JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny) díospóireacht -
Thursday, 27 Jan 2005

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Acting Chairman (Senator Bradford)

We will deal first with proposals warranting further scrutiny. These are items Nos. 1.1 to 1.4.

No. 1.1 is COM (2004) 629, a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and Council establishing a financing instrument for development and economic co-operation. Consideration of this proposal was deferred from the previous meeting of the sub-committee. We had determined at that stage that additional information was required on a number of aspects surrounding the proposal and a prospective proposal concerning a further European development fund, EDF. The Department has provided responses to a number of the particular questions raised, and these are contained in the attached note. This note indicates that a number of issues, particularly those related to the next financial perspective, remain to be resolved.

The Department has also confirmed that agreement has, to date, not been reached on a proposal for a further EDF and the Commission has decided to produce a communication to the Council on a multi-annual financial framework for development finance co-operation under the ACP-EU partnership agreement and to present a proposal for a Council decision fixing the date beyond which the funds of the ninth EDF will no longer be committed.

This proposal concerns the establishment of a new structure for external assistance over the period of the next financial perspective, 2007 to 2013. The envisaged budget is very substantial, at just over €44 billion, and the adoption of the proposal would have significance for the future of development assistance. The Department's additional note to the sub-committee expresses a view that the adoption of the proposal could result in a reduction in policy focus away from the current concentration on least developed countries.

The proposed structure would also be based around principles such as respect for fundamental freedoms, the consolidation of national development strategies, the co-ordination of bilateral and multi-lateral aid and the co-ordination of development policies and measures by member states and the Commission.

It is proposed the proposal, which concerns a substantial budget in a policy area of particular interest, be therefore referred to the Joint Committee on European Affairs for scrutiny. It is also proposed that the additional note recently received from the Department be forwarded to the next meeting of the Joint Committee on European Affairs to provide supplementary context to its consideration of the proposed measure. The committee may wish to examine this proposal in conjunction with the next financial perspective and any additional proposal documentation from the Commission concerning the tenth EDF, or effectively an alternative to a further EDF. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Walsh

In general, with regard to the European Union's attitude to least developed countries, it might be a good idea if the committee's policy adviser were to look into what the European Union is doing, as an economic bloc, for least developed countries in terms of trade and imports and exports. The general view is that the European Union is quite an arrogant entity and has little or no time for developing countries, in particular the least developed countries. The facts are a bit different in that the European Union imports quite a substantial amount from developing countries, except arms. However, it is not generally known or well-publicised. For the purposes of a future meeting, we should look into the role of the European Union in its support for developing countries.

Acting Chairman

I take the Deputy's point. The overall impact of EU financial assistance, and other assistance, is not fully recognised. However, would this matter be better debated at the full meeting of the European affairs committee? Perhaps we could advise that committee. We could give a note in advance and pursue the discussion further at that level.

Deputy Walsh

Thank you, Chairman.

Acting Chairman

No. 1.2 is COM (2004) 641, a proposal for a Council regulation laying down implementing measures for Directive 77/388/EEC on the common system of value added tax. Between 1977 and 2003 the VAT committee adopted a number of non-binding guidelines with regard to the application of the sixth Council directive of 17 May 1977. The memorandum to the proposal outlines relate to the definition of a taxable person, the place of supply and the application of transitional provisions. The Commission is seeking through this proposal that the adopted guidelines be given legal force.

The contention of the Commission that legal certainty should be given to the guidelines contains some merit. However, members will have noted that the Department of Finance has confirmed that it views a number of articles in the proposal as going beyond the agreed VAT rules. The articles in question are Article 4.2, which concerns VAT in situations relating to business to business transactions and which overlaps with a proposal specifically attempting to deal with this matter, that is, COM (2003) 833, and Article 21, which relates to the use of statistics. It is proposed that the proposal, particularly in relation to the articles previously highlighted, should be referred for further scrutiny to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 1.3 is COM (2004) 728, a proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 77/388/EEC with a view to simplifying VAT obligations. The proposal is for a Council directive laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax provided for in Directive 77/388/EEC to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country but established in another member state. The proposal is for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 1798/2003 as regards the introduction of an administrative co-operation arrangement in the context of the one-stop scheme and the refund procedure for value added tax.

Setting objectives to simplify, modernise and make more uniform the application of current VAT rules, the Commission's 2003 communication, COM (2003) 614, identified VAT as one of the key areas for future work. However, I understand a range of difficulties arises from the current requirement for business across the EU to register an account for VAT in each of the member states where they trade in goods or services. This proposal from the Commission follows from the 2003 communication and seeks to address these difficulties through the adoption of a package of interrelated measures.

The first element concerns the granting of an option to traders to register for VAT and submit VAT declarations for all EU transactions in the member state where a business is established. Members will also note that another key element of the package is the widening of the range of suppliers that will no longer need to register in the member state of the business customer. It is also proposed, however, that the right of member states to set rules for the recovery of VAT would be abolished through the application of harmonised rules restricting this to a range of limited activities. However, as the Department of Finance underlines in its note, the proposal does offer member states greater flexibility within the proposed harmonised scope than is currently the case with the present EU VAT rules. According to the current proposal, the upper limit for exemption from VAT will be set at €100,000 and I understand this could have budgetary implications in Ireland as the limits are currently set here at between €25,000 to €51,000.

In addition, there is what the Department describes as a "technical modification" proposed to the procedures on administrative co-operation that defines the scope of the information that should be exchanged and sets time lines for the exchange of this information. The timely exchange of information, according to the proposal, will require the establishment of an electronic system of communication among the authorities of the member states.

It is proposed that the proposal be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service for further scrutiny, particularly in regard to the proposed changes to the scope of the rules for recovery of VAT and the upper limits concerning exemption from VAT. Other elements of the package offer the potential to reduce the administrative burden on business and it is therefore also proposed that the proposal should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business for its information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The final note for referral is No. 1.4, an initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium with a view to the adoption by the Council of a framework decision on the recognition and enforcement in the European Union of prohibitions arising from convictions for sexual offences committed against children. The committee, at its meeting on 16 December last year, considered a proposal, COM (2004) 664, relating to improving the procedures whereby member states would exchange information extracted from criminal records. The Commission had proposed, through COM (2004) 664, that member states should share information on criminal records concerning their nationals more speedily and that they do this through a central processing authority. These actions would also build on the related Council of Europe Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters 1959 which, inter alia, states:

Each Contracting Party shall inform any other Party of all criminal convictions and subsequent measures in respect of nationals of the latter Party, entered in the judicial records. Ministries of Justice shall communicate such information to one another at least once a year.

The proposal before us, which is an initiative of Belgium, seeks to build on the Commission's earlier proposal, COM (2004) 664, and would make provision for member states to mutually recognise orders by a judicial or other authority with respect to a prohibition on activities related to the supervision of children. These orders would arise in connection with convictions for offences against children. The prohibition, therefore, would be imposed on the member state in which the person lives. The memorandum to the Belgian proposal strongly argues that the prohibition is generally imposed either because of the gravity of the offence committed or to prevent the commission of further offences by the convicted person. The prohibition, therefore, should be enforceable in the member state of residence of the person. The Department note indicates that it is likely that legislation would be required in Ireland to enforce this measure if it were to be adopted.

We have additional background on the proposal from the Department which states that an appeals system would operate regarding judicial records in Ireland. I understand that in recent days the Department outlined that there is currently no specialised centralised register here that includes prohibitions arising from convictions for sexual offences committed against children. Advice is being sought from the Attorney General's office on a number of other points raised relating to this measure. We propose that, given the gravity of the related issues and the prospect of the adopted measures prompting the requirement for legislation in Ireland, the measure should be referred for further scrutiny to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights.

Deputy Mulcahy

The issue of the extent to which the European Union will get involved in criminal matters is one for debate. So far, by and large, the co-operation has involved cross-border terrorist offences; that is the principal area of co-operation in the criminal area. A strong argument can be made, however, that we do not want a common European criminal code, etc., and this type of measure could introduce such a code through the back door in that if it applies to this offence, why not apply it to other offences? I want to know whether this proposal has been scrutinised properly by the justice committee. Otherwise, I would like to refer it to the constitutional affairs committee or get a legal opinion on it as to whether it would have an impact on the areas I have mentioned.

Acting Chairman

Following the consideration of the measure by the justice committee it will be obliged to report back to us on its deliberations and any recommendations it may make. The matter will come before this committee again.

Deputy Mulcahy

We get those reports in a standard format. I am asking that this be put on the agenda as a specific item with a note from the secretariat.

Acting Chairman

Are you requesting that we formally seek a further debate here once the justice committee has deliberated on the matter?

Deputy Mulcahy

Yes. In addition, we should help the justice committee in its deliberations with a briefing note on whether we intend to adopt a criminal code in Europe.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed. We will refer the matter to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights.

Item No. 2 concerns Title IV measures. There are no Title IV measures received for this meeting. Item No. 3 concerns CFSP measures, which are Nos. 3.1 to 3.4. No. 3.1, CFSP (2004) 792, relates to Council Decision 2004/792/CFSP extending and amending Decision 1999/730/CFSP implementing Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP with a view to a European Union contribution to combating the destabilising accumulation and spread of small arms and light weapons in Cambodia.

The Department of Foreign Affairs's information note outlines that, to date, the EU has assisted in the destruction of almost 95,000 weapons with a further 15,000 to 20,000 expected to be destroyed in the coming year. This measure approves the EU's contribution to the destruction of light weapons in Cambodia for a further year, namely, 2005. The consequences of this for the EU's total budget is approximately €1.3 million. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is 3.2, CFSP (2004) 796, Council Joint Action 2004/796/CFSP of 22 November 2004 for the support of the physical protection of a nuclear site in the Russian Federation. This CFSP measure approves support, including financial support amounting to €7.9 million, to the project tasked with assisting in the physical protection of a nuclear site in the Russian Federation. Additional support would be provided by the Russian Federation and Germany. The support of the project relating to the Russian federal agency for atomic energy follows from the EU strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and, inter alia, aims to assist in reducing the risk of theft of nuclear material. It is proposed to note this measure Is this agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is 3.3, CFSP (2004) 797, Council Joint Action on support for Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, OPCW, activities in the framework of the implication of the EU strategy against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The stated mission of the OPCW is to implement the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention to achieve the OPCW's vision of a world free of chemical weapons and in which co-operation in chemistry for peaceful purposes for all is fostered. The CWC is an international treaty that bans the use of chemical weapons and aims to eliminate chemical weapons everywhere in the world forever. The convention provides the basis for the OPCW to monitor the destruction of existing stocks. Each country that is a member of the OPCW will commit itself, inter alia, never to use chemical weapons. This CFSP measure approves support for the OPCW, including financial support of €1.8 million. It is proposed to note this measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is 3.4, CFSP (2004) 847, Council Joint Action on the European Union Police Mission in Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of the Congo regarding the integrated police unit, EUPOL "KINSHASA". This joint action establishes a European Union Police Mission to monitor, mentor and advise the IPU according to the rules commonly accepted by democratic countries and will build on the training received by members of the unit. The mission is for one year from January to December 2004, and I understand that members of the mission will be drawn from French-speaking states in the European Union. It is proposed to note this measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 4 relates to deferred documents. No items are proposed for deferral at this meeting. Item No. 5 relates to proposals for which no further scrutiny is proposed. These are items 5.1 to 5.24 on the agenda. Item 5.1 is 15205/04, a proposal to amend Council Regulation 1 of 1958, which determines the official and working languages of the European Union, to include the Irish language. The background to this proposal is that the issue of the status of languages in the European Union is a sensitive one, encompassing cultural, political and administrative matters. In December 2004, Spain proposed to other member states that languages recognised as official in its national constitution should be afforded official recognition within the European Union. The languages concerned in Spain are Basque, Galician and Catalan.

As members will be aware, Ireland requested in November to December 2004, in accordance with Council Regulation 1 of 1958, that Irish should be recognised as an official and working language of the European Union. This would remedy the anomaly whereby it is the only treaty language not an official and working language of the European Union.

These two proposals relating in different ways to the language regime will be the subject of further examination by the permanent representatives committee. This examination may be problematic during the Luxembourg Presidency of the European Union as the national language of Luxembourg, Letzeburgesh, is neither a treaty language nor an official-working language of the European Union. An additional dimension to this issue is the referendum in Spain in February on the constitutional treaty, which provides that member states may deposit in the archives of the Council a copy of the treaty in their official languages.

The request from Ireland relates to having official and working language status in the European Union accorded to our language. Currently, the Irish language has the status of a treaty language and this derives from the fact that in the European Union treaties Irish is listed as one of the languages in which the text is authentic. As members may be aware, this means that each successive treaty is published in Irish as well as in the 20 official and working languages, with the texts in Irish being equally authentic and having equal status with those in all other languages. The decision to table the formal request follows the Government's decision in July to initiate a process of discussions with the other EU member states and EU institutions in this regard. The proposal is to amend Regulation 1 of 1958. As members will be aware, any amendment of this regulation requires the unanimous approval of other member states. The Department's view that the adoption of the proposal would be of major significance reflects the importance of this issue. The adoption of the proposal would have a significance beyond the tangible impact of the availability of legal texts in the Irish language.

Given the background outlined, it is most likely that additional developments in regard to the request from Ireland will not occur in the short term. It is, therefore, proposed that this measure should be forwarded at this stage for information to the Committee on European Affairs and the Committee on Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. Additionally, it is proposed that the Department should be requested to keep the committee informed of each significant development in regard to the request which has widespread support in Ireland. The sub-committee may consider that we should write to the Department expressing support for the request to afford Irish an official working language status. Is this approach agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is 5.2, COM (2004) 627, a proposal for a Council Regulation establishing an instrument for pre-accession assistance. It is proposed that the proposal does not require further scrutiny, but that the proposed measure should be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on European Affairs for information in the context of its consideration of the next financial perspective of the EU from 2007 to 2013. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is 5.3, COM (2004) 628, a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down general provisions establishing a European neighbourhood and partnership instrument. The proposed new ENPI instrument is the subject of this proposal and it would essentially relate to Russia, Ukraine and neighbouring countries. The adoption of the proposal would see ENPI replacing the existing EU instruments of support to these countries. This is a proposal of major significance but again, as members may note, it is one that the Department's note confirms has been met with broad satisfaction by the member states, including Ireland. It is therefore proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny but that it should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on European Affairs for information in the context of its consideration of the next financial perspective of the EU. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next measure is 5.4, COM (2004) 630, a proposal for a regulation of the Council establishing an instrument for stability. The proposed new instrument for stability, which is the subject of this proposal, would essentially be designed to provide a framework for responses to instability and crises in third countries and for longer-term challenges related to security and stability considerations. The instrument would also provide funding for the EU's activities in conflict prevention and crisis management. This is a proposal of major significance but one that the Department confirms has been met with broad satisfaction by member states, including Ireland. The proposal relating to an instrument for pre-accession assistance and a European neighbourhood and partnership instrument are associated with this proposal. It is therefore suggested that the proposal does not require further scrutiny but that the proposed measure should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on European Affairs for information in the context of its consideration of the next financial perspective of the EU. Is that agreed?

Deputy Mulcahy

Is there an argument for forwarding this proposed measure to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs? It would impinge on countries adjacent to Europe and has security implications. Unless there is a negative reason for doing so, we should forward it for consideration to that committee.

Acting Chairman

It is essentially connected to the future financial perspectives of the EU and the Committee on European Affairs will examine that issue. It could be referred for observation or information to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, if the Deputy wishes. Is that what he proposes?

Deputy Mulcahy

Yes.

Acting Chairman

That is agreed. The next document, item 5.5, is a White Paper on the review of regulations, 4056/86, applying the EC competition rules to maritime transport. It is proposed that the paper be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources for information. It is also proposed that the additional information, when we receive it from the Department, be forwarded to that committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 5.6 is COM (2004) 602, a proposal for a Council decision concerning the conclusion of an EU-Switzerland agreement on trade in processed agricultural products. It is proposed that the proposal which concerns the conclusion of a trade agreement with Switzerland that would liberalise trade does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 5.7 is COM (2004) 708, a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council laying down rules on nominal quantities of pre-packed products, repealing Council Directives 75/106/EEC and 80/232/EEC and amending Directive 76/211/EEC. Previously deferred for further consideration, this proposal seeks to amend the current EU legislation that provides for mandatory and optional packaging sizes for consumer products.

The starting point of the proposal is the European Commission's understanding that member states must accept in their markets products legally produced and marketed in another member state. The Commission contends that the liberalisation of sizes promotes competitiveness because it encourages entrepreneurship and innovation and facilitates access to markets. The additional information provided by the Department following the presentation of the original note to the Oireachtas indicates that the existing EU legislation based rules concern a wide range of products such as tea, fresh milk and vegetable oils and that the proposed legislation is more consumer orientated than the current rules on package size.

The adoption of the proposal could have implications for blind or visually impaired consumers. It is, therefore, appropriate that the lead Department is consulting the National Council for the Blind and the National Council for the Blind of Ireland on the matter. The full list of those the Department has indicated it has contacted is included in the additional materials which members have received. I propose that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny and that the measure, with the additional information supplied, be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business.

Deputy Mulcahy

This is more meddling. It is telling producers they must place certain goods on the market in certain sizes, volumes, packages and measures. It is dressed up in the usual euro-speak of ensuring fair competition but basically it is meddling. I do not know anything about the case taken to the European Court but this is more rules and regulations for small business. This should be questioned under the subsidiarity rules. Surely member states can decide for themselves. Are we still allowed to have a pint of milk or a gallon of petrol or must everything be in litres and so forth? It should be sent to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business, not for information but for scrutiny. We should also get a legal opinion regarding the ultra vires or subsidiarity principle.

Acting Chairman

I note the Deputy's point but certain rules and regulations concerning size and packaging are already in place. The proposal before the committee will provide for liberalisation in respect of sizes. The European Commission contends that such liberalisation will promote competitiveness and encourage entrepreneurship.

Deputy Mulcahy

I appear to have misinterpreted it.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy cannot be blamed for that. Is it agreed that it be sent to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business? Agreed. We miss Deputy Eoin Ryan at these meetings. His shopkeeping expertise would be helpful.

Item No. 5.8 is COM (2004) 731, 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, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Members will recall that consideration of this amended text was deferred at the previous meeting of the sub-committee to permit additional time to cover the significant changes to the original text, COM (2003) 770. 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, for example, to the role of the European Commission regarding approval for exports.

Some of the significant amendments to the current proposal are: the redrafting of the text to make it more explicit that the equipment should not be exported to law enforcement authorities of countries that have not abolished the death penalty; the addition of a draft common authorisation form to the annex; and the decision-making process regarding authorisation for export remains with the member states. In addition, clarity is provided relating to the circumstances under which a museum would receive certain equipment for display purposes, that is, it must be demonstrated to the export authority that equipment would only be used for display purposes.

It is understood that some of the language in the text might need to be amended further to help ensure legitimate goods are not inadvertently covered by the ban. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has indicated that the proposal is not likely to be adopted in the near future. It is, therefore, proposed that the proposal, as drafted, does not require further scrutiny but that the Department be requested to inform the committee of significant developments on the proposed measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 5.9 is COM (2003) 764, a proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion by the European Community of the agreement on the international dolphin conservation programme. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 5.10 is COM (2004) 772, a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 1868/94 establishing a quota system in the production of potato starch. The Department has indicated that the adoption of the proposal would have no implications for Ireland as Ireland is not a commercial producer of potato starch and does not have a quota under the system concerned by the proposal. It is, therefore, proposed that the proposal which relates to a roll-over of the existing quotas for potato starch for a further two years does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 5.11 is COM (2004) 775, a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council amending Regulation (EC) No. 999/2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. 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.

Deputy Walsh

This is a serious matter. According to the Department's note, the adoption of the proposal would not have any major implications but would it have minor or intermediate type implications? This is a life and death matter. BSE has implications for human life in that it does lead, in some cases, to variant Creutzfeldt Jakob disease. There have been fatalities as a result. Ireland has a high food safety status and its reputation internationally is high. We should ensure we are kept fully informed of amendments. While Ireland has a high standard, a substantial amount of food is imported into this country and we are not certain if the same comprehensive controls apply to other countries.

The information note states the lead Department is the Department of Agriculture and Food and that it relates to no other Departments. However, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland should have a role in this matter. We should forward this proposal to it. BSE, CJD and vCJD constitute extremely sensitive matters. We need to keep up to speed with them.

Acting Chairman

I take the Deputy's point. We will obviously be submitting it to the Committee on Agriculture and Food for information and some of those points may be taken up. However, we can inquire of the Department of Agriculture and Food as to what dialogue it has had with which agencies. If the Deputy is concerned that the Food Safety Authority of Ireland be kept informed and briefed we can make inquiries in that regard. I expect that the Department of Agriculture and Food would have been in contact with the food safety people on this issue but we will certainly pursue that angle as well. In addition, the matter is going to the Committee on Agriculture and Food for information and can be taken up further at that point.

Deputy Mulcahy

If it is only going for information the reality is that it will be lost. These things have to be sent for scrutiny, so I would change that wording to "for scrutiny", rather than "for information".

Deputy Walsh

It is a very important matter. We go to considerable lengths to ensure the safety of food. It is quite difficult to get the traditional T-bone steak here, for example, because we want to ensure that people get safe food. There are amendments to the regulations in the EU and we want to ensure that food safety is the top priority. The FSAI was specifically established to ensure that consumers had safe food to eat. If there are amendments to any regulations in Europe which would in any way impair the safety of our food, the FSAI should be aware of such changes.

Acting Chairman

Would members be satisfied if, rather than sending the matter for further scrutiny, we made inquiries through the Department to see exactly what discussions have taken place? We could then leave this matter on the agenda and come back to it at the next meeting, at which stage we could decide how to pursue it further. We will not send it to the Committee on Agriculture and Food for information, therefore, at present. We will adjourn the matter and in the interim will seek further information and clarification from the lead Department as to what interaction there has been to date. Is that agreed?

Deputy Walsh

Yes.

Acting Chairman

No. 5.12, COM (2004) 783, is a proposal for a Council regulation amending the amending regulation EC No. 2287-2003, which concerns fishing opportunities for Norway lobster in the North Sea. It is proposed that the proposal which concerns an upward revision in the total allowable catch of certain fish in the North Sea does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.13, COM (2004) 797, a proposal for a Council regulation amending regulation EC No. 2287-2003, concerns fishing opportunities for herring in the Baltic Sea. The Department's note indicates that Ireland does not have a quota for Baltic Sea herring and that, consequently, the adoption of the proposal would have no direct implications for Ireland. It is proposed that the proposal, which relates to an increase in fishing possibilities for herring in the area of the Baltic Sea, does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.14, COM (2004) 804, is a proposal for a Council decision concluding consultations with Guinea under Article 96 of the Cotonou agreement. It is proposed that this proposal, which relates to the conclusion of discussions with Guinea concerning, inter alia, human rights and approval for targeted development aid, does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.15, COM (2004) 827, is a proposal for a Council regulation amending the lists of insolvency proceedings and liquidators in annexes A, B and C to regulation EC No. 1346/2000, on insolvency proceedings. It is proposed that this technical proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.16, COM (2004) 829, is a proposal for Council decisions on the signature and provisional application in conclusion of the agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Chile on certain aspects of air services. We are advised in the Department's note that the adoption of the proposal would have no direct implications for Ireland as there is neither a national air transport agreement with Chile nor a direct air service between Ireland and Chile. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.17 is a proposal for a regulation amending regulation EC No. 1408-71 on the application of social security schemes to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, and regulation EC No. 574-72 laying down the procedure for implementing regulation EC No. 1408-71. This amending proposal seeks, inter alia, to take account of bilateral agreements between the EU 15 and the post-1 May 2004 member states. It also seeks to extend and simplify the administrative measures in place through regulation EC 631-2004 to cover benefits arising from accidents at work and occupational diseases. The Department has, I understand, confirmed — following a request for further clarification regarding the implications for Ireland of the proposed measure — that it understands that none of the proposed amendments relates to Ireland and, therefore, does not directly affect Ireland. The proposed simplified administrative procedure would, however, have an impact for those seeking benefits in Ireland and across the EU. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny but that the proposal, and any additional material requested and received from the Department, should be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Health and Children which scrutinised the original proposal on this matter in May 2004. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.18, COM (2004) 798, is a proposal for a Council decision approving the accession to the European Community to the international convention for the protection of new varieties of plants, as revised at Geneva on 19 March 1991. Through this proposal, the Commission is seeking approval for the EU to accede to this convention. The budgetary implications of this proposal are relatively minimal at €172,000. Ireland has already acceded to the convention and it is, therefore, most unlikely that the adoption of the measure will have any major implications for Ireland. It may, however, require some modification to Ireland's instrument of ratification and the Department has sought legal advice on the matter. It is proposed, however, that the matter does not warrant further scrutiny. It is also proposed that the Department be contacted to request that it inform the sub-committee of the legal advice received and the possible need to amend Ireland's instrument of ratification. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.19, COM (2004) 842, is a Council regulation imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire. The restrictive measures include the freezing of funds and resources of persons designated by the United Nations as constituting a threat to the peace and national reconciliation process in Côte d'Ivoire. The usual provision for particular needs is made in the proposed EU measure that would implement the UNSC resolution. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.20, COM (2004) 844, is a Council regulation imposing restrictions on the supply of assistance, related to military activities, to Côte d'Ivoire. The restrictive measure relates to a prohibition on the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to Côte d'Ivoire of arms and related materials. The UN operation there, and the French forces in support of the UN operation, are exempt from the restriction. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Mulcahy

I am sorry to interrupt you, Chairman. Are you on No. 5.21 now?

Acting Chairman

To conclude on No. 5.20, I wish to advise that we had agreed that it does not warrant further scrutiny. However, the Department has indicated that the proposed measure may be adopted early this week. I was just about to move on to No. 5.21.

Deputy Mulcahy

Nos. 5.21 to 5.24, inclusive, concern joint action plans between the EU and Morocco, the Palestinian Authority, Israel and Jordan.

Acting Chairman

Yes.

Deputy Mulcahy

These should be scrutinised by the Joint Committee on European Affairs and the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs which is visiting Palestine and Israel this very week. The question of whether or not these action plans should be taking place with these countries, some of which are in violation of UN resolutions, is quite a hot topic. I am confident that both committees would like to scrutinise these issues.

Acting Chairman

It is an EU proposal. Is the Deputy of the opinion that the Joint Committee on European Affairs should——

Deputy Mulcahy

I am of the view that both should be involved because Israel is not part of the European Union.

Acting Chairman

Some of these points have already been raised at meetings of the Joint Committee on European Affairs.

Deputy Mulcahy

I accept that but the Middle East is really a topic for the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. The point is that they are linked.

Acting Chairman

I appreciate that the four proposals are linked. Does the Deputy wish to have them referred to both committees?

Deputy Mulcahy

Yes.

Acting Chairman

The position is that the sub-committee is entitled to send a proposal to one committee for scrutiny. However, it could be sent to other committees for information. A member of the committee which receives the note for information could pursue it further at a meeting of the said committee. We are constrained in that we can only submit it to one of the committees for scrutiny.

Deputy Mulcahy

I respectfully suggest that the proposals are more appropriate to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs than to the Joint Committee on European Affairs.

Acting Chairman

Is the Deputy proposing that they be referred to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs for further scrutiny?

Deputy Mulcahy

Yes and that they be sent to the Joint Committee on European Affairs to be noted for information.

Acting Chairman

Is it agreed to refer COM (2004) 78, COM (2004) 79, COM (2004) 790, COM (2004) 796 to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs for further scrutiny and to the Joint Committee on European Affairs for information? Agreed.

Item 6 relates to adopted measures, the first of which is COM (2004) 746, a proposal for a Council regulation fixing for 2005 and 2006 the fishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels for certain deep sea fish stocks and amending Council Regulation (EC) No. 2347/2002. The pre-Christmas negotiation of future fishing opportunities is effectively an annual event. It is, therefore, also proposed that the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources be requested to endeavour to arrange for the information notes on such proposals to arrive before the package is almost agreed. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The second document is COM (2004) 670, a proposal for a Council decision concerning the accession by the Republic of Moldova to the agreement establishing a science and technology centre in the Ukraine on 25 October 1993 between Canada, Sweden, the Ukraine and the USA. According to the Commission's memorandum, the centre has its own legal capacity and has as an objective the giving of opportunities to weapons scientists and engineers to redirect their talents to peaceful activities. The Department has outlined that the delay in submitting its note arose from an extended interdepartmental review. The proposal was also adopted relatively quickly due, according to the Department, to the absence of controversy within the Council with respect of the matter. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 7 is the minutes of the previous meeting. The minutes of the meeting of 16 December 2004 have been circulated. Are they agreed? Agreed.

Item 8 is reports of previous meetings. The draft 34th and 35th reports of the sub-committee have been circulated. I propose that the reports, including their appendices, be laid before both Houses. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 9 is correspondence. We received a letter dated 16 December 2004 from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform arising from our queries in respect of COM (2004) 593 and COM (2004) 594. In both cases the Attorney General has confirmed that Ireland has opted in to the principal instruments from which these agreements flow and that there is no requirement on the country to exercise any further option regarding them. It is proposed to note the contents of the letter. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We also received a letter dated 21 December 2004 from the Department of Foreign Affairs in response to a query on COM (2004) 621 regarding the use of driving licences as a form of identity for EU travel purposes. It is proposed to note the contents of the letter. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Before we conclude, I apologise on behalf of the Chairman, Deputy Allen, who is a member of the delegation currently visiting Palestine and Israel. I have also received apologies from Deputy Sexton and Senator Dardis.

I propose that our next meeting be held on Thursday, 17 February 2005 at 9.30 a.m. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The sub-committee adjourned at 10.30 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 17 February 2005.