The first item relates to adopted measures.
COM (2009) 365 is a proposal for a Council decision amending the Council decision of 20 January 2009 providing Community medium term financial assistance for Latvia. It is proposed to note this adopted proposal. Is that agreed? Agreed. COM (2009) 413 is a proposal for a Council decision on the Community position on a decision of the joint committee established under the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on co-operation in the field of statistics, amending annex B to the agreement. It is proposed to note this adopted measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2009) 437 - FON is a follow-on note to Early Warning Note LI 7-19, considered at the JCES meeting of 17 February 2009 with no further scrutiny agreed. It involves a proposal for a Council regulation terminating the "new exporter" review of Regulation (EC) No. 1174/2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in the People's Republic of China, re-imposing the duty with regard to imports from one exporter in this country and terminating the registration of these imports. It is proposed to note this measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2009) 450 - FON is a follow-on note to Early Warning Note L97-17, considered at the JCES meeting of 26 May 2009 with no further scrutiny agreed. It involves a proposal for a Council regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain aluminium foil originating in Armenia, Brazil and the People's Republic of China. It is proposed to note this measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2009) 463 - FON is a follow-on note to Early Warning Note L94-48, considered at the JCES meeting of 26 May 2009 with no further scrutiny agreed. It involves a proposal for a Council regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in the People's Republic of China. It is proposed to note this measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2009) 276 is a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 733/2008 on the conditions governing imports of agricultural products originating in third countries following the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station. It is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2009) 328 is a proposal for a Council recommendation on smoke-free environments. Given the information provided by the Department and the existing Irish legislation in this area, it is proposed to note the proposal. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2009) 340 is a proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No. 1672/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity - Progress. It is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2009) 345 is a proposal for a Council decision on the procedure concerning derogations from the rules of origin set out in the Origin Protocols annexed to Economic Partnership Agreements with ACP States. It is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2009) 348 is a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other essential parameters. Given the information provided by the Department, it is proposed to note this measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2009) 357 is a proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of an agreement in the form of a protocol establishing a dispute settlement mechanism applicable to disputes under the trade provisions of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their member states, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part. It is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2009) 364 is a proposal for a Council decision authorising the Federal Republic of Germany to continue to apply a measure derogating from Article 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax. It is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2009) 367 is a proposal for a Council decision relating to the position to be taken in the co-operation committee established by the Agreement on Cooperation and Customs Union between the European Economic Community and the Republic of San Marino in order to adopt the "omnibus" decision. It is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2009 ) 381 is a proposal for a Council decision on the position to be adopted by the Communities and its member states within the Cooperation Council established by the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their member states, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part, with regard to the adoption of a recommendation on the implementation of the EU-Ukraine Association Agenda and of a decision on the establishment of a joint committee. It is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2009) 382 is a proposal for a Regulation (EC) No. 72009 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No. 1080/2006 on the European Regional Development Fund as regards the eligibility of housing interventions in favour of marginalised communities. It is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2009) 389 is a proposal for a Council decision revoking the agreements between the European Coal and Steel Community and the Swiss Confederation. It is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2009) 392 is a proposal for a Council Decision on the Community position to be taken on the joint committee decision authenticating the agreement between the European Community and its member states on the one part, and the Swiss Confederation on the other, on the free movement of persons in the Bulgarian and Romanian languages. It is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2009) 424 is a proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 2000/29/EC as regards the delegation of the tasks of laboratory testing. It is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2009) 439 is a proposal for a Council regulation fixing the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea for 2010. It is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2009) 441 is a proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion by the European Community of the Agreement on the Accession of the European Community to the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF) of 9 May 1980, as amended by the Vilnius Protocol of 3 June 1999 (Text with EEA relevance). It is proposed that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2009) 126 is a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on combating late payment in commercial transactions (Recast) - Implementing the Small Business Act. Given the information provided by the Department, it is proposed to note the measure and send a copy for information to the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Is that agreed? Agreed.
There are no CFSP measures. The next item deals with Title VI (TEU) and Title IV (TEC) measures. COM (2009) 456 is a proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council of amendment Decision No. 673/2007/EC establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2008-13 as part of the general programme, "Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows" and repealing Council Decision 2004/904/EC.
COM (2009) 447 is a communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the establishment of a joint EU resettlement programme. It is proposed that this proposed Decision and related Commission communication be forward to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for information, in advance of consideration of an opt-in motion by the Oireachtas with respect to COM (2009) 456. Is that agreed? Agreed.
10964-09 is an initiative of the kingdom of Sweden and the kingdom of Spain with a view to adopting Council Framework Decision on accreditation of forensic laboratory activities. It is proposed that this proposed Framework Decision be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for information and consideration, in advance of consideration of an opt-in motion by the Oireachtas in accordance with Article 29.4.6° of the Constitution. Is that agreed? Agreed.
There are no early warning notes.
The next item deals with proposals proposed for further scrutiny. COM (2009) 217 is a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on aviation security charges. The objective of the proposal is to set common principles for the levying of security charges at Community airports and to establish a common framework regulating the essential features of security charges and the way they are set. The Commission states that a directive is the most appropriate means to regulate security charges as it will set clear but basic principles with regard to security charges that must be respected by airport operators when applying and levying their security charges. The transposition of the directive into national law will allow member states to take into account the specific situation with regard to airports in that member state, always provided that the provisions of the directive are fully applied.
The airport sector welcomes the renewed focus on security charges but believes that the draft directive fails to address the most urgent problems, for airports and airlines alike, in the area of aviation security. ACI Europe states that, in its current form, the draft directive does not solve the long-standing problem of inadequate public financing of aviation security and, in particular, national security measures going beyond EU requirements. Instead, it feels that the draft directive imposes additional administrative burdens on airports, without taking into account the compromise reached between the European institutions on the recently adopted EU directive on airport charges.
In the UK, a consultation process was undertaken on the directive. Among the views worth highlighting are those of the Air Transport Users Council. It noted that the principal purported objectives of the proposal are already taken care of in the airport charges directive, ACD, which will come into force in March 2011. Separate provision for any single element of airport charges should be consistent with the provisions of the ACD. A more proportionate approach might be to amend the ACD to encompass any specific requirements.
It is not clear from the Department's information note what level of consultation has taken place with stakeholders in Ireland to assess the impact of the proposal. It may be that some of the concerns raised by the committee in its fifth scrutiny report on the airport charges directive are still relevant. These would include the possibility of an excess of regulation; the use of a "one size fits all" approach to the European aviation market, which may be to the detriment of a small island nation like Ireland; and the compliance of the proposal with the principle of subsidiarity, which requires that decisions be taken at the lowest level consistent with effective action.
It is proposed that the directive warrants further scrutiny by the committee in light of the committee's fifth scrutiny report on the directive on airport charges. The Department should be requested to provide further details in writing on the consultations it has engaged in, the relevance of the concerns expressed in the committee's fifth scrutiny report and the latest position being adopted in the negotiations at Council level. The committee may also decide to seek written observations from the stakeholders who gave evidence for the last report. Is that agreed? Agreed.
COM (2009) 384 is a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 1083/2006 concerning general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, ERDF, the European Social Fund, ESF, and the Cohesion Fund as regards simplification of certain requirements and as regards certain provisions relating to financial management. This proposed regulation forms part of the Commission's response to the economic crisis. The December 2008 European Council agreed a European economic recovery plan, EERP, which envisages the initiation of priority action to enable European economies to adjust more rapidly to current challenges. In the framework of this recovery package, the Commission proposed a number of regulatory changes to simplify the implementation rules for cohesion policy and to increase the pre-financing or advance payments to European Regional Development Fund and European Social Fund programmes.
It is hoped that further simplification measures will enable the ERDF and the ESF to help mitigate the effects of the job crisis in Europe and increase the impact of funding under these Cohesion Funds on the economy as a whole. The purpose of this proposal is to simplify the implementation of Structural Funds regulations and to speed up the delivery of Structural Funds projects.
One of the major innovations proposed in this draft regulation is a financial measure. It would introduce a temporary option for member states to request that the Commission make a 100% reimbursement under Cohesion Fund projects during 2009 and 2010. This would obviate the need to provide national co-financing during this period. This option would apply to member states which face severe cashflow difficulties in financing labour market measures necessary to combat unemployment and which are eligible under the ESF. The aim of this proposed measure is to speed up the implementation of projects to support employment. The adoption of this proposal would complete the series of regulatory and non-regulatory adjustments aimed at stimulating the implementation of cohesion programmes on the ground. It would provide national, regional and local authorities with clearer and less bureaucratic rules, allowing for more flexibility to adapt the programmes to new economic realities and challenges.
The Department's note indicates that the proposal is of a technical nature. However, it also indicates that Ireland cannot support the proposed amendment dealing with financial issues whereby Community co-financing of ESF projects would be 100% for 2009 and 2010. The reason for this opposition is budgetary. The Department also indicates that most of the member states do not support this proposed amendment. The Department's analysis of the payment appropriations available in the budget for 2009 and the draft EU budget for 2010 show that the additional payment credits to be paid under the 100% reimbursement option in 2009 and 2010 for the ESF programmes would represent approximately €6.6 billion overall if the proposed amendment is accepted.
Given the significance of this proposal in the context of the EU's response to the economic and employment crisis and given that the Department has indicated its opposition to a particular aspect of the proposal, it is proposed that the draft regulation warrants further scrutiny. To this end, it is proposed that the joint committee write to the Department of Finance seeking further clarification on its reasons for opposing the provision of the proposal dealing with co-financing and further information on the state of negotiations. On the basis of this clarification, the committee can assess whether further examination of the proposal is required. It is also proposed that the proposal be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service and the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.
There are no proposals proposed for forwarding to sectoral committees for observations.
There are no proposals proposed for referring to sectoral committees for detailed scrutiny.
The next item is the scrutiny of a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and Council amending directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC as regards capital requirements for the trading book and for the resecuritisations and the supervisory role of the remuneration policies. On behalf of the committee, I welcome Mr. William Beausang, assistant secretary, Mr. Frank Maughan, assistant principal, and Mr. Michael Taggart, administrative officer at the Department of Finance; and Mr. Derek Fulham, Financial Regulator. I draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of a long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that Members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House, or any official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I ask Mr. Beausang to make his presentation.