Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 30 May 1979

Agricultural Structures.

We have apologies from Deputies de Valera, O. J. Flanagan and Woods. Deputy Clinton and Senator Mulcahy have been unavoidably delayed and I suggest therefore that we postpone consideration of items Nos. 2 and 3A. Shall we get on to No. 3B, Deputy Smith's draft Report on the Commission's proposals on agricultural structures?

The Sub-Committee examined the proposals made by the Commission to the Council on 22 March, 1979 relating to policy with regard to agricultural structures. The Commission is formally proposing the amendment of Directives 72/159/EEC (Farm Modernisation Scheme), 75/268/EEC (Disadvantaged Areas), 72/160/EEC (Farmers' Retirement Scheme) and 72/161/EEC (Socio-economic Guidance and Vocational Training).

I should like to acknowledge the assistance given to the Sub-Committee by the IFA and the ICMS. I do not intend to go into all the details in the Report—you will have to read through it. We are anxious that the scope of the schemes should be broadened. Less than 20 per cent of farmers benefit to the full. The Sub-Committee had strong views against the limiting of aid. To concentrate available funds on the farmers who have greatest need of assistance the Commission proposes that the criteria be altered for development farmers as follows:—

—the target income for development plans would be reduced to 90 per cent of the comparable income;

—Member States need not deduct more than 3.5 per cent in respect of the return on the farmers' capital invested on the farm in the calculation of farm income;

—development aid would only be given to farmers undertaking plans which would have a target of not more than 120 per cent of the projected comparable income.

It is also proposed that

—the ceiling on investment eligible for aid under development plans should be raised from its present level of 43,000 ua per labour unit, without any limit on the number of labour units, to 60,000 ua per labour units up to a maximum of three labour units;

—Member States could continue to pay from national funds the higher level of aids to farmers under 55 who cannot undertake development plans. These aids would be limited to investments up to a limit of 15,000 ua per farm and the farmers would have to keep accounts for at least five years.

The Commission is also proposing that as from 1 January 1980 aid for investment would be suspended in respect of

(i) dairy farming but aid could be continued to be given for farms not increasing their dairy herds which have at least 35 per cent of the utilised area under grass and except in the " mountain areas " and certain parts of Italy;

(ii) pig farming except for farms which are not increasing fatstock or breeding sows by more than 10 per cent or are more than 65 per cent under crops.

As the Joint Committee pointed out in its fifth report of 19 April 1978 the farm modernisation scheme cannot be regarded as a success until many more farmers become involved and are able to undertake development schemes.

In its thirty-second Report of 6th December 1978, the Joint Committee drew attention to the grave consequences for Irish dairying at its present state of development if there were any cut back in investment. The Committee regards the Commission proposals to suspend aid for farms increasing their dairy herds as totally unacceptable. The proposal should be foughts vigorously at Council level.

Eighty per cent of Irish farmers remain in the non-development category and it is essential that the present level of national aids should continue to be available to them. Indeed, we believe that it would be more conducive to the solution of farmers' structural problems if some financial assistance were available from the Community to assist them to reach a stage where they could undertake development plans. However, the Sub-Committee welcomes the Commission's proposal to allow the national aids to be continued in certain conditions though it regards the proposed investment limit of 15,000 units of account as too low.

In regard to the disadvantaged areas scheme under Directive 75/268, Member States may pay in their disadvantaged areas compensatory allowances to producers who undertake to farm their holdings for at least five years more, increased investment aids and guidance premiums to development farmers and aid for joint investment schemes for fodder production and for improvement and equipment schemes for pasture and hill grazing land which is farmed jointly.

The following increases are proposed by the Commission:

(a) the maximum for headage payments for 50 units of account per livestock unit to 75 ua/lu,

(b) the level of EAGGF subvention towards investment aid

— from 35 per cent to 50 per cent for Ireland and Italy in respect of headage payments,

—from 25 per cent to 50 per cent for Ireland and Italy in respect of investments undertaken by development farmers, and

—from 25 per cent to 30 per cent for Italy in respect of joint investment schemes for fodder production.

The Commission's proposal for an increase in the EAGGF contribution is identical with one which was submitted by the Commission to the Council in December 1977 and which was dealt with in the Joint Committee's fifth report of 19 April 1978.

It is hoped that the same level of EAGGF assistance would be available for joint investment schemes for fodder production in Ireland as is proposed for Italy.

The farmers' retirement scheme has been very slow to get off in Ireland. The number of farmers participating has been small. I understand that only 26 per cent of applications have been processed. Amendments now being proposed to Directive 72/160/EEC include an increase in the annuity levels to 1,500 ua (£1,180) single and 2,000 ua (£1,574) married. Subvention will continue at 65 per cent (£767 single, £1,023 married). The premium is to be fixed at four times the rental value of the land released.

Under the heading " Anticipatory Premium ", there is a new provision for farmers between 50 and 55 years who promise to retire under Directive 160 within five years. This will be payable in full at age 50 and reduced by 20 per cent for each year after that, so that a farmer promising at 54 to retire would only get one-fifth of the premium. It will be subventable on the same basis as the premium mentioned earlier.

The Sub-Committee regards the proposals for structural improvement in the west of Ireland and in other less-favoured areas in the Community as indicating an acceptance by the Commission of the fact that a single common structural policy for the whole Community is not adequate and that special measures to solve the problems of particular regions are essential. The Sub-Committee whole-heartedly supports this approach and hope that it will be followed by the Council. The programme envisaged for the west of Ireland is admirably comprehensive, embracing as it does aid for infrastructure, education and forestry as well as direct assistance for agriculture. We urge that every effort be made to ensure that the programme is adopted and started, at the earliest possible date.

The draft Report is now open for discussion.

Deputy Leonard

It is a commendable report, containing many desirable features. There are a few points I should like to query. Many dairy farmers are still in the process of developing their milking systems. Under the heading of infrastructure, where the fund is supposed to come to the aid of agriculture in the matter of rural electrification, roads and so on, I take it this will be on the lines of FEOGA grant aid for group water schemes. This year a batch of applications has gone to Brussels to be examined but I understand the allocation through FEOGA for group water schemes is very small. If this proposal is not sanctioned and put into operation this year there will be a time lag between the availability of FEOGA funds for water schemes and this new £150 million proposal.

It is very important that this proposal be implemented as quickly as possible. It affects all the disadvantaged areas in the country—any area that has come under the disadvantaged areas scheme. It would be a very important scheme from the point of view of water schemes, roads, telecommunications and the communications network generally. Certainly we would be very anxious that this scheme would be implemented and that the funds from it would flow into the different areas as soon as possible.

Deputy Leonard

Is it possible that it would be budgeted for during 1979 even if it was not approved by the Council of Ministers?

I could not answer that. Would it be possible to budget for a development of this kind in anticipation of the proposal going through?

Deputy Leonard

The 1979 budget would be taken up at present.

The Council of Ministers would have to agree in principle before any national Government could come in.

Deputy Leonard

Approval of the scheme would have to be in the form of the implementation of it. Is that not at national level? I understand that there is only £1 million allocated through FEOGA for group water schemes this year. In anticipation of this new scheme coming into operation, they have been warned not to commence schemes until they have been approved.

Does any other Member wish to ask a question? One other point which we are all concerned about was outlined by Deputy Smith in his Report. That is the proposed restriction on the expansion of the dairying industry here. This country contributes only something in the region of 4 per cent of the total dairying output and that is very small in relation to the total output in the other EEC countries. Would Deputy Smith's Sub-Committee have any plans to ensure that this does not happen?

I could not say at the moment. It would be necessary for the Committee to consider lobbying support and perhaps going out to Brussels. The majority of our farmers are far behind some of our European competitors and we have many people depending on the output of the small farms, and their only prospect is to be able to expand development in the dairying enterprises they have. If they were restricted in doing that by this kind of proposal it would have to be treated very seriously. We intend to fight this matter on all fronts, here at home with the Minister for Agriculture and his Department, in Brussels and in the European Parliament. I do not know if the other Members of the Committee feel it is a matter serious enough for the Committee to take the strongest steps. It hits at the real lifeline of agriculture in the country.

The recommendation from the Commission is that it be suspended from 1 January 1980. Whether this is realistic is anybody's guess.

Deputy Leonard

It would have a very serious effect. It is generally accepted that milk production is one of the few enterprises that can be developed. There are many people working on restricted acreages around the country and a big amount of investment is still required, especially in dairying. It would be important that we would exert all the pressure possible to ensure that this would not be impeded in any way.

The report says as well that farmers cannot expect to get the level of price increases that they have been getting since we joined the Community and that if farmers' incomes are to be increased substantially it will have to be done by increases in production rather than by increases in prices. From this point of view it is very important that effort be not curtailed in any way on behalf of farmers, especially of those in the severely handicapped areas. It seems illogical to curtail on the one hand and to spend money to encourage development on the other.

Deputy Smith was hinting at a certain amount of lobbying on a political level. It may be appropriate at some stage within the next few months that Members of this Committee and in particular members of the agricultural sub-committee meet Members of the Commission on this issue.

Deputy Leonard

I would agree. With this £150 million over the next ten years, the purpose of that scheme would be defeated if you were going to curtail the very project and development which is best suited to that region. There is also the beef-rearing scheme but that is not suitable for smallholders to any great degree.

The average milk output per cow in the country is hundreds of gallons below what we know is possible on farms in other parts of Europe, with the exception of Italy where the climatic conditions are not anything like as favourable as ours for milk production. It seems a contradiction to use the kind of funds that are now available for draining and improving land and then to restrict the capacity of the animals on that land to below full potential. Bearing in mind the number of small farmers in this country and, as the Chairman has said, that they will be unable to increase their incomes very much by increased prices and will have to concentrate on increased production, it is very much in the national interest that this proposal be removed.

I suggest that we meet the Minister before we take it up with the EEC.

Yes, we will do that. In the meantime would you agree that the secretariat should investigate the possibility of a meeting in Brussels?

Deputy Leonard

We would want to prepare the case for this based on the grant-aid that we are getting for the restructuring of land reclamation in the west, considering that pig and poultry production is left aside for expansion and we are left with only milk.

That would be for Deputy Smith's Sub-Committee. Is it agreed in principle that this should be taken up at Commission level?

Deputy Leonard

Yes.

Paragraphs 1 to 32, inclusive, agreed to.

Appendix agreed to.

Draft Report agreed to.

Ordered to report accordingly.

Prevention of Classical Swine Fever.

Ireland has been free of this disease since 1958. The fact that vaccination against it does not operate here makes the national herd extremely vulnerable to the risk of the disease being introduced from abroad should the right to maintain our national rules regarding the importation of pigs and pigmeat be withdrawn before a properly effective swine fever control and eradication scheme has been adopted and is in operation in those Member States where the disease is endemic.

We are not very happy with the proposals that have been made in relation to this matter. We are not certain that they will safeguard this country against the disease being brought in. For that reason we are very anxious to retain the national safeguards which have been effective here down through the years. The Commission in their report to the Council in June 1976 indicated that they would initiate action to eradicate swine fever completely, and do away with vaccination and that there would be initiatives, financially supported by the Community, aiming at eradication of certain contagious animal diseases. In our view further consideration of the proposed Regulation should be deferred until there has been an opportunity of examining whatever proposals the Commission has for honouring these undertakings.

The draft Regulation in any event, does not, in our opinion, provide a disease-free country like Ireland with adequate protection in the context of the free movement of goods. Moreover, the system envisaged would be far too costly to operate without substantial financial assistance from Community funds. Until such time as there is in operation a comprehensive and effective Community scheme for the control and eradication of swine fever, we consider that there is no alternative to continuing the existing national measures.

We are happy enough with the measures that are operating here. We have been rid of the disease since 1958 and we do not see these proposals as helping us in any way. We are anxious that a much more comprehensive scheme for the eradication of the disease throughout the whole Community would be effected before these or any other changes are contemplated seriously in this country. It is not very relevant to us in the sense that we do not have the disease.

Are there any comments?

Deputy Leonard

We could leave things as they are.

Paragraphs 1 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.

Draft Report agreed to.

Ordered: To report accordingly.

Business of Committee.

I am in a quandary at this stage. The next item is a draft report by the Chairman of the Joint Committee. Should we deal with this in his absence? It is a matter for the Committee.

Is it proposed that we adjourn?

We have a very small attendance, but I would be happy to take a decision if the Chair agrees.

The Chair is in the hands of the Members.

I appreciate that. What is the position with regard to Deputy Clinton?

When is our next meeting?

Before we come to that, we could take Senator Mulcahy's draft reports.

Financing the Community Budget.

This is an extremely important Report, particularly at this time because it gives us a look at the future in relation to expenditure in the Community and the way it is going to be financed. From our discussions in Sub-Committee it is quite clear that there are a few unknowns. People are not definitely sure whether the " own resources " method of securing funds for the Community will run out by 1980-1981. The indications from the paper produced by the Commission are that new methods of financing will be required after 1981 if the trend continues. Our Sub-Committee looked at the implications of this and made a few comments. The financing of the " own resources " as it is called, the method of securing finance through " own resources " for the Community, was introduced on 21 April 1970 and was accepted by Ireland in the Act of Accession. The methods by which the " own resources " are fed are the common customs tariff, agricultural levies on trade, and the yield from a rate of VAT not exceeding 1 per cent. The main difficulty here is that the 1 per cent ceiling will be reached fairly soon. That is the 1980/81 fear. The Commission is seeking to make arrangements to find new sources for this " own resources " heading.

Ireland is not affected at the moment in relation to these headings. The transitional arrangements still apply, so that we are paying according to our relative share in the Community's GNP. This means that we will be liable for VAT-based contributions with effect from the 1980 budget. The draft Report gives some estimate of the contributions that we will have to bear in 1979. After allowance is made for a 10 per cent refund for administrative expenses, we are talking about £60 million for 1979. This will go up, depending on the 1 per cent VAT arrangement and the other arrangements when they come into effect.

Receipts from customs duties and agricultural levies are brought to account in the Exchequer as tax revenue. Our Budget contribution is a charge on the Central Fund and represents a permanent charge on the State revenues and does not have to be voted annually by Dáil Éireann. The high profile that the European Parliament has at the moment is that moneys of this order will be permanently committed without going through normal budgetary procedures here.

As I said earlier, the Community VAT rate is already approaching the 1 per cent ceiling stipulated by the Council decision of 21 April 1970; for those Member States implementing VAT own resources in 1979 the rate is 0.72 per cent. The estimate is that the 1 per cent ceiling will not be reached before 1981.

The Commission's forecast is that when the 1 per cent ceiling is reached, the projected yearly increase in existing own resources on account of buoyancy will not be sufficient to keep pace with projected expenditure. Moreover the Commission's forward estimates of expenditure for 1980 and 1981 do not include any provision for additional expenditure arising out of enlargement of the Community and the renewal of the Lomé Convention.

Obviously, therefore, there are shadows on the horizon, and with Ireland taking over the Presidency of the Council in the near future perhaps some of these shadows may be turned into opportunities if we can ensure that in making the new arrangements every effort will be made to take into account economic disparities between the different countries and that the arrangements will allow for redistribution to bring us more into line. We have always followed that policy. The current document is in the nature of a discussion paper and it covers very important issues.

We say very strongly that the capacity to pay should be taken into account, and the taxable capacity is dealt with in paragraph 9, page 6 of the draft Report.

In order to benefit under this mechanism, however, Member States have to meet certain economic criteria. While Ireland would probably satisfy most of these criteria, in no case would a refund be made to a Member State which is a net beneficiary from the Budget. According to the Cambridge Economic Policy Review of April, 1979 Ireland is a net annual beneficiary from the Budget to the extent of £254 million. Accordingly, the mechanism would not apply to Ireland. The Commission's paper raises the question whether, in the interests of securing an equitable distribution of the burden of Community financing, the amendments to the own resources system necessary to provide for a new budgetary resource, should also provide that Member States' liabilities under the system should be related to their ability to pay.

The possible sources of additional revenue are given on page 7 as follows:

(a) Indirect taxes

(i) VAT, (ii) cigarette duties, (iii) alcohol duties,

(b) direct taxes

(i) corporation tax, (ii) income tax, (iii) energy tax.

The Commission's own preference is for one or more of the following: an increase in the Community VAT rate, that is, raising the 1 per cent VAT ceiling; the transfer to the Community of part of the tax on petrol; or the transfer of part of the tax on cigarettes. Apart from VAT and cigarette duties, there has been very little or no harmonisation of the other tax bases. The VAT base is already harmonised under the Sixth Directive and the Commission considers that the duties imposed by Member States on cigarettes are sufficiently harmonised to allow these to be used as an own resource. The Commission considers that a Community tax on petrol would be defensible from the point of view of energy policy. It also considers that a corrective mechanism based on taxable capacity could be applied to adjust the overall impact of all receipts, except customs duties and agricultural levies, and suggests that this could aim at either non-regressivity, avoiding worsening of the present economic disparities, or progressivity, narrowing those disparities.

The inescapable conclusion to be drawn from the Commission's analysis is that the Community will require a new source of revenue after 1981. It would not, be desirable even in the short run to make up budgetary deficits by borrowing nor would it be politic or progressive to revert to a system of contributions by Member States. The Sub-Committee, therefore, agree with the conclusion of the Commission that the Community should have a new own resource.

We are agreeing with the Commission that it is important when considering possible sources of revenue for the Community to have due regard to the budgetary powers of the European Parliament. The main powers of the parliament are in the area of budgetary expenditure. After direct elections the ultimate power over important areas of Community expenditure will rest with elected representatives. It would not be proper that the revenue to meet that expenditure should be dependent on decisions taken from time to time by Member States.

However, the overriding consideration in introducing a new own resource should be due regard for taxable capacity. In the interests of greater cohesion in the Community we believe that any new tax should be levied so as to help reduce the economic disparities between the Member States.

The possible sources of the extra revenue required are necessarily limited because of the limited harmonisation that has been so far achieved. At present it appears that some increase in the Community VAT rate levied in accordance with an appropriate corrective mechanism might be the most appropriate source of extra revenue. However, the Sub-Committee would prefer to defer making a considered recommendation until they have had the opportunity of examining the Commission's formal proposals in due course.

We consider that this question of the future financing of the Community should now be pursued with a degree of urgency. This is a method of providing for what has been called regional distribution, but it is using a different mechanism to do so.

It appears to me that some increase in the Community VAT rate, levied in accordance with an appropriate corrective mechanism, might be the most acceptable way, but do not make a definite recommendation on that because we would prefer to wait to see how things will progress. We thought this an appropriate time to put the report before the Joint Committee when negotiations with Greece have just been completed. As far as I know now the Treaty of Accession has been signed. With Ireland taking over the Presidency of the Council it would be important to seek an early decision on this matter with emphasis on trying to get some redistribution as part of the format.

I commend the draft report to the Committee.

I have one or two observations. The obvious preference of the Commission, as stated in the draft report, is for some form of indirect tax both because it is easier to collect and it is not an innovation in the existing tax system. It is early days yet because we are reserving our position. In a country like Ireland which is not going to do well out of an indirect taxation system—irrespective of what corrective mechanism you have because compared with the Community we have only half the average per capita income—we should be looking for some kind of innovation. I am not a taxation expert, but perhaps there could be some way of taxing the multi-nationals who operate fairly freely within the EEC, are based either in London or Holland, have plants in Portugal, Spain, Greece and the west of Ireland, and effectively use the low costs of one region of the EEC to maximise profits. These are truly pan-European institutions in economic terms benefiting from the regional dispartities within the EEC. Could we come up with some mechanism for putting an EEC tax on them? Much of the harmonisation that is going on is of more immediate benefit to these organisations—because they are of a sufficient scale to benefit from it—than to a lot of the smaller companies that we are dealing with. The smaller companies, either in this country or in any of the other Member States, require a lot of state assistance in one shape or another before they can mount the marketing drive that these companies already have. They are fair game for some form of European tax.

While we have put in the proviso that an indirect taxation system such as VAT or a petrol or cigarette levy should have a corrective mechanism in it, that seems to be open to a lot of haggling which, in the final say, given the strength of the richer central countries, will not be to our advantage. It is too early at this stage to come out with any preferred system but we should come out with some kind of preferred principle. I am not disagreeing with the Report. The principle of the ability to pay is put in and that will be sufficient for the moment.

Perhaps in accepting this Report we might take the opportunity of our incoming Presidency to have this matter raised.

Paragraphs 1 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.

Draft Report agreed to.

Ordered: To report accordingly.

Energy Labels for Electrical Household Appliances and Plastic Packaging.

Since the Sub-Committee completed their examination of the draft Directives on energy labels for domestic electrical appliances the Directives have been formally adopted by the Councils. It is necessary therefore, to recast certain paragraphs of the draft Report to record that fact. You have a copy of the revised draft Report before you. However, the changes made are purely of a drafting nature and do not, in any way, affect the substance of the Report.

We consulted the people involved in the industries. Basically we are talking about standardising labelling for certain electrical appliances taking into account the kind of labelling that the Commission are suggesting. One interesting aspect of the implications for Ireland is that fridges, deep freeze units and television sets manufactured in this country would come under this provision. If a decision is taken to introduce energy labelling in this country it will be necessary for manufacturers to supply energy consumption labels so that any appliance would show the consumption of electricity that would take place during the heating-up period, the operating period and so on. Everyone will agree that good will come from that in relation to energy usage because it will be a selling point for the equipment.

We welcome the adoption of the Directives because we believe that a labelling system will encourage the production and use of low consumption appliances. Labelling would not increase manufacturing costs to any appreciable extent because appliances already carry labels stating who the manufacturer is, the voltage, frequency and so on.

On plastic packaging the draft Directive proposes that the overall migration level of the constituents of plastic materials and articles on to foodstuffs should not exceed the prescribed limits. We had discussions about how one would measure this and the problems involved. There is no Irish legislation on the subject. It had been thought originally that as raw materials and constituents of plastic materials and articles were not manufactured in Ireland, Irish industry would be in compliance with the Directive, provided written guarantees of compliance were obtained from their suppliers. It has transpired, however, that this is not the case and that compliance with the Directive would involve for industry the establishment of expensive testing facilities in order to test packages before dispatch to users. The consequent increase in the cost of packaging materials would inevitably be passed on to the food manufacturers and then to the ultimate consumer. The Sub-Committee were advised that the increase in manufacturer's costs would be of the order of 2 per cent.

It is felt that the food industry should have unhindered access for its products to any part of the Community and this should be the prime consideration in examining the draft Directive. We did not want to have any restrictions on our food exports because of a Directive on plastic coverings. We were advised that the adoption of the proposed Directive would not have the effect of removing a technical barrier to trade.

The Plastics Industries Association have informed the Joint Committee that the legal controls of France, Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands do not specify an overall migration limit and do not present a barrier. The Association's opinion was that there was no evidence that a material would comply with the existing law in one country but fail to comply with that of another, so there is no justification for adopting a Directive under Article 100 of the EEC Treaty. We recommend, therefore, that the proposal be especially examined from this viewpoint before it is proceeded with further.

Representations were made to us that there is no evidence to support the claim that the proposed Directive would increase the protection of the consumer. It is the suggestion of the Sub-Committee that if there are undesirable elements in plastics in contach with food they would need to be controlled specifically by specific migration limits and that the overall migration level proposed is so low that it could not have any significant effect on preventing adulteration. In the light of these representations and having regard to the cost, the Sub-Committee recommend that the scientific evidence on which the draft Directive is based should be carefully appraised if it is established that there is a barrier to trade which requires to be eliminated. That means that we did not feel from our discussions with the experts on this that the difficulties that would arise from introducing the measurements involved at this time should have to be tolerated until new scientific evidence might be brought to bear to show that there was a real problem.

Paragraphs 1 to 15 inclusive, agreed to.

Draft Report agreed to.

Ordered: To report accordingly.

Information to be Published by Companies whose Transferable Securities are admitted to Official Stock Exchange Listing.

This draft Report covers a proposed Directive on information to be published on a regular basis by companies with stock exchange quotations. The general objective is to make, as like as possible, the different stock exchanges in the common market by having a uniform approach to the various requirements. There are two related Directives, one relating to the admission of securities to Stock Exchange quotations which has already been approved by the Council, and the other dealing with Company prospectuses, which will come before the Council soon. There is then this third matter which deals with the information to be published by companies. The obligation is that there shall be a half-yearly report containing details of net turnover, other operating income, operating charges, interim dividends and an explanatory statement showing the numbers employed, investments carried out and decided upon, state of order of books, the stock position, degree of capital utilisation and any new significant products or activities.

Member States could tighten up these requirements if they so desired. They would be empowered to adapt the requirements to companies engaged in kinds of activities to which this kind of information would not be appropriate, or where it would be of minor importance, or where disclosure of the information required by the directive would be contrary to the public interest or seriously detrimental to the company.

The draft Report gives the requirements in regard to the Stock Exchange in Ireland at the moment. Paragraph 9 of the draft Report sets out the requirements, which are not too onerous, in the matter of determining the profitability of a company. It is still open here to have it made a matter of law. Indeed conditions here are more than the minimum standard required in the draft Directive.

As will be seen from paragraph 5, the requirements of the proposed Directive are less onerous than those the Stock Exchange considers necessary to gauge the profitability of a company. The Directive would, however, allow Member States to impose or maintain more stringent obligations in addition to the minimum prescribed.

The information required in the proposed explanatory statement, as outlined in paragraph 5, would be a new obligation as far as Irish companies are concerned. At present the Stock Exchange requires merely any supplementary information which in the opinion of the directors is necessary for a reasonable appreciation of the results of the year or of other material changes in the aggregates of the balance on profit and loss account and other reserves.

It seems to us that if the objectives of the proposed Directive are to be attained, the half-yearly reports must be such as to enable investors to make meaningful comparisons between the profitability of companies in different Member States. Member States would be able to impose more stringent or additional obligations to those outlined in the Directive, but it appears to us that the minimum requirements should be comprehensive enough for investors to get a reasonable picture of the company's position. The Sub-Committee found it difficult to see how they could do so without some indication of the company's tax obligations. In its view, the figures required by the Directive should include an estimate of the taxation charge for the period and the net profit attributable to shareholders together with the earnings per share and the tax credit to which shareholders are entitled.

On the other hand, the Sub-Committee considered that the draft Directive is far too rigid in specifying the details which must be included in the accompanying explanatory statements. It has been represented to the Sub-Committee that information about the number of persons employed could even be misleading in quite a number of situations of which an example is where the business is subject to seasonal fluctuations and that most of the rest of the information could in some circumstances be used by competitors or large customers to the detriment of the company.

The latter point is of particular importance in Ireland where so many of the larger trading concerns are not subject to the Stock Exchange requirements. The Sub-Committee did not accept that the difficulty is adequately met by the provision in the draft Directive enabling the national authority to exempt a particular company from disclosing information seriously detrimental to it. They considered that Article 5.4 should be amended by deleting all words after the first sentence and replacing them by a provision enabling the national authority to accept an explanatory statement which gives, in the view of the directors of the company, enough information to enable a reasonable appreciation of the company's position to be made. It is perhaps of even greater importance in cases where listed companies are subject to competition in the home or UK markets from companies registered in the UK not subject to like obligations.

The whole point is that directors would give sufficient information to enable an assessment to be made of a company's position. We also think a national authority should be given power to exempt companies from publishing half-yearly reports in specific cases and to relax the rule in appropriate cases where there would be justification for delays.

Though the Stock Exchange will be designated the " national authority " in this country, the Directive may need amendment to ensure that the overall responsibility will rest on the Member State and not on the national authority.

We wish to thank the Stock Exchange, the Law Society, the Confederation of Irish Industry, the Investment Bank of Ireland, Mergers Ltd., and the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators, all of whom were very helpful.

Paragraphs 1 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.

Draft Report agreed to.

Ordered: To report accordingly.

Statutory Instruments.

This draft Report is not very lengthy and I think we need not go into much detail. Nine statutory instruments have been examined and they are listed in the Appendix. We made comment on three of them.

The first related to mutual assistance in the field of direct taxation which involves the exchange of information between the Irish authority and other authorities which arises from an earlier Directive on which we reported. One particular provision in the Directive is not clear. It might be capable of being interpreted as meaning that the Irish authority when receiving a request should have a discretionary authority to supply information even when not satisfied that the requesting authority has exhausted its own sources. If this interpretation is correct, the Regulations which have been made give the Revenue Commissioners no such discretion. It is not certain in this case if that is what the provision in the Directive means.

Another article of the Directive provides that the revenue authority of the requested state must arrange for inquiries to obtain the information. The Irish Regulations contain no provision in relation to inquiries. We asked the Department of Finance to indicate what statutory authority such inquiries would have if they were made. In effect the Revenue Commissioners have no power in this respect. They have power only to get information leading to the establishment of liability to Irish tax. That suits us.

The second of the instruments is the regulations concerning non-automatic weighing machines which Deputy O. J. Flanagan explained graphically to us. I did not know what a non-automatic weighing machine was. I will soon have myself weighed on one and it will be an education. The Regulations which we are dealing with here comply with EEC Directives and apply to these machines a system already in operation in this country for giving approval to measuring instruments and provide that machines from other Member States which received such approval are allowed to be sold and used here. It provides for a fee of 50p to be charged for each machine submitted for initial verification.

We have in the past criticised statutory instruments which provide for charging fees but left the amount of such fees to be fixed administratively. This one does not do this. We seem to have a symbolic success here. We are hoping that this will be followed in future statutory instruments.

The last statutory instrument relates to freedom to enable lawyers to practise law anywhere in the Community. These are Irish Regulations which enable outrageous foreign lawyers to come in here and steal our business. The only comment I have to make about that which I care to express and which I would persuade the Joint Committee to express, is that the professional bodies should see that everybody knows of the existence of this new threat. It is right to note that the Order amends an Act of Parliament and that is permissible under the European Communities Act, 1972 but we repeat that when this is done, amendments of statutes in common use should not be left in the status of orders. Orders are not readily available. You can provide the statutes but you cannot get the orders readily. They should be incorporated as soon as can be into the statutes.

On that last point, is it expected that we will be getting submissions back to this Committee from the professional bodies or will they be dealing directly with it?

We are happy with the Directive and we understand it. Joking apart, we recognise it as quite in order and right. We think the order made pursuant to the Directive is right also. We merely say that, the Order having been made, people should know if they want to hire a fellow from Hamburg he is free to advise them.

Paragraphs 1 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.

Appendices I and II agreed to.

Draft report agreed to.

Ordered: To report accordingly.

Problems of Enlargement.

Should we take Deputy Clinton's Report in his absence?

I would be in favour of proceeding with it.

It is a question of whether we take it now or not. As the person who raised the matter originally I am directly interested in the Report. It is a very good report and I would like to see it taken as soon as possible. We are going to have a debate in both Houses on the Treaty of Accession with Greece. It would be useful to have this Report co-joined with the Seanad and Dáil debates and that we would take it simultaneously. The Committee then would be acting as a Committee of both Houses, serving to inform them as a Committee. Unless Deputy Clinton wants to make any contribution in relation to it, we should proceed. There are no amendments down except one from Senator Hussey.

Is there any other comment as to whether we should take the report at this stage?

I would be in favour of taking the draft Report now.

I will go through the Chairman's draft Report briefly. The Joint Committee draws attention to the problems of enlargement. We are in favour of it, provided the Social Fund, the Regional Fund and other funds designed to redistribute wealth within the Community will be increased proportionately to take account not only of the numerical increase in population when Spain and Portugal follow Greece into membership, but also the increased disparities between the centre and the periphery that will arise when the Community has 12 Member States. We support the formal reservation expressed by the Irish Government when the accession of Greece was agreed to after the restoration of democracy there. We are being consistent in our observations in that respect.

The various points in the draft Report are self-explanatory. There are many facts and figures with which I do not propose to take up the time of the meeting. We tried as far as possible to assess the direct impact on this country of the Greek accession, and, of course, of the accession of Spain and Portugal. We have outlined facts in regard to balances of trade between Ireland and the three. In relation to Greece, the first to become a member, we have a surplus of £4.2 million in the context of overall trading.

From an argicultural point of view, the three countries are substantial producers. Their production of milk and beef is in deficit, so there are potential markets for our agricultural produce in those areas. Though on the one hand there are potential markets for us, at the same time we want to see the funds proportionately increased.

There is another area which directly affects us. Because of the merchant shipping capacity of Greece, the Community percentage of the world fleet will be increased from 20 per cent to 30 per cent. Therefore regulations in relation to pollution and safety will assume a new shape, and this will be of considerable importance to us, bearing in mind our extensive coastline and the recent experiences we have had. It is to our advantage that we will have in the EEC such a large proportion of the world's merchant shipping capacity.

The final point I will make before the Joint Committee consider Senator Hussey's amendment deals with the institutional changes that will be required in the Community. The report refers to the invitation last December to the Committee of " Three Wise Men " to consider the adjustments to institutional mechanisms and procedures. Their report is due in the autumn, during our Presidency. We are now talking of a Community of 12, greatly enlarged from the original six, with all the implications of that, and I should like to see this draft Report becoming the subject of a debate in both Houses in the context of a wider consideration by the Houses of the Oireachtas and that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in his capacity as President would be in a position to respond to the report of the " Three Wise Men " and take some initiatives. A country as weak as ours in the enlarged EEC context has everything to gain and nothing to lose from more speedy decision-making.

I commend the draft Report to the committee and ask Senator Hussey to move her amendment, which I personally support.

Paragraphs 1 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.

I move the following amendment to the draft report:—

NEW PARAGRAPH.

After paragraph 21 to insert a new paragraph as follows:

" The Joint Committee believes that enlargement may introduce a new element affecting the social policy of the Community in regard to women. The three applicant countries could fairly be regarded as socially underdeveloped compared with the present Community and the Committee believes that at present they even lag behind Ireland in the whole area affecting the position of women. The Committee is concerned that the inevitable additional demands that will fall on the Social Fund as a result of this situation should not inhibit Community assistance being available to improve the opportunities open to women in this country. The Committee believes that the aim should be to extend the categories of Social Fund assistance available to improve the lot of women specifically and it sincerely hopes that enlargement will not prevent this being done. As an initial step to take account of the projected large increase in the female population of the Community the Commission itself might review the staffing of its two sections dealing with women's questions which seems numerically quite inadequate for even present needs ".

I put down the amendment because I saw a striking similarity between those three countries. This similarity should merit separate mention in our report. At the moment there is a widening gap between pay levels of women within the existing Community and this has been a cause of great concern to most countries. Irish representatives in the European Parliament have been making representations about such problems as equal pay and in those three countries there are approximately 20 million women and they share a certain social attitude towards women which most existing EEC members consider to be out of date. Many women in the work forces of those three countries are similar to those here. All three countries became democratised only recently, but despite the best efforts of many women here to get statistics in this respect, we have not been able to do so because they have not been giving out figures. However, it is clear that the legal attitude to women in the three can be described as medieval by our standards.

Enlargement is bound to put a strain on the resources of the Community which will be earmarked for helping women to attain equality of opportunity. We have only just begun to tap the Social Fund in this regard and the addition of the 20 million in those three countries will require special attention.

Deputy Clinton took the Chair.

The second part of the amendment refers to the section in the Commission that deals with women. The Bureau on Women's Employment was set up by Dr. Hillery when he was Commissioner for Social Affairs—an excellent but very small bureau. It is staffed by one senior civil servant, an assistant and one secretary to deal with the enormous number of working women and the problem affecting them. Despite its small size this bureau has been responsible for bringing up the equal pay and opportunity Directives and has done enormously good work.

The other section dealing with women is of similar size and composition. Its function is to liaise between women's organisations and newspapers all over the Nine and presumably over the Twelve eventually. Many women's organisations and individuals have been in touch with Mr. Vredling and Mr. Jenkins, the two people involved in trying to increase the size and budget of these Departments to no effect so far. There is great concern about the accession of Greece at the moment and that of Spain and Portugal will give rise to more concern in the future if this kind of offer is not dramatically increased. This is why it is necessary to write this into our Report and to express concern on behalf of Irish women.

I apologise to Members for arriving at this hour. I will have to get a horse. We came out and thought we had three-quarters of a tank of petrol but somebody had emptied it. We got a few hundred yards down the road and it was some time before we could do anything about it. Does anybody wish to comment further?

I support the amendment. Senator Hussey has made a strong case and produced very interesting statistics at the level of women employees in the three applicant countries. As yet in Ireland we have not benefited or tried to benefit fully from the Social Fund allocation for training and re-training women so that they can either enter or re-enter the work force here. The applicant countries will face similar problems and there will be a strain on the existing resources. We should specifically mention the countries in our Report and ensure that this is thought about as an area where the Community can influence the rate of progress in this and the applicant countries and also which can have a substantial impact on the other countries of the EEC which still have not achieved full equality for women. There is a lot of common background between women here in Ireland and in the other applicant countries that will require very particular assistance and attention at EEC level. This amendment is a very appropriate one to insert here in our Report which, as Deputy Quinn said, is likely to be debated on the floor of the House.

The amendment should stand but there are many other sections in the EEC that might need beefing up as well. Since I became involved in this Committee I have been surprised at the number of occasions the EEC seem to get things wrong. This time last year we were talking about whether Ireland should have another refinery. Somehow or other we had the idea that petrol was pouring out of our ears all over Europe and that the difficulty was to cut back. There is a difference between capacity of refining and crude oil being fed to European countries, but it shocked me when we went there last year to find that the energy Department there was being run by about 100 people compared to 3,000 in the UK alone doing the similar work. The fact that there are small numbers dealing with women's policies in the EEC is just one aspect of it. They seem to have got it wrong in the nuclear energy side of it as well. The idea was that technically and scientifically things were OK, and then overnight we were back to base one. I might want to introduce an amendment for each section of the Commission in the EEC because of that. Nevertheless, it is important and I accept that with Portugal and the southern Mediterranean countries involved it is a special case. As far as our Joint Committee are concerned, I, like the Skibbereen Eagle, will be keeping an eye on the Commission as far as their technical reports are concerned in relation to important matters like energy.

I agree with Senator Hussey's amendment. The bureau on women's affairs is grossly understaffed and a larger section of the Social Fund should be devoted towards the training and re-training of women workers to allow them equal opportunity which they do not have in Greece, Spain and Portugal. We should also consider calling on the EEC to increase their allocation from the social fund to the bureau on women's affairs.

I have heard two criticisms. One is that the place is over-staffed and the other is that the place is under-staffed in certain sectors. I have very vivid recollections of the situation in relation to the supply of beef in 1974. We were told in a report from the Commission at that time that as far as they could see for at least four years ahead the position was safe and there would be no problem. In a matter of about two months we were in very serious trouble. There was no proper assessment of the situation and there was no expert group at that time sitting permanently keeping a tag on the markets of the world and the supply and demand situation. The information was totally misleading. It is quite obvious that that shortcoming is in more than one sector and that something needs to be done about it. The staff is quite big but perhaps they are in the wrong places and doing the wrong things.

Amendment agreed to.

Is the report agreed?

Yes, on the grounds that we would hope to have a full opportunity to debate it in both Houses.

I am reminded that it is not certain that there be legislation and that the Senate may not get that opportunity. We can seek the opportunity in any case.

Paragraphs 22 to 27, inclusive, agreed to.

Appendix agreed to.

Draft report, as amended, agreed to.

Ordered: To report accordingly.

Weights of Goods Vehicles.

This draft Report contains proposals for a Council Directive on the weights and other characteristics, not including dimensions, of road vehicles used for the carriage of goods. The proposals are outlined in paragraph 4, from which I propose to read:

Member States may not prohibit the sale, registration or use of vehicles which comply with the provisions specified. These provisions would permit road hauliers and own account operators engaged in international transport to use vehicles of greater maximum permissible weights than those which they may operate under existing Irish road traffic law provided that the vehicles will comply with EEC requirements regarding axle configuration, braking, noise and anti-pollution measures, etc. The most significant elements of the proposal are those which propose a maximum axle weight of 11 tons and a maximum gross vehicle weight of 44 tons. The corresponding limits under Irish law are 10 tons and 32 tons respectively. Member States would be allowed to exclude vehicles used for the carriage of dangerous goods from the provisions of the Directive and also to exclude vehicles complying with the Directive from certain routes or structures in the interests of safety, protection of the infrastructure or the environment.

The Report outlines the implications for Ireland. It would entail various changes, mainly in the limits on axle and gross vehicle weight limits. It notes the serious environmental consideration, and at paragraph 8 we state:

Matters coming within the aegis of the Department of the Environment which need to be taken into consideration when considering the proposal comprise the additional cost in the construction and maintenance of roads and bridges including the safety of bridges to cater for the extra loadings; the effect on road traffic conditions, particularly in relation to damage to older buildings caused by vibration; the higher risk of accidents; the detrimental effects on the environment and the quality of life in towns, cities and countryside; feasibility and cost of effective weight enforcement.

The Sub-Committee had the assistance of Department officials. We had submissions from road hauliers and CIE, and from the Dodder Residents Association whose chairman said he was expressing a view which reflected the feelings of the Southern Cross Group, to which his Assocation are affiliated. His views are set out in paragraph 11. He is concerned not so much with the size of vehicles but rather with the serious inconvenience caused even by existing traffic passing through built up residential areas. His view is that, as far as his own area is concerned, a new link road is an urgent necessity to divert traffic from built up areas. I draw particular attention to paragraph 12 of the Report, in which we take a rather strong line:

The Joint Committee is fully convinced of the need to keep transport costs as low as possible particularly in view of the rising cost of energy. It believes that Ireland has a particular and vital interest in furthering this objective in view of the large proportion of our trade with the rest of the Community that is carried on roll-on/roll-of services. The object of the draft directive, which is to permit the carrying capacity of vehicles to be increased, is in line with this abjective. However, until such time as the necessary improvements to our inadequate road system are implemented the Committee cannot see how Ireland can support a proposal to permit even heavier goods vehicles from other Member States using our roads and adding to the environmental problems already being caused by this type of traffic.

We then speak of the concern about existing infrastructure costs and the additional costs that would arise if this proposed Directive were to be introduced—the wear and tear on road pavements, the heavier bridge loadings due to heavier vehicle weights.

The reaction of the Sub-Committee was coloured by the strong representations made by the residents' association, by people living in an area which has such a substantial amount of heavy vehicles and juggernauts, passing through on inadequate roads, bringing environmental hazards such as noise, dust, vibration. At present levels this has become intolerable, and the residents view with alarm any increase until proper ling roads have been built.

I should like to say simply that this is an area in which we must be very careful. It is imperative that we keep transport costs as low as possible. We must remember also that we have our own share of operators going to the Continent. A problem must have been created before you begin to try to solve it. Attention must have been drawn to it vividly. If we are to get the substantial assistance we are hoping for from the EEC for road development to bring our roads up to European standards, we need to proceed cautiously. It is imperative that this be looked at as a matter of urgency, because unless we have the infrastructure here that will attract outside industrialists to invest here we will never solve our unemployment problem. Personally, I would be relucteant to support a Report that proposes simply that we cannot allow this proposal to be accepted because the roads are not good enough.

The Report draws attention to a critical situation. It is the best way to draw attention to it. It will ensure that the Government will give it a high priority rating and that the EEC will understand our problem of heavy commercial traffic going through residential roads in built-up areas.

Is this not always part of development? Development brings growing pains, and people have to suffer quite a bit before the completion of the development. Part of our problem is that we must have a difficult situation before anybody will come to our aid.

I understand the views of the Chairman, but the lobbies in favour of the adoption of the proposals in the draft Report are quite substantial both from the commercial competition point of view and the point of view of carriage of goods by road to the Continent and to Britain. Consumers are having to live on either side of the carriageways over which these goods are transported and there is an obligation on us to highlight this, which is what we are proposing to do. The reason the Sub-Committee saw fit to take that line is that regrettably the Department, which were asked to comment on this, do not seem to have a clue about the impact this Directive will have on the infrastructure of roads and bridges. I can see an Irish Minister going to the Council of Ministers to agree to the adoption of a Directive without the adaptations suggested here, and which we have not found anybody against. We are looking for more support either from the Social Fund or, more appropriately, the Regional Fund. We are highlighting the fact that the Department have not been doing their work. Being on the perimeter of Europe, naturally we cannot afford to allow transport costs to be escalated. The demands to maintain our export markets will be so strong that we cannot afford to allow transportation costs to be increased in this proportion. At the same time if costs are going to be such that the Community is going to have to carry them, we should identify them. We can identify what the extra costs are going to be. That is my motivation.

I can see the view but it is difficult to be positive as to which is the better approach and which is going to achieve the quickest possible solution. If European operators come here and find that they have an impossible task on their hands they will bring back the message very quickly.

But they are here already and are finding it not as bad as those people whose areas they are going through and who cannot sleep because of noise and vibration.

I am not objecting to the Report going through. I am only making a personal observation.

I am not at all happy about this view of the Joint Committee that until such time as the necessary improvements to our inadequate road system are implemented the Committee cannot see how Ireland can support a proposal for that, and so on. The consumer interest has been mentioned and it is essential, whether we like it or not—and there are grave disadvantages for people living in certain areas—that we have effective transport between this country and other states of the EEC. Unfortunately, an essential prerequisite of that is that the modern forms of transport by road which are in use in the EEC must be able to come to this country. Therefore, I regret that we cannot recommend that Ireland supports this proposal.

I draw Senator Conroy's attention to the kind of time span we are talking about. It is stated in paragraph 2 that it is not possible at the moment to say when the consideration of this proposal is likely to be completed. The Commission is seeking to bring the proposed Directive into force on 1 January 1983. At the Commission's present time-scale that may drift and it may well be that we have time to take some action. There may be revised proposals for the Committee to consider. It may be that the Department will be able to come up with an assessment of the cost. The Sub-Committee heard the evidence of the Department and the views of the chairman of the residents' association. It would be very hard for us to wel-come the proposal to have even heavier vehicles and juggernauts ploughing through residential areas.

When one attempts to build appropriate roads and motor-ways one may get even more vociferous complaints from other residents' associations that are even more justified. There are a number of aspects to the problem. It is very difficult to support the very blunt statement that the Committee cannot see how Ireland can support the proposal. Unfortunately, we have to support this proposal. There is an enormous amount to be done with our roads. It is particularly difficult for this country which is relatively large with a relatively small population and relatively inadequate resources. We need the support for our infrastructure here. That is a different matter from saying that we have inadequate roads and cannot support this proposal until we have adequate roads. That is really putting it off into never-never land.

The report does point out that if the Department were doing their job they could with this Directive operate some of the sections of the 1961 Road Traffic Act which would enable them to assign certain routes and confine the movement for such heavy vehicles to certain routes and then measure the cost on every bridge, over every crossing and on the road surface. Those infrastructural costs must be added to the direct Government budget to take from the non-quantifiable nuisance, noise and dangers. It is the extra cost to the Exchequer which we do not even know that worries me.

Would it not be advisable to draw attention to these matters and emphasise to the Department of the Environment that the necessary implementation of this Directive will require expenditure of a very substantial nature which does not yet appear to have been quantified in relation to bridges and so forth?

It is a question of which way you want to take it. I would fully support the draft Report in this fashion. A degree of shock tactics appears to be neccessary to provoke a responsibility of this kind. The economic argument put forward by Senator Conroy is one that we recognise, but we have the highest low density figure of population in the EEC and these trucks are legally entitled to travel every boreen in the country.

We are putting the burden on hauliers to say, " Yes we do want the economic advantages of being able to carry heavier loads." On the present state of it I feel strongly that the text should remain as it is but I am open to the views of the Committee.

I am sorry that I have not been sitting in on the Sub-Committee dealing with this and perhaps I do not know as much about it as I should, but we have a very small group here at the moment to decide a very important matter. I would like the Committee to agree to postpone this report and consider it again, if the Members would accept that.

Further consideration of draft Report postponed.

Community Quota for the Carriage of Goods.

This is a report on the question of the Community quota. It is part of the common transport policy. This is the draft Council Regulation to amend the manner of distribution internally of the Community quota allotted to each country. The existing scheme is that the annual quota of authorisation are allocated to Member States, these enable the holders of authorisations to carry goods by road for hire or reward between the Member States on a bilateral basis and also on a multilateral basis. Each authorisation is valid for a calendar year.

The quota for the Community for 1979 is 3,122 authorisations of which Ireland's allocation is 65 authorisations. These are allocated to hauliers by the Minister for Tourism and Transport. This was reported on in the thirty-fourth report of this Committee. This proposal will enable Member States, by 1 January each year, to convert up to 10 per cent of these annual allocations into short-term authorisations, each of a ten-day validity period. Each annual authorisation can be converted into 40 short-term authorisations.

The implications for Ireland are set out in paragraph 7. The proposal would provide a possibility for converting 10 per cent of the 65 allocations for Ireland into short-term authorisations. This would give six or seven authorisations, depending on which way they calculated it. This would make available 240 or 280 short-term authorisations for allocation to Irish hauliers.

In paragraph 8 we refer to the views of the transport organisations:

Both the Irish Road Haulage Association and the Irish Overseas Transport Association welcome the proposal as far as it goes but agree that the proposed ten-day limit for short-term authorisations is too short for Irish hauliers travelling to the Continent. Moreover, the IOTA is worried that the mechanics of operating the system may involve excessive bureaucratic control. It would also prefer if short-term authorisations were not at the expense of the overall quota.

We consider that Ireland's present share of the Community quota is inadequate. If our suggested share is not acceptable, we favour the dropping of the ten-day limit. We say it should be left to the discretion of the Member States to allocate these short-term authorisations and to say how long they should be for—five or 15 days, depending on the nature of the job. We say the allocation is quite inadequate for the business here—that 65 for Ireland is very poor, that we should have at least a 10 per cent addition to our short-term allocations, and if not that there should be more flexibility instead of the standard ten-day authorisations.

Paragraphs 1 o 10, inclusive, agreed to.

Draft report agreed to.

Ordered: To report accordingly.

Safety Standards in Respect of Ionizing Radiation.

This is an important matter on which the Joint Committee may wish to express some views. The Sub-Committee examined the Commission's proposal for a Council Directive (EURATOM) amending the general Directive laying down the revised basic safety standards for the health protection of the general public and workers against the dangers of ionizing radiation. The proposal is based on Articles 31 and 32 of the EURATOM Treaty. The radiation protection principles of the 1976 Directive are based upon the recommendations of the International Commission for Radiation Protection. The ICRP is recognised as the authoritative body to give guidance in the field of radiation.

The existing provisions include one stipulating that the production, processing, handling, use, holding, storage, transport and disposal of natural and artificial radioactive substances and any other activity involving a hazard arising from ionizing radiation, should be reported to a national authority and that measures should be adopted to ensure the protection of persons both workers and members of the public against ionizing radiation.

In paragraph 3 we state:

The recommendations of the ICRP to which the proposed new directive is to give effect define new concepts and units and provide a number of new values for the protection of health against exposure risks. These new values are conceived in a more coherent way, since they take account of new metabolic data, and are calculated in a more logical manner, since they take into account for the first time the activity of the radiation to which the various organs or tissues are exposed. However these values differ only slightly from previous ones. Some of them, particularly those relating to the transuranic elements, are generally more strict. Others are slightly less so.

The Sub-Committee had the assistance of an official from the Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy and the Nuclear Energy Board and we looked at the position under present Irish legislation, and in paragraph 5 and 6 we make the following comments:

A Council Directive of 2 February 1959, modified by later Directive, was in force on this subject when Ireland joined the Community in 1973. Article 152 and section XIII and Annex XI of the Act of Accession exempted Ireland from its provisions until 1 January 1974. The Joint Committee has been informed that the exemption was granted because the Community provisions were in the course of being revised.

The Nuclear Energy (General Control of Fissile Fuels, Radioactive Substances and Irradiating Apparatus) Order, 1977 made by the then Minister for Transport and Power under section 6 of the Nuclear Energy Act, 1971, prohibits the custody, use, manufacture, importation, distribution, transportation, exportation or other disposal of fossile fuels, radioactive substances, radioactive devices, irradiating apparatus and radioactive waste products save under a licence issued by the Nuclear Energy Board established under the Act.

I support the Report very strongly. It is an anomaly that we have not got the regulations implemented. They are needed and the sooner we get on with it the better.

Does anybody know how we have escaped since 1974 from being pressurised by the EEC?

It appears from the 1977 proposals that the Community were modifying all the time. We have implemented part of the protection, but there is a need to comply fully with the standards set in the new Directive, when it has been passed.

Paragraphs 1 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.

Draft Report agreed to.

Ordered: To report accordingly.

Construction Products.

This also relates to a Council Directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administative provisions relating to construction products. At paragraph 5 we outline the principles to be observed, which are concerned mainly with health and safety. These principles would be reflected in the technical content of the implementing directive, which, depending on requirements, would cover technical characteristics, having regard to intended use, test methods, calculation codes for properties and performance, classification and methods of classification and inspection. The Commission, because of the diversity of products in the construction area, is proposing that the Council adopt by resolution a list of priority products for the implementing Directives, and these are set out in the proposed list of five categories as products in which structural stability is a major requirement, wood products, plastic and synthetic products, products for fitting out buildings and behaviour in fire of construction materials and components. The implementing Directives would aim at removing barriers to trade for the particular product.

We examined the method of harmonisation and in this report we see that the Commission mentions two possibilities, one of which is regarded as optional and the other as total. The optional method would give manufacturers the guarantee that products which conform to the prescribed Community standards could circulate freely in the Community and that the Member States might allow materials which did not necessarily comply with the standards to be used in the home country, but if they wanted to circulate them in the EEC they would have to comply with the EEC standards. The " total " method on the other hand would prohibit Member States from admitting to their own market or admitting from another EEC country products which did not comply with the standards in the various Directives.

We look at the implications for Ireland at paragraph 10 and we note that the building controls here are exercised through by-laws made under the Public Health Acts and that these contain controls over materials used in building. We note that only six local authorities altogether have made such by-laws. They have the power to but so far only Cork, Dublin, Dún Laoghaire and Limerick Corporations, Dublin County Council and Bray Urban District Council have exercised it. There is, of course, the comprehensive set of draft building regulations which contain a section dealing with the fitness of materials. The Committee refer to the draft regulations.

We note the potential advantage of the harmonisation of national laws relating to building materials. We then refer to the fact that the obligation imposed by Article 100 of the EEC Treaty governs this type of area for the removal of this kind of barrier, so in principle we cannot see an objection to this proposed framework Directive. However, we are critical of the methods proposed because we say in paragraph 13 that this is open to serious objections in principle. In our opinion it is in conflict with the spirit if not the letter of Article 100 of the EEC Treaty. The Treaty lays down the appropriate procedures for the harmonisation of national laws and we do not view with favour the adoption of an alternative procedure proposed here in this framework Directive. The alternative procedure would be that the subsequent implementing Directives in particular sectors could be adopted on a majority vote and would not require the unamimity required under Article 100 itself for approximation of laws. What the proposal from the Commission is obviously saying is that once the framework Directive is passed, then you can by a qualified majority pass the implementing Directives in the different sectors. We believe that the provision for unanimity in Article 100 was there because, by the very nature of it, harmonising national laws is a matter of great importance to national countries and the Commission should abide by this procedure in relation to this proposal. We, therefore, find it objectionable that there would be a provision that the implementing proposals would be done by a qualified majority vote as so decided in this framework Directive. We refer at the end of paragraph 14 to the fact that there is this committee of " three wise men ", three prominent personalities, examining the whole question of the infrastructural structures and procedures at EEC level and consideration of any new procedure which will be a modification of Article 100 should be deferred until the European Council has had an opportunity of considering and examining that Committee's report.

We refer to the issue of total or optional harmonisation. Again we are wary of a proposal for total harmonisation because we would see it as an encroachment on the prerogatives of the national legislatures. It is preferable to confine Article 100 to harmonisation of the national laws so as to ensure free circulation of EEC goods which comply with the standard rather than try to dictate to a national state its attitude towards its own approach to building products. Article 100 is meant to deal with harmonisation and not to determine national standards in a total way.

We refer at paragraph 16 to the fact that it could be a good while before these separate implementing Directives are produced, and we then point to the fact that the proposed Irish building regulations should not be delayed but should be put into force at an early date. We thank the Confederation of Irish Industry, the Construction Industry Federation and also the Department of the Environment and Industry, Commerce and Energy for the assistance we received.

We are making some legal points in this Report. We do not like the way in which it is proposed to depart from the rule of unanimity under Article 100 and the procedures there and to adopt potential majority voting for the implementing Directives under this framework Directive in relation to various products. These are very important products in the building industry, we may have particular views on them and we could be over-ruled on majority voting. We do not like the idea of total harmonisation as opposed to optional harmonisation at this stage.

Senator Robinson has explained lucidly two quite separate matters. One is the question of building and construction products themselves and Senator Robinson has indicated that we might have strong views on such matters and indeed many of them could have very important or even emotional aspects. I am sure we would in general be in favour of further controls and so on in relation to such products. There is the very important question of procedure and principle which the Sub-Committee has raised and to which attention should be drawn.

There is a very wide range of climatic conditions from one extreme to another in the Community and it would seem a rather extraordinary area to attempt to harmonise to 100 per cent. It is very wise to be cautious about it in this Report. It seems to me to be the correct approach to it.

Pargraphs 1 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.

Draft report agreed to.

Ordered: To Report accordingly.

The Joint Committee adjourned at 5.40 p.m.

Barr
Roinn