I ask the Vice Chairman to take the Chair because I must get to the Chamber for a vote.
Deputy Michael P. Kitt took the Chair.
Scrutiny of EU Legislative Proposals
We have a number of new proposals before the committee for consideration. No 1.1 is COM (2010) 446, page 3, brief 2, a proposal on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and No. 1.2 is COM (2010) 531, page 2. Based on the information available, it is proposed that these proposals do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 1.3 is COM (2010) 508, page 5, brief 2, a proposal on the permissible sound level and the exhaust system of motor vehicles. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No.1.4 is COM (2010) 532, a proposal on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund as are No. 1.5, COM (2010) 568, page 6, brief 2, No. 1.6, COM (2010) 613 and No. 1.7, COM (2010) 615. Based on the information available, it is proposed that these proposals do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 1.8 is COM (2010) 542, page 10, brief 2, a proposal on the approval and market surveillance of two or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles. I presume this refers to quads. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 1.9 is COM (2010) 544, page 13, brief 2, a proposal on textile products. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 1.10 is COM (2010) 552, page 15, brief 2, a proposal that deals with emergency autonomous trade preferences for Pakistan. In light of the information provided by the Department, and the urgent need to provide practical assistance to Pakistan, it is proposed that this measure does not require further scrutiny by the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 1.11 is COM (2010) 556, page 17, brief 2, and deals with the financing of the European Development Fund in 2011 and 2012. Based on the information available, it is proposed to note this adopted measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 1.12 is COM (2010) 563, page 18, brief 2, and deals with fishing opportunities under the fisheries partnership agreement. In light of the information provided by the Department, it is proposed that this measure does not require further scrutiny by the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 1.13 is COM (2010) 565, page 19, brief 2, a proposal that deals with fishing opportunities and a financial contribution provided for in the fisheries partnership agreement. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 1.14 is COM (2010) 572, page 20, brief 2, a proposal that deals with the fisheries partnership agreement along with No. 1.15 is COM (2010) 574, page 21, brief 2. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 1.16 is COM (2010) 610, page 22, brief 2, and deals with the roll-over protection structures mounted in front of the driver's seat on narrow-track wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 1.17 is COM (2010) 637, page 22, brief 2, and is on anti-dumping duty. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this trade measure does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 1.18 is COM (2010) 664, page 23, brief 2, and is an extending provision of the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement to bilateral trade in textiles. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 1.19 is COM (2010) 669, page 24, brief 2, and deals with duty on imports. In light of the information provided by the Department, it is proposed that this technical trade proposal does not require further scrutiny by the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 1.20 is COM (2010) 671, page 25, brief 2, is a proposal for an anti-dumping duty on imports. In light of the information provided by the Department, it is proposed that this technical trade proposal does not require further scrutiny by the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The following matters are for no further scrutiny and to be sent to sectoral committee for information. There is a vote taking place and I propose that we suspend the meeting until after it is finalised. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Sitting suspended at 12.15 p.m. and resumed at 12.45 p.m.
No. 2.1 is COM (2010) 583, a proposal for a Council decision on submitting mephedrone to control measures. Given that there are no implications for Ireland due to the fact that Ireland is subjecting this substance to controlling measures, it is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. However, given the serious concern which surrounded the issue of "legal highs" and "head shops" and that this proposed measure may help avoid problems in cross-border law enforcement and judicial co-operation when it comes to controlling this substance on an EU-wide basis, it is also proposed to forward this proposal to the Joint Committee on Health and Children and the Joint Committee on Justice, Law Reform and Women's Rights for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 3 is CFSP measures. No. 3.1 is CFSP (2010) EU SALW. Based on the information available, it is proposed that proposed CFSP measure does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 3.2 is CFSP (2010) Operation Atalanta, a joint action on a European Union military operation. Based on the information available, it is proposed that proposed CFSP measure does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 3.3 is CFSP (2010) Sierra Leone. It is proposed to note this adopted CFSP measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 4 is early warning notes. No. 4.1 is EWN C 290-07 and relates to anti-dumping measures. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this early warning note does not warrant further scrutiny at this stage. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 4.2 is EWN L 298-10 and relates to an anti-dumping duty. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this notification does not warrant further scrutiny at this stage. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 4.3 is EWN L 298-27 and relates to an anti-dumping duty. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this early warning note does not warrant further scrutiny at this stage. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 4.4 is EWN L 299-7 and relates to an anti-dumping duty. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this notification does not warrant further scrutiny at this stage. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 4.5 is EWN (2010) C 270-05 and relates to anti-dumping measures. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this notification does not warrant further scrutiny at this stage. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 4.6 is EWN (2010) C 272-06 and relates to a review of anti-dumping measures. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this notification does not warrant further scrutiny at this stage. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 4.7 is EWN (2010) C 294-05 relates to anti-dumping measures. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this early warning note does not warrant further scrutiny at this stage. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No 4.8 is EWN (2010) C 299-04 relates to anti-dumping measures. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this early warning note does not warrant further scrutiny at this stage. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 4.9 is EWN (2010) C 309-06 relates to anti-dumping measures. Based on the information available, it is proposed that this early warning note does not warrant further scrutiny at this stage. Is that agreed? Agreed.
No. 4.10 is EWN (2010) L 211-06. Given there are no reported difficulties for Ireland, it is proposed that this trade matter does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.