JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN SCRUTINY díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 20 Nov 2007

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Chairman

Before we discuss the proposals, members are notified that COSAC is to carry out a subsidiarity and proportionality check on the Council framework decision amending framework decision 2002/475/JHA on the combating of terrorism. Copies of the relevant documentation relating to this proposal were circulated to members today. COSAC, the conference of bodies specialising in European affairs, has been selected to carry out subsidiarity tests on this proposal which we will scrutinise in detail at a future date. Initially, I propose that we seek information from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and forward the proposal to the legal adviser for observations, as was done when the previous joint committee performed a subsidiarity check. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 9 is the scrutiny of European Union legislative proposals. No. 1.1 is COM (2006) 867, a proposal laying down certain control measures applicable to Antarctic fishing activities. No. 1.2 is COM (2007) 20 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Somalia. No. 1.3 is COM (2007) 40 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Liberia. No. 1.4 is COM (2007) 75 which grants certain derogations to Bulgaria and Romania in the area of the Common Fisheries Policy. COM (2007) 97 is a proposal regarding a protocol to the partnership and co-operation agreement between the European Union and Georgia to take account of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania. COM (2007) 104 is a proposal regarding a protocol to the partnership and co-operation agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Armenia to take account of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania. COM (2007) 111 is a proposal regarding a protocol to the partnership and co-operation agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Azerbaijan to take account of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

It must be a burden on the Chairman to have to go through all these proposals. Given that they are adopted measures, are we required to record them all? Can we not take them as read, unless somebody has an objection to a particular proposal?

Chairman

I could just read out the proposal number.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

As they have been adopted, there can be no further scrutiny at this stage.

Chairman

That would help me considerably but we must record the numbers.It is proposed to note the following adopted measures: COM (2007) 138; COM (2007) 139; COM (2007) 176; COM (2007) 191; COM (2007) 193; COM (2007) 202; COM (2007) 209; COM (2007) 222; COM (2007) 224; COM (2007) 229; COM (2007) 252; COM (2007) 257; COM (2007) 260; COM (2007) 271 - FON; COM (2007) 278 - FON; COM (2007) 296; COM (2007) 323; COM (2007) 335; COM (2007) 338; COM (2007) 339; COM (2007) 351; COM (2007) 363 - FON; COM (2007) 382 - FON; COM (2007) 387; COM (2007) 388; COM (2007) 550 - FON; COM (2007) 561 - FON; COM (2007) 564 - FON; COM (2007) 566 - FON; and COM (2007) 345 - FON. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I refer to schedule 2 of the briefing document circulated to members of the committee. These are proposals where no further scrutiny is proposed. They are proposed to be noted. The proposals are as follows: COM (2007) 192; COM (2007) 310; COM (2007) 319; COM (2007) 462; COM (2007) 291; COM (2007) 302; COM (2007) 446; COM (2007) 587; COM (2007) 344; COM (2006) 869; COM (2006) 910; COM (2007) 76; and COM (2007) 129. It is recommended that these proposals do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is proposed to note the following proposals regarding the signature of the proposed measures and that the proposals regarding the conclusion of the measures do not warrant further scrutiny: COM (2007) 132; COM (2007) 142; COM (2007) 144; COM (2007) 237; COM (2007) 404. Is that agreed? Agreed.

On the following proposals: COM (2007) 134; COM (2007) 159; COM (2007) 177; COM (2007) 189; COM (2007) 198; COM (2007) 219; COM (2007) 221; COM (2007) 276--

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

On that proposal, we should give further consideration to the implications of this decision regarding the State of Israel. It is a proposal for a Council decision regarding the conclusion of an agreement on scientific and technical co-operation between the European Community and the State of Israel. It is a renewal of an existing agreement.

Given what has happened in the State of Israel over recent years regarding the state of Palestine, I do not believe the European Union should enter into such agreements in the absence of clauses which protect human rights. The committee should check whether such clauses are in place in this instance.

Senator Terry Leyden

I support Deputy Ó Snodaigh in this regard. The European Union's approach to the Palestinian situation has been very lax as far as agreements with Israel are concerned. Such agreements should include clauses demanding that Israel recognises Palestine, or at least should form part of an approach to these issues over which we can have some control. If Israel does not adhere to existing international agreements involving the recognition of Palestine, we should include a provision requiring it to do so in the new agreements.

Deputy Joe Costello

I agree with Deputy Ó Snodaigh's proposal, which was seconded by Senator Leyden. The Dáil is currently processing the Control of Exports Bill 2007, which deals with military matters. It relates specifically to scientific and technological components which can be part and parcel of military equipment, etc. I would like to know more about the extent of the agreement on scientific and technical co-operation. Does it extend to dual-purpose and multi-purpose components which could be used in military equipment? I suggest that we get further information on this item.

Chairman

Yes. It is obvious that there are political considerations to be taken into account when we look at the agreement on scientific and technical co-operation. We can certainly look at this. We will seek further information from the Department in advance of the next meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is proposed that the following proposals do not warrant further scrutiny, with the exception of the proposal that was mentioned by Deputy Ó Snodaigh: COM (2007) 298; COM (2007) 305; COM (2007) 327; COM (2007) 333; COM (2007) 337; COM (2007) 352; COM (2007) 381; COM (2007) 393; COM (2007) 406; COM (2007) 411; COM (2007) 435; COM (2007) 444; COM (2007) 445; COM (2007) 449; COM (2007) 457; COM (2007) 482; COM (2007) 483; COM (2007) 487; COM (2007) 488; COM (2007) 489; COM (2007) 499; COM (2007) 508; COM (2007) 517; COM (2007) 518; COM (2007) 520; COM (2007) 521; COM (2007) 522; COM (2007) 526; COM (2007) 527; COM (2007) 585; COM (2007) 624 - follow-on note; and SEC 2007(476). Is that agreed?

Deputy Joe Costello

I understand that COM (2007) 526, which relates to the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund, involves the payment of damages to 100 former contract staff of the Commission. The total, including technical adjustments, is €207.7 million. I assume an Irish contribution or Irish funding would be included in this amount. It is described as redeployment within the EU budget.

Chairman

It is a transfer within the budget apparently. It has no Exchequer funding.

Deputy Joe Costello

Is it not additional to what was there? It relates to damages and so on.

Chairman

It is an internal bookkeeping exercise within the budget--

Deputy Joe Costello

Has it any impact on the Exchequer?

Chairman

No. Is it agreed that the proposals I have listed do not warrant further scrutiny? Agreed.

Proposals COM (2007) 190; COM (2007) 413; COM (2007) 421; COM (2007) 422; COM (2007) 423; and COM (2007) 426 relate to agreements on the facilitation of short-stay visas between the European Community and Ukraine, Albania, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Republic of Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the Republic of Montenegro. It is proposed to note these proposals relating to those parts of each agreement that have been adopted and relating to the outstanding parts of the proposals, that they do not warrant further scrutiny but that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, be requested to keep the committee informed of all the developments relating to the facilitation of issuance of short-stay visas. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is recommended that proposal COM (2007) 108 does not warrant further scrutiny but that it to be forwarded together with COM (2007) 119 to the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2007) 119 is a proposal for a Council decision establishing statutes for the EURATOM Supply Agency. It is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, together with COM (2007) 108. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2007) 122 is a proposal for a Council regulation amending a previous Council regulation on the financing of the Common Agricultural Policy. It is recommended that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny, but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for information purposes. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2007) 263 is a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator. It is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny, but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Transport for information and that the Department be requested to keep that committee updated of all important developments. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2007) 265 is a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council which consolidates and merges two regulations on access to the road transport market within the Community or from the territory of a member state or passing across the territory of one or more member states. It is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Transport for information in conjunction with COM (2007) 263, and that the Department of Transport be requested to keep the committee informed of important developments. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2007) 376, a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council, concerns the application of new rules aimed at the modernisation and simplification of the provisions of the regulation co-ordinating social security systems in the community. It is recommended that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny, but that the Department should be requested to keep the committee informed of any developments, particularly regarding recent concerns expressed on applicability or non-applicability of social security rights for workers from Romania. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2007) 383 is a proposal for a Council regulation on the measures to be undertaken by the Commission in 2008-13, making use of the remote-sensing applications developed within the framework of the Common Agricultural Policy. It is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny, but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2007) 451 is a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on rear registration plate lamps for motor vehicles and their trailers. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant any further scrutiny. It is also proposed that the proposed measure be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Transport due to the minor amendment that will be required to national regulations. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2007) 476 is a proposal for a Council decision providing community macro-financial assistance to Lebanon. It is recommended that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. In addition it is proposed that the proposed measure be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2007) 478, is a proposal for a council decision relating to the conclusion of an agreement between the European Community and the Council of Europe on co-operation between the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and the Council of Europe. It is proposed that the proposal be considered further and be forwarded for information and consideration by the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Terry Leyden

Would it be appropriate to send COM (2007) 478 to the Joint Committee on European Affairs? It is a European affairs issue rather than one for the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. It is a link between the Council of Europe and the European Union.

Chairman

The lead Department is the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

Senator Terry Leyden

Would the Joint Committee on European Affairs not have any input?

Chairman

I am advised that it would not.

Senator Terry Leyden

I suggest that the Chairman consider also sending it to the Joint Committee on European Affairs.

Chairman

We can send it. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Joe Costello

When it is decided that a proposal be considered further and forwarded, does that mean it will return to us from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform?

Chairman

Yes, if the Department had considerations or concerns it would return to us.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

Is that the case with every matter referred to every committee? Are they all to come back to us, or only if we specify it?

Chairman

Because it is a new role for this committee, scrutiny would take place here. It is planned that the major investigations taken up by this committee would be in excess of 25. The sectorial committees would be mandated to return within four to five weeks with their observations.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

Then will they all return to this committee?

Deputy Damien English

I thought it was up to them to forward matters. I thought if we forwarded a matter to another committee it was for consideration by that committee, not by us. Did I misunderstand it?

Chairman

We will seek their observations on it and it will return to us. If we feel it requires further scrutiny that will take place at this committee.

Senator Terry Leyden

Deputy Costello has a particular interest in that issue.

Deputy Joe Costello

It concerns--

Chairman

I call Deputy Ó Snodaigh.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I have concerns about COM (2007) 513 which deals with peroxosulphates. We should keep this matter under review since the chemical in question is one of the major weapons in the country's armoury in tackling foot and mouth disease and avian flu. I do not have enough information on it, but it appears the Government, rightly, voted against this decision which was due to take effect on 9 October. I understand a measure must be in place for at least one year for a review to be initiated. Does the committee have the power to trigger a review? We should seek more information on these chemicals and the reason there is opposition to their use - the effect of the anti-dumping duty and the decision being taken. I propose we return to this issue in a year's time, if need be, given the importance of these chemicals to our control of foot and mouth disease and avian flu. At that time, if necessary, the committee could call on the Government to ensure Ireland had the power to address these diseases in the event of future outbreaks.

Chairman

The advice I have been given is that due to the fact that this proposal has since been adopted, but taking account of the concerns raised by Ireland, it is proposed that while it does not warrant further scrutiny, the measure be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is also proposed that the Department should inform the committee of any future review of this anti-dumping measure which may be requested or initiated. We can keep the matter under review and if some facts come to light, we can discuss them.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

What will be the impact of this measure on Ireland in the light of the fact that it has been agreed to and adopted?

Chairman

It is that we are unable to dump the substances in Ireland where they are controlled. There are concerns in this regard. We are forwarding the matter to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, from which will seek information. If it is concerned, we will ask it to come back to us on the matter at a future meeting.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

In other words, we lost the battle at European level, even though we voted against it. In effect, we are restricted by this decision.

Chairman

That appears to be the case. Given the concerns voiced by Deputy Ó Snodaigh, we will follow up the matter. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2007) 514 is a proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and the Council in respect of a research and development programme aimed at supporting research and development performing SMEs undertaken by several member states. It is proposed that the proposal be considered further and forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2007) 523 is a proposal for a Council regulation derogating from a previous regulation establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the Common Agricultural Policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, as regards set-aside for 2008. Given that the measure has been adopted, it is proposed that it does not warrant any further scrutiny. However, given that it is of significance to Irish farmers, it is also proposed that it be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2007) 525 is a proposal for a Council regulation amending a previous regulation laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. It is also proposed that the proposal be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Joe Costello

Can it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights.

Chairman

Yes. Is it agreed the proposal be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights? Agreed.

The next item is SEC (2007) 1140, an amending letter to the preliminary draft budget 2008 - statement of expenditure by section III - Commission which concerns new funds to support the stability and development of Kosovo. Given the measure adopted, it is proposed that it does not warrant further scrutiny. It also proposed to forward the measure for information to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee of Public Accounts. Is that agreed?

Senator Terry Leyden

On document SEC (2007) 1140 and the €85 million to support the Palestinian Authority, will normal relations resume with the elected Government of the Palestinian people? Have the restrictions in respect of the European Union's decision to withdraw funding from the Palestinian Authority when Hamas was elected been overcome? This is a little ambiguous.

I hope the Department will forward its views on this to the committee. The money should be made available to the elected Government of the Palestinian people and, in particular, the area of the Gaza Strip which is now under the control of Hamas as opposed to other parts of Palestine which are under the control of the President. There is a great deal involved in this regard. Ultimately, this committee has responsibility in this area and we should receive reports on this from the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee of Public Accounts. I am not sure if the Committee of Public Accounts has much to do with this but the matter should be considered by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Deputy Joe Costello

I agree with Senator Leyden. It is important we clarify where the money is going and how it is distributed, whether directly to the authority or by other mechanisms as a result of the change in policy that has operated since the election of Hamas. This measure should be also referred to the Joint Committee on European Affairs.

Chairman

I appreciate members' concerns on this issue. Is the proposal agreed? Agreed.

Items 3.16 to 3.18 which were received in June and July are significant proposals that might have merited further detailed scrutiny but for the fact that they are due to be finalised shortly. It is recommended that the proposals which are scheduled for adoption by Council on 22 November 2007 not be scrutinised and that they be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

Item 3.16, COM (2007) 241, is a proposal for a Council regulation setting up the innovative medicines initiative joint undertaking; item 3.17, COM (2007) 315, is a proposal for a Council regulation setting up a clean sky undertaking and, item 3.18, COM (2007) 356, is a proposal for a Council regulation setting up the ENIAC joint undertaking. It is proposed to forward these measures for information to the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Is that agreed?

Senator Paddy Burke

Given the short timeframe involved, would such directives not be automatically forwarded to that committee also? Is there in place a mechanism by which this could be done?

Chairman

They would not be sent directly to the committee.

Senator Paddy Burke

Must they first come before this committee?

Chairman

Yes. E-mails received in connection with matters relating to EU scrutiny are directed to this committee. Obviously, the timeframe in this instance is quite short but it is hoped that the lead-in time will be greater in future.

No. 4 relates to CFSP measures. I will go through them quickly. They are as follows: CFSP (2007) 178; CFSP (2007)185; CFSP (2007) 203; CFSP (2007) 245; CFSP (2007) 246; CFSP (2007) 248; CFSP (2007) 334; CFSP (2007) 338; CFSP (2007) 359p; CFSP (2007) 369; CFSP (2007) 400; CFSP (2007) 405; CFSP (2007) 406; CFSP (2007) 448; CFSP (2007) 484; CFSP (2007) 520; CFSP (2007) 528; CFSP (2007) 634; CFSP (2007) 635; and CFSP (2007) 654. It is proposed to note these CFSP measures. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5 relates to Title IV measures. No. 5.1 is COM (2007) 466. Given the importance of migration issues for Ireland and the role of the Oireachtas in approving Ireland's participation in such measures, it is proposed that further consideration and possible consultation with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is warranted. It is also proposed that the proposal be forwarded for information and possible views to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

It is a very tight timeframe for what is proposed. The aim is to adopt the proposed Council decision before the end of the year. The next Council meeting will take place on 16 or 17 December. If we are seeking views from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and also the committee, it should be highlighted that we are working within a very tight timeframe.

Chairman

That is a good point. We can emphasise that in the correspondence and that we expect a reply as quickly as possible.

No. 6 relates to early warning notes. The first of these is EWN Regulation 2005/2006. It is proposed that these proposals do not currently warrant further scrutiny but the Department should be requested to keep the committee informed of developments. Is that agreed? Agreed. In regard to EWN: 2006 C 226/05; EWN: 2006/C109/13; EWN: 2007 C171-11; EWN: 2007 C171-12; EWN: 2007 C184-07; EWN: 2007/C 81/02; EWN: 2007/C103/10; EWN: L 223/1; EWN:L243/23; EWN:L243/7; EWN:2007 C131/09; EWN:2007 C138-12; and EWN: 2007/C 227/05, it is proposed that these proposals do not currently warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We will now move on to schedule 7. COM (2006) 820 is a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council on airport charges. The lead Department is the Department of Transport. The proposal is aimed at defining a set of common principles to apply to the determination of airport charges at airports in member states with commercial traffic above a specified size, namely, 1 million passengers or 25,000 tonnes of cargo. It is designed to recognise the need for the economic regulation of airports to include elements such as non-discrimination in the application of charges, ensuring transparency and consultation and the establishment and review of quality standards. Member states will be required to establish an independent regulatory authority to oversee the application of the directive and act as a dispute settlement authority in disputes referred to it either by air carriers or airport operators, with decisions made by each authority having binding effect.

The Department indicates in its information note that the main implication is that the national system of regulation of airport charges must comply with the new directive. A review of the Aviation Regulation Act 2001 would be necessitated to ensure compliance with the directive. Under the 2001 Act, the Commission for Aviation Regulation is the independent regulator overseeing airport charges at Dublin Airport. Charges at other airports are not regulated. Under the directive, any airport above the size threshold would be subject to its requirements. In view of current public concerns about airport charges, it is recommended that the proposal be scrutinised in further detail. Is that agreed?

Senator Paddy Burke

The Chairman said the directive applied to airports with at least 1 million passengers or 25,000 tonnes of cargo. Does this mean it will take away the independence of the airport authorities such as those at Shannon Airport, Cork Airport and Knock Airport? Will the regulatory body set charges? If so, will the same charges apply at Dublin, Shannon and Cork airports? Given these concerns, the proposal needs further scrutiny before we agree to it.

Chairman

This is a very important issue, which is why it has been deemed that the proposal needs further scrutiny. We can put the Senator's questions to the witnesses who will be invited to attend the committee, as I do not have the answers. The implications are very significant in terms of charges at airports outside Dublin.

Deputy Joe Costello

On a point of clarification, does the proposal apply to aircraft charges such as baggage handling fees, as well as airport charges? Extra levies have been imposed. Issues arise as to the extent to which the advertised cost of air travel includes such surcharges. To some degree, there has been false advertising by carriers because the advertised cost does not necessarily incorporate all the extra levies and surcharges. If the directive applies to aircraft charges, it is extremely important. We should, therefore, seek far more information.

Chairman

The directive only relates to airport charges but we can engage in further scrutiny when the relevant witnesses come before the committee at the appointed time.

Senator Terry Leyden

I note that a date has not been set for the start of discussions at Council working group level. I have no objection to the committee scrutinising the proposal. However, it looks as if it would be more appropriate to the Joint Committee on Transport. I know this committee has a broad brief and deals with all issues relating to the scrutiny of European legislation but the Joint Committee on Transport should at least be informed that we will be holding hearings on the subject to avoid it holding similar discussions with the airport authorities. While it does not include the other airports, I am sure that Cork and Shannon must have more than 1 million passengers a year at this stage. I cannot understand how they are excluded from this proposed directive which indicates that only Dublin is involved.

Chairman

Upon scrutiny of this proposal, representatives of the Department of Transport should be invited to attend the committee as witnesses.

Senator Terry Leyden

We should inform the Joint Committee on Transport that we are dealing with this issue.

Chairman

A notification of this should also be sent to the relevant committees. Everybody will be notified of it.

Senator Terry Leyden

That is what I suggested.

Deputy Damien English

It refers to 1 million passengers. However, some report must have resulted in the figure of 1 million being picked. At a later point will we see a directive referring to 500,000 passengers and so on? It would be interesting to understand the background to the proposal. Is that available to us?

Chairman

There was an impact assessment report which resulted in choosing the figure of 1 million.

Deputy Damien English

Do we get access to that report?

Chairman

Yes. Is it agreed that we--

Deputy Timmy Dooley

We should try to understand the changes the directive will bring about rather than revisiting the issue of airport charging. An airports regulator already exists. We need to understand the changes. Regarding witnesses who might appear before the committee, we should start with the Commission for Aviation Regulation and get its outline of the implications. We should then seek the views of the various airports. We should also consider the airports with fewer than 1 million passengers to ensure we are getting the widest possible range of information from the people most affected.

Senator Paddy Burke

I propose we should also hear from the carriers.

Deputy Damien English

The carriers are the most important.

Chairman

Deputy Dooley would like to meet representatives of the Commission for Aviation Regulation and the airports.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I would like to meet representatives of the Commission for Aviation Regulation and the airports because there is a competition issue involved, which is the main purpose of a regulator. The proposal may strengthen the hand of the regulator. We need to ensure that whatever regime is introduced does not disenfranchise the smaller airports that depend to some extent on a competitive edge by being able to offer lower charges by virtue of the kind of facilities and services they provide. It is important to hear from representatives of the airports to ensure they will be able to compete against Dublin. In reality we have one large airport with a large volume of traffic and a series of smaller airports.

Chairman

Regional airports.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

They are regional and international airports. I would not want Shannon Airport to be termed a regional airport. We need to get their views on any restrictions that might be introduced forcing the smaller airports into a regime where they might not be able to compete as effectively as they currently do with Dublin, which is the central airport.

Deputy Damien English

I imagine this proposal arises from judgments of the European Court regarding airport charges. This area could prove to be a minefield with considerably more work to do with it.

Chairman

This proposal has not yet gone to the Council. Our role is to scrutinise such proposals in advance. The consensus is that we should get as much information as possible on how it will impact on the operators and those who are not on the radar screen regarding control. The impact of the proposal would be to put them under the control of the authority.

Deputy Joe Costello

When we send this to the Department of Transport, should we ask it to circulate the proposed document to each of the airports requesting a response or do we do it directly ourselves?

Chairman

We can do it ourselves directly.

Deputy Joe Costello

It would be a great deal of work for us.

Chairman

The officials at the top table have recommended that this proposal should be scrutinised further. I hope we can scrutinise it as quickly possible as soon as we have agreement on the backlog.

Senator Paddy Burke

What form will the further scrutiny take? It has been proposed that various groups and organisations, such as the regulator, should be brought in. Will we devote half a day to it? Will we bring in all the stakeholders? Will one of the interested parties come in one day, with another coming in on a different day? How does the Chairman envisage that it will be done?

Chairman

If this process is to be effective, it is important that we have a one-day public hearing. We will have to invite several people in if it is to be meaningful. That would be important. It is up to the committee to decide on the way forward. We can reach agreement on the matter. It would be far better, in the interests of the effectiveness of the committee, to have the hearings on a single day. We could make our recommendations quickly in such circumstances, if we reach agreement.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I support Deputy Costello's proposal to circulate the information. I do not want to place too great a burden on the committee secretariat. It might be better for the committee to take the lead in this regard, rather than leaving it to the Department.

Chairman

Yes, that is our intention.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

We should circulate the information and communicate with the interested parties. It would be in the interests of the committee's public relations for us to be seen to take the initiative in terms of European scrutiny on behalf of the Parliament. This is a particularly good issue with which to highlight the work of this committee.

Senator Terry Leyden

I second that proposal.

Chairman

I am glad to hear that. My opinion is that if we are to take this on by inviting officials from the Department of Transport to come to the committee, we need to be advised on the other key personnel we should invite.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I suggest that an indicative timeframe should be included in the briefing document that will be circulated. These directives sometimes mention a date by which it is proposed they be adopted.

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

What is the attitude of the other EU member states to this matter? Have they rejected it? The arguments in favour of rejecting, adopting or amending this proposal might already have been made.

Chairman

That is a good point. It would be good to get an up-to-date report on the consensus elsewhere.

Deputy Michael McGrath

In addition to the briefing note that will be prepared on this issue, perhaps we could get information on the charges imposed at the various airports in this jurisdiction and across Europe. The text mentions the need to define "a set of common principles" relating to the determination of airport charges. That seems to be another way of saying we should pursue a common set of airport charges across the EU. If we are to understand Ireland's position in this regard by comparison with its European neighbours, we need to get details of the airport charges that apply throughout Europe and in Ireland.

Chairman

That is a good recommendation. I agree that we should be well advised on the numbers before we start to scrutinise this matter.

Deputy Michael McGrath

We need the actual figures.

Chairman

There is no point in us undertaking a diligent examination of this area and then learning that much of it has already been discussed in other parliaments.

Deputy Michael McGrath

Absolutely.

Chairman

That is very important. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2007) 18 is a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 98/70/EC as regards the specification of petrol, diesel and gas-oil and introducing a mechanism to monitor and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the use of road transport fuels and amending Council Directive 1999/32/EC, as regards the specification of fuel used by inland waterway vessels and repealing Directive 93/12/EEC. This Commission proposal is aimed at revising Directive 98/70/EC, fuel quality directive, to take into account progress made on vehicle pollutant emissions, the evolution of CO2 and cars strategy and the development of alternative fuels. The proposed directive is intended to reduce the sulphur content in non-road fuels and fuels used on inland waterways, promote the use of bio-fuels in petrol by allowing higher fuel vapour levels and oxidation levels for bio-fuels and introduce mandatory monitoring of lifecycle greenhouse gases in fuels in 2009. From 2011, fuel suppliers would be required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions up to a possible 10%.

The proposed directive would amend one Act and repeal another, in addition to amending a third Act. The proposal has implications for the Lisbon strategy and the Internal Market. The proposed directive is stated to be consistent with the sustainable development strategy, the thematic strategy on air pollution, the bio-fuel strategy. It will form part of the Kyoto strategy of the EU. The directive is also in conformity with better regulation principles.

The Department states in its information note that the proposed directive will have implications for Ireland in relation to air quality and CO2 emissions. Increased bio-fuels penetration may lead to some reduction in CO2 emissions from transport. However, the Department states that there is the possibility of increased air pollutants, for example, VOCs and NOx resulting from the proposal. There may also be implications for enforcement of fuel laundering as sulphur levels are used to differentiate between road diesel and marked gas oil.

In order that the full implications for Ireland may be discussed and assessed, it is proposed that this proposal be scrutinised in further detail. Is that agreed?

Senator Terry Leyden

I agree with the scrutiny of this proposal. Illegal smuggling relies on the extraction of the colour from diesel. Both the Chairman and I represent rural constituencies and the marked diesel is vital from an agricultural point of view but this could be operated by other methods and these should be examined afresh. The problem is the amount of diesel being brought across the Border in both directions by smugglers. Our friend with a farm straddling both sides of the Border seems to be an expert in this regard but I do not suggest we invite him here for scrutiny. He might advise us as to how we could eliminate this problem by being a poacher turned gamekeeper but he may be otherwise engaged for a while. This is an area that should be carefully considered and scrutinised by the committee. The Revenue Commissioners should be invited to speak to the committee as they are the experts. It would be an opportunity to highlight this area. If we could eliminate the incentives for smugglers by removing the colour from the diesel we could eliminate a great deal of cross-Border criminality.

Chairman

It is an important issue which will affect the Irish economy. Is it agreed? Agreed.

COM (2007) 361 is a proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning life assurance on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of insurance and reinsurance and is known as 'Solvency II'. The proposed directive represents the consolidation of 13 existing insurance directives that have not been changed in substance, plus the solvency II text. The main purpose of solvency II is to introduce an economic-market based approach to the measurement of assets and liabilities of insurance companies. This will ensure that companies will be in a position to determine with more accuracy the level of risk they are carrying, through the use of a consistent set of measurement principles, thus assigning an appropriate level of capital to cover that risk. An earlier measure, solvency I, was just a stop-gap measure to improve policy holder protection while a more fundamental reform project was undertaken. Solvency II was the result of that process, proposing a wider revision of the financial position of insurance and reinsurance undertakings. Among the measures covered in the proposed directive are the following: enhanced policy protection for policyholders and beneficiaries; improved international competitiveness of insurers and reinsurers; better regulation; improved risk management; encouragement of cross-sectoral consistency with other financial sectors; provision for better allocation of capital resources; promotion of international convergence; and increased transparency.

The Department states in its information note that this proposal will have significant impact on the operation of the insurance industry in Ireland and on the way it is regulated in Ireland and Europe. The directive will significantly reform the solvency, regulatory and reporting requirements of Irish insurance legislation. Most of the implementation costs will be borne by the insurance industry to the estimated amount of €2 billion to €3 billion. However, it is expected that these costs will be outweighed in the long run by the expected benefits. In view of the importance to the insurance industry of this proposed directive, it is proposed that this proposal be scrutinised in further detail. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proposal 11045/2007 is intended to establish implanting provisions essential for the operation of decision 2007/JHA on the stepping up of cross-border co-operation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime. Agreement on that decision was reached at the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 12-13 June 2007. It will require member states to increase co-operation in preventing or investigating cross-border crime or terrorism through the sharing of DNA, fingerprint and vehicle registration data. Data will also be shared for the purposes of: maintaining public order and security in connection with major events with a cross-border dimension; improving police co-operation through the use of joint patrols and joint operations; and providing mutual assistance in connection with the policing of mass gatherings, disasters and serious crimes.

The Department indicates that it has yet to be determined whether the technical specifications on DNA, fingerprinting and vehicle registration data in use in Ireland are compatible with those set out in the draft Council decision. It is also not known whether implementation will necessitate either primary or secondary legislation or whether the Council decision can be implemented through administrative measures. To determine the full implications for Ireland of the proposal, it is recommended that it be scrutinised in further detail. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Is there any indication from the Department when it will be able to make those determinations? If we are scrutinising them, it is important that we know the Department's opinion.

Chairman

We can seek clarification from the Department on when it will make those determinations.

Deputy Joe Costello

That is particularly important in the context of the reform treaty. This is about increased co-operation in cross-border investigations and this is where we choose to opt in or out of the reform treaty. It would be valuable for us to discuss this and its implications in terms of its own measures and of the further discussions that will take place around the country on how we participate in the implications of the reform treaty for our opting in or opting out of the measure. It would be valuable to deal with that quickly. I presume we will send this to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, but the Department of Foreign Affairs would also have considerable interest in it. The two Departments could equally be lead Departments on this because of the reform treaty implications.

Chairman

This committee would plan to invite witnesses to appear before it on this issue. We could invite both Departments to a hearing on it, and any other relevant witnesses the committee may feel necessary.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Are we setting the list of witnesses now or in the future?

Chairman

We will do so at a future date.

The proposal will be fully scrutinised by this committee. We can now decide which of the four proposals we will look at during our next meeting. I suggest that we aim to scrutinise COM (2007) 361, a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning life assurance on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of insurance and reinsurance, subject to the availability of the relevant witnesses. I suggest we invite the Insurance Federation of Ireland, which represents the insurance industry, the Financial Regulator, consumer affairs representatives and-or other relevant bodies, as well as officials from the Department of Finance and possibly the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to come before the committee to discuss the implications of this proposal. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I suggest that we have the meeting in two parts. The first part would be at 12 noon and would deal with proposals on hand. We would then have a short break for lunch following which we would meet the invitees at 2.30 p.m. to discuss the proposal. Is that agreed?

Deputy Seán Connick

How do we organise the committee's work in regard to other committees? This meeting clashes with a meeting of the Joint Committee on Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, and in the afternoon there is a meeting of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. In effect, I have three committee meetings to attend today but I gave priority to this one.

Chairman

I thank Deputy Connick.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

The Deputy is popular.

Chairman

The Deputy is busy with three committees. It is difficult to find a time to facilitate everybody.

Deputy Joe Costello

Perhaps the secretariat could try to sort something out.

Chairman

We meet on Tuesdays but originally there was a proposal that we would meet on Thursdays. No doubt, there could be problems on Thursdays also. It is important for Deputies to attend this meeting, which is the first public hearing on the role of EU scrutiny. It is important that as many members as possible would attend it. Does Deputy Costello wish the secretariat to come back to him on this issue? We would like to accommodate members.

Deputy Joe Costello

Yes. This is the first of many meetings and the same thing can occur at other times.

Chairman

Yes, as Deputy Costello said, the Vice Chairman is important.

Deputy Joe Costello

It might be preferable for the secretariat to consult with members to see what other committees they serve on and see what are the best times for them.

Chairman

That is a very good suggestion. As the Vice Chairman, it is important that Deputy Connick can attend meetings in the event of me not being here. It is important that we would facilitate him to attend.

Deputy Damien English

No matter what we do, this will happen. Members regularly attend a number of meetings in the course of a morning or afternoon. Sometimes one has to pick one. In most cases, there is not much that can be done about it.

Chairman

The secretariat can get agreement on the best consensus possible to facilitate the attendance of the majority of members.

Senator Paddy Burke

We know our meetings take place at 12 noon and other committees know what time they start but if we start chopping and changing we might clash with other committees.

Chairman

Perhaps we could start an hourearlier at 11 a.m. and bring in the witnesses at 12 noon.

Deputy Damien English

We could even start at 10 a.m.

Chairman

We can examine this issue. As Senator Burke stated, if one changes the time or date, one can get caught out.

Deputy Seán Connick

I will discuss the matter with the other committees and see whether any of them can change their meeting times. Some of the other committees may not have the same amount of work as this committee and the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights.

Chairman

I know that the working group of Chairmen under Deputy O'Flynn has not yet met. The secretariat will talk to all members to find out what best suits them and to reach agreement. Would it present a problem if we were to start at 11 a.m. instead of 12 noon on Tuesdays? We will discuss this on another occasion.

In the case of unavailability of the relevant representatives at the next meeting I suggest as an alternative COM (2006) 820, proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on airport charges, for further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I also propose as a matter of ongoing practice that a notification be sent to the relevant sectoral committee notifying members of any proposals selected for scrutiny and extending an invitation to them to attend the proceedings of this committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is proposed that the following documents be forwarded to sectoral committees for observation, to be returned to this committee within four weeks or six weeks at the latest: COM (2007) 170; COM (2007) 243; COM (2007) 264; COM (2007) 355; COM (2007) 364; COM (2007) 367; and COM (2007) 395.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

It is proposed that COM (2007) 397; COM (2007) 402; COM (2007) 403; and COM (2007) 346 be referred to the Joint Committee on Health and Children. They are concerned with the placing of genetically modified goods on the market and access to the market. They should also be referred to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The measures will affect the agriculture market as well as health.

Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Is it agreed that the proposals outlined be referred to the sectoral committees for observation within four weeks or six weeks at the latest? Agreed.

There are no further proposals to forward to sectoral committees for detailed scrutiny.

Pursuant to the orders of reference, green and white papers will be dealt with directly by the Joint Committee on European Affairs. A number of outstanding green and white papers received since the dissolution of the Dáil will be forwarded to the Joint Committee on European Affairs. Is that agreed? Agreed.