JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny) díospóireacht -
Thursday, 16 Dec 2004

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Chairman

I welcome Mr. Tony Joyce and Mr. Frank Doheny from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment who are here today to discuss trade measures and Oireachtas scrutiny. Members of the committee have expressed concern at the ongoing problem of proposals submitted to the sub-committee after their adoption. I hope that today we can come to an agreement with the Department on a system that will allow the sub-committee to scrutinise all the trade measures submitted. I am aware that the Department prepared at an earlier date a note on the background to the need for the imposition of trade measures such as anti-dumping duties across the EU.

Could the delegation briefly outline in its presentation some of the main issues around trade measures that are the subject of scrutiny notes for the Oireachtas? Could it also detail the consultation process undertaken by the Department as regards trade measures?

Mr. Tony Joyce

I thank the Chairman for the invitation to come here today. As he pointed out, there have been problems as regards the notifications to the sub-committee of Commission proposals in the trade area, particularly in relation to trade defence measures and especially as regards the imposition of anti-dumping duties. I was here before the sub-committee in April of this year and it was agreed at that stage that we would put in place an early warning system. This was to ensure that the sub-committee would be aware of all proposals in sufficient time to have them scrutinised properly and definitely before the measures were adopted by the European Council. At that stage it was agreed to use the date of the imposition of provisional duties as the trigger for sending a note to the sub-committee, rather than waiting for the normal system which is when the Commission makes a formal proposal. That formal proposal usually triggers the note to the sub-committee; instead of that we were going to use the occasion of the imposition of provisional measures in order to give it extra time. In this way we hoped to inform the sub-committee about six months in advance of formal proposals being put forward by the Commission for definitive duties or trade measures.

Since we agreed the system no new trade defence cases have arisen. What we now have, however, are review cases and a number of them are on the sub-committee's agenda today. Trade defence measures are put in place and fall to be reviewed, either because of the length of time of the particular measures in force or because the circumstances relating to a defence measure change and therefore new considerations come into play. So these cases fall for review which, in effect, circumvents the early warning system we were going to put in place. The reviews arise from time to time and there is a need for re-investigation of the whole situation. In the recent past, unfortunately, there have been cases where a review has been concluded and a proposal adopted before we were able to get a note to the sub-committee.

We hope to use the early warning system I have referred to already for review cases as well. What is proposed is to get a note to the sub-committee at the time the review is initiated. That should give a sufficient period, in most cases up to 12 months, before the actual re-investigation is carried out. We have, in fact, sent a number of early warning notices which are on the agenda of the sub-committee today that relate to review cases. These are well in advance of when the particular cases will fall to be decided and formal proposals are made by the Commission. There will be a once-off situation where we will have to bring those review cases up to date. We hope that this will be done for the first meeting of the sub-committee in the new year and that the whole situation as regards reviews will be brought up to date by getting the information notes to the Chairman of all cases that are on hand.

Everything will have been brought up to date by the first meeting in the new year and we will go on from there. The early warning system, I believe, will allow us to get the information to the sub-committee as soon as we have it. The drawback is that at that stage the investigations on these particular cases will only have started. The Commission will be involved in consulting various parties throughout the Community member states in the course of an investigation which usually goes on for a period of 12 to 18 months. We will not know, however, at the early warning stage the detail of the Irish interest involved. Perhaps we can devise some way of bringing matters up to date, in liaison with the clerk of the sub-committee, by providing an additional note when we know the details of the Irish interest to be involved in a given investigation. In that way the information will have been provided to the sub-committee at an early stage, time will have been allowed for scrutiny and we will also be able to supply the up to date information on matters of Irish interest when we have it.

The Chairman asked us to refer to the consultation situation we carry out. We undertake consultation on trade defence measures with the various divisions in our own Department which have responsibility for different aspects of the economy, other Departments which may have an interest and also the bodies representative of the various sectors of industry in Ireland. That type of investigation is carried for each of the anti-dumping proposals which are made. That is as much as I want to say at this stage. We will have a number of notifications before the sub-committee for its first meeting in the new year. I hope that this will enable the situation to be brought right up to date as regards the reviews that are on hand.

Chairman

Does Mr. Doheny have anything to add?

Mr Frank Doheny

I believe Mr. Joyce has outlined the position adequately.

Chairman

It might be helpful to have some details about an Irish industry that has expressed concern about the dumping of products. The information provided in the sample note on polyester staple fibres does not indicate the significance of the interest or concern. Could the notes be made more informative?

Mr. Joyce

I mentioned that this issue was the subject of an early warning note. The drawback is that the proposed system will not enable us to give complete information on the Irish interest at this stage of the process. However, we know the particular proposal has implications for Ireland and Irish producers. This will develop further as we go through the investigation.

Senator Dardis

I am not sure if Mr. Joyce was here when the Secretary General appeared before the committee when we spoke on a similar subject similar. We found it very difficult to meet deadlines. The concern is that if we are to do our job properly, we have to refer matters to other committees which creates a time lag. In this case it appears to be the fault of the European Commission or possibly the Council. Item 5.3 is COM (2004) 660, a Council document on RAPEX. The proposed implementation date is the end of 2004 which seems to be a very tight timeframe. Where does the problem lie? If we are to do our job properly, we need time to consider documents and send them to the relevant committee to get its view. Recently we received a document from the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food which I regarded as important. It is impossible for the committee to express its view on time.

Mr. Joyce

I appeared before the committee in April to try to explain how the trade defence measures were dealt with within the Community. The European Commission reacts to complaints on trade defence by initiating a preliminary investigation which is usually followed by a decision, either to impose provisional duties or not. This decision is usually taken about six months after an investigation. A further detailed investigation is then carried out which can last for a long period before the Commission makes a formal proposal to the Council, either to withdraw the provisional duties or impose definitive duties. As there has been a long investigation and the member states have been involved with the Commission in looking at the information surrounding the investigation, the matter is often dealt with immediately following the making of a proposal by the Commission to the Council. The view is that the member states have already been informed and involved in investigating the facts of the case. There is, therefore, no need to allow a further period after the formal proposal is made by the Commission to the Council. In many cases the Commission makes a formal proposal to the Council one week which the Council rubber stamps the following week. This is because the investigation has been carried out and the member states have all been involved and should have been able to raise issues of national interest in that period.

The system we propose and hope to put in place would kick in at an early stage in the imposition of provisional duties and allow the committee time to scrutinise the issue. The drawback is that the detailed facts of the case will only become known as we go through the investigation. Therefore, we will not be able to give it full details of a potential Irish interest at the initial stage. I hope we will be able to do this in some way by providing a further note during the investigation period. We might be able to discuss this with the committee's officials.

Senator Dardis

The committee scrutinising the measure might take a different view from that of the Department. In that instance a difficulty might arise. We will have to ensure such a view will be reflected somewhere, whether it is accepted or rejected. If the committee had to inform the European Commission of anything, what would it be?

Mr. Joyce

We would be able to facilitate this if we were to get the view of the committee during the investigation period, that is, following the imposition of provisional duties but before we reached the formal proposal of the European Commission. This may involve a period of more than 12 months. I hope we can devise a system whereby the Department will be able to define where the Irish interest lies and inform the committee of our view in order that it can scrutinise the matter. It could then pass on the information within the 12 month period to the Commission. If I am making this sound very complicated, I apologise. However, it is possible to devise a system to come up with an additional note to inform the committee of the Department's view of Irish interests. In the vast majority of cases relating to anti-dumping trade measures, Ireland has no interest whatsoever in the matter. It is sometimes difficult even to understand the terminology used in describing the product in question. I hope we can come up with the correct system.

Chairman

I thank the representatives for coming this morning to clarify many of the issues involved. We look forward to working with them in the future. We will see how the system operates and might then review it.

Deputy Sexton

As it is relatively new, the committee is evolving. I find it ineffective that as we go through the documents, we either pass them on to the relevant committee or we do not. We are not actually making an input per se unless we decide to refer them to the committee proper. Even though what Mr. Joyce said is true, we are not making an input other than referring them to the relevant committee. I am not sure if the committee wants to go any further and expand our role in order that we can state something about a particular measure before we pass it on to the relevant committee. We should not just pass it on. If we have a different opinion from that of any Department on an area of scrutiny, we should be able to say so before passing it on to the sectoral committee and to have a greater input. I do not know whether we wanted to go down that road.

Senator Dardis

I think we have flagged some committees before we sent them and either set out our view or indicated that we regarded them as important or whatever.

Chairman

That is a matter that could be discussed at a future meeting. As the Deputy is aware, if the committee has a concern, it can take it up with the Department directly or refer it to the committee that has the expertise to deal with it in more detail.

Deputy Sexton

It is more if we have a difference of opinion with what any Department may decide is the Irish interest.

Chairman

We shall move on to the scrutiny of the legislative proposals. No. 1 is a set of proposals warranting further scrutiny. The first set of proposals for consideration are documents which it is proposed should be referred to sectoral committees for further scrutiny, namely, items 1.1 to 1.4.

Item 1.1, COM (2004) 607, is a proposal for a directive for the European Parliament and the Council amending Directive 2003/88/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time. The lead Department is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the other Department involved is the Department of Health and Children. The directive concerns certain aspects of the organisation of working time. The working time directive aims to protect the health and safety of workers through laying down minimum periods of daily and weekly rest and for annual leave periods. The directive provides for a review of the option for member states to operate an opt-out from the requirement on maximum hours. In addition, two significant rulings by the European Court in the SIMAP and Jaeger cases require the re-examination of the operation of the directive. In the Jaeger case, the court ruled that doctors were on call, even if they were resting because their services were not required. This ruling would have implications for all sectors, but particularly for the health sector. In the light of the directive's review provision and the court rulings, the Commission presented a communication, COM (2003) 843, for discussion to the European institutions at the end of 2003 setting out the implications of the rulings and indicating possible options to develop the directive.

Members may recall that the Irish Medical Organisation wrote to the previous Chair of the sub-committee regarding the consultations that were taking place with respect to the communication between the Department and the Commission and an information note was sought on the issue from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The Department subsequently forwarded a note to the sub-committee that set out the Irish Presidency's observation that there was widespread support for "the retention of provision for opt-out" and for "a sustainable long-term solution which would provide legal certainty regarding entitlements and responsibilities". The sub-committee determined at its meeting on 17 June 2004 that this documentation should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business and the Joint Committee on Health and Children for their attention, given the significance of the issues.

On 22 September, the Commission presented its proposed amendment to the working time directive. The Department appropriately classifies this proposal as being of major significance and has indicated that it is undertaking consultations with interested parties on the proposal.

The proposed changes to the directive concern, inter alia, the addition of the following definitions. “On-call time” is defined as the period during which the worker has the obligation to be available at the workplace to intervene, at the employer’s request, to carry out his activity or duties. “Inactive part of on-call time” is defined as the period during which the worker is on-call within the meaning of Article 1a, but not required by his employer to carry out his activity or duties. The inactive part of on-call time will not be regarded as working time unless national law or a collective agreement decides otherwise.

Articles 17 and 18 of the proposal provide that compensatory rest may be provided in cases of derogations from the directive's requirement for rest breaks. Article 22 of the proposed text sets out the conditions for the operation of the opt-out of the requirement for the maximum working week of 48 hours. Under the proposal, the opt-out should be expressly foreseen by a collective agreement and no employee should work for longer than 65 hours in any one week unless a collective agreement provides otherwise. Under the current draft, only in very limited situations could an individual opt out. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Dardis

This is a fairly high profile proposal and has serious implications for us.

Chairman

Especially in areas where low paid workers are dependent on large amounts of overtime. For example, in local authorities, security staff and porter staff are being told their overtime will be limited. They had overtime built into their monthly or weekly household budget and it will have——

Senator Dardis

Junior hospital doctors are the high profile aspect of the proposal.

Chairman

That is the high profile case but it runs through the whole sector.

Senator Dardis

It is agreed to refer.

Chairman

Item 1.2, COM (2004) 712, is a proposal for a Council regulation amending regulations (EEC) No. 2759/75, (EEC) No. 2771/75, EEC No. 2777/75, (EC) No. 1254/99 and (EC) No. 2529/2001 as regards exceptional market support measures. The lead Department is the Department of Agriculture and Food and no other Departments are involved.

The Commission is seeking through this proposal to have exceptional market support measures funded equally by the member states and the Community. Currently the Community provides 100% of the support. I understand that the proposal is likely to be the subject of some debate within the working group that was recently established to deal with this matter and that the Department has indicated that Ireland has reserved its position until a full discussion has taken place.

At this early stage in the process of considering this proposal it is difficult not to conclude that the case presented in the Commission's memorandum is somewhat over-stretched in respect of a number of aspects concerning this proposal. Member states, particularly where agriculture remains a substantial part of the economy, have a national interest in taking their animal health obligations seriously, even if schemes of this nature are fully funded. Members will be aware that outbreaks of animal disease frequently have consequences that go beyond the direct market impact on the animals or products affected and can have consequences for sectors such as tourism.

It is proposed that this proposal, the adoption of which would have potentially major significance for the sector, should be referred to the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food for further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 1.3, COM (2004) 725, is a proposal for a directive amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC concerning the annual accounts of certain types of companies and consolidated accounts. At the meeting on 1 April 2004, the sub-committee considered an earlier proposal, COM(2004)177, relating to the issue of annual accounts and consolidated accounts. That proposal was referred to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business for further scrutiny and I understand that committee considered aspects of the issue at a meeting on 8 December.

These proposals seek to amend significantly a number of accounting practices across the European Union and follow recent high profile situations where it is considered that the accounting and auditing practices carried out were short of standards that would have reduced the possibility of financial malpractice. Members will have noted that the Department's information note highlights that many of the envisaged amendments to establish European regulations were anticipated in Ireland in the Companies (Auditing and Accounting) Act 2003.

This particular proposal, inter alia, concerns the establishment of the collective responsibility of board members, greater transparency of off-balance sheet arrangements through requirements on explaining significant arrangements not included in the balance sheet, and the introduction of a corporate governance statement. The proposal will be of significance in its own right and in the context of the scrutiny of COM (2004) 177. Is it agreed that the proposal be referred to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business for further scrutiny? Agreed.

COM (2004) 730 is a proposal for a directive amending Council Directive 77/91/EEC concerning the formation of public limited companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital. The lead Department is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and no other Departments are involved. Council Directive 77/91/EEC aims to co-ordinate safeguards for the protection of the interests of members and third parties of companies. The directive concerns the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent across the Union.

The Commission is proposing that a number of the current provisions be simplified with a view to contributing to the promotion of business efficiency and competitiveness without reducing the protection offered to shareholders and creditors. These proposed changes would include the following: shareholders holding a large majority of a public limited liability company's capital should have the right to acquire the remaining shares for adequate compensation; and provisions concerning the acquisition of own shares should be relaxed.

The Department contends that the adoption of the proposal would not result in any significant implications for Ireland. Nonetheless, members will have seen that it expresses the view that this is an area requiring a fundamental reappraisal. Notwithstanding that according to the Department this view is also shared by other member states, the Commission is pushing ahead with this proposal in advance of undertaking a study to determine if more radical changes are required. Is it agreed that the proposal be referred to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business for further scrutiny? Agreed.

We now come to item No. 2, Title IV measures. No such measures were received for this meeting.

No. 3 is common foreign and security policy measures, items 3.1 to 3.9. Unless members have a particular interest in an aspect of an adopted CFSP measure before us today, I propose that I would not outline them in detail. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Members will have seen that a number of these measures, which are flagged to the Chair in advance of their adoption, have been in place for some time. I therefore welcome the letter from the Department which outlines that it will make every effort to submit notes as soon as possible after the Council has approved them.

Item No. 3.1 is the Council Joint Action on the European Union rule of law mission in Georgia in the context of ESDP EUJUST THEMIS. The lead Department is the Department of Foreign Affairs. Is the proposal to note the measure agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 3.2 is CFSP (2004) 730, Council Common Position 2004/730/CFSP of 25 October 2004 on additional restrictive measures against Burma-Myanmar, and amending Common Position 2004/423/CFSP. The lead Department is the Department of Foreign Affairs. Other Departments are the Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Finance. The proposal is to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 3.3 is CFSP (2004) 790, Council Decision of 22 November 2004 extending and amending Decision 2003/276/CFSP implementing Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP concerning Albania. The lead Department is the Department of Foreign Affairs. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 3.4 is CFSP (2004) 791, Council Decision of 22 November 2004 extending and amending Decision 2002/842/CFSP implementing Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP concerning south-east Europe. The Department of Foreign Affairs will be the lead Department. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 3.5 is CFSP (2004) 523. I ask members to refer to item No. 3.1 previously circulated. Items Nos. 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 and 3.9 are in the second bundle of documents members received.

Item No. 3.6 is CFSP (2004) 551, Council Joint Action on the establishment of the European Defence Agency. It is proposed to note the measure. It is also proposed that the Common Position be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for information in the context of any consideration that committee might give to the Green Paper on defence procurement. Is that agreed?

Senator Dardis

I am surprised it is not being referred to the committee for further scrutiny.

Chairman

It is an adopted measure.

Senator Dardis

My apologies.

Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 3.7 is Council Common Position CFSP (2004) 553 of 19 July 2004 amending Common Position 2003/495/CFSP on Iraq. The Department of Foreign Affairs is the lead Department. Other Departments are the Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Defence. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 3.8 is CFSP (2004) 570, Council Joint Action on the European Union military operation in Bosnia Herzegovina. The lead Department is the Department of Foreign Affairs and the other interested Department will be the Department of Defence. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 3.9 is CFSP (2004) 748, Council Common Position concerning the temporary reception by member states of the European Union of certain Palestinians. The lead Department is the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform would have an interest also. It is proposed that the measure be noted. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 4 is deferred documents. It is proposed to defer items 4.1 to 4.4. Is that agreed? Agreed. Item No. 4.1 is COM (2004) 629, a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a financing instrument for development co-operation and economic co-operation. The Department of Foreign Affairs will be the lead Department. This proposal concerns the establishment of a new structure for external assistance over the period of the next financial perspective, that is, 2007 to 2013. Members will have seen that the envisaged budget is very substantial, at just over €44 billion, and that the adoption of the proposal would have significance for the future of development assistance. I understand the proposed new structure will be based around principles such as respect for fundamental freedoms, the consolidation of national development strategies, the co-ordination of bilateral and multilateral aid and the co-ordination of development policies and measures by the member states and Commission.

In common with the other proposals relating to the next financial perspective, the proposed measure is very likely to evolve over the coming months. In addition, the Department indicates that a related proposal concerning the tenth European Development Fund will shortly be presented by the Commission and I understand that the shape of that proposal would have implications for consideration of this measure.

It is, therefore, proposed that consideration of the proposal be deferred and that the Department be requested to provide a detailed information note outlining the issues around the two proposals. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2004) 708 is a proposal for a directive repealing Directives 75/106/EEC and 80/232/EEC and amending 76/211/EEC concerning packaging sizes. The lead Department is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Members will have seen from the documentation previously circulated that current EU legislation provides for mandatory and optional packaging sizes for consumer products. A part of this legislation, Directive 75/106/EC, was the subject of consideration in a case originating in Brussels that was referred to the European Court, the so-called Cidrerie Ruwet case. The court concluded that Article 28 of the EC Treaty precludes a member state from prohibiting the marketing of a pre-package, having a nominal volume not included in the specified Community range, which is lawfully manufactured and marketed in another member state.

The Commission, in the memorandum to the proposal, sets out its view that mandatory ranges could be justified for sectors where mandatory sizes have been established, that is, wine, spirits, soluble coffee and white sugar. In addition, the Commission proposes to maintain the current provisions on the pack sizes of products put in aerosols contained in Directive 75/324/EEC. The Commission contends that the liberalisation of sizes promotes competitiveness because it "encourages entrepreneurship and innovation and facilitates access to markets".

The Department had been asked for additional information to assist the committee in determining what additional consideration might be given to this proposal. In particular, the Department was asked to outline the sectors in Ireland that would have been impacted upon by current regulations and those that might benefit from its adoption. It also has been asked to outline with whom it has consulted about the proposal and, in particular, if it has sought the views of organisations representing the views of the blind and visually impaired in Ireland. Members will appreciate that there could be quality of life implications if changes to pack sizes occur without this eventuality being flagged to bodies representing the blind and visually impaired. The Department has sent this to the information officer of the National Council for the Blind and to the president of the National League of the Blind.

Senator Dardis

It appears there is a glimmer of hope that the Union will not intrude into every area of life. This matter was originally in the straight banana type of category. If it will liberalise in this area and allow consumers more choice, it is welcome.

Chairman

It is proposed to defer consideration of the proposal. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2004) 747 is an amended proposal for a directive on the harmonisation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states concerning credit for consumers. The Commission, in 2002, outlined that credit in the EU 15 member states amounted to 7% of GDP and that this was growing at 7% per annum and often in new forms. This was resulting in member states amending national legislation to encompass new types of credit.

Directive 87/102/EEC and Directive 93/13/EC concern the harmonisation of laws, regulations and administrative procedures relating to credit for consumers. The Commission outlines its view in the memorandum to the proposal that Directive 87/102/EEC "no longer (reflects) the current situation on the consumer credit market (and is) therefore in need of revision". In September 2002, and prior to putting in place the current scrutiny process within the Oireachtas, the Commission presented a proposal for the amendment of the current EU rules governing consumer credit. Following a series of amendments presented by the European Parliament and accepted by the Commission this proposal was presented for adoption.

The Department has indicated that a consolidated text of the proposal is not currently available and that it is continuing to examine the likely practical implications of the proposal. It is, therefore, proposed that the committee defer consideration of the proposal and request the Department to make available a copy of the consolidated text when it becomes available along with an outline of its conclusions of the likely practical implications of the adoption of the proposal. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2004) 731 is an amended proposal for a Council regulation concerning trade in certain equipment and products which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. The lead Department is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and other Departments concerned are the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Revenue Commissioners.

The committee considered an earlier text of this proposal in February 2003, when it was determined that the proposal did not warrant further scrutiny at that stage, given that it was likely to be amended. The general aim of the proposed measure is to ban the trade outside the Community in certain items that could be used for torture, degrading treatment and in the execution of the death penalty. There were, however, a number of issues raised about the original proposal with respect to, for example, the role of the Commission in approval for exports.

The proposal goes beyond trade issues and encompasses human rights, justice and health matters. The Department has now provided a copy of the current draft of the proposal and there appear to be substantial amendments made to the original text. The Department has indicated that the proposal is not likely to be adopted in the near future and this means that additional attention can be given to the text in advance of consideration by the sub-committee. It is, therefore, proposed that the committee defer consideration of the proposal. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next set of proposals on our agenda are proposals where it is proposed that they do not warrant further scrutiny. COM (2004) 624 is a proposal for a Council regulation concerning the implementation of Protocol No. 4 and Protocol No. 9 regarding the Ignalina nuclear plant in Lithuania and the Bohunice VI plant in Slovakia. The lead Department is the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. There are no other Departments involved. The memorandum to the proposal sets out that Lithuania and Slovakia have only relatively recently put systems in place for the decommissioning of nuclear installations. Estimates set out for the decommissioning of the nuclear reactors are around 15% of the total investment cost.

The Commission contends that this situation requires Community solidarity and the Department indicates that it, along with other EU member states, is concerned with the continued operation of reactors in both Lithuania and Slovakia. The reactors in Lithuania are of a Chernobyl type and in Slovakia are of an early Soviet design. This proposal seeks approval for financial support for the decommissioning process and the total package of support would, over the period 2007-13, amount to just over €1 billion. Agreement to shut down the reactors was made in the context of accession to the EU and the Community has given assistance for the decommissioning process in 2000-04.

It is proposed that the proposal does not currently warrant further scrutiny. However, the combined proposed budget for the two closure programmes is substantial and is being presented in the context of the next financial perspectives. It is, therefore, additionally proposed that the proposal be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government for information in the context of its consideration of COM (2004) 621 and the financial instrument for the environment, LIFE +. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2004) 625 is a proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the agreement for scientific co-operation between the European Community and the Federal Republic of Brazil. The lead Department is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The agreement with Brazil is based on a stated wish to extend and strengthen the conduct of co-operative activities in areas of common interest such as space, health, medicine and aeronautics. It will operate for an initial period of five years and involve, inter alia, reciprocal participation in research and technology programmes. The proposal seeks approval for the conclusion of the agreement that the Department classifies essentially as technical in nature and one which has no particular implications for Ireland. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I propose that the committee consider the following two related proposals together — COM (2004) 660 and COM (2004) 661. They follow on from Romania's and Bulgaria's participation in the TRAPEX information exchange system on consumer products covering the states of central and eastern Europe. In late 2003 Romania and Bulgaria sought to participate in the Community's comparable RAPEX system. Through these proposals, the European Commission is seeking approval for a positive Community position on their participation in the system. It is proposed that these two proposals do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2004) 664 is a proposal for a Council decision on the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record. The lead Department is the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The European Commission proposes that member states share information on criminal records concerning their nationals more speedily through a central processing authority. These actions will build on the related Council of Europe convention, to which Ireland is a party. Like a number of other parties to the convention, Ireland has expressed reservations about Article 22 to the effect that notifications of criminal records are only made if the "judicial records permit such notifications". Under the Commission's proposal, this general information will be transmitted without delay, rather than "at least once a year". It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny but that it should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2004) 687 is a proposal for a Council regulation laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the European Union. The lead Department is the Department of Agriculture and Food but the Department of Foreign Affairs is also involved. In its memorandum to this proposal the European Commission outlines the arrangements for agricultural support for the outermost regions of the Union are fragmented in 56 micro measures. It, therefore, proposes in this draft regulation that the measures be replaced with a system whereby the member states concerned — Portugal, France and Spain — should submit a programme for each region that would focus on assisting supply and local production of essential agricultural lines. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2004) 696 is an amended proposal for a Council regulation establishing an instrument of financial support for encouraging the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community and amending Regulation EC 2667/2000 on the European Agency for Reconstruction. The lead Department is the Department of Foreign Affairs. This proposal seeks to amend Regulation EC 2667/2000 on the European Agency for Reconstruction, EAR, to allow the European Commission to entrust the agency with implementation of assistance for encouraging the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community. The Commission contends the EAR has the capacity to attain the objectives of the aid package and that it appears to be the only possible option to deliver the aid programme to northern Cyprus rapidly. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny but that it should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on European Affairs in the context of its consideration of EU related developments in the region. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2004) 697 is a proposal for a Council decision amending Council decision 2001/855/EC to take account of certain treaties and trade agreements concluded with third countries by new member states prior to their accession to the European Union. The lead Department is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment but the matter also concerns the Department of Foreign Affairs. Eight of the acceding countries — the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovenia — requested the prolongation of certain agreements. The European Commission indicated it approved the prolongation of 17 such agreements. This proposal seeks approval for the 17 agreements to remain in force until 30 April 2005 when approval will be sought for agreements concerning the 25 member states. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

As agreed, item 5.9 will be taken as item 6.4, an adopted item. COM (2004) 724 is a proposal for a Council regulation on electronic recording and reporting of fishing activities and means of remote sensing. The lead Department is the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. The aim of this proposal is to strengthen control and enforcement in the context of the Common Fisheries Policy through the use of modern technologies. The European Commission memorandum outlines that the essential information on catches on board, species and time spent at sea is collected by the masters of the fishing vessels by recording it with a pen on paperbound log books. The same procedure is used when catches are transhipped, landed, transported or sold. This is, according to the Commission, a process that is slow, costly and conducive to mistakes.

The adoption of this proposal will see the masters of Community fishing vessels being required to record by electronic means information relating to fishing activity. This will also apply to declarations of catches landed. In addition, member states will be required to establish systems to enable the information to be forwarded to the Commission electronically. The Commission goes on to outline that the information provided could be cross-checked with information available from relevant remotely sensed images sent to earth by satellite, as an extra monitoring tool in regard to the activities of vessels.

In its note the Department indicates that it broadly welcomes the proposed measure but considers that the European Commission should await the examination of the results of related pilot projects. The Department also outlines that it is examining the proposal from an administrative and technical perspective. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny but that the Department should be requested to inform the committee of the conclusions of its examination process. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2004) 736 is a proposal for Council decisions concerning the signature, provisional application and conclusion of a protocol to the Euro-Med agreement with Tunisia to take account of the recent accession of new member states to the European Union. The lead Department is the Department of Foreign Affairs. This proposal aims to take account of the recent accession of new member states in relation to the Euro-Med agreement with Tunisia. In addition, it makes provision for recent institutional developments within the Union. Other aspects of the protocol relate to duty on imports of untreated olive oil and technical trade matters such as the administration of proofs of origin. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2004) 739 is a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 2007/2000 with regard to exceptional trade measures for the Community's imports of sugar and wine from Albania, Bosnia Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro, including Kosovo. The lead Department is the Department of Agriculture and Food and the other Department involved is the Department of Foreign Affairs. It is proposed in this draft measure that the western Balkans benefit from duty free tariff quotas rather than unlimited access. According to the Commission, this should remove the incentive for a large percentage of domestic sugar production to be exported and replaced by imports from third countries, a practice that could create trade flows for which the third countries could seek compensation as and when the states of the western Balkans join the European Union. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2004) 761 is a proposal for a Council regulation adjusting, with effect from 1 July 2004, the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Communities and the correlation co-efficients applied thereto. The lead Department is the Department of Finance and the other Department is the Department of Foreign Affairs regarding EU institutions. The technical adjustments proposed would result in a salary increase of 0.7% for EU officials for the period 1 July to 31 December 2004. The adjustment is based on exchange rates and economic purchasing power parity movements across the EU and also concerns allowances. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 5.14 is now being taken as item 6.5, which is an adopted proposal. COM (2004) 649 is the proposal concerning the conclusion of the agreement between the Community and the Swiss Confederation in the audio-visual field and the Community's media programmes. The lead Department is the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism. The proposal seeks approval for the definitive conclusion of the agreement with the Swiss Confederation. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny? Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 10215/04 is a proposal for a framework decision on simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities of the member states of the European Union, in particular as regards serious offences, including terrorist acts. The lead Department is the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Revenue Commissioners have an interest. The proposal follows from the March 2004 declaration on combating terrorism and is on the initiative of the Kingdom of Sweden. I understand it aims to respond to the practical difficulties in the timely exchange of information on serious crime and provides that the information may be supplied within 12 hours. The information would be communicated through a number of channels, including those established in the context of the Europol Convention. On the basis of aims of the proposal, the Department has indicated that it has no difficulty with it. The Department has, however, indicated that the proposal has yet to be considered in detail and some of the wording is likely to change over time.

Members will have seen that some of the articles in the draft measure are of particular interest. Article 1, inter alia, states that the framework decision does not imply any obligation on the part of the member states to gather and store information and intelligence only for the purpose of providing it to the competent authorities of other member states. This is one article that may require tighter language with respect to the obligations arising from the decision because, I understand, the term “does not imply” is considered to be ambiguous. Central to the proposal is the provision in Article 4 which outlines that: “member states shall ensure that information and intelligence, held by or accessible without the use of coercive means to competent law enforcement agencies” can be provided. It would, therefore, appear to be essential to know the understanding of the term “coercive means”. Article 11 of the proposal provides that the competent law enforcement authorities may refuse in certain circumstances to provide information or intelligence if the provision of the information-intelligence would harm national security, jeopardise the success of an operation or the request is disproportionate.

On the basis of the general aims of the proposal, it is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. However, it is additionally proposed that the Department be requested to update the committee on major developments in regard to this proposal, in particular with respect to the term "coercive means" in Article 4 and in regard to its consultation process on the proposal, including in regard to data protection issues. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 5.17 will now be taken as item 6.6, an adopted proposal. Items 5.15 to 5.24 are in the second bundle. Please note that item 5.17 will now be taken as item 6.6 as adopted.

COM (2004) 699 is a proposal for a Council regulation applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences. The lead Department is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and other Departments include the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Agriculture and Food, the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Revenue Commissioners.

The Department's note clearly emphasises the point that effective trade preference arrangements can provide a stepping stone to help developing countries benefit in the long term from broad trade liberalisation measures. This proposal seeks to build on existing trade arrangements through widening the scope of the products included, merging the social and environmental dimensions and providing greater clarity on the graduation out of the preference regime. The Department also indicates that it, and the interdepartmental committee established to consider this matter, have fully supported the thrust of the proposed new scheme. Its consideration of particular aspects of the proposal is, however, continuing. It is proposed that the proposal does not currently warrant further scrutiny. However, it is also proposed that the Department may be requested to provide the committee with an outline on the outcome of the deliberations of the interdepartmental committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2004) 754 is a proposal for Council decisions on the signature, provisional application and conclusion of a protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement between the European Communities and their member states, of the one part, and the state of Israel, on the other part. The lead Department is the Department of Agriculture and Food and the other Department is the Department of Foreign Affairs. Like the proposal relating to Tunisia, COM (2004) 736, this proposed measure in regard to Israel aims to take account in the Euro-Med Agreement of the recent accession of the new member states. In addition, it makes provision for recent institutional developments within the European Union. Other aspects of the protocol relate to duty on imports of a range of agricultural products and technical trade matters such as the administration of proofs of origin. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

As a division has been called in the Dáil, we will suspend the sitting for a short time.

Sitting suspended at 10.50 a.m. and resumed at 11.30 a.m.

Chairman

Item 5.20, COM (2004) 762, is a proposal for a Council decision to provide for an increase in the tariff-free quota of wine that may be imported into the European Union from Bulgaria and Romania. The Department indicates there are no implications for Ireland in the adoption of the proposed measure. The lead Department is the Department of Agriculture and Food while the Department of Foreign Affairs has an interest. Is COM (2004) 762 agreed? Agreed.

Item 5.21, COM (2004) 782, is a proposal for a Council decision on the appointment of the special co-ordinator for the stability pact for south-eastern Europe. This proposal from the European Commission seeks approval for the reappointment of Dr. Erhard Busek as special co-ordinator for an additional year, from January to December 2005. The stability pact is a regional policy framework established in 1999 to support countries in the region to foster democracy, respect for human rights and economic prosperity. It is proposed the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 5.22, COM (2004) 806, is a proposal for a Council decision modifying Council decision (2003) 631-EC of 25 August 2003 adopting measures concerning Liberia under Article 96 of the ACP-EC partnership agreement in a case of special emergency. The lead Department is the Department of Foreign Affairs. The European Commission's supporting documentation outlines that the security situation in Liberia has improved since August 2003. A contributory factor to this improvement is the deployment of UNIMIL forces. In addition, I understand the Council adopted Council decision (2003) 631-EC that approved assistance to Liberia in certain circumstances. The restrictions on the provision on assistance followed from the security situation at the time.

I also understand the European Commission's memorandum notes that, while the security situation has improved, there is serious concern with regard to the management of the public finances and the increasing level of corruption in Liberia. The Commission, therefore, proposes that the assistance provided for Liberia should continue to be restricted to certain types of projects such as humanitarian projects and those assisting the authorities in fulfilling undertakings given. The current provision will expire on 31 December 2004 and the Department has indicated the proposed measure may be discussed and/or adopted at the Council on 22 December. It is proposed, therefore, that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 5.23, COM (2004) 737, is a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the compulsory licensing of patents relating to the manufacture of pharmaceutical products for export to countries with public health problems. The lead Department is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. This proposal follows from an agreement at the WTO on the export of medicines to, among others, the least developed countries. I understand its adoption would permit generic producers to ultimately seek a compulsory licence to export a pharmaceutical product. However, the generic producer would first seek approval from the patent holder. I also understand the holder of a patent in Ireland could seek to appeal the decision to grant a compulsory licence in the High Court. The Department's note also outlines that the adoption of the measure would contribute to the Government's programme of assistance to developing countries to combat HIV-AIDS, malaria and other diseases.

The Department's consultation process on the proposal has not yet concluded. It is proposed, therefore, that it does not warrant further scrutiny and that the Department be requested to inform the committee of the conclusions of its consultation process with interested parties.

Deputy Mulcahy

There is a large biotechnology industry here. The note refers to a consultation process. Will all pharmaceutical companies in Ireland be consulted as the process develops?

Chairman

I understand the representative body has been consulted by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. If the Deputy needs it, we will get a list of those consulted.

Deputy Mulcahy

Should we not send it on? I imagine this will have a major impact on pharmaceutical companies because it will affect their income stream. They always say that ultimately this affects their ability to fund research. We should also keep the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business informed.

Chairman

We could seek additional information from the Department.

Deputy Mulcahy

We should also refer it to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business.

Chairman

We will do so. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 5.24, COM (2004) 672, is a proposal for a Council decision on the accession of the Community to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Regulation No. 94 on provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the protection of the occupants in the event of a frontal collision and Regulation No. 95 on provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the protection of the occupants in the event of a lateral collision. The lead Department is the Department of Transport.

The European Commission's memorandum sets out that when the European Community became a contracting party to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe's 1958 agreement, it did not accede to certain regulations as they differed from the requirements of the Community at the time. Since then Regulations Nos. 94 and 95 have been amended. These regulations contain technical specifications relating to frontal impact tests on vehicles and frontal impact collisions. This proposal seeks approval for the Community to accede to the amended UNECE regulations. The Department's note indicates that it supports the Commission's proposal. It is proposed, therefore, that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Sexton

On the implications for Ireland, the document just states Ireland supports the proposal. As in the case of others, it does not indicate what the implications are. Could we ask the Department to outline the implications for us, not just state it supports the proposal?

Chairman

Yes. COM (2004) 771 is a proposal for a Council regulation to lay down the weightings applicable from 1 July 2004 to the remuneration of officials, contract staff and temporary staff of the European Communities serving in third countries and of certain officials remaining in post in the ten new member states for a maximum period of 15 months after accession. The lead Department is the Department of Finance and the other Department involved is the Department of Foreign Affairs. The proposal seeks approval for the weightings used to calculate the salaries payable to officials posted outside the EU. It relates also to officials in the ten new member states due to a provision in the accession treaty that applies for 15 months following accession. According to the Department's note, approval of the measure will result in savings of €141,755.08 to the EU budget. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

There are six adopted measures to consider. These are items Nos. 6.1 to 6.6, inclusive, on the agenda. Item No. 6.1 is COM (2004) 646, which is a proposal on the signature of the agreement between the Community and the Swiss Confederation in the audio-visual field and on the Community's MEDIA programmes. The lead Department is the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism. No other Department is involved. At recent meetings, the sub-committee has considered a number of proposals on Swiss participation in EU programmes. The proposed measures and agreement follow the rejection by referendum of Switzerland's participation in the EEA agreement.

Founded on shared interests and a pro rata contribution in 2005-06, the measure provides for Swiss participation in the EU’s audio-visual programmes. Switzerland’s participation is based on the same conditions applying to member states. On 25 October, the Council adopted the measure, which concerns approval for signing the agreement with Switzerland. The Department has outlined in an additional note that while the proposal to approve the signature of the proposal was adopted within a very short period, the related proposal to conclude the agreement — COM (2004) 649 — remains to be considered by the Council. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2004) 758 is a proposal for a Council regulation fixing for the 2005 fishing year the guide prices and Community producer prices for certain fishery products pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 104/2000. The lead Department is the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. No other Department is involved.

The measure, which was adopted by the Council on 6 December, sets the guide price for certain fishery products for the year 2005. The prices are set for species such as herring, mackerel and halibut. The Department has been asked to outline the changes in prices that would have the greatest impact for Ireland and this information will be circulated when it is received. The Department has outlined in an additional note the circumstances surrounding adoption of the measure prior to scrutiny within the Oireachtas. The measure was adopted as a matter of urgency on 6 December 2004 to facilitate the implementation of the guide prices from 15 January 2005. It is proposed to note the measure and to forward it to the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and natural Resources for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2004) 765 is a proposal for a Council regulation extending the suspension of the anti-dumping duty imposed by Council decision No. 2730120001 ECSC on imports of coke of coal in pieces with a diameter of more than 80 mm originating in the People's Republic of China. The lead Department is the Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment. The measure was agreed by Council on 7 December. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Members should note that item No. 6.4 was previously number No. 5.9. The item is COM (2004) 713, a proposal for a Council regulation amending Council Regulations (EEC) No. 3030/93 and EC No. 3285/94 on the common rules for imports of certain textile products from third countries. The lead Department in this instance is the Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment and no other Department is involved. The Council adopted the proposal just last Monday.

I consider the proposal to touch on issues that may be of special interest to certain parts of Ireland with a high concentration of textile establishments. Following circulation of advice, the Department has confirmed that it has had ongoing contacts on the measure with Enterprise Ireland and that informal consultation with IBEC has taken place. Members will be aware from the material circulated that the measure follows the World Trade Organisation Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, or ATC, which entered into force on 1 January 1995. The agreement established a transitional regime for textiles and clothing products until their integration into GATT rules expires on 31 December 2004. From 1 January 2005, trade in textiles and clothing products will, therefore, be subject to GATT rules and disciplines. Consequently, all quantitative and other restrictions provided for under European law are required to be terminated in respect of other WTO members from that date. Special protective measures on imports from the People's Republic of China will be permissible until 2008 in accordance with the protocol on its accession to the WTO.

Notwithstanding preparations for removal of existing protective trade measures, adoption of the proposal will have implications for a sector facing particular challenges. These challenges have impacted across Europe and the sector in Ireland has seen major structural changes. As the textile sector faces significant challenges in Ireland and across the EU, it is proposed to forward the proposal and a copy of the related communication to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business for information. The documents may be of particular interest in the context of the committee's expressed interest in the sector. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Members should note that item No. 6.5 was previously item No. 5.14. The item is SEC (2004) 15511/04 FIN 567 (Council Number), which is a proposal to use the flexibility mechanism to fund the PEACE II programme, decentralised agencies and external aid to Iraq. The lead Department is the Department of Finance and no other Department is involved. I understand the General Affairs and External Relations Council adopted the measure on Monday last. Since 1995, the PEACE programme has had a strategic aim to reinforce progress towards a peaceful and stable society and promote reconciliation. The work undertaken as a result of the support of the PEACE programme was the subject of a recent meeting of the Joint Committee on European Affairs. At its last meeting the sub-committee considered a package of proposals on the proposed extension of EU support. COM (2004) 631, COM (2004) 666 and SEC 1235 apply.

The Commission seeks to extend the PEACE II programme through COM (2004) 631 for the further two years, 2005 and 2006. The measure adopted by the Council approves the agreement between the Council and the European Parliament to allocate assistance to the PEACE II programme through the redeployment of €5 million and the use of the flexibility instrument to establish a €45 million provision. In addition, the Department indicates that Britain will reallocate €10 million resulting in a total provision of €60 million to the PEACE II programme for 2005. The Department has also indicated that €48 million will be available to the programme for 2006 while the Commission is committed to examining the scope for an increased allocation of €16 million.

It is proposed to note the measure and to forward it to the Joint Committee on European Affairs and the Joint Committee on Finance for information. It is also proposed to ask the Department to keep the sub-committee informed of any significant additional development in the programme for 2006. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I ask members to note that the next item was originally item No. 5.17. So we are on to 66COM (2004) 673, a proposal for a Council decision on a Community position within the European Union-Mexico Joint Council concerning the amendment to the Joint Council Decision 2/2001. The lead Department is the Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment. The Department indicates in its information note that its consultation process on the likely implications for Ireland of the adoption of the measure has resulted in no difficulties being reported to it. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The minutes of the meeting of 25 November 2004 have been circulated. Are they agreed? Agreed. I propose to defer consideration of reports of previous meetings to the next meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed. Members have received copies of correspondence. Are there any questions?

Deputy Mulcahy

We have received a letter from an Irish MEP complaining that the meetings of the sub-committee clash with sessions of the European Parliament. The sub-committee must order its business and cannot, therefore, resolve the problem but the MEP makes an interesting point. We must examine more sophisticated ways to stay in touch with our MEPs because it would be helpful if they were keyed in to our discussions and debates. One of the options we could consider, subject to the availability of facilities, costs and so forth, is to create an audio-visual link with MEPs, provided they can arrange a room in Brussels or Strasbourg at a specific time. Two-way video conferencing should be easy to arrange. The sub-committee should use our MEPs as a resource and they should also be aware of the work of the sub-committee. The issue needs to be examined.

Chairman

I am informed that Irish MEPs are provided with a list of agenda items and are given an opportunity to present their views to the sub-committee if they so wish.

Deputy Mulcahy

We should explore other approaches.

Chairman

We will discuss the matter with our information technology staff. Are there any other questions on correspondence?

Deputy Mulcahy

No.

Chairman

Is it agreed to adjourn sine die? Agreed. I thank members for the volume of work they have done this morning. I wish everyone a happy Christmas and thank you all for your co-operation.

Deputy Mulcahy

Happy Christmas to all the staff.

The sub-committee adjourned at 11.55 a.m. sine die.