knows this very well.

Chairman

The matter raised by Senator Leyden is not relevant to this directive. Representatives of the Revenue Commissioners attended a meeting of this committee two weeks ago and they will be back with additional figures pertaining to the issue raised by him. The VAT anomaly and the misuse of VAT numbers is of great concern and Senator Leyden is correct to raise it. However, it does not pertain to this directive.

Senator Terry Leyden

I am using this committee as a vehicle to send a scud missile to the Revenue Commissioners. They should do something about this.

Chairman

I have no doubt that the Revenue Commissioners are listening.

Senator Terry Leyden

They will.

Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed. There are no items to be forwarded to the sectoral committee.