The Department is actively preparing a detailed response on all these issues.
COM (2006) 209 is an amended proposal by the Commission for a regulation to establish a European institute for gender equality. It follows on from COM (2005) 81, the original proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council to establish such an institute, which was forwarded by the sub-committee to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for its information on 28 April 2005. Having considered changes to the original text proposed by the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the European Parliament, the Commission has amended the proposal in a number of areas. One particular change proposed is to make provision for a restricted management board to manage the institute.
The Department describes the proposal as being of some significance in that the proposed institute would support activity on gender equality issues across the European Union. There is likely to be considerable further discussion on the proposal, particularly with regard to such issues as the membership and breakdown of the management board and the proposed use of a system for the rotation of membership; the method of appointment and approval of the director of the institute; how a telematic network to foster the exchange of information might be created; the number of members of the advisory forum, its role and function, and the nature of co-operation with international organisations. In the meantime, a query has been issued to the Department, seeking clarification of its view on the changes proposed with regard to the size and membership of the management board and the advisory forum. In view of its significance, it is proposed that the proposal be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2006) 234 is an amended proposal by the Commission for a decision of the European Parliament and the Council establishing a second programme of Community action in the field of health, 2007-13, following agreement on 17 May on the financial framework for the period 2007 to 2013. The original wide-ranging proposal published in April 2005 by the Commission — COM (2005) 115, a proposal for a decision establishing a programme of Community action in the field of health and consumer protection, 2007-13 — was based on a budget of €1.203 billion, of which €969 million was identified for public health projects and was referred to the Joint Committee on Health and Children in June 2005. It is currently awaiting detailed scrutiny.
The total budget proposed is now €365.6 million, that is, approximately one third of the original amount envisaged by the Commission. The consumer protection aspects of the original proposal are now being dealt with separately in COM (2006) 235 which we are also considering today. The scope of the programme has been redirected so as to concentrate on three broad objectives: the improvement of citizens' health security; promotion of health to improve prosperity and solidarity; and generation and dissemination of health knowledge. In view of its importance, it is proposed that the proposal be referred to the Joint Committee on Health and Children for further scrutiny and for information to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business in the context of the splitting of the original Commission proposal into two. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2006) 235 is an amended proposal by the Commission for a decision establishing a programme of Community action in the field of consumer policy, 2007-13. This significant proposal arises from a compromise reached in April, whereby the initial April 2005 Commission proposal seeking the establishment of a programme of Community action in the field of health and consumer protection for the period 2007 to 2013 was split in two. This proposal which covers consumer protection falls substantially short of the original proposal in funding terms, as does the separate health programme proposal which we have just considered, COM (2006) 234.
To take account of the reduced budget and amendments introduced by the European Parliament and at committee level, the Commission has made substantial modifications to its initial proposal. This proposal focuses on achieving two new consumer objectives: to ensure a high level of consumer protection, notably through improved evidence, better consultation and representation of consumers' interests; and to ensure the effective application of consumer protection rules, notably through enforcement, co-operation, information, education and redress. These objectives are to be achieved though a series of actions such as data and information collection, exchange and analysis; support for scientific advice and risk evaluation; preparation of legislation and promotion of self-regulatory initiatives; financial support for European consumer organisations; joint surveillance and enforcement actions; use of legal and technical expertise; actions on education, information, advice and redress for citizens.
To increase cost efficiency and exploit economies of scale, the existing executive agency set up for the public health programme will assist in the implementation of the proposed new consumer programme, as well as food safety training measures. The total cost to the EU budget is stated by the Department to be €156.8 million over the course of the programme, 2007-13. It is proposed that this significant proposal be referred to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business for further scrutiny and for information to the Joint Committee on Health and Children. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2006) 238 is a proposal by the Commission for a Council decision laying down the amount of Community support for rural development, its annual breakdown and the minimum amount to be concentrated in regions eligible under the convergence objective for the period 2007 to 2013. Under this proposal funding would be provided for rural development in the period 2007 to 2013 in line with the financial perspectives for the period, amounting to a total of €69.75 billion, of which at least €33.01 billion will be designated for the convergence regions, that is, the new member states, as well as Romania and Bulgaria. The proposal would also provide for allocation of €18.91 billion for the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund, EAGGF, along traditionally agreed lines, this portion of the funding to be made available by a specific Commission decision.
The position of the Department is focused on ensuring Ireland will receive its allocation based on the traditionally agreed distribution of funding from the Commission. This funding, together with the special allocation of €500 million agreed for Ireland at the European Council, would make a total allocation to Ireland of €1.884 billion over the period 2007 to 2013. In addition, modulation — deduction from direct payments — should provide an additional €203 million. In view of the importance of rural development funding for Ireland, it is proposed that the proposal be referred to the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food for further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I omitted to introduce Ms Mairéad McCabe to the committee earlier. I apologise to her for this.
No. 1.6 relates to COM (2006) 245, a proposal for a regulation determining the general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport networks and energy and amending Council Regulation (EC) 2236/95. In September 2004 the committee considered COM (2004) 475, which was the original proposal from the Commission on this matter. The proposal was referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Transport.
The current proposal follows agreement on the next financial perspective of the European Union and, therefore, takes account of lower funds available than initially proposed by the Commission for transport, that is, €8.013 billion rather than €20.35 billion. This is still an increase on what was available under the current financial perspective for transport, which was €4.4 billion. The revised text also includes amendments adopted by the European Parliament.
The Department has again indicated that, to date, financial support for TENs in Ireland has been limited. However, interest in this scheme is likely to increase in Ireland in the years ahead as the role of Structural and Cohesion Funds changes. In particular, the Department indicates that the adoption of the proposal may have implications in respect of Cork-Dublin-Belfast road and rail links. It is proposed that the proposal be referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Transport. Is that agreed? Agreed
COM 10357 (2006) is a draft Council decision concerning arrangements for co-operation between asset recovery offices of member states. This proposal by the Presidency is for a Council decision which would complete the current informal assets recovery network operating in the EU by providing a legal basis for the exchange of information between asset recovery offices of all the member states. This proposal provides for the setting up or designation of national asset recovery offices in each member state, which would have competence in the area of tracing illicit proceeds and other property that may become liable to confiscation. Those national offices would be charged with rapidly exchanging information with other such offices on request and on a spontaneous basis, in conformity with established rules on data retention.
Taking into account that Ireland is a founder member of the existing informal network of EU asset recovery offices, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform welcomes the proposal as it provides for improved information exchange between all the member states and because the recovery of criminal proceeds is an area in which Ireland enjoys a high international profile. As stated by the Department, this proposal does not have major implications for Ireland in practical terms due to the existence of the CAB and the proceeds of crime legislation already in place in Ireland. In view of the importance of the general issue of assets recovery in Ireland, it is proposed that this proposal be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
