Sixty-first Report of - Session 2010 2–1 - Parliament ...

HC 428-lvi Published on 3 April 2012

by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited

£0.00

House of Commons

European Scrutiny ommittee

Sixty-first Report of

C

Session 2010 2–1 Documents considered by the Committee on 27 March 2012

Report, together with formal minutes, minutes of evidence and appendices

Ordered by The House of Commonsto e printed 27 March 2012

b

Notes

Numbering of documents

Three separate numbering systems are used in this Report for European Union documents

Numbers in brackets are the Committee’s own reference numbers

Numbers in the form “5467/05 uncil of Ministers reference numbers. This system is also used by UK

Government Departments, by the House of Commons Vote Office and for proceedings in the House.

Numbers preceded by the letters COM or SEC are Commission reference numbers

Where only a Committee number is given, this usually indicates that no official text is available and the

Government has submitted an umbered Explanatory Memorandum iscussing what is likely to be included

in the document or covering an unofficial text

Abbreviations used in the headnotes and footnotes

EC (in “Legal base blishing the European Community

EM Explanatory Memorandum (submitted by the Government to the Committee)*

EP European Parliament

EU (in “Legal base on European Union

GAERC General Affairs and External Relations Council

JHA Justice and Home Affair

OJ Official Journal of the European Communities

QMV Qualified majority voting

RIA Regulatory Impact Assessment

SEM Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum

TEU Treaty on European Union

TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Euros

Where figures in euros have been converted to pounds sterling, this is normally at the market rate for the last

working day of the previous month.

Further information

Documents recommended by the Committee for debate, together with the times of forthcoming debates (where

known), are listed in the European Union Documents list, which is published in the House of Commons Vote

Bundle each Monday, and is also available on the parliamentary website. Documents awaiting consideration by

the Committee are listed in “Remaining Business”: www.parliament.uk/escom. The website also contains the

Committee’s Reports.

* Explanatory Memoranda (EMs) can be downloaded from the Cabinet Office website:

http://europeanmemorandum.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/search.aspx.

Letters sent by Ministers to the Committee relating to European documents are available for the public to

inspect; anyone wishing to do so should contact the staff of the Committee (“Contacts” below).

Staf

The staff of the Committee are Alistair Doherty (Clerk), David Griffiths (Clerk Adviser), Terry Byrne (Clerk Adviser),

Leigh Gibson (Clerk Adviser), Peter Harborne (Clerk Adviser), Paul Hardy (Legal Adviser) (Counsel for European

Legislation), Lis Partridge (Assistant to the Clerk), Hannah Lamb (Senior Committee Assistant), Shane

Pathmanathan (Committee Assistant), Jim Camp (Committee Assistant), Baris Tufekci

Paula Saunderson (Office Support Assistant).

Contacts

All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the European Scrutiny Committee, House of Commons, 7

Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is (020 92/5465. The

Committee’s email address is [email protected]

:

.

” are Co

.

“unn ” d

.

”) Treaty esta

”) Treaty

s

f

(Committee Assistant) and

) 7219 32

European Scrutiny Committee, 61st Report, Session 2010–12 1

Contents

Report Page

Documents not cleared

1 DCMS (33007) (33008) Mobile phone roaming charges 3

2 FCO (33748) Cooperation with Southeast Asia 18

Documents cleared

3 BIS (33097) Internal Market Information System 21

4 BIS (33733) European Innovation Partnership on raw materials 23

5 MOD (33514) (33561) (33562) European Defence Agency 27

6 DEFRA (33731) European Innovative Partnership: Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability 41

7 FCO (33768) (33769) Further amendments to EU restrictive measures against the Syrian regime 43

Annex: persons and entities added to restrictive measures 52

8 HMT (33726) Financial management 53

Documents not raising questions of sufficient legal or political importance to warrant a substantive report to the House

9 List of documents 57

Formal minutes 59

Standing Order and membership 60


1 obile phone roaming charges

(a)(3300712666/11+ ADDs 1COM(11) 407

(b)(3300812639/1/11COM(11) 402

Commission Report on the outcome of the functioning of Regulation (EC) No 717/2007 of 27 June 2007 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Community, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 544/2009

Draft Regulation on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union (Recast

M

)

–2

)

)

Legal base

(b) r e 9 1) TFEU; ordinary legislative procedu

Departmen Culture, Media and SportBasis of consideration Minister’s letter of 22 March 012Previous Committee Reports HC 428–lii (2010 chapter 8 (29 February 2012)

HC 428–xlvii (2010–12), chapter 8 (18 January 2012) and HC 428–xxxvi (2010–12), chapter 4 (14 September 2011)

Discussion in Counci

(a) — a ticl 28 (

re; QMV t

2 –12),

l To be determined

Committee’s assessmen Politically importanCommittee’s decision Not cleared; further information now provided;

Minister authorised to join political agreement if appropriate; further information requested

Background

1.1 he mobile telephone o mi g arket in the EU has been regulated since June 2007 by two Roaming Reg la h covered solely voice tra s introduced in June 2007 and sought to address issues related to a situation that favoured domestic use (intra-State) compared to cross-border use (roa ting in roaming prices substantially above costs. The overall aim was an internal market, with greater consumer protection, greater competition and greater trans en

1.2 review of this first r a ed to amendments in June 2009, extending both scope SMS (text) and wholesale-level data roaming servi e now also regula nd

duration of the Regulation (now known colloquially as Roaming II) until Jun 2 1

1.3 year later, a further interim Commission review concluded that “Roaming II” had generally been well implemented, with decreased voice and SMS prices, as well as increased transpa ency lst wholesale data prices had decreased, consu ere yet to reap the benefit fully at the retail lev l; competition in the roaming markets had not developed

t t

T r a n mu tions. The first — whic ffic — wa

ming), resul

par cy.

A egul tion l— ces ar ted — a

e 0 2.

A

r . But whi mers we

4 European Scrutiny Committee, 61st Report, Session 2010–12

sufficiently; and structural problems within the market remained (see paragr 8 s p he Commission accordingly said that it would produce a full review of

the functioning of Roaming Regulation by 30 June 2011; this would assessobjectives of the Regulati r price regulation or any other mechanism should remain in pla r the Regulation should be allowed to expire in full review was promised by 30 June 2011.

The Commission report and the draft Regulation

1.4 he first document is the report of that review; the second is an amended “Roaming II”, which embodies the Commission’s pro o a

The Commission report

1.5 he Commission report is summarised in detail in paragr 24 of our Forty-first Rep 1 A central consideration is that the EU Digital Agenda includes a Key Performance Target for international mobile roaming serv at the difference between roaming and national tariffs “would approach zero b

1.6 he Commission pr s s revising the Regulation by introducing pro-competitive structural measures and exte 2022. The details of the Commission’s proposals are set out in our earlie s but in essence are as foll

Mandate the separate sale (“decoupling”) of roaming services in the domestic market

1.7 e Commission proposes that consumers be allowed to opt-out of the default roaming services offered by their domestic service provider and choose an alternative home operator for roaming services only; thus, each time the customer roams, the retail roaming service would automatically switch to this alternative p o i e .

Improve market entry by mandating wholesale roaming access

1.8 o be fully effective, the Commission says that “decoupling” needs to be combined with an access obligation that will facilitate market entry by existing and new players, including cross-border roaming service providers. The Commission accordingly proposes introducing an obligation on network operators to meet all reasonable requests for wholesale access for the provision of roaming servi e .

Retain a transitional safety net for retail prices up to 30 June 2016, including a new retail price cap on data roaming services

1.9 he retail safeguard caps mechanism would be extended to data roaming services. They would “follow a glide path until the structural solutions are in place (in 2014)”, after which the safeguard caps would remain flat for up to a further two years, until 30 June 2016. The retail caps would be removed thereafter or before if market data indicated that competition

aphs 1.4–1.of thi cha ter). T

whether the on had been achieved, and consider whethe

ce, or whethe 2012. A

Tp s ls.

T aphs 4.9–4.ort.

ices — thy 2015”.

T opo e nding its validity until 30 June

r Report ows.

Th

r v d r

T

c s

T

1 See headnote: HC 428 xxvi (2010 ), chapter 4 (14 September 2011) –x –12 .


had developed sufficiently. A review in 2015 would evaluate whether the proposed structural measures were sufficient to promote competition, and whether it was necessary to modify them or to extend the duration of any of the transitory retail p .

Maintain price caps on wholesale charges until 2022

. e price caps on wholesale charges would be retained and likewise “follow a steep decreasing glide path on a yearl to 30 June 2015, after which they wouflat until th ulation pired in 2022 (an could be removed before the new Regulation expires if market data indicate that competition has developed suff l

The draft Regulation

. s Explanatory Memorandum of 21 July 2011, the Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries (Mr Edward Vaizey) provided a detailed overview of the draft Regulation (see paragraph 28 of our Forty-first o

The Government’s view

e Minister welcomed the benefi o consumers and businesses of Commission efforts to reduce the cost of roaming, particularly in relation to voice and Sgreater merit in obliging etwork operators to allow wholesale access for the provision of roaming services than in “decoupling” roaming services in the domestic market. H it unlikely that consumers n signing a domestic mobile contract) to make sound and informed decisions about any roaming package which they might only use on a very limited number of o w make certain that any

business and consumers alike and did not impose costs on the former that might jeopardize investment decisions or be detrimental to the most vulnerable consumers, many of w s ore expensive prepaid services. Therefore, he

n’s proposed 2015 review date might come too soon for the impact on competition of either of the proposed structural solutions to be evident, and lead to decisions being made without a compelling or complete evidence base; he would therefore push the Commission to reconsider tha e ted the “waterbed argument” (if prices were reduced in one area, prices needed o rise in others to compensate) put forward by some providers to justify a reluctance to reduce roaming charges in relation to voice and SMS previously; the scope for growth in the data roaming market as a consequence of both the price cap and whichever structural solu ld, the Minister said, more than compensate for any revenue squeeze. In the absence of any strong arguments against, the Minister ac t e need for a price cap as a short term measure whilst the proposed structural solutions took ef

. e Minister also expressed his broad agreement with the Commission’s “totemic policy ambition” of completion of the digital single market (DSM). This and the second aim, of as small a differential between domestic and roaming costs by s b ewere, he said, both “new drivers in the context of the history of the Regulation.” Noting that th r amount of political impetus to drive forward the Regulatory

ca s

1 10 Thy basis” up ld remain

e new Reg ex d icient y).

1 11 In hi

4.24–4. Rep rt).2

1.12 Th ts t MS. He saw

ne judged

would be in a position (whe

ccasions. He anted to changes were fair both to

hom u ed msaid, the Commissio

t date. H rejec t

tion was adopted wou

cep ed thfect.

1 13 Th

2015 a possi l

ere was “a fai



proposals”, the Minister said that while he generally acce t ontribution that the mobile roaming market contributes towards the creation of the digital single market, he found it “difficult to state that the completion of the DSM is reliant on agreement being reached on this Regulatory pr a ”

Financial Implications

. e Mini r

ith a Re urrently in place, any costs would be associated with both the continuation of that Regulation and any adjustments for new or changed requ

here would be little or no impact on departmental and Government resources;

here might be some impact on Ofcom’s (the UK’s NRA) r s urces th gh e required to enforce any new requirements

here were both a positive and negative impacts for businesses: re i to r “pay-as-yo o ) customers would e a measure seen to have a disproportionate cost; there a associated with the “Roaming MVNO” structural solution of €30 miassociated eparation” sol on;

ere a o direct impact on EU budgetary requir

Our assessment

e Minister noted, a consultation process would now begin scussions would also get underway in the relevant Council working group (and, we noted, no doubt in the European Parliament, which would become formally involved once political agreement was reached in the Council), with a tight deadline of Ju t tight deadline notwithstanding, proper Parliamentary scrutiny was requi ed. We therefore asked the Minister, in the first instance, to write ahead of the December Telecoms Council meeting with a situation report and the Government’s then nd sooner than then if, given the June 2012 deadline, matters moved faster than he ant e

the meantime we retained both documents under scruti

The Minister’s letter of 11 January 2012

ng an initial analysis of the original Commission text, consultation with stakeholders and initial discussions at working party level, the Mi ad concerns in the following four main areas (the Minister’s emphasis, here and he

“The levels of the wholes ay be set at levels below cost, particularly in the latter part of the ten-year life-span of the Regu

p ed the c

opos l.

1 14 Th ste said that:

— w gulation cirements;

— t

— t e o as ey mi t b;

— t mov ng a requirement have a “data cap” for pre-pay (o u-g ” remov

ppeared to be no direct costs; but a cost 0 llion

with the “S uti

— th ppeared to be n ements.

1.15 As th . Di

ne 2012. Thar

views — aicipat d.

1.16 In ny.3

1.17 Followinister h

reafter):

• ale caps mlation;



• tai“The differential between the wholesale and re ca hould be set at a margin that guarantees profitability for new market entrants offering roaming service under the ‘wholesale access’ structural remedy detailed n t

“Issues relating to the Review of the Regulation, in particular when the first Review was to take place, the metric(s) used to determine if competition has been established through the effects of the proposed Structural Solutions, and the assumption that retail prices would be lifted in 2016, regardless of the outcome of the 2015 Review;

“The Regulation should be service and technology neutral specially those Articles that deal with the proposed structural sol ”

. nister said, were shared by a number of other Member States. 2011 Telecommuni had accordingly discussed a Progress

Report based around three questions provided by the Polish Presidency and reported in detail in his Pre-Council statement.

. essence, those three questio w

ew of the time constraints, how best to protect consumers and avoid a gap in the Reg tio ?

s regards “de-co ng 5 hould the Regulation specify one, or a combination, of the technical possibilities; or refer to an appropriate procedure for making such c o c ?

iven that roaming is an international service, how could compatibility be ensured between any EU structural measures and arrangements agreed at international level, for example in the ITU (International Telecommunications Uni n ?

his Post-Council statement, the Minister said the main discussion poin s re:

ost Member States agreed that the aim should be to adopt the new regulation before the expiration of the current regulation to avoid any gaps in consumer pr

ost Member States would prefer a technology-neutral regulation that does not contain the technical details of the structural solutions to be adopted. Thus, any technical detail would be contained in BEREC guidance and subject to consultation with key stak

any Member States were in favour of promoting the European approach to mobile roaming regulation within world-wide fora such as the ITU. However, the UK and others noted that Europe should strive to lead by example, rather than impose its approach on the world;

l ps s

i Ar 3;

•

and

• eutions.

1 18 These concerns, the MiThe 13 December cations Council

4

1 19 In ns ere:

— in viula n

— a upli ”, sa h i e

— g

o )

1.20 In t we

• “M

otection;

• “M

eholders;

• “M

and

4 Reproduced at annex 2 to chapter 8 of our Report of 18 January 2012.

5 The proposa hat that consumers be allowed to opt-out of the default roaming services offered by their provider of domestic services and choose an alternative home operator for roaming services only (see paragraph 1.7 above)

l t.


• “A

re lifted.”

number of Member States stressed the importance of ensuring the establishment of effective competition within the EU Roaming market before price caps a

he Minister went on to say in his letter that the majority of Ministers were of the v

“Negotiations of the Regulation should be completed in good time before the current Regulation expires, i.e. 30 Ju 2 1

..the new Regulation should strive to be as service and technology neutral as possible, with technical and implementation detail of the structural solutions being contained in the associated BEREC guida

“The provision of transparency on prices through the use of SMS detailing the price of voice, SMS and data services should be extended to those EU citizens whouse mobile roaming services outside of the EU ”

. lso said that a number of Ministers also stressed the importance of positive evidence of competition becoming established in this market before price caps were rem

he Minister also no e

rallel to this activity, discussions had been taking place in the European Parliament (EP), with the Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) Committee in the lead on this dossier and producing, in December, a draft Report; and the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) Committee producing a draft Opinion; both containing a number of amendments to the original Commission proposal;

lysis of these documents showed that MEPs were very much focussed on issues relating to consumer protection, with proposed amendments covering (the Minister’s emphasis

eductions in retail pric or voice, SMS and data service for the duration of on;

eeking extension of transparency provisions

nsuring a service and technology neutral app oac

vention of ‘bill shock’ cu ers;

• emoval of retail price caps to be delayed until 2017, with no provision to mov earlier;

• “Delaying the time of the first Review of the Regulation from 2015 to 2016; and

• “Time limits for switching providers.”

1.24 The Minister saw the next milestones for EP business as:

1.21 Tiew that:

• ne 0 2;

• “.

nce; and

•

.

1 22 He a

oved.

1.23 T t d that:

— in pa

— ana

):

• “R e caps fthe Regulati

• “S to non-EU mobile roaming;

• “E r h;

• “Pre for Pre-Pay stom

“Rre e


• I nion — 6 r 2012 MCO vote on draft Opi Februa y ;

TRE vote on draf ary 2012; an

lenary vote of EP on draft ITRE Repo Ap 1

. e Minister’s view was that the EP would continue to focus primarily on the absolute levels of both wholesale and retail price caps, with the risk that margins would be squeezed and thus the viability of the wholesale access structural solution (Article 3); meetings with UK MEPs to discuss this issue and further briefing provided at key points before the votes were planned to attempt to mitigate h i

. time, a new compromise text produced by the Danish Presidency early in lly welcomed by Members. An initial analysis indicated that it

addressed the majority of the Government’s concerns with the notable exceptions of matters relating to the timing of the Review and the suspension of retail price caps in 2016, regardless of the outcom e Rev ew. The Minister also noted that the levels of both wholesale and retail price caps remai nged (but for discussion) in the Presidency

. ing ahead, the Min t r t

residency would seek a mandate to negotiate through Trial gues6 ith the EP; most likely at 9 ebruary COREP R, nsuring that an agreed text was adopted by the EP Plenary vote

ulation would then be taken as an “A Point”8 at a Council other than the Telecommunications Council — this being due to take place on 8 June 2012, which would be too late for the new Regulation to be in place in time for the expiration of the current Regulat ; an

currently working to identify the most likely l

h this in mind, the Minister said that he was keen to continue to work with the Committee in order for us to be content to lift the existing scrutiny reserve in good time; and that he would write again once the text had become more fixed and the most likely date for agreement had been identified.

• I t Report — 28 Febru d

• P rt — 18 ril 20 2.

1 25 Th

t is r sk.

1 26 At the sameJanuary was genera

e of th i ned uncha

text.

1 27 Look is e said tha :

— the P o w the 2 F E 7 e

in April;

— the Reg

ion d

— his officials were Counci .

1.28 Wit

6 “Informal trialogue”: the true negotiating forum: in its note on the co-decision procedure, the Commission explains that the briefness of the periods laid down by the Treaty for reaching an agreement, combined with the complexity of dossiers and the constricted timetable make it necessary to organise work on an informal basis upstream of conciliation. Thus, the negotiators frequently meet well in advance of the opening of formal conciliation; and tha these meetings, mostly on a trilateral basis, constitute informal trialogues at technical or political levels, with a limited number of participants in the interest of effectiveness. For the European Parliament, the participants are the chairperson of the delegation, the chair of the parliamentary committee and the rapporteur, assisted by members of the European Parliament’s conciliations secretariat and, if necessary, a member of the European Parliament’s legal service. For the Council, the permanent representative of the Member State holding the Council Presidency is assisted by members of the Council’s secretariat, including its legal service. Lastly, the Commission is represented in the trialogues by the Director-General of the department in charge of the dossier, assisted by experts, its legal service and Secretariat-General. The participants in the trialogues operate on the basis of negotiating mandates given to them by their respective delegations. They explore possible avenues of compromise in an informal manner and report to their delegations. Informal technical trialogues may also be organised, attended for the most part by the three institutions’ experts and secretariats See http://ec.europa.eu/codecision/stepbystep/text/index5_en.htm for full information on the co-decision process.

7 The Committee composed of the Ambassadors of each Member State’s permanent delegation to the EU

8 That is, agreed at COREPER, and not discussed at Council.

t

.

.


Our further assessment

1.29 Though the Minister did not write to us, as requested, prior to the December Telecoms Council, no harm had been done. But this lapse and the fact that the “end game” would be taking place before the April European Parliament plenary made it particularly

rtant, in deciding when next to write, for him to bear in mind the need for the House to have the opportunity of debating the Government’s proposed position ahead of the adoption of the Common Position that will form the basis of negotiations with the European Parliament.

1.30 In the meantime we continued to retain the documents under scrutiny.9

The Minister’s letter of 24 February 2012

1.31 The Minister said that, with discussions in the Council and European Parliament nearing completion , it was now time for a review of the Regulation and “assess it against HMG’s negotiating objectives, examine the remaini risks and opportunities and offer a i on whether the Regulation is ‘fit for purpose’.”

1.32 The Minister’ n detail in paragraphs 8.3 ost recent Report.10 In essence, the Minister said th e text was an improvement over the original proposals, generally met the Governmen erarching negotiating objectives and o be considered to be “a robust fit-for-purpose provided the

t was able to secure a successful outcome concerning:

— currency fluctuations: introduced by the European Parliament but, the Minister judged, unlikely to prosper;

n opt-out for MNOs who moved their roaming charges as close as possible to omestic p i ( i o);

he level of wholesale and retail price caps: UK objectives were that: the level of holesale caps should t be set below cost; the margin between wholesale and retail

caps should be sufficient to encourage new market entrants; and the level of data holesale caps should not be set unjustifiably high when compared to domestic retail

prices.

1.33 The Minister noted that, thus far, whilst discussions at Working Party level had not larg ered the issue of specific levels of price caps, the Government had been very clear in its negotiating objectives; and it appeared that the UK enjoyed the support of the

j ity of Member States in terms of principle, although views on specific levels might, he said, differ. Those Member States that had opined on levels appeare duction, with wholesale and retail data being a focus of lat ts

impo

ngv ew

s response is set out i 2–8.34 of our me revis d

t’s ovc uld Regulation” — Governmen

— ad r ces d tt

— tw no

w

ely cov

ma ord to favour a re

er commen .

9 See headnote: HC 428 lvii (2010 ), chapter 8 (18 January 2012)

10 See headnote: HC 428 iii (2010 2), chapter 8 (29 February 2012)

–x –12 .

–l –1 .


1. e Minister went on to note that the general pricing landscape showed the EP favouring lower prices and price differentials, BEREC including Ofcom, our regulator) striking the middle ground and the Commission proposals being the highest. Analysis showed that the levels of price caps would be subject to continued downwards pressure from the EP; the Minister also anticipated that BEREC (in a Report to be adopted at their Plenary) would propose a reduction of the levels of wholesale pr pecifically

nd would “not only catalyse the necessary discussion on the specific levels but any specific levels recommended by BEREC will act also act as crystallisation points for some Member States and possibly the EP, on the basis of the technical credibility of BEREC’s data; the data on which the Commission’s l s as published around two yea possible outcome foreseen by the Minister was “that the values favoured by EP and BEREC will become aligned and this places an excellent opportunity for Council, and the UK who has not stated any specific values thus far, to influence the outcome of this ”

ng to the next stages, the Minister sets out the Danish Presidency roadmap and key dates as follows

28 ebruary ITRE Committee Vote on EP Amendment

The ITRE committee is the lead EP committee on this dossier

29 ebruary Presidency to seek mandate to enter in Trialogue with Compromise text

The mandate with be formalised through COREPER

arch Trialogue I First discussions with EP

March Council Working Group Potential examination of text with EP amendments

5 arch Trialogue II Further discussion with EP

0 arch Council Working Group Potential examination of text & agreement for COREPER mandate

1 arch Production of updated Presidency text & second mandate to continue Trialoguewith this text

The mandate with be formalised through COREPER

7 March Council Working Group & Trialogue III

9 arch Trialogue IV

34 Th11 (

ices caps — sdata — a

evel w rs ago. One

debate.

1.35 Turni:

F

F

6 M

8

1 M

2 M

2 M

2

2 M

11 The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the Office replaced the earlier European Regulators Group (ERG) through which National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) exchange xpertise and best practice and gave opinions on the functioning of the telecoms market in the EU EREC assists the Commission and the NRAs in the implementation of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications, gives advice to the European institutions and complements at European level the regulatory tasks performed at national level by the regulatory authorities. BEREC has a Board composed of the heads of the 27 NRAs and is assisted by an Office. The Office is a Community Body managed by a Management Committee where all NRAs and the Commission are represented.See http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ecomm/implementation_enforcement/berec/index_en.htm for full information on BEREC

e

. B

.


1.36 T n d that: he Minister then explai e

he te u then move through the formal co-decision process, with a final EP plenary vote due in M 2 1

t continued to be planned for the Regula o e taken as il ha the 8 cil (as agreement then would be

too late for the new Regulation to be in place in time for the expiry of the current R 2012);

s fficials c n the most likely c l

number of opportunities for Council to continue to review and influence the text over the next six weeks as its pr t a rapid pace in an attempt to secure a First Reading deal so that the new Regula s in place before the existing one

. mary, the Minister said that he was content that the current draft of the Presidency Compromise text was an improvement over the original proposals, that it generally met HMG’s overarching negotiating objectives and could be considered to be a robust fit-for-purpose Regulation: but this view was “caveated” that HMG was able to secure a successful outcomes for those remaining issues he had de

. e n mind, the Minister proposed to nce of the 21 March 2012 COREPER meeting, a further assessment of the new Presidency text, which he said would then largely reflect the changes introduced by the EP, and update the Committee on the outcomes of the specific issues detai

Our further assessment

e timeline set out by the Minister required what would in effect be a final report and assessment to be provided in time for the Committee’s meeting on 21 March. We accordingly asked that this be submitted no later than Friday 16 March, nd that it should contain a clear statement of whether or not the Minister recommended that the revised Regulation should be ad

s reporting the present situation to the House, we also drew this chapter of its Report to the attention of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, so that they might (should they so wish) pursue any of the key issues with the Minister in the mea time.

also continued to retain the documents under sc

The Minister’s letter of 22 March 2012

he Minister writes with an update on the progress of the proposed Roaming III Regulation subsequent to his letter of 24 February 2012, along with his analysis of whether

— t xt wo ld ay 0 2;

— i ti n to b an “A Point” at a Councsooner t n June 2012 Telecommunications Coun

egulation on 30 June

— hi o onti ued to work to identify Coun i ;

— there were aogressed a

tion waexpired.

1 37 In sum

tailed.

1 38 With this timetabl i provide, in adva

led.

1.39 Th

12 a

opted.

1.40 As well a

n

1.41 We rutiny.13

1.42 T

12 These dates subsequently were changed by agreement to 27 March and 22 March respectively.

13 See headnote: HC 428 iii (2010 2), chapter 8 (29 February 2012)

–l –1 .


he would be content to approve the text of the Regulation with or without these various elements.

. ers that the following sec i ns to e those that will have most impact on whether he can agree the Re

Currency Fluctuations

. e detail of this issue is covered in the Minister’s previous letter. For ease of reference, the proposal was to introduce a mechanism that militates against roaming prices actually increasing when the price caps drop due to severe local currency devaluations when compared to the Euro. The Minister said that the UK had spoken against this proposal on “better regulation” grounds (although the impact of this risk would be high, the probability of such an event was extremely small); because it would create a precedent in EU legislation; and because it would be inappropriate to legislate on a macro-economic issue within the Roaming Regulation. The UK’s position was supported by a number of other Member States. His intention therefore was for the new Regulation to continue with the existing provisions, that is, those used in Roaming I an .

e Minister now notes that his assessment that this matter would not be contained in the 29 February Presidency text was accurate. However, the Minister says, a single Member State continuing to push for a change to the text threatened progress; so, along with a number of other Member States, he sought a compromise without moving away from his desired intention to retain the current provisions, resulting in a proposal that, he

ffect an adaptation of the current mecha m:

“In detail, Member States will now use an exchange rate which is the average of the rates published for the three proceeding months i.e. an average of rates published on the 1st March, 1st April and 1st ay. This change shall only apply to retail prices, it is specifically not extended to wholesale prices in order to avoid any distorting effects on competition, especially with a perceived risk of pricing levels being manipulated in favour of ‘home’ providers.

“This new mechanism is seen as an improvement over the current one, in that is extends some protection to consumers who may not be able to shield themselves from extreme currency exchange rates in the way companies are able to take mitigating action to protect themselves.

“Thus, I am content with this new proposal as it does not contain the elements that caused me some concern previously. I can confirm the latest text contains this new provision, and with the Member State who was seeking a change now indicating they are content with this compromise, the risk of this re-emerging in the final stages is extremely low.

“I would be content to agree the Regulation with this new provision.”

1 43 He consid t o bgulation.

1 44 Th

d II

1.45 Th

says, is in e nis

M


A “single tariff”

1. nister explains that this is a new issue that derives from an EP amendment based on there being a “zero” difference between the costs to consumers of telephony e v

“Whilst this may be a Utopian single market ideal, it goes beyond the Digital Agendawhen [it] speaks of the differences between roaming and domestic calls as being as ‘…close to zero…’ as possible. It also does not recognise that there are differences in costs associated with domestic and roaming. It was on the basis that the UK opposed this amendment and I can confirm that the latest text does not contain this amendment but uses the phraseology contained in the Digital Agenda

“I would assess that there is an extremely small risk that this issue will arise again, in the event it did, it would meet further resistance from Council and the Commission. It is thus unlikely to be contained in the final Regulation.

“However, I am of a mind not to agree the Regulation should this provision reappear but would need to balance this decision against the other issues contained in this list and whether this issue alone would cause me to vote against the Regulation.”

nister explains that a series of amendments raised the issue of consumers accidentally roaming when near to national boundaries and sought to introduce new pr v did not accidentally roam through an unspecified mechan :

“After consulting Ofcom on this issue, we raised concerns on grounds of technical feasibility and costs. UK also noted that, with dropping roaming prices and convergence with domestic prices, this issue would resolve itself

“I assess that this issue may be one that the EP wishes to pursue but may drop in the face of technical feasibility. I note that the latest text does not contain these amendments. Therefore, there remains a small risk that this text may be reintroduced into the final Regulation.”

Compensation Liability

e Minister says that this amendment sought to extend existing consumer protection by making network operators liable to pay compensation to consumers. He goes on to note that: the UK was not alone opposing this; the latest text does not contain this amendment; and he will continue to oppose it, should the EP seek to p

“Thus, I am of a mind not to agree the Regulation should this provision reappear but would need to balance this decision against the other issues contained in this list and whether this issue alone would cause me to vote against the Regulation.”

46 The Mi

s r ices:

.

Inadvertent roaming

1.47 The Mi

o isions, that is, a “buffer zone” whereby consumers ism

.

1.48 Th

ursue it:


Net Neutrality14

he Minister says that a number of amendments addressed the wider policy issue of Net Neutrality and, in particular, sought to prevent the blocking of VoiP services (such as offered by Vonage and Skype) when ro n

“I have always been clear of my policy stance on this i.e. UK favours a self-regulatory approach and that any EU legislation in this area has to have a sound evidence base. With BEREC yet to finalise its report on this issue, I remain opposed to any inclusion of provisions of this within the roaming Regulation. This opposition is generally supported by Council and the Commission and the latest text does not contain such provisions

“Whilst the EP may feel more strongly about this issue than the others covered in the section, this lack of support and that there may be specific legislation on the horizon means that this remains a risk but one unlikely to manifest itself further

“I wish to be clear that I could not agree to a roaming Regulation that contains specific provision covering Net Neutrality and this issue should be regarded as a UK ‘Red Line’.”

Inclusion of text referring to Local Data Breakout (LBO)

e Minister say at E s seeking to insert text that specifically refers to LBO as a further solution and potential mechanism to introduce further competition into the market. He explains that LBO would allow users to purchase access to a network that would allow access to data — “a parallel to WiFi clouds that exists at the moment” ut not voice or SMS services, and that such a facility would be attractive to data-only or data-heavy users. Although the latest text does not contain any provisions covering LBO, the Minister expects that the EP will continue to seek its i

“Whilst I am content that there are no fundamental issues with the inclusion of text specifically dealing with this solution, it should not compromise the current technology/service neutral approach of the Regulation.

“Thus, I am of a mind not to agree the Regulation should this provision feature in the text in a form that is not technology/service neutral but would need to balance this decision against the other issues contained in this list and whether this issue alone would cause me to vote against the Regulation.”

1.49 T

ami g:

.

.

1.50 Th s th P i

— b

nclusion:

14 Net (or Network) Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies, and protects consumers’ rights to use any equipment, application or service without interference from the network provider. Net neutrality is regarded as the k ystone of the Internet’s capacity to drive economic innovation, democratic participation and online free speech

e.


Levels of Wholesale and Retail Price Caps

at, since covering his last letter, the Commission have indicated that they are willing to set out the pricing levels in the order of the levels as determined in BEREC:

“This now means that both the Commission and EP are aligned on wholesale pricing levels. For the sake of clarity, BEREC suggested that wholesale prices should be (for 2014)

Voice /

SMS: 1c/SMS; and

Data

“Thus, the current text contains proposed wholesale levels that reflect these figures, with some minor adjustment to ensure smooth glide-paths over the 2012–2014 period and I am generally content with this section of the Re o

“Whilst this is a significant shift in Commission thinking regarding wholesale levels, and one I welcome in seeking to ensure lower wholesale prices which are seen as pivotal to ensuring competition takes hold in this market, there remain some issues regarding the retail price levels

“In detail, the current text uses an increasing multiplier for each year for data retail prices (x3, x4 and x5 respectively)

“As a result, retail data prices would be

2012: 0

2013: 60c/

2014: 0

“Whilst these represent significant price drops over the current unregulated retail data price that retails for around £3/MB in the UK and the original proposed retail price caps (90c/MB, 70c/MB and 50c/MB respectively) the Commission were unable to rationalise the use of an escalating multiplier and one as high as x5 at the last Worki g Party. That said, I suspect that the proposal to use a 3x multiplier is used in the first year so that the 2012 retail price cap is below the totemic level of 100c € /

“Given that the EP was seeking levels that used a 3x multiplier for the first two years and x4 in the final (giving retail price caps of 50c/MB, 30c/MB and 20c/MB respectively as set out in the ITRE report) I come to the conclusion that the issue of

1.51 The Minister says th

15

:

• : 5c min;

•

• : 10c/MB

gulati n.

.

.

:

• 9 c/MB;

• MB; and

• 3 c/MB.

n

(1 ) MB.

15 The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC; consists of National Regulatory Authorities) exchanges expertise and best practice, assists the Commission and the NRAs in the implementation of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications, gives advice to the European institutions and complements at European level the regulatory tasks performed at national level by the NRAs

.


retail price caps, especially those for data, will be subject to further discussion and there may be leeway for further drops

“However, and on balance, I do not think that the current levels as proposed would be sufficient for me to wish to reject the Regulation but I intend to see whether Council is generally content with these levels and if UK is able to secure further price reductions for retail data levels.”

he Minister then turns to an issue raised separately by the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union, wh or his views on whether an increased supply relative to demand would be an alternative method to increase competition, and responds as follows

“I think that previous experience has shown that the roaming market is a complex market, with a number of interrelated factors that all have an effect on competition. This complex nature has been recognised in how the new Regulation uses a combination of measures to try to create competition, especially between the wholesale and retail levels that was seen as problematic in both the Interim and Final Reports on the second (current) roaming Regulation.

“However, I believe that the new provisions within Article 3 of the proposed Regulation (Wholesale Access) have the potential to increase not only the number of operators at both retail and wholesale level, but also increase the overall level of supply, thus leading to greater competition.”

rises his positi

“In summary, I am content that the current draft of the Presidency Compromise text is an improvement over the original proposals, that it generally meets HMG’s overarching negotiating objectives and can be considered to be a robust fit-for-purpose Regulation.

“I would be content to agree to the text if Net Neutrality did not feature and the current proposal regarding currency exchange rates remained unaltered.”

Conclusion

e grateful to the Minister for his further, very thorough depiction of how matters presently stand, and clear exposition of his views and overall p

hough not everything is yet nailed down, it would seem that a text is in place with which the Council is essentially content and that, in terms of UK objectives, the likelihood of any negative elements now being introduced is r ain issue remains pricing: but the indications are that there is now clear momentum behind lower prices than those suggested by the Commission, and with close alignment between the EP and the Co cil. Ideally, we would have preferred a final Report from the Minister prior to political ag

. ut, taking all considerations into account, we would be content for the Minister to proceed on the lines he has indicated and, should the point be reached prior to our

.

1.52 To asked f

:

1.53 Finally, the Minister summa on thus:

1.54 We arosition.

1.55 Alt

emote. The m

unreement.

1 56 B


next meeting on 18 April, join a political agreement if he judges that it meets UK obje n so doing, we are exercising the discretion given to us in paragraph 3(b) of the Scrutiny Reserve Resolution, whereby the Minister concerned may give agreement to a proposal which is awaiting consideration by the House if the Committee has indicated that agreement need not be withheld pending consid

n those circumstances, we would ask the Minister to provide us with an update on the outcome and his final assessment of the revised Reg on

. the mean e, we hall continue to retain the documents under sc

1.59 e also again drawing this chapter of our Report to the attention of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee

2 ooperation with Southeast Asia

(337486677/12JOIN(12) 1

Council Decision on the Accession of the European Union to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia

ctives. I

eration.

1.57 Iulati .

1 58 In tim s rutiny.

We ar.

C

)

Legal base Articles

218(6) and (8)TFEU; unanimityDeposited in Parliamen 14 March 2012Departmen Foreign and Commonwealth OfficeBasis of consideration EM of 14 March 2012Previous Committee Report NoneDiscussion in Counci

31 (1) and 37 TEU and Articles 209, 212 and

t t

l 23 April 2012Committee’s assessmen Legally and politically importantCommittee’s decision Not cleared; further information requested

Background

2.1 he Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) binds together the ten countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN): Burma, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vi The original Member States of ASEAN signed the Treaty on 24 February 1976 and it entered into force on 21 June 1976. It contains provisions to enhance co-operation in economic, trade, social and scientific matters. It also contains the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other member states as well as mutual respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity and national identity of all nations. It is a political declaration of intent, promoting peace, stability and co-operation in South

t

T

etnam.

east Asia.


2.2 he TAC was amended in 1987 to allow for States outside the region to accede to it.States outside the region that have acceded to the TAC are: Papua New Gui na; India; Japan; Pakistan; Republic of Korea; the Russian Federation; Mongolia; the United States; Canada; New Zealand; Australia; Sri Lanka, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; Bangladesh; East Timor; Turkey an an

The draft Council Decision

2.3 n his Explanatory Memorandum of 14 March 2012, the Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington) explains that, in December 2006, the Council authorised the Presidency and Commission to negotiate accession to the TAC by the EU and European CommHe notes that, in May 2009, Thailand, as ASEAN Chair, declared the consent of ASEAN States to the EU’s accession to the Treaty, subject to the entry into force of a Third Protocol to the Treaty, amending the TAC to allow regional organisations (such as the EU) to a de he Minister then expl n

ll TAC signatories must ratify the Third amending Protocol before it comes int f r erocess that has een ongoing since 2009 and is now nearing comp on

the European External Action Service has informed hi f the 28 parties to the Treaty, 20 have ratified the Third Protocol allowing EU acc o

the remaining eight signatory states have given assurances to the EU that they can complete their domestic ratification process in March 2012;

the Council has proposed that the EU should accede to the Treaty at the EU-ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting scheduled for 27 April 2012 in Brunei Darus a


he Minister describes the EU’s accessi rimarily an expression of intent to deepen region to region relationships… [whic ] sits alongside the EU’s intentions to pursue a free trade agreement with ASEAN and its early thinking about the possibility of opening an EU Delegation to ASEAN in Jakarta.” He goes on to say that “Expectations are high that the Treaty will be signed by the High Representative during her first trip to the region for the EU-ASEAN meeting in Brunei”, and that he is aware that ASEAN welcomes the EU’s application to accede and that other signatories to the TAC are well on their way to completing the formal procedure to accept EU a

2.5 e Minister continues his comme

he UK supported the decision to initiate EU accession in 2006. Since that time the arguments for accession have strengthened the changing political architecture in Asia and has set itself the goal of becoming a community with greater economic and social integration by 2015. It is in both the EU and the UK’s interest to engage with ASEAN as its role develops and its influence in the region increases. This fits squarely with the Foreign Secretary’s policy of engagement with South East Asia’s Emerging Powers. It is firmly in the UK’s interests to see the EU’s accession completed in time for the April summit.

T nea; Chi

d Fr ce.

I

unity.

cce . T ai s that:

• a o o c — a p , he says, b leti ;

• m that, oessi n;

• and

• s lam.

2.4 T on as “ph

ccession.

Th nts thus:

“T. ASEAN now plays a central role within

”


2.6 he Minister then deals with the UK’s interests as w

K officials in Brussels have been vigilant in ensuring that UK competence will be protected under the text of the Council Decision. At the UK’s request for clarity in the Council Decision over the division of competence between the EU and Member States, the European External Action Service (EEAS) agreed that, when the Council Decision is adopted, Council will recall a Council Declaration made in 2006, which set out the division of competence clearly and recognised that the EU will accede only in those areas where it has competence to do so. The EEAS have cited the Declaration as follows, and have confirmed that it remains valid:

‘The Council notes that the European Union’s accession to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) in relation to areas falling within the scope of Titles V and VI of the Treaty of the European Union (TEU) is without prejudice to Member States’ right to accede to the TAC, and to act independently in relation to the same areas, save where they are required to comply with a Joint Action or Common Position adopted under Articles 14, 15 or 34(2)(a) TEU. Future EU accession to international agreements will be considered on a case by case basis having regard to the nature and content of the agreements concerned’.

“The UK is also acceding to the TAC bilaterally, in a separate but parallel process to EU accession. The UK supports EU accession, for the reasons outlined above. But in addition, its bilateral accession is intended to demonstrate that the UK is committed to intensifying its own relationship with a region which includes six priority countries considered by the FCO to be emerging powers. The Lisbon Treaty permits bilateral accession; it is consistent with EU accession, and will provide for the UK to be a party to the Treaty in its own right.”

2.7 e Minister concludes by noting that the proposal is scheduled for agreement by the 23 April Foreign Affairs l

Conclusion

o very welcome; it is plainly timely for both the EU and the UK to seek to strengthen ties across the board with Southeast Asia. We do, however, have one concern about the proposal as pr s n e

2.9 he Minister rightly raises the issue of competence, and talks of vigilance and clari ut, rather than clarity, we instead have am he Minister that the issue has been satisfactorily re g out the division of competence clearly, recognising that the EU will accede only in those areas where it has competence to do so — via the Council, when the Council Decision is a p e ecalling a Council Declaration made in 2006 and which, in the context of the post-Lisbon accession of EU to an international treaty, covers, in pre-Lisbon terms, only Common Foreign and Security Policy and Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters (the references to Title V and VI of the TEU) wever, as the Minister explains, the TAC contains provisions to enhance co-operation in economic, trade, social and scientific matters (and also incorporates the principles of non-interference in the internal affairs of other member states, mutual respect for sovereignty, territorial

T follo s:

“U

Th Counci .

2.8 So far, s

e e t d.

Tty. B biguity. T seems to think

solved — i.e., settin

do t d, r

the

. Ho


integrity and national identity of all nations, as well as being, generally, a political declaration of intent, promoting peace, stability and co-operation in SoutheaThe Declaration has nothing to say about any of these economic, trade, social and scientific s (or the broader issues embodied in this wide-ranging agreement); moreover, as an internal Council Declaration, it is not readily available to other parties to the TAC, or to the wid

herefore ask the Minister to clarify the extent to which the EU is, in fact, exercising competence in respect of these broader subjects, and what steps will be taken to ensure that the respective competences of the EU and Member States are both appropriately recognised within the Union and made transparent to other parties to the TAC, so that they and we can know what, precisely, their new partner will, and cannot, bring to the ta

. the meantime we shall continue to retain the document under s ti .

3 nternal Market Information System

(3309713635/11COM(11) 522

Draft Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (‘the IMI Regulation’)

st Asia).

matter

er world.

2.10 We t

ble.

2 11 In cru ny

I

)

Legal base Article 113 TFEU; co-decision; QMVDepartmen Business, Innovation and SkillsBasis of consideration Ministerial letters of 27 February and 22 March 2012Previous Committee Reports HC 428–l (2010–12), chapter 1 (8 February 2012); HC

428–xxxvii (2010–12), chapter 3 (12 October 2011)Committee’s assessmen Politically importantCommittee’s decision Cleared

Background and previous scrutiny

3.1 he Internal Market Information System (“IMI”) is an on-line multilingual information system developed by the Commission to facilitate administrative cooperation between national competent authorities and the cross-border exchange of information under various internal market Directives. The draft Regulation seeks to establish a common set of rules for the IMI and to make provision for its future expansion to cover a wider range of internal market policy areas. The main elements of the draft Regulation are summarised in our Forty-second Repo

t

t

T

rt.16

16 HC 428-xxxvii (2010 , chapter 3 (12 October 2011). –12)


3.2 he Government told us that it broadly supported the draft Regulation on the grounds that it should provide a more coherent legal framework for the handling of personal data exchanged within the IMI and ensure a high level of data protection. However, it suggested that changes would be needed to some of the data protection provisions and that the Commission’s power to adopt delegated acts extending the IMI to new internal market legislative areas listed in an Annex to the draft Regulation was potentially too br .

3.3 e noted in our Fifty-fifth Report hat a satisfactory outcome had been reached on procedures for the future expansion of the IMI, but asked for further information on how the Government’s concerns regarding data protection and supervision arrangements and the use of the IMI to exchange personal data with third countries had been ad d

The Minister’s letters of 27 February and 22 March 2012

3.4 urning first to the scope of application of the data protection provisions, the Minister for Employment Relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs (Norman Lamb) highlights changes to the draft Regulation which make clear that the provisions only apply to personal data held within the IM m.

3.5 rrangements for supervising the application of the data protection provisions within the IMI system, as well as its use by IMI actors, are based on the principle of “coordinated supervision” at both national and EU levels. Each Member State’s national data protection supervisory body will be responsible for monitoring whether personal data processed within its territory comply with the data protection requirements set out in the draft Regulation. The European Data Protection Supervisor will perform a similar function as regards the processing of personal data by the Commis o

3.6 inally, the conditions for exchanging personal information held within the IMI with third (non-EU countries) have been strengthened. The data may only be made available pursuant to an international agreement which not only provides for administrative cooperation but also sets out the principles and modalities which are to govern the exchange of information and the actors involve .

3.7 he Minister indicates that agreement has been reached at Working Group level and asks us to release the draft Regulation from scrutiny so that COREPER can agree a mandate on 4 April for the Council to enter into discussions with the European Parliament with a view to reaching a First Readi d

Conclusion

3.8 en we first considered the draft Regulation, we recognised that it made sense to establish the IMI system on a sound legal base and to set out a common set of rules to govern its operation and future development. We note that a number of changes have been agreed which address the Government’s concerns regarding the scope of the data protection provisions, arrangements for supervising their application, and the

T

oad

W 17 t

dresse .

T

I syste

A

si n.

F

d

T

ng eal.

Wh

17 HC 428-l (2010 , chapter 1 (8 February 2012). –12)


circumstances in which data held in the IMI may be exchanged with third countries. We are now content to release the draft Regulation from scrutin .

4 uropean Innovation Partnership on raw materials

(337337247/12COM(12) 82

Commission Communication: Making raw material available for Europe’s future well-being — Proposal for a European Innovation Partnership on Raw Materials

y

E

)

Legal baseDocument originate

— d 29 February 2012

Deposited in Parliamen 7 March 2012Departmen Business, Innovation and SkillsBasis of consideration EM of 20 March 2012Previous Committee Report None, but see footnotesDiscussion in Counci

t

t

l 30 May 2012

Committee’s assessmen Politically importanCommittee’s decision Cleared

Background

4.1 ccording to the Commission, the strategic importance of a sustainable supply of raw materials to the EU has been well recognised in different policy documents, notably the Raw Materials Initi i e the “Industrial policy and “Resource e flagship initiatives under the Europe 2020 strategy, as well as the associated Roadmap on Resource Efficiency. t notes that these documents clearly outlined the new challenges and risks presented by supply shortages and the inefficient use of resources in the face of the mounting global competition for raw materials, and says that it is clear that a continuation of “business as usual” is no longer an option. It therefore sees innovation as having a crucial role to play in this context, and it recalls that it set out in its “Innovatioflagship initiative a framework for the establishment of European Innovation Partnerships, which it says will be launched in cases where the combined strength of public and private efforts are needed to achieve targets more quickly and effici

t t

A

at v ,18 ”19 fficiency”20

21 I

n Union”22

ently.

18 (30202) 16053/08: see HC 19 i (2008 , chapter 14 (17 December 2008) and (32491) 5992/11: see HC 428 ii (2010 ), chapter 7 (2 March 2011)

19 (32128) 15483/10: see HC 428 (2010 , chapter 14 (24 November 2010).

20 (32473) 5869/11: see HC 428 iii (2010 1), chapter 8 (2 March 2011)

21 (33173) 14632/11: see HC 428 lii (2010 2), chapter 17 (23 November 2011).

22 (32042) 14035/10: see HC 428 iii (2010 1), chapter 8 (17 November 2010).

–i –09) –xvi–11 .

–ix –11)

–xv –1 .

–x –1

–v –1


The current document

4.2 n this Communication, the Commission sets out the case for such an initiative for raw materials, targeting those of a non-energy, non-agricultural nature, including (but not limited to) the EU’s list of critical raw materials, many of which are vital inputs for innovative technologies. In doing so, it says that it has taken into account lessons learned from a pilot Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing, along with inputs made by Member States, re mmunities, and other stak l

4.3 e Commission’s aim is that Europe should by 2020 have taken a large step in reducing its import dependency in this area, and it highlights the market opportunities for innovation and research, new technologies and multidisciplinary approaches to address knowledge, expertise and skills gaps covering the entire value chain of raw materials (ranging from exploration, extraction, processing, recycling, substitution and alternative materials). It also says that the added value of the Partnership in this area would provide a platform for joining up policies and experts at EU level, without replacing existing EU legal decision-making processes, and that it would entail closer cooperation to overcome obstacles, notably insufficient critical mass; insufficient cooperation between Member States; lack of an integrated approach to “value chains”; very limited cooperation between national research organisations; and an under-developed EU geopolitical role in ensuring access for European companies to raw material, consistently with respecting as far as possible European environmental s n

4.4 e scope of the Partnership is si l e Raw Materials Initiative, h tn-energetic raw materials such as metals used in high technology

industries (for example, cobalt, platinum, rare earths and titanium), industrial minerals, aggregates and wood-based materials such as pulp an In pursuing the overall objective of reducing Europe’s import depen n critical raw materials, it contains the following specific, concrete targets to be achieved

European standardised statistical instruments for the survey of resources and reserves (land and marine) and 3-D geological ma p n

a dynamic modelling system linking trends in supply and demand with economical exploitable reserves and a full lifecycle n s cluding an assessment of the environmental, economic and social impacts of various scenari

up to ten innovative pilot actions (for example, demonstration plants) for exploration, extraction and processing, collection and r c c n

substitutes for at least three key applications of critical carce raw mat

a Network of Research, Education and Training Centres on Sustainable Mining and Materials Manag

enhanced efficiency in material use and e revention, re-use and recycling of valuable raw materials from wa th a specific focus on materials having a potentially negative impact on the environ

I

search co eho ders.

Th

ta dards.

Th mi ar to that of th in t at i covers critical no

d paper. dency o

by 2020:

• p i g;

• a aly is, in

os;

• e y li g;

• and s erials;

• ement;

• in th pste streams, wi

ment;


• tithe identifica o pportuniti e develop ideas for innovative raw materials and products with market poten i l

a pro-active EU strategy in multi-lateral organisations and in bilateral relations, notably with the US, Japan, Australia in the different areas covered by the Partners

4.5 e Commission proposes that the mechanisms for delivering the common objectives should o v :

supp f r the development of innov both technology-based and non-technology-based, such as new combinations of products-services, new services, better design of products in order to ensure their recyclability at the end of their life, user-drive gn nd new policy tools for research and inn on

stimulating excellence in the science base and investing in peopl ( k l

supp r r argeted innovative regulatory action and/or cooperation with Member States to im ove innovation-friendly regulatory framework cond

promotion of targeted standardisation and public procurement inst

bringing policy tools and organisations (policy makers, agencies, industry, researchers) working on supply and on demand sides together to speed up time-to-market and dissemination of innov

It has also proposed that the actions under the Partnership should be organised under the following “Work Packages

Technology focusse

n of o es and th ment of new t a ;

•

hip.

Th inv l e

• ort o ations,

n desi , a ovati ;

• e s il s);

• o t fo tpr itions;

• ruments;

•

ations.

”:

d DevWork Package 1 eloping new innovative technologies and solutionsalong the value chain for sustainable raw materialssupply

Work Package 2 Developing new innovative materials by design an

dsolutions for the substitution of critical materials

Non-technology focusse

d

Work Package 3 Improving Europe’s raw materials regulator yframework, knowledge and infrastructure base

Work package 4 Improving the regulatory framework via promotion o

fexcellence and promoting recycling through publicprocurement and private initiatives

Work package 5 International framework — horizontal approach

structure will comprise a High Level Steering Group to provide epres ember States, the European

4.6 The related governancestrategic advice and guidance, with r entatives from M


Parliament, companies, academies, research centres, non-Governmental organisations (NGOs) and other institutions nk between the strategic and operation l e e nd operational groups set up to convert strategy into tasks anThe Communication envisages that by early 2013 the High Level Steering Group will finalise a Strategic Implementation Plan to be presented to the European Parliament and Council and implemented in the same ar.


4.7 n his Explanatory Memorandum of 20 March 2012, the Minister of State for Business and Enterprise at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk) says

t he UK broadly supports the Commission’s approach, regarding European Innovation Partnerships as a good opportunity to exchange good practice, to shape both national and European Innovation Strategies and to broaden the knowledge base. However, he cautions tha e UK as mad r o the Commission that its support is conditional on any recommendations i q pend being funded from a smaller, reprioritised EU ov udget; on an assessment of the results of an Impact Ass ss t elessons learned rom the EIP pilot on Active and Healthy A n

4.8 he Minister adds tha ssion has given officials an assurance that the Partnership is not going to be a funding mechanism, and that any recommendations requiring EU funding will draw on existing instruments, such as he ramework Programme or its successor ( ri nts out that it is not a legislative pr instead to increase EU cooperation between public bodies as well as private players. He says he is ontent with this voluntary approach, suggesting that value can be added by closer cooperation in order to achieve critical mass in overcoming the major obstacles in achieving a sustainable supply of raw mater

4.9 inally, the ys that the Government has concerns over the “launching’’ of s Partnership before the European Parliament and the Council has endorsed the

Strategic Implementation Plan of the pilot Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing, as required by the Council’s November 2011 conclusi also has concerns over the constitution and role t e h L ing Group and how the members of the Steering Groups for the EIPs will be appo e articular, it would like to see a

s the res l recruitment procedure ensu wide range of stakeholders and views are represented, with the Group’s terms-of-reference ensu n tit leads on the identification and mechanisms for addressing the key issues for the Partners

Conclusion

e arrangements proposed in this document are in line with those foreshadowed in the “Innovative Union” flagship initiative, and, as they cover an important area, we are drawing them to the attention of the House. However, we do not consider that they

; a “Sherpa” Group to lia l v ls; a d action.

ye

I

tha t

t th h e it clea t wh ch re uire EU-level s

erall B e ment; and on h 23 f gei g.

T t the Commi

t Seventh FHo zon 2020). He also poi

oposal, but seeks c

ials.

F Minister sathi

ons. The Government of h Hig evel Steer

int d. In pGroup which i u t of an open ring that a

ri g tha

hip.

4.10 Th

23 According to the Minister, these are mainly related to governance, and in particular to the size of the Steering Group, and to lack of transparency on appointments and the riteria for membership

a c .


raise any issues requiring further consideration, and we are therefore clearing the do n

5 uropean Defence Agency

(a)(33514

(b)(33561

(c)(33562

Head of Agency’s Report to the Council

Council Guidelines for the Agency’s work in 2012

2012 Budget and 2012 4 Financial Framework

cume t.

E

)

— —

)

— —

)

— —

–1

Legal baseDepartmenBasis of consideration

DefenceMinister’s letter of 13 December 2011 and EMs of 9 December and 15 December 2011

Previous Committee Report None; but see (32801) HC 428–xxxii (2010–12), chapter 19 (6 July 2011); (32552) 18043/10, (32553) 17514/10 and (32554) 17373/10: HC 428–xxvii (201012), chapter 17 (18 May 2011), HC 428–xxi (2010–11), chapter 12 (23 March 2011) and HC 428 ii (201011), chapter 20 (13 October 2010); also see (32816) —: HC 428–xxx (2010–12), chapter 22 (22 June 2011)

Discussion in Counci

— t

—:

–

–i –

l 30 November 2011 Foreign Affairs Counci


Background

l t t

5.1 e European Defence Agency was established under 2004/551/CFSP on 2 July 2004, Th 1“to support the Member States and the Council in their effort to improve European defence capabilities in the field of crisis management and to sustain the European Security and Defence Policy as it stands now and develops in the future”.

http://europa.eu/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/l_245/l_24520040717en00170028.pdf


Functions and Tasks

5.2 t has four functions, co ng:

e cap i e ;

g Defence Research and Technology (R&T ;

omoting armaments co-oper tion;

pean Defence Equipmen nd strengthening the European Defence, Technological and Indust a

5.3 ccording to its website, these functions all relate to improving Europe’s defence performance, by promoting co :

“a more integrated approach to capability development will contribute to better-defined future requirements on which collaborations — in armaments or R&T or the operational domain — can be built. More collaboration will, in turn, provide opportunities for industrial restructuring and progress towards the continental-scale demand and market, which industry needs.

5.4 n this basis, the Agency’s tasks in

ork for a more comprehensive and systematic approach to defining and meeting the capability needs of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESD ;

o promote European defence-relevant R&T, as vital both to a healthy defence technological and industrial base and to defining and satisfying future capability requirements. This will involve pursuing collaborative use of national defence R&T funds, in the context of a European Defence R&T Strategy which identifies pr i ;

o promote European cooperation on defence equipment, both to contribute to defence capabilities and as a catalyst for further restructuring the European defence industry;

o work, in close cooperation with the Commission, on steps towards an internationally competitive market for defence equipment in Eur p

I veri

— developing defenc abil ti s

— promotin )

— pr a

— creating a competitive Euro t Market ari l Base.

Aherence

”

O clude:

— to wP)

— t

ior ties

— t

and

— to e.

5.5 he EDA says that its “comparative advantag ” h ts ability to comprehend all T e s ould be “ithese agendas, and relate them so as to realise their synergies. Its special position should allow it to develop uniquely cogent analyses and proposals across the range of its activities.”

Structure

5.6 e EDA is an Agency of the European Union. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR; C theri e Ashton) is Head of the Agency and chairs its decision-making body, the Steering Board, which is composed of Defence Ministers of the 26 participating Member States (all EU Member States, except Denmark)

Tha n

and the European Com o In addition, the Steering Board meets regularly at sub-missi n. ministerial levels, such as National Armaments Directors or Capability Directors.


5.7 he Steering Board acts under the Council’s Authority and within the framework of Tguidelines issued by the Council, and meets twice yearly — in May and N

5.8 animity is required for decisions on role, goals and targets; QMV for internal operat

ovember.

Unions.

Way of working

5.9 e Agency originally described itself as facing outwards; its main “share d s Th hol ers” abeing the Member States participating in the Agency; key stakeholders as including the Council and the Commission as well as third parties such as OCCAR (fr. Organisation Conjointe de Coopération en ma è e e nt), oI (Letter of Intent) and NATO; ti r d’ARm me 24 Land as having a special relationship with Norway (through an “Administrative Arrangem

. e Committee was fully engage he development of the EDA, culminating in a debate in June 2004 in European Scrutiny Committe There, the then Secretary of State stated that its principal purpose would be to improve Member States’ militarycap b i e .

. e then Government agreed that it would deposit the Agency reports to the Council referred to in Article 4 of the EDA Joint Acti activities during the previous and current year and its November report on current year activity and “draft elements” of the work programme and budgets for the followi annual guidelines to the Agency that set the framework for its work pro so, initiated by the th retary of State (Dr John Reid), the relevant MOD M rites

teering Board meetin not only to this Committee but also to the Defence Select Committee) he House has thus been kept well-informed of devel

. nto force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December 2009 the European Defence Agency and its tasks are enshrined in the treati e 42 (3) TEU stipulates that the Agency “shall identify operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military cap ”

. he Agency’s website n t

“The EDA has a particular status in the single institutional framework of the EU. It is the only Union agency having its foundation in the Treaties — this is otherwise only

ent”).25

5 10 Th d in te B.26

a il ti s

5 11 Thon — its May report on

ng year — and the Council’sgramme. Al

en Sec inister wbefore and after EDA S gs (

. T opments.

5 12 With the entry ies. Articl

abilities.

5 13 T otes tha :

24 The Organisation Conjointe de Coopération en matière d mement was established by an Administrative Arrangement on 12th November 1996 by the Defence Ministers of France, Germany, Italy and the UK ts aim is to provide more effective and efficient arrangements for the management of certain existing and future collaborative armament programmes. The four founding Nations went on to sign a Treaty, the CCAR Convention h came into force on the 28th January 2001. Belgium and Spain joined OCCAR in 2003 and 2005 respectively. The Netherlands, Luxembourg and Turkey are also participating in a programme, without being members of the organisation. For further information on OCCAR, see http://www.occar-ea.org/

25 For full background on the EDA and its activities, see http://www.eda.europa.eu.

26 Stg Co Deb, European Standing ommittee B, 22 June 2004, cols. 4

’AR. I

“O ”, whic

.

C –24.


the case for the Institutions — and the Agency has an intergovernmental ministerial governance structure in which all participating Member States’ Ministries of Defence are being represented

. revious reports note, a recurrent feature of the Agency’s history thus f een a failure by the participating Member States to reach agreement on the level of growth in the financial framework, with the UK favouring annual budgets rather than a three year framework; while others contin er after a more expansive approach, the U as

broad, active engagement, participation in some projects but not all, maintaining budgetary discipline and encouraging the Agency to focus on where the Agency cou st a

. e Committee’s Report of 23 March 2011 dealt wi ’s Financial Framework 2011–2013 and the Agency’s 2011 budget, and the Head of Agency’s 2010 Report. This latter highlighted the progress made on the EDA’s major initiatives and programmes during 2010, incl an Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB), European Defence Research and Technology (EDRT), European Armaments Co-operation (EAC), the Capability Development Plan (CDP) and certain capability development projects and programmes, such as work on Counter-Improvised Explosive Devices (C-IED), the Helicopter Training Programme (HTP) and Maritime Surveillance (MARSUR). The report also provides an update on the Agency’s interaction with other international organisations. All of these were analysed and commented upon in detail by the Minister for International Security Strategy at the Ministry of Defence (Mr Gerald Howa

. leared the documents from

. tion, we again drew them to the attention of the Defence Commi

The Minister’s letter of 5 April 2011

. e Minister’s letter was the culmination of an exchange of correspondence with the Committee concerning the Government’s plans with regard to the EDA in the context of the Government’s Strategic Defence and Security had asked for an

tters now stood with regard to replacement of the 2004 Joint Action and, now that the SDSR had been completed, on the Government’s general view of the EDA r e nd the extent to which it matched the UK’s priorities and interests.

. e Minister began by recalling his subsequent Explanatory Memoranda on the Head of EDA reports, April 2010 and December 2010; the Counci delines for thwork in 2011; and the EDA three-year financial framework 2011 2011 budget adoption nd co w

.”27

5 14 As p ar has b

ued to hank K hpursued a pragmatic approach of

ld be dd value.

5 15 Th th the Agency

uding Europe

rth).

5 16 We c scrutiny.

5 17 In addi ttee. 28

5 18 Th

Review (SDSR). We update on where ma

pe s a

5 19 Thl’s gui e EDA’s

–2013 postponement and,29 a ntinued as follo s:

27 See http://www.eda.europa.eu/Aboutus/Howwedo/LisbonTreaty

28 See headnote: (32552) 18043/10, (32553) 17514/10, (32554) 17373/10: HC 428 xi (2010 ), chapter 12 (23 March 2011)

29 See headnote

.

–x –11.

.


“With regards to the latter, although the adoption of a three-year financial framework has never been achieved for the EDA, during 2011 the UK, along with the Agency’s other participating Member States, will look to agree a financial framework for 2012–2014. This should allow the EDA to plan its work programme better and its Member States to factor the associated budget requirements into their respective national programming and plans.”

. then discussed his approach to the proposed Council Decision to replace the “founding” Joint Action that was required following the provisions of the amended TEU. He explained that his objective was for the replacement document to retain the existing agreed Joint Action text as far as practicable, on the basis that the Joint Action had, so far, proved fit for purpose. He recalled that in autu en Secretary of State for Defence had agreed last autumn that the UK would remain in the EDA for a period of two years, but that if improvements in the Agency’s effectiveness and performance during this period were not forthcomin rawal would be considered. In the meantime, he

the EDA’s new Chief Executive, Claude-France Arnould, and other participating Member States to increase the EDA’s value through delivering more in terms of addressing capability shortfalls and enhancing EDA co-ordination with NATO; and professed himself encouraged that more Member States now acc ted he

5 20 The Minister

mn 2010 the th

g, withdintended to work with

ep t need not [

ng office.

the Minister’s underlining] to duplicate NATO — a position, the Minister said, that the Government had advocated very firmly from the outset of taki

. this to the House because of the high level of interest in defence matters; and, for the same reason, also drew it to the attention of the Defence Comm

The Council Decision replacing the founding Joint Action

5.22 2011 we considered the draft Council Decision replacing

5 21 We reportedittee.30

At our meeting on 22 June Joint Action 2004/551/CFSP on 12 July 2004

5.23 e Minister (Mr Gerald Howarth) made it clear that he did not consider any of the EDA’s core functions to have been changed by articles in the Lisbon Treaty, which he noted were drafted before the establishment of the Agency in 2004; in his estimation, they simply elevated the EDA to an organisation with Treaty Status, and provided for an EDA role facilitating member states’ activities in Permanent Structured Cooperation (PSC). He described PSC been conceived as a way for those Member States who so wish to cooperate more closely in the development of higher military capabilities; noted that it hasnot yet been established; and said that, in practice, during the period between PSC’s conception and Lisbon’s eventual ratification and transposition in to this Council Decision, the sort of cooperation envisaged by the Lisbon provisions had to a large extent already been developed, including via EDA facilitation

5.24 he Minister went on to note that the UK’s approach throughout the drafting process had been the existing text where practicable as we consider the existing Joint Action text fit for purpose

.

Th

as having

.

T “to maintain

.”

30 See headnote: and HC 428 xvii (2010 2), chapter 17 (18 May 2011) –x –1 .


5.25 rt, we noted that the Minister appeared to have achieved all his objectives, and cleared the draft Council Decision

5.26 e also again drew it to the attention of the Defence Committee.31

The Head of Agency’s November 2011 Report

. e report by the Head of the EDA to the November 2011 Foreign Affairs Council describes progress on the Agency’s main output areas. The report provides an overview of Agency activities which include the update and reshaping of the Capability Development Plan (CDP); the Agency’s defence Research and Technology activities; European Armaments Co-operation Strategy; Industry and Market issues; and interaction with key stakeh


. his Explanatory Memorandum of 9 Decemb 011, the Minister for International Security Strategy at the Ministry of Defence (Mr Gerald Howarth) recalls the then Defence Secretary’s decision on a two-year continuation of membership and the proviso that the EDA must improve its performance (c.f. paragraph 5.20), an ys:

he end of the probationary period in 2012 represents a critical milestone when the UK will take stock of progress on reforms and reassess our position on the EDAWhilst the issue of membership remains politically sensitive, in the meantime, we continue to support the Agency in improving output and delivering to the priorities of Member States using more efficient resource management

. he Minister then comments on key aspects of the report as f ws

pment Plan (CDP)

For our pa.

W

5 27 Th

olders.

5 28 In er 2

d sa

“T.

.”

5 29 T ollo :

“Improving Capabilities

“Capability Develo

The CDP is designed to align future capability trends with current shortfalls based on the European defence Planning Process outcomes and brings together the plans and programmes of Member States including lessons learned from operations to produce the critical capability shortfalls. The UK supports the work of the Agency on the CDP process and welcomes regular reviews to the CDP to ensure that it remains an up-to-date tool to guide the EDA’s activities. A review of the Agency’s previous top 12 priority areas 32 as seen the list expanded and reshaped into three areas which was approved by the Steering Board in March 2011

o constitute a CDP ‘Top Ten’ i riti

h.

• Actions — t pr o es;

31 See headnote: (32816) HC 428–xxx (2010 ), chapter 22 (22 June 2011)

32 Networked Enabled Capability (NEC); Counter-Improvised Explosive Devices (C-IED); Increased availability of helicopters; Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) Architecture; Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Defence; Medical support; Computer Network Operations (CNO); Military Human Intelligence and Cultural / Language Training; Counter Man Portable Air Defence Systems (C-MANPADS); Third Party Logistic Support (TPLS); Comprehensive Approach ilitary implications; Maritime Mine Counter-Measures (MMCM).

—: –12 .

— m


o C Deountering-Improvised Explosive c s

edical Su

ntelligence, Surveillance and Reconn s e

e c s

yber f e

ultinational Logistic pport

ommon Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) Information E e

trategic and Tactical Airlift Manag me

uel and Ene

Maturing here progress has been made and the way ahead mapped out for future collaborative work;

aritime Mine Counter-Me s r s

ounter Man Portable Air Defence Systems (MA )

ilitary Human Intelligence (H MI )

Core Drivers/Enviro ross cutting areas that provide a basis for Common Security Defence Policy (CSDP) capability impr

omprehensive Approac

U Networked Enabled Capab l y

adio Spectrum

b r

ounter-Improvised Explosive Devices (C )

vi e

o M pport

o I ais anc

o H li opter

o C De enc

o M Su

o C xchang

o S e nt

o F rgy

• Actions — w

o M a u e

o CBRN

o C NPADS

o M U NT

• nments — covement.

o C h

o E i it

o R

o Cy e

“C -IED

The EDA deployed a C-IED Theatre Exploitation Laboratory (Demonstrator) (TEL(D)) in Afghanistan this summer, under a French lead. he UK already have a national capability integrated into ISAF and whilst the UK are not active participants in the EDA’s C-IED project, we have provided assistance including information (subject to national caveats) to inform the Agency’s work based on our own national Level 233 apability. As the UK already have a national capability up to and including Level 3, we therefore do not participate in an EDA activity that does not add benefit

T

c

33 Level 1 Exploitation is conducted by teams in the field following an incident; Level 2 is the immediate in-theatre technical and forensics analysis supported by a deployable laboratory. CIED Level 3 is the part of the exploitation process conducted out of theatre, usually involving highly specialised laboratories

.


to the UK’s capability. We do, however, encourage other Member States to participate in this project as we believe that more EU nations developing their own C-IED exploitation expertise could potentially educe the burden on the UK. We will continue to monitor this work with interest and provide encouragement and support and keep our position not to participate under continual ew.

licopter Training Programme (HTP)

r

revi

“He

The EU and NATO are working in a complementary manner to address critical helicopter capability shortfalls. NATO runs a programme to upgrade airframes; the EDA leads on aircrew training. The EDA has developed the Interim Synthetic Tactics Course, which will run for two years from September 2011 and train (in tactics) as many as 80 helicopter crews to the standards needed to cope with high threat and extreme environmental conditions e EDA aims to launch a Ca B project (non-common funded) in order to establish a planning team within the Agency that will sustain the HTP during the next three years and assist the host countries in each step of the exercise development, from the definition of the specifications to the distribution of the lessons learned he UK agreed to sign up to the HTP Cat B programme at the Defence Ministers Steering Board on 30 November 2011.

opean Air Transport Fleet (EATF)

. Th t

. T

“Eur

EATF is an initiative of the EDA, which seeks a flexible partnership between national and multinational military air transport fleets and organisations. It envisages a networked ‘fleet’ to help mitigate critical European airlift shortfalls and increase military airlift provision within Europe through better use of existing assets. The intention of EATF is not to create a supplementary air transport structure within Europe, but to support and strengthen existing ones through parallel efficiency initiatives, thus avoiding duplication. Accession does not imply a commitment to a physical fleet, but the pooling and sharing of intellect rather than hardware. We continue to monitor the progress of the EATF programme and keep our current position of non-membership under review

Support Platform

.

“Third Party Logistic

The EDA has developed an internet facility to advertise and secure third-party logistic support (TPLS). This enables nations to publicise their logistics support requirements and identify companies which have the required expertise in mission and operations-related logistics s not, however, a contracting platform, and the EDA does not have visibility of contracts that might have been placed following use of the TPLS. We know that 95 companies (7 for UK) have registered; and other participating Member States have used it to advertise requirements posed by their CSDP missions (including ATALANTA, ALTHEA and EULEX KOSOVO). Access to the TPLS facility was recently extended to international organisations outside the EU

uropean Satellite Communications Procurement Cell (ESCPC)

. It i

.

“E


The UK has agreed to participate in the ESCPC. The UK’s contractor Paradigm will effectively provide services for the other member states with MoD UK receiving service credits as third party bandwidth is utilised. The principle is that member states club together to secure better rates for commercial SATCOM as a means of augmenting military SATCOM. However, to achieve these benefits there is a need for a procurement cell to manage the technical and financial aspects and undertake the necessary contracting / ordering function. The UK has signed the ESCPC Project Arrangement and it is expected that additional member states will express a formal interest to join in 2012. Extension to third party users (non-MoD, institutions and bodies) could follow in 2013. At the end of the three year pilot project, it is envisaged that the ESCPC will be transferred to another operating entity as a proven concept

time Surveillance (MARSUR)

.

“Mari

The EDA Maritime Surveillance (MARSUR) project was set up in 2006 to improve Maritime Situational Awareness (MSA) to support the Common Security Defence Policy (CSDP) and wider related maritime missions. Its aim is to create a Recognised Maritime Picture (RMP) by networking national systems together across uropepan-European RMP will fuse a wealth of information into a single picture filtered by each individual participating Member State and has the potential to deliver a powerful tool to increase Maritime Security, enhance MSA and support Maritime security operations around Europe. Their links with the EU Commission and Agencies, and maritime organisations worldwide, have been enhanced through 6 pMS (Estonia, Finland, France, Italy, Sweden, UK) linking their national systems through an EDA developed interface. This initial network will be joined by at least 9 pMS (Belgium, Cyprus, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal). A technical evolution to obtain enhanced services with the addition of a classified information handling capability will take place in an EDA Category B (opt-in) project framework, led by Finland. The UK is interested in joining the Cat B project, but is awaiting further detail from the Agency before any formal commitment can be made

search and Technology

hile we are supportive of the Agency’s European Defence Research and Technology strategy (EDRT), the EDA’s R & T activity could be more focussed better to connect research with capability development needs. We believe that this would be preferable to the agency spreading its activity over a wider range of research areas. Key technologies frequently fall across the civil and defence sectors we support the coordination of effort to exploit the dual aspects of technologies but are clear where boundaries lie — civil sector activity is the Commission’s domain whereas military needs are a matter for defence

rmaments

tary Air Worthiness

E . A

.

“Re

“W

.

“A

“Mili

“The EDA has set up the Military Airworthiness Authorities Forum (MAWA) to develop common requirements for airworthiness. The initiative aims to deliver


harmonised military airworthiness and certification standards across Europe. Timely development and implementation of common standards for future air platforms should reduce the duplication of effort by developers (i.e. do things once rather than many times by each participating nation) significantly decreasing the cost to military air systems of airworthiness certification.

“Unmanned Air Systems

“E

DA Steering Board in Defence Minister formation tasked the Agency in April 2010, to prepare an Ad Hoc Category A programme on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), for its possible acceptance in autumn 2010. The initial launch of the programme has continued to be postponed further to refine (i) the scope and detailed content as well as (ii) prioritise the technical topics with Member States’ experts. The major challenges which hinder broad usage of UAS are (i) the lack of certified technologies and (ii) accepted rules and regulations.

he European Commission has established a High Level Panel to develop a common European (civil/military) policy on UAS. The EDA needs to ensure that their work fits into the overall Commission strategy

ropean Sky ATM Research (SESAR)

“T

.

“Single Eu

“T

.

he Single European Sky (SES) initiative was launched by the European Commission in 2004 to reform European Air Traffic Management (ATM). It proposes a legislative approach to meet future capacity, safety and environmental needs at a European rather than a national level. Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) is the technological dimension of SES, and aims to eliminate the fragmented approach to European ATM, transform the ATM system, synchronise all stakeholders and federate resources

he EDA is now sponsoring an implementation forum with the aim of coordinating defence engagement in SESAR. Whilst the UK is content that the Agency facilitates and supports a forum which brings together interested parties to discuss the implications of the deployment of SESAR, we are clear that the EDA has no capacity to speak on behalf of the current 44 Member States representing the military community which are currently involved in implementing SESAR

try and Markets

he European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB) strategy sets out important policy objectives and enablers to consolidate demand, increase investment and competition thereby ensuring better security of supply in the European Technological Industrial Base. Since the creation of the EDTIB strategy much has changed, including the global financial crisis, a drop in defence expenditure and implementation of the Defence and Security Procurement Directive. The UK supports a review to revalidate the EDTIB strategy and the associated roadmap. This work must provide a robust analysis of existing work packages underway and priorities to be taken forward and above all must be realistic on what is achievable.

teraction with key stakeholders

“T

.

“Indus

“T

“In


“T

”

he Agency continues to forge relationships with the European Commission and a number of third parties. The Agency is actively pursuing agreements with the European Space Agency, OCCAR and Switzerland which the UK supports. In addition, the UK encourages EDA work which will improve the Agency’s effectiveness and efficiency in developing capabilities and welcomes the open dialogue with NATO, particularly in co-ordinating activities between the EU’s pooling and sharing initiative and NATO’s Smart Defence, to ensure that work is complementary in both organisations.

s by noting that the report was delivered to the Council in Defence Ministers formation on 30 Novem 2 1

The Minister’s letter of 13 December 2011

. e Minister (Mr Gerald Howarth) writes in connection with his attendance at the Foreign Affairs Council and the European Defence Agency (EDA) Steering Board on 30 November 2011. He begins by explaining th ea irmed agenda to Member States only a few days before the me t time to furnish the Committee with the Governme e agenda items before the discussions took place, for which the Minister apo

. ines the posi e e EDA budget, a f l w

“Out with the Steering Board, but for the benefit of the Committee’s broader understanding of our wider engagement with the Agency, Baroness Ashton proposed a budget freeze for the EDA in 2012. At the Foreign Affairs Council France and other nations did not accept this proposal and suggested an increase in the budget of between 1–2% response, I pointed to the pressure on all national defence budgets and felt that we should show leadership in exacting the maximum value for money from existing budgets. In accordance with the procedures, our position in refusing to agree a budget increase for the second year running resulted in the budget being held at 2010 levels

. nister says, the topics for discussion were as o :

DA Work Programme 2012

5.30 The Minister concludeber 0 1.

5 31 Th

at the rel se of the confeting provided insufficien

nt’s policy position on thlogises.

5 32 He then outl tion h took on th s ol o s:

. In

.”

5 33 In more detail, the Mi f llows

“E — M was .

inisters were invited to approve the work programme for 2012, which I content to approve

DA Work Plan 2012 4“E –1 — I

agreed to note the Work Plan for 2012–2014. Whilst I acknowledge that the Work Plan has been put together on the basis of a bottom-up approach, I believe that a top-down approach informed by political and strategic priorities with a clear mandate could result in further savings to make the programme more affordable and therefore further prioritisation needs to take place.

efence Data and Benchmarks“D — T

. I.

he Agency complies and publishes data on an annual basis covering basic statistics for the Agency and its Member States. The Steering Board will be asking Ministers to approve the work am content with the Defence Data work and I approved it during the meeting


“Helicopter Training Programme — Category B Project — M

.

inisters were invited to approve the establishment of the Helicopter Training Programme — Category B Project (Member States opt-in to join). Since late 2008 the EDA has established a Helicopter Training Programme (HTP) which has thus far seen more than 140 crews from 18 different countries trained in the harsh environmental conditions found in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world. So far, three exercises have been held (France 2009, Spain 2010 and Italy 2011) and the next two are planned in Portugal and Belgium, both in 2012. The overall number of trained helicopter crews is expected to swell beyond 200, which includes those scheduled for next year

he aim of the Cat B programme will be to establish a planning team within the Agency that will sustain the HTP during the next three years and assist the host countries in each step of the exercise development. Given that this project meets our requirement for the EDA to be engaged in the delivery of real capability, and that we have been able to wield influence in the development of Helicopter Training, I agreed to sign up to this project.

ooling and Sharing (P&S)

“T

“P — M

In addition, I s.”

inisters noted the Agency’s analysis on Pooling and Sharing and endorsed the opportunities identified. All Ministers agreed to evaluate progress at the next Steering Board in Spring 2012. The UK is already participating in three Pooling and Sharing projects (Helicopter Training and Maritime Surveillance (MARSUR), the Helicopter Training Programme and the European Satellite Communication Procurement Cell (EUPC)). We continue to review the future opportunities identified by our European partners to consider their merits on a case-by-case basis. hall be consulting with industry and DSTL to see if there are suitable areas of R&D activity in which the UK could lead

Council Guidelines for the Agency’s Work in 012

. recommendations about the focus and direction of the Agency this includes the continuation of work on the Capability Development Plan and sed actions; developing activities for Pooling and Sharing of defence capabilities; further contributions to enhance the EDTIB; and Research and Techn


s first Explanatory Memorandum of 15 December 2011, the Minister (Mr Gerald Howarth) notes that the Council g oncentrate on the EDA trategic framework and highlights the following a c

elopment Plan (CDP) and its new prioritised actions as approved by the Steering Board in Mar ;

ng with EU Military Staff and other EU actors in pursuing and implementing opportunities for the future Pooling and Sharing of defence cap b i e ;

ing of a European Framework Cooperation in Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) prote ;

2

5 34 The Council’s guidelines make ’s work. For 2012,

its new set of prioriti

ology.

5.35 In hiuidelines c s

spe ts:

— the Capability Devch 2011

— workia il ti s

— explorction


— conti B nuing to contribute to the enhancement of the EDTI ;

ng synergies between military and civilian capability development and dual-use technologies, dialogue and improving co-ordination and co-operation with stakeholders; an

ther important initiatives and programmes such as Pooling and Sharing, the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) in the military domain, the EU Radio Spectrum Policy Programme, the European Space Policy and developments in Research and Technology and the European Defenc

and says that he is content that the Council has set the right focus and direction for the Agency’s work in 2012.

Three-Year Financial Framework 2012 014 and 2012 Budget

. ond Explanatory Memorandum of 15 December 2011, the Minister (Mr Gerald Howarth) says that it was decided to postpone by one year the decision to adopt a three year financial framework for the Ag y and that abudget freeze for 2012 € 0 l o


e Minister says that ED udget resulted from Member States not being able to agree a three-year financial framework. He also notes that, although the adoption of a three-year financial framework has never been achieved for the Agency, participating Member States will look to agree a financial framework for past budget negotiations, a one-year-only budget was agreed for 2012.

. e Minister continues a

“The UK was successful in achieving a budget freeze for the EDA for 2012 of €30.5m (zero nominal growth), the same as for 2010 & 2011. The precise breakdown of the budget is still to be determined by the Council. The EDA’s current proposal is that the functional budget (running costs) should be set at €22.5m whilst the remaining €8.0m would be left for the operational budget (project preparations; feasibility studies).

“Some Member States (Greece, Germany and France) proposed a zero real growth that would take into account inflation which we considered to be unreasonable. The UK has consistently argued that the EDA needs to be realistic about its budget requirements, particularly in light of the financial challenges on defence spending that were faced by ny of the participating Member States e could only accept freezing of the 2012 budget at 2011 levels (€30.5 million). We were successful in achieving this objective. We will continue to work towards agreeing a three-year work programme and budget for the Agency starting with the period 2012 014

. e Minister concludes by confirming that agreement on the 2012 EDA budget was finalised by the Council in Ministers of Defence composition on 30 November 2011.

— explori

d

— o

e market;

–2

5 36 In his sec

enc , inste d, the Council agreed to a at 3 .5 mi li n.

5.37 Th A’s 2012 b

2013–2015; and that, as with

5 38 Th s follows:

ma . W

–2 .”

5 39 Th


Conclusion

e take this opportunity of reminding the Minister of the Committee’s interest in being informed about his thinking in good time before any decision on withdrawal is presented for scrutiny (c.f. paragraph 5.28 ab

. cy’s Report, and are otherwise content for interested Members to raise any questions with the Minister via the many channels at their

. ind we are again drawing this report to the attention of the Defence Committee

. for the Agency’s Work in 2012 and the Three-Year Financial Framework 2012–2014 and 2012 Budget, it is interesting to receive the Minister i ws. ut he has the advantage of us: he has seen the documents in question, wher pite several fruitless requests at official leve e haWe are told that this is because the EDA secretariat cannot be prevailed upon to lift the “limité” caveat attached to these docum ithstanding that it is now four months since they were agreed by the EDA steering board. We recognise that the nature of these documents militates against prior parliamentary sc ever, we see no reason why, once agreed by the EDA Steering Board, they cannot be released from any res is, the delays both this year and last suggest, at best, indifference on the part of EDA secretariat to rds the essential role of parliamentary scrutiny in Common Security and Defence Policy, and is unacceptable. We should therefore like to know from the Mi i

by his department to secure the cooperation of the EDA secretariat over these particular doc

hat steps the UK permanent representation in Brussels have also taken in this rega

hat steps he will take to ensure that this does not happen again, and that, once adopted, these and other similar documents are released without furthe d

5.40 W

ove).

5 41 We clear the Head of Agen

disposal.

5 42 With that thought in m.

5 43 With regard to the Council Guidelines

’s v e Beas — des l — w ve not.

ents — notw

rutiny. How

triction. As itwa

n ster:

— what steps have been taken uments;

— wrd;

— wr a o.


6 l Productivity and Sustainability

(337317278/12COM(12) 79

Commission Communication: European Innovation PartnershipAgricultural Productivity and Sustainability

European Innovative Partnership: Agricultura

)

—


— d 29 February 2012

Deposited in Parliamen 6 March 2012Departmen Environment, Food & Rural AffairsBasis of consideration EM of 15 March 2012Previous Committee Report None, but see footnotesDiscussion in Counci

t

t

l 19–20 March 2012


Background

6.1 ccording to the Commission, the key role of research and innovation is highlighted in he Europe 2020 Strategy and in the Communica t produced in 2010 on the

“CAP towards 2020”, and in particular it notes that their central role has been developed further in its flagship initiative “Innovation Un which introduces the concept of European Innovation Partnerships as a new me ostering innovation in cases where the combined strength of public and private efforts is needed to achieve targets more quickly and efficiently. In the current document, it has put forward the case for establishing such a Partnership for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability, which it says has taken into account lessons learned from a pilot Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing.

The current document

6.2 doing so, the Commission points out that world food demand is expected to increase by 70% by 2020, and that this will inevitably trigger a supply reaction from EU agriculture, which is one of the biggest suppliers to global markets, accounting for 18% of world foods exports, worth €76 billion. However, it notes that, although agriculture has experienced major productivity gains in recent decades, these have since slowed down, and have been achieved partly by putting serious strains on natural resources and the environment in such areas as soil quality, damage to valuable ecosystems, and declining biodiversity, and it goes on to suggest that any attempt to increase output in response to rising demand could lead to further damage. It therefore concludes that further increases in sustainable agricultural output will be achievable only with major research and innovation efforts at all

t t

Aboth t tion34 i

ion”,35 ans of f

In

34 (32233) 16348/10: see HC 28 i (2010 , chapter 7 (15 December 2010) and HC 428 i (2010 2), chapter 1 (3 June 2011).

35 (32042) 14035/10: see HC 428 iii (2010 1), chapter 8 (17 November 2010).

4 –x –11) –xxi –1

–v –1


levels, noting that researchers and stakeholders have repeatedly highlighted the gap between the provision of research results and their application in practice. It adds that increased productivity calls for improved resource efficiency in order to consumer fewer inputs, but that solutions need to go beyond individual farms and be pursued in a broader geographica

6.3 t sees these aims as being facilitated by the p s and it identifies two headline targets for productivity and sustainabilit2020 of the recent trend of diminishing productivity gains, and the securing by then of soil functionality (encompassing its productive capacity and its key roles in climate change mitigation and adaptation). The Commission also proposes that the Partnership should cover multiple stages from core research and the dissemination of results to the development of products and techniques, and that it should make use of a range of existing policies, notably the CAP Rural Development Policy and EU research and innovation policy, in order to fund concrete actions. It adds that the value added of the Partnership lies in its potential to focus such policies towards innovation and in providing a dynamic platform to link farmers, stakeholders and researchers, and that its specific content should be drawn up in an open manner, using a bottom-up approach. In the meantime, it suggests that, on the basis of exchanges with stakeholders and researchers indicative priority areas might include increased agricultural productivity, output and resource efficiency; innovation in support of the bio-based economy; biodiversity, ecosystem services and soil functionality; innovative products and services for the integrated supply chain; and food quality, food safety and healthy lifes


n his Explanatory Memorandum of 15 March 2012, the Minister of State for Agriculture and Food at the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Mr

e) welcomes the emphasis on innovation in the CAP, and the broad aims on the Partnership, though he adds that the UK is seeking clarification from the Commission on the governance and the proposed funding me

Conclusion

6.5 he arrangements proposed in this document are in line with those foreshadowed in the “Innovative Union” flagship initiative, and, as they cover an area of some interest, we are drawing them to the attention of the House. However, we do not consider that they raise any issues requiring further consideration, and we are therefore clearing the do n

l context.

I ropo ed European Innovative Partnership,y — the reversal by

tyles.

6.4 I

James Paic

chanism.

T

cume t.


7 against the Syrian regime

(a)(33768

(b)(33769

Council Implementing Decision implementing Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria

Council Implementing Regulation implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No.36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria

Further amendments to EU restrictive measures

)

— —

)

— —

Legal base ) Article 31 TEU;

) rticle 215 TFEU; QMDepartmen Foreign and Commonwealth OfficeBasis of consideration EM and Minister’s letters of 22 and 23 March 2012Previous Committee Report None; but see (33711) , (33712) — and (33705)

6604/12: HC 428–lii (2010–12), chapter 20 (29 February 2012); (33635–7) —: HC 428–l (2010–12), chapter 12 (8 February 2012); (33515) (33516)

HC 428–xliv (2010–12),2011) nd (33214) —: HC 428 xxviii (2010 2) hapter 19 (19 October 2011)14410/11 and (33168) —: HC 428 xxvii (2010 2), chapter 20 (12 October 2011); (33072) 13474/11 and (33073) 13475/11: HC 428–xxxv (2010–12), chapter 16 (7 September 2011); (33101) — (33102) 13640/11 (33103) 13643/11: HC 428–xxxv (2010–12), chapter 19 (7 September 2011); (32933 6) HC 428–xxxi (2010–12), chapter 11 (29 June 2011); and (32747)and (32748) HC 428–xxvi (2010–12), chapter 11 (11 Ma

(a QMV (b A V

t

—

— and —: chapter 15 (14 December

; (33213) — a –x–1 , c ; (33160)

–x –1

–3 —: —

—:y 2011)

Discussion in Council 23 March 2012Committee’s assessmen Politically importanCommittee’s decision Cleared

Background

7.1 n response to what the UN now estimates as several thousand deaths and associated repression since March 2011, the EU has thus far implemented 12 rounds of restrictive measures against the Assad regime (details in our previous Reports. lso see the Council Fact Sheet on the European Union and Syr

t t

I

36 Aia).37

36 See headnote

37 Available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/128379.pdf.

.


7.2 ast December, measures adopted under Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP pr h e

new electricity power stations in Syria, including financing or offering technical

ember States offering long term (7+ years), public or private, financial support for trade: including through export credits, guarantees and insurance. And a call that MS act with restraint in the short and mediu e m;

elling or purchasing Syrian or Syrian guaranteed publi b d ;

iving support to the regime to monitor the internet and communications, including a ban on selling, supplying, transferring or exporting equipment or software that could be used by the regime for mon t r ;

uropean credit and financial institutions opening new branches of subsidiaries in Syria and Syrian institutions doing the same in Europe, including new investments in financial institutions within the EU;

upplying insurance / reinsurance to the Syrian Government or its public bodies, with exemptions for health, travel and vehicle insur

a ey equipment to th i il industry.

7.3 dditional pers e e ected to an asset freeze and visa ban including military personnel responsible for the military action in Homs and the Syrian Ministers of Finance and Economy and trade. A number of additional entities e lso subjected to the asset freeze, notably the Syrian General Petroleum Company (GPC), Sytrol, Al Furat Oil, the Scientific Studies and Research Centre (SSRC) and five related

7.4 he means to implement these measures (a Council Regulation, Council ImplementingDecision and Council Implementing Regulation) took some time to be finalised, leading to a scrutiny over-r d he Committee was not minded to take issue with this, but asked the Minister, when he submitted them for scrutiny, to provide the House with his assessment of where matters stood with: the Arab League’s endeavours to broker a solution to the violence and instability; at the UN Security Council; and at the UN Human Rights u

hese all being highlighted in the Conclusions adopted by the Foreign Affairs Council when it adopted the main Council Dec n Dec

7.5 he Minister’s response and the subsequent developments at the United Nations are set out in the Report of our meeting of 8 February 2012. In essenc

7.6 ver the previous last week ia and China vetoed an Arab League-sponsored UN Security Council Resolution that was supported by all 13 other memb

7.7 he Foreign Secretary led a debate in the House on 6 February in which he said, inter alia, that the Governmen

on i u s trong support for the Arab Leagu

L o ibit d:

— EU investment/construction of support;

— M

m t r

— s c on s

— g

i o ing

— E

— sance;

— the s le of k e Syr an o

A ons w r subj

wer a

entities.

T

i e. T

Co ncil — t

ision i ember.

Te:

o end, Russers;

tt would:

— c t n e it s e;


— sa

eek to widen the international coalition of nations seeking a peaceful and lasting resolution in Syria, via a new Arab-led group of Friends of Syri

tensify contact with members of the Syrian op

a s trong focus at the United

crease pressure through the European Union, with a view to agreeing further measures, beyond the 11 rounds of EU sanctions already agreed, at the 27 February Foreign Affairs c l

ork with others to ensure th t those responsible for crimes in Syria are held to account, including at the UN Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva i M c

se its remaining channels to the Syrian regime to make clear its abhorrence of violence “that is utterly unacceptable to the civilised

7.8 e reported all this in an endeavour to set the EU’s actions in the wider context, looked forward to receiving details of any further proposed EU measures in due course, and in the meantime cleared the Council Regulation, Council Implementing Regulation and Council Implementing Deci

7.9 ain drew these latest measures to the attention of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

The most recent Council Decisions and Council Regulation

. Decision i rther restrictive measures against Syria; the Council Regulation implemented the elements of this Council Decision that fell under EU competence; and the second Council Decision extend e partial suspension of the application the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Syrian Arab Republic embodied e Council Decision of 2 September 2011.

. he measures inclu e

tion on the trade and transportation of gold and precious metals, as well as of diamonds, to, from, or for the Government of Syria, the Central Bank of Syria, and persons and entities acting for them;

an on cargo flights operated by Syrian

reeze on the Central Bank

signating more individuals under the asset freeze and travel ban, and removi individual who no longer met the grounds for desi n t .

. s Explanatory Memorandum of 24 February 2012, Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington) explai e

;

— in position;

— m intain it s Nations;

— in

Coun i ;

— w a n ar h;

— u world.”

W

sion.

We also ag38

7 10 One Council mposed fu

ed th

in th

7 11 T d d:

— a prohibi

— a b carriers;

— an asset f of Syria;

— de ng oneg a ion

7 12 In hin d that:

38 See headnote: (33635 ) HC 428 (2010 2), chapter 12 (8 February 2012) –7 —: –l –1 .


— the newly designated in included military an

e regime;

dividuals and entities d security personnel responsible for giving orders authorising the use of lethal force against Syrian protestors, a businessman facilitating the repression, and entities providing financial support to th

on of the partial suspension of EEC/Syria Cooperation Agreement was e t the ban on gold, precious m ta nd diamo

e Minister went on to note that the Syrian authorities continued to ignore the urgent appeals made by a number of parties, including the United Nations General Assembly resolution of 16 February, which supported the Arab League’s plan for a Syrian-led solution to the crisis, the United Nations Security Council in a Presidential statement, numerous States, the Gulf Cooperation Council and the Secretaries-General of the League of Arab States and of the Organisation of Islamic Con to cease the violent repression of l

. tter of 24 February 2012, the Minister says that, given the fast moving and serious nature of events r it was important to adopt the texts giving these measures legal effect with the utmost speed; gth of the negotiations, final texts emerged so la mself having to agree to the their adoption b t eCommittee had ad an opportunity to scrutinise the doc

. e Mini s continuing belief that these further actions by the EU would increase the pressure on President Assad’s regime to put an end to the violence in Syria, and his view that the 16 February UN General Assembly vote in favour of the Arab League’s plan for a Syrian-led solution to the cris clearly demo e international community’s condemnation of the Syrian regime’s actions and its intention to hold to account those responsible for the ongoing atro ”

. ruary, the Council adopted conclusions, in

aid it was increasingly appall aign of repression against the civilian population and its systematic and widespread violation of human rights, the reports of the brutal attacks by the Syrian armed forces in Homs and the numerous civilian l i

onsible will be held accountable for thei

ident Assad to end immediately the killing of civilians, withdraw the Syrian army from besieged towns and cities and step

of unarmed civilians, including three journalists in Homs, andreiterated the Syrian authorities’ responsibility to guarantee the safety, and allowunimpeded access, of journalists to car y o r vital role without fear of violence or re

s immediately to alleviate the suffering of the population, respect and protect the wounded and sick, guarantee unhindered access to the medical care and refrain from intimidation of those providing medical a i a

— the extensir quired to implemen e ls a nds.

7.13 Th

ference, civi ians.

7 14 In a separate lein Sy ia,

and due to the lente that he found hi efore h

h uments.

7 15 Th ster went on to express hi

is nstrated “th

cities.

7 16 On 27 Feb which it:

— s ed by the regime’s ruthless camp

fata it es;

— underlined that those resp r actions;

— reiterated its call for Pres aside;

— condemned all killings

r ut theipression;

— called on the Syrian authoritie

ss st nce;


— welcomed the first mi ’s c

eeting of the Group of Friends of the Syrian people and the outcome as reflected in the Cha r onclusions;

t of former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, as the Joint Special Envoy of the United Nations and Arab League on the Syr

ofessed the EU’s readiness to step up its engagement with all representative members of Syrian oppositi here to non violence, inclusiveness and democrat

yrian opposition to set up a representative coordination mechanism under the auspices of the Arab Leag ng towards an orderly and peaceful transition to a Syria based on e pr

eeply t that the UN Security Council was unable to support the call of the Arab League for an inclusive, Syrian-led political process conducted in an environment free from fear and violence, ll members of the UNSC to assume their respon l i

l he 16 February UN General Assembly resolution on Syr

orward to the next debate of the UN Human Rights Council on Syria on 12 Ma

the main findings of the report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Sy affirmed that there should be no impunity for the perpetrators of such alleged crimes against humanity and other gross violations of hum i

nal community to join its efforts to target those responsible for or associated with the violent repression and those who support or benefit from the regi

e important decisions taken by the Arab League on 12 February to resolve the crisis in Syria, its strong commitment and le d r h s decision to increase economic pressure on the Syria nd the commitment of the participants of the Friends of Syria Group to take steps to apply and enforce restrictive measures and sanctions on the Syrian regime and its su

eaffirmed its support to the Syrian people and their aspirations for a democratic Syria t s open, pluralistic and respectful of the rights of all its communities.

ing after the Council meeting, Catherine Ashton, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR) said that more than 8,300 people have

terrible circumstances in r eclared that there was strong support for the humanitarian work being undertaken, the work of the E nstitutions and the Member States, real support for the Arab League pla specially a recognition that in Kofi Annan as the envoy for the United Nations and the Arab League, we have

— welcomed the appointmenian crisis;

— pron that ad ic values;

— urged the Sue for worki

thes inciples;

— d regret ed

and calls once more on asibi it es;

— we comed t ia;

— looked frch;

— professed itself appalled by ria and re

an r ghts;

— called on the internatio

me;

— welcomed tha e s ip and it

n regime, a

pporters; and

— rtha i 39

7.17 Speak

now been killed in the Sy ia. She dU i

n and “e

39 The full text is available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/128174.pdf.


somebody of enormous ability who we hope will be able to swiftly make a significant difference to finding a ceasefire and a political way through.” She went on to s

“We need to get the Assad regime to stop killing the population, and we need to find ways to ensure that comes about as swiftly as possible. Our view is very straightforward: you cannot lead your people, murder them and remain in leadership

. terms of the wording in the conclusions, the HR said that the E ery clear that it recognizes the Syrian National Council as an interlocutor, and contin

he discussion was around how to phrase and word that so to give maximum effect to what we meant. And it links very much back to the discussions that took place in Tunis on Friday, so you’ll find that there is a common view. It important that we’re able to talk with opposition groups. We urge as much as possible the coordination and the consolidation of opposition groups. Other groups have come to talk to us in Brussels and we’ll continue to talk to them, but it was extremely important to hear the views of the National Council, which is an interlocutor for us

Our assessment

ain reported these measures in an endeavour to set the EU’s actions in the wider context, and again drew them to the attention of the Foreign Affairs Com

t Council Decision, draft Council Regulation and Council Decision, and did not object to the Minister having agreed to their adoption prior to scrutiny on this occasion and in these circums c

The Council Implementing Decision and Council Implementing Regulation

s Explanatory Memorandum of 22 March 2012, the Minister of Europe (Mr David Lidington) says that, once t

he Council Implementing Decision will implement new designations under Council Decision 2011/78 S

he Council Implementing Regulation will implement the same new designations under Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No.36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situa o ria;

hrough these documents, the EU has de e

four members of President Bashar Al-Assad’s close family, who are closely associated with the President and hi

ay:

.”

7 18 In U was vued thus:

“T

’s

.”40

7.19 We agmittee.

7.20 . We also cleared the draf

tan es.41

7.21 In hi adop ed

— t2/CF P;

— t

ti n in Sy

— t signat d:

• s regime;

40 The full text of the HR’s remarks is available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/128229.pdf

41 See headnote: see (33711) (33712) nd (33705) 6604/12: HC 428 ii (2010 ), chapter 20 (29 February 2012)

.

— , — a –l –12 .


• ’s policy;

seven ministers of the Assad government, who are involved in specific acts of the repression or are closely associated with the regime

one businessman who is closely associated with a number of already-designated ind a

two state-owned oil companies, which provide financial support to the Syrian regim ; an

updated the justifications and the identifying information of seven previously listed individuals and one previously listed entity, with a view to strengthening them against the risk of legal challenge and assisting Member State governments in their robust implementation of the measur


he Minister comments as foll

he UK has led the way on 12 rounds of EU sanctions on Syria. These sanctions are increasing the economic and political pressure on the Syrian regime and will continue to stop flows of revenue to Assad. The EU has assembled a strong sanctions regime against Syria, which complements efforts by our international partnerswill continue to push for tougher sanctions, but recognise that additional measures that are both targeted and effective are increasingly limited. We will continue to engage with our international partners to encourage them to increase the economic pressure on the regime and take coordinated action with our international partners where there is evidence of Syria subverting sanctions.


. s commenting on the draft documents in the same terms, the Minister says that once again a combination of the last-minute emergence of the texts (due to the length of the negotiations) and the need to give these measures legal effect with the utmost speed has, he regrets, led to an unavoidable override of n


. to explain the process whereby individuals and entities are added to the list of those subjected to restrictive m a u e :

he names of people and entities to be made subject to the restrictive measures are proposed by individual Member States to their EU partners. During the crisis in Syria, the UK has worked closely with its European partners to agree new sanctions to increase the pressure on the Assad regime. The names are then discussed by all 27 EU Member States, the EEAS, the Council Legal Service and the European Commission. During these discussions, the justifications for designation are considered, including their political and legal merits The names must be agreed unanimously at EU27 before they are adopted into EU law, often at the Foreign Affairs Council

• ividu ls;

• e d

•

es.

7.22 T ows:

“T

. We

”

7 23 As well a

scruti y.

7 24 The Minister writes e s r s

“T

.

.


“E

.”

U Member States are required to maintain confidentiality of the proposed names beyond the EU Council working groups. This is to prevent ‘asset flight’, pre-emptive action by those being considered to remove their assets from EU jurisdiction, greatly reducing the effective impact that the measures might have. It is important that the UK is perceived to respect this confidentiality which we would want others to respect also. Therefore, I am regrettably unable to provide the Committees the proposed names in advance of them being agreed, but I will continue in my endeavour to pass them to you as soon as they can be made available

. ch the Council issued the following sta

iven the Syrian regime’s continued use of violence against civilians, the Council today reinforced the EU’s restrictive measures once more

he Council targeted 12 persons associated with the repression or supporting or benefitting from the regime with a ban on entering the EU.43 he assets of same individuals and of two additional entities will be frozen within the EU. This brings the number of designated persons to 126 and the total of targeted entities to 41.

U High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton said

he repression has reached totally unacceptable levels of violence and must stop immediately. Today’s decisions aim to weaken the regime’s resources and its ability to conduct its brutal campaign.’

he legal acts will be published in the EU Official Journal on 24 March.’”

. Foreign Secretary described these further measures as “a further step in tightening the economic and diplomatic stranglehold on this criminal regi ”.

. ame day, the Council also issued conclus n

terated its concern about and condemnation of the continued brutal attacks and systematic human rights violations by the Syrian regime, including the use of heavy weaponry in civilian areas, as well as its call for President Assad to step aside to allow for a peaceful and democratic tr i

concerns at the increasingly worsening humanitarian plight of the Syrian civilian population as a result of continuous and widespread violence and its demand that the Syrian authorities grant immediate, unimpeded and full access of humanitarian organisations to all areas of Syria in order to allow them to deliver humanitarian assistance and medical care

7 25 On 23 Mar tement:42

“G.

“T T

“E:

‘T

‘T

7 26 After the Council meeting, the

me 44

7 27 On the s io s that:

— rei

ans tion;

— reiterated its deepest

;

42 See http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/129235.pdf.

43 Reproduced at the annex to this chapter of our Report

44 See http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=News&id=745574282.

.


— welct oritie

ly with h m;

omed the recent visit to Damascus of the Joint Special Envoy of the United Nations and the League of Arab States, Kofi Annan, and urged the Syrian au h s to cooperate ful i

e UN Security Council to agree urgently on a reso on yria in order to obtain the cessation of violence, immediate and unhindered humanitarian access and leading to a political process in response to the aspirations of the Syrian people;

alled on all members of the Security Council, particularly Russia and China, to work together in an effort to stop the violence and to support fully implementation of the Arab League’s res l

elcomed the UNSC Presidential Statement of 21 March expressing its gravest concern at the deteriorating situation in Syria and full support to the efforts of Kofi

elcomed the outcome of the debate of the UN Human Rights Council on Syria on 12 March and the adoption of the HRC resolution on 23 March on the human rights situation in the country and the extension of the mandate of the Independent International Commission of In ir

alled for a full investigation of the findings of the Commission of Inquiry which pointed to crimes against humanity and other gross violations of human rights committed in the country, and reaffirmed that there should be no impunity for the perpetrators of such allege im

xpressed support for the Syrian opposition and its readiness to step up its engagement with all representative members of Syrian opposition which adhere to non violence, inclusiveness and democratic values, and urged the Syrian National Council and all representative members of the opposition to set up an inclusive coordination mechanism under the auspices of the League of Arab States and to agree on a set of shared principles for working towards an orderly and peaceful tr n i on

imposing additional measures targeting the regime, not the civilian population, as long as repression continues, and to urge the international community to join its efforts in applying and enforcing restrictive measures and sanctions on the Syrian regime and its su r

eiterated its readiness, as soon as a genuine democratic transition begins, to develop a new and ambitious partnership with Syria across all areas of mutual int t

Conclusion

edge the constraints imposed upon the Minister by the crisis in Syria, and continue not to object to his having agreed to the adoption of these measures prior to scrutiny, in these circumstances and on this o casion

— reiterated its call for th lution S

— c

o utions;

— w Annan;

— w

qu y;

— c

d cr es;

— e

a s ti ;

— said that it will continue

ppo ters;

— reres . 45

7.28 We continue to acknowl

c .

45 The full text is available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/129234.pdf .


7. also continue to report them to the House because of the degree of interest in the crisis, and again draw them to the attention of the Foreign Affairs Commi

Annex: Persons and entities added to restrictive measures

Name Reasons

29 Wettee.

1 Anisa Al Assad (a.k.a.

Anisah Al Assad)Mother of President Al-Assad. .

2 Bushra Al Assad

(a.k.a. Bushra Shawkat)

Sister of Bashar al Assad, and wife of Asif Shawkat, Deputy Chief of Staff for Security and Reconnaissance

. .

3 Asma Al Assad (a.k.a.

Asma Fawaz Al Akhras)

Wife of Bashar Al Assad. .

4

Manal Al Ahmad)Spouse of Maher Al Assad, and as such benefiting from and closely associated with the regime.

. Manal Al Assad (a.k.a.

5. Imad Mohammad Deeb Khamis

Minister of Electricity. Responsible for using power cuts as a method of repression.

6. Omar Ibrahim Ghalawanj

Minister of Local Administration. Responsible for local government authorities and thus responsible for repression against the civilian population by local governments.

i

7 Joseph Suwaid Minister of State and as such closely associated with the regime’s policy.

.

8 Ghiath Jeraatl Minister of State and as such closely associated with the regime’s policy.

. i

9. Hussein Mahmoud Farzat

Minister of State and as such closely associated with the regime’s policy.

10. Yousef S uleiman Al-

AhmadMinister of State and as such closely associated with the regime’s policy.

11 Hassan al-Sari Minister of State and as such closely associated with the regime’s policy.

.

12 Mazen al-Tabba Partenaire en affaires avec Ihab Makhlouf et Nizar al-Assad (sanctionné le 23/08/2011) ; co-propriétaire, avec Rami Makhlouf, de la société de change Al-Diyar lil-Saraafa qui soutient la politique de la Banque centrale syrienne.

.

Name Reasons1. Syrian Petroleum

companyState owned oil company. Provides financial support tothe Syrian regime

2. Mahrukat Company (The Syrian Company for the Storage andDistribution of Petroleum Products)

State owned oil company. Provides financial support to the Syrian regime


8 inancial management

(337267142/12+ ADD 1COM(12) 80

Commission Report : Member States’ replies to the Court of Auditors2010 Annual Report:

F

)


— d 27 ebruary 2012

Deposited in Parliament 2 March 2012Department HM TreasuryBasis of consideration EM of 14 arch 2012Previous Committee Repor NoneDiscussion in Counci

F

M

t l No discussion planned


Background

8.1 e Commission is obliged to inform Member States of the references to them in the annual reports of the European Court of Auditors (ECA) and to invite them to respond. The Commission publishes a report on those responses

The document

8.2 s document the Commission reports on the responses of Member States to the references to them made in s 2010 Annual Report.46 n two substantive sections the Commission covers improvements made in shared management by Member States forRevenue and Agriculture and Natural Resources and for Cohesion, Energy and Transport

8.3 ation to Revenue and Agriculture and Natural Resources the Commission says that

• generally, responses received were timely, were varied in quality but in some cases were of a very high standard

• nearly all Member States set out initiatives for improvement that they have already taken or are to be taken in the future

• they also indicated their commitment to ensuring sound financial management;

• there were proposals for a more transparent discharge procedure suggesting, for instance, that comprehensive information on best practices at Member States’ level could be exchanged

t t

Th

.

In thi the ECA’ I

.

In rel:

;

;

;

46 (33335) see HC 428 lvii (2010 2), chapter 4 (18 January 2012). —: –x –1


• on their response to the ECA’s findings for Revenue, Member States gave details of the actions they and the Commission were undertaking to lift standing reservations;

• with regards to the initiatives taken to improve the management and control systems for agricultural expenditure, notably in the area of Rural Development, Member States stated that improvements in the Land Parcel Identification scheme (LPIS) emain a priority

• of the 22 that replied, 13 Member States (including the UK) outlined concrete examples of initiatives taken for LPIS improvements; and

• in addition, the majority of Member States had taken certain initiatives in the last year to further improve the management and control systems for agricultural expenditure and to enhance the effectiveness of checks carried out, notably in Rural Development — including development and enhancement of various IT systems in their countries.

8.4 ansport the Commission says that the information provided by Member States on the ECA’s findings is supplemented further by their responses to the Commission’s questionnaire on the main issues for 2010 Statement of Assurance as follows:

• the ECA‘s findings that 58% of transactions affected by error could have been prevented, drew lots of comment from nearly all the Member States;

• of this, 63% said that the most efficient means of preventing irregularities from occurring is through reinforced guidance to beneficiaries einforced documentary checks and increased on-the-spot verifications

• other Member States suggested simplification and clarification of rules and regulations at both national and EU level

• with regards to the wholly ineligible projects and ineligible costs (35% and 33% respectively of the estimated error rate for the chapter) and the se ious failures to respect EU and national procurement rules (22% of the estimated error rate), Member States cited training programmes as he single best means of addressing these key issues;

• in the case of wholly ineligible projects, 78% of the Member States suggested more training for staff in national/regional/managing authorities and intermediate bodies and at beneficiaries level was required, with 56% underscoring the necessity for the training to be targeted;

• concerning the several weaknesses found in Audit Authorities, the Member States demonstrated a clear preference for two improvement measures — the use of detailed checklists, which cover all risks to the regularity of exp iture, and specific guidance by the Commission on the scope of verifications and the extent of the audit checks to be undertaken, as well as the reporting of findings;

152 long

r ;

On Cohesion, Energy and Tr

, r

;

;

r

t

end


• some other Member States expressed concern about the functioning of audit authorities

• on the subject of simplification, Member States alluded to the initiatives introduced to address simplifying the implementation of EU programmes during the current programming period 007 013; and

• most (20) stated that the greatest potential for simplification rests with EU rules rather than with national rules — nonetheless, a significant number (11) agreed that there was also potential for simplification of national rules

8.5 Report by saying that:

• Member States’ responses show a continuing trend towards improvement in the management of EU funds

• several initiatives taken were outlined with commitments for further improvements set out;

• in addition, some Member States provided suggestions for ensuring efficient management of EU funds and a more transparent discharge procedure; and

• simplification and training, however, remained a top priority

8.6 Member State responses is given in a staff working do ment which acc mpanies the Report.


8.7 he Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban) says that

• the Government welcomes this Report and the opportunity given to Member States to respond to the ECA’s findings;

• it considers that document underlines shared views across Member States with regard to the need for progress in the simplification of onerous rules and regulations;

• it is clear, however, of the need to maintain high standards of financial management and propriety, while at the same time pushing for greater transparency in the way funds are used; and

• the Report does not itself have any direct financial implications — however, the ECA’s findings and recommendations, together with the Member States’ initiatives and commitments to improve their management of EU funds may lead to improvements in the control systems, which will only impact positively on the EU’s financial management and, ultimately, the effectiveness and implementation of the EU budget.

;

2 –2

.

The Commission concludes its

;

.

A more detailed summary of cu o

T :


Conclusion

8.8 is Report gives useful background to the responses to the European Court of Auditors 2010 annual report and more generally to the audit process. Thus, while content to clear the document, we draw the Report to the attention of the House

Th

.


9 s of sufficient legal or political importance to warrant a substantive report to the House

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

(337277104/12

Making the Single Market deliver Annual governance check-up 2011.

(337327146/12SWD(12) 36

Commission Staff Working Document Financial Instruments in Cohesion Policy

(337437405/12COM(12) 92

Draft Council Decision on the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union in the EU-Turkey Association Council

Department for Culture, Media and Sport

(337306305/12COM(12) 33

Commission Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Interim evaluation of the multi-annual Union programme on protecting children using the internet and other communication technologies

Department for Education

(336866597/12COM(11) 892

Commission Report to the Council and the European Parliament on the European chools' system in 2010

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

(337397352/12COM(12) 88

Draft Council Decision on the position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification).

(337507554/12COM(12) 98

Draft Council Decision on the position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement

Documents not raising question

) —

—

) .

) .

)

.

) S .

)

)

.


Foreign and Commonwealth Office

(335995066/12COM(11) 926

Draft Council Decision on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the State of Israel, amending the Annexes to Protocols 1 and 2 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States and the State of Israel

(336125064/12COM(11) 924

Draft Council Decision on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the State of Israel, amending the Annexes to Protocols 1 and 2 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States and the State of Israel.

Department of Health

(337357293/12COM(12) 83

Commission Communication Taking forward the Strategic Implementation Plan of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing

HM Treasury

(3375716670/11COM(11) 872

Draft Council Implementing Decision amending Implementing Decision 2011/344/EU on granting Union financial assistance to Portugal

)

.

)

) —

.

)

.


Formal minutes

Tuesday 27 March 2012

Members present

Mr William Cash, in the Chair

Mr James Clappison Michael ConnartyChris Heaton-Harris

Kelvin Hopkins Penny MordaunStephen Phillips

1. Scrutiny of Documents

The Committee deliberated.

Draft Report, proposed by the Chair, brought up and read

Ordered, That the draft Report be ead a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1.1 to 9 read and agreed to.

Resolved, hat the Report e the ty-first Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House

************

Adjourned till Wednesday 18 April at 2.00 pm

:

t

.

r

T b Six

.

[ .


Standing Order and membership

The European Scrutiny Committee is appointed under Standing Order No.143 to examine European Union

documents and

a) to report its opinion on the legal and political importance of each such document and, where it considers

appropriate, to report also on the reasons for its opinion and on any matters of principle, policy or law which

may be affected

b to make recommendations for the further consideration of any such document pursuant to Standing Order

No. 119 (European Committees); and

c) to consider any issue arising upon any such document or group of documents, or related matters

The expression “European Union document” covers

i any proposal under the Community Treaties for legislation by the Council or the Council acting jointly with

the European Parliament;

ii) any document which is published for submission to the European Council, the Council or the European

Central Bank;

iii any proposal for a common strategy, a joint action or a common position under Title V of the Treaty on

European Union which is prepared for submission to the Council or to the European Council;

iv) any proposal for a common position, framework decision, decision or a convention under Title VI of the

Treaty on European Union which is prepared for submission to the Council;

v) any document (not falling within (ii), (iii) or (iv) above) which is published by one Union institution for or

with a view to submission to another Union institution and which does not relate exclusively to consideration

of any proposal for legislation;

vi) any other document relating to European Union matters deposited in the House by a Minister of the Crown.

The Committee’s powers are set out in Standing Order No. 143.

The scrutiny reserve resolution, passed by the House, provides that Ministers should not give agreement to EU

proposals which have not been cleared by the European Scrutiny Committee, or on which, when they have been

recommended by the Committee for debate, the House has not yet agreed a resolution. The scrutiny reserve

resolution is printed with the House’s Standing Orders, which are available at www.parliament.uk.

Current membership

Mr William Cash MP (Conservative, Stone) (Chair

Mr James Clappison MP (Conservative, Hertsmere

Michael Connarty MP (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

Jim Dobbin MP (Labour/Co-op, Heywood and Middleton

Julie Elliott MP (Labour, Sunderland Central)

Tim Farron MP (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale

Nia Griffith MP (Labour, Llanelli

Chris Heaton-Harris MP (Conservative, Daventry

Kelvin Hopkins MP (Labour, Luton North

Chris Kelly MP (Conservative, Dudley South

Penny Mordaunt MP (Conservative, Portsmouth North

Sandra Osborne MP (Labour, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock

Stephen Phillips MP (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham

Jacob Rees-Mogg MP (Conservative, North East Somerset)

Henry Smith MP (Conservative, Crawley

Ian Swales MP (Liberal Democrat, Redcar

—

;

)

.

—

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Sixty-first Report of - Session 2010 2–1 - Parliament ...

Documents

Transcript of Sixty-first Report of - Session 2010 2–1 - Parliament ...