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

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Sexton)

The sub-committee is now in public session. The following proposals are proposed for further scrutiny — Nos. 1.1 to 1.3.

No. 1.1 is COM (2005) 222, proposal for a Council decision concerning the negotiation of the accession of the European Atomic Energy Community, EURATOM, to an international framework agreement among the members of the Generation IV International Forum in the field of nuclear related research.

Generation IV project is, as set out in the Department's note, a US Department of Energy initiative. Generation IV refers to the next generation of systems for producing nuclear energy beyond the year 2030. The Commission's memorandum outlines that several other states participate in the project, including Britain, France and Switzerland. The participating states signed a framework agreement outlining the areas of co-operation in a range of nuclear research projects. The memorandum indicates that research would be targeted at developing a nuclear energy system that could be licensed, constructed and operated in a manner that will provide a competitively priced and reliable supply of energy to the countries concerned. The agreement also contends that the research will be conducted "only for peaceful purposes and in accordance with non-proliferation objectives".

The Commission determined in 2002 that the EURATOM should adhere to the framework agreement and indicates that a number of member states strongly support this as it would permit them to participate in the research activities of the initiative.

The Department indicates in its note that this proposal is linked to the proposal concerning the nuclear elements of the seventh framework research programme. That proposal, COM (2005) 119, was referred to the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government at the EU scrutiny sub-committee meeting on 2 June 2005. Earlier this month, the Committee on the Environment and Local Government agreed to scrutinise it in due course. The Department outlines that it proposes the apparent linkage and to double the level of EU support for this type of research. The Department also indicates that Ireland, along with Germany, Austria and Denmark, opposes the current proposal but that there are not sufficient votes within the Council to block its adoption. It is proposed that the proposal be referred for further scrutiny to the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 1.2 is COM (2005) 246, a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council amending directive 2003/88/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time.

At the meeting of 16 December 2004, the committee considered COM (2005) 607 which sought to amend Directive 2003/88/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time. The working time directive aims to protect the health and safety of workers by laying down minimum periods in respect of daily and weekly rest and annual leave periods. The proposal was referred to the Joint Committee on Health and Children because it was seen that the proposed changes would directly impact on the health sector. It was also forwarded to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business.

Following its consideration of COM (2005) 607 in February 2005, the Joint Committee on Health and Children made a number of recommendations, including: that the proposed working time directive should be implemented in this country as quickly as possible; that it should also be made applicable to general practitioners; that the national and local implementation groups established to oversee the implementation of the proposed working time directive should have patient representatives; that the Joint Committee on Health and Children should be kept informed of all developments regarding the proposed working time directive; and that the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business should scrutinise the proposed directive in light of its importance to Irish labour market policy and the Irish economy as a whole.

The Department had been asked for its views on the likely implications of the proposed amendments to COM (2005) 607, in particular, the aggregation of hours in cases involving several employment contracts. It had also been requested to indicate if any action had been taken on the views expressed by the Joint Committee on Health and Children. The Department indicated this morning that it has sought the views of the Health Service Executive on the matter and that, when these have been received, it will be in a position to provide a clearer picture. When this additional information is received from the Department, it will be circulated for the information of members. The Department also indicated that its consultations with ICTU, IBEC and the Department of Health and Children are now complete and that their views will be fed into the working group meetings in September.

It is proposed that the proposal, which seeks to amend a significant proposal, be referred for further scrutiny to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business and forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Health and Children. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2005) 263 is a proposal for Council regulations to reform the EU sugar regime. In September 2004, the Department of Agriculture and Food forwarded, for the information of the committee, a Commission document that had been forwarded earlier for the consideration of the other European institutions and which was not a legislative proposal. It had been indicated that if the ideas outlined in that document had been put into operation, it would have serious implications for the 3,800 producers and approximately 1,000 employed in the associated industry in Ireland. The Department currently estimates that more than 800 are employed in the associated industry.

The Commission's communication argued that the sugar sector has remained unreformed for four decades and that the EU's sugar policy is in danger of becoming an anomaly and deviating from the fundamental principles of the new common agricultural policy, with its greater market orientation and decoupled income support. It also pointed out that the market for sugar will see greater competition, and presumably price pressure, when the market increasingly opens to producers in the 49 least developed countries over the years 2006-09.

The earlier document, COM (2004) 499, was forwarded to the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food for information and consideration in light of the significance of the likely implications of significant changes to the sugar regime. That committee considered the document in December 2004 during exchanges with officials from the Department. The current proposal follows the earlier Commission communication and its adoption would see immensely significant changes to the EU's sugar regime. The Department underlines that the Commission's evaluation of the implications of the proposal sets out that it could result in the phasing out of the sugar industry in Ireland.

The main changes since the earlier consultation document are the removal of the cross-border transfer of quotas and the creation of a restructuring scheme which would be targeted at processors and which would set compensation at a level that would result, according to the Department's Estimates, in a transfer of €147 million to processors in Ireland. Speaking at the Council of EU Agricultural Ministers earlier this month, the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, noted that the Commission proposals go well beyond the approach followed in previous reforms and are simply too radical and unacceptable in their current form.

This is the first time in the history of the CAP that the severity of the price cut proposed will result, according to the Commission's analysis, in a drastic reduction in production for four member states and a significant reduction in another nine member states. The proposal, therefore, represents a new departure where competitiveness is the only criteria. It is proposed that the proposal be referred for further scrutiny to the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Lydon

Is it possible to refer it to the committee with the recommendation that it be opposed?

Acting Chairman

I do not see a problem with that because the Minister has indicated that it is too radical and is not acceptable in its current form. We can send it with that recommendation.

Senator Coghlan

Another point is that we are expected to live with much that has been changed. Everyone believes it is radical. It needs further scrutiny by the committee.

Deputy Durkan

With every passing day there is evidence that we have less input in terms of rules and diktats that emerge from Brussels or associated places. For a considerable period, there has been a campaign to change the sugar regime. Ireland is a food producing country but there have been suggestions that we should produce something else, such as hay, for export. People do not live on that sort of product. It must be borne in mind that, as a food producing country, Ireland has an interest in what transpires in this area. If matters go wrong for our interests and if the regime and diktats of Brussels affect us adversely, that will have a serious impact on our economy. The full weight of this will not be known until the day we wake up and discover that the milk carton which should be outside the door is no longer there or that the food which should be in our supermarkets is no longer available. This is an important matter.

During the foot and mouth disease crisis some years ago, there was significant awareness of animal health, home production, traceability, etc. That awareness seems to have diminished to a huge extent in recent times. There are many imponderables in respect of the food sector but there are indicators that the entire sector could be affected in this fashion as time passes. If that happens, we will only be as good as the French dockers or baggage handlers or those responsible for facilities in any port worldwide. As a certain person on another part of this island used to say, we will no longer be in control of our destiny. We would be foolish to lose sight of the fact that Ireland, to a much greater extent than other countries, is ideally suited to food production.

There are those who will say that there are alternatives, which is quite true, but these are — perhaps even more readily — available to others. We must closely monitor what is happening in this area because the notion that we can live on promises of delivery elsewhere is false. The European Union, formerly the EEC, was originally founded on the basis of the need to provide for its population, which is now 500 million.

Acting Chairman

We will send the unanimous recommendation to the Department of Agriculture and Food that this be rejected.

The following Title IV measures have been received. Item 2.1, COM (2005) 236, a proposal for a regulation on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen information system. The Schengen acquis covers both Title IV, free movement of persons, and Title VI, police and judicial co-operation, measures. Separate legal instruments are, therefore, required to amend the regime governing the related Schengen information system. This proposal for a regulation relates to the elements of the proposal for updating the system, in which Ireland does not participate. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny but that it be forwarded for information to the Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women’s Rights in the context of the wider package of proposals to update the Schengen information system. Is that agreed? Agreed.

CFSP measures will be dealt with in an additional document, item 8. With regard to deferred documents, item 4.1 is proposed for deferral. This is proposal 7307/05, a proposal for a Council framework decision on the European enforcement order and transfer of sentenced persons between member states of the European Union. The proposal, which is being advanced by Austria, Finland and Sweden, concerns the transfer of sentenced persons between member states and is based on the argument that "there is a basic duty on the executing State to take charge of those of its nationals and those persons permanently legally resident in its territory who have been given a final custodial sentence or a detention order in another member state, irrespective of their consent, unless there are specific reasons for refusal". A subsequent article in the proposal indicates that its provisions would also cover persons with "other close links" with the state.

Those exempt from the implications of the proposal are those with sentences which: would not constitute an offence under the law of the executing state; would be statute-barred according to the law of the executing state; under the law of the executing state would not be enforceable due to age; where the sentence was rendered in absentia.

The proposal raises significant questions for penal and rehabilitation services across the European Union, but also for the individuals concerned. The Department was therefore asked to clarify a number of points to assist in the deliberations by members on this significant proposal. In particular the Department was requested to provide details on: the number of Irish nationals held in prisons in other member states or who are the subject of sentences imposed by these states; the number of EU24 nationals held in Ireland; the consultations that took place with other Departments regarding the proposals; whether the Department was aware of an understood and-or recognised definition of having "close links" with a state.

The Department has indicated it would require additional time to provide the information requested but it gave some general indications on the points raised. It indicated that in recent years it has been reported that persons of Irish origin formed the second highest minority in the prison population of England and Wales which is currently at around 74,000. The Department also indicated it believed the number of EU24 nationals was not very significant. In addition, it outlined that since 1995, approximately twice as many prisoners have been taken into the country as have been transferred out.

It is proposed that consideration of the proposal be deferred until the Department has forwarded the additional information requested. Agreed.

Proposals Nos. 5.1 to 5.23, are proposals on which it is proposed no further scrutiny is required. Proposal No. 5.1 COM (2005) 190 is a proposal for the regulation of certain Community agencies with respect to the rules of the conditions and procedures applicable to extending the term of office of their director, deputy director or president.

As the European agencies were established under various articles of the treaty, 18 separate proposals are required to address the need to provide legal certainty with regard to certain office holders. Adoption of the proposal would see terms of office set at five years and permit one extension to that term for a period of an additional five years. It is proposed the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Agreed.

Proposal No. 5.2 COM (2005) 194 is a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation EEC2092/91, on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs. Members will recall the committee deferred consideration of this proposal to allow time for the Department to provide additional background information on the derogation at the centre of the proposed measure. The Department has forwarded the text of Article 11.6 which had not been included by the Commission in the original documentation. Under the derogation the national authorities may grant the authorisation for the importation of organic products where the importer provides sufficient evidence that the imported goods meet the requirements to be designated organic. The Department has also confirmed that products imported under the derogation may be labelled as organic in the usual manner.

The Commission argues that the extension is required to allow additional time for it to advance a proposal to replace the current derogation with a system of evaluations by bodies assigned by the Commission.

Following the provision of the additional material by the Department it is proposed the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny but that the documentation be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food in advance of any proposal to change the current system. Is that agreed?

Deputy Durkan

I have reservations. I return to my earlier theme. I am not sure of the degree to which guarantees can be given relating to the authenticity of place of origin, etc. We have seen and heard of situations in which unofficial and unauthorised changes were made, for instance, the importation into the European Union of products that do not comply that are changed and relabelled etc. In some non-EU states there are outbreaks of various flu infections that affect chickens which has serious consequences there and would have serious consequences here too. Those products are available here and their traceability is not absolutely guaranteed.

I have tabled countless questions on the issues of traceability, husbandry, production standards, hygiene etc. I am not convinced we have achieved the high standards for which we have purportedly aimed. We should recommend that the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food carefully scrutinise the impact of any breaches in this area that would have serious consequences for the industry and for people's health, which is more important.

Acting Chairman

The next proposal is 5.3 COM (2005) 209, a proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a community action for the European capital of culture event for the years 2007-19. The Commission's memorandum explains that the European capital of culture initiative was launched in 1985 and that until 2002 the decision on the city to host the project was taken by the member states acting unanimously.

Under decision 1419 (1999) and since 2005, the city is chosen on the basis of a nomination by a member state and a recommendation of the Commission. That decision was later amended to take account of enlargement and to provide for twin capitals for 2009 whereby the title of capital of culture would be shared by cities in two member states.

The Commission argues this proposal is intended to address several weaknesses in the selection process. It seeks inter alia to raise the level of competition between cities by highlighting several criteria for selection, including the participation of third countries and the European dimension of the proposal to host the event.

Under this proposal from the Commission the city of culture within a member state would also be selected by a committee of 13 with six members from the member states and seven from European institutions. The seven members of the selection panel from the institutions would in addition act as a monitoring panel in the period following selection and until the start of the event. This panel would focus on ensuring the European dimension of the project. While the Department's note is correct in underlining that the issue of the selection of a city of culture will not be an issue of direct interest for Ireland, at least until post-2019, the adoption of the proposal would impact on an important centrepiece of the European cultural programme.

It is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny but the related documentation be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proposal No. 5.4 COM (2005) 221 is a proposal for a Council directive laying down minimum rules for the protection of chickens kept for meat production. It is outlined in the Commission's memorandum to the proposal that there is nospecific Community legislation covering the welfare of chickens for meat production. These chickens show a high occurrence of leg problems and sudden death syndrome. It is argued that the chickens in certain environments suffer from thermal discomfort.

The Commission contends there is increasing public concern about the welfare of chickens and European industry would prefer harmonised standards rather than divergent national rules causing market disturbance. The proposed measures set stocking density of chickens per square metre of a maximum of 30 kilogrammes per live weight. The owner or keeper may opt to notify a competent authority that he or she intends to use a stocking density of more than 30 kilogrammes per live weight. In such cases the density would not exceed 38 kilogrammes of live weight and the owner or keeper would be required to maintain documentation and plans of the welfare scheme in place, for example, in regard to ventilation and veterinary inspection.

This scheme would be required to meet certain minimum standards and the notification would also be endorsed by the veterinarian attending the establishment. The Department's note underlines that the current procedures here meet the requirements and that adoption of the proposal would not result in a requirement for significant investment. I understand the Department has been asked to indicate if it consulted interested stakeholders in Ireland on the proposal and to outline its understanding of what level of investment would be required. This additional information will be circulated when received from the Department.

It is proposed the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny, but the proposed measure be forwarded for information to the Committee on Agriculture and Food. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2005) 225, a proposal that seeks approval for the designation of 2007 as European year of equal opportunities for all, towards a just society. The stated aim of the designation is to advance the promotion of equality, non-discrimination and core values in the EU. The year would be centred on rights, representation, recognition, respect and tolerance. The Commission's proposal is that the year would seek to highlight the message to the public that all people, irrespective of their gender, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation are entitled to equal treatment.

The adoption of the proposal would result in some limited financial implications. The Department, which had been asked to clarify point 14 of its note, has indicated the Commission is proposing a support budget of €13.6 million to be used to co-finance local, regional and national projects. While the Department has outlined that it is too early to be precise on the additional funding required by the Exchequer, it has indicated that the additional cost of the 2003 year of people with disabilities was €1.5 million, of which €0.2 million came from the EU.

It is proposed the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny, but the proposed measure be sent for information to the Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights.

Deputy Hogan

This is an important issue as Ireland has a significant number of people entering the country to meet our employment needs. In the context of a proper immigration policy, which we do not have, the issue of the promotion and establishment of projects that will promote the integration of people into our society is important. That people will be treated with respect and equality, irrespective of their race or ethnic origin, is a critical issue for the future of the country. Are there any indications from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform on the projects that will be selected and promoted in this respect? I know the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is often misquoted or takes a particular line different from his Department. However, he gives the impression that they are living in an age of inequality which is likely to continue. I hope he is not at variance with the objectives set out for this important work in 2007. Is it possible to ask the Department to indicate the projects it has in mind, how they will be selected, promoted and financed?

Senator Lydon

Does this proposal have any implications for the managers of denominational schools?

Acting Chairman

I do not believe so but we can ask the Department for more information. We will take on board Deputy Hogan's comments. Is the proposal agreed? Agreed.

COM (2005) 230, a proposal for a Council Decision on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen information system. The Schengen information system, as set out in the Commission's memorandum to the proposal, is a common information system allowing the competent authorities in the member states to co-operate by exchanging information. The information is received through an automatic query procedure and used, in particular, for police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters and for controls at external borders. The memorandum to this proposal and the Department's related information note indicate the current system needs updating to take account of the 2004 enlargement of the European Union and several other developments, including the establishment of the European Data Protection Supervisor and the sharing of biometric data.

The Department was asked to indicate the anticipated costs for Ireland of the development of the second generation system, as Article 5.2 of the proposal indicates these costs would be borne by the member states concerned. The Department has, I understand, outlined that the main costs will arise for the Garda Síochána in the development of the national Schengen information system, its integration with the existing PULSE system and the Garda National Immigration Bureau system as well as the set of costs of an office within the Garda Síochána to operate the relevant aspects of the convention. The estimated cost for the development, integration and running of the system is indicated at €16 million to €20 million.

It is proposed that the proposal be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights in advance of any proposal for related national legislation. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proposal No. 5.7 COM (2005) 235 is a proposal for a Council Regulation amending regulation EEC No. 2075——

Senator Lydon

If the Acting Chairman has to read all of these she might wear herself out. Would it be possible for us to read them silently? I do not mind, I like the sound of the Acting Chairman's voice.

Acting Chairman

I have a shortened version so that makes it easier. In any case it would have to be formally put on the record.

Senator Lydon

That is fine.

Acting Chairman

I agree with the Senator that the script appears long. Proposal No. 5.7 COM (2005) 235 is a proposal for a council regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No. 2075/92 on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco. Both the Department's note and the Commission's memorandum concerning this proposal outline that elements of the current payment system to tobacco growers will expire following the 2005 harvest and a new direct payment system. This proposal contains amendments to the original 1992 regulation to take account of the new payment system. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proposal No. 5.8 COM (2005) 237 is a proposal for a regulation regarding access to the Second Generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) by the services in the member states responsible for issuing vehicle registration certificates.

Proposal No. 5.11 is COM (2005) 258 — proposal for a Council decision on a Community position in the Association Council on the implementation of Article 73 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. The Commission is seeking approval for a Community position within the Association Council which would see the approval of the establishment of a number of sub-committees to facilitate the operation of the association agreement. The sub-committees would report to the Association Council on areas of co-operation such as social and immigration matters and political dialogue and co-operation. Among the issues the sub-committee on political dialogue would discuss are: democracy; human rights and fundamental freedoms. The sub-committees would be composed of representatives of the Community, its member states and the Government of Israel. The Association Council forms the legal framework for a range of EU-Israel relations. It is proposed the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proposal No. 5.12 is COM (2005) 267 — proposal for Council decisions on the signature, provisional application and conclusion of the agreement between the European Community and New Zealand on certain aspects of air services. In recent months, the scrutiny committee has considered a number of related proposals that followed from the ECJ judgments and on each occasion, the committee determined that the proposal did not warrant further scrutiny. It is proposed the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny on this occasion. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proposal No. 5.13 is COM (2005) 268 — proposal for Council regulation to terminate a new exporter review of anti-dumping duties on imports of urea ammonium nitrate, UAN, originating from, among other places, Algeria. It is proposed this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proposal No. 5.14 is COM (2005) 270 — proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of an agreement between the European Community and the Government of the Ukraine on trade in certain steel products and No. 5.15 is COM (2005) 271 — proposal for a Council regulation on administering certain restrictions on imports of certain steel products from the Ukraine. Following from the Community's partnership and co-operation agreement with the Ukraine and an earlier agreement on steel products, these proposals from the Commission seek approval for the conclusion of an agreement between the Community and the Ukraine on certain steel products and for the structure of the administrative procedures which should be followed for imports into the Union of the products concerned. It is proposed this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proposal No. 5.16 is COM (2005) 273 — proposal for a Council regulation adopting autonomous and transitional measures to open a Community tariff quota for the import of live bovine animals originating in Switzerland. The memorandum to the proposal indicates that the EC has finalised its procedures for the adoption of an amendment to the EC-Swiss Confederation Agreement on Trade but that, as of June 2005, Switzerland has not finalised its procedures. This proposal therefore seeks approval for the continuation of the autonomous EU measure until December 2005. The Department has indicated that the adoption of the proposal would have no implications for Ireland. It is proposed this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proposal No. 5.17 is COM (2005) 279 — proposal for a Council regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of barium carbonate originating in the People's Republic of China. This proposal follows from a trade measure that was the subject of an early warning note from the Department which was considered by the committee in March. At that time the committee determined that the trade measure did not warrant further scrutiny as, inter alia, the Department had indicated that its consultation process had resulted in no difficulties being reported to it. The trade measure concerned relates to the imposition of an anti-dumping duty on imports of barium carbonate into the EU. The product is used in bricks, ceramics and glass industry. The current standard follow-up note from the Department indicates that IBEC, on behalf of the Building Materials Federation, made representations in regard to the proposal and these related to concerns that there was only one producer of the product in the EU and that the imposition of a duty would therefore raise prices for consumers.

In reply to the request for further clarification on the issue, yesterday the Department set out that IBEC had contacted it and confirmed that, arising from conversations in regard to the matter with the market access unit, it returned to the company in question within the Building Materials Federation and indicated to it that it should make the business case required. In the event the company does not make such a case, the IBEC position is that in these circumstances, that is, in the absence of the business case, it has no problem in regard to the current proposal on barium carbonate. Based on the additional information provided by the Department, it is proposed this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. It is also proposed that the Department be again requested to inform the secretariat of any significant developments in regard to its consultation process following the submission of early warning notes. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proposal No. 5.18 is COM (2005) 281 — proposal for Council decisions on the signature and conclusion of a protocol to the framework agreement for trade and co-operation between the EC and the Republic of Korea to take account of the accession of the ten new member states in 2004. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proposal No. 5.19 is COM (2005) 283 — proposal for a Council regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty on imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in the People's Republic of China. It is proposed the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proposal No. 5.20 is COM (2005) 291 — proposal for a Council decision amending Annex II of Directive 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles. The Department's note and the Commission's memorandum outline that the proposal to the Council arises from a failure to find a qualified majority in the advisory committee to amend the annex to the measure that prohibits the use of certain chemicals in certain products that are required to be treated in an environmentally-friendly manner at the end of their life cycle. The Commission's proposed changes to the annex relate to the removal of certain exemptions, where it is indicated that more environmentally-friendly alternatives to the chemicals concerned are now available.

To assist in the provision of the fullest picture, the Department has been asked to outline the background to the vote at the advisory committee, its understanding of why a majority was not found and the implications of the adoption of the proposal for Ireland. Based on the current indications from the Department that the implications of the adoption of the proposal are not significant for Ireland, it is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proposal No. 5.21 is COM (2005) 295 — proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) 2268/2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tungsten carbide and fused tungsten carbide originating in the People's Republic of China. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proposal No. 5.22 is COM (2005) 310 — proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) 27/2005 regarding herring, mackerel, horse mackerel, octopus and vessels engaged in illegal fisheries.

The Department's note outlines in regard to this proposal, which seeks to amend a number of decisions made at the Fisheries Council of December 2004, that many of its provisions would have no direct implications for Ireland. The Department has, however, indicated that it actively supports the amendment that would permit in certain circumstances the weighing of pelagic species within 60 km of the point of landing. It has also confirmed that this support arises from the fact that Irish processing outlets tend to be located a considerable distance away from the quayside. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny, but that it be forwarded for information to the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Durkan

On the fisheries matter, it is a long time since I first engaged in such a discussion. While I do not come from a maritime county, I have an interest in the stock levels. Appalling things have happened in the past 20 years in the whole area of available fish stocks. I wonder what the European Union has been doing in the meantime, because the stocks have fallen dramatically, permission has been given for huge factory ships to operate all over the place and they have hoovered the seabeds to the extent that stocks are at risk. I cannot understand why it took the European Union so long to recognise this was happening. In recent weeks, the Minister had to introduce new decommissioning proposals in regard to fishing vessels. This is not a criticism of the Minister, but I cannot understand how the European Union did not appear to recognise that the only way to do that was to compensate the people concerned, buy them out or whatever the case may be. It could have done something similar to the "set aside" in agriculture. However, for some reason, the monitoring of fish stocks and the management of the fishing industry is at the lower end of the table in terms of scale of importance.

I raise this issue because it is proposed that nothing further is required to be done at this stage. The fact is that something should have been done a long time ago. The issue will recur. I am not so sure the revision of the Common Fisheries Policy that has taken place will be of any benefit to the fishing industry, the people involved in it and the conservation of fish stocks. This issue should be given particular scrutiny, recognition and debate as it has not got this in the past.

Acting Chairman

Proposal No. 5.23 is COM (2005) 183, a proposal for a Council decision regarding the signature and conclusion of an agreement between the EC and the Swiss Confederation to revise the agreement on mutual recognition with regard to conformity testing. The existing agreement with the Swiss Confederation with regard to conformity testing provides for the mutual recognition of work of agencies such as the Irish National Accreditation Board, INAB, the national body with responsibility for accreditation in accordance with the International Organisation of Standardisation, ISO 17000 series of standards and guides and the harmonised series of European standards.

The Commission seeks approval for a proposal to amend the agreement to reduce the existing level of administrative burden, for example, by amending a number of articles that would remove the need to amend the agreement each time there are new guidelines. Under the proposal, a reference would be made to the recognised standards. The Department's note outlines that there are no known negative consequences for Ireland in the adoption of the proposed revisions of the EC-Swiss framework agreement. It is proposed the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proposal No. 6 concerns adopted measures. There were no adopted measures received for this meeting.

Proposal No. 7 concerns early warning notes. The following warning notes were received, items 7.1 to 7.4, inclusive. Item 7.1 is EWN: Regulation 628/2005, a provisional measures information note concerning provisional anti-dumping measures with regard to imports of salmon originating in Norway. Following a complaint from British and Irish producers, the Commission commenced proceedings to introduce anti-dumping measures with regard to salmon imports from Norway. From April 2005, an ad valorem duty of 16% was imposed on such imports and the Department has indicated that it views this measure as reinstating fair trading conditions. In additional information provided by the Department it is also outlined that in June 2005 this measure was amended to include provision for a minimum import price. It is proposed that the measure does not warrant further scrutiny, but that it be forwarded for information the Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Durkan

It is an area that deserves further scrutiny apropos of what I mentioned previously. Without delaying the meeting, I wish to mention something. In my official capacity as a spokesperson, I remember once going to the Enuga food fair where fish producers from all over the world had exhibits, including Norway, Sweden, Ireland, Scotland etc. The exhibits were very impressive until we got to the American exhibits which were in another league altogether. My point is that European fisheries policy needs more attention than it has received in the past.

Acting Chairman

Item 7.2 is EWN: Regulation 552/2005, a provisional measures information note concerning provisional measures on certain magnesia bricks originating in the People's Republic of China. It is proposed that the measure does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 7.3 is EWN: Regulation 771/2005, a provisional measures information note concerning provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain steel fasteners and part thereof originating in the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. It is proposed that the measure does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Durkan

I wonder whether any of these exporters from China have relocated from the European Union, or even Ireland. In recent times I have noticed there has been relocation of many industries into south-east Asia, China and wherever. I have always been interested in whether these relocated industries continue to supply the same market from another base. While I am a believer in world trade, competition and encouragement, I would like our people to have the benefit of the employment arising from manufacturing industry in so far as possible. It might be no harm to make a general inquiry as to the extent to which we can measure imports returning here as a result of the relocation of jobs from this country.

Acting Chairman

I presume the anti-dumping duty which is being proposed will sort that matter out. The Deputy has made an interesting point. The proposal is intended to protect the industry.

Deputy Durkan

It might.

Acting Chairman

Regulation No. 2042/2000 is a notice of an initiation of a review to amend two anti-dumping duty measures in respect of television camera systems. It is proposed the measure does not warrant further scrutiny. Agreed.

The following documents were received after circulation of the original advice to members. Proposal No. 1.4 COM (2005) 284, additional documentation proposed for further scrutiny is a proposal for a Council decision concerning the placing on the market, in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of a maize product, Zea mays L., line 1507, genetically modified for resistance to certain lepidopteran pests and for tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate-ammonium. The proposal did not receive the necessary support in the regulatory committee as has occurred in the past in similar circumstances and is therefore being presented here for approval by the Council. The Department’s note underlines that if the Council approved the proposal it would be the first exercise by the Council of its decision-making role in respect of a proposal to authorise a GM product. In the event that the Council cannot come to a conclusion on this proposal the proposed measure would return to the Commission for decision. On a number of occasions the committee has considered proposals concerning the authorisation to place GM foods on the market and these have been referred for further scrutiny, given the level of public concern in this area. It is proposed that the proposal be referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government. Agreed.

Senator Lydon

Can this proposal be referred with a request that the decisions of the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government be communicated to this committee?

Acting Chairman

I understand that committee is obliged to report back to this committee. It seems we need to be experts in all these subjects.

Senator Lydon

Deputy Mulcahy is not here today so we cannot comment.

Acting Chairman

Proposal No. 3.1 CFSP (2005) 556 is a Council Joint Action of 18 July 2005, appointing a Special Representative of the European Union for Sudan. This joint action appoints Mr. Pekka Haavisto, a former Minister of the Environment and Development Co-operation in Finland, as the EU's Special Representative in the Sudan. His objectives include the promotion of dialogue and maximising the EU's contribution to the African mission in Sudan. A copy of the Council's documentation on the appointment has been circulated for the information of members. It is proposed to note the measure. Agreed.

Proposal No. 3.2 CFSP (2005) 557 of 18 July 2005, is a Council Joint Action on the European Union civilian-military supporting action to the African Union monitoring mission in the Darfur region of Sudan, AMIS II. The assistance will include police and military assistance in areas such as training and planning and the provision of civilian support. The Department's note indicates that an Irish military officer will participate in this action. Agreed.

Proposal No. 3.3 CFSP (2005) 561 is a Council Joint Action regarding a further contribution of the European Union to the conflict settlement process in Georgia-South Ossetia. It is proposed to note the measure. Agreed.

Proposal No. 4.2 COM (2005) 282, is additional documentation proposed for deferral. This proposal contains a number of amendments advanced by the European Parliament and accepted by the Commission in respect of setting of standards for ground water quality. The original proposal COM (2003) 550, was referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government in November 2003. That committee subsequently decided not to scrutinise the proposal. The note underlines the main changes proposed in the amendments and the Department indicates that adoption of the proposal should not have significant additional implications for Ireland. It is proposed that the Department be requested to provide a note outlining in some more detail the implications of the adoption of the amended proposal for Ireland.

It is proposed that consideration of the proposal be deferred until the Department has provided the additional information on the implications of the adoption of the amended proposal for Ireland. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Durkan

This proposal will have implications for Ireland, particularly in the measurement and quality of ground-water. I have seen extraordinary actions undertaken recently which contradict this proposal and do not understand how they can be squared with such a proposal. I am aware that this will be discussed again and agree that should happen but I wish now to emphasise its importance.

Acting Chairman

Proposals Nos. 5.24 and 5.25 are two additional documents proposed for no further scrutiny. The first is COM (2005) 289, a proposal for a Council regulation (EC, EURATOM) repealing Regulation No. 6-66-EURATOM 121-66-EEC of the Councils and Regulation No. 7-66-EURATOM 122-66-EEC of the Councils and Regulation No. 174-65-EEC 14-65-EURATOM of the Councils.

The proposal seeks approval for the removal of several implementing provisions of the staff regulations which have become obsolete following the approval of a comprehensive regulation in this area in March 2004. It is proposed this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proposal No. 5.25 is COM (2005) 266, proposal for a regulation establishing accompanying measures for sugar protocol countries affected by the reforms of the EU sugar regime. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny, but that it be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food in the context of its consideration of the Commission's related proposal to reform the sugar regime. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Durkan

It is agreed but with the reservations we indicated at the beginning of the meeting.

Acting Chairman

The minutes of the meeting of 29 June 2005 have been circulated. Are they agreed? Agreed.

The draft fifty-second and fifty-third reports of the sub-committee have been circulated. I propose the reports be forwarded to the Joint Committee on European Affairs for agreement to lay before both Houses along with appendices. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The following items of correspondence have been received: a letter from the Department of Transport concerning COM (2005) 48 which this sub-committee considered on 24 March 2005 and forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Transport.

Point 14 of the corresponding information note stated "there is no requirement in the Regulation for Member States to nominate a body to enforce the obligation on contracting carriers to inform the passenger of the identity of the operating air carrier". Following a request to the Department, this letter outlines the implications resulting from the absence of a requirement to nominate an enforcement body. It is proposed to note this letter and forward it to the Joint Committee on Transport for its further information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

There is a letter from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment on anti-dumping measures. The Department has outlined in this letter that several anti-dumping measures may need to be adopted over the month of August. Each of the likely measures indicated by the Department has been the subject of early warning notes and on each occasion the Department indicated that no difficulties were reported to it during its consultation process.

It is proposed to note the correspondence and to thank the Department for taking the initiative to inform the committee in this manner. It is also proposed that the Department be requested to confirm whether the proposals are adopted. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I propose that the next meeting of the sub-committee be provisionally agreed for Wednesday 21 September, the exact date and time to be agreed nearer the date. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The sub-committee adjourned at 3.35 p.m. until Wednesday, 21 September 2005.