JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny) díospóireacht -
Thursday, 12 Oct 2006

Scrutiny of EU Legislative Proposals.

Acting Chairman (Senator Bradford)

Today's meeting will deal with items 1.1 to 1.12. Item 1.1 is COM (2006) 397, a proposal for an amending directive on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy. The EU Commission sets out in its memorandum to this proposal the negative implications of chemical pollution of surface water. This pollution can harm aquatic ecosystems, drinking water and recreational activities. The Commission highlights possible sources of such pollution as agriculture, industry and incineration. I understand that such pollution may also occur as a result of the use of daily household products.

The earlier Water Framework Directive, 2000/60/EC, identified 33 substances of particular concern in respect of surface pollution and this proposal is aimed at setting certain emission standards in respect of these substances. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is of the view that the adoption of the proposal would not result in any additional implications for Ireland. However, it does recognise that the implementation of the proposal, while leading to overall benefits to society, will result in greater negative consequences for some sectors.

The proposed measure sets two types of quality standards — annual average concentrations and maximum allowable concentrations. Provision is also made in Article 3 of the proposal for transitional arrangements in areas. This provision may be the subject of further Commission regulations. In response to a request to indicate the impact on sectors in Ireland following the adoption of this measure, the Department has set out that the proposed directive will support industries that rely on a clean environment, for example, fisheries, aquaculture, agriculture and tourism. I understand the costs associated with the adoption of the proposal would relate to additional administrative costs and restrictions on "certain industrial activities or the spreading of pesticides on agricultural land".

It is proposed that the proposal be referred to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food for further scrutiny, given the highlighted costs of the adoption of the proposed measure. It is also proposed that the proposed measure be forwarded for information to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government and the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Dardis

Should it also be sent to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources for information?

Acting Chairman

Yes. I propose to take items 1.2 to 1.5 together — COM (2006) 423, 425, 427 and 428. This is a package of proposals concerning food additives, food flavourings and certain food ingredients. I understand that these proposals effectively form a package of proposals for the reform of the regulatory environment for food additives, food flavourings and certain food ingredients.

Currently the rules on additives are agreed in the usual EU legislative manner through a proposal to the institutions. In the package the Commission proposes that the existing legislation be simplified and streamlined through greater use of the comitology process. This would mean that the legislation would increasingly be enacted as secondary legislation. The adoption of the proposal would also see requests for authorisations being made directly to the Commission, rather than via the national authorities.

The Department of Health and Children has in this regard been requested to outline if it views the adoption of the package as having implications for the approval of genetically modified products. Any additional material received concerning this matter will be circulated in advance of the committee meeting. The proposals also contain labelling requirements that would require information to be easily visible, clearly legible and indelible. Other significant elements of the package concern stricter conditions for use of the term natural — removing the option for what is termed "nature-identical" — and setting upper limits for certain substances.

Although it is indicated that there are few indigenous producers of flavourings, the Department has set out that Ireland has an economically important food industry, particularly in the area of dairy products. While the Department has categorised these proposals as technical in nature, they have the potential to significantly impact on the important food sector. Scrutiny at this stage may, therefore, be particularly warranted, given the proposed shift to secondary legislation. It is proposed that the proposed measures be referred to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food for further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item 1.6, COM (2006) 468, is a proposal for a Council framework decision on the European supervision order in pre-trial procedures between member states of the European Union. At its meeting on 4 November 2004, the committee considered the Commission's green paper, COM/2004/562, on mutual recognition of non-custodial pre-trial supervision measures. That paper was forwarded for the information of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights in advance of the Commission's deadline of 30 November for observations on this matter.

Based on the principle of mutual recognition of pre-trial supervision measures, the proposed measure provides for the mutual recognition of orders imposing an obligation on a suspect to make himself or herself available for the purpose of receiving a summons for his or her trial and to attend the trial when summoned to do so. The proposal also contains provisions in respect of actions that a suspect should or should not engage in following the adoption of a supervision measure, as well as reporting obligations on the part of the issuing and executing authority. It is proposed that this significant proposal be referred to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Dardis

Is there a subsidiarity issue here?

Acting Chairman

I am advised that we should ask the committee to investigate this issue.

Senator Dardis

I am concerned because this again gives an advantage to the very large multinational companies because they operate across the EU. Whereas, a small food company in west Cork——

Acting Chairman

Are we talking about the previous proposal?

Senator Dardis

The previous proposal has the potential to impact on smaller producers and give an advantage to the very large producers. This appears increasingly evident in much of the legislation coming from Europe.

Acting Chairman

We trust that this issue will be taken on board by the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food in the course of investigation. I suggest we take together items 1.7 to 1.12 — COM (200) 536 to 541, inclusive. This is a package of proposals concerning restrictions on the use of plant protection products. Under Council Directive 91/414/EEC, active substances used as plant protection products are assessed and authorised at Community level. These proposals to the Council arise due to failure at the specialist committee to agree proposals from the Commission concerning restrictions on a range of active substances. The Department of Agriculture and Food's notes indicate that restrictions on the products concerned would negatively impact on the range of products available to users, particularly in the horticulture sector. In some instances, the impact would be greater than others.

A number of the matters concerning these proposals were considered by this committee in July 2006 and referred for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food. At that point, the package of proposals numbered eight — COM (2006) 290 to 297, inclusive. At a meeting on 18 September, the Council rejected two of these proposed measures — COM (2006) 290 and 297.

The remaining proposals were amended and considered at the Competitiveness Council on 25 September 2006 and the Council confirmed the absence of an opinion on the six proposals. It is proposed that this package of proposals be referred to the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food for further scrutiny in the context of that committee's consideration of the earlier texts of these proposed measures. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 2 concerns Title IV measures, of which there are none for this meeting. Item No. 3 concerns CFSP measures — items Nos. 3.1 to 3.4. We will take items Nos. 3.1 and 3.2 together. Item No. 3.1 is CFSP (2006) 440, a Council common position concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of Congo, and No. 3.2 is CFSP (2006) 624, an amending common position concerning restrictive measures against that state. The amending CFSP measure — CFSP/2006/624 — widens the application of existing restrictive measures to include, among others, those operating in the Democratic Republic of Congo who impede the disarmament and voluntary repatriation or resettlement of combatants. It is proposed to note the measures. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 3.3 is CFSP (2006) 623, a Council joint action on the establishment of a possible international civilian mission in Kosovo, including a European Union special representative component. This action follows from an invitation from the United Nations for the European Union to enhance its role in Kosovo, which would develop following agreement on the future status of Kosovo. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 3.4 is CFSP (2006) 625, a common position concerning a prohibition on the sale or supply of arms and related material and services to certain individuals and entities in Lebanon. This measure is associated with COM (2006) 488. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 4 deals with proposals proposed for deferral, of which there are none. Based on further information supplied by the Department since the circulation of the agenda, items Nos. 4.1 and 4.2 will be taken as Nos. 5.13 and 5.14, respectively, which are proposed for no further scrutiny.

Item No. 5.1 is COM (2006) 390, a proposal for an amending directive concerning the simplification and rationalisation of reports on the protection of the health and safety of workers. The proposed measure concerns approval for member states to submit annually a single report to the Commission on the practical implementation of all relevant European Union measures in this regard. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny and should be forwarded for the information of the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 5.2 is COM (2006) 344, a proposal for an amending regulation concerning the organisation of Community surveys on the structure of agriculture holdings with particular regard to Bulgaria and Romania. In this respect, the proposal concerns approval for the provision of additional finance for the 2007 surveys. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 5.3 is COM (2006) 407, a proposal for an amending regulation concerning the categories of officials of the European Communities entitled to shift-work or standby duty allowances. The proposal provides for further categories of EC services to be covered, including relevant officials at reception and technical help desks and in security services. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 5.4 is COM (2006) 432, a proposal for a codifying regulation on the elimination of controls performed at the frontiers in the field of road and inland waterway transport. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I propose to take together items Nos. 5.5 and 5.6, COM (2006) 453 and COM (2006) 454, respectively. These are proposals for Council decisions concerning the provisional application and conclusion of an agreement on fisheries opportunities between the Gabonese Republic and the EC until 2011 to replace the previous agreement that entered into force on 3 December 1998. Committee members will be aware that the aim of the agreement is to create a partnership framework to develop a sustainable fisheries policy and the sound exploitation of fisheries resources in the Gabonese area. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny and should be forwarded for the information of the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 5.7 is COM (2006) 455, a proposal for a regulation concerning modifications to the definitions relating to certain cuts of beef imported from Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay. It is indicated in the Commission's memorandum to the proposal that only high quality beef cuts corresponding to the associated product definitions can benefit from Community preferential World Trade Organisation arrangements. Discussions have led the Commission to believe that the associated product definitions require amendment. It is seeking approval for these definitions.

The Department outlines that the adoption of this technical proposal will help to ensure that only beef produced from pasture-fed cattle is imported under the existing arrangements. As members will be aware, the issue of such imports and the associated conditions has been the subject of some discussion in the European Union. It is proposed that the technical proposal does not warrant further scrutiny and should be forwarded for the information of the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food in the context of the wider issue of the standards set for food imports from outside the Union.

Senator Dardis

We wish them well in implementing this measure.

Acting Chairman

Is the proposal agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 5.8 is COM (2006) 457, a proposal for an amending regulation concerning the derogation on egg washing. A comprehensive regulation concerning the marking of eggs in the European Union is due to enter into force on 1 July 2007 and the Commission proposes that the existing derogation provisions on the washing of eggs, which are currently availed of by packing centres in Sweden and the Netherlands, should continue in operation until that date. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny and should be forwarded for the information of the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food in the context of its earlier consideration of COM (2003) 479. Is that agreed?

Senator Dardis

Imagine spending one's entire working life worrying about the washing of eggs.

Acting Chairman

Is the proposal agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 5.9 is COM (2006) 458, a proposal for a decision concerning the establishment of the European joint undertaking in respect of the proposed international thermonuclear experimental reactor, ITER, which is a nuclear fusion research project involving the People's Republic of China, Russia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United States of America, India and the European Union. This proposal concerns the approval of legal status of a joint undertaking that would be established to discharge EURATOM's obligations to ITER. Inter alia, the undertaking would co-ordinate EURATOM’s participation in ITER and provide for the implementation of relevant activities therein. It is proposed that the technical proposal does not warrant further scrutiny and should be forwarded for the information of the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government in the context of its consideration of related proposals referred to it for further scrutiny, those being, COM (2006) 240 and COM (2005) 445. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 5.10 is COM (2006) 460, a proposal for a decision concerning the joint management committee of the association agreement between Chile and the European Community and the EC's position thereon regarding the standards applicable to trade in animals, animal products, plants, plant products and other goods. The proposed changes to be agreed by the joint committee in this regard concern previous changes to EC and Chilean legislation and the widening of related controls to include animal transport matters. It is proposed that the technical proposal does not warrant further scrutiny and should be forwarded for the information of the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food in the context of the wider issue of the standards set for food imports from outside the European Union. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 5.11 is COM (2006) 461, a proposal for an amending regulation with respect to fishing opportunities as a consequence, inter alia, of international agreements. The proposal concerns basking shark, quotas for Icelandic vessels, western channel sole stocks and herring quotas for Poland. It is proposed that the proposed measure be forwarded for the information of the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 5.12 is COM (2006) 485, a proposal for a regulation fixing the fishing opportunities and associated conditions in the Baltic Sea for 2007. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 5.13 is COM (2006) 492, an amended proposal for a decision concerning the European year of intercultural dialogue, 2008. In its memorandum to this proposal, the Commission sets out that it believes that it should be a priority for all those living in the European Union to play a full part in managing our diversity. Moreover, the Commission states that intercultural dialogue is an instrument that could facilitate the implementation of a series of strategic priorities for the Union. The Commission is proposing to dedicate 2008 as the European year of intercultural dialogue.

It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny and that the proposed measure be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, as well as the Joint Committee on Education and Science, given the educational focus of the proposal. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Items Nos. 5.14 and 5.15 were originally listed as items Nos. 4.1 and 4.2, follow-up early warning notes. These are proposals for decisions terminating the anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of recordable digital versatile discs, DVDs, originating in the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong and Taiwan and CDs originating in the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong and Malaysia. The Commission is not proposing to impose duties, despite the establishment of dumping and injury to industry. Additional clarity on the background to this proposal was sought from the Department. The Department has now outlined that the Commission investigations concluded that the producer interest is very low and that Ireland shares the Commission's analysis of the market. Based on the additional information provided by the Department, it is proposed that the proposals do not warrant further scrutiny. It is also proposed that the proposed measures be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next matter is item No. 6.1, COM (2006) 330, a proposal for an amended regulation establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector. Consideration of this proposal was deferred at the previous meeting to allow the Department provide additional information on this matter. There are two elements to this proposal. The first, which the Department states will have no implications for Ireland, allows new member states to alter their management of certain elements of the levy. The second element of the proposal would provide for the payment by member states of the milk levy between 16 October and 30 November each year. To date the deadline has been 1 October.

The Department had been requested to outline in more detail its understanding of the implications for Ireland of the changes in the date of payment of the levy. The Department has now confirmed to the committee that the adopted measure will have no effect on the collection mechanisms applied by purchasers and consequently will not impact on Irish dairy farmers. The measure was adopted by the Council in September. It is proposed, following the provision of additional material by the Department, to note the measure. It is also proposed that the material related to the measure be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 6.2 is COM (2006) 488, a Council regulation concerning a prohibition on the sale or supply of arms and related material and services to certain individuals and entities in Lebanon. The regulation provides that arms and related material and services should only be provided to Lebanon where authorised by the Government of Lebanon or UNIFIL. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 7.1 is EWN regulation 1350/2006, a provisional anti-dumping measures concerning tungsten electrode products, used for welding and similar processes, imported from the People's Republic of China. It is proposed that the proposal does not currently warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 7.2 is EWN 2006/C181/08, notification of expiry review of anti-dumping measures concerning iron or steel ropes imported from Russia, Thailand and Turkey. It is proposed that the proposal does not currently warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 7.3 is EWN 2006/C223/05, notification of an expiry review of anti-dumping measures concerning certain gas fuelled non-refillable lighters imported from the People's Republic of China. It is proposed that the proposal does not currently warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 8 is the report of the sub-committee. The draft 71st report has been circulated. I propose that the report be forwarded to the Joint Committee on European Affairs for agreement to lay before both Houses along with appendices. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Dardis

What about items Nos. 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6? These were circulated to committee members.

Acting Chairman

They were taken together. The minutes of previous meeting, on 20 September 2006, have been circulated. Are they agreed? Agreed.

A letter dated 14 September 2006 from the Department of Transport concerning COM (2005) 453 and 454 has been received by the sub-committee. It is proposed to acknowledge and note this correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. A letter dated 18 September 2006 from the Department of Transport concerning COM (2006) 172 has been received. It is proposed to acknowledge and note this correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed. A paper entitled Democracy and Security in Britain after the Heathrow Plot has been received from the German Institute for International and Security Affairs. It is proposed to note this correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The sub-committee adjourned at 9.55 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 26 October 2006.