Document No. 1.3, COM (2004) 162, is a proposed directive on the type approval of motor vehicles with regard to re-usability, recyclability and recoverability. This proposal seeks to put in place a system for the type approval of motor vehicles in order to facilitate the re-usability, recyclability and recoverability of the component parts of motor vehicles, i.e. passenger cars and light trucks. This is with a view to reducing waste and improving the environmental performance at all stages of the life-cycle of the product. The proposed measure would apply to vehicles in production 36 months after the introduction of the measure. The preliminary assessment of the compatibility of the design would be undertaken by national authorities in the member states where production of the motor vehicles takes place.
The Commission proposal outlines estimated costs of the measure at between €11 and €55 per vehicle. This, it states, is based on figures provided by the European Automobile Manufacturers Association. The memorandum goes on to suggest that there would be environmental benefits but does not outline these. It does, however, highlight that between 9 and 10 million vehicles reach the end of their life-cycle every year, producing between 8 and 9 million tonnes of waste. Certain components would not be deemed reusable by the proposed measure. These would include airbags and catalytic converters.
The Department makes clear in the note that it supports the proposal and has subsequently indicated that it does not dispute the Commission's analysis of the relative costs and benefits of the proposal.
It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Transport for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Document No. 1.4 is COM (2004) 246, a proposed directive on the common system of value-added tax to simplify and clarify EU VAT law. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Document No. 1.5, COM (2004) 285, is a proposed regulation adopting autonomous and transitional measures concerning the importation of certain processed agricultural products originating in Bulgaria and the exportation of certain processed agricultural products to Bulgaria. The departmental note states that trade in agricultural products between Ireland and Bulgaria is of no significance and is unlikely to increase as a result of the tariff concession proposed. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Document No. 1.6, COM (2004) 299, is a proposed Council decision on an agreement between the Government of China and the European Community on co-operation and mutual administrative assistance in customs matters. Through this proposed Council decision, the Commission is seeking authorisation from the Council to conclude an agreement on customs matters between the EU and the People's Republic of China. As with a similar proposal in relation to India dealt with at the meeting on 11 March 2004, the Department's information note indicates that the proposed agreement is standard in nature. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Document No. 1.7, COM (2004) 313, is a proposal for a regulation on the access to community external assistance. This proposal, which the Department indicates would have no implications for Ireland, seeks to define in a single measure the basic acts governing external assistance that fall under the EU budget. I understand that the proposed measure is based on the principle that the tying of aid to the purchase of goods and services in the donor country reduces the effectiveness of that aid. It therefore sets out guidelines for eligibility for access to EU assistance by outlining the rules of eligibility for participation in the award of procurement or grant contracts financed under an EU instrument.
The proposal also notes that procurement is, in principle, open in the Single Market but also states that, on the basis of reciprocity, it will be open to Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Switzerland and USA. Similar levels of openness are set out for developing countries and, in the context of co-operation with international organisations, third countries involved in EU development projects. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Document No. 1.8, COM (2004) 318, is a proposal for a directive as regards the application of certain provisions to Estonia. This proposal seeks approval for a temporary derogation until 31 December 2012 with regard to Estonia. The Department's note outlines that the approval of the measure would have no implications for Ireland. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Document No. 1.9, COM (2004) 329, is a proposal for a Council decision adapting Council decision 2004/246/EC by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia. This is a technical proposal and it is proposed that it does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Document No. 1.10, COM (2004) 330, is a proposal for a Council decision outlining the general approach for the reallocation of resources on Community support for pre-accession measures for agricultural and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe in the pre-accession period. This proposal seeks to give legal effect to a decision at the European Council in December 2002 in relation to special pre-accession agricultural assistance to Romania and Bulgaria. It is proposed that it does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Document No. 1.11, COM (2004) 365, is a proposed directive on markets in financial instruments. This proposal, which the Department outlines in its note would have no implications for Ireland, is an amended text of a proposal first seen by the sub-committee in 2002 and referred to the finance committee for further scrutiny. It is proposed that this does not warrant further scrutiny but that the proposal be forwarded to the finance committee for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Document No. 1.12, COM (2004) 386, is a proposal for a Council decision on the request by Burkina Faso to accede to the protocol on ACP sugar. In this case, the Commission memorandum and the Department's note underline that Burkina Faso is not a net exporter of sugar and therefore does not qualify for participation. This proposal seeks not to accept Burkina Faso's application to participate. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 1.13, COM (2004) 309, is a proposed regulation regarding the date of application of certain provisions to Slovenia. The Department's note highlights that the adoption of the proposal would have no implications for Ireland. It is proposed to note it. Is that agreed? Agreed
No. 1.14, COM (2004) 349, is a proposed regulation granting derogations to the new member states from certain provisions relating to reference levels of fishing fleets. This proposal seeks to grant derogations from the articles referring to these reference periods for the new members. The Department's note suggests that the proposal is of minor significance and that there would be no implications for Ireland. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed
I propose to take Nos. 1.15 to 1.18, inclusive, together as they are very similar technical proposals to take account of the accession of the ten new member states. They relate to existing agreements with FYROM, Armenia and Croatia. No. 1.15, COM (2004) 354, is a proposal for a Council and a Commission decision on the conclusion of the Protocol to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their member states, of the one part, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the new member states. This is purely technical.
The same is the case with No. 1.16, COM (2004) 355. This is a proposal for approval, signature, and provisional application of a technical amendment to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement.
No. 1.17, COM (2004) 358, is a purely technical amendment relating to Armenia for the same reason and No. 1.18, COM (2004) 370, is a similar technical amendment which relates to Croatia. It is proposed that Nos. 1.15 to 1.18, inclusive, do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed?
No. 1.19, COM (2004) 381, is a proposed decision outlining the general approach for the re-allocation of resources establishing an instrument for structural policies for pre-accession. The Department's note confirms that the adoption of the measure would have no implications for Ireland. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 1.20, COM (2004) 404, is a proposed decision on a Community position in the Association Council on the implementation of Article 75 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their member states, of the one part, and the Arab Republic of Egypt, of the other part. This proposal seeks approval for the draft rules of procedure for the Council. These are, I understand, standard in nature and indicate, inter alia, that the Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt in Brussels and the Council Secretariat will act jointly as the secretariat of the Association Council. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 1.21, COM (2004) 287, is a Council Decision on the application of certain guidelines in the field of officially supported export credits. This proposed measure is a redrafted and consolidated text of the DECD guidelines. The Department's note classifies the nature of the proposal as "purely technical" and holding no implications for Ireland. It is proposed to note it. Is that agreed? Agreed.
To sum up, it was proposed that Nos. 1.1 to 1.21, inclusive, do not warrant further scrutiny and should be forwarded for information to sectoral committees as agreed.
The next proposals are the documents which it is proposed to refer to sectoral committees for further scrutiny, Nos. 2.1 to 2.6, inclusive. We received a note from the Department only last night on No. 2.1 and I will come to this in a moment.
No. 2.1, COM (2004) 808, is a proposal for a Council Regulation on the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, EMCDDA, is based in Lisbon and is responsible for the collection of comparable data related to drug misuse across the European Union. The Commission in its memorandum to the proposal states that it wishes to "boost the Centre's role" and task it with a greater role in examining new trends such as the combined use of lawful and unlawful substances. It seeks a greater strategic role for the board of the agency and other minor administrative changes.
The Department's note, however, highlights a number of areas of concern regarding the effective removal of the provisions for a representative of each member state on the advisory scientific committee of the agency and the removal of the provision for a representative of the European Parliament on the board of the agency.
The note received last night, which was addressed to the clerk of the sub-committee, stated the following. An information note on 2.1, COM (2004) 808, Council Regulation on the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, was prepared for the committee in March of this year but appears to have been mislaid in transmission. The delay in submitting this information note is regretted. The regulation itself is considered to have minor significance for Ireland and has been under discussion in the horizontal drugs working group of the Council under the Irish Presidency. It is hoped discussion will be finalised before the end of the Presidency. The aim of the draft regulation is to re-cast an existing regulation on the establishment of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.
It is not clear from that whether this has already been agreed, but it is clear that it is intended to agree it before the end of the Irish Presidency. I propose that this be sent to the Joint Committee on Health and Children for further scrutiny with the caveat that we do not know at this stage whether it is very far advanced. I propose that we refer the proposal to that committee in any event. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 2.2, COM (2004) 823, is a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning short-term statistics. The Commission in the memorandum to this proposal argues that more detailed statistics are required by policy-makers at the level of the EU, for example, at the European Central Bank, in the context of monetary union. This proposal seeks to make provision for the supply of short-term statistics by the member states in the following areas: import prices; isolation of some statistics regarding the so-called eurozone; output prices for the services sector; and certain statistics on a monthly rather than on a quarterly basis.
The additional costs arising from the provision of these statistics will be partly met by support from the EU budget, although the CSO has confirmed that such assistance to the member states tends to cover only a small percentage of their additional costs. The CSO has also indicated that it is currently in the process of determining the likely impact of the proposal on its own operations and of the increased demands on the business community for statistical information.
This proposal alone would not appear to raise the prospect of a large increase in the burden on business. However, it is the latest of a number of proposals from the Commission considered by the sub-committee regarding widening the scope of, and increasing the frequency in, the provision of statistical information.
I understand that the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business will further scrutinise a proposal on the provision of information on vocational training by businesses, that is, COM (2004) 95, and that committee may wish to consider this proposal in that context. It is proposed that the proposal be referred to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business for further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 2.3, COM (2004) 193, is a proposed Council decision concerning the placing on the market of a maize product — lea mays L. line NK603 — genetically modified for glyphosate tolerance. Applications for approval of placing on the market of genetically modified animal feed such as maize are governed by Directive 2001/18/EC. The genetically modified maize in this proposal is lea mays L. line NK603. It is modified for glyphosate tolerance, a weedkiller. This proposal does not seek approval for the cultivation or human consumption of the crop.
The application for approval came via the Spanish authorities, I understand, and has been supported by a number of national food agencies/national representatives on the regulatory committee. The Department has confirmed, however, that the representatives of Denmark, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg and Austria were against approving the placing on the market of the product concerned and that Germany abstained. The Department's note outlines that the final advice of the EPA was positive and the Department has forwarded a copy of this for the information of the sub-committee.
Proposals involving the placing on the market of genetically modified crops have been a matter of some public interest and debate. This proposal is also the first in recent times on animal feed, which raises additional questions concerning the labelling of products further down the food chain. It is proposed to refer the proposal to the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government for scrutiny and to forward a copy of the proposal to the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.