Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny) díospóireacht -
Thursday, 16 Oct 2003

Vol. 1 No. 44

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Today's meeting involves the scrutiny of EU legislative proposals. Item 1.1, which is Commission document COM (2003) 452, is the establishment of a Community customs code. This is a proposal for the presentation of pre-arrival and pre-departure information to customs. It is proposed that this does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 1.2, is Commission document COM (2003) 472. This is a technical amendment to Council Regulation No. 79/65 EEC which concerns the farm accountancy data network SADN. The first amendment simplifies existing procedures by permitting changes at the request of member states in the boundaries of geographical decisions for relevant statistics. The second amendment gives a legal basis to community moneys allocated to SADN related activities. I understand that the changes are budget neutral. It is proposed that this measure does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 1.3 is Commission document COM (2003) 478 which is a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the transfer of cargo and passenger ships between registers within the Community. Proposal No. 478 on the transfer of cargo and passenger ships between registers within the Community seeks to update the regulations governing the transfer of registration of cargo passenger ships within the Community. The proposal builds on existing European measures by including passenger ships for the first time and allows for greater co-operation and exchange of information on registered ships, which should facilitate the change of registration between member states by owners.

The Department has indicated that Ireland would welcome this proposal as, inter alia, the Department considers it preferable to have ships under the Irish flag as it gives greater scope for regulating such vessels around Ireland. It is proposed that this does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed?

It seems to be a good idea, and I just wonder at the extent of the proposal. It has been referred to as having some significance and positive implications for Ireland. Will there be increased registration of vessels? Where are they registered now? On an issue in which I have a general interest, does this have any significance on the whole issue of flags of convenience and ships that are registered in Liberia and other out of the way places?

I understand that it is between member states and is for ships registered within the Community, both cargo and passenger ships. It could mean that some passenger ships registered in other member states could change and be registered here. The Department thinks that would be a good thing, and it is unlikely that it will happen the other way around.

Commission document COM (2003) 519 is No. 14, dealing with the protection of deep water coral reefs from the effects of trawling in an area north west of Scotland. This proposal aims to assist in the protection of deep water habitat on the north west of Scotland through the prohibition of bottom trawls by fishing vessels in the area known as the Darwin Mound. It is proposed that this measure does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed?

The Irish box will win out.

No. 15 is Commission document COM (2003) 522 on the approximation of laws of member states. This is a technical proposal to set emission standards for the manufacture of diesel engines and engines fuelled by natural gas or liquid petroleum for new vehicles. This would not concern existing vehicles. The directive would allow for the regulation of emissions, while the rules governing the precise specifications concerning the particular engines would be agreed by a committee of technical experts with representatives from all member states.

The Department indicated that the cost implications of this proposal would be minimal as to a great extent manufacturers in Europe, and beyond, have anticipated the technical developments envisaged in the proposal. It is proposed that it does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 16 is Commission document COM (2003) 524, a proposal to codify a number of existing measures on noise emission standards for aeroplanes. The codification is technical and the Department notes makes clear that the proposal has no implications for Ireland. It is proposed that this does not warrant further consideration. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 17 is Commission document COM (2003) 94 on the negotiation and implementation of air service agreements between member states and third countries. This follows from a ruling of the European Court of Justice in November 2002. The explanatory memorandum explains that the court ruling means that bilateral air agreements should be compatible with community law. Member states are therefore no longer negotiating for national carriers alone but traffic rights must now be considered to be negotiated on behalf of community carriers in a more general sense. As a consequence, all community carriers with an establishment in a member state shall have equal rights to be informed and to apply for traffic rights and to have their application duly considered by that member state.

Within this changed context the proposal imposes an obligation on member states negotiating bilateral traffic agreements to keep the Commission informed of developments. It is proposed that this does not warrant further scrutiny and that the sub-committee should note the forwarding of the proposal to the transport committee for its information. Is that agreed?

Would a proposal of this nature be automatically referred to the major carriers like Aer Lingus and Ryanair, as well as Aer Arann? Would they be informed of proposals of this kind in time for them to make an input in consideration of the proposal? Has it happened in this case?

Usually there would be consultation at departmental level but this is on foot of a court order, so there is no choice in the matter. I do not know whether they have been informed but it is a court decision. Is that agreed? Agreed. We will send the proposal to the transport committee for its information and note that it does not require further scrutiny.

No. 18 is Commission document COM (2003) 454, an amended proposal on insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators. This is an amendment to a proposal scrutinised by the Joint Committee on European Affairs on 23 April 2003. The proposal sets requirements for insurance for air carriers and aircraft operators. The amendment, the Department has indicated, has been welcomed by Ireland and most member states and sets new categories for minimum insurance requirements. The addition of three new categories of insurance requirements should reduce the burden of insurance for smaller crafts. The Transport Council reached political agreement on 9 October on this proposal. It is proposed that this measure does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed?

A query arises on this proposal in particular. There is the possibility of severe disadvantage as far as the operators of smaller aircraft are concerned. I am thinking of smaller carriers like Aer Arann. I take it they are fully briefed on this proposal.

I am not sure of the full list but I presume all carriers would be notified. I will get a general note for the information of members as to who is notified but I think there is a consultation process.

I would like to be reassured on that. We get such a complexity of proposals from Europe at this stage that I would like, as a general rule, a departmental approach whereby any interests affected adversely or otherwise by any such proposal would be consulted as far as possible.

We can arrange to have that question raised in each case. Larger industries will have representations in Brussels, and IBEC would of course have a role. I presume there is consultation with smaller——

I imagine that Michael O'Leary is keeping a careful eye on everything coming out of Brussels but smaller carriers might not be in a position to——

I do not know; I understand the man is very tied down these days. There may be a need to insert a line in the document the Department sends us stating that there has been consultation with the industry. The adviser will check that.

That would be reassuring.

No. 19 is Commission document COM (2003) 509 - statistics on the information society. This proposal sets formal requirements for the provision of statistical data relating on the information society. As members will be aware the European Council in Lisbon in March 2000 set a ten-year target for the creation in Europe of the most competitive and dynamic knowledge based economy in the world. The CSO has indicated that this proposal, if not already adopted by then, will be a priority item in the Irish Presidency.

The CSO is currently collecting the required data in advance of any adoption of the proposal. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny but that it should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business for its information, given the significance of the IT sector to the Irish economy. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 110 is Commission document COM (2003) 584, a proposal to amend existing EU measures concerning restrictive measures on Iraq which are based on UN Security Council Resolution 1483. The existing EU measures are considered somewhat more restrictive than would appear to have been the goal of the UN resolution. The current proposal therefore advances two amendments to the existing measures. The first effectively unfreezes assets that were the property of the previous official authorities in Iraq and which were within Iraq on 22 May 2003, the date of the adoption of the said UN resolution, or left Iraq after this date. The second, inter alia, would authorise the use of frozen assets if the assets were the subject of judicial or administrative judgments. The proposal was not adopted this week at the General Affairs and External Relations Council. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny at this time. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 111 is Commission document COM (2003) 559 on the use of vehicles hired without drivers for the carriage of goods by road. This proposal codifies but does not amend, the Department note makes clear, the existing European rules governing the hiring of vehicles without drivers for the carriage of goods by road. The draft directive outlines that each member state will allow the use within its territory for the purpose of traffic between member states of vehicles hired without a driver by undertakings established on the territory of another member state. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next two proposals are anti-dumping measures just received by the secretariat subsequent to the issue of briefs to members. I mentioned them in private session. No. 112 is Commission document COM (2003) 543 on the application of the United States anti-dumping Act of 1916. This provides for remedies, including imprisonment, which were found to be outside the rules of the WTO. The aim of this proposal is to put in place counter measures for communities, companies or individuals to empower them to, inter alia, counter sue where there are fines, for example, if actions are taken against them under the 1916 Act. It is proposed that while the anti-dumping proposal does not warrant further scrutiny, it should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business for its information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 113 is Commission document COM (2003) 565 on imports of kumara. This is a technical anti-dumping measure concerning an amendment to existing rules whereby allowance would be made in the calculation of duties imposed where a part of the consignment is damaged. It is proposed that the measure does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed. To sum up, Nos. 111 to 113, inclusive, do not warrant further scrutiny.

The next proposals, Nos. 21 to 24, are documents which it is proposed to refer to sectoral committees for further scrutiny. No. 21 concerns a proposal for a Council regulation on the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. This is a proposal to amend the regulation that governs the EUMC, based in Vienna. The proposal widens the scope of the data collection work of the centre and proposes changes to its management structure. The EUMC was set up through a regulation in 1997 and became operational in May 1999, with an annual budget of €6.5 million.

The 1997 regulation defines the main aim of the EUMC as being to provide the community and member states with objective, reliable and comparable data at a European level on the phenomenon of racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism in order to help them when they take measures or formulate courses of action within their respective spheres of competence. The proposal follows an external evaluation of the EUMC by the Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services, which was undertaken on behalf of the Commission.

One of the findings of the evaluation was that the EUMC cannot be said to have demonstrated value for money for the €13 million it was committed over the initial two years of its operations. The evaluation also proposed changes in the management structure of the centre. These changes would see the Commission representation increase from one to two. The evaluation raises a number of questions about its past and future direction, and it is therefore proposed that this be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is proposed to take Nos. 22 to 24, inclusive, together as they are a package of related proposals. No. 22 is Commission document COM (2003) 163, No. 23 is Commission document 735(2003) and No. 24 is Commission document COM (2003) 161. They deal with the Community code on medicinal products for human use; the code on veterinary medicinal products, authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use; establishment of a European agency for the evaluation of medicinal products and amending the directive on traditional herbal medicinal products.

These three proposals are a package of technical measures for the regulation of medicinal products. The proposals have gone through a number of amendments and would establish a specialised committee to deal with herbal medicines and develop a European agency for the evaluation of medicinal products. The proposals also set out draft regulations for the sharing of information and marketing of such products. The proposed changes to the regime governing herbal medicines arise from the Commission's belief that it is difficult to justify withholding authorisation from certain herbal medicines, which is the current situation, where the traditional use of the product allows sound conclusions to be drawn on its safety and efficacy.

The detailed regulations regarding such authorisation would be drawn up by a specialised EU committee for herbal medicinal products. The wider proposals aim to complete the single market in pharmaceutical products through greater mutual recognition of national measures and to guarantee a high level of consumer protection through greater surveillance of this market across Europe through the setting up of detailed rules governing the operation of the market. Improved data protection and the facilitating of clinical trials should also improve the availability of medicines, including veterinary medicines.

The note from the Department of Health and Children indicates that the proposal has a measure of support from industry. The Department has also indicated that the initial proposals were widely circulated for the information of interested parties, including the medical profession. This is the sort of note which Deputy O'Keeffe referred to and which other Departments might be encouraged to include.

A note on aspects of the package concerning veterinary medicine has been received from the Department of Agriculture and Food and this note has been circulated to members. It is proposed that the package of proposals be sent to the Joint Committee on Health and Children for further scrutiny and to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business for its information. Proposal No. 163 should also be forwarded to the agriculture committee for scrutiny on the aspects concerning veterinary medicine.

One of the proposals relates to horses. These horses are not in the human food chain, so the limit of drug usage can therefore be raised. On veterinary medicine, under this proposal Irish vets can submit a list of items to the Commission for approval and subsequently those items would not require the attendance of the vet at a farm. The vet could sign a prescription without having to visit the farm where those items are approved. That would lead to a saving in attendance costs. The Government, of course, would submit the list to the Commission, but the vets would have an input into it. There would be some significant changes here.

These proposals do justify fairly serious consideration and we are entering rather controversial areas, particularly on herbal medicine. I am a believer in many of the qualities of herbal medicines, and we should be open to change and improvement in the regime if possible. I very much support an examination of these proposals.

There were reservations on the part of other member states in respect of this issue. I am of the opinion that it needs scrutiny in any event. To sum up, it is proposed that items 2.1 to 2.4, inclusive, warrant further scrutiny and should be referred as appropriate to a sectoral committee.

The following items are Title IV measures to be noted by the sub-committee. Item 4.1 is Council document (2003)12025 regarding shared organisation of joint flights for removals of third country nationals illegally present in the territory of two or more member states. This proposal is an Italian initiative in the context of Title IV measures in which Ireland would not be an automatic participant. Approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas would be required for Ireland's participation.

This Italian initiative lays down general principles with a view to formulating or adopting a Council directive laying down guidelines on the shared organisation of joint flights for the transport of third country nationals who are the subject of removal orders in two or more member states. This would involve sharing information on organisational details, necessary authorisation, identification of the air carrier used and the appointment of the leader of the escort for the joint flight. It is proposed that the Title IV initiative be noted and forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. Initiatives for a Title IV measure would, in any event, come before the Oireachtas in due course.

Would there be reference to the Houses of the Oireachtas in respect of this proposal?

I understand it would only be where the Government would be seeking approval.

Is there an opt-in procedure?

Yes, but it would require approval, as a Title IV measure, of both Houses of the Oireachtas. If the Government decides that it wishes to opt-in, it would have to take the measure before both Houses at that stage. There will be advanced scrutiny at that stage.

The point I am making is that in respect of procedure, does consideration of the proposal proceed without reference to the Houses? Is there only reference to the Houses after consideration of the proposal and the making of a decision, at that stage, to opt in?

Yes, unless this sub-committee asks the relevant committee to examine the matter. Otherwise, we just send it for noting. We could now, if we so wished, state that we are not going to send the document to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for noting but that we will send it to that committee for scrutiny because we believe it should have an input at this stage. It is really a matter for us.

The proposal is that we should send it for noting rather than for scrutiny.

That is the proposal before the sub-committee.

In my view we should ask that it be scrutinised.

Surely we should carefully monitor developments in respect of this proposal. As Deputy Sexton suggested, would requesting scrutiny not be a more appropriate approach rather than merely asking the joint committee to note it? Is there a procedure whereby there has to be reference to the House? Is there a difficulty in that regard?

The procedure for reference to the Houses is that if the Government wants to opt in to this it must bring it before both Houses of the Oireachtas for ratification. If we feel, at this stage, that this is of sufficient significance for a committee to discuss the matter with a Department while that Department is formulating its position, we could recommend that it do so.

The note we have received indicates that the implications for Ireland are significant. From that point of view, we should ensure that the proposal is carefully assessed and, if considered advisable, make an input to the development or amendment of the proposal as it proceeds.

It is an initiative for a proposal rather than a proposal. If we wish we can ask the committee to consider it. However, I must inform members that some committees are complaining about the number of items we are referring to them. It is entirely a matter for our judgment. If we feel that this is a matter which should be signalled to the committee and that it should, at this stage, take it up with the Department, we can ask it to do so. It is within our remit to do so. If we send it to the committee now for its information, it will alert it to that fact and the members of the committee can judge the matter for themselves.

If we decide to send it for noting to the committee, what will happen outside of that? Is the Department considering the proposal at present?

The Department is formulating Ireland's policy position on this. The Government will then indicate what is our position at the Council. If the Government indicates that we want to opt-in to this measure, because it is a Title IV measure the Government will have to bring it before the Oireachtas for agreement by both Houses at that stage. The Department is formulating a view on this. If we just alert the committee to the fact that it exists, the committee can always raise it as an issue if the Minister comes before it or its members can decide to take an initiative if they wish. We are bringing it to the attention of the relevant committee but not recommending detailed scrutiny at this stage. We will overburden committees and Departments if we recommend that items which do not really require scrutiny at this stage are sent to them for this purpose.

If we ask the committee to scrutinise it, would that trigger some other process?

If we ask the committee to scrutinise it, the committee will consider it and, having done so, it will decide whether it has concluded its deliberations in that regard or whether Department officials, the Minister or whomever should be called before it. That is entirely a matter for the committee. We will have discharged our responsibility and it is up to the committee to discharge its responsibility and, in due course, report to us about what it has done. When we compile our annual report to the Houses of the Oireachtas, we will indicate our findings on how committees in general have discharged their responsibilities.

The anticipated negotiation period runs until May 2004. Does that suggest that this document will return to us before the conclusion of the period in question?

At this stage it is a Title IV initiative. If it becomes a concrete proposal it will be returned to us.

So it is not a formal proposal at this stage.

No, it is an initiative for a proposal. It is sufficiently important for the sub-committee and the relevant committee to be aware of it because it has implications. Is it agreed that we send it for noting? Agreed.

If we were to opt-in, there could, for example, be flights from Belfast or Dublin for both states. That is a possibility. However, at this stage it is very much an initiative and I do not know what position the Government has taken on it.

Item No. 4.2 is Council document (2003)12026. This proposal is an Italian initiative in the context of Title IV measures in which Ireland is not an automatic participant. Again, approval of both Houses would be required for Ireland's participation. This Italian initiative lays down general principles with a view to formulating or adopting a Council directive laying down guidelines for mutual assistance in cases of transit through the territory of one or more member states in the context of removal orders taken against third country nationals by member states. The proposed main principles are that assistance would be provided under the following conditions: the requested state or states shall provide the requesting states with all possible assistance; the third country national must be the subject of a removal order of one or more member states; transit assistance may be used when the third country national is the subject of criminal proceedings in the requested member state; and transit may be refused if it is not possible for any reason. It is proposed that this Title IV initiative be noted and forwarded to the Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 4.3 is Commission document COM (2003) 510 regarding the convention implementing the Schengen Agreement on the gradual abolition of checks at common borders as regards access to the Schengen information system by the services in the member states responsible for issuing registration certificates for vehicles. This proposal is aimed at improving the co-operation between member states by permitting vehicle registration authorities to have access to aspects of the Schengen information system. The information that would be accessed would be lists of stolen documents and stolen blank official documents from across Europe. The access to lists of stolen or lost official documents should assist in the fight against the improper use of such documentation across Europe. It is suggested that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny at this stage but that it should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights along with the other Schengen related proposals considered by the sub-committee at this meeting for the information of that committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 4.4 is Commission document COM (2003) 502 on the establishment of a regime of local border traffic at the external borders of member states. This proposal relates to the operation of aspects of the Schengen visa regime in which Ireland does not participate. The Department note, therefore, makes clear that the measure would have no implications for Ireland. The proposed regulation proposes the creation of a particular type of Schengen visa, a so-called L visa for issue by people who regularly cross the external border areas and who are lawfully resident in the border area of neighbouring third country member states. The L visa would permit a person to stay in the border area of a member state for a limited period. It is proposed to note this measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The following proposals are CFSP measures to be noted by the sub-committee. As Chairman of the sub-committee, I have received a confidential brief in advance of the adoption of these measures under the arrangements in place.

Item 5.1 is CFSP (2003) 680 amending the common position on the supply of certain equipment in the Democratic Republic of Congo. This common position stems from UN Security Council 1493 of 28 July 2003. It is the CFSP measure that is the basis for the regulation regarding the DRC which was considered by the sub-committee at its meeting on 2 October. Members will recall from the previous meeting that the regulation imposes an embargo on the sale of military equipment and technical assistance to groups not a party to the inclusive settlement agreed with the Democratic Republic of Congo and armed groups operating in the territory of North Kivu, South Kivu and Ituri in the DRC. The UN commission in the DRC - MONUC - is also exempt from the embargo. It is proposed to note this measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 5.2 is COM (681) 2003 which is a joint action in the EU police mission in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Ireland has seconded a Garda officer at superintendent level to the planning team and the departmental note indicates that further Garda participation in the mission remains under consideration. The CFSP joint action was adopted by the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 29 September. It is proposed to note this measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 5.3 is CFSP (666) 2003, which I mentioned in private session. This common position amends the current EU arms embargo on Liberia in accordance with UN Security Council resolution 1492 of 2003. It is proposed to note this measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Members will recall that I stated that the proposal in COM (584) 2003 concerning restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq was not adopted last week. I wish to correct the record by stating that it was adopted.

That proposal did not previously come before the sub-committee and it could not come before us when it had been adopted. The period for consideration after the decision was obviously short. Those sort of decisions appear to be taken at Government or Department level without the proposals coming before the sub-committee.

There is a procedure whereby if a matter is urgent, a Minister may bring it before the Houses without referring it. There were one or two items which were not urgent and which were not brought before the sub-committee. We have had to ask people to come before us in such instances to haul them over the coals. In situations such as that relating to Iraq, Members can take it that there is a certain urgency involved and that cognisance must also be taken of UN considerations. It had been flagged to the sub-committee that the measure might go through. There is a provision that, only in exceptional and urgent circumstances, this should happen. We must remain vigilant. That concludes the scrutiny of proposals.

Barr
Roinn