JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN SCRUTINY díospóireacht

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Chairman

We will deal with the first brief circulated to members on Tuesday. It is proposed to note the following adopted measures: COM (2007) 15; COM (2007) 16; COM (2007) 428; COM (2007) 429; COM (2007) 84; COM (2007) 85; COM (2007) 89; COM (2007) 109; COM (2007) 137 — FON; COM (2007) 149; COM (2007) 156 — FON; COM (2007) 166 — FON; COM (2007) 179; COM (2007) 204; COM (2007) 254; COM (2007) 256; SEC (2007) 836; COM (2007) 259; SEC (2007) 837; COM (2007) 309; COM (2007) 318; COM (2007) 321; COM (2007) 342; COM (2007) 369; COM (2007) 463; COM (2007) 481 — FON; COM (2007) 490 — FON; COM (2007) 634; COM (2007) 683 — FON; and SEC (2006) 1776. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is recommended that the following proposals do not warrant further scrutiny: COM (2007) 98; COM (2007) 105; COM (2007) 110; COM (2007) 113; COM (2007) 114; COM (2007) 115; COM (2007) 117; COM (2007) 133; COM (2007) 141; COM (2007) 143; and COM (2007) 93. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is proposed to note the following adopted measures: COM (2007) 180 and COM (2007) 181. It is also proposed that these measures do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is recommended that the following proposals do not warrant further scrutiny: COM (2007) 203; COM (2007) 236; COM (2007) 239; COM (2007) 272 — FON; COM (2007) 290; COM (2007) 365; COM (2007) 368; COM (2007) 410; COM (2007) 415; COM (2007) 600 — final/2; COM (2007) 427; COM (2007) 430; COM (2007) 436; COM (2007) 437; COM (2007) 443; COM (2007) 465; COM (2007) 472; COM (2007) 473; COM (2007) 477; COM (2007) 492; COM (2007) 495; COM (2007) 559; COM (2007) 576; COM (2007) 579; COM (2007) 580; COM (2007) 588; COM (2007) 594; COM (2007) 595; COM (2007) 596; COM (2007) 610; COM (2007) 612; COM (2007) 626; COM (2007) 629; COM (2007) 633; COM (2007) 648; COM (2007) 652; COM (2007) 655; COM (2007) 682; COM (2007) 688; COM (2007) 701; COM (2007) 702 — FON; COM (2007) 706 — FON; COM (2007) 730; SEC (2007) 483; SEC (2007) 1013; and SEC (2007) 1454. Is that agreed? Agreed. It is proposed they should be forwarded to the relevant sectoral committees for information.

It is recommended that COM (2007) 46 does not warrant further scrutiny at this stage but should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service for information, which may wish to request the CSO to keep it informed on developments in the negotiations and, in particular, on the likely implications for Ireland. It is further recommended that it be forwarded to the Joint Committees on Health and Children and Enterprise, Trade and Employment for information, in view of the potential implications for the Department of Health and Children and the Health and Safety Authority. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is recommended that COM (2007) 52 does not warrant further scrutiny, but that it should be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Services for information, in view of the Departments concerns regarding the element of harmonisation involved. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is proposed to note the adopted measure, COM (2007) 74 and that the proposed measure, COM (2007) 169 does not warrant further scrutiny but it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is recommended that COM (2007) 196 does not warrant further scrutiny at this stage, but should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for information, in view of the Department's assessment of the collection of reliable data as of critical importance. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is also recommended that COM (2007) 227 does not warrant further scrutiny, but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for information. Is that agreed? Agreed. Given that the measure is adopted, it is proposed that COM (2007) 289 does not warrant further scrutiny. However, given concerns about the regulation as regards its effect on the Irish fisheries industry, it is also proposed to forward it for information to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is proposed to note the adopted measure in COM (2007) 350 and that the proposed measure does not warrant further scrutiny but it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is recommended that COM (2007) 372 does not warrant further scrutiny, but that it should be referred to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is proposed that COM (2007) 431 does not warrant further scrutiny but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Women's Rights for information in advance of consideration of the opt-in motion by the Oireachtas. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is also proposed that COM (2007) 455 does not warrant further scrutiny, but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2007) 470 does not warrant further scrutiny but it is proposed that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is recommended that COM (2007) 515 does not warrant further scrutiny but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2007) 572 does not warrant further scrutiny but should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for information, in view of the fact that the Department had sought the extension. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is proposed that COM (2007) 602 does not warrant further scrutiny but, given the concerns raised during the Commission's consultations, it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is recommended that COM (2007) 603 does not warrant further scrutiny at this stage, but should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment for information, in view of the implications both for worker mobility and costs to employers. It is further recommended that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee for Finance and the Public Service for information in view of the cost implications and to the Joint Committee for Social and Family Affairs for information in view of the legislative implications. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is proposed that COM (2007) 605 does not warrant further scrutiny but that it be forwarded, given its potential but minimal impact on Irish fishing vessels, to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2007) 611 does not warrant further scrutiny but it is proposed that it be forwarded to the Joint Committees on Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Health and Children for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is recommended that COM (2007) 614 and COM (2007) 615 do not warrant further scrutiny at this stage, but should be forwarded for information to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2007) 669 does not warrant further scrutiny but it is proposed that it be forwarded to the Joint Committees on Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Health and Children for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is proposed that COM (2007) 687 and COMBUD 271/07 do not warrant further scrutiny but should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I refer to CFSP measures. It is proposed to note CFSP (2007) 468, CFSP (2007) 469 and CFSP (2007) 517. Is that agreed? Agreed. It is also proposed to note CFSP (2007) 677 and to forward it for information to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. Is that agreed? Agreed. It is further proposed to note CFSP (2007) 705, CFSP (2007) 732, CFSP (2007) 733, CFSP (2007) 734, CFSP (2007) 744, CFSP (2007) 748, CFSP (2007) 753, CFSP (2007) 761 and CFSP (2007) 762. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I refer to Title IV measures. It is recommended that COM (2007) 306 does not warrant further scrutiny but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for information, in the context of discussion on the Schengen information system and that the Department be requested to keep that committee fully informed of all significant developments. Is that agreed? Agreed. COM (2007) 311 does not warrant further scrutiny, but it is proposed that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for information, in the context of discussion on the Schengen information system, and that the Department be requested to keep that committee fully informed of all significant developments. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is recommended that COM (2007) 425 does not warrant further scrutiny, but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for its information in advance of any motion referring to participation. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is proposed that COM (2007) 432 does not warrant further scrutiny, but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for its information in advance of consideration of the opt-in motion by the Oireachtas. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is proposed that COM (2007) 438 does not warrant further scrutiny, but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for its information in advance of consideration of the opt-in motion by the Oireachtas. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is proposed that COM (2007) 504 does not warrant further scrutiny, but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for its information in advance of consideration of the opt-in motion by the Oireachtas. Is that agreed? Agreed.

On early warning notes, it is recommended that EWN: 2007/C66/06; EWN: 2007/212/12; EWN: 2007/C210/04; EWN: L234/3; and EWN:244/3 do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is recommended that EWN: 2007/C202/04 does not warrant further scrutiny, but that the Department keep the committee informed of the significant developments with regard to the implications for an Irish producer and users of this product. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is proposed that EWN: 2007/C230/06, EWN: 2007/C230/07, EWN: C314/02, EWN: 2007/C240/05 and EWN: 2006/311/10 do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 7 concerns proposals for further scrutiny. COM (2007) 90 is a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council amending Regulation No. 11 concerning the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions in implementation of Article 79(3) of the treaty establishing the European Economic Community and Regulation (EC) No. 852/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council on the hygiene of foodstuffs. The lead Department is the Department of Health and Children with various others. The proposal forms part of the Commission's action programme for reducing administrative burdens in the European Union. The main objective is to contribute to the Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs. The proposal has two distinct elements, the first of which is transport and involves the abolition of outdated obligations on road transport operators to carry documentation on routes, distances, rates and other conditions and to allow instead the use of existing consignment notes to provide information on the remaining requirements related to the current transport document; while the second is food hygiene and involves the exemption of micro-enterprises, with an annual turnover not exceeding €2 million and employing fewer than ten people, from the hazard analysis critical control points, HACCP, requirements of Regulation (EC) No. 852/2004 on food hygiene. It should be noted that the proposal indicates that the fact that both elements have the common aim of a reduction of administrative burdens makes it appropriate to combine the amendments in a common regulation. However, the Department's note indicates that it may be necessary to split the elements into two separate proposals because of their differing legal bases. This issue has not yet been resolved.

The Department of Transport is supportive of the transport aspect of the proposal and sees the amendment of the regulation as benefiting the road transport sector. The Department of Health and Children has concerns about the food aspect of the proposal. It states Regulation (EC) No. 852/2004 includes HACCP flexibility provisions for smaller businesses since January 2006 and believes the proposal to be premature. The position of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is unclear at this stage. It is recommended that the transport aspect of the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. However, in view of the concerns about excessive regulation expressed by small food producers and in the light of the Department of Health and Children's reservations about the proposed exemption of micro-enterprises from the HACCP requirements, it is recommended that this aspect of the proposal be scrutinised in further detail. Is that agreed?

Deputy Joe Costello

It seems there is little connection between the proposals on transport rates and food hygiene. Therefore, it seems crazy they are being lumped together.

Chairman

I agree. It forms part of the simplification of the regulations and procedures to reduce the bureaucratic burden.

Deputy Joe Costello

Surely that principle would extend to a range of areas.

Chairman

I expect it will. While there may be no association between transport, the regulation of small businesses and food hygiene, it is good we are agreeing to further scrutiny of the issue because the regulation will have an impact on small companies, many of which are already overburdened. Is that agreed?

Deputy Joe Costello

Agreed.

Chairman

No. 8 is a proposal that documents forwarded to sectoral committees for observations be returned to the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny, preferably within four weeks but within six weeks at the latest.

The proposed directive COM (2005) 593, being the seventh of seven measures, forms part of the third maritime safety package introduced by the Commission. The package seeks to promote healthy competition between shipping operators who comply with international rules on safety and compensation. Currently, for much of the damage caused to third parties, civil liability regimes for EU shipowners vary considerably and insurance schemes are not compulsory. The proposed directive seeks to establish "core" rules, to be common to all member states, which would govern civil liability, insurance for shipowners and the liability of any person responsible for operating a ship. It would do this by incorporating the IMO Convention on the Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, LLMC, into EU law.

The view of the Parliament has been that there is a need to ensure only safe ships sail and that accident victims should receive speedy and adequate compensation. It was also in favour of including a definition of "gross negligence". It voted for EU member states to be responsible for enforcing the rules in the directive, for a fund to be set up to compensate victims of damage caused by ships sailing in EU waters without a financial guarantee certificate and also for the establishment of a Community office to keep a register of certificates issued and check financial guarantees issued by third countries.

The proposal seeks EU-wide adoption of the International Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1996 through a directive on civil liability and financial guarantees of ship owners. That would result in the incorporation of the convention into EU law in order to ensure uniform application throughout the European Union. The LLMC sets limits for liability for loss of life or personal injury claims and also for property claims. The Commission is also seeking a mandate to negotiate within the International Maritime Organisation for a revision of the LLMC, and, in particular, a review of the level at which ship owners lose their right to limit their liability. The proposed directive would also make provision for the repatriation of seafarers in case of abandonment.

Of the 25 amendments adopted by the Parliament the Commission has decided to accept 18 in their entirety, while two have been rejected. The remainder have been accepted in part or in principle. The proposal is now going for its First Reading by Council under the decision procedure.

MEPs also voted to strengthen Commission proposals to increase the liability of ship operators and compensate third parties and passengers in the event of accidents. For damage caused by ships to third parties, international conventions allow shipowners to limit their liability in almost all cases. The Department states in its information note that this proposal would have some significance for Ireland. However, Ireland already plans to implement the 1996 LLMC Protocol by virtue of section 28 of the Sea Pollution (Hazardous Substances) (Compensation) Act 2005. The Attorney General's office has expressed concern on the Community's competence to pass a directive giving effect to an IMO convention regardless of member states' rights and obligations under international law and as members of the UN. The Commission has held a consultation process with industry and views are mixed on the question of obligatory insurance. In Ireland, the Irish Chamber of Shipping has been consulted and the views of the Irish Maritime Development Office are also being sought. In view of the concerns expressed by the Attorney General, it is proposed that this proposal should be scrutinised in further detail and in this regard should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Transport and the Marine for written observations to be returned to this committee, preferably within four weeks of the date of this meeting and within six weeks at the latest. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2007) 249 is a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council providing for sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals. The purpose of this Commission proposal is to sanction employers who illegally employ third-country nationals. It forms part of the EU's overall policy to develop a comprehensive migration policy. The proposed regulation specifically targets employers who employ third-country nationals who are working illegally in the Community. The scale of employment of illegally staying third country nationals in the EU is hard to quantify and estimates vary from between 4.5 million to 8 million. Illegal employment is concentrated in certain sectors, mostly low -skilled and low paid jobs in construction, agriculture, cleaning and hotel-catering.

The central focus of the proposed regulation is a general prohibition on the employment of third-country nationals who do not have the right to be resident in the EU. The regulation sets out common sanctions and measures to be applied to employers who infringe that prohibition. Included in the proposed measures are: employers would be required to undertake certain checks before recruiting a third-country national; the procedure for making complaints would be facilitated; and member states would be required to undertake a certain number of inspections. Employers who do not comply with these obligations will be required to pay fines and other administrative measures.

Member states would also be required to provide for criminal penalties for four types of serious cases and repeated infringements, the employment of a significant number of third-country nationals, particularly exploitative working conditions, and where the employer knows that the worker is a victim of human trafficking.

The Department states in its information note that the part of the proposal providing for levying criminal sanctions on employers is a major issue for Ireland in relation to the extent to which the EU can impose such sanctions. The Irish position is that this is possible only in certain limited circumstances. The Irish Government is awaiting clarification of the position by way of a European Court of Justice ruling expected before the end of 2007. The consequences for national legislation are currently unknown. However, if Ireland accepts the proposal, transposition may require amendment of primary immigration and work permit legislation. There are no consequences for the European budget.

In view of Ireland's concerns over the competence of the EU to impose criminal sanctions on employers, it is proposed that this proposal should be scrutinised in further detail and in this regard should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for written observations to be returned to this committee preferably within four weeks of the date of this meeting and within six weeks at the latest, pending clarification with the Department of the current status of the case in the European Court of Justice. Is that agreed?

Deputy Joe Costello

This is a fairly controversial proposal. We seem to be going against the thrust of the European Union to try and deal with it in a more comprehensive fashion with immigration and illegal immigration in particular. It seems we are seeking to opt out of these proposals. Will it be returned to this committee from the Department?

Chairman

Yes. I do not imagine this is a widespread problem.

Deputy Joe Costello

The point of principle is that if people are being employed illegally it is happening under the counter and we have no idea of the conditions of employment or pay. It is the black market in operation. This is an issue that needs to be addressed. I would like to see the committee have a report on it when it returns.

Chairman

It is an issue that we can scrutinise on its return.

COM (2007) 330 is a proposal for a Council regulation concerning authorisations for fishing activities of Community vessels outside Community waters and the access of third country vessels to Community waters. The purpose of this proposal is to set up general rules and conditions to be applied for all transmissions of the requests for authorisations for fishing activities of fishing vessels outside EU waters and the access of third country vessels to EU waters. The proposal follows the proposal laid down in the 2006-2008 action plan for simplifying and improving the Common Fisheries Policy. The proposed regulation would repeal Council Regulation (EC) No 3317/94 which laid down the general provisions concerning the authorisation of fishing in the waters of a third country under a fisheries agreement. To take account of changed circumstances for fisheries outside Community waters and to comply with international obligations under Regional Fisheries Management Organisation agreements, the Commission believes it is necessary to introduce a general Community system for authorisation of all fishing activities of EU vessels outside EU waters.

The overall aim of the proposed regulation is to create clarity for the member states and fishermen on what conditions need to be fulfilled and help the Commission to manage the transmissions in a more effective and efficient way.

The Department's note indicates that the Government supports the principles of this draft regulation as it will endeavour to ensure that measures put in place are appropriate, taking into account the challenges associated with participation in third country agreements. However, while in principle the measures in the proposed regulation look beneficial, it is clear that they are also wide-ranging and could have a significant impact on how the Irish fishing fleet operates. The proposed regulation is currently under negotiation and is unlikely to be adopted before June 2008.

Given the importance of the CFP to Ireland and to ascertain the full implications of this proposal for the Irish fishing industry, it is proposed that this proposal be scrutinised in further detail and in this regard should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for written observations to be returned to this committee preferably within four weeks of the date of this meeting and within six weeks at the latest. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2007) 439 is a proposal for a Council regulation extending the provisions of Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 and another regulation to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by these provisions solely on the ground of their nationality.

The purpose of this Commission proposal is to extend provisions on the co-ordination of social security systems to third country nationals by way of a Council regulation. This is to be achieved by extending the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the co-ordination of social security systems to nationals of third countries who are legally resident in an EU member state and who are not already covered by those provisions. It is intended to simplify existing acts and can be regarded essentially as a recasting exercise.

The proposal is designed to ensure that the same rules which are applied to European citizens for co-ordinating social security schemes will be applied to nationals of third countries since regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 and its implementing regulations have entered into force. This is regarded by the Commission as a key extension to the co-ordination of social security systems, both in terms of equal treatment and non-discrimination with respect to the nationals of third countries and also in terms of administrative simplification, the reduction of administrative costs and legal clarity for all parties involved, including national administrations, social security institutions and the persons insured. The Department indicates in its information note that a proposed proposal presented by the Commission, COM (2002) 59, to extend the application of the provisions of Regulation 1408/71 and Regulation (EEC) 574/72 to nationals of third countries was considered by the Joint Committee on European Affairs on 27 March 2002.

By the Government decision of 7 March 2002, the Government agreed that Ireland should opt in and thereby participate in and apply the measure. Both Houses of the Oireachtas approved the decision on 28 March 2002. The resulting Regulation 859/2003 came into force on 1 June 2003 and since that date third country nationals and their families and survivors can rely on Regulation 1408/71, provided they are legally resident in the territory of an EU member state and are in a situation which is not confined in all respects within a single member state. This new proposal aims to extend the provision of Regulation 883/2004, which will replace Regulation 1408/71, and its implementing regulation to third country nationals.

In terms of the implications of this proposal for Ireland, the Department states that Ireland supported the Commission's proposal to extend the provisions of Regulation 1408/71 to third country nationals. However, it is anticipated that the number of persons who will benefit from this proposal will be small. Unlike Regulation 1408/71, the scope of Regulation 883/2004 also covers people who are not professionally active, known as non-active persons, and accordingly, Ireland will be keen to participate fully in the discussion of this proposal in order to assess in particular the implications for means-tested payments and the health care system.

There are no consequences for national legislation in that the measure will form part of domestic law without the requirement to enact separate domestic legislation. There will be no consequences for the EU budget.

In light of the concerns expressed with regard to implications for means-tested payments and the health care system, it is recommended that this proposal be scrutinised in further detail and in this regard should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs for written observations to be returned to this committee preferably within four weeks of this meeting and within six at the latest. Is that agreed? Agreed.

As a division has been called in the Dáil, we will suspend the meeting.

Sitting suspended at 10.45 a.m. and resumed at 11 a.m.

Chairman

COM (2007) 480, which follows up a Commission decision on spectrum designation, creates a legal framework for an EU-wide co-ordinated selection and authorisation process with a view to allowing the 2GHz band to be used for mobile satellite services and achieving the objectives of the internal market for electronic communications. The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources indicated in its information note that the proposal has no negative implications for Ireland as no licences have been issued in this country for the frequency band in question. the Department has pointed out, however, that Ireland will be obliged to accept the operators that are selected and to give them authorisation for complementary base stations if it is requested to do so. In view of the highly technical nature of the proposal, it is recommended that it warrants further scrutiny and should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources for written observations which are to be returned to this committee, preferably within four weeks of the date of this meeting and within six weeks at the latest. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2007) 571 proposes a Council regulation on the establishment of a fuel cell and hydrogen joint undertaking using a joint technology initiative. Such initiatives combine private sector investment with national and European public funding to create a single European research programme. Fuel cells are quiet and highly efficient energy converters which are capable of delivering substantial reductions in cumulative greenhouse gases and pollutants. Although considerable EU public funds have been directed into research into fuel cells and hydrogen, there are concerns that developments in this area will continue in an unfocused way unless a focused programme is put in place, with the possible danger that industrial development in the area will stagnate and fall behind global competitors.

Joint technology initiatives are public private partnerships. Given the novelty of these structures, certain guiding principles have been identified relating to the governance and management structures of joint technology initiatives to ensure their success. The legal structure of the initiatives will take the form of joint undertakings, established on the basis of Article 171 of the EU treaty, and will include measures to protect the financial interests of the Community, for example, in areas in which the Community will have veto rights. There will be internal and external controls. Joint technology initiatives will have the right to recover money if irregularities are discovered. Structures will be put in place to provide for the organisation of consortia, calls for proposals, accountability, communication, reports and governance. As public and private contributions are linked in the operation of these initiatives — they form a consolidated whole in the accounts of initiatives — it is envisaged that the entire budget will be covered by the Parliament's discharge.

The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has indicated that Ireland is unlikely to be a leader in this field. The Department has suggested, however, that there is potential for Irish organisations to become involved in joint technology initiatives as associate members. It seems that Irish small and medium-sized initiatives will be encouraged to participate in the activities of the joint technology initiatives through calls for proposals and the adoption of specific measures to assist them. Negotiations are expected to conclude by the middle of 2008. No consequences for legislation are anticipated. The projected EU budget contribution is €470 million. In view of the amount of funding involved and the potential for Irish organisations to become involved, it is proposed that the proposal be scrutinised in further detail and should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment for written observations to be returned to this committee, preferably within four weeks of the date of this meeting and within six weeks at the latest. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The purpose of COM (2007) 613 is to make technical amendments to the provisions of regulation (EC) 648/2004 on detergents, arising from the changes to the classification of substances and mixtures under proposed regulation COM (2007) 355 on the classification, labelling and packaging of chemicals. This proposed regulation accompanies proposed regulation COM (2007) 355, which is also under negotiation. COM (2007) 355, if adopted, will implement in the EU the international criteria agreed by the UN Economic and Social Council for the classification and labelling of hazardous substances and mixtures — the globally harmonised system of classification and labelling of chemicals. At its meeting on 20 November last, the joint committee decided, given its potential impact on Ireland, to scrutinise COM (2007) 355 further. We forwarded that proposed regulation to the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment for written observations.

While the Department's note indicates that the implications of COM (2007) 613 have not yet been fully assessed, it does not believe the proposed regulation will have a substantive impact. The Department indicated in a previous note, however, that COM (2007) 355 will have wide implications for Ireland, including for Departments and State agencies such as the Health and Safety Authority, the pesticide control service and the National Poison Information Centre. It will also have implications for the Irish chemical industry and many users of chemicals. It is important to examine proposed COM (2007) 613 at the same time as COM (2007) 355, given that the two regulations are directly linked and it is envisaged they will have wide implications.

In view of its link with COM (2007) 355, which could have wide implications for Ireland, and the fact that its implications have yet to be assessed properly by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, it is proposed that COM (2007) 613 be scrutinised in further detail. Therefore, it is proposed to forward COM (2007) 613 to the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment for written observations to be returned to this committee, preferably within four weeks of the date of this meeting and within six weeks at the latest. These written observations should be part of the written observations already requested by this committee on COM (2007) 355. Is that agreed?

Deputy Joe Costello

The Chairman said that COM (2007) 355 will be binding in its entirety and will be directly applicable without the need for transposition into national law.

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy Joe Costello

How can something that has major implications for Irish law and the Irish chemical industry be binding without being transposed into Irish law?

Chairman

The regulations are binding but the directives will be open to interpretation by each member state as to how they can be incorporated into their own laws.

Deputy Joe Costello

Does it not have to be transposed into Irish law? Surely it cannot just be imposed on us. Surely the Oireachtas has the option of adapting it as it sees fit. Perhaps it can be done by means of a statutory instrument. Surely it cannot simply be done directly from Europe. If it can, there is not much sense in us scrutinising it.

Chairman

All regulations are binding in their entirety. The point of scrutinising the proposals is that the joint committee may summon the Minister to appear before it if the proposals are subject to negotiation. This gives the committee more relevance and a greater role in the discussion of proposals prior to the introduction of directives or regulations and their transposition into Irish law.

Senator Paddy Burke

Are no other avenues available? Could the proposal be scrutinised in the Seanad or Dáil?

Chairman

The statutory instrument process is available. I have no doubt that if an issue were to arise in the debate which will ensue in the coming weeks, it could be raised by Members in the Seanad or Dáil. There is nothing to prevent a Member raising an issue.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN SCRUTINY díospóireacht - Thursday, 13 Dec 2007

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN SCRUTINY díospóireacht -
Thursday, 13 Dec 2007