JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN SCRUTINY debate -
Thursday, 16 Dec 2010

Scrutiny of EU Legislative Proposals

Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Leyden)

We have a number of new proposals before the committee for consideration. No. 1.1 is COM (2010)15, page 31, brief 2, a proposal for a Council regulation amending Decision 2008/839/JHA on migration from the Schengen information system. In light of information provided by the Department and the committee's previous decision that the pre-Lisbon proposal did not require further scrutiny, it is proposed again that the measure does not require further scrutiny by the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 1.2 is COM (2010) 220, a proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of an agreement between the European Union and South Africa, amending the existing agreement on trade, development and co-operation. Based on the information available, it is proposed that the proposal does not warrant scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 1.3, COM (2010) 316, and No. 1.4, COM (2010) 317, are proposals on the terrorist finance tracking programme. Based on the information available, it is proposed to note these adopted justice measures. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 1.5, COM (2010) 328, and No. 1.6, COM (2010) 483, are proposals on an agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco. Based on the available information, it is proposed that the proposals do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 1.7 is COM (2010) 466, a proposal on Article 19 of the agreement on the European Economic Area. Based on the information available, it is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 1.8 is COM (2010) 470, a proposal on fishing opportunities applicable in the Baltic Sea. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 1.9 is COM (2010) 473, a proposal on the security of explosives. In light of the information provided by the Department, it is proposed that the measure does not require further scrutiny by the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 1.10 is COM (2010) 498, a proposal for a regulation laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the European Union. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Has the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food dealt with this proposal?

Senator Paddy Burke

Where are the outermost regions? Do they include Ireland?

Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Leyden)

The outermost regions are the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands. The regulation will not apply to Ireland.

Senator Paddy Burke

What is the nature of the measures that it is proposed to lay down in the regulation?

Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Leyden)

Since 1991 the European Union has had special provisions in place to promote the production of agricultural products and secure food supplies in the outermost regions - the French overseas department and the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands. The measures are aimed at mitigating the disadvantages of permanent handicaps and economic constraints such as difficult terrain, climate, small size of holdings, lack of economies of scale, remoteness, transport costs and limited range of production. The measures are covered by Regulation EC/247/2006 laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union. They do not apply to Ireland. Is it agreed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny? Agreed.

No. 1.11 is COM (2010) 505, a proposal for a regulation on statistics in respect of the carriage of goods. In light of the information provided by the Department, it is proposed that the measure does not require further scrutiny by the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 1.12 is COM (2010) 509, a proposal on the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual use items. Based on the information available, it is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 1.13 is COM (2010) 537, a proposal on amending rural development regulations. In light of the information provided by the Department, it is proposed that the measure does not require further scrutiny by the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No.1.14 is COM (2010) 551, a Council decision on the third instalment of funding by the European Development Fund. In light of information provided by the Department, it is proposed that this adopted measure does not require further scrutiny by the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 1.15 is COM (2010) 564, a proposal on the fisheries partnership agreement between the European Community and the Union of the Comoros. Based on the information available, it is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 1.16 is COM (2010) 575, a proposal on the fisheries partnership agreement between the European Community and Federated States of Micronesia. Based on the information available, it is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 1.17, COM (2010) 590, and No. 1.18, COM (2010) 591, are proposals on air services between the European Union and the Republic of Cape Verde. In light of the information provided, it is proposed that both measures do not require further scrutiny by the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed

No. 1.19 is COM (2010) 597, a proposal on the use of phosphates and other phosphorous compounds in household laundry detergents.

Senator Paddy Burke

Will the Acting Chairman outline what is proposed? Some people are of the opinion that only biodegradable detergents should be used, particularly given the amount of discharge into our lakes.

Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Leyden)

An explanation is set out on page 25, brief 2. The Department's notes indicate that while the proposal is of some significance, it does not have any major implications for Ireland. It states the proposals only relate to household laundry detergents and will have a limit value of 0.5% on all phosphates, which appears reasonable and achievable. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government welcomes the proposal to reduce the statutory limit on the amount of phosphates in detergents. As the proposal does not come into effect until 1 January 2013, this should give sufficient time for products currently in use to be consumed.

Senator Paddy Burke

Are companies manufacturing such detergents located in Ireland? Will Irish companies be affected by the proposal?

Deputy Tom Sheahan took the Chair.

Chairman

Senator Burke inquired about detergent manufacturers.

Senator Paddy Burke

I asked whether the proposal would have any adverse affect on detergent manufacturers. I accept there is a lead-in time until 2013. Would there be any consequences for manufacturers and, if so, would we need to invite them before the committee?

Chairman

I am not aware of any. Lever Brothers does not operate from this country. We will seek clarification on that and, if need be, we can bring manufacturers before the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Paddy Burke

Okay.

Chairman

COM (2010) 606 refers to an agreement on the protection and sustainable development of the Prespa Park area. Based on the available information it is proposed that the proposal does not warrant any further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2010) 607 relates to provisions for tractors placed on the market under the flexibility scheme. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed?

Senator Paddy Burke

Would it be possible to elaborate on that?

Chairman

The provision only relates to countries that manufacture tractors. It is a technical matter that would not have any implications for this country.

Senator Paddy Burke

Okay. That is grand.

Chairman

COM (2010) 611 relates to the European Maritime Safety Agency. In light of the information provided by the Department, it is proposed that this measure does not require further scrutiny by the committee. Having read up on it, I wonder whether there will be a role for the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority or whether it would have any input into the agency.

Mr. Ray Treacy

This is an additional body that was set up in 2002. National regulation, as such, will remain at national level. The role of the new body is purely to do with maritime safety. The Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority deals more with enforcement of catches and quota and the policing of Ireland's territorial waters. If the Chairman requires clarification, we can check out the issue further.

Chairman

Will the remit for the issuing of licences for fishing vessels come under the European Maritime Safety Agency or will it remain with the national authority?

Mr. Ray Treacy

This proposal will not alter the existing arrangements for certification at a national level. Those decisions will be taken at a local level. The proposal relates more to serious incidents that occur at sea involving oil tankers.

Chairman

It covers pollution.

Mr. Ray Treacy

Exactly.

Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed. COM (2010) 616 and COM (2010) 617 relate to proposals on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. In light of the information provided by the Department and the technical nature of the proposals, it is proposed that they do not require further scrutiny by the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2010) 619 is a proposal on the ACP-EC partnership agreement. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2010) 635 is a proposal on systems for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals. Based on the information available it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2010) 644, COM (2010) 645, COM (2010) 646 and COM (2010) 648 are proposals on an agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation. Based on the information available it is proposed that the proposals do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2010) 647 is a proposal on an agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products. Based on the information available it is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2010) 649 is a proposal on wine exports from Moldova. In light of the information provided by the Department it is proposed that this minor trade matter does not require further scrutiny by the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2010) 666 is a proposal on vaccination against bluetongue. In light of the information provided by the Department it is proposed that the measure does not require further scrutiny by the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2010) 684 is a proposal on anti-dumping duty. Based on the available information it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2010) 697 is a proposal on anti-dumping duty. Based on the available information it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed?

Senator Paddy Burke

Does that mean there could be a double anti-dumping tax on the product? If one buys an ironing board in a local electrical retailer, one pays an anti-dumping tax of up to €3. The proposal suggests increasing the anti-dumping tax at the point of entry by 35.8%. A further tax will be imposed by the electrical retailer.

Mr. Ronan Gargan

I will seek clarification on the matter but I do not think it does mean a double tax is imposed. It is an anti-dumping duty on the product no matter where it is bought. Once the tax is paid for at wholesale level it is passed on to the customer at retail level but the tax is not paid twice. It is more to do with the import of the product. The tax relates to the bulk import of ironing boards from a particular company in China. The importer will pay the anti-dumping duty, not the retailer.

Senator Paddy Burke

That duty will be passed on to the consumer.

Mr. Ronan Gargan

That is possible. It is for the importer to decide as he is the one who pays the duty. As far as I am aware there is nothing to prevent the importer passing the cost on to the consumer.

Senator Paddy Burke

Absolutely. Is a further anti-dumping tax imposed by the retailer?

Mr Ronan Gargan

No, there is no further tax. The aim of the anti-dumping duty is to protect the producer within the Union.

Senator Paddy Burke

Yes, I understand that.

Mr. Ronan Gargan

As far as I know there is only one anti-dumping duty on the import of those ironing boards. I do not think there is any additional tax.

Senator Paddy Burke

Could we get clarification on the matter?

Mr. Ronan Gargan

I will if I can but I am not sure I understand the question.

Senator Paddy Burke

When one buys an ironing board, one pays an anti-dumping tax.

Mr. Ronan Gargan

The importer pays the anti-dumping tax.

Senator Paschal Mooney

Do we know if that is a separate charge?

Senator Paddy Burke

Yes, it is added on to the price one pays for the product.

Senator Paschal Mooney

Is it stated that it is included in the overall price?

Senator Paddy Burke

Yes. It is paid on all electrical goods.

Chairman

It is the same as the tax imposed on washing machines, fridges and other appliances. We will seek clarification from the Department and return to the issue.

SEC (2010) 1064 is a proposal on the EU budget for European external action services. In light of the information provided, it is submitted that the proposal does not require further scrutiny by the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is proposed that the next series of proposals do not require further scrutiny but will be sent to the sectoral committees for information. COM (2010) 482 is a proposal on short selling and credit default swaps. In light of the information provided and the importance of the proposal to harmonise EU requirements in this area, it is proposed to send this proposal to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service for its information and possible consideration. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2010) 484 is a proposal on regulation of OTC derivatives. In light of the information provided and the importance of the proposal to harmonise EU requirements in this area, it is proposed to send this proposal to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service for its information and possible consideration. Is that agreed? Agreed. No. 3 concerns CFSP measures. No. 3.1 is a CFSP measure of 2010 concerning an agreement with Serbia. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this CFSP proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Paschal Mooney

This measure allows for the participation of the Republic of Serbia in European Union crisis management operations. There has been no further discussion on this because of the ongoing pressure brought to bear on the Republic of Serbia to deliver its two war criminals as part of the ongoing bilateral discussions on the country's membership of the Union. It is interesting that it is to be allowed to participate in a crisis management operation that is military in nature and that may involve civil defence. I am not sure what exactly is involved.

Mr. Ronan Gargan

There are obviously some political concerns over Serbia's application for accession to the Union and there is ongoing debate, particularly at meetings of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, on the ratification of the stabilisation and association agreement with Serbia, mainly in regard to concerns over its lack of success in capturing two war crime indictees who are to be sent to the ICTY. The proposal, which is open to a number of countries, not just those in the western Balkans, is to allow them, if they so wish, to participate in and contribute to an EU-led common defence and security policy operation. The proposal is not on a particular operation but allows Serbia to partake in principle.

Senator Paschal Mooney

I understand that.

Mr. Ronan Gargan

I can understand the Senator's point on the general debate on Serbia and its respect for-----

Senator Paschal Mooney

I thank Mr. Gargan for that. Is it within our brief to overrule the recommendation that the proposal does not require further scrutiny? Could we recommend that it be sent to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs for further discussion?

Chairman

We can do that.

Senator Paschal Mooney

Am I correct in saying it will not appear before the joint committee if it is cleared by this committee? If we let it go on the nod and say it requires no further scrutiny, there will not be an opportunity for the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs to become aware of it.

Chairman

It has to go through this committee to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Senator Paschal Mooney

Does it have to go? That is the point I am trying to raise. It does not have to.

Chairman

This committee can agree to forward it to that committee.

Senator Paschal Mooney

In normal circumstances, if we did not make the recommendation, the proposal would not go any further than here. It would not be discussed by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. Is that correct?

Chairman

Yes. This is the committee that makes a decision on the matter.

Senator Paschal Mooney

That is fair enough. I do not wish to create extra difficulties for the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs but it and the Joint Committee on European Affairs, which might be the more relevant body, have been debating Serbia.

Mr. Ronan Gargan

From reading the Department's information, it appears the measure was adopted on 13 December. We can still seek clarification from the Department of Foreign Affairs on whether any issues were raised in regard to Serbia's participation in CFSP operations.

Senator Paschal Mooney

It would be interesting to hear the Department's view.

Chairman

We will do that. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 3.2, CFSP (2010) 639, concerns restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus. It is proposed to note this adopted CFSP measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 4. pertains to early warning notes. No. 4.1 is EWN 2010/C315/7 on anti-dumping measures. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this notification does not warrant further scrutiny at this stage. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 4.2 is EWN 2010/L282/29 on anti-dumping measures. Based on the information available, it is proposed that notification does not warrant further scrutiny at this stage. Is that agreed? Agreed. Based on the information note, it is proposed that this early warning note does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 4.4 is EWN 2010/C324/21 on anti-dumping measures. Based on the information note, it is proposed that this early warning note does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5 concerns referral to sectoral committee for detailed scrutiny. No. 5.1 COM (2010) 488 pertains to transitional technical measures from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2011. Given the importance of this proposed regulation, which proposes to continue without change the technical measures for the conservation and management of marine resources as established in Council Regulation (EC) No. 1288/2009, it is proposed that this warrants further scrutiny. To this end, it is proposed that the proposal be referred to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for detailed scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.