There are three EU legislative proposals for discussion today. COM (2011) 439 is a proposed directive on the sulphur content of marine fuels. This proposal aims to amend the current directive that sets a limit on the sulphur content of marine fuels. The Commission aims to align the current directive with revised international standards to take account of experience of implementing the current directive and to take account of research on the need for further enhanced regulation to achieve reduction in harmful emissions. The Department in its information note indicates that there may be implications for suppliers of marine fuel and for seagoing vessels, especially passenger ferries, as fuel refined to a lower sulphur specification is more expensive to produce. I propose this proposal warrants further scrutiny and it is proposed to write to the Department to seek more detailed information about the possible costs involved and the extent of consultation, if any, with stakeholders.
Scrutiny of EU Legislative Proposals
It seems the Department's concerns relate to ferry owners. Would it not be appropriate to invite a number a ferry owners to provide their views to the committee? They do not have to appear here but we might seek their views in a written response.
Can we do this in a staged way where we get the report back from the Department first and if it warrants the action Deputy Dooley proposes, we will take that action?
I presume if the directive affects ferry owners and ferries, it may affect trawlers and fishermen. This is to reduce our carbon footprint. Must we comply with this? Is it a directive? What are the advantages and disadvantages and who will be affected? I presume it will affect trawlers if it will affect ferries.
It is a directive to set international standards. The proposal is that rather than the committee signing off on the directive, we should seek further scrutiny so we will write to the Department to ask it to examine this measure in greater detail and to send their views back to the committee. The Senator's concerns this evening will be considered. Ocean-going vessels carry two types of fuel, for operating in harbours and for long voyages, also called economic fuel. There is a higher sulphur content in ocean-going vessels and the directive tries to address that. We want the relevant Department, which has the expertise, to look at this and come back to us. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Next is COM (2010) 362, a proposed directive on the provision for engines placed on the market under the flexibility scheme. EU directive 68 of 1997 put in place measures to limit the emission of pollutants for diesel engines installed in non-road mobile machinery. The 1997 directive also makes provision for a flexibility scheme for manufacturers to facilitate transition between the different stages of emission limits set by the directive. This proposal aims to expand temporarily this flexibility scheme to ease transition to limits that were due to apply from January 2011 to take account of the effect the financial and economic crisis has had on manufacturers covered by the directive, based on the need to alleviate the effects of the financial and economic crisis for industry. The measures proposed are temporary in nature and will not indefinitely dilute the impact of environmental legislation. It is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The third item is COM (2011) 130, a proposal on signing on behalf of the EU the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress. This protocol on liability and redress is an international agreement setting out rules for liability and redress for damage resulting from trans-boundary movements of living modified organisms, LMOs. This protocol was concluded in October 2010 and the current measure before us is a proposal for a Council decision allowing the protocol to be signed on behalf of the EU. This proposed decision was subsequently agreed and a protocol was signed by the EU and by Ireland in May. It is proposed to note this as an adopted measure as it is already signed. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is proposed to publish a list of proposals considered at each meeting. This will include the full title and will be published on the committee's webpage after every meeting as appropriate and I would like the committee's agreement for that. Is that agreed? Agreed.