Scrutiny of EU Legislative Proposals

I welcome Mr. Ray Treacy, policy adviser to the committee. There are a number of new proposals before the committee for consideration. No. 1.1 is COM (2010) 536, a proposal for a Council regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of sodium gluconate originating in the People's Republic of China. Based on the information available it is proposed that this adopted measure does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 1.2 is SEC (2010) 1199, amending letter No. 2 to the draft general budget 2011 statement of revenue and expenditure by section, section III - Commission. It is proposed to note this adopted measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 2.1 is COM (2010) 507, a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to units of measurement. In light of the technical nature of this codification measure, it is proposed that it does not require further scrutiny by this committee. Is that agreed?

Does approximation of units of measurement suggest it is the uniform measurement throughout the EU? We have a dual situation here with the old and new systems. What does this mean exactly?

Mr. Ray Treacy

Codification merely brings together the existing law; it is like a consolidation Act in the Irish system. The existing system will not be amended by this. Originally, there was a 1980 directive, and any time changes of more than eight or ten amendments are to be made the EU tries to codify everything into one document for people to read. No substantive change is made to the law.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 2.2 is COM (2010) 533, draft amending budget No. 8 to the general budget 2010 statement of expenditure by section, section III - Commission. No. 2.3 is COM (2010) 534, a proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the EU solidarity fund. In light of the information provided and the material benefit to Ireland, it is proposed that both measures do not require further scrutiny by the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 2.4 is COM (2010) 540,a proposal for a Council implementing decision amending Decision 2007/441/EC authorising the Italian Republic to apply measures derogating from Articles 26(1)(a) and 168 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant any further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 2.5 is COM (2010) 545, a proposal for a Council regulation fixing for 2011 and 2012 the fishing opportunities for EU vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 2.6 is COM (2010) 577, draft amending budget No. 9 to the general budget 2010 statement of expenditure by section, section III - Commission. No. 2.7 is COM (2010) 578,a proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the EU solidarity fund. Based on the information available, it is proposed that these proposals do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 2.8 is COM (2010 ) 592, a proposal for a Council regulation terminating the partial interim review of the anti-dumping and countervailing measures applicable to imports of polyethylene terephthalate film originating in India Based on the information available, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 2.9 is COM (2010) 594, a proposal for a Council regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in the People's Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No. 1225/2009. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this measure does not warrant any further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 3.1 is CFSP Cote D'Ivoire. It is proposed to note this adopted measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 3.2 is CFSP (2010) 639, Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus. It is proposed to note this adopted measure.

I have a brief query. Is this to do with visa issues?

Yes. No. 4.1 is EWN 2010/253/42 Commission Regulation EU No. 850/2010 of 27 September 2010, initiating a new exporter, review of Council Regulation No. 1659/2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain magnesia bricks originating in the People's Republic of China, repealing the duty with regard to imports from one importer in this country and making these imports subject to registration. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this early warning notice does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 4.2 is EWN 2010/C188/05, notice of intention of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this early warning notice does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 4.3 is EWN 2010/C196/08, notice of initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to the imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in the People's Republic of China. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this early warning notice does not warrant further scrutiny.

Does this mean the conclusion of the reviews would be that these products will be allowed into the country without duty? What is the implication of the reviews? We do not make bicycles anymore. Do we make hand pallet trucks and essential parts?

The duty has expired and it will take six to 12 months to finalise whether these products will be allowed into the country. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I ask all members to be present at next Tuesday's meeting. Officials from the Department of Finance will be in attendance and we should make a special effort. I thank members.

The joint committee adjourned at 10.35 a.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Tuesday, 23 November 2010.