Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are six proposals in front of us today. I propose to run through the six of these collectively to give a brief indication of what they relate to. If people have questions on any one of them, we will bank them all then and the committee will go into private session if people want further information on any particular one of these proposals or all of them, as the case may be. It is only when we have concluded that process that we can formally agree then to approve these proposals before us.

The first one today is COM (2025) 80 and the dates from which member states shall apply certain corporate sustainability reporting and due diligence requirements. Briefly, that means that the proposal before us is that these requirements should apply to companies that have more than 5,000 employees. The view is that the target was so low was that it was an undue and unnecessary burden on smaller companies. The proposal is that it should only apply to large businesses with 5,000 employees plus.

The next proposal, COM (2025) 81, is another proposal of similar type. It proposes to reduce the scope of EU companies having to report, again only larger companies, with the undertakings of 1,000 plus employees.

Part of it was, without that limit, smaller companies would be subject to undue costs and time producing these reports. The proposal before us from the EU is that it would only apply to companies with 1,000-plus employees.

Next is COM (2025) 84. This is relates to the European Parliament and Council amending regulations related to the InvestEU programme. As of June last year, the InvestEU programme was estimated to have mobilised investments of approximately €280 billion. Obviously, it is an EU investment programme. The purpose of this is to increase the EU guarantee up to €2.5 billion, which is much enhanced compared with what it is. It has given the member states the possibility, if they choose to do so, to contribute in full to the financial instrument. It is an EU investment programme and it is up to countries to contribute as they see fit. It is currently, as I said, at €280 billion, but it wants to go to almost ten times that if the need arises. This is the proposal to increase that guarantee to €2.5 billion.

The next one before us is COM (2025) 87, which is a proposal to amend a current regulation regarding the carbon border adjustment mechanism. The objective of this is in respect of which importers can be exempt from the carbon border adjustment mechanism, which currently stands on any import worth €150. Instead, importers will be required to declare imports once they exceed a 50-tonne limit of carbon. The EC advises that this alternation is expected to exempt around 90% of importers from the carbon border adjustment mechanism, and it will capture 99% of the embedded emissions. They are saying we will still capture 99% of the embedded emissions through this mechanism but they feel it is important to make that change without, effectively, any significant loss in capturing these border adjustment mechanisms dealing with carbon.

The next proposal is COM (2025) 100, which pertains to non-financial commercial real estate figures related to building permits, construction starts, commercial real estate price indices, commercial rent indices and values of transactions of commercial estates. It is merely a statistic-gathering mechanism. It is not affecting the businesses directly; rather it is about statistics. The proposal just relates to the gathering of statistics.

The final one before us, COM (2025) 106, relates to the protection of wolves, namely, Canis lupus. I looked that up and that is the grey wolf. Bear with me while I find the exact term. At the moment, the wolves are a "strictly protected" species but it is proposed to amend that to a "protected" species. The purpose is each country can continue to legislate for them by way of their own regulations to continue to have them categorised as a strictly protected species. That will not now be an EU requirement, however, and the wolves will be considered a protected species from an EU point of view. Every individual country can accept that and work with that or, if they want to maintain the original status of strictly protected, a country is free to do that. That is the essence of what is here. It gives a bit more flexibility, depending on the nature of the country and, I presume, the population of wolves in particular areas. There will be a baseline for every country that will be protected, and how strictly protected is then a matter for the countries to make their own regulations on as to whether they want to keep the current strict regime or not.

These are the six proposals. If people have questions on individual proposals then we will called the Oireachtas advisers, that is, the research team in the Oireachtas, to answer. Rather than working on them one by one, I have given an outline. Were we to ask the officials to respond to a question then the committee would have to go into private session.

I have summarised the 200 pages into a few short words. I hope I got the essence of what is involved; I am not pretending that I did. Are there any questions and if there are, would members like the officials to respond as they are the people with the knowledge?

Pádraig Rice (Cork South-Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to make a comment rather than ask a question.

On the first two proposals, I accept they have no subsidiarity issues. I believe corporate reporting is important, however, particularly in terms of environmental standards and social responsibility. I am concerned about the delay in those measures and reducing the scope to very large companies. A company with 5,000 employees is a very large company.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Pádraig Rice (Cork South-Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Can we write to the enterprise committee to flag these two directives in particular and highlight our concerns?

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy for raising that point. I agree 100% because we are just looking at it from a subsidiarity point of view. The substance of this matter can be discussed by the line committees as soon as they are established in the coming weeks. The secretariat will write to the incoming committee immediately, once it is established.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I share Deputy Rice's concerns in this regard. Whereas it might not be a question on the subsidiarity aspect, it is a political statement that may warrant being made in this forum as we are the first committee to examine these proposals.

We need to write to both the enterprise committee and to the European affairs and environmental committees to ask them to take a hard look at this matter. My colleagues in the European Parliament, Lynn Boylan and Kathleen Funchion, raised very serious concerns about the omnibus proposal made by the European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen.

On backsliding on environmental protections, on corporate responsibility and on human rights, as well as reporting on these things, we need to be very careful as a body politic that we get this right and that we are not letting enterprises off the hook that have a responsibility on these issues. I concur with the proposal made by Deputy Rice but would add to it that we should write and flag these two proposals, namely, COM (2025) 80 and COM (2025) 81, with the European affairs committee and with the environment committee.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is referring to COM (2025) 80 and COM (2025) 81. I note there are delays as well, which I did not specifically mention,.plus the threshold for companies has been increased above a certain size. We certainly will do that. Do I have a proposer and seconder in respect of COM (2025) 80 and COM (2025) 81? That is agreed.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sorry Chair, but I had indicated as well. As Deputies Rice and McGuinness have articulated the points I was going to make, I wish to be associated with the proposal regarding the relevant committees. There is a concern that there is a change in approach by the European Commission in respect of reporting and the implications that has for human rights and sustainability and for environmental reasons. Therefore, I echo the point made by the two Deputies about ensuring that the relevant line committee examines the proposals further. There are no subsidiarity concerns as such but there is a concerns in terms of the substance. I would appreciate if the Chair could record that point.

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Okay. Those two are specifically agreed. I want to put a proposal about COM (2025) 87, which is the one about the carbon adjustment mechanism. I did not get to it but I formally propose, as Chair, that we send it to the sectoral committee. Is the one about carbon emissions agreed? Agreed.

COM (2025) 100 deals with financial commercial activity. This is about the statistics and real estate in construction. I suggest that we forward this matter to the select committee for further consideration by it because they are the people who will be most in charge. We are an interim committee in the meantime but that certainly is their role. Is the proposal agreed? Agreed. We are referring four proposals to the line committees for further consideration. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I will refer to my notes. I refer to regulation COM (2025) 80 as regards the date from which member states are to apply certain corporate sustainability reporting as a due diligence requirement.

It is proposed that on the basis there are no apparent subsidiary concerns, this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny by this committee at this time. However, we are referring it to the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If I may clarify, when the Chair referred to the line committee, I assume we are also referring it to the two committees I previously noted?

Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes. We have made a note of that and it is guaranteed to happen.

In respect of proposal COM (2025) 81, as regards certain corporate sustainability reporting and due diligence; it is proposed that on the basis there are no apparent subsidiary concerns, this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny by this committee but again, will be referred to the two committees to which the Deputy has referred. Is that agreed? Agreed.

With respect to COM (2025) 84, as regards increasing the efficiency of the EU guarantee under EU Regulation No. 2021/523 and simplifying reporting requirements; it is proposed that on the basis there are no apparent subsidiary concerns, this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny by this committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

In relation to COM (2025) 87 relating to simplifying and strengthening the carbon border adjustment mechanism, it is proposed that on the basis there are no apparent subsidiary concerns, this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny by this committee and it is agreed to forward it to the sectoral committee for further consideration. Is that agreed? Agreed.

In respect of COM (2025) 100, the non-financial, commercial real estate statistics proposal; it is proposed that on the basis that there are no apparent subsidiary concerns, this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny by this committee at this time. Is that agreed? Agreed. Is it agreed that we forward it to the sectoral committee to consider the proposal ,as that committee so chooses? Agreed.

Finally, in respect of COM (2025) 106, regarding the protection status of the grey wolf, Canis lupus, it is proposed that on the basis that there are no apparent subsidiary concerns, this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny by this committee at this time. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The committee system looks to be operational shortly and today is likely to be the final meeting of this temporary committee. I therefore would like to thank members and staff, especially Leinster House staff, as a lot of work has gone into the proposals of the committee over the past few weeks. The meeting is now adjourned sine die.