JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny) díospóireacht -
Thursday, 6 Apr 2006

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Acting Chairman (Senator Bradford)

We will deal with proposals that are proposed for further scrutiny.

COM (2005) 590 is a proposal for a directive establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector. It amends Directives 1999/35/EC and 2002/59/EC. The aim of the proposal is to improve maritime safety by establishing clear Union-wide guidelines on the technical investigations to be carried out following maritime casualties and incidents. It is contended in the memorandum to the proposal that shortcomings and difficulties in the conclusion of technical investigations in the maritime sector contrast unfavourably with, for example, the body of established EU rules to help improve civil aviation safety.

The Department, in its note, not surprisingly indicates its broad support for the aims of the proposal. However, it highlights some concerns in regard to the proposed measure. In particular, it indicates that it is not clear what impact the proposal would have on the Marine Casualty Investigation Board, which was established by an Act in 2000. The Department also sets out that the scope of the proposal is limited to larger vessels and that its legal context requires clarification to ensure that people's rights will be respected during investigations. It is proposed that the proposal be referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Transport. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2006) 89 is a proposal for a regulation on marketing standards relating to eggs. Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1907/90 lays down technical rules on such marketing standards. The Commission's memorandum on this proposal sets out that the current measure on marketing standards has been amended several times, for example, in regard to producers' distinguishing numbers. These amendments, the Commission contends, have made the regulation difficult to read. The Commission proposes that the provisions on the marketing standards relating to eggs be simplified through the replacement of the detailed regulation with one merely setting out broad principles on this matter, with details then agreed in the comitology procedure. In its information note, the Department puts forward the view that the proposed legislation is in line with the EU's initiative on the simplification of legislation and that no major new provisions are proposed.

As the proposed measure would merely set out basic principles and the details be elaborated through the Commission and member states' expert committee system, how the measure would be implemented naturally remains somewhat vague. The proposed measure might, therefore, warrant further scrutiny by the sectoral committee to afford it the opportunity to tease out with officials what might be the outline of the more detailed elements of the revised regulation on the marketing of eggs in the European Union. It is proposed that the proposal be referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food.

Senator Dardis

Does the Chairman agree that the phrase "the EU's initiative on the simplification of legislation" is an oxymoron?

Deputy Sexton

I am pleased that it was not looking for square eggs or something a little more complex.

Acting Chairman

Not to date. It is proposed that the proposal be referred for further scrutiny by the Committee on Agriculture and Food. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No Title IV measures were received for this meeting. There are six CFSP measures on today's agenda. I propose to take Nos. 3.1 and 3.2 together. No. 3.1 is CFSP (2006) 184, Council joint action in support of the biological and toxin weapons convention in the framework of the EU strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. No. 3.2 is CFSP (2006) 242, Council common position relating to the 2006 review conference of the biological and toxin weapons convention, BTWC. The joint action sets out clearly how the EU proposes to pursue its objectives in respect of the BTWC. The measure, inter alia, focuses on offering states’ parties assistance in the national implementation of the BTWC. It is proposed to note the measures. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 3.3 is CFSP (2006) 243, Council joint action on support for activities in the context of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Organisation. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed. No. 3.4 is CFSP (2006) 244, Council common position on participation by the European Union in the Korean Development Organisation. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed. No. 3.5 is CFSP (2006) 204, Council common position renewing measures in support of the effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed. No. 3.6 is CFSP (2006) 231, Common position updating common position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism and repealing common position 2005/936/CFSP. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

There are no proposals for deferral. Nos. 5.1 to 5.11, inclusive, are proposed for no further scrutiny. No. 5.1 is COM (2006) 64, a proposal for a decision on the signature and provisional application of the agreement between the European Community and Uruguay on certain aspects of air services. This proposal from the Commission seeks approval for the signature and provisional application of an agreement between the EC and Uruguay that would replace certain provisions in the existing bilateral air services agreements with the member states. The agreement primarily includes a Community clause that permits Community carriers to benefit equally in respect of air services. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.2 is COM (2006) 76, a proposal for a directive on the exemption from VAT and excise duty of goods imported by persons travelling from third countries. Council Directive 69/169/EEC, which regulates the exemption of certain goods brought into the Community from VAT and excise duty, has been amended several times. The Commission's memorandum to the proposal sets out that following enlargement and several requests from member states, the Commission is proposing an amendment of the measure. The main elements of the amended proposal are raising the €175 aggregate limit per adult to €500 in the case of air travellers and €220 in the case of other travellers and abolishing the quantitative limits for perfume, coffee and tea. I understand that the thinking behind the proposed amendment is to enable travellers to benefit from an increase in the thresholds and also avoid inconvenience in declaring goods of relatively limited value. The Commission's memorandum sets out that it is not proposing higher thresholds to take account of the problems of those member states having a land border with countries such as Russia, Ukraine and Belarus with different purchase power. The Department of Finance has set out in its note that it considers the proposed upward adjustment of the threshold as reasonable and regards the proposal as not having major implications for Ireland. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.3 is COM (2006) 90, a proposal for a regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No. 1906/90 on certain marketing standards for poultry meat. The Commission has outlined in its memorandum to the proposal that the existing legislation covering marketing standards for poultry meat includes references to other Community veterinary legislation. These pieces of legislation have been altered and the Commission is therefore proposing to amend Regulation (EEC) No. 1906/90 to reflect these changes. The Commission has also taken the opportunity to include an amendment to provide for a derogation from the marketing standards regulation in certain circumstances where framers have an annual production level of fewer than 10,000 birds. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny but it is also proposed that the measure be forwarded to the Committee on Agriculture and Food for information in the context of the derogation for small-scale producers. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.4 is COM (2006) 95, a proposal for a decision on the signature and provisional application of the agreement between the European Community and the Republic of the Maldives on certain aspects of air services. This proposal from the Commission seeks approval for the signature and provisional application of an agreement between the EC and the Maldives that would replace certain provisions in the existing bilateral air services agreements with the member states. The agreement primarily includes a Community clause that permits Community carriers to benefit equally in respect of air services. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.5 is COM (2006) 96, a proposal for a regulation concerning the conclusion of the partnership agreement in the fisheries sector between the European Community and the Union of Comoros. The agreement provides for an annual financial contribution to the Comoros of €390,000 between 2005 and 2010 in return for the continued access to surrounding waters by certain Community vessels. In common with similar fisheries agreements with other third countries, the agreement provides for strengthened co-operation in the fisheries sector. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.6 is COM (2006) 97, a proposal for a regulation concerning the conclusion of the fisheries partnership agreement between the European Community and the Republic of the Seychelles. Under the agreement, a limited number of Community vessels would be permitted to fish in the waters around the islands and the Community would contribute €4.125 million to the development of the islands' fishing industry. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.7 is COM (2006) 98, a proposal for a regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1785/2003 on the arrangements for importing rice. This proposal follows from a number of bilateral agreements with third country exporters of rice. The Commission is therefore proposing an amendment of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1785/2003 on the Common Market in the organisation of rice to take account of these agreements. I understand that the amendment will result in a reduction in import duties and the Department of Agriculture and Food's note indicates that it believes that the adoption of the proposal should result in a reduction at the ports in the price of rice. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed?

Senator Dardis

If the price of rice falls, it will have consequences for the price of grain, such as domestic barley and wheat, as a competitor. Does this mean the proposal warrants further scrutiny?

Acting Chairman

We can raise this issue and inform the Committee on Agriculture and Food about the matter.

Senator Dardis

I do not think the matter is especially significant but it could be potentially significant.

Acting Chairman

We will seek additional information on the matter.

The next item is No. 5.8, COM (2006) 99, a proposal for a decision on the system of the European Community's own resources. Between the 15 and 16 December 2005, the European Council reached a political agreement on the European Union's financial framework for the period from 2007 to 2013. The Commission outlines in its memorandum to the proposal that it was requested by the Council to prepare the proposed measure on own resources, EU revenues, and to undertake related work on the so-called British rebate.

The Department of Finance's note sets out that the effect of the adoption of the current proposal would be that the EU would have adequate funding to meet its expenditure obligations under the Council's December 2005 agreement on the future financing of the EU for the period from 2007 to 2013. This significant proposal follows from agreement among the Heads of Government of the EU member states on the future financing of the Union. The final shape of the perspectives will require the agreement of the European Parliament and I understand that there may be some limited changes to the package. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny but it is also proposed that the Department of Finance be requested to keep the committee informed of significant developments in respect of agreement on the financial related package. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.9 is COM (2006) 100, a proposal for a regulation laying down technical measures for the conservation of certain stocks of highly migratory species. As members will have seen from the documentation circulated, the European Community participates in a number of regional fisheries organisations that provide a framework for regional co-operation on the conservation and management of certain stocks of highly migratory fish species. The Department's note has highlighted the changes in respect of one of these organisations, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna, as being particularly relevant to Ireland. The Department outlines that Ireland has a quota of 5,000 tonnes of northern albacore tuna and up to 50 Irish vessels may be authorised to fish for this species. However, the conservation measures that the Commission is seeking to transpose have been in place for a number of years and the Department has confirmed that the industry is aware of them. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny and should be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.10, SEC (2006) 325 and COM (2006) 114, relates to the preliminary draft amending budget No. 1 to the general budget for 2006, general statement of revenue, and the proposal for a decision on the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund. The fund was created in 2002 to give financial support to member states facing particular difficulties and major disasters. Following consideration of applications for assistance from the fund by Bulgaria, Romania and Austria, the Commission is proposing that more than €106 million be made available to these states to help them recover from major storms in May and August 2005. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny and should be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on European Affairs as another example of the fund in operation. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.11, COM (2005) 539, is a proposal for a regulation laying down rules for the implementation of Regulation (EG) No. 2494/95 with respect to the harmonised index of consumer prices, HICPs. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No adopted measures were received for this meeting. Regarding No. 7.1, EWN 2005/C129/04, anti-dumping measures in respect of exports of silicon carbide from the People's Republic of China, it is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Regarding No. 7.2, EWN 2005/L204/03, anti-dumping measures in respect of exports of certain tube or pipe fittings from the People's Republic of China, it is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny at this time. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Minutes of the meetings of 23 March have been circulated. I take it they are in order. The 64th draft report of the sub-committee has been circulated. I propose that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on European Affairs for agreement to lay before both Houses along with appendices. Is that agreed? Agreed.

A letter from the Department of Agriculture and Food updates the sub-committee, as requested, on COM (2005) 698 and COM (2005) 694. I propose to thank the Department for its reply and ask it to keep the sub-committee updated of any significant developments arising from the Commission's review of the policy. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I propose that the next meeting of the sub-committee will take place at 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 27 April 2006, which is in three weeks. Is that agreed?

Senator Dardis

That is the week of Punchestown. It is a serious matter, but I agree.

Acting Chairman

We have jumped the Punchestown hurdle so that is agreed. I thank members for their co-operation and declare the meeting adjourned.

The sub-committee adjourned at 9.55 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 27 April 2006.