JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny) díospóireacht -
Thursday, 11 Mar 2004

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Chairman

The first matter for discussion is COM (2003) 856 which refers to a proposed decision on the conclusion of the agreement between the EU and India on customs co-operation and mutual assistance in customs matters. The Department in its information note indicates that the proposed agreement is standard in nature. It states that the proposed customs agreement provides, inter alia, for the establishment of channels of communication between customs authorities and outlines the way in which requests and the provision of mutual assistance in the field of customs matters should take place. It is proposed that this document does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next item on the agenda is COM (2003) 847 which is the proposed directive on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community. The Commission through this proposal aims to codify a directive which is usually referred to as the dangerous substances directive. Among the measures for which the directive provides is a requirement for prior authorisation for the discharge of certain toxic substances. The Commission's memorandum to the proposal outlines that the codification exercise fully preserves the contents of the Acts being codified. It does no more than bring them together. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that Agreed? Agreed.

COM (2003) 851 is a proposed Council decision on the conclusion of an agreement between the EU and the Czech Republic on the extension of the common communication network common systems interface within the framework of the convention on a common transit procedure. This proposal seeks to authorise the funding of the Czech Republic's participation in the common communications network through the PHARE project. The budgetary implications would be minimal involving less than €30,000. The PHARE programme is one of the pre-accession instruments financed by the European communities to assist the applicant countries of central Europe in their preparations for joining the European Union. It is proposed that this does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I dealt with No. 1.3 out of turn. No. 1.4 is the proposed directive on the limitations of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in decorative paints and varnishes and vehicle re-finishing products. This proposal concerns amended COM (2002) 750, which was considered by the sub-comitteee at its meeting on 13 February 2003. The committee determined that this proposal did not warrant further scrutiny. The original proposal aimed at setting limits to the amount of volatile organic compounds permitted in paints and varnishes. Volatile organic compounds, VOCs, are, I understand, air pollutants detrimental to human health. The Department's information note highlights that it is unlikely that the adoption of the amended proposal would impact on employment, as the cost implications would be minimal. The amendment, inter alia, relates to underlining that the proposed measure would not preclude or prejudice other national or Community health or safety measures, and that it is open to member states to grant derogations for special paint used in the restoration and maintenance of buildings of special historical value. It is proposed that this does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed?

Deputy Carey

Perhaps this could be referred to the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government. The committee may be aware of the ongoing debate in Ballymun on the level of asbestos contained in cement and in paint, which is in minute quantities in the paintwork. This has potentially wide-ranging implications for that product, and, I suspect, for health and safety regulations generally.

Chairman

Is the Deputy suggesting we send the matter for scrutiny or for information?

Deputy Carey

I would prefer if it were sent for scrutiny.

Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed. Document No. 1.4 will be sent for scrutiny to the environment committee.

COM (2004) 17 is a proposed decision by the European Parliament and the Council establishing a Community action programme to promote organisation at European level in the field of equality between men and women. This proposal seeks to clarify a number of points in this regard. The Community, I understand, provides financial assistance for pan-European organisations promoting equality, such as the European Women's Lobby. In the proposed amended provision, it is clarified that recipient organisations are to receive no more than 80% of their funding from the programme. The amendments to the existing decision are related, inter alia, to the addition of education, sport, health and social protection as areas where funding under this heading would be available. The proposed measure would, I understand, provide a financial support with a specific legal base. The financial framework for the programme is €2.2 million for the period 2004-2005. It is proposed that this does not warrant further scrutiny but that it be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women’s Rights. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2004) 19 is the proposed directive on the quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life. Council directive EC 78/659 on the quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life has, I understand, been amended on a number of occasions. This proposal seeks to codify this measure. Both the Commission's memorandum and the Department's information note highlight that the proposed measure fully preserves the content of the Acts being codified. It is proposed that this does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2004) 32 also seeks to codify the measures in place that set the currency conversion rates between the euro and the currencies of the 12 member states adopting the euro. The codification, according to the Department's note, and the Commission's memorandum to the proposal, would not result in any changes of substance to the existing measures. It is proposed that this does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2003) 36 is a proposed Council decision. Since 1997, a customs co-operation agreement has been in force between the United States and the European Union. Independently of this agreement, I understand that a number of member states have concluded agreements allowing for the operation of the container security initiative. This has involved, since the start of 2002, the deployment of a number of US customs officials at major ports around the world. Once deployed, these customs and border patrol officials work with their counterparts in the host nations to target high-risk cargo containers destined for the United States.

In January 2002, US customs launched the container security initiative to help prevent global containerised cargo from being exploited by terrorists. This proposed amendment to the Community customs agreement with the United States would, inter alia, include a provision for the container security initiative. Members will have seen that the Department’s information note indicates that the amendments are unlikely to impact on Irish customs and trade as Irish exports to the US go via hub ports, such as Le Havre and Rotterdam, which are already part of the initiative. It is proposed that this does not warrant further scrutiny but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business for information in the context of an earlier proposal on advanced information for national customs authorities, COM (2003) 452, which was forwarded to the committee last October. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2003) 39 is a proposed rule to apply to medals and tokens similar to euro coins in both euro participating and non-participating member states. The member states were assigned by the Community the rights to claim copyright with regard to the designs of the euro coins. I understand that national law offers protection from the reproduction of the actual designs of the euro coins on medals and token. This proposal seeks to ban the use of the terms "euro" or "euro cent" or the euro symbol from appearing on medals and coins similar to the euro coins. Derogations would, I also understand, be permitted under specific conditions, for example for casino tokens. It is proposed that this does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2003) 81 is a proposed Council decision granting the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia and Slovakia certain temporary derogations from the directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment. I do not think we can grant it to Lithuania. This proposal relates to an earlier proposal considered by the sub-committee at its meeting on 26 June 2003, COM (2003) 219, which was forwarded to the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government for further scrutiny, and which changes the responsibility to finance historical waste from non household sources, from producers of the waste equipment, to producers supplying a new product, for example white goods. For historical waste that is not replaced by new products, the user shall be responsible. The current proposal seeks to give temporary derogations of between 12 and 24 months to the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia and Slovakia from certain aspects of the original measure. The derogations will be given on the basis of, inter alia, the recycling infrastructure deficit and low population density of these future member states. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny, but that it be sent to the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2003) 77 is a proposed Council regulation on financial and technical measures to accompany the reform of economic and social structures in the framework of the European-Mediterranean partnership. In common with other qualification proposals, the Commission outlines that this proposal brings together several existing legislative measures and that the only changes to them are the formal amendments required by the qualification exercise itself. Members will have seen that the Department's information note supports that view. It is proposed that it does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Next is COM (2003) 113, a proposed Council decision. The European Economic Area Agreement brings together the EU and EFTA - Switzerland is not participating - to promote a continuous and balanced strengthening of trade and economic relations between the contracting parties. The agreement means that Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein participate, with the EU member states, in the European Single Market. Article 128 of the agreement provides, inter alia, that any European state becoming a member of the community shall apply to become a party to this agreement. The agreement on participation of the acceding states within the EEA was signed on 14 October 2003 and includes the technical adaptations and transitional periods set out in the Act of Accession. There are also related provisions for a €567 million contribution from Norway over a five-year period to assist in alleviating social and economic disparities in the enlarged EEA and some changes to quotas for herring from Iceland and Norway.

In its memorandum on the proposal, the Commission argues that, if the ratification process for this EEA agreement were delayed beyond 1 May 2004, the smooth functioning of the Single Market would become very difficult. It is therefore seeking in this proposal to give provisional application to the agreement on the participation of the accession countries in the EEA from 1 May 2004. It is proposed that this does not warrant further scrutiny but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on European Affairs, our parent committee, for information.

Senator Lydon

On the €567 million contribution from Norway, it has taken a great deal of our herring stocks from us. I do not agree with Norway getting all those stocks. However, I assume that it will go through anyway.

Chairman

I understand that it has to do with selling quotas into the Union and is based on quotas that new member states already have. That is what the compensation relates to.

Senator Lydon

I also know about the stocks.

Deputy Sexton

On a technical note, much of the material coming before us concerns codification. When that takes place, is there proof-reading or checking for the accuracy of that codification process regarding the documentation on the part of member states or a group within the Commission? How do we check it? As we know, when proposals come before the Parliament, not to mention this committee, one word can make the difference in a text. Does someone oversee the codification?

Chairman

As the Deputy knows, ten different elements could be brought together in one document to make them easier to read. However, there are various committees involved in the whole process which involve member states and committees of civil servants which would see the documents early on. The Department would also see them, of course, and any of the interested social partners would have an opportunity to see them and comment. There is always the possibility that something could slip through, but both the Commission and the Department normally advise the committee that they are happy that the codification is such. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Next is COM (2004) 94, the proposed Council decision regarding liberalisation of the tariff agreement on certain products listed within the EU-Mexico Joint Council. Since October 2000, a wide-ranging agreement on matters, including trade, has been in operation between the Community and Mexico. That agreement provides for the suspension of certain rules governing the designation of country of origin that result in Mexico being able to export certain chemical products to the EU on more favourable terms than would apply under WTO rules. This proposal seeks to extend the current arrangements until 2006. In that context, Mexico has agreed to give duty-free status to certain chemicals imported from the EU in advance of the currently envisaged time line of 2005 to 2007. The Department's information note highlights that the proposed arrangement would create a more favourable export market for exports from Ireland to Mexico for the chemicals industry. It is proposed that it does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Next is COM (2004) 26, the proposed Council regulation concerning a temporary defensive mechanism to shipbuilding. The proposal seeks to extend the provision permitting the granting of state aid of up to 6% of the contract value to support contracts with Community shipyards for certain types of ships. The Department's note outlines that the proposal would have no direct implications for Ireland. The proposed measure is likely to be considered at the Council today. It is proposed that it does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Nos. 1.1 to 1.14 do not require further scrutiny, but we have agreed to send No. 1.4 for further scrutiny following Deputy Carey's proposal. The next set of proposals are the documents that it is proposed to refer to sectoral committees for further scrutiny. There are only two of them, Nos. 2.1 and 2.2. The first is COM (2003) 689, the proposed regulation of materials and articles intended to come into contact with food. The framework for the regulation of materials and packaging coming into contact with food is primarily set out in Council Directive No. 89/109/EEC of 21 December 1988. At that time, I understand that the important guiding principles for the legislation were to maintain the purity of the food and the inertness of the contacting materials. However, scientific and technological advances have meant that it is possible to develop novel packaging materials that are designed to maintain or improve the condition of the food.

It is currently unclear to what extent those so-called "active food contact materials" are covered by Community legislation. Members will have seen that the proposal from the Commission seeks to update the existing legislation to factor in existing and future scientific and technological developments. It proposes that new materials be authorised with the assistance of Community and national laboratories. It would also require that all food-contact businesses have in place a system to identify at every stage of production the source of their inputs. The Department's information note suggests that the proposed measure should improve consumer health protection, and in the Commission's memorandum on the proposals it argues that, in the interests of clarity and efficiency, a new regulation is required. Members will have seen in the note circulated a copy of a report presented to the European Parliament Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. The report is generally supportive of the proposal. However, it highlights a minority view in that group that the starting point of the proposal should have been how best to protect consumer health and interests and that little attention is paid in the proposed measure to the question of recycling the materials concerned. The Department has indicated that it should be possible to address most aspects of the concerns that have been raised about the proposal. I also understand that the proposal may be discussed at the Competitiveness Council in May. It is proposed that this be referred to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business for further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Lydon

Page two of the documents on the regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council states that migration shall not bring an unacceptable change in the composition of food or deteriorate its organoleptic characteristics. What are organoleptic characteristics?

Chairman

I understand these are the ability to attack the particles of the food.

Senator Lydon

Thank you, Chairman. Forgive my ignorance.

Chairman

I congratulate you on your pronunciation. If one does a quiz programme, all of this comes in very handy.

Senator Lydon

Is this being referred?

Chairman

It is being referred to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business.

I said there are only two items but there are other items that we need to address.

Deputy Sexton

Chairman, before you move from that item, we think that should go to the Joint Committee on Health and Children as well.

Chairman

Okay. We can send it to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business for scrutiny and the Joint Committee on Health and Children for information.

COM (2004) 2 is a proposed directive on services in the internal market. This proposal is being presented by the Commission in the context of the Lisbon process of economic reforms and aims to give both the providers and recipients of services by 2010 the legal certainty they need to exercise two fundamental freedoms enshrined in the treaty, that is, freedom of establishment for service providers and the free movement of services between the member states. I do not know what constitutes a service and there could be some services which would give rise to legal and constitutional questions in Ireland.

Senator Lydon

Does service providers mean abortion providers?

Chairman

I asked that question yesterday. This directive has a long way to go. It obviously needs scrutiny and needs to be monitored. I will come to that later.

The proposed basis of these freedoms would be the application of the so-called country of origin principle whereby each service provider would be subject to the law of the country in which he or she is established. I understand that, under the proposed measure, member states would not restrict services from a provider established in another member state. This would be underpinned by, inter alia, the harmonisation of legislation on consumer protection and the drafting of codes of conduct at the level of the Community.

This is an ambitious and potentially far-reaching proposal and the Department has indicated that consultations are under way with all Departments on the proposal. I understand that, at its presentation of the proposal on 27 February, the Commission indicated it would be available to take part in a seminar in each member state on the proposal and that the Department has indicated that this might be one means of expanding the consultation process. It is proposed to forward the proposal to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business for further scrutiny and to the Joint Committee on European Affairs for information in the context of its consideration of the Lisbon process.

I also believe this is a process on which the Attorney General's view should be sought by relevant Departments because it may involve constitutional issues on which Deputy Lydon has touched. Perhaps we could draw the attention of the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business to the fact that this committee is anxious that it test the constitutional issues as well as the other legal issues. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Paragraph 2.3 is COM (2004) 10, a proposed Council decision authorising the placing on the market of sweetcorn from the genetically modified maize line, Bt11, as a novel food or novel food ingredient. This is a proposal that the Department has designated as being of major significance and the proposal is likely to be of some public interest and debate. It follows from the failure of the Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal Health on 8 December 2003 to agree on a Commission proposal for the authorisation for the release on the market of modified maize. The application to introduce this maize came via the Dutch authorities who had concluded that the maize was safe.

The proposal is being made under EC Regulation No. 258/97 which provides: "if, on the expiry of a period of three months from the date of the referral to the Council, the Council has not acted, the proposed measure shall be adopted by the Commission". The Department has indicated that the Agriculture Council in April may consider the proposal. It is proposed that this proposal be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Health and Children for further scrutiny and to the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We now move to two proposals which were adopted prior to scrutiny. I note here that, later in the meeting, I will deal with a new method of dealing with trade measures proposed by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, which I hope will solve the problems of such proposals coming before us after their adoption and on which there has been discussions between the committee secretariat and the Department.

Paragraph 3.1 is COM (2003) 798, a proposal for a Council decision on the proposed application of a bilateral agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Belarus on trade in textile products. This measure extends for a further year the trade agreement on textile products between the European Union and the Republic of Belarus. The agreement for the current year adjusts upwards the quota for imports from Belarus to take account of the next enlargement.

Members will have seen that the Department points out in an additional note that the proposal was adopted within a very short period. In this note, the Department also expressed its regret for the delay in submission of its information note. I propose to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Sexton

Did the delay occur within the Department or in getting the information to the Department? I am not trying to point the finger at anybody in particular. I just want to know.

Chairman

I understand that it is not clear in the note but the Department, in discussions it has had with the committee secretariat, is putting in place a proposal, to which I will come shortly, to ensure that it does not happen again. We will find out where the blockage occurred.

Deputy Sexton

It strikes me that it was forgotten that this had to be done and then it had to be rushed through. For our own benefit, I want to know who forgot so that we can be aware in the future of anything that may be more controversial than that.

Chairman

We will ensure that the committee secretariat finds out from the Department.

Paragraph 3.2 is COM (2004) 79. It is a proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council. The five year Culture 2000 programme from 2000 to 2004 aims to encourage creativity and mobility of artists, public access to culture, the dissemination of art and culture, intercultural dialogue and knowledge of the history and cultural heritage of the peoples of Europe. This measure, which was adopted by the Council on 8 March, extends the programme for a further two years to 2006. There will be a budget of €69.5 million for projects funded under the new programme. Apart from the funding of the European heritage days and the European capital of culture initiative under which Cork will be the capital in 2005, the programme funds cultural and artistic initiatives across the European Union. It is proposed to note the measure and to forward it to the Joint Committee on Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I was notified in advance about all these common foreign and security policy, CFSP, measures in paragraph 4 and I had no reason to bring them to the attention of the committee. They all are CFSP measures. I propose to note them. Is that agreed? Agreed. Under the protocol we have with the Department of Foreign Affairs, that is permitted.

That concludes the scrutiny. The minutes have been circulated. Are they agreed? Agreed.

Paragraph 5.1 is a Council regulation on common rules for imports of certain textile products from third countries. This proposal seeks to adjust on a pro rata basis the quotas applicable to clothing and textiles imported into the European Union. It is proposed that this does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We have one title 4 item, the proposed Council decision concerning the conclusion and signing of the agreement between the European Union and Albania on the re-admission of persons presiding without authorisation. It is proposed that this does not warrant further scrutiny? Is that agreed? Agreed.

The minutes have been agreed. I propose to defer consideration of the report of the sub-committee and to inform members that proposals have been put in place to deal with delays from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, which are satisfactory. The proposed date for the next meeting is three weeks from today at 9.30 a.m. That concludes the business of the meeting.

The sub-committee adjourned at 10.45 a.m., sine die